The One That Is Saying 'Enough. Stop Now'. . .

It really does beggar belief. I can think of no pithy or salient introduction to this absolute arsewater, so let's just jump straight in, shall we?

Police have been urged to avoid using greetings such as "evening" and "afternoon", because the words are "somewhat subjective" and could cause confusion among those from different cultural backgrounds.

It's the Muslims, must be, they don't have afternoons, not proper afternoons like Christian people, their's are probably different. And because Senior Police are so consumed with the feeling that we aren't all just members of the public, this imaginary afternoon problem must be stamped out.

A spokesman added: "Terms such as 'afternoon' and 'evening' are somewhat subjective in meaning and can vary according to a person's culture or nationality. In many cultures the term evening is linked to time of day when people have their main meal of the day.

"In some countries including the UK, the evening meal time is traditionally thought of as being around 5-7pm but this might be different say for a family say from America who might have their main meal earlier and thus for them 'evening ' may be an earlier time.

This is just an avoidance of the old dinner/tea debate, isn't it?

'Hello? Is that the IPCC? This un-PC came around my gaff and accused me of having my tea, at dinner time, he thought I was common. I'm incredibly offended, I demand a five figure sum in compensation and that the officer be cast into a dark pit.'

That seems a little unlikely to me.

Confusingly, staff are also barred from using the word "homosexual", for which they are instructed to use the term "gay", while they are warned against using the phrase "straight", and told to say "heterosexual".

Right, well, that makes perfect sense then. I'm not gay and have no strong feelings on the gay/homosexual word debate, I understand that queer and poof are not well thought of, so that seems fair enough. Being straight (deep offended intake of breath) I don't particularly care if I'm referred to as straight, heterosexual or even just hetero. I was even called a 'Breeder' once, I think it was supposed to be perjorative, not that it bothered me.

I'm not a breeder, by the way, I'm a civil servant. Perhaps there's money in breeding? Perhaps I could do that instead?

Anyhow, let's think of the chiiiiiiiiiildren:

A number of organisations, among them Essex Police and Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, now instruct staff to avoid the phrases "child, youth or youngster".

The 52-page guide used by both organisations states that such phrases could have "connotations of inexperience, impetuosity, and unreliability or even dishonesty". It also states that addressing someone as "boy" or "girl" "may cause offence". Instead, officers and firemen are instructed to use the phrase "young people".

Well now hang on a moment, if you call the nearly dead 'old people' the indignant whining from the Righteous reaches such a pitch that dolphins start knocking on their front doors asking them to leave it out as it's giving them a headache. Surely this should be 'younger people'?

Now I really am offended.

London Fire Brigade instructs its staff not to use the terms "businessmen" or "housewives", because it says they "reinforce outdated stereotypes".

Does that mean that a married woman who raises the kids is an outdated stereotype? What about all those men who wear those off the peg suits and sit on the train into London everyday, on their way to an office where they do God knows what, but the end result seems to be a paunch, baldness, stomach ulcers and an aneurism? Are all they outdated stereotypes as well?

This, people of non-judgemental, all perfectly equal gender is what happens when you have a phalanx of equality and diversity officers.

Mrs. Snowolf has responsibility for the disability stuff at her place of work, most of it goes right over my head, the legislation seems to be complicated in the extreme, but given the phone calls she gets from other places for her advice, she seems quite good at it.

She writes the policy, makes sure it is applied and then puts the policy on the shelf. Once in a while, the policy is reviewed to make sure it is still current. Simple. If you employ Equality and Diversity Officers once all this stuff is done, they're left with nothing to do, so they have to dream up enemies, slights and struggles to be fought.

It's all bullshit, no-one is going to be offended because a Police officer rolls up at 1720 and says good evening, when you consider the evening to start at 1730.

Why not spend money on fighting crime and fires rather than agonising over what part of the day it is?

Give me strength. . .

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.