St James' Palace issued an unreserved apology last night following remarks by Prince Harry derided by critics as 'sensitive' and 'sensible'.
In an as-yet-unpublished interview with the Prince conducted in Afghanistan, Harry was reported to have given a clear, concise and unbiased account of himself, and there was outrage at his failure to use racist or derogatory terms such as 'raghead' about the people who had been trying to kill him and his platoon.
His Royal Highness then referred to an Asian officer as, "my competent and esteemed friend, who is a member of an ethnic minority group", a remark which has shocked tabloid Royal-watchers.
Scumbag McRepublic, Royal Correspondent for The Sunday Sport, said, "It's disgusting. When a Royal Prince is being sensible, it just outrages public values. He should be living up to expectation - falling out of nighclubs drunk, wearing Nazi uniforms and being crass. This stupid act by the Prince means we'll now have to dredge up three-year-old events, misrepresent them and find people to be creatively offended. It's very inconsiderate of Harry".
In a statement, St James' Palace issued an unreserved apology for any surprise caused by the Prince saying something sensible, adding, "Harry has caused a lot of disappointment in the family with his remarks, which damages our perception in the tabloids. We plan to sit him down with his grandfather Prince Philip, who will teach him the necessary skills to cause the regular diplomatic incidents expected of a Windsor".
(Published in 'The Tart', 12 January 2009.)
In an as-yet-unpublished interview with the Prince conducted in Afghanistan, Harry was reported to have given a clear, concise and unbiased account of himself, and there was outrage at his failure to use racist or derogatory terms such as 'raghead' about the people who had been trying to kill him and his platoon.
His Royal Highness then referred to an Asian officer as, "my competent and esteemed friend, who is a member of an ethnic minority group", a remark which has shocked tabloid Royal-watchers.
Scumbag McRepublic, Royal Correspondent for The Sunday Sport, said, "It's disgusting. When a Royal Prince is being sensible, it just outrages public values. He should be living up to expectation - falling out of nighclubs drunk, wearing Nazi uniforms and being crass. This stupid act by the Prince means we'll now have to dredge up three-year-old events, misrepresent them and find people to be creatively offended. It's very inconsiderate of Harry".
In a statement, St James' Palace issued an unreserved apology for any surprise caused by the Prince saying something sensible, adding, "Harry has caused a lot of disappointment in the family with his remarks, which damages our perception in the tabloids. We plan to sit him down with his grandfather Prince Philip, who will teach him the necessary skills to cause the regular diplomatic incidents expected of a Windsor".
(Published in 'The Tart', 12 January 2009.)
10 comments:
hah! love it!
Copy of a letter I sent to Sky News...
For years I have been fighting the National Front or BNP as they now call themselves.
This "news" of Prince Harry and his "politically incorrect" remarks that you stupidly give so much prominence to is just ammunition for the BNP. It will certainly help their recruitment within large swaths of English white working classes and might eventually help them get an MP into parliament.
If I were you I would examine the background of the reporter who made the news public, and, if he is not a secret member of the BNP, I would look further into the background of the person who gave him the video.
God you are all so stupid.
Andrew Taylor
PS, please don't publish this email on your website :-)
He was racist. Only scum use terms like Paki. It is not acceptable. It is not like Jock or scouse it is a racist term like Gypoe and Niger. Surely you can tell the difference. To say well it is just a name is like saying that calling a woman a woman is the same calling them a bitch. Paki is not the same as jock, or taff, or other friendly terms.
If you are in a white majority then you have no idea that some terms are offensive, you want to claim the terms are just banter.
If a high rnaking soilder called you cannon fodder would you find that banter or would you tell him to f### off.
You're not looking at this from the position of the minority group.
Paki is more ike terms like Bitch, scum, and niger etc: not terms like jock or taff.
If someone called your scum what would you say, it is just banter.
It is equalivalent of a upper middle class officer calling all working class people scum. It is not polite language.
I understand in war soldiers can be excused to an extent, but as a rule in general life the term paki is sick.
Most likely it's a good thing he didn't call the guy a pullstart paki.
Hi DES, welcome to the Blog.
I'll ignore the spelling and grammatical errors, and instead focus on your actual points.
Your comments are interesting on a number of levels - firstly because they make invalid assumptions about my viewpoint and experience of the minority viewpoint, and secondly because you seem to misunderstand the concept of 'intent'.
A word is just that. A word.
It is the INTENT behind that word which changes it from word to insult.
For example, I could use the word 'moron', but it only becomes an insult were I to apply it specifically to you in a derogatory sentence. Otherwise, it's just a word.
D
Dungeekin
I do not see what intent has to do with it. He called someone a paki, which is a offensive and racist term. The words bitch, scum, niger, hook nosed jew, parasite jew, gypoe, white bitch, are all just words, but they are all insanely offensive terms to use about people in converstation about people. I am white but I can see that.
If I call the queen a dirty parasite slag is that OK, it is just words. Or would soldiers be offended by me saying that.
Look at those people who insults soldiers in hospitals, is that OK. Is it just words.
What are you on about gramatical errors you are rude and pedantic. You make grammar errors.
DES
Much as this is wasting my time and effort - intent is *everything*.
Allow me, please, to prove the point as simply as I can, using one of the examples you so kindly provided.
Let us assume, for a moment, that I have a friend who is an orthodox Jew, and dresses according to his faith. This friend of mine has a hooked nose. Now, were I to describe this person to a third-party, the term 'hook-nosed Jew' would NOT be derogatory - it would be factually accurate. Nothing more.
Your suggestion of referring to the queen the way you did is an example of intent - one would not put those words together unless the INTENT was to be negative.
Just to address your point about 'looking at it from the point of the minority group' - that's an assumption based on an incomplete knowledge of my life, history and personal status. Please be assured that I know about the 'minority perspective' in considerable detail.
I have also served in the Forces, and the nicknames used when in the Service tend to be blunt and unreconstructed. So, in essence, my opinions are based upon knowledge and reason - rather than knee-jerk reactions to POTENTIALLY offensive terms.
Thanks for commenting.
D
oi DES, just for you, Till Death Us Do Part , full movie.
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v170882013cbBSgzW
The righteous never did get the point about Alf Garnet.
Post a Comment