Tory expelled for dressing as Madeleine McCann

[RockinSockBunnies]

Here

Does the reaction strike anyone else as a little OTT? Of course it's in bad taste, but the point of the evening was that it was a Bad Taste Party. Friends of mine have been to these dressed in a variety of outfits (Nazi uniforms - the party was held by Jewish people in a Jewish area), one went dressed as an anorexic, two people stuck themselves together as conjoined twins.

Obviously it's sick and twisted, but that's the point of the party. A black sense of humour sometimes helps people get through life.

Will probably get flamed for this but I think it's a bit of an over-reaction to boot someone out of the Tory Party for going to a Bad Taste Party wearing something in bad taste. Mind you, the guy was an idiot for posting photos on facebook if he aspired to a political career

Agree with Sprogger and PW.

I certainly won't be defending his right to be an utter cock-knocker as one of the cornerstones of a free society.

I don't think this has anything to do with taste or age. This is to do with character and anyone who thinks there's something even remotely amusing about dressing up as Baby P or Madeleine M'Cann is amoral.

The way I understand political life is, mistakes in private life will scupper you if they are seen to undermine the public image you/your party is trying to maintain.

This is why so many British politicians are undone by sexual scandals- because traditionally, British politicians, particularly Conservative ones, are heavy on family values and sexual morality. The one thing the voters won't stand for is hypocrisy. Swedish politicians never fall over their sex lives, because sexual morality is not part of their election rhetoric. But woe betide the Swedish politician who is caught fiddling his tax returns!

The one thing the electorate won't stand is hypocrisy, i.e. promoting certain values in public (=for the voters) and not sticking to the same values yourself.

So whenever a potential scandal surfaces, the political party/group involved has to decide whether the behaviour in question is contrary enough to the values they hold publicly to make it necessary to dissociate themselves from it.

Seems the Young Conservatives have decided. Their prerogative.

I cannot BELIEVE i am reading this, on what planet is it OK to do this? Madeleine McCann and Baby P are individual people who's families are still hurting and people are still very sensitive about - how DARE people do this - i feel sickened to my very stomach.

I find the whole nazi thing equally upsetting.

If i were invited to a bad taste party, i might go dressed as Trinni or Susannah, or someone who has ridiculed themselves in public through their own stupidity - you know, like Prince Harry - he really isn't very bright is he, im begining to wonder if the inbreeding within the royal family is begining to out itself. But hey, at least if he gets any worse, they can disown him and blame James Hewitt or whatever his name is.

Cannot believe that people are defending this sort of behaviour. Im as broad minded as the next person but this is beyond not funny.

Actually, it's the officious squawking twats who are ensuring that the feelings of the McCann family are hurt, by making a huge public palaver over this - it's not as if the bloke in question was prancing round their front garden dressed as their duaghter specifically to have a pop at them - he didn't know them any more than they knew him. If not for some twat posting photos on the internet, they (and all the other ullulating bucketheads) would have had thir feelings undamaged by the actions of someone they never met doing something they never witnessed. The McCann family do not have a right of veto over other people's private conversations, or the themes of their private parties - nor do the rest of you. All news stories and figures featured in them are fair game for comment, comedy etc. People who are 'easily offended' = well, that's your problem, no one else's.

The point you always seem to miss in these debates is that it's fair comment for everyone, not just the people who set out to offend. They are (by and large) free to cause offence, and we're free to say that we think they are wankers. What's your problem with that?

Well to me, it's like making a rascist comment about say, a black person but saying that it's ok to say it because there were no black people there to hear it. Not right.

This may well have happened at a private party but the fact is - it happened. No one made him do it and no one made another person dress as Baby P. It may have been brought to public attention (and therefore the attention of the families directly involved in the 2 cases) by others but they didn't dress him and he must take responsibility for his choices.
He either stands by his choice now and we can all see the type of person he is and like him or dislike him accordingly
or
he admits it was inappropriate and we can all like or dislike him accordingly. If he can see it was inapproriate after this backlash the chances are he knew it was wrong at the time but took the gamble that no one apart from the other like minded people at the party would ever find out.

solidgold is making a reasonable point though, that the only reason this is an issue is that some dickhead posted photos on the web, the media then, of course, saw a story and ran with it, and a lot of officious people who have absolutely no connection with the McCann family jumped on the bandwagon.

If the guy had just gone to the private party and the whole thing hadn't been broadcast, then the McCann family wouldnt have been hurt would they?

Personally I think the guy sounds like a bit of a dick (well, Young Conservative says it all really) and if I were invited to a bad taste party I wouldnt dream of doing what he did, because personally I wouldnt feel comfortable with it. But that's a separate issue. I am a 40 something mother, this guy is a 20 something single man. Out perspectives are not going to be the same.

I don't like what he did, but what I find even more disgusting is the people who jump on the emotional bandwagon.

Out= our

laadeda - is it ok to make a comment which the media have made out to be racist in front of a friend of yours who understands it is not, and then be vilified for it? just checking, and i'm sure there is already another highly indignant thread running over the harry thing, but honestly, i'm getting really bored with the media whipping up another storm in a teacup. No-one was getting hurt until the media stepped in at all.
black humour like this can actually serve to underline the horror of this sort of circumstance - it is way too simplistic to ban everything other than vanilla - in the same sort of way that you have to have crime and puncish people for it in order to actually remind society what the boundaries are.

agree with Lulumama. If these people have aspirations to govt, and they think it is funny to dress as abused/missing children, i think it says a lot about their arrogance and total lack of empathy.

madwomanintheattic - i agree with what you're saying regarding the media but also believe people should have the courage of their convictions. If this man thought it was ok to wear this costume before the media storm then he should believe it is still ok now, even though he has now heard other opinions on it.

I just think if you modify what you say/wear depending on who is around then you must have some awareness that what you are saying/doing is offensive.

I'm straight but found it very offensive when someone i know made a homophobic remark. They accused me of jumping on a pc bandwagon and that i shouldn't be offended by the remark as i'm not even gay!! Apparently they wouldn't have made the remark if they knew someone gay would have heard it but that implies that they know it is wrong.

Because something is 'ironic' or 'for a laugh' it is meant to be acceptable. Rubbish.

I am with ruty- the fact that someone could even THINK about dressing as MM or Baby P shows a total lack of empathy and THAT is extremely worrying in anyone and part of why such terrible things happen in the first place.

Sick sick sick.

Interesting point laa. But don't we all modify what we do/say/wear depending on the context? It doesn't necessarily make us hypocritical. I wouldn't say 'Oh fuck it' at work in front of a student, but have been known to say it occasionally in front of my own teenagers!

Of course the guy in question is going to make a public apology now, because it's all blown up in the media. I doubt his personal opinion has changed at all! - I'm sure he still thinks it was a funny costume to wear.

Life is all about judging the situation and behaving accordingly - and that's the whole point here isn't it? He judged it about right for the private party, considering what other people were wearing. What was a total misjudgement was enabling photos and comments about it to fall into the public domain.

Just think of all the countless other parties etc where people must have done similar things - worn costumes or made comments - but because we don't know about them, no one is offended.

And does anyone really think this was the one occasion that Prince Harry called someone a 'paki'? Course not - he probably uses such terminology every day. It's only the media exposure which makes it into an issue.

Policywonk: it's that the officious squawking wankers always want punishment for the people who've 'offended' them by having expressed a different opinion or made a joke they didn't find funny ie loss of employment or expulsion from social groups etc.

having been on a fair few e&d courses, i have to say that context is all important. no issues with e&d at all if the comments you make do not offend anyone in the contaxt you have made them.

the ones that would be found 'guilty' under any official e&d complaint would be ones who made the comments in a context where they were found offensive.

ergo - prince harry using paki in that context was absolutely fine - so was the our tory chap dressing as mm. no-one in either context at the time was offended. making such comments or dressing like that in public (or on the net, a publically accessible place) was of course against any e&d guidelines.

you are all making a total mountain out of a molehill. of course context is important. to misunderstand that is to condemn yourself and the whole of society to a uniformly beige existence. neither harry nor tory boy would have behaved in the same manner in any other context.

I do think there are some cases when a person's words or actions shoudl give doubt over their suitability for public office. Anyone who indicates a likelihood of not being able to treat all their constituents equally is unsuitable for public office (people who express the view that those of certain ethnicities, genders or sexual orientation are inferior, lesser, lower priority or wrong). And I fail to see why some of them get away with it on the grounds that their imaginary friend told them to think that way.
However, tasteless humour that is not about predjudice (mocking the McCanns is not mocking people because of their ethnicity, beliefs, gender, sexual orientation etc) should not affect a person's employment or group membership.

For me it summons an 'Oh dear, what a twit' feeling rather than outrage.

Isn't it a bit small-town to issue a blanket condemnation to everyone who doesn't think precisely like you?

'no-one in either context at the time was offended.' I don't know that we can be so sure about this. Harry's colleague's very existence in the Army is dependent on him accepting the prevailing code, which seems to include racist name-calling. I don't know that anyone other that the man involved can know whether he is genuinely unconcerned, or just has to pretend to be unconcerned so that he can continue to be accepted.

I also disagree that because this happened 'privately', it's none of our business. First, this is one of the armed services, and a racist subculture in the armed services is everyone's problem. IMO this sort of culture feeds directly into the disprespectful treatment of POWs that we saw by some British forces in Iraq.

Secondly, this is a senior member of the Royal family. Of course what he does is our business. If he wants to be a private individual, he can jolly well take himself off the civil list, can't he?

That's pertaining to Harry, not the Tory boy obviously... possibly should have put it on the other thread.

having spent the last seventeen years knocking about the military, i have never witnessed any racist treatment of anyone, but plenty of what you describe as 'racist name calling' including, taff, chalky etc. the very inclusion of all shapes, sizes, ethnicities and genders into the prevailing banter is rather proof of equality and inclusion rather than segregation and a racist sub-culture. i'm not denying that there haven't been isolated instances as you would find in any other walk of life, but if anyone does raise an objection, either in public or privately, it is dealt with appropriately and the banter ceases immediately (at least in my neck of the woods.) yes - racist subculture, yes, sexist subculture, yes, hair colourist subculture, yes, sizeist subculture, yes, any other thing you can possibly think of that diffferentiates someone in a uniform from anyone else in an identical uniform - ist subculture, er yes. and of course the line 'can't take a joke, shouldn't have joined'... of course the very point is that what constitues a 'joke' in the military is often very different from any other group that doesn't kill people for a living lol, and that's what most people have an issue with - they can't understand a different culture... which is kind of ironic in itself tbh.
it is of course interesting to wonder if harry's mate was just toeing the line and crept off home to cry in his barracks because his mates only method of inclusion was to acknowledge his ethnic isolation, but tbh i doubt he even gave it a thought. and if he was anything like any other member of the group, probably referred told h to 'f%£ off ginger w*&%£r' in any case. and then went back to barracks and didn't think another thing of it.
i do understand that people have a strong urge to protect the weak and the unheard in society, but quite honestly, some of it is just misguided and quite patronising in itself. i would be the first one to stand up and bang heads if there was a genuine undercurrent of racism/ whatever, but my abuse radar just isn't picking anything up here at all...
all very interesting in theory though.

PW: I think Harry should be disciplined by the army as well - agree with you about the problem of racists subculture in the forces.
However WRT to outrage over the comments - was there really anyone left who didn't already think Harry is a twat?

madwoman - it's all a matter of perspective isn't it? You can say that it's the military culture, it's not a problem and civilians don't understand; civilians can say that it's unacceptable, it is a problem, the military it out-of-step with to national culture, and needs to start dealing with it.

As for the argument that 'Paki' is akin to 'taffy' - I couldn't disagree with you more. But I know that this is the justification that tends to be trotted out by those in the military/police force.

I can only imagine how many non-white people who might have been considering joining the forces might have been put off by this. Not everyone sees this sort of thing as good-humoured 'banter' .