[Archived] Unimportant Sensationalism

[thenodrog]

These people know absolutely sweet FA about dogs and everything about being aggravating agitating prats.

http://news.aol.co.uk/prince-accused-of-hi...170855094373196

Obviously limp-wristed and outraged Andrew and Barry need to find out the hard way that you do not grab the collar of any dog when it's fighting another. It's not the fact that they are knobheads that irks it's that they get publicity to allow them their 5 minutes of fame so easily.

[tony gale's mic]

Any minor issue with the Royals gets blown out of all proportion, whether it's someone hitting their dog, someone being unfaithful or someone perishing in a car crash. No great surprise.

Re the title of the thread: Don't you read the Mail/the Express? Apologies if I'm wrong, but I thought I've seen you sticking up for one or both of those papers before. If you do, you should be quite accustomed to unimportant sensationalism...

[thenodrog]

Re the title of the thread: Don't you read the Mail/the Express? Apologies if I'm wrong, but I thought I've seen you sticking up for one or both of those papers before. If you do, you should be quite accustomed to unimportant sensationalism...

I don't blanket judge newspapers. (apart from the red tops which don't really qualify. ). Most contain both good and bad reporting and editing to some degree. I must say I've never ever found one to totally suit thats why I rarely buy any. What I don't agree with is narrow minded people saying it's crap cos it's in the Guardian / Express / Telegraph / Mail etc.

[tony gale's mic]

Fair enough. But I think it's the degrees of bad reporting which people judge these papers by.

Anyway, off topic...

[colin]

Buckingham Palace said Edward waved his stick in a bid to break up a fight between his animals over a dead pheasant at the Queen's Sandringham estate, Norfolk.

Shame he didn't shoot his dog & hit the pheasant with a stick. That would have been worth something.

[broadsword]

If you think it's ever necessaery to hit a dog with a stick then you know SFA about dogs.

[OscarRaven]

If you think it's ever necessaery to hit a dog with a stick then you know SFA about dogs.

I might know SFA about dogs but I can think of the odd times it would be approppite to hit a dog with a stick.

Mauling a child for example? Their not all sweet little poodles Bryan.

[jim mk2]

Mauling a child for example? Their not all sweet little poodles Bryan.

Smash it over the head with a spade would be a better course of action.

[broadsword]

I might know SFA about dogs but I can think of the odd times it would be approppite to hit a dog with a stick.

Mauling a child for example? Their not all sweet little poodles Bryan.

If your dog is mauling a child then you're training it wrong!

[Flopsy]

no such thing as a bad dog, just bad owners.

[broadsword]

Indeed.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

After launching an investigation, the RSPCA has said that Prince Edward will not be prosecuted for animal cruelty, as there was "insufficient evidence" to support the allegation that Edward beat his black Labrador with a walking stick.

So he's not a cruel sick puppy beater, as some within the press appeared to suggest.

Meanwhile there's more sensationalism, anger and outrage surrounding a different royal in today's newspapers.....

The News Of The World calls it "video shame". It's not as if Harry has been videoed engaging in the type of depraved sado-masochistic activities with prostitutes that Max Mosley, for example, apparently took part in.

All it involves is what St James's Palace has said was an affectionate nickname that Harry has used about a friend for three years without any malice.

But outraged politicians and the usual rent-a-quote brigade have been rushing to the TV studios today to condemn what they call the "deeply offensive" comments from Harry.

Tory softie David Cameron said that Harry's comments were "completely unacceptable". Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Cabinet minister John Denham have said that Harry's words were highly offensive.

The Ramadhan Foundation - which can always be relied upon to provide an outraged quote - have called Prince Harry a "thug". Political activist Aki Nawaz - no doubt desperate to see his name in the newspapers - has said that Harry's words are "absolutely disgusting and he should be dismissed from the MoD."

Good grief. Talk about an over-reaction. Is Mr Nawaz also in floods of tears as well after hearing Harry's affectionate nickname for his friend?

No doubt Trevor Phillips and others within the bloated over-funded race relations industry will also be going to the TV studios over the next day or two to have their say as well.

If Prince Harry had used the word "Pakistani" to describe his friend, would that also have been "completely unacceptable and deeply offensive" ? Or is it just if the name is shortened to "Paki"?

If I remember rightly Gordon you told the story a few years ago of how you were driving along the streets of Blackburn with some kids in the back of your car. You spotted some elaborately dressed females walking along the side of the road and said: "Look at those lovely Pakistani women over there."

Immediately the kids in the back of the car said: "We're not allowed to say that word. We've been told by our teacher that it's a naughty word to use and we're not allowed to say it."

Presumably describing someone's nationality as ""Spanish" or "Italian" or "German" or "French" isn't offensive in the eyes of that particular myopic teacher. So why is the word "Pakistani" to describe somebody's nationality apparently so offensive?

To others within the PC Brigade the word "Pakistani" is just about acceptable, but God forbid if the word is actually shortened or abbreviated.

Presumably if an Asian man used the abbreviated term "Brit" to describe the British Prince Harry then that wouldn't be offensive.

[tony gale's mic]

AESF, you're an idiot. Plain and simple.

The word "Paki" might be short for Pakistani, but language evolves and acquires meanings over time, or else insinuating someone was gay could just be defended by saying they were particularly jolly. Anyone, but anyone in the UK (it's different down in Oz for example) knows full well that the word is used as a pejorative term to describe someone of South Asian origin. Harry would have known this, his friend would also have known this. You whack "paki" into google and see what results come up. You put "Brit" into google and then see what comes up. How anyone can claim otherwise is just another example of stunning stupidity from those on the far right.

Now I'm not saying this automatically means Harry is a racist - you'd hope and think that someone who's had a good education and been exposed to many different cultures as he has wouldn't be racist. The word "thug" is extreme. But it doesn't mean that it's an acceptable term to use, I'm fairly sure that his friend would have felt quite uncomfortable at the term being used, just as a black person would feel uncomfortable if Harry had used the 'N' word at him in that situation. The fact that Harry additionally used the word "raghead" which is another pejorative term hardly helps his cause either.

Still, this was three years ago, an apology was definitely warranted but now it's best to put this matter to bed and move on.

I do find it hilarious folk like yourself lamenting "unimportant sensationalism" though. Maybe you don't see the irony.

[Sandiway Blue]

It does seem strange though how I have an asian mate who calls his mates`paki`s`.

As we have a few asian members on here It would be interesting to hear their take on the phrase and how they view the meaning.

[tony gale's mic]

It does seem strange though how I have an asian mate who calls his mates`paki`s`.

And there's groups of black people who call each other ni**ers. Doesn't make it acceptable for someone else to refer to them as that.

[Sandiway Blue]

And there's groups of black people who call each other ni**ers. Doesn't make it acceptable for someone else to refer to them as that.

I do agree and i think it is derogatory to call sombody in that way,but it does seem the only people who kick up a fuss are the white left wing loonies.

There have been many instances where black people have been murdered by white people,and white people are murdered by black people.But the murders that hit the front page headlines are the black people murdered by white people.The tragic cases of Damilola Taylor and Stephen Lawrence are a couple of examples,everybody has heard of the cases and everybody knows what happened,yet cases like Gavin Hopley don`t even get a mention in the national media,and he certainly didn`t get a community centre named after him.

Within the media it is a one way street with regards to racism.

[tony gale's mic]

I do agree and i think it is derogatory to call sombody in that way,but it does seem the only people who kick up a fuss are the white left wing loonies.

There have been many instances where black people have been murdered by white people,and white people are murdered by black people.But the murders that hit the front page headlines are the black people murdered by white people.The tragic cases of Damilola Taylor and Stephen Lawrence are a couple of examples,everybody has heard of the cases and everybody knows what happened,yet cases like Gavin Hopley don`t even get a mention in the national media,and he certainly didn`t get a community centre named after him.

Within the media it is a one way street with regards to racism.

Was Gavin Hopley a racially motivated attack or was it just an attack by a bunch of asian thugs? I've googled it and there's no mention of it being racially motivated. Maybe it was, who knows what was going on in the minds of those men but with Stephen Lawrence there's evidence that it was racially motivated, what with certain words being used at the time of the attack etc.

Either way the fact the man who's third in line to the throne is using language like that is definitely newsworthy IMO, although hopefully this will be over as soon as it started given how long ago it was. And AESF's post is nothing short of utterly ignorant.

Any murder by a group of one race on another could potentially be racially motivated, but it's far more likely for the minority to be "singled out" than for the overwhelming majority to be "singled out". Racism is a completely two way street, but I'm sure you can see what I mean here.

[Sandiway Blue]

Gavin Hopley`s murder was racially motivated (it was in the local media at the time) it is a well known fact in Oldham that there are no-go areas where asians rule the `turf` as it were,however this isn`t jumped on by the national media.Can you imagine the furore if it was the other way round?

In Britain there is such a clamour to be seen as anti-racist that in fact we become racist ourselves,but towards white people.We hear all the time how certain professions are criticised for not having enough members of the ethnic community.

When my asian mate started work at our place he asked why there was no asians or blacks working there,to which my manager replied "if they don`t apply then how can we employ them?".

My mate Naz used to call us white this and white that but we never batted an eyelid as it was clearly meant as banter and was always in a jokey manner.Whereby Prince Harry`s mate is concerned,i doubt very much that he will have batted an eyelid on being called a `paki` especially in an environment where comraderie(sp?) and trust are so important and a sense of togetherness is so important.But as always the British media will jump on the royal family like a ton of bricks.

[Guest Kamy100]

Well personally I hate the phrase "paki", many, many times people who have wanted to racially abuse me have used that phrase, normally preceded by "get out of our country you ****** Paki". It is also factually incorrect as the last time I checked my passport I was British (and damn proud if it).

The media was always going to job on this story, I agree it shouldn't be given the prominence that it is being given, there are far more important things going on in this country and internationally that warrant media intention. It does appear that the colleague he made this comment to took no offense to it. I know nothing about the army or how it operates, the few so called "experts" on the news today have said this type of language is the norm in the army so maybe that is an issue that needs to addressed.

At the end of the day it happened three years ago, Harry was incredibly stupid to make the comments and allow it to be recorded. I don't believe that he is racist and am sure that he has matured in the three years since he made those comments.

[BuckyRover]

The Army is so far removed from "normal" life that I don't think us civvies can pass too much judgement upon it. Obviously inherent racism and bullying should not be part and parcel of Army life but I have seen nothing in Prince Harry's comments to make me think that is the case.

This is simply gutter journalism. Make even more apparent by the fact this took place over 3 years ago. Since then Harry has fought on the frontline for his country. That says far more about him than any throwaway comment he has made which has subsequently been taken out of context.

[American]

Paki is as offensive a word as Yank - they both are nicknames to describe someone from a particular country, and both have negative connotations.

I bet you Harry wouldn't have had any problems calling someone a Yank.

Oh, and Smitty, I'm very disappointed - the first thing I thought of after Ronaldo (the daft one) smashed his car was that you were probably already working on your rant.

[tony gale's mic]

Paki is as offensive a word as Yank - they both are nicknames to describe someone from a particular country, and both have negative connotations.

No, Paki is used indiscriminately here to describe anyone of South Asian origin, be they Pakistani, Indian, Bangladesh or Sri Lankan. It's therefore it's a word used to a race of people and can be compared to ni**er, except without the slavery connotations that come with that word obviously.

It's like how people will use the word "chink" in this country even if folks are from Korea, Japan etc.

[BuckyRover]

Paki is as offensive a word as Yank - they both are nicknames to describe someone from a particular country, and both have negative connotations.

I bet you Harry wouldn't have had any problems calling someone a Yank.

Oh, and Smitty, I'm very disappointed - the first thing I thought of after Ronaldo (the daft one) smashed his car was that you were probably already working on your rant.

That shows a very poor understanding of how the term has been used and still continues to be used.

It is certainly not the same as calling somebody a yank. It may be similar to calling somebody a ******* fat yank

[Billy Castell]

I'd say Harry's upholding his grandad's traditions, but.........................................

I won't finish that sentence otherwise I'll be in the tower!

[Bazzanotsogreat]

No excuse for Harry; but does it really warrant this amount of media attention- defiantly not.

Funny that none of the liberal brigade have picked up on some of the anti-Semitic remarks coming out of London after yesterday’s counter- Israel peace march.