Repsonding to the news of Prince Harry’s race row video – in which he refers to two army friends as a ‘Paki’ and ‘raghead’ – Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has made clear his dismay:
Mr Clegg added his voice to those criticising Prince Harry’s remarks, saying he would have sacked a member of his team for saying such things. Asked about Prince Harry’s comments, he said: “He should not have used those words, it would have cause considerable offence.” And asked if he would have had to sack a member of his team for using such language, he added: “I would almost certainly have to, yes.” (Source: PoliticHome.com).
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1565
Liverpool needs to catch up with London in the fight for clean air
A library on the site of an old fire station
Ruth Bright
Jana
paul barker
Peter Chambers
Hywel
9 Comments
And asked if he would have had to sack a member of his team for using such language, he added: “I would almost certainly have to, yes.”
But would he have had the speaker expelled from the party?
Sara
I agree that the language is totally unacceptable, but who offended the most people: Harry, or the gossip mongers who repeated the same words?
Responsible reporting (fat chance) would just say that Harry used unacceptably racist language in a home video. Those who use the same offensive words, whether reporting someone else’s comments or not, are equally culpable in my book.
But what I think is more important is not whether apologies are sufficient, but evidence that the mindset that produced the comments in the first place has changed.
In the case of Harry, three years is a very long time and is unlikely to reflect the way he thinks now, so what is all the fuss about, except to cause unnecessary offence in order to sell newspapers.
But I guess that’s what papers like that do…
I’m very glad he has condemned the words.
Dear Spaghetti Monster, why do we have to put up with this bunch of reactionary parasites (the royals not the press)…
’bout time we grew out of all this fawning, forelock-tugging subservience!
[paddy for prez!]
Sorry – the anon is me – for some reason it longer puts up my name automatically and i forgot to enter it…
In my seven years in the Forces, I served with the following:
Several Paddys;
A couple of Micks (no, that wasn’t their real name);
Two black guys, called ‘Chalky’ and ‘Roots’ respectively;
An Asian lad called ‘Cornershop’.
Were these racist nicknames? Nope. They were good colleagues, good naval ratings and good mates.
It’s just a name. Intent is everything.
This is just something old and irrelevant for the Tabloid Gutter to get themselves aerated about – nothing more.
D
“And asked if he would have had to sack a member of his team for using such language, he added: “I would almost certainly have to, yes.”
Eexcept when our leader is universally known by his racially based nickname given to him in his Army days?
Hywel, never say someone who was a Royal Marine was in the Army.
Dungeekin has a point there is different mind set in the forces. Still think Harry was a pratt, but you have to make allowances for Guards officers. He has undone all the fine work of his father.
“Hywel, never say someone who was a Royal Marine was in the Army.”
Big Ooooops!