Try this, Jayne:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1269588.html

I'd not signed on for about 3 years, encouraged back by a member whom I met at a different site.
As an occasional (and generally unsuccessful) U.S. submitter to Spectator, I am always uncertain on matters of knowing one's audience and striking the proper tone with entries. (And I say this with full knowledge that we in the U.S. have more than our share of pecksniffian peculiarities. The recent contest for a reply to Larkin's 'fuck you up' poem, for instance, would never have seen the light of day with something such as the Washington Post contests.)
My question, then: Is 'tossers' considered too coarse for use in The Spectator? I wouldn't want to include a term that would be practically an automatic disqualifier, particularly when there's any number of 2-syllable deprecations that could stand in just as easily.

Hi Brendan,

Welcome to the 'Sphere', and to D & A in particular! I hope we'll soon see your name in The Speccie.

'Tossers' (IMO) isn't too coarse, whereas (which you may have been hinting at) 'wankers' possibly is, in certain quarters. We're generally not that 'precious' or prissy about saying-it-like-it-is over here, though.

"Pecksniffian peculiarities" is a superb phrase!

Jayne

PS. Thanks for that link, Bazza. (Don't you think she looks like a female Michael Schumacher?)

Thanks for the counsel, Jayne.