Royals & Afghanistan

[Marmora Man]

I'm neither an ardent monarchist nor a rabid republican but I do feel the breaking of the agreement to keep the story of Prince Hsrry's presence in Afghanistan quiet was irresponsible.

I heard Jon Snow argue this morning that it is a journalist's responsibility to break such stories and the fact that it involved a Royal was irrelevant.

In fact it was only the Royal link that made it a story.

Every day upwards of 7,000 servicemen are involved in Afghanistan - by drawing attention to Prince Harry's presence the press (albeit via a US based web diary) were placing both the individual and his colleagues in greater danger, as the MOD's decision indicates.

Any thoughts?

[lozzyloz]

I agree with Jon Snow. Didn't the west fight in 2 world wars and now the Middle East in order to protect our freedom, democracy AND freedom of speech including a free press? The soldiers in Afghanistan that are in conflict with insurgents, warlords, poppy barons and the Taliban are in danger regardless of the press reporting on HRH or not. I don't think the press should have been gagged. If it was that important to protect a heir to the throne then a) he shouldn't have been allowed to join the army and b) he should've been kept from the front line. IMO this is just PR for the Royals and propoganda for the MOD and the government.

[benjaminty]

Firstly .... it's the ONLY reason it worthy of press coverage as you rightly said.

But I can't help feel that he's already putting himself in serious danger by being there, how much more danger can he be in exactly? He could have been killed already by being out there. If they are so worried about him... should he be there in the first place?

He's a standard that the enemy would love to take I'm sure.

Personally I like him and think it's a good thing he's there. His father (aherm) I'm sure is proud.

[Jah Lush]

A story is a story is a story and this story is a big one that would always have come out eventually.

However much we may feel that journalists can at times be irresponsible in their reporting, it was just a matter of time before this story went to press. Indeed, I'm sure most of the newspapers were probably tipped on this by the Royals PR machine in the first place.

Journalists and editors are unrepentant in getting big stories published. If it sells newspapers - and that's what editors are in the business for - then print it and be damned. Print it big and let run and run.

[SeanMacGabhann]

you took the words out of my mouth Jah

My first reaction was to view the whole thing as a PR stunt

I wish no-ill on the lad at all - but to watch the vast majority of the media machine crank out mawkishly relieved stories about what a good soldier he was, how proud his gran is etc etc is grating

If something is so problematic that an entire countries free-press had to keep schtum the I would at least hope it was a matter of absloutely, catastrophically unavoidable importance. Harry going to Afghanistan could have easily been avoided.

But as Jon Snow says - if the entire countries press can be "persuaded" to shut up (anyone care to speculate what the penalties might have been) then what else are they persuaded not to tell us

I'm also curious as to what the "grateful" nation would feel if, during the embargo, Harry had been killed in day-to-day combat. Would we have been more demanding of our press then?

[Jah Lush]

I'm pretty sure that the press would have known about Harry's mission right from the get go and it was just a matter of getting the nod from the Royals PR machine as to when he was safely back in this country to print the story. After all the paparazzi had previously spent most of their time chasing a young and very pissed Harry out of various nightclubs for months before he went to Afganistan.

[lozzyloz]

He wasn't on the club circuit for a while so it doesn't take a genius to work out that he was either in Afghanistan or stuck in Chelsea.

[Jah Lush]

Do you mean Chelsea Davey or Chelsea barracks lozzyloz?>:D

[lozzyloz]

Either way he's f*cked.

Back on thread, was there a news black out when Prince Andrew flew heli's in The Malvena's?

[PeckhamRose]

Wasn't it the pesky Americans that broke the news anyway?

[dulwichmum]

Never mind, I hear he will be home in time for tea (hot buttered crumpets with honey) and sitting on nanny Tiggy Legge Burke's knee (or whatever she calls herself). I thought he looked terribly rugged in his combat gear and toussled hair! Yum.

[Asset]

I am not a royalist or a nationalist or a jingoist or a fascist or any other ist. He wanted to go and he has been there for 10 weeks already without any of us knowing. As Benjaminty pointed out he could have been killed at any time in that 10 weeks. Let's face it, he didn't ask to be a royal prince and he could quite easily have been a wastrel; instead he has chosen to accept some responsibility and be a soldier - whatever you may feel about soldiers and war-mongering is irrelevant. The breaking of the story could - whether a royal PR stunt or a legitmate breaking of the news by international journos - put him and anyone in close proximity to him, in more danger than they are already. I think it is right to remove him. The cynic in me thinks that maybe it has been a PR stunt; he looks good, he's been there on the quiet for 10 weeks and now we can tell everyone what a sporting chap he is and get him away safely. The more accepting, trusting side of me believes the other story.

[TommyG]

oh please, whats with the 'he didnt ask to be a royal prince', surely the news was broken by a tip off from 'H of Windsor'

[Asset]

well what's with it is exactly what it says, you know the thing teenagers throw at you in argument 'well, I didn't ask to be born'.

What's your point? Did you read what I wrote or just stop at the third line?

Frankly I don't give a toss one way or the other what the story is. The lot of them can blow themselves up whichever way they choose.

[SteveT]

Asset wrote: I am not a royalist or a nationalist or a jingoist or a fascist or any other ist

Forumist(?);-)

[Marmora Man]

An interesting series of responses. Most picking up on freedom of the press and many suspicious that it was all a Palace PR stunt.

My take is:

1. I don't believe the breaking of the story NOW was a PR stunt - tho' clearly there was an intention to use the Prince's time "on the frontline" as a story at some stage.

2. By breaking the story early the danger to the Prince and his colleagues was increased. The talismanic value of killing / capturing a British Royal would appeal to the Taleban in Afghanistan - the capture / killing and / or defence of individually valueless icons has a long military history (look at the dusty regimental colours in army museums and parish churches).

3. The conspiracy between the media and the Palace to keep the story quiet does not, of itself, indict the media as slavish puppets of the establishment. There was a quid pro quo - keep quiet now and you get a share of the story when it does break. I doubt such a quid pro quo would stand if they discovered Gordon Brown accepting brown envelopes or that Prince Phillip did indeed have a divorcee killed in Paris.

The long and short is probably that in times of war a prince should not expect to serve on the frontline. The tradition of royals joining the forces to give them a nice pretty uniform should be reconsidered. The Army, Navy and Air Force are not finishing schools for royalty.

[SeanMacGabhann]

MM

I agree with your summary - however re: point 3. How does that work as a quid pro quo? Surely they all have a "share" of the story when it breaks anyway, regardless of co-operation. Once the news is out there it spreads so quickly any notion of exclusivity is redundant?

Anyway as far as a story goes, it's already beginning to redefine the very term. It's been front-page and headline news for over 24 hours now - has the rest of the world stopped turning? Once we've ascertained that he's out of there there isn't a lot more to be said by the various talking heads surely? They are even using the exact same phrases they did yesterday morning.

[spadetownboy]

pr stunt or not, the best thing about the whole affair was in yesterdays guardian. he telling his story about life in the desert, piss in a bush,shit in a hole etc.then the enemy gets a mention "terry taliban........."

[Marmora Man]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> MM

>

> I agree with your summary - however re: point 3.

> How does that work as a quid pro quo? Surely they

> all have a "share" of the story when it breaks

> anyway, regardless of co-operation. Once the news

> is out there it spreads so quickly any notion of

> exclusivity is redundant?

My conspiracist head also wonders how many GOvernment bad new stories were released over the last 48 hours?

>

> Anyway as far as a story goes, it's already

> beginning to redefine the very term. It's been

> front-page and headline news for over 24 hours now

> - has the rest of the world stopped turning? Once

> we've ascertained that he's out of there there

> isn't a lot more to be said by the various talking

> heads surely? They are even using the exact same

> phrases they did yesterday morning.

[Michael Palaeologus]

The Quid Pro Quo as that they were allowed access to himself on the frontline so that they could run the story in full when the news did break - the plan being that this would be after the deployment finished. Given the virtual documentary that the BBC ran a nanosecond after the news came out, he must have had a news crew following him 24/7! I am surprised the Taliban didnt spot the TV crews trailing after one particular ginger haired muppet, even if they didnt recognise the Spare-Heir himself.

[Keef]

What Asset said (in her first post).

[Annasfield]

So many "celebs" these days are quick to moan about their treatment by the press and general public. However without this in their lives they wouldn?t have any fame. For that reason they have none of my sympathy.

Prince Harry on the other hand is a different matter. No matter what anyone says, he has had no choice in terms of his fame and for his entire life he has been pestered by anyone who recognises him. All of his antics have been pasted across the news, with horrendous things said about his family be they true or not.

Imagine your own Mother being killed in a car accident when you were his age. That alone must have been horrific without having a constant reminder of what happened and peoples' thoughts on her previous behaviour.

FFS he?s a twenty something lad trying to live his life. How many times has the average lad been a bit pissed and fallen out of a nightclub or smoked a bit of weed. He's only trying to do what the average 22 (?) year old lad would do. I think he should be given a break.

[mockney piers]

He's just a normal lad isn't he.

Actually I do sympathise with him as much as I am able to with any sloany over privileged type. The boy seems pretty level headed and his heart's in the right place. If he wasn't who he was this would all be absolutely moot; he's pretty earnest about wanting to do his job and be like any other; it's a ridiculous situation that such lengths have to be gone to to achieve this, but that's the situation he's in.

Best of luck to him I say. Personally I wish the papers would exercise self-censorship a bit more often and stop citing public interest rather than public's interest.

Say, Paris Hilton wears some hot pants, or britney a bit bonkers again, Eastender a bit drunk in paparazzo stalked club or footballer shags bird etc etc etc

Mike Skinner summed it up perfectly for me

'To be honest,' he laughs, 'I did go a bit George Best for a while ... I just didn't do it where everyone else tends to do it. You see papers and magazines full of celebrities falling out of bars pissed, and you think "oh, that's terrible - all the photographers taking pictures of them", but then you realise if they didn't want that to happen they wouldn't have gone to the bars where all the photographers hang out ... I fall out of this bar fucking every week and no one knows about it.'

[Domitianus]

If a Royal Family member joins the armed forces he/she will likely be a target of particular significance WHOEVER we are fighting. This would apply whether the enemy is the IRA, Russians, Fuzzy-Wuzzies, Argentinians or Al Quaeda. This should have been patently obvious before Harry was ever accepted into the armed forces. The military and the Palace took the gamble that Harry would be able to have a military career, with all the kudos that involved, without ever actually having to go into combat in a meaningful sense. Their bluff has now effectively been called and we can see the corner they have painted themselves into.

If you have a Lieutenant (or whatever he is) who it was known many years in advance would not be able to serve as a Lieutenant in actual combat, without being a liability, he should never have been allowed to join the military. The idea that this problem was not forseeable is a nonsense. The military and the Palace put their money on black and the ball has landed on red and they all look a right bunch of tits! It is a problem entirely of their own making.

Without wishing to sound unsympathetic, exactly the same principle applies to those service-men and their families who complain and sue the government when they or their loved ones get KIA or WIA. If you weren't prepared to take the risk of getting killed or wounded you shouldn't have joined the army!!! This notion that "My little Johnny would still be alive if the MOD had issued him body-armour" is such c**p! Maybe he wouldn't have died that day but he would possibly have been blown to smithereens the following day.

Combat and warfare is the ultimate in disorganisation, confusion and logistics problems (no matter how well organised an army is) and until the day the Army offers written guarantees that all wars will be universally recognised as legal, will be fully resourced at every single moment and fought against an enemy armed with nothing but sticks, I suggest our service personnel (Royal or layman) accept the likelihood of injury or death!

[mockney piers]

Not sure I can completely agree with you on that last point Dom. All soldiers accept the risk as of death or injury as part of the deal, but it's wrong for bureaucratic incompetence to mean we send our troops into a battle zone without enough or even the wrong equipment.

It's even worse when it's being done wilfully in order to save money because of all the cash ploughed into pointless high profile military projects such as obsolete cold war warships we don't need (each hugely overdue and 3 times the 1 billion budget), F22s and Trident Submarines.

I get absolutely incensed when someone rightly points out in parliament that we're betraying our soldiers, and the defence minister comes out with "the tories reduced spending" (yeah, it was called a peace dividend you tit) "and we've increased spending by x billion" (yes on a bunch of things we don't need, meanwhile our troops are having to buy boots online, leave alone body armour, night vision goggles etc!!)