Prince Harry caught on video using a racist slur

[sherby]

what do we think about this one then?

You would think after the nazi thing he would've learnt his lesson no?

I've just heard it. He didn't say "This is Pki", as if it was a nickname like "Paddy" or "Taffy". He said "This is our little Pki friend, Ahmed" Very different.

yes but the president is head of state, that's different from the political head. in the US i guess the president is both at once, isn't he? or is the Senate Majority Leader the/a political head?

He doesn't fucking learn, does he?

Choosy, President is Head of State in the US (in fact is always Head of State I think).

Isn't it depressing that the use of racist or prejudicial terminology is always (seemingly) a feature of the armed forces or the police force. Why does this have to be the case? It wouldn't be seen as a harmless joke in any other profession.

Yes, quite sprogger. There should be some sort of disciplinary scheme for the royals: three acts of egregious racist stupidity and you're given a council flat in Deptford and told to get on with it. Jesus, I can't believe I'm paying for this arsehole to go to fucking Bouji's.

tbh, calling the guy a paki is bad, but there is a slim chance it was a joke shared by the person he was talking about. i thought the raghead comment was worse, no possible justification for that at all.

policy, i live near deptford, please dont send hinm here!

The presidant is voted in by the U.S public so you know he will eventually leave office
whereas
The royals are NOT and carry being a drain and an embarrassment to the public

That really pisses me off

Even if the army do have "nicknames" he still should know better he knows what the media is like
He has to be whiter than white
Yet again he just shows what a "dick" he is

Sorry Nancy

I would send him to the wilds of Scotland but Expat would be after me if I did.

policywonk the use of terms like this in a lighthearted manner to the face of the people they are being used about is seen as a harmless joke in many workplaces and social situations.

Whether or not it is harmless is not clear.

Is it a way of confronting and demystifiying the unspoken prejudices or does it just confirm them? It's very hard to know.

If Harry Windsor was using Paki in the context of it being an accepted nickname for a colleague it's hard to condemn him for that if that name was known to the named and also to army superiors.

It's the word "towelhead" being used as a general term of abuse that I find more worrying.

Does it really happen in 'many' workplaces? It's certainly not the culture anywhere I've ever worked.

I take your point that if it's in the culture of the army then you're asking a lot of someone like Harry to resist it (given that he is demonstrably a bear of little brain). Nevertheless, we are now in the position of having a senior, visible member of the Royal family using racist terminology (and presumably thinking that it's perfectly OK to do so). This is something that is going to cheer BNP activists immensely.

I have to say I think it's a long way from harmless. It seems to me to be a way of reinforcing to ethnic minorities (or anyone else who is visibly 'different' from the mainstream) that their position is marginal, and that they are not fully accepted into the corps of an organisation.

The fact that this sort of twisted thinking is such an ingrained part of Forces culture makes me think that the Royals should stop using the Forces as a YTS for impressionable halfwits.

I have to say that I have watched numerous documentaries about the forces in Iraq and Afghanastan and the term 'raghead' seems to be a very common term used by the soldiers.

It does seem unfair to me that Harry has been singled out for its usage too. I also think that if that was his accepted nickname it is difficult to find some intended malice in it. But there is something just not right in the way he says it, I don't like the tone of voice and he should know better than that anyway.

good post sprogger and very true

My father was in the forces for years and now I am shocked when I think back to the nicknames he and others used for ethnic colleagues and as children we used too!

Wasn't he being ironic? Taking the piss out of establishment thinking? I might be wrong, but it sounded like he was engaging in a bit of stand-up comedy, taking the piss out oif himself.

Somehow I don't imagine Harry does 'irony'. Not bright enough.

I've just heard about this on the radio, and apparently it happened THREE YEARS ago!

Oh well! Perhaps he has grown up a bit by now then...

...which was just around the time of the nazi misdemeanour as well.

It looks like 2005/06 was a bit of a stupid year for him. I hope he's learned a little respect.

funding the royal family costs each of us 66p per annum

I'm not a fan of the royal family and have zero expectation. Expecting the Royal Family to be a beacon of decency makes me want to howl at the moon. Which is timely.

Well to be fair Swedes, they have a fair amount of (our) capital as well. Just think what could be done with it all if it were released. For instance, the Queen's 'private' art collection could be made open the public! Horrors!

My only expectation of the Royals (given that I'm a republican) is that they should behave decently and not try to actually run the country. Harry, Charles and Philip seem to fail on these counts. So yes, I do find it irritating that they live in unimaginably wealthy circumstances on my 66p a year.

PW That's true. But it's true of thousands of families throughout the world with inherited wealth. It's impossible to unravel the historic complexities and surely much more sensible to say we are where we are, you can keep what you've got but no more of this nonsense. I would personally like to have seen the Nation telling the Duke of Sutherland to bugger off back to his castle with his Titian. As the art critic Professor Barry Fantoni said "We've already got Titians that no one goes to see. We don't need more of them. We need to understand more about the ones we already have. The fundraising is a red herring. All people are doing is trying to help the Duke of Sutherland out of a tight financial spot. It seems gross to me."

That makes me sound like a philistine which I am definintely not. I'd like to see the sort of morally upstanding artworld where old masters absolutely could not be sold. The only option should be a gift to national collections for public enjoyment.

Well, you know, they have both inherited wealth and an enormous yearly stipend. I think it's reasonable to claw quite a lot of it back.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about paying the Queen for her Old Masters - we've already paid for them once! I just want her to give 'em back to us.
(My thoughts on this matter partly clouded by rabid monarchist MIL, who used to work at Buck Palace graciously showing small groups of vetted visitors around a tiny portion of the Queen's art collection.)