DavidJS,

How can you defend a man who supported paedophilia and the the sexual abuse of children (your post regards Bill Meulenberg's article on Kinsey OLO Thursday January 20) while at the same time chastising Prince Harry over a Nazi costume?

A bit hypocritical perhaps?

I don't defend such a man. However, from what I am starting to learn about Kinsey, the accusations levelled against him appear to be extremely suspect. At any rate, my arguments are not so much pro-Kinsey but aimed at the AFA's sly attempt to equate homosexuality with child abuse.

Harry is an amusing young man, but has no sense of perspective. Would so many writers be asking us not to lose our sense of humour if say Harry had gone to the fancy dress ball dressed as a paedophile—I suspect that the inappropriateness of such a costume might even have penetrated the skull of our entertaining young price

One must always maintain a sense of humour but at what cost? How humorous would it be if the grandson of the Queen of England was to join the British army and to be subsequently involved in prisoner abuse—and can we be sure that Harry with his lack of perspective and obvious lack of intelligence would recognise such abuse if he saw it. Now it is unlikely that Harry will ever be allowed anywhere near proper soldiering—but maybe for the sake of the troops who may, by some remote chance, come under Harry’s command during an actual operation the British army should seriously reconsider Harry’s application.

It is unlikely but wouldn't it be admirable if senior British army officers showed some backbone and stated unequivocally that Harry has demonstrated that he is not fit to command British soldiers and that where the command of British soldiers is concerned the British army does not have a sense of humour?

There is not much humour to be found when a young man or women dies doing their job as a soldier—there would be even less laughter if it turns out that we let fools command our young men and women who as a nation we must at times put in harms way.

The problem for me is that while Frank and Ethel were off having a cup of tea there was an audience listening to the speaker and having their distorted thinking and prejudices confirmed and in 1930s Britain there were attacks on Jewish people and businesses. I love cutting satirical humour and may even laugh at a friend who turned up at a private party dressed as a nazi. I know its a double standard but I think there is a big difference between a common or garden party reveller and an heir to the British throne, (even if not next in line). He is a public figure and as such his actions will always be scrutinised by the public, the Frank and Ethels with amusement, but also the people seeking to propagate or legitimise their fascist beliefs.

Regards

Jo

Hitler was a just a little one testicle dick head who didn't measure up to his own definition of the perfect Anglo Saxion race.He did however in the 1930's do a lot of good for German people who were crucified by Europe and the US for it's involvement in the 1st World War.Under such a leader how many of us would have the courage to rebel?We need both compassion and courage in our lives.The trick is in finding the balance.