Author Topic: It must be bad  (Read 521 times)

JLR2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
It must be bad
« on: May 17, 2018, 11:59:14 AM »
Whatever it is it must be really bad news the BBC is working so hard to bury on behalf of the government. So what two non-entities are getting married on Saturday, hundreds of other happy couples will get married on Saturday and I wish them all the best for a happy future including the two non-entities I referred to. I'm just p**d off that the BBC are giving so much time to their wedding, there are more important things going on in the world

Harry is a guy I have had no time for ever since his faked photos in Camp Bastion in Afghanistan showing him behind the trigger of a gpmg (machine gun)  I doubt the photos of him flying in the helicopter were taken anywhere near a dangerous zone where he might have faced enemy fire.

The BBC and its penchant for currying favour with whichever government is in power will see to it that they have a story covering the countdown to Harry's first child, least the first he'll admit to as his, if it'll help distract from whichever cock-up the government want buried.

I hope the Royal Household and the MSM do not attack and do all they can to besmirch Megan if and when her family become too much of an embarrassment to Q-Liz back at the Palace as they did to Fergie.

lankou

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2018, 01:00:23 PM »
Faked photos whatever has made you come to that conclusion. As for being in harms way, the SAS does not assign a bodyguard to people who are not in harms way. (All the comment I can make without angering officialdom.)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4745
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2018, 01:31:07 PM »
Actually, he served for 10 weeks in Afghanistan before an Australian journalist broke the publication embargo (I wonder whether doing so was as profitable as I assume he hoped it would be) and the prince then had to be pulled out.

He is on record as having killed people believed to be insurgents whilst piloting his  Apache.  He has not been contradicted in this by the military heirarchy, by those serving closely alongside him or by anyone in government.

Incidentally may I mention that Prince Andrew served in the Falklands war.  Was there somewhere safe there, a ship they could be sure wouldn't be attacked unlike the six British ships that were sunk?

Personally I have no doubt whatsoever that Prince Harry would have completed his tour of Afghanistan if someone hadn't had more regard for sensationalist story publishing serving no particular public interest than for the safety of the troops.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

JLR2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2018, 04:01:34 PM »
''Prince Andrew served in the Falklands war''

It has been said by others that Andrew was kept away from areas in which it was assessed that he might face enemy action.

Harry?  It was said at the time of his going to Afghanistan that his wanting to be there amounted to nothing more than an ego driven act on his part, giving him something to boast about to his pals. It was said in the news of the time his being pulled out/recalled back to the UK was down to the increase his presence brought to the targeting of ''ALL'' helicopter movements in the hope Harry might have been in one of them. Those serving in the Army could not say anything of what they honestly felt about Harry or for that matter Andrew as they were all made well aware their RSM would deal with them had they done so.  I learnt of just how polite and nice the Sgts of the RSDG could be when under the watch of their RSM when I went to Fallingbostel.

Harry has not my respect.

lankou

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2018, 04:24:36 PM »
''Prince Andrew served in the Falklands war''

It has been said by others that Andrew was kept away from areas in which it was assessed that he might face enemy action.


I don't call flying in front  of a ship to act as decoy for incoming missiles being kept away from areas in which it was assessed that he might face enemy action.


JLR2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2018, 04:40:31 PM »
The ship was ordered to sail miles away from the main body of Royal Navy ships were stationed, somewhere well north of the Falklands.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4745
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2018, 04:45:18 PM »
Prince Andrew served on ships.  6 British ships were sunk.  Had it been possible to predict which ships would be sunk, those six ships could have been adequately defended and not sunk.  To be on a ship was a risk.

Prince Harry and an ego trip?  Well that wouldn't make him unusual amongst young, eager officers, would it?  And at least this ego trip caused him to do something that our country generally considers a good thing to do, to serve in the forces on the front line.  Obviously the politics of whether that is a good thing and of whether our forces should have been in Afghanistan when he was then or ever are controversial anyway.

As for what he was like when he was serving, I'd have thought that if his behaviour were outrageously bad or very much different from that of others of his age and rank, there would by now have been lurid news stories about it and probably a chapter or two in one of the neverending stream of unauthorised/unofficial biographies.

It seems to me that as a royal, almost anything he does he'll be criticised for.  That's part of what royals get used for in our modern society.  If instead of serving in the forces he'd done something else, someone would have accused him of doing a non-job or getting promoted too fast or whatever.

You don't have to respect Prince Harry if you don't want to, but it seems to me that what you're most criticising him for is a mixture of normal young adult male behaviour and for decisions made by others, i.e. where to deploy him and what do do when a reporter decided to expose his presence. 

Incidentally, you're concerned about his fiancée - you could as easily criticise her for her decisions.  Coming over here and marrying a royal?  Ego trip.  Something to boast about to her pals.  They'll pull her back from the frontline of royal activity if she becomes a liability. 

I think there are both pluses and minuses to having royals, but given that we do have them, there are a lot worse things they could be doing than finding out what actually goes on in the front line for ordinary people who go to war in their name.  Even if they'd just put an 'observer' label on him, he'd have been doing something worth doing, as I see it. 
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

KizzyKazaer

  • Administrator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8447
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2018, 04:59:42 PM »
Quote
It seems to me that as a royal, almost anything he does he'll be criticised for.  That's part of what royals get used for in our modern society.  If instead of serving in the forces he'd done something else, someone would have accused him of doing a non-job or getting promoted too fast or whatever.

Yep, that's about the size of it... 'tall poppy syndrome', I think it's called (if you're Up There, certain others will always want to cut you down)

I'm not really bothered about what he did or didn't do in Afghanistan, nor am I particularly interested in his soon-to-be wife's past relationships or choice of clothes/shoes >yawn<  As one human being to another, I wish them both well for their married future, but will be relieved when the damn wedding is done and dusted and (hopefully) all the excessive coverage by broadcasters and the newspapers will at least be less than it has been since they became a couple!

lankou

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2840
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2018, 05:26:23 PM »
I wish them both well for their married future, but will be relieved when the damn wedding is done and dusted and (hopefully) all the excessive coverage by broadcasters and the newspapers will at least be less than it has been since they became a couple!

Quite. My wife and I will be avoiding the Royal Wedding, camped in a field near Weston-Super-Mare.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4745
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2018, 05:34:49 PM »
I used to think we shouldn't have a royal family until I began to wonder what we'd get instead.  An elected president would, one supposes, be more democratic, but then if they were what I'll call a political president, they'd be busy doing what our prime minister currently does, and if they were what I'll call a figurehead president, then they'd be doing what our Queen currently does but with the added visible party political loyalty.

In practice, a high proportion of what the Queen does falls into two categories.  She acts as a figurehead that makes important occasions seem important, be that the opening of parliament or handing out honours; and she engages in overseas tours which are mostly for achieving diplomatic and/or economic goals.   

I believe that in both contexts, having a non party-political Queen and royal family to act as understudies and substitutes, is at least as good as an elected figurehead president and better than an elected political president who'd have to send out other diplomats instead.

You can ask whether she should have that much power, but then you could ask that of senior Whitehall mandarins, or of people that influence the politicians from behind the scenes.

So whilst I think there's a lot the royal family could be criticised for (I've never been keen on their close relations with the Saudi royals) I've reached the conclusion that at the moment they're better than the alternatives I think we'd be likely to get (as opposed to could hypothetically get if you totally revised our parliamentary system).

That doesn't mean that I think that royals should be beyond criticism - far from it.  So insofar as I defend Prince Harry in relation to Afghanistan, that's not a 'royals can do nothing bad' position. 
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

JLR2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2018, 06:23:34 PM »
Thanks, I've had enough.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4745
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2018, 06:59:37 PM »
Sorry, I meant to debate not distress.

 :-(
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

SteveX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2018, 08:17:24 PM »
I'll toss in my two penneth.

The Royals are very hit and miss with me, The Queen I love, no matter what you might think of them, the Queen has been truly amazing and for me at least it will be an incredibly sad day when she passes on, because I don't think highly at all about Charles and the rest of them, I wish them no harm or malice but I only care about the Queen and by jove she's done a wonderful job all these years.

I am not a fan of Harry or Meghan(spelling?) and I am honestly SICK TO THE BACK TEETH of all the "Propaganda" the BBC is shovelling 24/7 right now, I'll just be glad when it's all over and things calm down.  I don't wish them any harm, I'm just sick of the pandering and toadying on the TV right now.   it's quite pitiful

and very annoying.
Member of POMMAS

Monic1511

  • Moderator Welfare Rights
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2333
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2018, 08:23:32 PM »
There are several events this Saturday - 2 football cup finals, Harry & Megan's wedding, pipe band championships, just as a start.

The media will go overboard on their chosen topic of the day, I would rather have the Queen as head of state than any other head of state.
As for the military service aspect of Royal life, it is practically the only role they can be in where they are not on show all of the time.  I know that George VI was at the Battle of Jutland, The current Duke of Kent was forced to withdraw from active service because his regiment was in Northern Ireland and the IRA would have loved to get hold of him.  Andrew was in the Falklands and even though his colleagues said he was kept safe at least he went, he couldn't be classed as a draft dodger. 

Harry has been on show since he was born and knows that press attention contributed to the death of his mum, he thought he could be treated as one of the gang in the military and unless you were in his regiment I don't think we can comment.
I think JLR2 has been in service so will have experience of military life but unless you have been in that family I don't think we can comment on the life the royals live.

I feel sorry for Harry and Megan as the press harassment of her dad has in my view likely contributed to the situation now where Dad is having an operation.   That must infuriate Harry who will be scared that his fiancé will be treated like his mum was.

You were asking what bad news is being hidden - well probably lots of bad news but its all relevant, my bad news is irrelevant to the majority.  If I want to see the parliamentary news I go to the parliament website.   we are all entitled to our own views.

I would not want to be a member of the royal family as the your whole existence is at the whim of the media barons.  There will be right wing media criticising you for not being posh or refined enough, left wing media criticising you for being too posh or condescending, everything you do will be taken exaggerated and used for and against you.   

It was obvious that Harry was on deployment in stan but to protect the whole regiment there was a media blackout negotiated in exchange for some photos.  If he posed in those before he went to do his tour so what. 

I wont be watching the wedding as I'll be working, if I can get my work finished by 2pm I'll get to watch the football & the wedding phots etc will be on the news. 

Should the question here not be who controls the media?  They use the royals and the other celebrties as a smokescreen for their own antics, if you want news watch Channel 4 news, mind you we should all be grateful this aint America, their media is obviously bought.

The royals are people and all people deserve some happyness, the business owners in Windsor will be very happy with the increase in footfall, I just hope all the public events are peaceful and there are no casulaties.

 >dove<
Monic


Monic1511

  • Moderator Welfare Rights
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2333
Re: It must be bad
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2018, 08:31:38 PM »
This is the news that is being hidden - I found this on the website for 10 Downing Street
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/queen-confers-peerages-18-may-2018
Nominations from the Leader of the Conservative Party
1. Diana Barran MBE – founder and lately chief executive of SafeLives
2. The Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Garnier QC – lately Member of Parliament for Harborough and former Solicitor General
3. The Rt. Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst – lately Member of Parliament for Saffron Walden and former Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons
4. The Rt. Hon. Peter Lilley – lately Member of Parliament for Hitchin and Harpenden and former Secretary of State for Social Security
5. Catherine Meyer CBE – founder and lately chief executive of Action Against Abduction
6. The Rt. Hon. Sir Eric Pickles – lately Member of Parliament for Brentwood and Ongar and former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
7. The Rt. Hon. Sir John Randall – former Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Treasurer of HM Household and Deputy Chief Whip. Vice-Chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation and Special Adviser to the Prime Minister
8. Amanda Sater, JP – lately Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party. Chairman of StreetGames and of The Queen’s Club Foundation
9 The Rt. Hon. Andrew Tyrie – lately Member of Parliament for Chichester and former Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee
Nominations from the Leader of the Labour Party
1. Martha Osamor - campaigner on immigration, employment rights and racial discrimination
2. Pauline Bryan – author and campaigner
3. Iain McNicol – lately General Secretary of the Labour Party
Nomination from the Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party
1. Dr. William McCrea – lately Member of Parliament for South Antrim
Privy Council Appointments
The Queen has been pleased to approve that Baroness Chakrabarti be sworn of Her Majesty’s most Honourable Privy Council.
Knighthoods
The Queen has been pleased to approve that the honour of Knighthood be conferred upon The Rt. Hon. David Evennett MP.


so 10 new tory peers only 3 labour ones - I think he Guardian picked it up but the rest of the media are not bothered