What complicates the issue is that (supposedly) the chap called “Sooty” actually likes his nickname. If this is the case, who are we to interfere?

If I had had a nickname at school I for one would tell any third party who didn’t like it to mind his own business.

People from Pakistan should be called Paks I suppose like Uzbechs or Kurds .

Well said! – I was uneasy about the BBC coverage of your views and there’s a nice discussion of them and mine in OK
http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/anthony-barnett/2009/01/13/dare-i-disagree-with-sunny#comment-489975

Where are the words used, that’s the key thing. If they’re not used in public, and not used with offensive intention, then who cares? People that are spying by proxy on private situations through the media? Like we should give two shits what they think. It’s only even a story because it’s the royal family, meanwhile how many people are acting in a truly prejudiced or racist manner without being anyting less than polite and politically correct to those that they are using or abusing?

Priorities really need to be re-arranged, making people feel guilty about whatever words they use with their friends or in their own company is just pointless, start making people feel guilty about the discriminatory actions they take, knowingly or not, instead.

It is completely beyond me how anyone who has grown up in Britain since the 70s can think that it is ever acceptable to call someone a ‘paki’. Even in jest.

At the very least this demonstrates how out of touch the Royals are and how much of a bubble they live in.

The most shocking thing I’ve heard out of all of this was on the Today programme where some toady MP suggested that it was fine for Harry to call another officer a ‘paki’ because they were of the same social status. He’s third in line to the fucking throne and while I don’t know the background of ‘Ahmed’, I somehow doubt that he’s of the same social status as Prince Harry.

“He’s third in line to the fucking throne and while I don’t know the background of ‘Ahmed’, I somehow doubt that he’s of the same social status as Prince Harry.”

Kind of missing the point that social status is relative to situation really aren’t you? You can be a king, but if you’re kidnapped and imprisoned your active social status is only ever going to be on par with the other prisoners.

Well said, Sunny.
And the most pathetic thing is the trite fingerpointing at “political correctness”.

RIchard,
but this is the Royal Family, for f***’s sake. I mean, if the superior creatures in charge of Britain, those who were chosen by God to leave, can routinely, jokingly, light-heartedly, walk around mouthing off words like “paki”, “raghead” or “sooty”, then where do we draw the line?

But especially in the case of Harry, I’m afraid it’s all perfectly in line with what I personally see as the “tabloidisation of society”. The resurgence of geezery oboxiousness dressed up as ‘lairy’ behaviour.

And far be it for me to sound like Mary Whitehouse, but a bit of ‘cheeky’ here, and a bit of ‘wacky’ there, and “I’m only being shocking”, and “we’re just ‘avin a laff’, and ‘god you’re so boring’ and ‘I’m only being provocative’ – and to be honest we’re heading miles away from the ‘Politically Correct world’ the Sun and the Mail like to go on about.

Re: #7
I meant “chosen by God to lead”, not “leave”. Freudian slip, perhaps…

“but this is the Royal Family, for f***’s sake. I mean, if the superior creatures in charge of Britain, those who were chosen by God to leave, can routinely, jokingly, light-heartedly, walk around mouthing off words like “paki”, “raghead” or “sooty”, then where do we draw the line?”

Fair point but I wouldn’t be so sure that a politician as head of state would necessarily be any better. One only has to look at Berlusconi in Italy.

“It is completely beyond me how anyone who has grown up in Britain since the 70s can think that it is ever acceptable to call someone a ‘paki’. Even in jest.”

You would be surprised. I live in a very middle class area and some of the (whispered) jokes down the pub are of a racial nature. That said they are told for shock factor rather than out of malice. Conversely, jokes about homosexuality tend not to get such a laugh because homophobia is yet to be seen as bad as racism i.e. there is less of a taboo to break.

I find it rather shocking that these two men enjoyed the best education money can buy, yet don’t appear to know the difference between an adjective and a proper noun.

/lynnetruss

I fail to see how the fact that Berlusconi and his government have repeatedly used racist and inappropriate language exonerates our Royal Family in any shape or form…!?

Just over a month ago LC published an article I wrote about Berlusconi’s Italy and growing racism there, so no-one’s argue it’s better “there”…

Now, back to the point. Prince Harry dropped a massive, inexcusable, clanger.

“Now, back to the point. Prince Harry dropped a massive, inexcusable, clanger.”

…If you’re pent up about syntax over context. Even if Harry did use the words because of a latent discrimination for such people, shouldn’t the fuss be over his actual beliefs and what drives him in to discrimination, rather than what he said to express those inner feelings?

If someone was shouting racist slurs at someone in the street, I know the thing I would be worried about would be why exactly that person felt the need to do that, and why they have become racist, than to the relatively insignificant issue of what language they use because of it. If only it were as simple as solving a vocabulary issue!

Jesus, if people actually thought about things…

You need to start out by working out why you object to people using the word Paki. Saying that it’s generally used by racists and bigots doesn’t cut it. Saying that it’s offensive to the target Pakistani person would cut it, if it were true, but Harry probably didn’t mean it in an offensive way.

As for “Sooty”, that’s literally the most pathetic racist jibe I’ve ever heard, if indeed it is one, which of course it isn’t. Would be it be wrong to give a fat guy the nickname “Fatty”? Would it be wrong to give a ginger buy the nickname “Ginge”? If not, why is it wrong to give someone a nickname based on their skin color?

Yeah yeah I know, the history of racism… There comes a time to forgive and forget though, and super-rich Kolin Dhillon clearly has, since he doesn’t mind being called Sooty. So where’s the harm?

Oh dear! Just when LC was starting to go up in my estimation by avoiding the hypocrisy of joining the tabloid led hysteria on a non-story. The hypocrisy being that many features on here are attacks on such tabloid articles.

I think the defenders of Harry are wrong when they excuse the use of the word as an acceptable abbreviation of Pakistan. The term is insulting because its often accompanied with a derogatory noun or adjective.

However, it was used within the context of army culture, which is similar to some working-class cultures, where people refer to each other using insulting names. His colleagues may refer to him as “paki”, but they are prepared to risk their lives to support him. Contrast this with the so-called liberal middle-class who pay lip service to political correctness, but won’t even send their kids to the local multi-cultural schools.

Words like “Paki” have so much cultural baggage attached to them that they can never be reclaimed, or used in neutral terms.

I’m too frightened to think such words, let alone use them – right now, in fact, I’m having to wash my brain out with soap.

I `m not sure that these words are out of bounds for the purposes of humour though. One of the best comic strip presents was called “Yob “ and was an extended parody of “The Fly “ is which an Islington type metro sexual swaps genes with a ‘yob’ . There were some great moments, for example when he cut all his girlfriend’s achingly trendy dresses into v short mini skirts . “You’ve got the legs for it …”, and when she , in cut glass accent said “ I don’t understand , he got up early this morning ,, and said I’m working on the motor , what could that have possible meant ?”
When the protagonist is shown a long pretentious black and white grainy advert for approval he says “Yessssss …… but lose the sooty “ . In context it was pretty funny. Well I thought so

Writers

Keith Allen (written by) &
Daniel Peacock (written by)

Should these men be hounded as racists or punched in the face by Sunny Hundal ?

I think not

Harry uses the word ‘Paki’ – well no big suprise there then particularly as it was in an army setting. Is it wrong? Well yes it is. A suprise or unique in army life? No. Should it have been reported? Yes it should as it has only ever been used in a derogatory way but it does show that we have moved on a bit in this country.

As for the ‘Sooty’ business, I think it is interesting to note that Mr. Dhillon said ‘You know when you have arrived when you get a nickname’. Kind of reminded me of back in the day when you would get called ‘Chalkie’ because, well that was your nickname and now you were in with the white boys. Pathetic really, but it says more about Mr Dhillon than it does about the Windsors.

Paki, Sooty……..I blame the parents.

You’d think the kid has learnt by now that he has a public role to fill and he puts his whole family’s status at risk if he brings it into disrepute. If he enjoys the notoriety, he’ll enjoy it even more if he is banished to Bermuda and he is restricted from traveling.

14 – yes, I suspect that not all those who talk the talk necessarily walk the walk ?

I think the connotation of all these words come down to context, and the context should be respected. If the meaning is friendly (and it is accepted as friendly by both interlocutors) then its no-one else’s business. For example, I have been called a sand nigger by a good friend of mine, and its fine because in this context, it merely indicates our intimacy.

If anything, I think it is more the fault of the media for eavesdropping on private conversations. I don’t think there is anything wrong with using ANY words in private talk so long as the talk is not intended for wide dissemination.

I’m not sure why the army setting excuses anyone. My brother was in the army, I bet he would have still punched anyone who used the word raghead with him.

Is it racist? Yes.

How racist? Not as racist as bashing someone over the head because they’re Pakistani. Not as racist as saying it because you want them hurt them. More racist than not being racist at all.

Is the fuss disproportionate to the offence? Yes.

Unless I’ve missed something, that’s pretty much it.

Amazingly (I say amazingly, because he’s Tory-minded, though very good at exposing wibble-merchants and ‘alternative’ health practices) , Dr Crippen (NHS blog doctor) is rather good on this topic:
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2009/01/racist-abuse-sooty-paki-and-staff-grade.html

‘Paki’ is very, very, very, very widely known to be a derogatory, offensive, racist term. More so in Britain even than the ‘n-word’ arguably.

It is not OK for kids in the street to say it, for brickies to say it, for teachers to say it, for doctors to say it… and it sure as hell isn’t OK for those in line to the throne to say it (no matter whether they’re in the criticism-immune Armed Forces or not – what happened to holding ‘our boys’ to higher standards anyway?)

Moreover, Harry’s voiceover in the video isn’t a joshing, friendly, to-his-face, complicit use of the word. He says it about a colleague, at a distance in a condescending ‘there’s my little Paki friend’ tone. If most of us used that phrase about another colleague in a meeting then we’d rightly expect a severe reprimand.

A televised apology to Britain’s Asian community would do in this case I reckon. Or perhaps HMQ could apologise for her family in her speech next Christmas.

“‘Paki’ is very, very, very, very widely known to be a derogatory, offensive, racist term. More so in Britain even than the ‘n-word’ arguably.”

So how “ok” it is to say an offensive word is determined by populism and not by the actual level of offence it causes, or was meant to cause, in a given context? This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

“Moreover, Harry’s voiceover in the video isn’t a joshing, friendly, to-his-face, complicit use of the word. He says it about a colleague, at a distance in a condescending ‘there’s my little Paki friend’ tone. If most of us used that phrase about another colleague in a meeting then we’d rightly expect a severe reprimand.”

Do you know what the video was going to be used for or not? If you do, and you know for certain it was never going to be viewed by those he was talking about, please let us know how you’re so well connected. Until then realise your assumptions are just that.

So how “ok” it is to say an offensive word is determined by populism and not by the actual level of offence it causes, or was meant to cause, in a given context? This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

But isn’t the ‘populism’ of a word, by which I’m assuming you’re referring to the generally known connotations attached to a word, that determines the context.

Of course, context matters… if I tell my mate he’s a dog, its rather different to me saying that to someone randomly off the street. But if I called someone on a street a ‘hustler’, it may not elicit a violent response if it has no negative connotations attached.

So, context, as well as popular connotations attached to a word, matter.

What century do our monarchs live in?

Skipping deftly over the pedantic point that only the Queen can correctly be described as a monarch, not Chuck and Hal, I read somewhere that a good rule of thumb for assessing such a question is to take a look at what passes for formal dress in a particular environment and figure out which era it belongs to and when it stopped moving with the times.

In the case of the Royal Household – and Parliament – that seems to have happened sometime towards the back end of the 18th century, which fits fairly neatly with some of the antediluvian attitudes on display.

I should add that Justin has provided just about the most sensible and salient commentary on this issue to date:

I’m not sure I understand all the fuss about Prince Harry and his use of racial epithets like ‘paki’ and ‘raghead’. It is, after all, merely an explicit expression of the essential dehumanisation of our enemies (that is, in this instance, brown people) that allows our armed forces to do their jobs without going totally insane and that allows us to skip over the news of Middle Eastern atrocities without doing the same. Harry’s crime, it seems to me, is to openly express the taboo to which we’re all signed up. It’s a psychological defence mechanism appropriate to who we’re fighting at any given moment.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ChickenYoghurt/~3/509148134/

In the context of battlefield psychology he’s absolutely spot-on.

It is incredibly difficult to kill people you perceive to be human, even in the context of a war, hence the armed forces condition their recruits in a manner which consciously deprives the enemy of their humanity.

Even without the influence of his grandfather, Harry is merely speaking as would the vast majority of squaddies.

“So, context, as well as popular connotations attached to a word, matter.”

Populism only matters to the person hearing the word, not the person “giving” it, and as such is largely redundant in my eyes. I’ve said before on here, I accept there have to be social boundaries for certain situations to ensure the absurdly meek don’t get too offended simply by hearing a word without assessing whether or not it was used in mallice, and also to form part of keeping conversation polite in the appropriate arena due to the prejudices other people will hold to how we use language, regardless of our meaning; but in both of these cases of the royals those boundaries and environments don’t exist, and as such how “popular” the hatred for a term is becomes irrelevant, only the context remains so.

Words in themselves are not dangerous or discriminatory, it takes people to elevate them to that level, yet when we all cry racism and hate we ignore completely the person and concentrate solely on the word.

The bigger problem is that this is not the first time Harry has made a tit of himself. It amuses me because when they let the mask slip they show the real Royal Family, and not the fairy tale image that their apologists claim them to be.

But you will never change them or their grovelling supporters.. There is nothing they can do that will not be defended by some royal knee bender. All my life the Royal lobby has claimed that we keep them because they are “not political” (Leaving aside the fact that ‘not political ‘ has always meant ‘not left wing ‘ for little England) But now we are told that Charlie boy wants the right to keep speaking out when he becomes King. And all the Royal ass kissers say “oh yes Charles, please keep speaking out.” They are totally oblivious to the hypocrisy of their position.

The Royal family is only here for when we have a non Conservative govt. It allows all those chief Police officers, and all those military big wigs to have a non Conservative politician as head of state. When the Conservatives are back in power the head of state is then seen as the Tory leader by little England.

I don’t remember Gordon Brown wading into the Shilpa Shetty affair claiming the public would forgive Jade Goody. On that occasion it was an excuse to attack the entire working class. Apparently it brought us close to war with India or at least decimated our imports to the region: magazines ran headlines like ‘We hate you!’ over pictured of a mixed-race Z-lister.

It’s pretty clear that racist terms like Paki and Sooty are acceptable if you have a plum in your mouth; and this is a family where they still have colonialism -themed parties.

n.31 Shatterface.

Absolutely.
When Jade Goody came up with all that crap on Celebrity Big Brother she was literally slain by everybody, Prime Minister included. Yet she also apologised and said she didn’t mean any harm etc.
Prince Harry does it and of course the critics are “blowing it out of proportion”, “he’s just being a normal chap”, “it was harmless” and most serfs just go along with it. Because they like being the little subjects.

Some (not all) of the commenters here would stick up for him regardless. If he’d smacked someone in the mouth after calling him a “paki” they’d say that the guy’s cheek hit Harry’s fist or similar.

Some poster have raised the issue of context – which is likely to be the most stressful, a theatre of war or the BB household…………..difficult.

Are you guys really comparing an argument that lead to racism and xenophobic sentiment, however latent or regretted genuinely, to the situation Harry has been shown up in? Really?

Also, it’s key to remember this was Harry, if I’m not mistaken, 3 years ago. It’s not “Harry showing his colours again”, if any real discrimination can be found then it was happening at the same time as the Nazi uniform incident and so it is merely the press digging up another example of how we know Harry was then. It’s great to see so many of you taken the obviously factual leap that he simply *must* be still like that now.

It’s actually quite ironic is it not, that so many of you sit here and condemn the guy for this “scandal” while openly discriminating against the royal family based on very little evidence indeed and a whole lot of prejudice against people, such as those with “plums in their mouths”. Seriously, check yourself in the mirror guys before you go throwing those stones.

So the word ‘Paki’ only came out under fire? It must have been lurking in Harry’s mind somewhere so accessible it could pop into his mind while he was throwing himself on a grenade or whatever other terribly brave thing he must have been doing at the time

The telling point, Shatterface, is that he wasn’t under any stress or duress. We don’t know the context of the video, we don’t know the relationships, therefore we don’t know shit about how offensive it was in practice…unlike the BB row which was real arguments and, as we all know, we speak our minds when we’re angry. Well, at least people like Jade do.

It’s like with the Brand-Ross saga, something that those who were involved with, on the receiving end of, and listening to were perfectly happy with; and it wasn’t until the press started meddling in it that loads of people that were never going to have been involved made themselves offended.

Shatterface – I would imagine that the % of white people (as well as other non-Asian groups, actually) that have not used the word “Paki” at some point in their lives would be in the minority ?

It will take a few more generations before the historical thought patterns that brought about its use in the first place finally recede.

I’m a bit puzzled by Harry’s pronunciation of Ahmed’s name. Harry clearly says Akh-med, the less common pronunciation where I live. Either Harry knows Ahmed well enough to pronounce his name in preferred fashion, or Harry went to school with a couple of Akh-meds.

“It is completely beyond me how anyone who has grown up in Britain since the 70s can think that it is ever acceptable to call someone a ‘paki’. Even in jest.”

You lucky, lucky person.

to ensure the absurdly meek don’t get too offended simply by hearing a word without assessing whether or not it was used in mallice

I’m not sure what’s the point of saying someone has to take absurdly meek to take offence at words. If I said I was regularly banging your mum, we might find it difficult to then have a constructive conversation about protecting our civil liberties, for the reasons I outlined above. Words sometimes have connotations, and its not really that difficult to find someone if someone means it maliciously. From that, people are welcome to take whatever action they want. I said I might react violently, others might not. End of matter. I get the feeling you’re arguing for the sake of arguing…

Words in themselves are not dangerous or discriminatory, it takes people to elevate them to that level

Yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious Lee – I’d implied as much in my original post. If in the future you’d like me to state every single obvious assumption, feel free to ask and I’ll list them for you. As I said later, words also have connotations… which makes them nice or nasty.

while openly discriminating against the royal family

What? Discriminating, how? Saying they should stop sponging off our taxes is discrimination?

nurse:
“It will take a few more generations before the historical thought patterns that brought about its use in the first place finally recede.”

Insult is born, a few generations use it to insult, then a few generations pick it up from the previous one and it is less insulting, a few generations pick it up from them and completely disassociate the insult from the word, a few generations later those who were originally insulted co-opt the word, and finally in the modern day someone get’s upity about the history of a word and bitches about it online.

Maybe not so relevant to this particular example, but my my does it happen a lot!

Sunny:
“From that, people are welcome to take whatever action they want.”

It just creates too biased and imbalanced relationship in conversation to be acceptable to me. If I say something I’m meant to try and assess what you are going to think of me saying it, consider your views (if I know them) and the likelihood of offence.

If I misjudge that and say something you find offensive even though I meant no offence, you then get to take “whatever action you want” based entirely on what you’re feeling and how you believe such a term was meant. No clarification, no thought on context, apparently you have a green light to ignore your obligation based on your interpretation.

Perhaps, as some might argue, I shouldn’t say something that I know may offend someone…but how far down the line does that go? What actions and words will we lose outside of private (or in private if you’re a “celebrity”) because of some fear of offending someone? We’ve already got “extreme pornography” on the way out through this type of attitude.

It’s not political correctness I’m railing against here, it’s homogenisation of our interactions by some supposed moral majority.

“Yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious Lee – I’d implied as much in my original post. If in the future you’d like me to state every single obvious assumption, feel free to ask and I’ll list them for you. As I said later, words also have connotations… which makes them nice or nasty.”

Well it seems enough people are forgetting the obvious too easily then, aren’t they? Again, words don’t have connotations, people hear connotations. There are a few words that because of this you don’t say in public because the probability of offence is so high, hence the social boundaries, but that doesn’t mean that people can’t use them without risk of such connotations carrying in a more private group or setting. The only reason this is a fuss is because we’ve all seen and heard something that we shouldn’t have, and we’ve applied a global public context to it, wrongfully.

“What? Discriminating, how? Saying they should stop sponging off our taxes is discrimination?”

Just read the thread and the prejudices are obvious (at least…as obvious as Harry’s are from the video ). Or are you so prejudiced and ready to discriminate that you can’t even see you’re doing it (well, maybe not you specifically, but certain people).

“It’s not political correctness I’m railing against here, it’s homogenisation of our interactions by some supposed moral majority.”

That is pretty much what political correctness constitutes, the assertion that all speech is political, and has a specific legitimising/hegemonising correspondence, regardless of context.

the assertion that all speech is political, and has a specific legitimising/hegemonising correspondence, regardless of context.

Erm, this is rubbish. As far as I’m aware, PC was about re-drawing boundaries on what was polite behaviour. No one has to accept anything – there’s no laws being imposed here. It’s merely a continuation of what used to be called ‘etiquette’ in the past.

Right wingers and libertarians only complain because they’ve had to start being nice to ethnic minorities in front of their face, rather than getting away with calling them nigger and paki.

Lee:
If I say something I’m meant to try and assess what you are going to think of me saying it, consider your views (if I know them) and the likelihood of offence.

You would do this anyway. If you talk to a woman and are trying to chat her up, any intelligent person would know that you don’t say certain sexist things if you want to make a good impression. I don’t know why I have to start treating you folks like kids, as if you need to be taught that we constantly make calculations about our behaviour anyway. Language is merely one part of it.

As for the boundaries – its not that difficult. I’ve just said if you called me a Paki to my face and I don’t know you from Jack, I’ll punch you in the face.. That should give you some indication as to where the boundaries lie. If you’re still unclear, I suggest tapping some brown person on the shoulder and calling them a raghead. That might teach you a bit about boundaries.

Similarly, feel free to tap women on their shoulders and call them ‘cunt’ if you want to test out the boundaries of “politically correct behaviour”. If all this is too oppressive, then maybe you should move to…. erm some society that doesn’t rely on norms and etiquette as part of social interaction.

41 – Yes, the world would be a duller place without insults.
I suspect that they are hardwired, at least to a certain extent – and sometimes they are incredibly funny, of course.

Having said that some phrases, particularly those aimed en masse at certain groups, are simply beyond the pail and really should be consigned to the dustbin – as I said earlier it might take a while for the thought processes driving these utterances to diminish.

“Similarly, feel free to tap women on their shoulders and call them ‘cunt’ if you want to test out the boundaries of “politically correct behaviour”. If all this is too oppressive, then maybe you should move to…. erm some society that doesn’t rely on norms and etiquette as part of social interaction.”

I’ve already said I understand and agree with social boundaries, but the issue here is someone that socially wasn’t in a situation that had the same boundaries as were set up when the story was made in the papers. To ignore the situation that words were first said in and pretend they were said as if from a loud speaker to the world is ridiculous.

“I don’t know why I have to start treating you folks like kids, as if you need to be taught that we constantly make calculations about our behaviour anyway. Language is merely one part of it.”

You’ve clearly misunderstood, given this was my point. We do calculate what we say, however most of us clearly don’t calculate what we hear and try to understand what was said. It’s lazy and creates prejudice where none existed. I guess my real question is, what’s so hard in making your first reaction “Excuse me, but do you understand how that might have offended me?” rather than any other base reaction based on assumption through YOUR views alone?

“Erm, this is rubbish. As far as I’m aware, PC was about re-drawing boundaries on what was polite behaviour. No one has to accept anything – there’s no laws being imposed here. It’s merely a continuation of what used to be called ‘etiquette’ in the past.”

But there are. So people aren’t actually being legislated against having kinky sex in their own bedroom, but if they want to see other consensual adults having kinky sex they will now have to break the law. This bares a direct correlation to the debate about “insults”, how they’re used and the environment in which they’re used.

I’ve no doubt that most left/liberals here would say as long as what someone is watching or viewing is between two consenting adults, in their own privacy, that no-one should stand in the way of that. So why is it so hard to accept the same over what Harry’s done here? To draw direct comparison with Max Mosley, people were only offended by that because they knew about it…but what right did they have to know about something private like that? Being offended, or acting upon that offence, is false if it is born of viewing a situation out of context when we for all intents and purposes wouldn’t have ever been able to be privy to it without media intrusion.

nigger and paki.

I cannot see these two words are comparable . The phrase the Paki shop was not one used in malice for example . You say Sunny there is no law but there have been numerous stipulartions in Public Sector Employment about everthing from Irish jokes to the termn”Politically correct”

Lee, you say:

So why is it so hard to accept the same over what Harry’s done here? To draw direct comparison with Max Mosley, people were only offended by that because they knew about it…but what right did they have to know about something private like that?

I think the relevant line from my blog post that relates to that is:
If two friends are joking around with each other and use names for each other that may have racial connotations, frankly its no one else’s business.

Again, I think you’re arguing for its own sake.

If on the other hand, your point is that etiquette on language leads to a situation where people are being legislated about what kind of sex they can have, then I’m afraid you sound like one of those loony libertarians who thinks that even doing some police checks on child carers is a return of the police state.

Lee “So why is it so hard to accept the same over what Harry’s done here? To draw direct comparison with Max Mosley, people were only offended by that because they knew about it…but what right did they have to know about something private like that?”

With all due respect Lee, Max Mosley is not the son of the future head of state. Paid by the taxpayer. Harry’s brother is about to get £800 thousand pounds of tax payers cash to learn how to fly a rescue helicopter. I can think of better things that money could be spent on seeing as he is not going to be doing it as a full time job for the next 25 years. They Royals and their propagandists love to tell us how great they are, and how hard they work, and what a jolly good job they do, and how they are vital to the UK. Respect and taxpayers money should come with responsibilities.