Lèse-majesté
The British Council has said it will investigate comments allegedly made by one of its senior employees on Facebook that criticise Prince George for living “on public money”.
Angela Gibbins, head of global estates at the charity, was reported to have commented on a picture of the young prince, which someone had captioned: “I know he’s only two years old, but Prince George already looks like a f****** d***head.”
…
A spokeswoman said: “This comment was made on a private social media account. It has absolutely no connection to the British Council and does not represent the views of the British Council.
“That said, we expect the highest standards of our staff and we will be investigating the matter further.”
How can they “investigate” what an employee says on a private account? And even if they can why would they?
Gibbins’s apparent comments, which were reported in the Sun, were on a photograph of the duke and duchess of Cambridge’s firstborn taken for a set of stamps to celebrate the Queen’s 90th birthday when he was two years old.
She allegedly said: “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?”
So?
People are allowed to take a critical view of the “royal family” in the UK aren’t they? Even on Facebook?
I guess the charity doesn’t like staff criticizing the royal family? Retaliating for employees posting speech an organization/business finds objectionable (legitimately objectionable or not) on public media is pretty standard everywhere at this point.
Except it wasn’t public. Is that standard? Real question: I don’t know if it is or not.
I meant more in the sense that her post was publicly visible. This is in the same vein (though obviously not morally equivalent) as a cop getting fired over making racist comments on Facebook via his personal account.
Well except it shouldn’t be, because the difference between the two is huge. It’s obviously essential for cops not to be racist and not to be seen to be racist. It’s not even a little bit obviously essential that an employee of the British Council refrain from criticizing the monarchy.
Won’t argue with that; this is why some of our evil corporate overlords insist that people friend them or give them social media login info (and why unions are necessary for people that aren’t cops).
I don’t know. Picking on a kid, who has zero control over anything, strikes me as off.
And, no, she’s not criticizing the institution of royalty or it’s place in Britain / England or the like. She’s crapping on a little kid for having too many nannies. That’s not really different from crapping on a kid for having none. Either way, none of this is something the kid has done. However much anyone dislikes monarchies, dumping on kids is not the way to express that unless, somehow, they’ve actually *done* something to deserve it.
If it’s private, why do we all have to hear about what’s in this person’s mind? She sounds older than a teenager, she’s a professional, she should have the sense not to dump on children.
I’m sorry, but this trips my “pick on someone your own size” peeve.
We don’t all have to hear about it. We wouldn’t have heard about it if the Sun hadn’t reported it, no doubt via someone who leaked it to them.
Sure, picking on children is off, as you put it – but I can’t see it as picking on a child to say something about him that he’ll never see. And yes, she is criticizing the monarchy, by (unkindly, granted) criticizing an heir to the throne. I think making a big deal of it is quite silly, given the fact that royals get that kind of thing throughout their lives. They have to ignore it and soldier on. That’s very unfair to them in a way, but they’re handsomely compensated for the lack of choice.
I mean, I too think it’s a rather silly way to object to the monarchy, but I can’t agree that it’s crapping on the kid himself.