Prince Harry to be investigated for racist remarks.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:25 am

Oh dear... It looks like our Royal family have dropped another one.

Prince Harry is to be investigated for making racist comments. Not content with upsetting most of Britain for dressing as a Nazi Officer for a fancy dress party, he now seems to following in his grandfathers footsteps by making offensive remarks about Pakistani people.

Or, are we far too politically correct here and his comments are not offensive?

'Our little Paki friend': MOD to investigate Harry after racial slurs on Asian colleague | Mail Online

only1? · Post by **only1?** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:47 am

He is a disgrace, I have to try to prevent racism at work with young people and how can you try to set an example when the royal family themselves do crap like this. Its just a farce he is an embarassment and I begrudge contributing to his upkeep.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:56 am

only1?;1107010 wrote: He is a disgrace, I have to try to prevent racism at work with young people and how can you try to set an example when the royal family themselves do crap like this. Its just a farce he is an embarassment and I begrudge contributing to his upkeep.

I agree with you.

I posted a thread here last week when Prince Edward was filmed raising a stick to his cowering dogs while out shooting. I am a great fan of the Queen for her dedication but the extended family is a joke. They seem to think they can behave as they like at the tax-payers expense and get away with it time and time again.

Am i also the only one who is sick to death of seeing Harry and Wills fall out of night-clubs in the small hours splashed across our newspapers?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:06 pm

I just saw this story on the news (while biking at the gym). The cable news stations are blabbling about it.....

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:28 pm

oscar;1107005 wrote: Oh dear... It looks like our Royal family have dropped another one.

Prince Harry is to be investigated for making racist comments. Not content with upsetting most of Britain for dressing as a Nazi Officer for a fancy dress party, he now seems to following in his grandfathers footsteps by making offensive remarks about Pakistani people.

Or, are we far too politically correct here and his comments are not offensive?

'Our little Paki friend': MOD to investigate Harry after racial slurs on Asian colleague | Mail Online

It's much ado about nothing in my opinion and we have let this "Politically

Correct" crap go to far. It no longer matters how a word is used or in what context, JUST BAN IT PERIOD. People are fearful to even write words like nigger, spic, dago and mick, and instead write ni--er, d--o etc. Even some get up set when they read the word niggardly, not understanding it's meaning. I don't believe Harry to be a racist and he like many in the military will use terms like Paki with no racial slur intended, but as a means of affectionate identification.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:05 pm

Lon;1107036 wrote: It's much ado about nothing in my opinion and we have let this "Politically

Correct" crap go to far. It no longer matters how a word is used or in what context, JUST BAN IT PERIOD. People are fearful to even write words like nigger, spic, dago and mick, and instead write ni--er, d--o etc. Even some get up set when they read the word niggardly, not understanding it's meaning. I don't believe Harry to be a racist and he like many in the military will use terms like Paki with no racial slur intended, but as a means of affectionate identification.

Political correctness is indeed a farce in this country. Ironically, it is not the actual Pakistani's, muslims etc that object. Most of them don't give two hoots if they are called a Paki. It's no different to you calling us 'the Brits, The Scots' etc. It's an abbreviation.

My point is that if Britain insists on all it's citizens being politically correct then i expect the same from the Royal Family who are kept by citizens taxes. This has been a sore point in Britain for years. Us citizens must abide yet Royalty and politicians get away with it. There should be an example set by the Royal Family.

I was not a fan of princess Diana but she had dignity and it's why the young of this country took to her as a role model. How can they make a role model of this T88T falling out of nightclubs drunk and making headlines such as this??

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:39 pm

Prince Harry's behavior lacks maturity and good judgement. A who is it that is supposed to be guiding this young man to be a responsible adult and member of the Royal Family?

Just asking.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:11 pm

along-for-the-ride;1107081 wrote: Prince Harry's behavior lacks maturity and good judgement. A who is it that is supposed to be guiding this young man to be a responsible adult and member of the Royal Family?

Just asking.

Good question. My theory is that his father Prince Charles can not be a role model to him when he commited adultry. His grandfather, the Duke of Edinburgh is renowned for his gaffs. The most famous was telling British student's in China 'Don't stay here too long, you'll come home 'slitty eyed'.

I think that as it's highly unlikely that Harry will become King of England, he is given the royal privaliges as well as the freedom to live as he likes.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:32 pm

I think its a storm in a teacup, people use racist terms in friendly banter all the time, he wasn't actually trying to racially insult the young lad in question. It may have been unwise to act like that on camera, but it wasn't malicious he's just a young fella himself and he was in a young lad type situation where they were all messing around with each other and having a laugh.

I'm hardly a royalist being Irish, but I think this is a load of nothing. The actual thing of the monarchy itself is a different issue, but thats not Prince Harry's fault, he didn't chose this life, or this cross examination of himself by a mad media, he was born into it, thats the nature of the British Monarchy. Also of course his Granddad is Prince Phillip, Duke of Wherever it is.

The current constitutional British monarchy is kept in place by the people and the state because they choose to, there isn't much point actually blaming the Royals themselves for it. Or this false outrage that arises from expecting and demanding hereditary German aristocrats (living in palaces, while heading a modern democratic state) to act like ordinary people on the one hand, and then turning on them when thats exactly what they do on the other. It doesn't make any sense to me.

If you want to elect kings, queens, and princes, and princesses you prefer (or who act in a more populist manner, you know, like Elton John crying at Lady Diana's funeral), to head the British State, then do so, but then they won't be kings and queens, they will be Presidents and Presidential families called by another name, that concept is called Republicanism.

You know, like in France? (sorry that was a red rag to a bull I know). :wah:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:19 pm

BBC news just in..... Harry has apologised........ That's ok then :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:10 pm

I actually think that the Queen gets what her job is, and does it quite well.

She represents the authority and values of a 1,000 year European monarchy (based on an unbroken Aristocratic English ruling class), whose wings were clipped by the Houses of Commons in the civil wars of the 1640s.

After the civil wars, and the protectorate, all parties came to the compromise of maintaining the symbols of state power and the vestiges of Absolute Monarchical Power, but in reality ceding this to the English Parliament, which to this day holds all the reigns of real and absolute power in the U.K (or Greater England as it should more rightly be called). Therefore you ended up with absolute rule of a Parliament of several hundred members, who allow elections to be held every few years to provide democratic authority to its rule.

The Queen represents the authority of the State that this Parliament usurped, but didn't want to destroy, and over the years the democratic mandate of the Westminster Parliament has been improved enormously and progressively, and its more aristocratic aspects have slowly been eroded, though of course totally unelected hereditary Aristos, Anglican Bishops, and Government appointees still get to have a say on how laws are made and enforced in the U.K.

Nobody in power mentions this much, and instead most of the angry right-wing sorts and their media baron friends rage against the latest undemocratic outrages of "Those damn Brussels Technocrats", or as its better know, the EU commission (appointed, incidentally, by the same British Government as upholds the right of Lord Worthy of Worthington to scrutinize and pass British law based on the fact that his ancestor sacked Calais or something), as well of course as that dastardly hot-bed of totalitarianism, the European Parliament whose United Kingdom based members are all directly elected (by PR) by the votes of all eligible UK voters.

Strange that.

Despite its oddities though, there is no doubt that this system has actually survived pretty well and intact through quite a few centuries of traumas and dramas, mostly through the Monarchy retaining the dignity and privildge of Absolute Rulers, thereby providing a necessary totem representing the authority and dignity of the State, while Parliament actually all does the ruling, always giving the masses just enough say in their rule to stop them tearing the system down, while creating a easily identifable source of authority to be loyal to. In the main, its worked well for Britain (well England), or it has in the past anyway.

With the way English and British history evolved of course, everything was done via absolutist parliamentary bills, and consequent gentile legal cover, and inserted constitutional "precedent". Mostly to make sure that the hoi poloi don't get too uppity or wise to it, hence the lack of any formal consitutional document outlining the oddities of the system clearly, neither to the non-English parts of the U.K., or to the more intelligent of the idealist (or revolutionary) sorts of angry young men you get from time to time, even in Home Counties England.

And considering what happened to the French aristos in 1789, this to me is not sinister, just wise from the point of view of those in charge. Though its not my cup of tea. I do think that however, the centifugal forces that are now in place as a result of devolution are eventually going to tear the system apart, if that makes you upset, then that will be another one you can put down to Tony "Trust me I'm a nice guy" Blair.

So the Queen realizes this, and the importance of her role in under-pinning the quaint settlements on which the whole British system is based, which is probably while the whole populist nonsense of the entire Diana episode horrified her so much, and why she realizes what a double edged, unstable sword a populist media-monarchy truly is. Unfortunately, many of her subjects do not understand this, and think they live in an American media TV version of Brittisssh-land. Thats because most of their own conceptions of themselves and their history are now produced in Hollywood.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:40 pm

Galbally;1107192 wrote:

So the Queen realizes this, and the importance of her role in under-pinning the quaint settlements on which the whole British system is based, which is probably while the whole populist nonsense of the entire Diana episode horrified her so much, and why she realizes what a double edged, unstable sword a populist media-monarchy truly is. Unfortunately, many of her subjects do not understand this, and think they live in an American media TV version of Brittisssh-land. Thats because most of their own conceptions of themselves and their history are now produced in Hollywood.

The monarchy can not seriously believe that in this day and age, there is no right to media intrusion.?

As i have said, i was not a fan of Diana. She manipuated the press and complained when it didn't suit her. Taking the boys out for the day?... Fine, phone the press, having a bad hair day?... leave me alone.

This is exactly what happens now with her sons. Harry the war hero in Afghanistan?... Great, phone the press. Harry making an arsse of himself again?...Press intrusion.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:11 pm

oscar;1107215 wrote: The monarchy can not seriously believe that in this day and age, there is no right to media intrusion.?

As i have said, i was not a fan of Diana. She manipuated the press and complained when it didn't suit her. Taking the boys out for the day?... Fine, phone the press, having a bad hair day?... leave me alone.

This is exactly what happens now with her sons. Harry the war hero in Afghanistan?... Great, phone the press. Harry making an arsse of himself again?...Press intrusion.

Yes, I agree, though I wouldn't have used the word intrusion, this is why I said she seems to realize how dangerous the establishment of the British monarchy playing at this popularist-media-monarchy game is. Which may be why she doesn't do the touchy-feely crap thing, aside from the fact that she comes from a generation who see through that nonsense for what it is anyway.

Unfortunately for her, the Monarchy cannot survive without the Media and popular consent, and the media's agenda is to shout about what happened yesterday as loudly as possible, and making hay out of it, while the Queens is trying to maintain the values and traditions of a 1,000 year old institution, as well of course as being the Head of State.

Its a bit like the dilemma that the Pope has nowadays in being what he actually is, which is the Head of the Catholic Church, which is a 2,000 year old institution based on the Christian religion and a Roman system of authority based on his absolute rule in religious matters, not some nice bloke who everyone likes because he says everything they want to hear. Though of course its not entirely an accurate analogy, but its close enough to make the point.

Again, like you say in modern Britain its totally impossible not to have to involve the mass media in the Monarchy, as the mass media (which don't forget is a fairly recent thing), is now such a powerful part of how the country percieves itself. So the monarchy simply have to play along as being accessible and "relevant" (whatever that means), and generally always behave the way the media says they should be behaving at any particular time. A difficult job, when the rules keep changing every time a national newspaper changes its editor.

Again, I am not a royalist, but I do see how the role they have now as celebrity rulers is becoming harder and harder in age of instantaneous, sensationalist, commerically driven mass media. Which of course thrives on creating and destroying celebrity, and the Royal Family are now the ultimate celebrities.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:11 pm

[QUOTE=Galbally;1107266]Yes, I agree, though I wouldn't have used the word intrusion, this is why I said she seems to realize how dangerous the establishment of the British monarchy playing at this popularist-media-monarchy game is. Which may be why she doesn't do the touchy-feely crap thing, aside from the fact that she comes from a generation who see through that nonsense for what it is anyway.

Unfortunately for her, the Monarchy cannot survive without the Media and popular consent, and the media's agenda is to shout about what happened yesterday as loudly as possible, and making hay out of it, while the Queens is trying to maintain the values and traditions of a 1,000 year old institution, as well of course as being the Head of State.

Its a bit like the dilemma that the Pope has nowadays in being what he actually is, which is the Pope of the Catholic Church, which is a 2,000 year old institution based on the Christian religion and a Roman system of authority based on his absolute rule in religious matters, not some nice bloke who everyone likes because he says everything they want to hear. Though of course its not entirely an accurate analogy, but its close enough to make the point.

Again, like you say in modern Britain its totally impossible not to have to involve the mass media in the Monarchy, as the mass media (which don't forget is a fairly recent thing), is now such a powerful part of how the country percieves itself. So the monarchy simply have to play along as being accessible and "relevant" (whatever that means), and generally always behave the way the media says they should be behaving at any particular time. A difficult job, when the rules keep changing every time a national newspaper changes its editor.

Again, I am not a royalist, but I do see how the role they have now as celebrity rulers is becoming harder and harder in age of instantaneous, sensationalist, commerically driven mass media. Which of course thrives on creating and destroying celebrity, and the Royal Family are now the ultimate celebrities.[/QUOTE]

Which is the exact reason that we expect better of them especially when it citizens taxes that keep them.

They are all very aware of media interest and it should make them doubely cautious.

The extended family is a bunch of embarressing idiots to this country. They are the most disfuntional family in britain and we are supposed to pay for their up-keep.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:00 am

oscar;1107005 wrote: Oh dear... It looks like our Royal family have dropped another one.

Prince Harry is to be investigated for making racist comments. Not content with upsetting most of Britain for dressing as a Nazi Officer for a fancy dress party, he now seems to following in his grandfathers footsteps by making offensive remarks about Pakistani people.

Or, are we far too politically correct here and his comments are not offensive?

'Our little Paki friend': MOD to investigate Harry after racial slurs on Asian colleague | Mail Online

Kind of hard to judge without knowing how well they got along. had it been along the lines of there's the welsh sheep shagger or the hairy jock or the irish bog trotter nobody would have thought it offensive but just part of the usual banter amongst soldiers and just laughed. Maybe ahmed referred to him as that upper class twit.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:00 am

gmc;1107381 wrote: Kind of hard to judge without knowing how well they got along. had it been along the lines of there's the welsh sheep shagger or the hairy jock or the irish bog trotter nobody would have thought it offensive but just part of the usual banter amongst soldiers and just laughed. Maybe ahmed referred to him as that upper class twit.

I'll try to find the link but Ahmed's father gave an interview voicing his opinion of Harry. He was not happy with it either.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:17 am

oscar;1107215 wrote: The monarchy can not seriously believe that in this day and age, there is no right to media intrusion.?

As i have said, i was not a fan of Diana. She manipuated the press and complained when it didn't suit her. Taking the boys out for the day?... Fine, phone the press, having a bad hair day?... leave me alone.

This is exactly what happens now with her sons. Harry the war hero in Afghanistan?... Great, phone the press. Harry making an arsse of himself again?...Press intrusion.

What's that called? Oh yes, can't have your cake and eat it too?:yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:01 pm

qsducks;1107674 wrote: What's that called? Oh yes, can't have your cake and eat it too?:yh_rotfl

Exactly!!!!!

I saw on TV yesterday that HisHarryness is to face questioning by The Ministry of defence here as it's related to the army. GOOD!!!!!!!!!!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:26 pm

gmc;1107381 wrote: Kind of hard to judge without knowing how well they got along. had it been along the lines of there's the welsh sheep shagger or the hairy jock or the irish bog trotter nobody would have thought it offensive but just part of the usual banter amongst soldiers and just laughed. Maybe ahmed referred to him as that upper class twit.

Oh Dear.... Looks like Harry not only called a Pakistani a 'Paki' but has also refered to another chap as a 'raghead' and another a 'Queer'.

His Grandfather must be so proud that he's following in the long Royal tradition of insulting anything un-British. Which is a bit rich coming from 'Phill the Greek'.

Now Harry is attacked by his own charity over 'Paki' remark - as Gordon Brown rushes to defend him | Mail Online

Hang on..... Gordon Brown.. What on earth do you think your doing exactly??????.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:19 pm

oscar;1107309 wrote: [QUOTE=Galbally;1107266]Yes, I agree, though I wouldn't have used the word intrusion, this is why I said she seems to realize how dangerous the establishment of the British monarchy playing at this popularist-media-monarchy game is. Which may be why she doesn't do the touchy-feely crap thing, aside from the fact that she comes from a generation who see through that nonsense for what it is anyway.

Unfortunately for her, the Monarchy cannot survive without the Media and popular consent, and the media's agenda is to shout about what happened yesterday as loudly as possible, and making hay out of it, while the Queens is trying to maintain the values and traditions of a 1,000 year old institution, as well of course as being the Head of State.

Its a bit like the dilemma that the Pope has nowadays in being what he actually is, which is the Pope of the Catholic Church, which is a 2,000 year old institution based on the Christian religion and a Roman system of authority based on his absolute rule in religious matters, not some nice bloke who everyone likes because he says everything they want to hear. Though of course its not entirely an accurate analogy, but its close enough to make the point.

Again, like you say in modern Britain its totally impossible not to have to involve the mass media in the Monarchy, as the mass media (which don't forget is a fairly recent thing), is now such a powerful part of how the country percieves itself. So the monarchy simply have to play along as being accessible and "relevant" (whatever that means), and generally always behave the way the media says they should be behaving at any particular time. A difficult job, when the rules keep changing every time a national newspaper changes its editor.

Again, I am not a royalist, but I do see how the role they have now as celebrity rulers is becoming harder and harder in age of instantaneous, sensationalist, commerically driven mass media. Which of course thrives on creating and destroying celebrity, and the Royal Family are now the ultimate celebrities.[/QUOTE]

Which is the exact reason that we expect better of them especially when it citizens taxes that keep them.

They are all very aware of media interest and it should make them doubely cautious.

The extended family is a bunch of embarressing idiots to this country. They are the most disfuntional family in britain and we are supposed to pay for their up-keep.

You should expect them to be what they are, which is The British Royal Family, and everything that means. In representing the authority of the British State, and its history you would certainly expect that this entails certain sorts of behaviour and attitudes, but don't judge them because they are now unwilling members of a 24-hour a day media circus run by an Australian misanthrope and his editorial lackeys.

Compared to the people that own the corporations that run the media, the Royal Family's behaviour is in the hapenny place, as is their wealth, but no one can win against the media, and no-one who owns a media empire faces anything like the public scrutiny that their organizations demand of their victims.

I say that the queen should hire 300 journalists and photographers to follow Rupert Mudoch, his family, and their friends around the world 24 hours a day and see how he likes it. Not much I bet.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:52 pm

Galbally;1107826 wrote: [QUOTE=oscar;1107309]

You should expect them to be what they are, which is The British Royal Family, and everything that means. In representing the authority of the British State, and its history you would certainly expect that this entails certain sorts of behaviour and attitudes, but don't judge them because they are now unwilling members of a 24-hour a day media circus run by an Australian misanthrope and his editorial lackeys.

Compared to the people that own the corporations that run the media, the Royal Family's behaviour is in the hapenny place, as is their wealth, but no one can win against the media, and no-one who owns a media empire faces anything like the public scrutiny that their organizations demand of their victims.

I say that the queen should hire 300 journalists and photographers to follow Rupert Mudoch, his family, and their friends around the world 24 hours a day and see how he likes it. Not much I bet.

Bollocks.

So rather than blame the third in line to the throne making racist remarks, you'd rather try and put the blame on Murdock?

If Murdock did not have his people following the Royal family, then many many others would and do. The Royal Family is kept by British Taxpayers... Fact.

Are you now saying that the very people who pay for the up-keep of this disfunctional family of adulterers, slappers, Hoorah henry's etc should be kept in the dark when they **** up?

BOLLOCKS....... Infact, your sounding just like the very likes of diana who cried press intrusion as and when it suited her because she was a sad attention seeking media addict.

The Royal family are the very first to call a press conference when it suits one of them, i.e. a charity event, but then blames the media when it doesn't suit.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:46 pm

I don't really give a damn about what he said. The fact that he did say it however, is a very different matter. This idiot (I'm being generous here) is a public figure and may, God help us, be a role model for his age group.

My main objection is that he and his parasitic ilk are supported by our taxes (mine especially).

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:03 pm

Chookie;1107892 wrote: I don't really give a damn about what he said. The fact that he did say it however, is a very different matter. This idiot (I'm being generous here) is a public figure and may, God help us, be a role model for his age group.

My main objection is that he and his parasitic ilk are supported by our taxes (mine especially).

Do my eyes decieve me? Chookie agree's with Oscar??

Absolutely right. Idiot is being generous. Ginger tosspot is more suitable i think.

It is the fact that he has said these remarks that is the issue. Why the hell should all the rest of us have to be oh so bloody politicaly correct yet him and the rest of this burden on the tax-payer can get away with it?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:26 pm

Racist remarks, falling out of nightclubs drunk, dressing as a Nazi, splitting the lip of a reporter, taking canibis blah blah blah

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -21034777/

Absolute bloody disgrace to the Queen and the British Tax-Payer

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:41 pm

Chookie;1107892 wrote: I don't really give a damn about what he said. The fact that he did say it however, is a very different matter. This idiot (I'm being generous here) is a public figure and may, God help us, be a role model for his age group.

My main objection is that he and his parasitic ilk are supported by our taxes (mine especially).

I would ask what prompted the country to be so generous as to gift them with all this tax income?

Might it possibly have been an exchange? Heaven forbid that the parasites might have ever given anything up - I wonder what it might have been?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:16 pm

Jester;1108069 wrote: Geeze, I just heard his comments...

You've got to be kiddign me- if thats all ya got to complain about anything he said ya'll need yer heads examined...

'My little Paki Friend' and 'You look like a raghead'.... Give me a break.:rolleyes:

Out of interest, how would you feel if your President's family were caught on camera saying the same?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:25 pm

Jester;1108075 wrote: Oscar, those vids were from men tryign to cope in a warzone- all kinds of things are said in jest, in fun, to relieve tremendous pressure the guys are under. What was said there is completely understandable to me.

You may have things that you dont like about him or have a valid grudge for other reasons, fine, but I saw the vid, it's a stupid thing to add to his list of charges to hate him.

I don't hate him, i just think he's a plonker.

The remarks are the least of offence he has caused this country, Getting caught with cannibis, belting a pap, dressing up as a Nazi... it just goes on and on with him. We have kids in this country who think he's cool and a role model. I happen to think he's a bloody disgrace and that's by his behaviour not because i hate him or the Royal family.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:10 pm

oscar;1108072 wrote: Out of interest, how would you feel if your President's family were caught on camera saying the same?

Oh please. Paki? And it did not sound to me like he meant it to be malicious. If he starts calling them diaper heads...then ask me again.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:36 pm

wildhorses;1108109 wrote: Oh please. Paki? And it did not sound to me like he meant it to be malicious. If he starts calling them diaper heads...then ask me again.
The first post shows him in the link saying 'Paki'. I added another link a few posts back where he has also called someone a 'raghead' and a 'queer'.

In britain we have a very large percentage of the country that is muslim. Pakistani's, Indian, Somalian etec etc. They are british citizens as well who pay taxes to keep the Royal family. It is offensive to Native and non-native british to hear him speak like this. It was not just 'paki'.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:07 am

oscar;1107850 wrote: [QUOTE=Galbally;1107826]

Bollocks.

So rather than blame the third in line to the throne making racist remarks, you'd rather try and put the blame on Murdock?

If Murdock did not have his people following the Royal family, then many many others would and do. The Royal Family is kept by British Taxpayers... Fact.

Are you now saying that the very people who pay for the up-keep of this disfunctional family of adulterers, slappers, Hoorah henry's etc should be kept in the dark when they **** up?

BOLLOCKS....... Infact, your sounding just like the very likes of diana who cried press intrusion as and when it suited her because she was a sad attention seeking media addict.

The Royal family are the very first to call a press conference when it suits one of them, i.e. a charity event, but then blames the media when it doesn't suit.

Oscar, I live in a country that was created to get rid of all that nonsense of Royalty and rule from Britain, so I am hardly sympathetic to the Monarchy, if you don't like the concept of having German Aristocrats as your heads of States paid for by the tax payer, and you find their behaviour embarressing then get rid of them, thats a separate issue. Elect a Head of State, call them a president, and be done with it fine.

But thats not the issue, its this weird love-hate relationship that the British have between their Monarchy, their total acceptance of an agenda set by a horrific, rapid tabloid media, and their whole concept of what these people should be doing as "The Royal Family" in the first place, which most people seem to be confused on these days.

Again Prince Harry is a Prince, he is not a social worker, or a member of Labour Yoof! he is a member of a hereditary dynasty that has inherited the throne of England because they are born it, not because you like them or voted for them, why do you expect them to act normally? How many normal aristocrats do you know? To be quite honest I find it all quite baffling, and its just another reason why I am glad I live in a Republic. Thank god we got rid of that shower 80 years ago.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:21 am

Galbally;1108129 wrote: [QUOTE=oscar;1107850]

Oscar dear, I live in a country that was created to get rid of all that nonsense of Royalty and rule from Britain, so I am hardly sympathetic to the Monarchy, if you don't like the concept of having German Aristocrats as your heads of States paid for by the tax payer, and you find their behaviour embarressing then get rid of them, thats a separate issue. Elect a Head of State, call them a president, and be done with it fine.

.

NEVER CALL ME 'DEAR'

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:21 am

Dear God, it just gets better and better......... Harry is now in trouble in a fresh racism row after calling an Indian...... 'SOOTY'

Fresh Royal racism row: The Indian polo pal Charles, William and Harry call 'Sooty' | Mail Online

RIGHT, MY APOLOGIES BUT I REALLY HAVE TO LAUGH NOW

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:08 am

oscar;1108133 wrote: [QUOTE=Galbally;1108129]

NEVER CALL ME 'DEAR'

Your right, sorry, its condescending, I won't call you 'dear' again; though you didn't have to shout quite so loud. :rolleyes:

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:10 am

Right, the offending epithet has been removed.

Can you answer my points now though?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:14 am

Galbally;1108469 wrote: [QUOTE=oscar;1108133]

Your right, sorry, its condescending, I won't call you 'dear' again; though you didn't have to shout quite so loud. :rolleyes:

GOOD... MAKE SURE YOU DON'T SONNY

I HAD A CAT WHO DIED AT THE AGE OF 22. I HAD HIM FROM A TIME BEFORE PC AND AS HE WAS JET BLACK, (NOT THE DRUMMER WITH THE STRANGLERS), I CALLED HIM SOOTY. I CALLED HIM FROM THE GARDEN FOR YEARS CALLING SOOTY. THEN WE WENT PC MAD AND NOT TO OFFEND MY NEIGHBOURS I HAD TO CHANGE HIS NAME.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:22 am

Galbally;1108475 wrote: Right, the offending epithet has been removed.

Can you answer my points now though?

Well, i do agree with much of what you have said. Weather we like the media or not, the fact is, they are here and nothing will change in that department.

I do believe that all the Royal Family are extremely manipulative regarding the press and like-wise the media use them to sell papers.

I see this more as a debate as to weather Harry should be investigated by the MOD and not so much a media issue. Without the media, we would never get to hear about the cannibis, the falling out of clubs drunk, hitting the press and stupid comments that offend.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:42 pm

oscar;1108111 wrote: The first post shows him in the link saying 'Paki'. I added another link a few posts back where he has also called someone a 'raghead' and a 'queer'.

In britain we have a very large percentage of the country that is muslim. Pakistani's, Indian, Somalian etec etc. They are british citizens as well who pay taxes to keep the Royal family. It is offensive to Native and non-native british to hear him speak like this. It was not just 'paki'.

"Raghead" is not very nice. I dont think it is nice even if he is joking. Raghead?....just not nice thats all. Queer...not so nice either. But it does depend on the context. And it also depends on the intent. All those things have to be taken into account before making a judgement. But Paki?? What is the problem? It is short for Pakistani right? I dont see anything wrong with it.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:19 am

I'm a constitutional monarchist. It's a system that's proven over centuries and means the top job is out of the hands of politicians. It's better to have a good monarch than a bad, but since the monarch has no real power, it doesn't matter that much.

Whether Harry is a bit of a tosser aged twenty-something is really pretty irrelevant. Many lads that age are far worse without putting their life on the line for Gran and Country.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:24 am

Galbally;1108469 wrote: [QUOTE=oscar;1108133]

Your right, sorry, its condescending, I won't call you 'dear' again; though you didn't have to shout quite so loud. :rolleyes:

It seemed to be to be quite affectionate, perhaps she just doesn't want to admit to liking the blarney. As an alternative might I suggest dear daily mail reader woman?

posted by oscar

Dear God, it just gets better and better......... Harry is now in trouble in a fresh racism row after calling an Indian...... 'SOOTY'

But sooty is yellow with black ears:-2

CITV: Sooty

CiTV: Frameset

Sooty radio is a good alternative to radio 2 of terry wogan get on your wick.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:53 am

Clodhopper;1108922 wrote: I'm a constitutional monarchist. It's a system that's proven over centuries and means the top job is out of the hands of politicians. It's better to have a good monarch than a bad, but since the monarch has no real power, it doesn't matter that much.

Whether Harry is a bit of a tosser aged twenty-something is really pretty irrelevant. Many lads that age are far worse without putting their life on the line for Gran and Country.

Don't make me laugh or try to insult the millions of conscripted troops who died in both wars by painting out this tosser to be putting his life on the line for gran and country in an illegal war in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is utter bollocks.

In the main, Harry OFFERED to go to Afghanistan and the minute his cover was blown by an Australian pap, they shipped him out toot sweet. That's cowardice not putting your life on the line for your country. If he had of done so, he would not have fled the moment the press revealed where he was. If he was a war hero, he'd still be there wouldn't he??

Beside's which, it is an absolute bloody disgrace that a member of the Royal Family should be fighting in whatever very very very small part he had in it, in an illegal war.

The fact that he is twenty-something means that he should be setting a better example to the young of this country...maybe then our citie centres wouldn't be full of drunks falling out of night clubs stretching our police and NHS services.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:57 am

gmc;1108924 wrote: [QUOTE=Galbally;1108469]

It seemed to be to be quite affectionate, perhaps she just doesn't want to admit to liking the blarney. As an alternative might I suggest dear daily mail reader woman?

posted by oscar

But sooty is yellow with black ears:-2

CITV: Sooty

CiTV: Frameset

Sooty radio is a good alternative to radio 2 of terry wogan get on your wick.

'Dear' is not affectionate. 'Dear' is associated with elderly peole....... Shut it gmc ... don't even go there. :-5:-5

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:06 am

oscar;1108938 wrote: [QUOTE=gmc;1108924]

'Dear' is not affectionate. 'Dear' is associated with elderly peole....... Shut it gmc ... don't even go there. :-5:-5

No the term for old people is auld yin. as in "do you want another cup of tea auld yin". or "Put your teeth in auld yin before you bruise that bit if toast to death."

What about letters as in dear sir or dear Mrs daily mail reader woman. Do you bin them because they are condescending?

If you addressed galbally as dear paddy would that be both condescending and racist?:sneaky:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:15 am

gmc;1109135 wrote: [QUOTE=oscar;1108938]

No the term for old people is auld yin. as in "do you want another cup of tea auld yin". or "Put your teeth in auld yin before you bruise that bit if toast to death."

What about letters as in dear sir or dear Mrs daily mail reader woman. Do you bin them because they are condescending?

If you addressed galbally as dear paddy would that be both condescending and racist?:sneaky:

Do you want a Glasgow kiss 'auld yin'?

Dear Sir or Dear Madman is entirely different to some young whipper snapper calling you 'Dear'. The former is a formal means of introduction and the latter is paronising once any initial formalities of introduction are over.

I'm allowed to call galbally Dear paddy as well as a potatoe munching, peat bog Leprechaun the same as i'm allowed to call you a sporran fiddling, kilt lifting, caber tossing, heather munching bearde, Scottish Party of One. This is classed as affectionate and besides, I'm the British one, so i'm allowed. :p:p:p:p:p

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:40 am

Oscar: You are not the only one who had members of their family fight in a World War. Stop shouting. In addition, a coward does not volunteer to go to Afganistan. Or are you suggesting that the media was tipped off by the Royals before he even went there in order to get him out.

Don't make me laugh or try to insult the millions of conscripted troops who died in both wars by painting out this tosser to be putting his life on the line for gran and country in an illegal war in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is utter bollocks.

What is utter bollocks is the sentence preceding the bollocks comment. It doesn't even make sense.

Did Harry serve in Afganistan? Yes.

On the front line? Yes.

In what conceivable way is that insulting to my grandad, or yours?

In what way does that show he is a coward?

Yep, he was whisked out pronto when his cover was blown. Quite right too - he's too much of a target and would put his own people in additional danger, in a way he didn't when it wasn't known he was there.

I hope that your reply to me was not typical of you. It came across as aggressive, rude and stupid.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:24 pm

Clodhopper;1114110 wrote: Oscar: You are not the only one who had members of their family fight in a World War. Stop shouting. In addition, a coward does not volunteer to go to Afganistan. Or are you suggesting that the media was tipped off by the Royals before he even went there in order to get him out.

What is utter bollocks is the sentence preceding the bollocks comment. It doesn't even make sense.

Did Harry serve in Afganistan? Yes.

On the front line? Yes.

In what conceivable way is that insulting to my grandad, or yours?

In what way does that show he is a coward?

Yep, he was whisked out pronto when his cover was blown. Quite right too - he's too much of a target and would put his own people in additional danger, in a way he didn't when it wasn't known he was there.

I hope that your reply to me was not typical of you. It came across as aggressive, rude and stupid.

My views on what is merely a public relations exercise by the Royal Family has nothing to do with my family's war record or yours.

My families service in wars was voluntary however millions of conscripts died. They had no choice in the matter. Harry did not have a gun to his head herding him on the first landing boat nor did any of our troops out there. They went of their own free will into an illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I suggest you get down to grass roots and chat to a few ww11 veterans to get a balanced view on why war memorials from the two world wars should not be associated with today's troops. That's not my opinion, that's theirs.

He is a coward due to the fact that if his cover was blown by paps, he could have stayed out there but he didn't.

I my-self was pleased he did bottle it due to his incredibly selfish act putting other 'real' troops on the frontline at risk.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:34 pm

NO MORE HERO'S ANY MORE

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:39 pm

My views on what is merely a public relations exercise by the Royal Family has nothing to do with my family's war record or yours.

So the Royal family shunt their children into the front line of war zones as a publicity stunt?

Wow! These are definitely the sort of heartless bastards we want running the country! Abolish Parliament and that half arsed institution of Prime Minister. Yaay:)

Ooops. hic. goo'night