The Prince, The Paki and The Apology...

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is it with people? Prince Harry is obviously joking around and being one of the guys and all hell breaks loose? Do you think Pakistani's have a chip on their shoulder? Have you ever known or worked around or with Pakistani's...especially the upper class ones? Do you think the British Pakistani people on tv crying racism is too much to do about nothing?

And what's*up with the British PM? He calls the Prince's words racist but then goes on to say the apology clears things. Is he working all sides?


I say context...Harry was in the military recording a personal diary.
The outrage? He was going to war. Give me a break, many people say or do stupid things that have a different more sinister meaning when taken out of context.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Monday condemned Prince Harry's use of racist language as “unacceptable” but said the apologetic young royal now deserves the nation's "benefit of the doubt.”

Nevertheless, the 24-year-old prince who was filmed calling decorated Pakistani fellow-cadet Ahmed Raza Khan a "Paki" three years ago, was set to face a probe by the British army.

Brown, speaking after widespread criticism of the prince from leading British politicians, said he believed Harry's apology was genuine.

"I think Prince Harry knows that these comments are unacceptable and I think he has made an apology... These comments have no part in our life and I think he is meeting his commanding officer quite soon to talk about them," the British premier said.

"I think the sincerity of his apology cannot be doubted. It was a mistake, he has made the admission of that and, once he has made his apology, I think the British people are good enough to give someone who has actually been a role model for young people and has done well fighting for our country, gone into very difficult situations with bravery, I think they will give him the benefit of the doubt," he added.

The defence ministry indicated that the Prince, who is third in line to the British throne, could face disciplinary action though the inquiry will not be a formal one as no complaint has been filed over the comments that were made three years ago.

"The army does not tolerate inappropriate behaviour in any shape or form,” an army spokesman said.

“The army takes all allegations of inappropriate behaviour very seriously and all substantive allegations are investigated. This specific case will be dealt with in line with normal army procedures."

Harry has already apologised for calling Khan a 'Paki' and another comrade 'raghead' - a derogatory term for Arabs - while filming fellow-cadets of his Sandhurst military school.

Harry, 24, is likely to be summoned by Lt. Col. Harry Fullerton, Commanding Officer of his Household Cavalry Regiment at Combermere Barracks in Windsor for a dressing down that is known as 'interview without coffee,' the Sun reported.

“Harry will be hauled before the top brass over this, just as any other young officer would. His Commanding Officer will certainly give him a stern telling off. But as there has been no formal complaint, it will probably not go any further than that,” the Mirror quoted an unnamed insider as saying.

Meanwhile, leading British politicians from all parties described Harry's remarks as irresponsible and unacceptable in modern Britain.

Opposition Conservative party leader David Cameron called Harry's use of the racist term "completely unacceptable" and urged the army to "root out" such attitudes.

Asked if he would sack a member of his own frontbench team who used phrases like that uttered by the prince, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg replied: "Almost certainly I would have to. Yes."

Keith Vaz, Britain's longest-serving MP of South Asian origin, said: “I can't think of any circumstances in the House of Commons where I or anyone else has been called a Paki. This word is unacceptable, wounding and ought to be - as it has been - widely condemned.”

 

[Diuretic]

There's a bit of history to the term "Paki". Go back to the, I think, late 1970s, early 1980s. "Paki-bashing" was sport for young British Anglo-Saxon lads. Young men of South Asian background were easy sport for a few reasons. They tend to be relatively physically slight when put up against the average "Lager lout". They also tend not to roam in bands monstering people. They are quiet and family-oriented and not into getting pissed off their faces in pubs and glassing the first poor innnocent bastard who comes along. So, they suffered. In silence. The term "Paki" was applied to anyone who was anywhere near that profile, just about anyone from the sub-continent got the label and the treatment from the louts. It was a term of the deepest derision. It implied cowardice, softness and unwillingness to resist and to fight back. All that which is know to the Brits simply by living in their culture. Harry may have been pulling his mate's leg but it would have stung I think. That's probably why some Brits are bloody annoyed at him.

And just on an associated point, people wonder why the London bombers were British-born young men of families originally from the sub-continent?

 

[del]

There's a bit of history to the term "Paki". Go back to the, I think, late 1970s, early 1980s. "Paki-bashing" was sport for young British Anglo-Saxon lads. Young men of South Asian background were easy sport for a few reasons. They tend to be relatively physically slight when put up against the average "Lager lout". They also tend not to roam in bands monstering people. They are quiet and family-oriented and not into getting pissed off their faces in pubs and glassing the first poor innnocent bastard who comes along. So, they suffered. In silence. The term "Paki" was applied to anyone who was anywhere near that profile, just about anyone from the sub-continent got the label and the treatment from the louts. It was a term of the deepest derision. It implied cowardice, softness and unwillingness to resist and to fight back. All that which is know to the Brits simply by living in their culture. Harry may have been pulling his mate's leg but it would have stung I think. That's probably why some Brits are bloody annoyed at him.

And just on an associated point, people wonder why the London bombers were British-born young men of families originally from the sub-continent?

thanks for the background, Di. i didn't understand why paki was considered derisive. makes sense to me, now.

 

[Diuretic]

You're welcome del - I might be corrected by our Brit members on this but I'm pretty sure I'm somewhere near the truth anyway.

 

[del]

You're welcome del - I might be corrected by our Brit members on this but I'm pretty sure I'm somewhere near the truth anyway.

damn pommies. i'll stick with your version.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There's a bit of history to the term "Paki". Go back to the, I think, late 1970s, early 1980s. "Paki-bashing" was sport for young British Anglo-Saxon lads. Young men of South Asian background were easy sport for a few reasons. They tend to be relatively physically slight when put up against the average "Lager lout". They also tend not to roam in bands monstering people. They are quiet and family-oriented and not into getting pissed off their faces in pubs and glassing the first poor innnocent bastard who comes along. So, they suffered. In silence. The term "Paki" was applied to anyone who was anywhere near that profile, just about anyone from the sub-continent got the label and the treatment from the louts. It was a term of the deepest derision. It implied cowardice, softness and unwillingness to resist and to fight back. All that which is know to the Brits simply by living in their culture. Harry may have been pulling his mate's leg but it would have stung I think. That's probably why some Brits are bloody annoyed at him.

And just on an associated point, people wonder why the London bombers were British-born young men of families originally from the sub-continent?

they need to grow a thicker skin. they become bombers because they suffer the indignities of life as outsiders with odd customs and a chip on their shoulders?


I know they suffered racism, but so does everyone else. Fuk Paki bombers..

please do not misconstrue my hate for bombers with all Pakistanis. I am not anti-Paki, but I am anti the shitty attitude of many of them

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

thanks for the background, Di. i didn't understand why paki was considered derisive. makes sense to me, now.

I understood. I don't care. They need to stop the wallowing in victim-hood.

Shit!

 

[Diuretic]

they need to grow a thicker skin. they become bombers because they suffer the indignities of life as outsiders with odd customs and a chip on their shoulders?


I know they suffered racism, but so does everyone else. Fuk Paki bombers..

please do not misconstrue my hate for bombers with all Pakistanis. I am not anti-Paki, but I am anti the shitty attitude of many of them

It's speculation in my part, that's all, there's no evidence that I'm aware of that goes to proving it. In fact my speculation could be trashed because while "Paki-bashing" was going on for years and one would think there were many, many victims, that there should have been a lot more bombings or at least conspiracies to bomb. There have been a few prosecutions of conspirators that probably didn't hit world headlines in a big way because police and security were able to grab them before they could do anything, but not in the numbers you'd expect even if 1 in 2 victims turned radical bomber. So, there must be other reasons for some South Asian young men to become radicalised.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's speculation in my part, that's all, there's no evidence that I'm aware of that goes to proving it. In fact my speculation could be trashed because while "Paki-bashing" was going on for years and one would think there were many, many victims, that there should have been a lot more bombings or at least conspiracies to bomb. There have been a few prosecutions of conspirators that probably didn't hit world headlines in a big way because police and security were able to grab them before they could do anything, but not in the numbers you'd expect even if 1 in 2 victims turned radical bomber. So, there must be other reasons for some South Asian young men to become radicalised.

culture, religion and insecurities...some of the 911 terrorists were not uneducated poor people. fed a constant diet of inferiority and a culture with a chip on the shoulder and you get a class of misanthropic losers.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't now much about the 9/11 terrorists, I thought though they were Saudis primarily and some of them well educated and privileged. I don't know where their fanaticism came from but perhaps it was from their religion rather than from their politics, but not sure.

The London bombers, I don't know much about their antecedents either (I don't much about stuff do I? ) but I suspect they might well come under the theory I've so cheekily sought to advance.