Monday, 12 January 2009

The One That Wonders What More They Want. . .

Well, what more can he do? Does the father want Harry to parade around Windsor Castle, naked, whipping himself?

Let's make an important distinction here, only a small point, but an important one. He called this chap 'Paki' not 'A Paki'. There is a difference.

Before I get buried under a tirade of accusations of being an apologist for racism, I'm not. The word Paki is not a word I would choose to use, but please, can we have some proportionality here?

This was the guy's nickname, doesn't make it right, but he was referring to this guy by his nickname, I do not think it was an intentionally derogatory term.

From what I understand, this happened a few years ago. So why all the fuss now? I'm guessing it is to do with the fact that Harry is a Prince. Righteous people don't like Royals, they've got what they have due to an accident of birth and they don't need the Righteous. The Righteous HATE this. I personally think it is the best way, this way the top job goes to a lad or a lass who wouldn't probably apply for it in the first place. I'd rather have someone who falls into the job than someone who really, really wants it. Every single member of the Righteous wants to be King, Queen or Righteously acceptible title so much that it hurts. This is to be discouraged.

We've heard from the Father of this chap, how much was he paid for his time? Why have we not had a teary eyed classmate of Harry's in the media saying how it crushed his spirit and left him bereft of confidence, full of impotent anger? I'll tell you why not, this guy is now a serving soldier, people are going shooting bullets and throwing grenades at him, if he can't cope with a nickname, he'll shit himself when he's out in the field, he's bigger than a word.

Was he offended by it? Well until such time as I hear he has been, I couldn't care less. My concern will only be marginally increased if he does make this pronouncement.

'Ahhhhh', I hear you say, 'that's not the point. He, or someone else, could have been offended.'

Right, so let's deal with that. If you're getting offended on someone else's behalf, I say this: Get a fucking life and stop being so precious. It's nothing to do with you. I can't stand these offendees by proxy. Has it really offended you? Did it send you to your room in floods of tears and make you listen to The Smiths? If it has then you are in for one hell of a shock when someone does something directed at you. Best you go run yourself a nice warm bath, slit your wrists and welcome the Angel of Death, life is too hard for you. (Remember kids, you go down the street, not across it.)

If all these people reserve the right to take offence, I reserve the right to give it. Freedom of expression, deal with it, I really do find your constant moaning, whining and posturing on behalf of people perfectly able to speak for themselves to be self important, patronising and, yes, offensive. Will you stop? No thought not.

OK, he could have been offended. Well when I drove home from work this afternoon, I could have been killed in car crash, when I walk to the shop later, I could be brutally stabbed to death, when Chay Blyth became the first man to sail single handedly non-stop round the world in a westerly direction, he could have drowned. Let's not focus on what could have happened, let us focus on what has happened.

This horrible, divisive and spineless attitude is destroying us. I work in an office where people are frightened to say anything to anybody, we've had the training that says if you offend someone, your arse is history. It doesn't matter if offence is meant, it only matters if it is taken. Policy states that if someone offends you, you should complain to a manager. Well, I won't, if someone offended me, I'd take them to one side and say 'you've been a bit of a prick there mate, don't do it again, please.' 99% of the time, the offender would apologise instantly and be genuinely saddened that they'd offended me, as they wouldn't have meant it. Intent is everything.

The result? Black, Muslim, [insert minority of choice here] staff are excluded from social interaction. Not in a display of 'institutional racism' but because an aggressive 'diversity' policy has meant anyone from outside of their ethno-religious group is petrified of talking to them. Does this make the black guy or the Muslim girl happy? Does it make life easy for everyone else? No.

It does mean the Righteous can tell these people that we are evil for excluding them, and they can rely on the Righteous to look after them. Mission accomplished. The Righteous are just as bad as the properly racist people, they both fill lives with isolation and misery.


NinkyNonk said...

Once again, an absolutely spot on post.
I am sick and tired of some 3rd party little Hitler taking offence over something they may have overheard that had nothing whatsoever to do with them.
I too work in an office where you can't say boo to the proverbial goose, the goose doesn't get upset so why should they?
It has been shown if you ram political correctness down too many throats, the worms will, in the end, turn.

Anonymous said...

This "story" is three years old. Why has it only just surfaced? I smell the sulphurous odour of the Prince of Darkness at work here.

Harry = toff Tories = toffs.
Harry = bigot therefore QED Tories are biots and therefore they are the "nasty party"