Free speech, eh?

[Workingman]

A British Council employee, Angela Gibbins, is being investigated for responding to a farcebook picture titled "Prince George already looks like a f****** d***head".

She is reported to have replied: "White privilege. That cheeky grin is the innate knowledge he's royal, rich, advantaged and will never know *any* difficulties or hardships in life.

"Let's find photos of 3yo Syrian refugee children and see if they look alike, eh?"

Does this mean that people can only say nice things about the Royal Family and avoid anything else for fear of being investigated and punished. What she said is very close to the truth and in a free country she should be able to say such things without fear or favour.

The problem is that we no longer have free speech, we have approved speech, step out of line and you are in deep trouble. You might even get charged with a hate crime.

[Kaz]

Pretty idiotic of her though, to say as much on social media. Like it or not, things you put out on there can come back to haunt you!

[Workingman]

Idiotic, maybe, Kaz, but why be 'investigated' for it? That is pretty macabre. There are undertones of threats should one not go with the flow.

Please do not take this the wrong way, it is not a Monarchy/Republican thing, it is about us as individuals being able to say things others do not like, within certain bounds. It was bad enough when the PC brigades were in full flow, but this has an air of officialdom about it, that those in high places will not tolerate criticism and action will be taken against those breaking the 'rules' set out by them.

[Suff]

It is British to poke fun and say things "in jest" which outline things we see need to be changed or things we don't like.

Or even to just have a laugh.

We're no longer British, because a smothering layer of officialdom doesn't want us to be..

If you are not on social media you can't say the wrong thing. The only "social media" I regularly talk on is VV. Beyond that I pretty much absent myself and I get more like that every year.

Given that people will never exit FB for 3 months to teach the authorities a lesson, this can only continue. Until people realise that in order to not put up with it, they have to inconvenience themselves along with those they want to get at.

[Kaz]

I'm not taking it the wrong way at all Frank, it doesn't affect me enough to get upset about it. I think she must be a deeply unpleasant woman to use such swear words about a 3 year old boy, whoever he is!

[Workingman]

I'm not taking it the wrong way at all Frank, it doesn't affect me enough to get upset about it. I think she must be a deeply unpleasant woman to use such swear words about a 3 year old boy, whoever he is!

Kaz, she did not use, was not the author, of the offensive language, she replied to it with a considered opinion. She actually asked to compare and contrast the Royal lifestyle to that of a refugee of the same age. If anyone needed to be investigated it was the original poster.

Oh crikey, I am no lover of unsocial media, but if I write to The Times and say that George is a chubby who is not on the 'Foodbank Diet' should that render me liable to be 'investigated'?

It has all got out of hand and, to me, is going in a worrying direction.

[Suff]

I tend to ignore it most of the time. Which probably means I'm drifting from the reality of younger people today. But, honestly, the "down the pub" conversation simply can't happen on social media because the "pub" is the whole world and there are always going to be as many people offended as there are amused. It is a total no win situation.

If you read a lot of Tom Clancy, you get a birds eye view of people and the electorate. One statement to the fictitious president at the time was a very salient lesson. If you have an opinion on a contentious subject hen half of the people are going to hate you and half the people are going to love you. If you don't have a clear opinion and swing between both without giving a clear message, everyone one is going to hate you.

Best path to avoid conflict? Try not to give an opinion.

That is where social media is heading today. when it achieves it the destruction of our society as we know it will be virtually complete. Because the only acceptable opinion will be the one which takes offense at someone else's.....

[TheOstrich]

I think she must be a deeply unpleasant woman to use such swear words about a 3 year old boy, whoever he is!

Kaz, she did not use, was not the author, of the offensive language, she replied to it

Well, two unpleasant people, then!

The lady in question works for the British Council which is an international quasi-Governmental organisation. Given she is a senior employee, making posts like that, even using private media, effectively brings the British Council into disrepute. At a minimum a disciplinary and even a sackable offence in some organisations .....

One of her criticisms is that the Prince is "living on public money". Well, think about it - so is she .....

[TheOstrich]

Best path to avoid conflict? Try not to give an opinion ......

That's the only way to survive in the politically correct world we live in today ....

Case study: I know someone who wrote a mildly critical report on his blog about a visit to a soccer club in the Midlands. OK, he didn't phrase it particularly well, but it was a "considered opinion".
It got picked up by the club in question. By gum did he get some grief on his blog!

Lesson 101: Never, ever, be critical ......

[Workingman]

It looks like I am in a gang of one.

I am slightly saddened, but not surprised, that many are taking a contrary view.

Our processing has been going on for decades and it is beginning to look as though the processors have won.

Regardless of her position the woman has every right to make a personal reply. If the only place she could make a meaningful reply is to use the same social media site then that is what she has to do. The fact that the original poster used offensive language is neither here nor there, she refrained.

However, having made her personal views known she should not be the subject of an investigation by an officialdom which disagrees with her.

Not one of you would accept it, or would you?