Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/2752-royals-afghanistan/
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.'

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!

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!!)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • OOOOooooOOOooohhhHHHHHH 👜 👜 👜 
    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...