Prince Harry is a Racist Pig

[GhostofBolivar]

Tell us something we didn't know. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7822574.stm)

Casual racism... Infatuation with the Nazis... Thick as a brick...

Nice to see he's keeping up family traditions :agree:


Yes, it would be very offensive if Harry went around calling people Pakis in a racist way but this was not meant, you know, it was meant more of a nickname.

I mean, Harry's mates call him Ginge or Ginger - that could be equally offensive to people with red hair.


:wtf: :faint: :rules:

[Raymond]

Tell us something we didn't know. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7822574.stm)

Casual racism... Infatuation with the Nazis... Thick as a brick...

Nice to see he's keeping up family traditions :agree:



:wtf: :faint: :rules:

His grandpa will be ever so proud

[YehButNoBut]

Think the media are making a mountain out of a molehill here.

These remarks where made 3 years ago and is the type of language/banter soldiers would use with each other all the time with no offence being taken on either side.

It's a non story which has been blown up out of all proportion.

[Raymond]

Tell us something we didn't know. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7822574.stm)

Casual racism... Infatuation with the Nazis... Thick as a brick...

Nice to see he's keeping up family traditions :agree:



:wtf: :faint: :rules:

His granpa will be ever so proud

[Betty Boop]

Tell us something we didn't know. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7822574.stm)

Casual racism... Infatuation with the Nazis... Thick as a brick...

Nice to see he's keeping up family traditions :agree:



:wtf: :faint: :rules::agree: I heard James Whittaker the Royal correspondent, saying that that is not unusual for the"Royals" to use racist language. :rolleyes: Get rid of the parasites! :jamboak:

[Greentinted]

His grandpa will be ever so proud


Granpa Spencer or Granpa Hewitt?

[ArabHibee]

Think the media are making a mountain out of a molehill here.

These remarks where made 3 years ago and is the type of language/banter soldiers would use with each other all the time with no offence being taken on either side.

It's a non story which has been blown up out of all proportion.
:agree: I agree. I don't have much time for the royals but this is a total non-story. Typical News of the World. Must have been a slow news week for them.

[Golden Bear]

Think the media are making a mountain out of a molehill here.

These remarks where made 3 years ago and is the type of language/banter soldiers would use with each other all the time with no offence being taken on either side.

It's a non story which has been blown up out of all proportion.

Totally agree.

[The Voice Of Reason]

Think the media are making a mountain out of a molehill here.

These remarks where made 3 years ago and is the type of language/banter soldiers would use with each other all the time with no offence being taken on either side.

It's a non story which has been blown up out of all proportion.

I agree also. :agree:

[Hibrandenburg]

I suppose if you had an agenda you could make a story out of it :rolleyes:

[chorley_fm]

oi , you've nicked my av

:grr:

[Hannah_hfc]

Think the media are making a mountain out of a molehill here.

These remarks where made 3 years ago and is the type of language/banter soldiers would use with each other all the time with no offence being taken on either side.

It's a non story which has been blown up out of all proportion.

Bingo :agree:
Happened along time ago, he's apologised should be end of story, yet i see this going on for at least another few days

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm not sure how it having happened three years ago has any bearing on anything whatsoever.

[Hibrandenburg]

oi , you've nicked my av

:grr:

Wanted to say that to you a few months ago when you nicked it from me, but hell I've got bigger fish to fry. :fishin:

[Betty Boop]

I'm not sure how it having happened three years ago has any bearing on anything whatsoever.
:agree: "Paki" is only a nickname dontcha know, I'm sure all the other racists in the country will be using the same excuse. :bitchy:

[Hibrandenburg]

:agree: "Paki" is only a nickname dontcha know, I'm sure all the other racists in the country will be using the same excuse. :bitchy:

I was called Jock by some big English thugs. Does that mean I've been racially abused and didn't even realise :confused:

[chorley_fm]

Wanted to say that to you a few months ago when you nicked it from me, but hell I've got bigger fish to fry. :fishin:


Bollox

:devil:

[Hiber-nation]

Shoot the ****in lot of them.

Well I suppose you could spare the fit blonde one who's the showjumper.

[Hibs Class]

I'm not sure how it having happened three years ago has any bearing on anything whatsoever.

Correct - when it happened is irrelevant. What matters is it's a non-story being pursued by those with an agenda.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Correct - when it happened is irrelevant. What matters is it's a non-story being pursued by those with an agenda.

The News Of The World has an republican agenda?

[Sir David Gray]

I think if Joe Bloggs had made those remarks, it would have been nowhere near the papers. Unfortunately for Harry, and others with a similarly high profile, he isn't Joe Bloggs and can't get away with such behaviour. It's also not the first time that his conduct has been called into question.

However, I think his Nazi uniform stunt was FAR more offensive than this latest story.

He was wrong to say what he said but he's now apologised and that should be the matter closed IMO.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I think if Joe Bloggs had made those remarks, it would have been nowhere near the papers. Unfortunately for Harry, and others with a similarly high profile, he isn't Joe Bloggs and can't get away with such behaviour. It's also not the first time that his conduct has been called into question.

However, I think his Nazi uniform stunt was FAR more offensive than this latest story.

He was wrong to say what he said but he's now apologised and that should be the matter closed IMO.

:agree: Also, someone please tell me how a video is "discovered" after three years. Not really wanting it to sound like I am backing him up here as I am certainly no royalist, but lets take that part of it out of the equation. Here is a soldier that we are training to send to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and to Iraq to kill whoever we have decided we are going to kill this month and we are worried about him calling Arabs ragheads? Also I believe the "Paki" is his mate? If so and he is not offended, why are we. It is as other people said earlier, the use of the word Jock, Sweaty or as I am usually called here, The Haggis Muncher, if someone calls me it I am not offended then why the hell should the rest of the world be.

That said;Up the Revolution and shoot the lot of them.

[The_Todd]

Inbreds, the lot of them.

[Hibbyradge]

Non-story? Maybe to those with an agenda of their own, it's a non-story.

Paki is a very offensive word.

If the "leaders" of our country use it, then it's a story all right.

This country has spent millions on this guy's education. Surely we're entitled to expect behaviour, and language, befitting such a privellidged upbringing?

[horseman]

:agree: Also, someone please tell me how a video is "discovered" after three years. Not really wanting it to sound like I am backing him up here as I am certainly no royalist, but lets take that part of it out of the equation. Here is a soldier that we are training to send to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and to Iraq to kill whoever we have decided we are going to kill this month and we are worried about him calling Arabs ragheads? Also I believe the "Paki" is his mate? If so and he is not offended, why are we. It is as other people said earlier, the use of the word Jock, Sweaty or as I am usually called here, The Haggis Muncher, if someone calls me it I am not offended then why the hell should the rest of the world be.

That said;Up the Revolution and shoot the lot of them.


:agree::agree: is paki not just an abbreviation like scot ?

who is it offensive to ? pakistanis or liberals ?

[Hibbyradge]

I am not offended then why the hell should the rest of the world be.



Gordon, are you the standard to which the rest of the world should aspire? Are your beliefs and values the "right ones" for everyone?

People ARE offended by the term Paki, and sweaty sock etc. Knowing that, why do others feel the need to use these terms?

Would you be missing out if you weren't called Haggis Muncher or Jock?

[Hibbyradge]

:agree::agree: is paki not just an abbreviation like scot ?

who is it offensive to ? pakistanis or liberals ?

If I repeatedly called you Taffy, would you be ok with it?

Or Mick, or Paddy?

Or Fritz.

Or would you start to get ever so slightly pi$$ed off?

[horseman]

If I repeatedly called you Taffy, would you be ok with it?

Or Mick, or Paddy?

Or Fritz.

Or would you start to get ever so slightly pi$$ed off?

you missed the point , i call myself a scot which is abbreviated from scottish

[--------]

If I repeatedly called you Taffy, would you be ok with it?

Or Mick, or Paddy?

Or Fritz.

Or would you start to get ever so slightly pi$$ed off?



How illuminating to see so many posts defending racist attitudes in the British Army and the royal family.

Taffy, Mick, Paddy, Jock, Jocko, Paki, Chinky, Rag-head, Abdul are all offensive IMO, because they all relate to racial stereotypes and they all tens to demean the person addressed.

I suppose we should be grateful the arrogant young prat didn't call him a wog or a ******.

But I suppose some of us would be defending him even so? :cool2:

[Hibbyradge]

you missed the point , i call myself a scot which is abbreviated from scottish

No I didn't, you missed my point.

Do you know the difference between a Pakistani and a Bangladeshi?

Or an Indian?

I bet you don't.

Poulations; Bangladesh 152m

Pakistan 174m

India 1.15 billion.

I bet you use the term "Paki" to describe a load of folk who are not Pakistani.

Dont you, Taffy?

Anyway, yes, someone from Scotland is "a Scot".

But, someone from Pakistan is "a Pakistani". Not a Paki.

Just like a man from England is an Englishman. Or a man from Wales is a Welshman.

See what I mean, Paddy?

[Hibbyradge]

How illuminating to see so many posts defending racist attitudes in the British Army and the royal family.

Taffy, Mick, Paddy, Jock, Jocko, Paki, Chinky, Rag-head, Abdul are all offensive IMO, because they all relate to racial stereotypes and they all tens to demean the person addressed.

I suppose we should be grateful the arrogant young prat didn't call him a wog or a ******.

But I suppose some of us would be defending him even so? :cool2:

:confused:

I agree with you. That's my point.

[Hiber-nation]

you missed the point , i call myself a scot which is abbreviated from scottish

Err, yes because it is actually the word to describe a person from Scotland.

As Pakistani is the word to describe a person from Pakistan.

[--------]

you missed the point , i call myself a scot which is abbreviated from scottish


Don't think so. "Scot" is the proper noun from which the adjective "Scottish" derives - according to the OED, at least. Either of these words is no more than the proper description of someone born in Scotland or of Scottish parentage.

The equivalent of "Taffy" or "Mick" is "Jock", "Jocko", or even "Scotchy" - and if anyone addresses me in THOSE terms he gets told off good and proper.

[--------]

:confused:

I agree with you. That's my point.


Sorry, missed a :agree: .

I was actually agreeing with you, mate.

Some of the posts here are more than a little nauseating, IMO.

[horseman]

No I didn't, you missed my point.

Do you know the difference between a Pakistani and a Bangladeshi?

Or an Indian?

I bet you don't.

Poulations; Bangladesh 152m

Pakistan 174m

India 1.15 billion.

I bet you use the term "Paki" to describe a load of folk who are not Pakistani.

Dont you, Taffy?

Anyway, yes, someone from Scotland is "a Scot".

But, someone from Pakistan is "a Pakistani". Not a Paki.

Just like a man from England is an Englishman. Or a man from Wales is a Welshman.

See what I mean, Paddy?

you still miss my point someone from scotland is scottish abbrevited to scot .

i dont use any of those words to describe anyone and not just for fear of offending bleeding heart liberals . no i describe a clown as a clown or a fanny as a fanny regardless of the country you are from , the religion you follow or the colur of your skin !

[--------]

you still miss my point someone from scotland is scottish abbrevited to scot .

i dont use any of those words to describe anyone and not just for fear of offending bleeding heart liberals . no i describe a clown as a clown or a fanny as a fanny regardless of the country you are from , the religion you follow or the colur of your skin !


Once again.

"Scot" isn't an abbreviation. It's the proper word to use to describe someone born in Scotland. /Scottish, Welshman/Welsh/ Irish

"Paki" IS an abbreviation - used by racists to describe (in an insulting and demaaning way) people with skin of a different colour. Like "Chinky" and "Wog" and "Coon" and "******".

I really don't care whether you use those words yourself or not - you're defending the Royal Spare's use of them.


BTW, I rather object to the use of the word "pig" in the title to this thread.

Surely to compare a pig to the Royal Spare is grossly insulting to all pigs everywhere. :cool2:

[Hibbyradge]

No I didn't, you missed my point.

Do you know the difference between a Pakistani and a Bangladeshi?

Or an Indian?

I bet you don't.

Poulations; Bangladesh 152m

Pakistan 174m

India 1.15 billion.

I bet you use the term "Paki" to describe a load of folk who are not Pakistani.

Dont you, Taffy?

Anyway, yes, someone from Scotland is "a Scot".

But, someone from Pakistan is "a Pakistani". Not a Paki.
Just like a man from England is an Englishman. Or a man from Wales is a Welshman.

See what I mean, Paddy?


you still miss my point someone from scotland is scottish abbrevited to scot .

i dont use any of those words to describe anyone and not just for fear of offending bleeding heart liberals . no i describe a clown as a clown or a fanny as a fanny regardless of the country you are from , the religion you follow or the colur of your skin !

See above.

Paki is not the term for Pakistani.

[LiverpoolHibs]

you still miss my point someone from scotland is scottish abbrevited to scot .

i dont use any of those words to describe anyone and not just for fear of offending bleeding heart liberals . no i describe a clown as a clown or a fanny as a fanny regardless of the country you are from , the religion you follow or the colur of your skin !

Waaaay! Do I hear a 'political correctness gone mad'?

The term for a person from Scotland is a Scot, the term for a person from Pakistan is a Pakistani. It isn't hard...

[Raymond]

Granpa Spencer or Granpa Hewitt?


:lips seal:greengrin

[--------]

Waaaay! Do I hear a 'political correctness gone mad'?

The term for a person from Scotland is a Scot, the term for a person from Pakistan is a Pakistani. It isn't hard...


It is for some volks.... :devil:

[horseman]

Waaaay! Do I hear a 'political correctness gone mad'?

The term for a person from Scotland is a Scot, the term for a person from Pakistan is a Pakistani. It isn't hard...


prince harry may be a racist but i dont think paki is a racist term .

intolerance comes in all shapes and guises

[--------]

prince harry may be a racist but i dont think paki is a racist term .

intolerance comes in all shapes and guises


What about "chinky"?

You reckon that's a racist term? :cool2:

[horseman]

What about "chinky"?

You reckon that's a racist term? :cool2:

yes i do . what about ozzies ? :wink:

[--------]

yes i do . what about ozzies ? :wink:


That's one Australians themselves use, no?

And if you're referring to my post about the Ashes, I used the word to denote the cricket team. Again, that's a usage I've heard from a number of Australian friends. However, if it offends you, I'll always in future speak of "The Australians".

See how far you get referring to the Pakistan cricket team as "The Pakis". "Paki" is racist.

[horseman]

That's one Australians themselves use, no?

for that you'd have to ask one of our antipodean cousins but it sure ent no abbreviation just like chinky or wog or taffy or jock or paddy or whatever . it is however one you use ! are you positive , absolutely positive that no pakistanis use the word paki ?

[LiverpoolHibs]

prince harry may be a racist but i dont think paki is a racist term .

intolerance comes in all shapes and guises

How is it not a racist term? You'd be quite happy to call a Pakistani man/woman/child a 'Paki'?


for that you'd have to ask one of our antipodean cousins but it sure ent no abbreviation just like chinky or wog or taffy or jock or paddy or whatever . it is however one you use ! are you positive , absolutely positive that no pakistanis use the word paki ?

I'm sure they do, but used in the same way that black people use the 'N' word - precisely because it is a pejorative and racist term. Not beacuse it's an abbreviation of Pakistani.

[horseman]

How is it not a racist term? You'd be quite happy to call a Pakistani man/woman/child a 'Paki'?



I'm sure they do, but used in the same way that black people use the 'N' word - precisely because it is a pejorative and racist term. Not beacuse it's an abbreviation of Pakistani.

i dont call anyone paki nor do i use the 'n' word , but i still dont think its a racist term .

as i said before , intolerance comes in all shapes and guises .

[LiverpoolHibs]

i dont call anyone paki nor do i use the 'n' word , but i still dont think its a racist term .

as i said before , intolerance comes in all shapes and guises .

Why would you not use it if you don't think it's racist?

[horseman]

Why would you not use it if you don't think it's racist?

i prefer the term asian , its more all encompassing

[LiverpoolHibs]

i prefer the term asian , its more all encompassing

:confused:

I'm lost. So are 'Paki' and 'Asian' synonomous to you or not, just to be clear?

[horseman]

:confused:

I'm lost. So are 'Paki' and 'Asian' synonomous to you or not, just to be clear?

i prefer asian because it offends none . the pakistanis i know i call by their names . to call a pakistani an indian or vice versa is a big no no and sometimes telling the difference between an indian , a bangladeshi , an afghan or a pakistani can be difficult .

you surely dont take offence to asian as well , do you ?

[LiverpoolHibs]

i prefer asian because it offends none . the pakistanis i know i call by their names . to call a pakistani an indian or vice versa is a big no no and sometimes telling the difference between an indian , a bangladeshi , an afghan or a pakistani can be difficult .

you surely dont take offence to asian as well , do you ?

That's one of the reasons that 'Paki' is (explicitly) a racist term, being used for years as a catch-all term for anyone from the Indian Sub-Continent.

And no I don't take offence to 'Asian'. Except that it's possibly a bit lazy? I don't know. I'd probably find it a bit odd - though not offensive - if someone regularly described me as European.

[horseman]

That's one of the reasons that 'Paki' is (explicitly) a racist term, being used for years as a catch-all term for anyone from the Indian Sub-Continent.

And no I don't take offence to 'Asian'. Except that it's possibly a bit lazy? I don't know. I'd probably find it a bit odd - though not offensive - if someone regularly described me as European.

asian - lazy ??

i would rather say paki is lazy , a straight abbreviation of paki - stani .

who finds it racist though ? a white man ? ,maybe i should start using 'indian sub continental ' to avoid offending absolutely anyone ??

[LiverpoolHibs]

asian - lazy ??

i would rather say paki is lazy , a straight abbreviation of paki - stani .

I said I wasn't sure if it was lazy or not. And that I would find it a bit odd if I was regularly referred to as a European, but not racist or offensive.

Laziness isn't the biggest drawback to the use of 'paki' - it's more the fact that it is hugely offensive and racist.


who finds it racist though ? a white man ?

Do you genuinely think a Pakistani person would not onbject to being called a 'Paki'? This is getting baffling.


maybe i should start using 'indian sub continental ' to avoid offending absolutely anyone ??

Is it political correctness gone mad?

Oh for the days when you could call a paki a paki, a wog a wog and a kike a kike, eh?

[horseman]

I said I wasn't sure if it was lazy or not. And that I would find it a bit odd if I was regularly referred to as a European, but not racist or offensive.

Laziness isn't the biggest drawback to the use of 'paki' - it's more the fact that it is hugely offensive and racist.



Do you genuinely think a Pakistani person would not onbject to being called a 'Paki'? This is getting baffling.



Is it political correctness gone mad?

Oh for the days when you could call a paki a paki, a wog a wog and a kike a kike, eh?

does your intolerance know no bounds ? use those disgusting terms if you like , i for one do not . i still do not think paki is a racist term , i see it as an abbreviation like mofo . wog , kike and raghead i find horrendous .

i will not be swayed by your bleeding heart liberal minded politically correct nonsense .

i have had enough of your intolerance and am away to the indian sub continental shop on the corner to see alef for a loaf of bread and a paper and then i might just call sanjay at the indian sub continental take away i frequent for a lamb madrass .

i'll be back on in a few hours to see if you are still spouting your uber intolerant anti racist rubbish :bye:

[LiverpoolHibs]

does your intolerance know no bounds ? use those disgusting terms if you like , i for one do not . i still do not think paki is a racist term , i see it as an abbreviation like mofo . wog , kike and raghead i find horrendous .

i will not be swayed by your bleeding heart liberal minded politically correct nonsense .

i have had enough of your intolerance and am away to the indian sub continental shop on the corner to see alef for a loaf of bread and a paper and then i might just call sanjay at the indian sub continental take away i frequent for a lamb madrass .

i'll be back on in a few hours to see if you are still spouting your uber intolerant anti racist rubbish :bye:

Jesus wept...

[Hibbyradge]

i still do not think paki is a racist term ,


It is a racist term.

If you don't believe me, go and ask a Pakistani.

Or, go and ask a Pakistani a question like, "Do Pakis like football?".

Of course, you won't.

[The_Todd]

It is a racist term.

If you don't believe me, go and ask a Pakistani.

Or, go and ask a Pakistani a question like, "Do Pakis like football?".

Of course, you won't.


Or even better, ask a Bangladshi or Indian the same question.

Their reaction might be interesting too.

[horseman]

scotland = land of the scots
england = land of the angles
afghanistan = land of the afghans
uzbekistan = land of the uzbeks
kazakstan = land of the kazaks
do you see where this is leading ?
pakistan = yep you guessed it , land of the pakis

is paki more or less racist than scot , afghan or uzbek ?

its all in how the word is used , the word itself is not racist

[CropleyWasGod]

scotland = land of the scots
england = land of the angles
afghanistan = land of the afghans
uzbekistan = land of the uzbeks
kazakstan = land of the kazaks
do you see where this is leading ?
pakistan = yep you guessed it , land of the pakis

is paki more or less racist than scot , afghan or uzbek ?

its all in how the word is used , the word itself is not racist

.... in 50 years, I don't think I have ever heard the word being used in a positive way by non-Pakistanis.

[ArabHibee]

.... in 50 years, I don't think I have ever heard the word being used in a positive way by non-Pakistanis.
I know a Pakistani who calls himself "Paki-Ali"? :dunno:

[CropleyWasGod]

I know a Pakistani who calls himself "Paki-Ali"? :dunno:

... which is my point. Pakistanis often use the word amongst themselves, in the same way as black folk use the N word and gay men use the "poof" word. It's a way of taking the sting out of the word, by reclaiming it.

[Hibrandenburg]

Waaaay! Do I hear a 'political correctness gone mad'?

The term for a person from Scotland is a Scot, the term for a person from Pakistan is a Pakistani. It isn't hard...

I'm sure if Harry had called his little Pakistani friend "his little Pakistani friend", then the PC storm troopers on here would have still gotten their knickers in a twist.

Much abdul about nothing I feel. :duck:

Now DR giving the Yams the GIRUY was the sort of thing our kids role models should be doing. :bitchy:

[Betty Boop]

I know a Pakistani who calls himself "Paki-Ali"? :dunno: So do you think its ok for kids at school to go around calling their Asian friends Pakis?

[LiverpoolHibs]

scotland = land of the scots
england = land of the angles
afghanistan = land of the afghans
uzbekistan = land of the uzbeks
kazakstan = land of the kazaks
do you see where this is leading ?
pakistan = yep you guessed it , land of the pakis

is paki more or less racist than scot , afghan or uzbek ?

its all in how the word is used , the word itself is not racist

Out of around two hundred countries you managed to find five vaguely corroborating examples for your ridiculous argument. Well done...

Angles, Scots, Uzbeks, Kazaks, Afghans are all broadly defined ethnic groups and/or languages some extinct, some not.

'Pakistan' is a re-working of an Urdu phrase.

Now, it may just be me, but I think your argument falls down a bit there...

[Sir David Gray]

scotland = land of the scots
england = land of the angles
afghanistan = land of the afghans
uzbekistan = land of the uzbeks
kazakstan = land of the kazaks
do you see where this is leading ?
pakistan = yep you guessed it , land of the pakis

is paki more or less racist than scot , afghan or uzbek ?

its all in how the word is used , the word itself is not racist

I'd agree with that bit in bold. I don't believe the word, in itself, is racist. However, most people use the term in a derogatory way and is often followed by "*********", which makes it racist.

I think it's like a lot of terms, in that it all depends on how it's used and who you say it to. Saying it in an argument to someone you don't know, is likely to be taken as a racist slur. Whereas saying it to someone you know well, in a jokey way, is much less likely to be taken as an insult.

If I was called a "Jock" or something similar that mocked my Scottishness, by an English person that I did not know, I probably wouldn't like it very much. But if that person was a friend, I'd be far more inclined to take it as a bit of friendly banter.

Sometimes you have to consider the context that things are said in, and not just look solely at the comments made.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Gordon, are you the standard to which the rest of the world should aspire? Are your beliefs and values the "right ones" for everyone?

Think you are missing my point. He is is his mate, allegedly, he calls his mate Paki, his mate is not offended. Why are we?

People ARE offended by the term Paki, and sweaty sock etc. Knowing that, why do others feel the need to use these terms?

As above, according to the report there is no statement his mate is offended by it.

Would you be missing out if you weren't called Haggis Muncher or Jock?

Of course I would not be missing out, what I am saying is it does not offend me to be called this or a porridge gobbler seems to be the current one. Why should someone be offended on my behalf?


If people think this is me backing racism then they obviously don't know me, however lets look at is as I said before. We are going to send this guy over to countries where people wear Keffiyah and turbans and ask him to kill them and we are complaining because he calls them ragheads? I would be more worried, rights and wrongs of going there and killing people aside, if he was being complimentary to them. I think there are much greater deeper problems than what he has done. Also as I said before, how does a video suddenly get discovered after three years?
The man is/was a soldier. It is immaterial to me that his name is Wales/Windsor or whatever, he is/was a serving soldier abusing the people he was about to go and kill. I would rather be verbally abused than killed personally.

[Hibbyradge]

If people think this is me backing racism then they obviously don't know me, however lets look at is as I said before. We are going to send this guy over to countries where people wear Keffiyah and turbans and ask him to kill them and we are complaining because he calls them ragheads? I would be more worried, rights and wrongs of going there and killing people aside, if he was being complimentary to them. I think there are much greater deeper problems than what he has done. Also as I said before, how does a video suddenly get discovered after three years?
The man is/was a soldier. It is immaterial to me that his name is Wales/Windsor or whatever, he is/was a serving soldier abusing the people he was about to go and kill. I would rather be verbally abused than killed personally.

I don't think you're backing racism, Gordon and I understand your point.

I agree that what goes on between friends is up to them, but when the third in line to the throne is being filmed, he should be far more circumspect.

If his friend was Scottish and he had called him a "mean Sweaty" or something like that on camera, there would have been a lot more upset on this board.

[--------]

For the attention of whoever's interested....

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/prince-philip-alters-will-200901121504/


:devil:

[lyonhibs]

For the attention of whoever's interested....

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/prince-philip-alters-will-200901121504/


:devil:

:faf: :faf: :faf:

Absolute quality.

[Betty Boop]

For the attention of whoever's interested....

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/prince-philip-alters-will-200901121504/


:devil: :greengrin

[DaveF]

... which is my point. Pakistanis often use the word amongst themselves, in the same way as black folk use the N word and gay men use the "poof" word. It's a way of taking the sting out of the word, by reclaiming it.

You may indeed have a point.

It was in some commentary or letter in today's Herald (I think) about this website

http://www.paki.com/

If it's offensive, then I expect an outcry from all and sundry to have this website renamed pakistani.com - If it ain't offensive, then let's try living with it.

[Hibrandenburg]

You may indeed have a point.

It was in some commentary or letter in today's Herald (I think) about this website

http://www.paki.com/

If it's offensive, then I expect an outcry from all and sundry to have this website renamed pakistani.com - If it ain't offensive, then let's try living with it.

Sense at last :agree:

Instead of the PC inquisitors, let the so called victim decide if it's racist or not.

[CropleyWasGod]

Sense at last :agree:

Instead of the PC inquisitors, let the so called victim decide if it's racist or not.

Agreed.

viz.... the pal of Prince Charles, a "swarthy type", who doesn't mind being called "Sooty".

End of story? Unfortunately not, since Keith Vaz has been making critical noises about it....

( just had a thought.... perhaps there are other reasons why he is called Sooty? This is a family forum, so i won't dwell on 'em)

[LiverpoolHibs]

You may indeed have a point.

It was in some commentary or letter in today's Herald (I think) about this website

http://www.paki.com/

If it's offensive, then I expect an outcry from all and sundry to have this website renamed pakistani.com - If it ain't offensive, then let's try living with it.


Sense at last :agree:

Instead of the PC inquisitors, let the so called victim decide if it's racist or not.

By that rationale, it's perfectly acceptable for white people to call black people '******' because some/many black people use the word.

As I've said previously, 'Paki' is used in that context for the exact same reason that '******' is used by black people - precisely because it is racist.

[Hibrandenburg]

Agreed.

viz.... the pal of Prince Charles, a "swarthy type", who doesn't mind being called "Sooty".

End of story? Unfortunately not, since Keith Vaz has been making critical noises about it....

( just had a thought.... perhaps there are other reasons why he is called Sooty? This is a family forum, so i won't dwell on 'em)

The mind boggles :hmmm:

We had a lad of Caribbean origin in our mob and he answered to the name Chalky. OK his family name was White but where do you draw the line between banter and racism. For me the answer is clearly when offence is taken by the "victim".

[DaveF]

By that rationale, it's perfectly acceptable for white people to call black people '******' because some/many black people use the word.

As I've said previously, 'Paki' is used in that context for the exact same reason that '******' is used by black people - precisely because it is racist.

I'm not really up for these debates as it's not my thing, but I just don't get that point of view.

If Paki is offensive (and clearly it is to some) then it's offensive full stop and should be eradicated from everyday language. Having it both ways just creates confusion and dare I say it, only serves to alienate white people who see the word used by Pakistani's only to be told they can't use it as they'll be arrested for racist abuse.

[Hibrandenburg]

By that rationale, it's perfectly acceptable for white people to call black people '******' because some/many black people use the word.
As I've said previously, 'Paki' is used in that context for the exact same reason that '******' is used by black people - precisely because it is racist.

Sorry Jim, but I strongly disagree with that, I'd even go as far as to say that statement is racist in it's self and it's not what we're saying. If a group of mates from various ethnic backgrounds have pet names for each other but accept them in the manner they're meant, then that's their good right to do so.

I'm sure Harry has had to put up with a fair bit of stick because of his family background, but I don't see him crying to the press about it.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Sorry Jim, but I strongly disagree with that, I'd even go as far as to say that statement is racist in it's self and it's not what we're saying. If a group of mates from various ethnic backgrounds have pet names for each other but accept them in the manner they're meant, then that's their good right to do so.

I'm sure Harry has had to put up with a fair bit of stick because of his family background, but I don't see him crying to the press about it.

How on earth is that 'racist in itself'?

It's a perfectly logical extension of the argument (propagated numerous times on this thread) that because 'Paki' is used within the Pakistani/S.E. Asian community, it's therefore not racist and is acceptable for those outside it to use.

[Hibrandenburg]

How on earth is that 'racist in itself'?

It's a perfectly logical extension of the argument (propagated numerous times on this thread) that because 'Paki' is used within the Pakistani/S.E. Asian community, it's therefore not racist and is acceptable for those outside it to use.

Basically you're saying that only people of a certain race may use certain phrases and only in certain circumstances. I say that's racist bollocks and it depends only on the circumstances.

The whole incident in question took place amonst a group of mates 3 years ago where no complaint was lodged by the so called injured party. That alone tells me that no offence was meant and none was taken, making the whole event a non story.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Basically you're saying that only people of a certain race may use certain phrases and only in certain circumstances. I say that's racist bollocks and it depends only on the circumstances.

The whole incident in question took place amonst a group of mates 3 years ago where no complaint was lodged by the so called injured party. That alone tells me that no offence was meant and none was taken, making the whole event a non story.

I didn't say anything of the sort, I was just extending the argument made by many on here. I don't see where the discrepancy lies between usage of '******' as described and the use of 'Paki' as described.

[Hibrandenburg]

I didn't say anything of the sort, I was just extending the argument made by many on here. I don't see where the discrepancy lies between usage of '******' as described and the use of 'Paki' as described.

The discrepancy lies in the context and not in the language. If someone tells me I can't use certain language because of my race, then I'd argue that they're being racist.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The discrepancy lies in the context and not in the language. If someone tells me I can't use certain language because of my race, then I'd argue that they're being racist.

So there's no discrepancy, in essence, between the use of the word '******' and the use of the word '******' then?

[hibsdaft]

interesting comparing all this support for Harry to the treatment of Jade on big Brother who was all but hung from the lamposts a year or two ago for a similar dose of percieved racism. and i'm talking about politicians etc not people on here btw.

pretty simple for me all this tbh, we all know that this word is taken badly by a great many and it doesn't take much effort not to use it.

not seen the clip but from the transcript he comes over as more a patronising c*** than anything else imo.

[Hibrandenburg]

So there's no discrepancy, in essence, between the use of the word '******' and the use of the word '******' then?

IMHO no, as already mentioned the discrepancy lies in the context in which the language is used.

I could use the F-word in 1000's of different ways, some would be offensive and others not. But you can be sure that some would find any usage of the word offensive anyway.

[LiverpoolHibs]

interesting comparing all this support for Harry to the treatment of Jade on big Brother who was all but hung from the lamposts a year or two ago for a similar dose of percieved racism. and i'm talking about politicians etc not people on here btw.

pretty simple for me all this tbh, we all know that this word is taken badly by a great many and it doesn't take much effort not to use it.

not seen the clip but from the transcript he comes over as more a patronising c*** than anything else imo.

Very much so.

[Hibrandenburg]

interesting comparing all this support for Harry to the treatment of Jade on big Brother who was all but hung from the lamposts a year or two ago for a similar dose of percieved racism. and i'm talking about politicians etc not people on here btw.

pretty simple for me all this tbh, we all know that this word is taken badly by a great many and it doesn't take much effort not to use it.

not seen the clip but from the transcript he comes over as more a patronising c*** than anything else imo.

It's got sod all to do with support for Harry and all to do with right and wrong. If it was a group of racially mixed mates in a pub then nobody would give a flying whoopee about it.

Because it's Harry the press can try and make a story about it and try and sell more papers 3 years after the event and anyone with an anti Windsor agenda can make a mountain out of a mole hill.

[LiverpoolHibs]

IMHO no, as already mentioned the discrepancy lies in the context in which the language is used.

I could use the F-word in 1000's of different ways, some would be offensive and others not. But you can be sure that some would find any usage of the word offensive anyway.

And in mine as well. So, if instead of "our litte Paki friend" he had said "our little ****** friend/our little wog friend" to a black soldier and it (supposedly) did not cause offence, then you would have the same support for him?

I really don't understand this idea that because the individual it is directed at seems (importantly) not to have taken offence, that seems to make everything ok.

[Hibrandenburg]

And in mine as well. So, if instead of "our litte Paki friend" he had said "our little ****** friend/our little wog friend" to a black soldier and it (supposedly) did not cause offence, then you would have the same support for him?

I really don't understand this idea that because the individual it is directed at seems (importantly) not to have taken offence, that seems to make everything ok.

In a nutshell it's got bugger all to do with you. If a husband calls his wife his little "whore" behind the bedroom door and she likes it, then who are you to tell him not to do so because it's not PC?

[LiverpoolHibs]

In a nutshell it's got bugger all to do with you. If a husband calls his wife his little "whore" behind the bedroom door and she likes it, then who are you to tell him not to do so because it's not PC?

And the previous bit?

That analogy is more that a bit ridiculous, by the way.

[hibsdaft]

It's got sod all to do with support for Harry and all to do with right and wrong. If it was a group of racially mixed mates in a pub then nobody would give a flying whoopee about it.

as i say i have not seen the clip but if its as you say then it strikes me odd that he has called him and apologised for calling him something he knew about, (altho i accept that may have merely just been a stupid responce in order to be seen to do the right thing).

it seems in the transcript that the guy did not actually hear him say it at the time has anyone seen the clip tell me if that is or not the case?

[Hibrandenburg]

And the previous bit?

That analogy is more that a bit ridiculous, by the way.

Why? We are talking about context are we not?

[Hibrandenburg]

And in mine as well. So, if instead of "our litte Paki friend" he had said "our little ****** friend/our little wog friend" to a black soldier and it (supposedly) did not cause offence, then you would have the same support for him?

I really don't understand this idea that because the individual it is directed at seems (importantly) not to have taken offence, that seems to make everything ok.

But he didn't did he? Again I'll say if it wasn't Prince Harry then this would be a no story.

[Sir David Gray]

as i say i have not seen the clip but if its as you say then it strikes me odd that he has called him and apologised for calling him something he knew about, (altho i accept that may have merely just been a stupid responce in order to be seen to do the right thing).

it seems in the transcript that the guy did not actually hear him say it at the time has anyone seen the clip tell me if that is or not the case?

I think i'm OK to post this.

Here (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iRMJQEdX9qc&feature=related) is the tape, in full, so you can judge for yourself.

[LiverpoolHibs]

[b]

But he didn't did he? Again I'll say if it wasn't Prince Harry then this would be a no story.

But you've already accepted that the sentences would be effectively synynomous....

I'd say the more telling fact is that the analysis of all this has been based on Harry rather than on questioning whether this sort of thing is endemic within the armed forces. Which, you'd think, would be one reason why the recipient of the comment was not shocked/offended.

[Hibrandenburg]

But you've already accepted that the sentences would be effectively synynomous....

I'd say the more telling fact is that the analysis of all this has been based on Harry rather than on questioning whether this sort of thing is endemic within the armed forces. Which, you'd think, would be one reason why the recipient of the comment was not shocked/offended.

Lets first establish if the comments made are racist before we go off on tangents and accuse the whole Army of being racist eh. Again, I feel a mountain is being made out of a molehill and it's a non story.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Lets first establish if the comments made are racist before we go off on tangents and accuse the whole Army of being racist eh. Again, I feel a mountain is being made out of a molehill and it's a non story.

Yeah, but I'm absolutely certain it's a racist term. As is 'raghead' which has been noticeably ignored in this thread...

It's also noticeable that the NotW and subsequent comment have almost completely ignored the homophobia the ****wit also spouts.

[Hibrandenburg]

Yeah, but I'm absolutely certain it's a racist term. As is 'raghead' which has been noticeably ignored in this thread...

It's also noticeable that the NotW and subsequent comment have almost completely ignored the homophobia the ****wit also spouts.

:rolleyes: Context! Goodnight!

[hibsdaft]

I think i'm OK to post this.

Here (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iRMJQEdX9qc&feature=related) is the tape, in full, so you can judge for yourself.

cheers.

i can't believe people are apologising for this ****wit.

how can people compare this to banter between mates?

the guy doesn't even hear it and harry has since felt that he has had to apologise to him since which suggests to me that the lad has never known that he was being called this behind his back.

regardless, its not a group of lifelong mates in a pub, its working soldiers on duty and this guy was on duty in a foreign country probably on his own. only a prick starts using these terms in this context with the excuse "its just banter and he loves it really". what are you expecting him to say back in such an environment?

all the evidence suggests that the little tosser is indeed a racist ****, people can believe all the royal spin but at the end of the day if this guy was a footballer he'd be under protection right now.

one final thought: what total disrespect to a guy who has come over to serve in your army from a foreign country.

[LiverpoolHibs]

:rolleyes: Context! Goodnight!

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm reliably informed by a similarly 'P.C.-gone-mad-bleeding-heart-liberal-lefty' Australian acquaintance that 'Paki' is in no way a racist term 'Down Under'. (I'd still question that to an extent, however; it may not have the connotations but it still has the reductiveness.)

Unfortunately, that is in no way the case in Britain - which even a massively shallow perusal of British social history in the last fourty-or-so years would show.

[--------]

cheers.

i can't believe people are apologising for this ****wit.

how can people compare this to banter between mates?

the guy doesn't even hear it and harry has since felt that he has had to apologise to him since which suggests to me that the lad has never known that he was being called this behind his back.

regardless, its not a group of lifelong mates in a pub, its working soldiers on duty and this guy was on duty in a foreign country probably on his own. only a prick starts using these terms in this context with the excuse "its just banter and he loves it really". what are you expecting him to say back in such an environment?

all the evidence suggests that the little tosser is indeed a racist ****, people can believe all the royal spin but at the end of the day if this guy was a footballer he'd be under protection right now.

one final thought: what total disrespect to a guy who has come over to serve in your army from a foreign country.


When you're HRH in the Army, you can say what you want, when you want, to whoever you want. And no one's likely to stop you.

And when you're caught being beastly to a fellow-officer, you can claim it was all a matter of mates together, and expect no one to contradict you.

Except that the Pakistani officer's father has made it perfectly clear that his son was not ever "mates" with the Spare. Which rather blows the "it was just a nickname we had for him but he was really our jolly good pal, you know" defence.

The Spare thinks it's OK to go to a party dressed as a Nazi and to refer to a brother officer as a Paki behind his back.

Nice guy! :cool2:

And before anyone says again that it doesn't matter, this idiot is second in line to the throne and could very well be Head of State in a few years time. Representing the UK in the eyes of foreign governments and people. And legally all of us would be his "subjects".

Time for a Secession. Time for a Republic.

Cromwell had the right idea. :devil:

[majorhibs]

When you're HRH in the Army, you can say what you want, when you want, to whoever you want. And no one's likely to stop you.

And when you're caught being beastly to a fellow-officer, you can claim it was all a matter of mates together, and expect no one to contradict you.

Except that the Pakistani officer's father has made it perfectly clear that his son was not ever "mates" with the Spare. Which rather blows the "it was just a nickname we had for him but he was really our jolly good pal, you know" defence.

The Spare thinks it's OK to go to a party dressed as a Nazi and to refer to a brother officer as a Paki behind his back.

Nice guy! :cool2:

And before anyone says again that it doesn't matter, this idiot is second in line to the throne and could very well be Head of State in a few years time. Representing the UK in the eyes of foreign governments and people. And legally all of us would be his "subjects".

Time for a Secession. Time for a Republic.

Cromwell had the right idea. :devil:

Did Cromwell have the right idea though? Destroy Scotland with General Monck's artillery. Was that not a bit racist from Cromwell, an Englishman, towards Scotland? At the same time as the slave trade was on the go, so he could send any rebellious Scots he found to the back of beyond. Does that count as racist? Or was it ok because it was only "Scots" and "Jocks" and they're not racist terms. I'm all confused now. Where's the bleeding hearts liberal PC brigade when you need 'em, eh? :dunno:

[Just Jimmy]

And before anyone says again that it doesn't matter, this idiot is second in line to the throne and could very well be Head of State in a few years time. Representing the UK in the eyes of foreign governments and people. And legally all of us would be his "subjects".

Time for a Secession. Time for a Republic.

Cromwell had the right idea. :devil:

Third in line? Charlie, William and him?

I doubt he'll ever be king tbh, thank christ. More likely to fill the hanger on role. Tax dodging wee waster.

[GhostofBolivar]

Did Cromwell have the right idea though? Destroy Scotland with General Monck's artillery. Was that not a bit racist from Cromwell, an Englishman, towards Scotland? At the same time as the slave trade was on the go, so he could send any rebellious Scots he found to the back of beyond. Does that count as racist? Or was it ok because it was only "Scots" and "Jocks" and they're not racist terms. I'm all confused now. Where's the bleeding hearts liberal PC brigade when you need 'em, eh? :dunno:

This would be after Charles Stuart engaged the Scottish Parliament to invade England, where they tried to destroy the English Parliamentarian armies and political structure with the aim of restoring Charles' own tyrannical regime. Then a few years later, his son Charles II did the same thing. How was the English Parliament supposed to respond to aggression from it's neighbour?

It's also generally accepted that the New Model Army were far more obedient and respectful of the rules of war as they stood at the time than Royalist forces. The conduct of Parliamentary troops during the civil wars was - as far as the term was understood in 17th century warfare - pretty humane. It was in Ireland where Cromwell's application of the laws of war moved to the other end of the legal spectrum and where prevailing attitudes toward Catholicism and the 'barbaric' Irish called for widespread ethnic cleansing.

Rascism? Maybe. Probably. But current events are controversial enough without trying to understand the motives behind events that took place 350 years ago through a 21st century mentality.

Anyway, this is by the by. Knowing Doddie as I do, I'm certain he was referring to the attitude Cromwell adopted toward the despotic monarchy of Charles I:

...for all which high and treasonable offences, the said Charles Stuart might long since justly have been brought to exemplary and condign Punishment.

Myself, I dunno if anyone lives at the Ipatiev Residence these days...

[GhostofBolivar]

A former sergeant, Nassir Khan, 44, from Blackburn, Lancashire, spent nine years in the Royal Artillery. But after suffering consistent racial abuse as a Muslim he sued the Ministry of Defence for discrimination and won a five-figure out-of-court settlement. He has family members still serving in the Army.

My first experience of racism in the Army came on the day I completed my enlistment. The lieutenant-colonel in charge put two pound coins down and said: 'Here is the Queen's shilling, go and buy yourself a cup of tea and a chapati.'

That was the start of what became a regular pattern of behaviour during my nine years in the military. It was not unusual to be called a 'Paki' or a 'black *******'. I served during the first Gulf War and during this time I was told I was fighting on the wrong side, that people like me should be shot and that all Muslims should be put in holes. It got to the point where I was not sure whether the men who I was fighting alongside would not shoot me in the back.

I was the first non-white face in my regiment when I joined up in 1988. But even then I realised that the language being used was completely unacceptable. I always made an issue of it because I was not prepared to be verbally abused just for the colour of my skin, but it felt like a lonely fight.

There is a perception that this abuse is restricted to the lower ranks, but in my case the worst abuse came from the non-commissioned officers. When I eventually brought my discrimination case, it was against two senior NCOs.

That is why racism of any sort is so damaging and unacceptable and why what Prince Harry said is so disappointing. If the senior officers don't make it clear that using a word like 'Paki' is offensive and improper then how can they expect the lower ranks to do it?

Prince Harry has set the clock back another 10 years. I left the Army in 1999 with a medical discharge after all my attempts to transfer came to nothing. I was told there was no point me trying to join the special forces 'because they don't like Pakis'. I'm sure the back injury which forced me to leave was due to injuries when I was attacked by two paratroopers who racially abused me during training.

We are told that things have changed a lot. They haven't. I have a close relative who has been in for nearly 20 years and nothing has changed. He says the abuse is just the same. He transferred out of his regiment because it was so racist.

I am proud to have served my country. My great-grandfather served in the First World War and my grandfather in the Second. I was decorated during the Gulf War, but what happened to me destroyed my pride in the Army. I recently tried to join a reserve regiment along with a white friend. I was rejected because I was told I lived too far away. My friend, who lives 10 miles further away, was accepted.

I'm afraid there is still a long way to go before racism is removed from the ranks of the military.


Maybe a symptom of something more endemic than nicknames (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/nassir-khan-harrys-set-the-clock-back-10-years-1332014.html)

[GhostofBolivar]

Yeah, but I'm absolutely certain it's a racist term. As is 'raghead' which has been noticeably ignored in this thread...

It's also noticeable that the NotW and subsequent comment have almost completely ignored the homophobia the ****wit also spouts.

Sgt. Troy Barlow: Conrad, you've washed your hands like ten times.
Conrad Vig: Lord knows what kind of vermin live in the butt of a Dune C**n.
Chief Elgin: Why do you let this cracker hang around with you, man?
Sgt. Troy Barlow: He's all right, man. He's from a group home in Dallas. He's got no high school.
Conrad Vig: Don't tell people that.
Chief Elgin: I don't care if he's from Johannesburg. I don't want to hear Dune C**n or Sand N****r from him or anybody else.
Conrad Vig: Captain uses those terms.
Sgt. Troy Barlow: That's not the point, Conrad. The point is that Towel Head and Camel Jockey are perfectly good substitutes.
Chief Elgin: Exactly!

It's a tangent, but Three Kings is an underappreciated movie.

[majorhibs]

This would be after Charles Stuart engaged the Scottish Parliament to invade England, where they tried to destroy the English Parliamentarian armies and political structure with the aim of restoring Charles' own tyrannical regime. Then a few years later, his son Charles II did the same thing. How was the English Parliament supposed to respond to aggression from it's neighbour?

It's also generally accepted that the New Model Army were far more obedient and respectful of the rules of war as they stood at the time than Royalist forces. The conduct of Parliamentary troops during the civil wars was - as far as the term was understood in 17th century warfare - pretty humane. It was in Ireland where Cromwell's application of the laws of war moved to the other end of the legal spectrum and where prevailing attitudes toward Catholicism and the 'barbaric' Irish called for widespread ethnic cleansing.

Rascism? Maybe. Probably. But current events are controversial enough without trying to understand the motives behind events that took place 350 years ago through a 21st century mentality.

Anyway, this is by the by. Knowing Doddie as I do, I'm certain he was referring to the attitude Cromwell adopted toward the despotic monarchy of Charles I:

...for all which high and treasonable offences, the said Charles Stuart might long since justly have been brought to exemplary and condign Punishment.

Myself, I dunno if anyone lives at the Ipatiev Residence these days...

Theres not many on here I can recall backing the current regime, but your version of history there about Scotland invading England etc and the English army being less barbaric etc and overlooking the fact that Charles Stuart was the one who'd been in power then his parliament overthrown and his country invaded, to put all that down to the Scots being to blame and the English with their lord protector followed by the germans (whom your present lot are descended from are they not) who were responsible 100 years later for Culloden and the butchery that followed, thats a wee bit rich, "responding to aggression from its neighbour" as your version of history goes, which Royal Family goes back to Wallace & Bruce's times & before, and which bunch of opportunist johnny come lately dutch/german/hungarian who knows what mob muscled in in the last dozen years of the 1600's?
But thats got not a lot to do with my answer to Doddie which was a bit of banter and also a reference to the various Castles and other ancient buildings in Scotland I've happened to stumble across, if you'll pardon the pun, upon which your humane Ollie Cromwell unleashed general Monck and his "new model army" upon, and when the residents of the aforementioned properties had the audacity to try to defend their humble abodes, general Monck and his miles long trails of oxen and artillery so huge that nothing before the like had ever been seen, proceeded to destroy, all of course very humanely.
PC brigade nowadays! Cant even have a bit of banter without them rewriting history! :rolleyes:

[Hibrandenburg]

Theres not many on here I can recall backing the current regime, but your version of history there about Scotland invading England etc and the English army being less barbaric etc and overlooking the fact that Charles Stuart was the one who'd been in power then his parliament overthrown and his country invaded, to put all that down to the Scots being to blame and the English with their lord protector followed by the germans (whom your present lot are descended from are they not) who were responsible 100 years later for Culloden and the butchery that followed, thats a wee bit rich, "responding to aggression from its neighbour" as your version of history goes, which Royal Family goes back to Wallace & Bruce's times & before, and which bunch of opportunist johnny come lately dutch/german/hungarian who knows what mob muscled in in the last dozen years of the 1600's?
But thats got not a lot to do with my answer to Doddie which was a bit of banter and also a reference to the various Castles and other ancient buildings in Scotland I've happened to stumble across, if you'll pardon the pun, upon which your humane Ollie Cromwell unleashed general Monck and his "new model army" upon, and when the residents of the aforementioned properties had the audacity to try to defend their humble abodes, general Monck and his miles long trails of oxen and artillery so huge that nothing before the like had ever been seen, proceeded to destroy, all of course very humanely.
PC brigade nowadays! Cant even have a bit of banter without them rewriting history! :rolleyes:


Don't even try mate, they'll be twisting yer words and history to fit their own agendas before you can say "c'mon baby."

Interesting to read on a board that's normally quite strong in it's support for all things Irish, that we've now decided that Oliver Cromwell was a good guy.

If ever there was a genocidal racist, then it's him.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Theres not many on here I can recall backing the current regime, but your version of history there about Scotland invading England etc and the English army being less barbaric etc and overlooking the fact that Charles Stuart was the one who'd been in power then his parliament overthrown and his country invaded, to put all that down to the Scots being to blame and the English with their lord protector followed by the germans (whom your present lot are descended from are they not) who were responsible 100 years later for Culloden and the butchery that followed, thats a wee bit rich, "responding to aggression from its neighbour" as your version of history goes, which Royal Family goes back to Wallace & Bruce's times & before, and which bunch of opportunist johnny come lately dutch/german/hungarian who knows what mob muscled in in the last dozen years of the 1600's?
But thats got not a lot to do with my answer to Doddie which was a bit of banter and also a reference to the various Castles and other ancient buildings in Scotland I've happened to stumble across, if you'll pardon the pun, upon which your humane Ollie Cromwell unleashed general Monck and his "new model army" upon, and when the residents of the aforementioned properties had the audacity to try to defend their humble abodes, general Monck and his miles long trails of oxen and artillery so huge that nothing before the like had ever been seen, proceeded to destroy, all of course very humanely.
PC brigade nowadays! Cant even have a bit of banter without them rewriting history! :rolleyes:

As difficult as this might be to believe, I'm very much with you on this one major. :agree:

I was under the impression that Cromwell had long since lost his status among the Left.

There's also the amusing/baffling story of Robin Cook replacing the old Imperial portraits with one of Cromwell shortly after moving into the Foreign Office - his first meeting was with the Irish Taoisaich...

[Hibrandenburg]

As difficult as this might be to believe, I'm very much with you on this one major. :agree:

I was under the impression that Cromwell had long since lost his status among the Left.

There's also the amusing/baffling story of Robin Cook replacing the old Imperial portraits with one of Cromwell shortly after moving into the Foreign Office - his first meeting was with the Irish Taoisaich...

Ouch :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Ouch :greengrin

In a (hugely) uncharacteristically principled stance Ahern apparently refused to enter until it was removed.

[Hibbyradge]

The mind boggles :hmmm:

We had a lad of Caribbean origin in our mob and he answered to the name Chalky. OK his family name was White but where do you draw the line between banter and racism. For me the answer is clearly when offence is taken by the "victim".

What would happen if a high profile footballer called his catholic mate a "Fenian" on TV?

Friendly banter or offensive slur to all the other catholics listening?

Who is the "victim" when the third in line to the throne uses the term "Paki" on film?

[--------]

Did Cromwell have the right idea though? Destroy Scotland with General Monck's artillery. Was that not a bit racist from Cromwell, an Englishman, towards Scotland? At the same time as the slave trade was on the go, so he could send any rebellious Scots he found to the back of beyond. Does that count as racist? Or was it ok because it was only "Scots" and "Jocks" and they're not racist terms. I'm all confused now. Where's the bleeding hearts liberal PC brigade when you need 'em, eh? :dunno:


I was referring to the trial and execution of Charles Stuart - we were, after all, discussing royalty....

And if you read back over the thread, you will discover that I for one object very strongly to being called a "Jock". Or "Jocko", or "Scotchy" or anything else other than "Scot" - which is simply the proper noun for the nationality to which I belong.

And it's not about the meaning of the words, actually. It's about the attitude of arrogant young prats like The Spare to people he sees as being different, and therefore less important and less powerful than himself, and the same attitude betrayed in the minds of others who use similarly racist terms.

It's also about what can happen when groups of people are seen as irretrievably different from "us", and because of that difference, inferior to "us".

The War of the Three Kingdoms was a horrendously complicated affair, but I would refer you to GhostofBolivar's post - his analysis is pretty well accurate. the Parliamentarian Army invaded Scotland in response to the Scottish Estates invasion of England in support of Charles II's claim to the English throne.

And of you want to know a wee bit more about Oliver C, I suggest you compare the way he and the Parliamentarian regime treated the Royalists throughout the 1650's, with the treatment Charles II handed out to the surviving Parliamentarians in the immediate aftermath of the Restoration. A good place to start might be George Robertson's The Tyrannicide Brief.

You ARE aware that Scotland and England were separate kingdoms in the 1650's, aren't you? :cool2:

[majorhibs]

I was referring to the trial and execution of Charles Stuart - we were, after all, discussing royalty....

And if you read back over the thread, you will discover that I for one object very strongly to being called a "Jock". Or "Jocko", or "Scotchy" or anything else other than "Scot" - which is simply the proper noun for the nationality to which I belong.

And it's not about the meaning of the words, actually. It's about the attitude of arrogant young prats like The Spare to people he sees as being different, and therefore less important and less powerful than himself, and the same attitude betrayed in the minds of others who use similarly racist terms.

It's also about what can happen when groups of people are seen as irretrievably different from "us", and because of that difference, inferior to "us".

The War of the Three Kingdoms was a horrendously complicated affair, but I would refer you to GhostofBolivar's post - his analysis is pretty well accurate. the Parliamentarian Army invaded Scotland in response to the Scottish Estates invasion of England in support of Charles II's claim to the English throne.

And of you want to know a wee bit more about Oliver C, I suggest you compare the way he and the Parliamentarian regime treated the Royalists throughout the 1650's, with the treatment Charles II handed out to the surviving Parliamentarians in the immediate aftermath of the Restoration. A good place to start might be George Robertson's The Tyrannicide Brief.

You ARE aware that Scotland and England were separate kingdoms in the 1650's, aren't you? :cool2:

Correct me if I'm wrong but was Charles 1 not the son of James 6 of Scotland and 1 of England, king of both Scotland and England from the early 1600's, although the union wasnt formed for another 100 years, James 6 & 1, son of Mary took both thrones when English Elizabeth 1 passed childless did he not, but James was protestant and his son Charles 1 was catholic which was what the wars of the 1640/50's, boiled down to was it not? Which led to the great Montrose and then Charles himself executed while still king which in turn allowed "humanitarian" Oliver Cromwell in to do his bit in subdueing those pesky Scots who had the cheek to claim they had a King descended from other Scots Kings going back some few hundred years or something! I would never claim to have read THE definitive account of who was the best/worst in those times in the 1600's although there is plenty from both sides going on about how terrible the other lot were, but I dont know if hearing Ollie Cromwell described as humanitarian and doing what he did to Scotland purely as a reaction to the bad Scots aggressors sits all that well, and some of the accounts I read also had the Stuart Kings down as having at least as much right to a claim to govern Scotland as old Ollie, but imo whoever treated people better far as I can see depends on whose version of history you read.

[hibsdaft]

behind his back too, what a snidey little ****.

[--------]

Correct me if I'm wrong but was Charles 1 not the son of James 6 of Scotland and 1 of England, king of both Scotland and England from the early 1600's, although the union wasnt formed for another 100 years, James 6 & 1, son of Mary took both thrones when English Elizabeth 1 passed childless did he not, but James was protestant and his son Charles 1 was catholic which was what the wars of the 1640/50's, boiled down to was it not? Which led to the great Montrose and then Charles himself executed while still king which in turn allowed "humanitarian" Oliver Cromwell in to do his bit in subdueing those pesky Scots who had the cheek to claim they had a King descended from other Scots Kings going back some few hundred years or something! I would never claim to have read THE definitive account of who was the best/worst in those times in the 1600's although there is plenty from both sides going on about how terrible the other lot were, but I dont know if hearing Ollie Cromwell described as humanitarian and doing what he did to Scotland purely as a reaction to the bad Scots aggressors sits all that well, and some of the accounts I read also had the Stuart Kings down as having at least as much right to a claim to govern Scotland as old Ollie, but imo whoever treated people better far as I can see depends on whose version of history you read.


:confused:

[GhostofBolivar]

Theres not many on here I can recall backing the current regime, but your version of history there about Scotland invading England etc and the English army being less barbaric etc and overlooking the fact that Charles Stuart was the one who'd been in power then his parliament overthrown and his country invaded, to put all that down to the Scots being to blame and the English with their lord protector followed by the germans (whom your present lot are descended from are they not) who were responsible 100 years later for Culloden and the butchery that followed, thats a wee bit rich, "responding to aggression from its neighbour" as your version of history goes, which Royal Family goes back to Wallace & Bruce's times & before, and which bunch of opportunist johnny come lately dutch/german/hungarian who knows what mob muscled in in the last dozen years of the 1600's?
But thats got not a lot to do with my answer to Doddie which was a bit of banter and also a reference to the various Castles and other ancient buildings in Scotland I've happened to stumble across, if you'll pardon the pun, upon which your humane Ollie Cromwell unleashed general Monck and his "new model army" upon, and when the residents of the aforementioned properties had the audacity to try to defend their humble abodes, general Monck and his miles long trails of oxen and artillery so huge that nothing before the like had ever been seen, proceeded to destroy, all of course very humanely.
PC brigade nowadays! Cant even have a bit of banter without them rewriting history! :rolleyes:

Culloden has nothing to do with this. Wallace and The Bruce have nothing to do with this.

What is indisputible historical fact is that - having lost the FIRST Civil War - Charles I hired the Scottish Parliament to invade England with the intention of overthrowing the English Parliament and restoring his tyrannical rule. This led to the SECOND Civil War and the trial and execution of Charles. This is a pretty clear cut case, IMHO, of Scottish aggression against England.

Then a few years later, Charles II does much the same thing, leading to a THIRD war.

How, pray tell, were the English supposed to respond?

But then, we're always the victims, aren't we?

I described the New Model Army - not Cromwell himself - as being more humane than Royalist forces of the time. i.e I made a relative comparison to other, not particularly nice people, at a time where atrocity, brutality, rape and plunder were commonplace. This does not mean the Parliamentarians were good people, nor am I naive enough to think that they were. What I said, was that they were more obedient to and respectful of the rule of law than the people they were fighting. In the context of 17th century warfare, that doesn't say much.

Iran is a nicer place to live than Zimbabwe. Feel free to make incoherent rants at me because I'm an apologist for a murderous, undemocratic theocracy now.

[Greentinted]

Correct me if I'm wrong but was Charles 1 not the son of James 6 of Scotland and 1 of England, king of both Scotland and England from the early 1600's, although the union wasnt formed for another 100 years, James 6 & 1, son of Mary took both thrones when English Elizabeth 1 passed childless did he not, but James was protestant and his son Charles 1 was catholic which was what the wars of the 1640/50's, boiled down to was it not? Which led to the great Montrose and then Charles himself executed while still king which in turn allowed "humanitarian" Oliver Cromwell in to do his bit in subdueing those pesky Scots who had the cheek to claim they had a King descended from other Scots Kings going back some few hundred years or something! I would never claim to have read THE definitive account of who was the best/worst in those times in the 1600's although there is plenty from both sides going on about how terrible the other lot were, but I dont know if hearing Ollie Cromwell described as humanitarian and doing what he did to Scotland purely as a reaction to the bad Scots aggressors sits all that well, and some of the accounts I read also had the Stuart Kings down as having at least as much right to a claim to govern Scotland as old Ollie, but imo whoever treated people better far as I can see depends on whose version of history you read.

If you are genuinly interested, you could do worse than read Kishlansky.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Penguin-History-Britain-Transformed-1630-1714/dp/0140148272/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231954851&sr=1-1

[majorhibs]

Culloden has nothing to do with this. Wallace and The Bruce have nothing to do with this.

What is indisputible historical fact is that - having lost the FIRST Civil War - Charles I hired the Scottish Parliament to invade England with the intention of overthrowing the English Parliament and restoring his tyrannical rule. This led to the SECOND Civil War and the trial and execution of Charles. This is a pretty clear cut case, IMHO, of Scottish aggression against England.

Then a few years later, Charles II does much the same thing, leading to a THIRD war.

How, pray tell, were the English supposed to respond?

But then, we're always the victims, aren't we?

I described the New Model Army - not Cromwell himself - as being more humane than Royalist forces of the time. i.e I made a relative comparison to other, not particularly nice people, at a time where atrocity, brutality, rape and plunder were commonplace. This does not mean the Parliamentarians were good people, nor am I naive enough to think that they were. What I said, was that they were more obedient to and respectful of the rule of law than the people they were fighting. In the context 17th century warfare, that doesn't say much.

Iran is a nicer place to live than Zimbabwe. Feel free to make incoherent rants at me because I'm an apologist for a murderous, undemocratic theocracy now.

Your an apologist for a murderous, undemocratic theocracy now. :wink: But tis isnae a rant. Just me saying so. Like you implying that the Royalists from the mid 1600's were tyrannical aggressors who had never been in power, and their opposition which you keep stating to be the invaded English were the good guys. :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

What would happen if a high profile footballer called his catholic mate a "Fenian" on TV?

Friendly banter or offensive slur to all the other catholics listening?

Who is the "victim" when the third in line to the throne uses the term "Paki" on film?

Before we go any further I'd just like to state that I'm not saying that Harry is or is not a racist. All I'm saying is that IMHO the comments he made have been widely taken out of context.

If I was to go on TV and openly call a mate a Fenian then that would definately be a racist slur against anyone catholic who was tuned in. But lets please keep things in perspective, Harry didn't do that, it was a private home video that someone gave to The News of Screws 3 years later.

I don't give a flying scoot about Harry or any other of the Royals, but lets lynch him for something he did instead of a 3 year old non story.

[Hibbyradge]

.

I don't give a flying scoot about Harry or any other of the Royals, but lets lynch him.

Fixed that for you. :wink:

[horseman]

The discrepancy lies in the context and not in the language. If someone tells me I can't use certain language because of my race, then I'd argue that they're being racist.

:agree: praise the lord , someone who sees sense at last ! :agree:

[--------]

Your an apologist for a murderous, undemocratic theocracy now. :wink: But tis isnae a rant. Just me saying so. Like you implying that the Royalists from the mid 1600's were tyrannical aggressors who had never been in power, and their opposition which you keep stating to be the invaded English were the good guys. :wink:



You just make it up as you go along, don't you?

He didn't say any of that, any more than I said the things you accused me of saying.

And may I say that your total lack of any iota of understanding of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms is truly awesome. I recommend a perusal of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms.

It may allow a little light to shine in the darkness. :devil:

But the thread isn't about Cromwell- it's about HRH The Spare. I wish I'd never mentioned the bloke, honest I do.

I only meant that he had a very good way with crowned heads - cut 'em off. :agree:

[Steve-O]

That's one Australians themselves use, no?

And if you're referring to my post about the Ashes, I used the word to denote the cricket team. Again, that's a usage I've heard from a number of Australian friends. However, if it offends you, I'll always in future speak of "The Australians".

See how far you get referring to the Pakistan cricket team as "The Pakis". "Paki" is racist.

Actually, the 'Aussies' do just that, including the commentators on terrestrial TV.