Not content with Prince Harry giving a fulsome apology for remarks he made three years previously on a videotape, the Army top brass are to get him to attend a "training course" to relieve him of undue thoughts. I cannot for the life of me understand what he will have to endure. Maybe this is some kind of indoctrination?
I can just imagine some obsequious soul from the MOD turning up at the barracks. Harry is escorted off by two MPs to attend the lecture. Afterwards the commanding officer enquires about the "training". He has to make absolutely sure it won't happen again! "How did go?" "Very well, sir. He's completely cured. Thinks everybody talks the same, eats the same, thinks the same and is the same!" "Good. Just what we wanted. He'll be OK for Afghanistan again, then?" "No problems at all, sir".
This is all hogwash. There's no longer the concept of an officer and a gentleman. After all, Harry's apology counts for nothing. I'd dearly like to be a fly on the wall listening to the private conversations of the top brass. I bet they have been uncomplimentary about people. This is all so much hypocrisy. Motes and beams come to mind.
I much prefer the reasoned and sound response of Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty. She was was in the company of a fellow university student once, who described the local corner shop as a "Paki shop". Shami remonstrated with the student, who was apparently genuinely upset that she had caused offence. They are now firm friends. Ms Chakrabati has a lot of common sense and is my kind of libertarian and social animal. (She gave Geoff Hoon a few home truths!).
You don't get long lasting results with a politically correct type of "re-education". You get a civilised society where both parties feel they have been shown respect and understanding. All that the Army is doing is following some PC path to self-righteousness. When it comes to bullying, initiation routines and a generally poor attitude to service housing and equipment, they turn a blind eye often.
They need to get their priorities right. That would be the politically correct thing to do!
Is China a threat to the UK?
-
The Foreign secretary tells us China is a threat. He tells us the
government is increasing its spending on Intelligence by £600 m. Like the
US the UK seeks...
5 hours ago
.jpg)
5 comments:
So if the term 'paki' is so offensive what do I have to type in to get "paki.com"???????
If people are determined to be offended then they will find something to be offended by. And you admit their right to be offended for that - then they will find something else to be offended by and so on and so on.
I am offended by lots of things - this kind of rubbish for a start.
You may be impervious to be upset. I take my hat off to you for your rhinocerous hide. My point is not about offending people but about thinking about gratuitous offence. Just being a pig-headed sod isn't very pleasant. You are not that, I'm sure!
Hang on - Do I understand you correctly - the question is not if someone was actually offended, but rather that someone (perhaps you?) feels they ought to have been offended and so feels offended on their behalf?
Surely I have that wrong? Being offended is a choice - you can choose to be offended or you can choose to accept it and let it go. Prince Harry's mate was NOT offended by the term 'paki' which is used in many instances as a shorthand form of Pakistan hence paki.com a genuine website.
So why are so many people getting their togas in a tumble? Could it be that they feel that he OUGHT to have been offended - because they would have been in the same situation?
This was not a gratuitious offence; it was said between friends over two years ago and would never have seen the light of day if one of those so-called friend had not decided to sell his honour for money. Now I find that gratuitously offensive, but then I place a lot emphasis on trust.
I am glad that you feel you know we well enough to presume tht I might be a 'pig headed sod' - (is that what you call everyone who disagrees with you.However, there are many of my friends who would agree with you, and there is probably just enough truth in the comment for me not to feel offended.
But one more comment about my hide and I will be round your place with a group of sodgers to take a piece out of yours!!
PS - I have been away for work and have only just logged on. Cheers
I haven't got time for a huge reply. The pig-headed sod reference applies to anyone. It was not you in particular. Basically, causing gratuitous offence is not pleasant. Surely it is good manners to apologise if offence is caused. Some people are easily offended when no offence was meant. Some people are not offended at all but others take offence on their behalf.
It all boils down to common sense and sheer decency. I wish to speak my mind but I do not wish to be offensive. Simple, really.
Post a Comment