"Po-faced Guardianista who takes offence at anything"

You said it, Owen Jones, not me. I probably don't share your opinion on the Royal Family - I treat them as a given, a bit like death or romantic failure - but this article on Prince Philip's latest attempt to displace Jim Davidson as the King of Comedy is weak sauce.

My relationship with The Guardian is not untroubled. I share some of its political opinions, but find it frequently dogmatic and unreflective. Having a column called First Thoughts makes my point. It's a knee-jerk response, not a considered debate.

So, God damn it, thanks for encouraging me to jump to Prince Philip's defence. Sigh.

A quick summary. Some ladies give Phil's wife a cake. He quips

'who do you sponge off?', they laugh, The Metro article hints that Phil's a man of the people for his wit, Owen Jones weaves an argument for Republicanism out of the punchline. 

As Jones notes, Phil the Greek (do they still call him that? It is a bit racist) has form for saying stupid, racist and sexist things at public events. And despite the outrage, he tends to get away with it. The public sighs, mumbles that, well, he's like that, and gets on with worrying about paying the rent. 

Jones makes a telling contrast. 

If you’re Mr or Mrs Normal Citizen and foul your Twitter feed with racism, you’re pretty much inviting a P45. But if you are one of the symbols of the nation, then apparently you have carte blanche scrawled with “Fill your boots and everyone will just chuckle!” Except that wouldn’t be a carte blanche anymore … but you know what I mean.

As it goes, I think Phil ought to be able to wander about saying stupid shit. I also think Mr or Mrs Normal Citizen ought to be allowed to fill their Twitter feed with racism. I also think Owen Jones needs to be there to criticise both sets of behaviour. But this time, I think Phil was not being offensive.

Well, if a senior politician expressed sentiments that aren’t, let’s just say, very favourable to women as a whole, it would be goodbye career. 

Phil didn't do that, though, did he? Jones is ignoring the context. Phil addressed some specific women, who had just baked a cake.

He didn't say 'all women are spongers.' My God, the joke actually sounds as if Phil was playing with the idea of his reputation, challenging his audience to take offence.

Had he been smarter, he could have done a Jimmy Carr face and asked 'too soon?'

My support for freedom of speech is pretty selfish - I want to be able to say what I want - and I hate having to defend Prince Philip, Jim Davidson or Jimmy Carr. I don't like racism, I don't like sexism, and those topics are complicated enough for a lifetime of discussion. I complain against them, not against people's right to express them. 

That is where I am bit less selfish and more principled. I am committed to dialectic as the process for the evolution of human consciousness. In other words, open conversation allows ideas to develop. The expression of racism is an opportunity to challenge racism.

Jones' article has a swipe at Prince Philip, but doesn't recognise the real naughty boy here: the media. You see, if the media choose to ignore Prince Philip, there would be no fuss, no argument. He'd say something dumb, no-one would no, The Daily Mail couldn't chuckle indulgently - and get annoyed by Jones' disloyalty to the monarchy. And Jones could write about something he is good on, like the demonisation of the working classes, instead of acting like a second rate Court Reporter. 

He wouldn't have exposed a few weaknesses in his thinking process, either.

It’s perfectly right to hesitate before criticising a 94-year-old, out of respect for his age. And I think that’s a good point.

Nope. You did bad things, you get called on them. Age is not the point. 

I appreciate Prince Philip must tire of being constantly photographed, which is why there’s a strong case for rotating the position of head of state so that they and their spouse get some respite.

Not really, Owen. It's unclear whether the weakness of an individual can become an argument against the institution itself. I don't like David Cameron, but I am not sure he's evidence that the position of Prime Minister is a bad idea. 

Jones concludes with a fair point: it is better now that ant-racists and feminists and LGBTQ campaigners have discouraged random abuse being flung about on the streets. And for many of Phil's jokes, he is rightly called out. But for a writer of Jones' calibre, an opinion piece on Royal Gaffes is a waste of time: I'd like to see him grapple more often with heavy topics, which he does boldly.