Spot on... All of a sudden, because it comes out in the media that Ginger Bollocks Royal B/astard has been out there for less than THREE SODDING MONTHS, we suddenly give a sh!t about "our boys" (well, really only the one "boy" in reality...), who've been dodging bullets and suicide bombers for considerably sodding LONGER, and their welfare.... "ooooh, it's too dangerous for Harry to be out there".... Well, if it's 'too dangerous' for him, then it's too dangerous for the rest of 'em as far as I'm concerned, or are their lives not worth as much as the HRH Ginger Bollocks... <_<

 

BRING ALL OF OUR TROOPS HOME.....

 

Still, nice bit of publicity for The Windsors Plc innit....? -_-

 

 

 

 

 

No matter who it is out there fighting, they are all equal, everyone of those men and females out there, deserve praise for what they are doing. And i say bring them all back safe and well. If it's too dangerous for one, then it's too dangerous for them all. :(

oh i agree... bring them all home..

 

but it wasnt ginger bolloxes fault that hes only done 10 weeks... hed still be there if it wasnt for the yanks! :P

if, god forbid, he was to be shot and killed whilst out there. Whats the likelihood that it was yank "friendly fire" that would have done it?

oh i agree... bring them all home..

 

but it wasnt ginger bolloxes fault that hes only done 10 weeks... hed still be there if it wasnt for the yanks! :P

 

 

Yes i totally agree with you Rob, Harry would have stayed right up until the end of his tour, if he could.

Yeah but so what if he'd stayed out there and got shot? It wouldn't bother me in the slighest (yes I'm anti-royalist), but if he'd got shot the media would have a field day. Effort made for Harry should be made for ALL the troops in countries like Afganistan.

I have been reading this debate with interest, and have tried my hardest not to spit chips. I guess us ladies do not like to refer to Prince Harry as some have, all I can say is at least he has got em, b**locks I mean, regardless of hue.

 

And I differ totally in my views, the media have not forgotten our lads out there, they have called into question many times our involvement in Afganistan , as the the public at large appear not to know why we are, and its not often that I stick up for jounalists.

 

Who you should be directing abuse at is the Government, they are the ones that keep quite about injured troops returning to our shores, insisting our forces fight on two fronts and carry on despite warnings that our troops are stretched to the limit while our European neighbours input in committing troops is next to nothing.

 

As for the American website that blew the whistle after picking it up off an Australian womans mag in January, ask yourself why it took them so long to make it front page!! our forces are out there in support of American policy and our Government has supported them, and what does an American do puts lives at stake, and not just Harry's, everybodies, because they had a scoop. Friendly fire indeed.

 

I realise you won't agree with me reading some of the comments and sneers towards a member of our Royal Family, but at least he got off his ginger b**locks and commited to something he wanted to do, and if along the way, he has highlighted the effort on behalf of all our boys out there, THEN BLOODY CHEERS TO HIM.

 

Sorry

 

 

 

I have been reading this debate with interest, and have tried my hardest not to spit chips. I guess us ladies do not like to refer to Prince Harry as some have, all I can say is at least he has got em, b**locks I mean, regardless of hue.

 

And I differ totally in my views, the media have not forgotten our lads out there, they have called into question many times our involvement in Afganistan , as the the public at large appear not to know why we are, and its not often that I stick up for jounalists.

 

Who you should be directing abuse at is the Government, they are the ones that keep quite about injured troops returning to our shores, insisting our forces fight on two fronts and carry on despite warnings that our troops are stretched to the limit while our European neighbours input in committing troops is next to nothing.

 

As for the American website that blew the whistle after picking it up off an Australian womans mag in January, ask yourself why it took them so long to make it front page!! our forces are out there in support of American policy and our Government has supported them, and what does an American do puts lives at stake, and not just Harry's, everybodies, because they had a scoop. Friendly fire indeed.

 

I realise you won't agree with me reading some of the comments and sneers towards a member of our Royal Family, but at least he got off his ginger b**locks and commited to something he wanted to do, and if along the way, he has highlighted the effort on behalf of all our boys out there, THEN BLOODY CHEERS TO HIM.

 

Sorry

 

 

Well said Susie, some of us have loved ones who are training hard who are already out there right now, and what they are doing we should all be proud of every single one of them, including Harry, not once did he sit back and think that because he was 3rd in line to the throne, that he wouldn't put his life on the line. Well he got off his backside and went out there with his fellow troops and did what he had to do. No, it didn't last the full tour, but if he had a choice, then believe you me, he would have stayed until the end.

I have been reading this debate with interest, and have tried my hardest not to spit chips. I guess us ladies do not like to refer to Prince Harry as some have, all I can say is at least he has got em, b**locks I mean, regardless of hue.

 

And I differ totally in my views, the media have not forgotten our lads out there, they have called into question many times our involvement in Afganistan , as the the public at large appear not to know why we are, and its not often that I stick up for jounalists.

 

Who you should be directing abuse at is the Government, they are the ones that keep quite about injured troops returning to our shores, insisting our forces fight on two fronts and carry on despite warnings that our troops are stretched to the limit while our European neighbours input in committing troops is next to nothing.

 

As for the American website that blew the whistle after picking it up off an Australian womans mag in January, ask yourself why it took them so long to make it front page!! our forces are out there in support of American policy and our Government has supported them, and what does an American do puts lives at stake, and not just Harry's, everybodies, because they had a scoop. Friendly fire indeed.

 

I realise you won't agree with me reading some of the comments and sneers towards a member of our Royal Family, but at least he got off his ginger b**locks and commited to something he wanted to do, and if along the way, he has highlighted the effort on behalf of all our boys out there, THEN BLOODY CHEERS TO HIM.

 

Sorry

 

My concern is that this is going to be used purely for propaganda purposes to bolster the "war on tewwor".. My cousin was a commissioned officer in the Army for years, he served in Bosnia and Kosovo, he was proud to be in the British Army, then Iraq happened.... He did a year in Iraq and resigned his commission in disgust at what was going on out there and what he saw as corruption and dishonesty.

 

Indeed you are correct that our wrath should certainly be vented at the Govt (and as anyone on this forum will tell you, I am no supporter of the Nu Labor govt, and yes, I am totally anti-Royal, I make no apologies for that whatsoever...), but what I'm pretty peed off about is the fact that the "meeedjaaaah" colluded with the govt to keep Harry's tour of duty a secret... So much for a "Free Press"... As for the argument, "well, it was too dangerous for him", well, if it is, then I repeat - get 'em all out, not just him; and frankly, I dont really care that the story itself leaked, I'm with Jon Snow actually, it should NOT have been kept a secret from the British public, regardless of whether it may have meant he wouldn't be able to serve at all - tough tittie, he's a Royal, he's gotta take the few bad things with the all the myriad perks the job affords him... And also, the facts are that he is putting his fellow brothers and sisters in arms in more danger than they otherwise would be just because he wants to go out there and play Rambo... I'm pretty damn sure his mother, Princess Di, would almost certainly have talked him out of going to Afghanistan in the first place, at the end of the day, she was a humanitarian, a pretty committed anti-war activist, as her campaigning against land mines and child soldiers attests, she would NOT have wanted a son of hers to go off to the battle front and risk his and potentially put others' lives at risk...

 

Our European neighbours are showing the sort of sense we should've shown.... The likes of France, Germany and Spain (and let's not forget Canada..) have been highly critical over US foreign policy, something we should be.. A LOT more... Don't criticise our European neighbours merely because their Govts are showing a bit more prudence and sense over this bullsh!t.....

I have been reading this debate with interest, and have tried my hardest not to spit chips. I guess us ladies do not like to refer to Prince Harry as some have, all I can say is at least he has got em, b**locks I mean, regardless of hue.

 

And I differ totally in my views, the media have not forgotten our lads out there, they have called into question many times our involvement in Afganistan , as the the public at large appear not to know why we are, and its not often that I stick up for jounalists.

 

Who you should be directing abuse at is the Government, they are the ones that keep quite about injured troops returning to our shores, insisting our forces fight on two fronts and carry on despite warnings that our troops are stretched to the limit while our European neighbours input in committing troops is next to nothing.

 

As for the American website that blew the whistle after picking it up off an Australian womans mag in January, ask yourself why it took them so long to make it front page!! our forces are out there in support of American policy and our Government has supported them, and what does an American do puts lives at stake, and not just Harry's, everybodies, because they had a scoop. Friendly fire indeed.

 

I realise you won't agree with me reading some of the comments and sneers towards a member of our Royal Family, but at least he got off his ginger b**locks and commited to something he wanted to do, and if along the way, he has highlighted the effort on behalf of all our boys out there, THEN BLOODY CHEERS TO HIM.

 

Sorry

 

 

hello!! lol

 

fair play... i agree that whilst im not a fan of the royals, he has got off his arse and fought dispite being able to 'get out of it'... ginger or not (lol) im warming to him.

Hello MUSHYMANROB

 

Thank you for replying to me fella's, I am pretty brave myself entering into "man debates" lol

 

BeautifulAngel I wish you and yours all the best.

 

GRIMLY FIENDISH, thanks for your debate with me too, we all have our views and its a tricky and serious subject, I am with you that the UK should not be there especially without any assistance on manpower or cost from our EU allies.

 

In answer to your comment regarding the blackout on Harry's deployment, the press do have agreements that mean they do not have to report everything to the public when its considered to be a security issue. The explanation to this can be found on the BBC Editors page. I am sure that this agreement has been used widely and for many different reasons. They are at the end of the day applying common sense.

 

I can also see how you would view it as propaganda too, and certainly the media have had a field day with it, that was the proviso for keeping quiet. The right to interviews and filming. I personally do not think it was a good move and indeed the MoD has been accused of using Harry in that way.

 

I will leave you guys to it now.

 

 

Yeah but so what if he'd stayed out there and got shot? It wouldn't bother me in the slighest (yes I'm anti-royalist), but if he'd got shot the media would have a field day. Effort made for Harry should be made for ALL the troops in countries like Afganistan.

 

If he stayed out and got shot (or killed) the effects on our country would be horrid. It would ALL over the world media and it'd be such a big deal. Not to mention how much of a morale booster it would be to our country and how much of a morale gain it would be to the Taliban. They'd do WHATEVER it took to kill Prince Harry make no mistake about that. He was a sitting target who was at risk to his whole team. If we're comparing him to other soldiers then we can do the same with death. Plenty of people die everyday but who are the ones who get all the coverage? Famous people of course because we're all familiar with their names just like it would be with Prince Harry. Chances are people don't stand up when they read about an ordinary soldier being killed, but if it was Prince Harry they sure as hell would.

 

I agree all our soldiers should be sent home. It's a pointless war. I watched Ross Kemp in Afghanistan on Sky One and it changed my whole outlook on this war. I never cry at TV, but the last 15 minutes really got to me and I sheared a tear or two because of how emotionally powerful it was. Must be awful for the soldiers that die loved ones, espeially since they've died for such a needless cause.

If he stayed out and got shot (or killed) the effects on our country would be horrid. It would ALL over the world media and it'd be such a big deal. Not to mention how much of a morale booster it would be to our country and how much of a morale gain it would be to the Taliban. They'd do WHATEVER it took to kill Prince Harry make no mistake about that. He was a sitting target who was at risk to his whole team. If we're comparing him to other soldiers then we can do the same with death. Plenty of people die everyday but who are the ones who get all the coverage? Famous people of course because we're all familiar with their names just like it would be with Prince Harry. Chances are people don't stand up when they read about an ordinary soldier being killed, but if it was Prince Harry they sure as hell would.

 

I agree all our soldiers should be sent home. It's a pointless war. I watched Ross Kemp in Afghanistan on Sky One and it changed my whole outlook on this war. I never cry at TV, but the last 15 minutes really got to me and I sheared a tear or two because of how emotionally powerful it was. Must be awful for the soldiers that die loved ones, espeially since they've died for such a needless cause.

 

spot on m8 :)

Hello MUSHYMANROB

 

Thank you for replying to me fella's, I am pretty brave myself entering into "man debates" lol

 

BeautifulAngel I wish you and yours all the best.

 

GRIMLY FIENDISH, thanks for your debate with me too, we all have our views and its a tricky and serious subject, I am with you that the UK should not be there especially without any assistance on manpower or cost from our EU allies.

 

In answer to your comment regarding the blackout on Harry's deployment, the press do have agreements that mean they do not have to report everything to the public when its considered to be a security issue. The explanation to this can be found on the BBC Editors page. I am sure that this agreement has been used widely and for many different reasons. They are at the end of the day applying common sense.

 

I can also see how you would view it as propaganda too, and certainly the media have had a field day with it, that was the proviso for keeping quiet. The right to interviews and filming. I personally do not think it was a good move and indeed the MoD has been accused of using Harry in that way.

 

I will leave you guys to it now.

 

oh please feel free to voice you opinions :), some get put off by the level of anger here sometimes, but IT AINT PERSONAL :)

 

grimly in particular often sounds as cross as a bulldog with a wasp stinging his arse whilst licking p*** off a thistle...lol.. but hes a poodle really!!! :lol:

In answer to your comment regarding the blackout on Harry's deployment, the press do have agreements that mean they do not have to report everything to the public when its considered to be a security issue. The explanation to this can be found on the BBC Editors page. I am sure that this agreement has been used widely and for many different reasons. They are at the end of the day applying common sense.

 

I read that too, but it seems a pretty bogus justification to me.. The involvement of Prince Andrew in the Falklands War was hardly a state secret, it was widely reported in the press as the war was going on, and I may be wrong, but didn't they even state which ship he was on as well....? So, it was okay for us to know about "uncle andy" (and at the time, he was also third in line to the throne....) dodging exocet missiles and flying around the south atlantic in a helicopter, then why is it not alright for us to know about Harry being deployed to Afghanistan...? Seems to me, both were running the same, equal risk of being killed....

 

If he stayed out and got shot (or killed) the effects on our country would be horrid. It would ALL over the world media and it'd be such a big deal. Not to mention how much of a morale booster it would be to our country and how much of a morale gain it would be to the Taliban. They'd do WHATEVER it took to kill Prince Harry make no mistake about that. He was a sitting target who was at risk to his whole team.

 

You could argue the same thing about Prince Andrew fighting in the Falklands though mate... He could just as easily have been shot down by an Argentinian missile as Harry could've been shot by the Taliban... The facts are, we all knew Prince Andrew was part of the Task Force, whereas the deployment of Prince Harry was kept a secret... This is why I agree with Jon Snow when he objects to the press blackout... In my view, both Harry and Andrew were running the same risk as career militarymen....

 

You could argue the same thing about Prince Andrew fighting in the Falklands though mate... He could just as easily have been shot down by an Argentinian missile as Harry could've been shot by the Taliban... The facts are, we all knew Prince Andrew was part of the Task Force, whereas the deployment of Prince Harry was kept a secret... This is why I agree with Jon Snow when he objects to the press blackout... In my view, both Harry and Andrew were running the same risk as career militarymen....

 

but the difference was that andrew was in the raf... much harder to pin down, harry was 'in THAT compound' or wherever and in these days of suicide bombers was a much easier target for both him and his fellows.. the argies conscripted hearts wasnt ever REALLY in it... the taliban are fanatical... so i dont agree that theres a straight comparison!

GRIMLEY FIENDISH The difference between Andrews war and Harry's is totally different, the Internet is one weapon that was not around during the Falklands and its a dangerous invention, and as MUSHYMANROB mentioned the enemy and the cause was slightly different, they were not fanatic's or terrorists, I feel pretty certain that if Harry had ever been captured by Argentina, they would have respected his life and other soldiers under the Geneva Convention as all POW's should be, the Taliban in Afganistan would certainly not and it does not bear thinking about.

 

The ramifications of that nightmare would be huge.

 

As for Jon Snow, he is a very respected journalist without doubt, that is why his comment was met with shock, he knows more than anyone in the Media the existence of restraint in the cause of security or a threat to life, and although he is entitled to his view and said it afterwards, he kept quiet under the agreement, which to my mind was a double standard on his part, if he felt so strongly about reporting it, he could have done. He wouldn't have much of a career with his colleagues afterwards, but he could have spoke out.

 

But there has always been awareness during times of war of making sure that careless talk didn't cost lives, or "loose lips sunk ships" and the Media will unfortunately have to employ that option more than we will ever know.

 

 

 

 

edited because it was a double post. Sorry.

Edited March 6, 200817 yr by Susie

I think it's great he's following his father Mr Hewitt into the forces ;)

but the difference was that andrew was in the raf... much harder to pin down, harry was 'in THAT compound' or wherever and in these days of suicide bombers was a much easier target for both him and his fellows.. the argies conscripted hearts wasnt ever REALLY in it... the taliban are fanatical... so i dont agree that theres a straight comparison!

 

I hear what you're saying, but surely there's no difference in an actual war situation, Prince Andrew could still just as easily have been shot down, or the ship he was on blown to smithereens, he could have been Simon Weston, burns all over his body, scarred for life. I still maintain the risks are the same for Harry as they were for his uncle, war is no respecter of privelege or class mate...