Afhganistan and the Taliban are not quite Agincourt and the French are they ? still.
I made a recent comment saying that had the Taliban known about the soldier prince in their midst, they would have issued an instruction to the 'Terrys' to look out for a ginger haired man staggering about drunk dressed as a Nazi and guess what ? some people have taken offence.
It would appear therefore that some people are gullible enough to believe this guff, if I can paraphrase 'Mencken' 'no-one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the British public when it comes to Royalty'
Some time ago I wrote some scathing comments about the 'Brass' who lead our armed forces and took flack for it, nothing too difficult to handle though, I knew that I had history and the future on my side, I knew that something would come along quite soon to show I was right and here we are.
I say that because "an ordinary every day soldier, treated no differently from anyone else" has been able to tell the highest command that he will be sent to a battle field or else and the military leaders have said to this "ordinary soldier" "yes sir, 3 bags full sir" note the 'sir'
As Jack Nicholson (Nathan Jessup) once said 'what kind of an outfit are you running here' ?
What does that tell you about the chinless nonentities who run our forces, put their by privilege not talent, weak, spineless leaders create poor results.
From dim witted oafish playboy, to national hero in one bound, Harry was free, 10 days in Afghanistan, fiddling with a computer in a heavily fortified base some 6 miles from the front line.
Surrounded by a personal bodyguard made up of arguably the world's most accomplished fighting men (the Gurkha's) has made him into a hero.
The cynical 'quid pro quo' was the rehabilitation of an embarrassing Royal Prince and good publicity for the army in a conflict which is going badly.
All the ready prepared cloying films and interviews which were so false as to be laughable convinced me that he was never in any more danger than Tony Blair or Gordon Brown when they visited 'the front line' this was an exercise in cynicism which I think and hope will backfire on them all.
I will come back to this farce but one last thing at the moment before all you badge kissers and forelock tuggers start, Harry is not to blame for this debacle, he is too young, too inexperienced and too dim to know what is going on, he , poor lad, is being used.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
94 comments:
Terry:
"Put their by privilege not talent."
Unlike Labour councillors eh? Heh. Are you opposed to the war in Afghanistan, or do you just think that members of the royal family should not expose themselves to danger (I thought he was there ten weeks, not ten days)? If you want to protect our royals, then I say good on you- I never realised that you were so ardent a monarchist (though I should have suspected something when you approved the continuation of the Castro monarchy).
Harry was 10 WEEKS into a 12 week deployment not 10 days. He worked as a forward air controller despite being deployed as a REMF. Sounds like a young officer looking for a scrap.
Soldiers have also been onto the Army Rumour Service website to sing his praises. Being a semi-regular reader of that site I know they don't suffer fools gladly and officers not cutting it are savaged.
Unfortunately Terry the problem is that you claimed he was a coward when he did not go to Iraq and now he has done this stint it blows a hole in your libel. You have claimed, on nothing but your own prejudice, that he is not fit to hold a commission and we now find the first combat troops he directed thought he was the nuts. You are now in full on a*se covering mode. Not a very dignified position you find yourself in is it?
Incidentally Terry the good men and women, officers and senior NCOs, who have graduated RAF Waddington would take offence at your inference that anyone who uses a computer in a hardened compound is somehow less of a soldier. Those are some of the most important people in the battle and they will never fire a shot. Yet another name on the growing list of people you have to apologise to.
I said that you would prove yourself to be the totally mean spirited no mark that everyone thought you were over this issue, and sure enough you do.
To pontificate on matters you know nothing about is ludicrous, and to pontificate on matters you know nothing about as a public servant is criminal.
Give us the source of your knowledge and experience in military matters councillor, if you have any.
If not, you sound like a bitter old man who wishes he was better than he is, and is shown to be a sad little man incapable of reaching any heights and has to stoop to pitiful rants on subjects he knows nothing of to try and validate his pitiful existence.
Terry dear boy. If one is going to utilise militaristic terminology in ones utterings, please have the decency to spell them correctly. After all many millions died in order to allow you to eat sleep and fart in relative peace.
flak–noun
1.antiaircraft fire, esp. as experienced by the crews of combat airplanes at which the fire is directed. 2.criticism; hostile reaction; abuse: Such an unpopular decision is bound to draw a lot of flak from the press.
Terry;
You say that "weak, spineless leaders create poor results".
Wont those words get you into trouble with Gordon Brown?,
Surely even you cant speak of your "great leader" in those terms...
Well Terry
You've certainly upset this "forelock tugger" in the South West of England. As a person who believes in the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom being held by the Sovereign Queen I find it admirable that the young Prince Harry is couragious enough to place his life in danger in order to try and help the people of Afghanistan.
It is quite easy for a not-quite-a-socialist-right-to-buy-under-Thatcher minor individual in Scotland to criticise. I suppose it would be more acceptable to you if Harry would grow a grey beard and line homosexuals up against a wall and shot them.
"What does that tell you about the chinless nonentities who run our forces, put their by privilege not talent, weak, spineless leaders create poor results"
Presumably by that you mean the SoS for Defence, Des Browne and ultimately the Supreme Bottler himself, as those who have ultimate control of the armed forces??
"good publicity for the army in a conflict which is going badly"
A conflict started by whom? Oh yes, Tony Blair. There's a saying about people on glass houses...
Apart from that, as a servant of the Crown (like it or not Terry, they are still technically your boss)I find your whole attitude on this matter disgusting. That Prince Harry actually went and fought for his country in a warzone is commendable and for you to sling insults is a new low, even after glorifying a scumbag communist dictator.
God save the Queen!!
"Harry is not to blame for this debacle, he is too young, too inexperienced and too dim to know what is going on"
As opposed to you, who don't have the excuse of youth and inexperience for being so dim.
(Rumbold) 01/03/08
“If you want to protect our royals” absolutely but royalty has nothing to do with it.
This sorry episode shows up some quite embarrassing things.
The corruption of The State, The Monarchy, the Military and the Media.
For this to succeed you need a compliant grovelling crowd who have been conned for hundreds of years by a very smart establishment, that’s you.
(ShrekBall) 01/03/08
The fact that you feel it necessary to correct me on the 10 days mistake says something about the strength of your argument.
“Sounds like a young officer looking for a scrap” I see him as a young man who is being cynically used and worst of all his own family are complicit in it.
“you claimed he was a coward “ I'll give you a chance to explain this..
The rest of this shows why the establishment can do such things. Get off your knees.
(Anonymous) 01/03/08
That’s not very nice is it ?
People like you are the reason that the establishment can pull stunts like this.
(Anonymous) 01/03/08
Thank you for that.
I assume that apart from the pompous lesson you agree with me.
I usually don't respond to this kind of thing but you are too good a target to miss.
I think you meant,
'anti - aircraft'
And I think you meant 'utterances'
as utterings is not a word.
Also your use of the word 'Airplane' is an Americanism.
The right word is Aerplane.
'Dear boy' I think most people after this would retire in embarrassment, but you ?
(Seeyoulater) 02/03/08
I heard they were looking for a replacement for Paxman, you might be the very candidate.
(w goodwin) 02/03/08
I’m delighted to spread enlightenment to SWE a beautiful part of the world with lovely friendly people, likeable and muddle headed perhaps but very nice nevertheless.
I happen to think that Harry has been used by the Army and what’s worst of all, his own family have colluded in this.
I don’t agree with lining anyone up and shooting them, not even Royals.
(Tory Student) 02/03/08
“A conflict started by whom? Oh yes, Tony Blair” I think this is particularly weak, you might find that Britain’s involvement with Afghanistan goes back a whole lot longer than Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or Des Browne.
Your last chapter is pathetic I made no personal comment about whether Harry being there was commendable on his part or not, I accuse the establishment, that includes the wretched behaviour of his own family and the monarchy flunkies, who have used him.
They are the perfect example of our need for a Fidel Castro of our own.
A thoughtful and reasoned appraisal of the Harry Effect Terry. As always with you it's total cobblers, but you do try,well done.
Harry reminds me so much of the lads I used to meet when Grannie was a missionary in Paisley.
Like them, he had no role in life, no job, no prospects and was happy to drink himself stupid.
Then he went and spoiled things by getting a job, gaining self respect, learning discipline and accepting responsibility.
If any of your constituents currently infesting the bars, street corners and - according to you - the Paisley libraries, want a similar challenge, I'm sure his Grannie has some vacancies.
(Macnasty) 17:58
I fear that the people that you sneer at might indeed look at the armed forces in light of this and think, wow ! 3 squares a day, uniform, food, wages and the best bit of course, if he can become an officer then ----
“A conflict started by whom? Oh yes, Tony Blair” I think this is particularly weak, you might find that Britain’s involvement with Afghanistan goes back a whole lot longer than Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or Des Browne.
You mean Major or Thatcher started it?
This is so weak and pathitic a comment as to be particularly embarassing. I am actually embrassed for the Labour party and socialists everywhere that you claim to be one of them.
Kelly 6.20
Cllr, ref. the people I 'sneer' at.
What is the unemployment rate amongst the under thirties in your constituency and how many of these are claiming incapacity benefits?
You and I both know that the majority of these are wasters, cheating the system, who would run a mile if they were offered a job and wouldn't recognise discipline if it jumped up and bit them in the benefit queue.
If three square a day, uniform, food and wages really does turn them on, than Granny Windsor has lots of vacancies, but dont expect to get trampled in the rush.
Terry @ 5.45
British involvement in Afghanistan ended in the late 19th century when Lord Roberts gave them a good going over, invaded Kabul to show who was boss and then very sensibly took his army back to India.
There was the occasional border clash, but we were not involved in invading that country again until your lunatic party decided it would be a good idea.Here endeth the lesson.
Regarding your nonsense about Harry. He was at the sharp end.How many politicians, (Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff or Brussels) can say the same of their blood relatives?
How I look forward to May when I can gleefully vote against you and your incompedently corrupt regime.
Power to the people?.
Any people other than you and yours...
Unfortunately Terry the 10 day verses 10 week mistake is not a weakness in my argument but an illustration of the inherent dishonesty in yours.
You base an article on two fallacies and sneer at them. Would you now re-write your article to indicate that he served 10 weeks and that for that time he found himself directing bombing runs as a FAC? Your argument only makes sense if he spent 10 days working a computer 6 miles from danger.
I thank you for "giving me the chance to explain" my allegation. Go back and read your article, re-write it with the established facts instead of your pathetic straw man. That should be all the explanation you require.
As for the rest? So you decline the chance to explain why Army web sites are full of squaddies not know for their love of poor officers singing his praises from the veil of anonymity? By your own standards they should use that anonymity to launch "cowardly attacks" on him. You choose to ignore the comment I made about those who were trained in Wadders to use computers? You choose not to defend your position because you now realise that it is indefensible.
Will you now correct the obvious mistakes in your article leaving the rest of it untouched so we can witness your errors in glorious detail? Or do you stand by every word you wrote? Because if you do then we simply now have to accept that everything you say is a poorly researched, botched smear job refracted through a lens of class hatred.
How did I know you were going to sign off with a call for me to get off my knees? Predictable nonsense designed to hide your errors. Your report card for this one reads "must shout louder"
Terry:
"For this to succeed you need a compliant grovelling crowd who have been conned for hundreds of years by a very smart establishment, that’s you."
Am I the smart establishment or the compliant grovelling crowd?
Only in Britain, only under Nu Labour, could we witness such a two tier system where-by, if you dare to critisise some Islamic cult, the satillites of this insipid government are all but falling over themselves to issue warrants for your pending arrest.
Yet, if you bad mouth the British, the Royal family, or our brave-heart soldiers, fighting for freedom in foreign lands, the acknowledgements are such, that you are seen as some self-righteous hero of the political left.
Who said Marxism died in the Soviet Union?.
When Its cheer-leading lovechild posts here on this blog.
"They are the perfect example of our need for a Fidel Castro of our own."
That is just silly.
Regards,
S. Elliott
(Macnasty) 02/03/08
“You and I both know that the majority of these are wasters, cheating the system, who would run a mile if they were offered a job and wouldn't recognise discipline if it jumped up and bit them in the benefit queue”
An accurate picture of the Royal Family, well done.
(Anonymous) 02/03/08
A simplistic and predictable view.
Harry was 6 miles from the front, in a fortified base, firing a computer, surrounded by Gurkhas and even closer by SAS guards.
I’m not getting at him it’s the liars in the establishment and in his own awful family who are responsible.
This farce will, in due course make him even more of a laughing stock.
(Anonymous) 03/03/08
What’s happening in May ? Are you a Royal by any chance ?
(ShrekBall) 09:02
Why do you need so many words to say nothing new ? I’m getting fed up indulging you.
Harry spent 10 weeks they say, got home 6 weeks early, positioned 6 miles from the firing line in a fortified base, guarded by Ghurkas, firing a computer with a closer guard of SAS soldiers.
He will lead a life of no value, he will become as infamous as his great aunt Margaret and a burden on the tax payer and an embarrassment to us all, just like his Grandfather Phil. And the rest of the parasites in his family.
This farce will haunt him and mark him out as a laughing stock for the rest of his life, his only saving grace is that it wasn’t his fault.
The latter, we all are to a greater or lesser degree, they are damn good at it.
(Anonymous) 12:06
I’ve bad mouthed the British for many things, The Royal Family certainly, our Soldiers on occasion but, only when I thought it the right thing to do, I don’t subscribe to ‘my country right or wrong’ I’m too honest for that.
Your statement about Islam seems racist to me, there are plenty of upstanding British Citizens who follow Islam and your remarks are an insult to them.
What evidence do you have of that? Every news outlet seems to be going with 2 weeks home early, was a FORWARD air controller (as opposed to someone who works in a base) which put him in close proximity to the enemy.
The reason I used so many words was because you were so utterly wrong. And you continue to be wrong. Cite your sources so we can blame someone else for your errors.
Again, no justification for the Army Rumour Service reporting. No justification for smearing the intelligence officers and SNCOs who would do the job you imply makes the Prince less of a soldier. Perhaps those who cook and service jeeps in country are not making a contribution in your opinion as well?
The comment about islam is not racist. Islam is a religion not a race.
If the commenter was making a comment about "some Pakistani cult" then you could claim that it was racist but you would probably fail because the poster is clearly indicating a subgroup rather than "all pakistanis".
It may be more accurate to claim that the poster was trying to incite religious hatred if such a law exists in this country now.
(Anonymous) 14:14
I find the idea of Royalty beneath contempt and I regard Castro as a great man, worth 10 Royal families.
(ShrekBall) 15:49
The reason for so many words (here again) is because you are consumed with inarticulate rage at someone disagreeing with you over a subject which is so close to your heart that you can’t think straight.
If you are suggesting that I made up my version of events you are either stupid or a liar.
(ShrekBall) 15:52
I think I’ve got him right OK - It doesn’t surprise me that you are prepared to split hairs on his behalf.
"If you are suggesting that I made up my version of events you are either stupid or a liar."
OK, cite your source for the version you are using and shut me up once and for all.
And I am slightly concerned that calling someone racist when they are not ranks as "splitting hairs" in your book.
(ShrekBall) 16:13
If you are trying to suggest that there were no stories / articles which were similar to mine then you are a liar and you are trying to muddy the waters.
I stand by what I said about him and you, you give yourselves away by your language.
(ShrekBall) 16:19
OK forget irony forget parody, have it your own way. Forget about whether he wanted to go or didn’t want to go.
He told them what was to happen and they let him away with it.
That is what makes the army brass and you, pathetic.
Again this is very different from what has been widely reported across every mainstream paper.
And as for your claim that he told them he was going, well I have not seen this in any news source here or overseas. Can you name the paper or website that gave you this information?
"I find the idea of Royalty beneath contempt and I regard Castro as a great man, worth 10 Royal families."
So presumably you think it's beneath contempt that his brother Raul has taken over as "President" with no direct election and his Niece is a senior government official?
Terry,
Even if being 6 miles away from an armed, fanatical enemy is too far away for you (which it evidently is), I'll wager its 6 miles closer than you've ever been.
"This farce will haunt him and mark him out as a laughing stock for the rest of his life"
Just like those red flag-waving socialists who yearn for a return to the 3 day week and an endless "winter of discontent" in this modern day.
Harry is worth 1000 Castros
Anonymous) 02/03/08
A simplistic and predictable view.
Harry was 6 miles from the front, in a fortified base, firing a computer, surrounded by Gurkhas and even closer by SAS guards.
I’m not getting at him it’s the liars in the establishment and in his own awful family who are responsible.
This farce will, in due course make him even more of a laughing stock.
Says who? You?
Councillor Terry Kelly,
Are you willing to debate this using reason/evidence rather than slander?
I have read all your comments on this thread and you argue in a similar way to the religious right anti-science Christians in the USA.
Sorry for posting as anonymous but I don't have an account. However, I sign my name.
Regards,
S. Elliott
Terry;
In regard to the fact that you must scrape the bottom of your tried and tested barrel and call me a racist - in all honesty, that, is exactally the kind of small minded comment I would expect from you.
If an allegation of race can be made by any such leftist fool such as yourself, by God dont we just know that your going to make it.
Islamic scholars, far and wide state that Islam is not a race. So if you consider me to be "a racist" it will indeed be news to those very scholars, whom Im in little doubt know far more about Islam than you...
(ShrekBall) 16:36
You haven’t heard that he was 6 miles away, or that he fired nothing more dangerous than a computer, or that he was in a reinforced compound, or that he had a Ghurka bodyguard, or that he had an SAS bodyguard as well.
Of course you haven’t, it was that big bad socialist that made it up, aye right ! People like you are more damaging to the poor guy than I am.
(Tory Student) 16:40
Putting the hapless Harry on a pedestal will guarantee you an uncomfortable future. The boy has been set up and so have you but, I know it’s not easy to admit that the establishment you cling to is capable of such things. Maybe you will learn.
Fidel is worth 2000 Royal Families so there !
(Anonymous) 18:18
Yes me, it’s already started. Note that I said ‘even more of a laughing stock’ he is already the clown prince and has been for some time.
(Anonymous) 18:21
“Are you willing to debate this using reason/evidence rather than slander“ ? I will if you will.
I assume that it’s you who will decide what is “reason/evidence and slander” ?
(Shotgun) 18:24
Where have you been ? A secret mission ? Would you have to kill me after telling me ?
“He demanded to be allowed to go and serve the country, and you are complaining about that“ ?
I did not complain about that you are making things up, just like before.
He gave the top brass an ultimatum and they backed down that is why they are not fit to be leading soldiers.
I thought you a man of military bent as well, what is the first thing a soldier does ? He does what he is told. unless he is a royal that is, are you following this ?
(Anonymous) 18:27
I’m sure when people read your remarks they can make up their own minds, I’m happy with that.
Well son, you're in the manure this time.
The 'Fidel for Sainthood' and 'Harry is a Prat' line was always going to get you noticed.
I reckon your best bet is to claim it was all a mistake and the names got transposed by the CIA. Or Mossad.
Doing this might lose you street cred in Havana, but it should get Paisley British Legion off your back before they call an air strike on Casa Kelly.
Councillor; - Re racist....
Judging by the other comments I think they already have....
you gotta laff Terry. How funny is this. HaHahaha.
George Foulkes, Baron of Cumnock and Thane of Tynecastle,an interview he did with Radio Scotland's Scotland at Ten . . .
GEORGE FOULKES :
"The SNP are on a very dangerous tack at the moment. What they are
doing is trying to build up a situation in Scotland where the services are manifestly better than south of the Border in a number of areas."
BBC's COLIN MACKAY :
"Is that a bad thing?"
LORD GEORGE FOULKES :
"No. But they are doing it deliberately
Terry;
Credit where credit is due.
I must admit that, without a shadow of doubt, this, is by far and away, the most entertaining blog on the internet.
Now we can re-engage in hostilities...
If the SNP got they wish, and broke away from England, would'nt your problem of (English - and I use the term loosely) - Kings, Queens and Princes be solved in an instant?.
I mean, and Im sure you'll agree, President Salmond does have a rather catchy ring to it.
(Shotgun) 03/03/08
I think that you are a fantasist and you have nothing to do with the military.
Anyone who knows about these things knows that soldiers do not give ultimatums to the top brass, you couldn’t have been in the military, maybe your getting your service with the boy scouts confused.
I’ll repeat again for you, Harry is not to blame for this fiasco, the military leaders who made exceptions for him are the guilty ones.
(Anonymous) 03/03/08
It’s always funny when someone gets into a twist like that, what he meant of course was, the SNP are not doing these things for the good of the people they are doing them to embarrass Westminster, which is correct.
Just after the year 2000 a radio programme was interviewing Salmond ( the spiv) on the subject of the greatest person of the millennium. The ‘spiv’ said predictably “Robert Burns” and then went on to wax lyrical about the poet.
He went further ! He decided to share with us the greatest moment in the history of poetry.
Overcome with fake gravitas he went too far and recited the following "The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, aft gang agley."
Now if you want a real howler you can start right there eh ? Go and look it up.
(Seeyoulater) 04/03/08
You took a risk here and failed badly.
You should have checked with the SNP, Salmond, Sturgeon etc. first.
You see the Nats. Have no problem with the monarchy, wee Alex (the spiv) takes the line that there is no reason why her gracious majesty can’t reign over Scotland, history clearly isn’t his strong point.
He does this because he lacks the courage to take on the monarchy he’s a coward and so are the SNP members who keep quite about it.
Their biggest name Sean Connery couldn’t wait to grovel on his knees before her glorious scrumptiousness to be made a knight, remember ? Shoorly shum mishtake !
(Anonymous) 03/03/08
“We obey orders or people die it’s that simple” It’s a good quote and armies have adhered to it since wars began.
Soldiers do not give ultimatums to top brass officers it just doesn’t happen. Unless of course you are Prince Harry, that’s the simple truth, Nathan Jessup just put it differently.
"Fidel is worth 2000 Royal Families so there !"
Once, again, Councillor, aren't the Castros a form of royalty? Come to think of it, isn't there something of a Kelly "dynasty" - I use that term loosely - on West Renfrewshire council?
Well, not since last May, anyway!
*poke*
(Anonymous) 03/03/08
“We obey orders or people die it’s that simple” It’s a good quote and armies have adhered to it since wars began.
Soldiers do not give ultimatums to top brass officers it just doesn’t happen. Unless of course you are Prince Harry, that’s the simple truth, Nathan Jessup just put it differently.
Are you being deliberately dumb? You with no military experience? You'll be telling us next that coppers can't demand certain things either...
McNasty, 2nd March @ 5:58pm
Spot on with your apprasal of Paisley. The only difference between the Royals & the proletariat that Kelly represents is the Royals open the occasional supermarket, while Kelly's constituents rob them!!!
Kill the Gingers, I say.
Terry;
Are you aware that the BBC are about to run a docu/drama called; ""Is white working class Britain becoming invisible?".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/white/
Seems Nu Labour have ignored us all for so long that even the BBC are becoming concerned, and with their record of outright loyalty and toadyism toward Nu Labour, perhaps its time for you all to start drafting those concession speaches in plenty of time, for the forthcoming general elections.
Terry,
Unfortunately while attacking seeyoulater over his/her assumption of a Scottish Republic you have attacked Salmond for lacking historical insight.
But as every school child should know the union of the crowns pre-dates the Act of Union by a little over 100 years. So in actual fact Salmond is recognising a truth that has existed for 400 years. Given this would you not say that attacking Salmond over this policy shows that you are the one lacking in historical perspective?
And if you want socialism and a republic then surely the only people you can now vote for/join would be the SSP or Solidarity?
(Anonymous) 04/03/08
No more than the Kennedy’s the Bushes or the Churchills.
The difference with the Kelly dynasty is that I tried to persuade the ex Cllr. Kelly not to stand.
(Shotgun) 04/03/08
Military officers do not allow people below them in rank to present them with ultimatums, end of story.
I don’t believe you have ever had anything to do with the military, I’ve already spoken to people with experience of the forces and they ridiculed the idea of the top brass accepting ultimatums from soldiers under them.
The whole idea is risible and so are you. You should stick to reading your war comics.
(Anonymous) 04/03/08
The Military and the Police are not democracies you sign up to obey orders and that’s what you do. When a senior officer gives an order you obey, you don’t debate.
The idea that I would have to have been in the armed forces to know this is just about as stupid and weak an argument as I’ve heard.
(Anonymous) 04/03/08
The Royals don’t need to rob anything they are rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
No matter how thick or incompetent they are they are on to plenty, supplied by you and me.
And in your case you get to grovel and tug your forelock as well don’t you.
(Seeyoulater) 05/03/08
You seem to be struggling to say something here but you don’t seem to have the bottle. Maybe you should explain your own politics, if you aren’t too ashamed.
(ShrekBall) 09:00
I think if you look closely it’s ‘seeyoulater’ who has got it wrong by suggesting that Salmond (the spiv) would be in some way be hostile to her Gracious Majesty, when in actual fact he wouldn’t.
You’re beginning to get a wee bit desperate.
Kelly @ 5.22 5/3/08
'No matter how thick they are, they are on plenty.'
Spot on Terry, a perfect description of a certain Labour Councillor.
"No more than the Kennedy’s the Bushes or the Churchills."
Indeed, but I don't hate the K's, C's or B's, whereas you claim to, just like you hate the Windsors.
You are entitled to your opinion, but could you explain how the Castros are any different?
The idea that I would have to have been in the armed forces to know this is just about as stupid and weak an argument as I’ve heard.
I pity you beause if you are being fed these lines they are taking the mickey out of you and sniggering behind your back while you type.
Terry;
Could you possibly be refering to the "R" word?.
Now that really would be a surprise (not), coming from a "politically correct" dinosaur such as yourself.
Or is the term "Social cohesion", now-a-days?.
Over the years, its been your ilks, "ace in the pack", when faced with such difficult issues, that need addressing, but are a little too hot for the leftists to discuss in a full and proper manor.
Could you, would you, debate them here?.
I think not.
Perhaps then, that is the reason why, the BBC are about to tackle these issues, "head on".
I welcome their decision - but no doubt to you, it will be no more than institutionalized RACISM of the highest order.
(Shotgun) 05/03/08 -
Anyone who claims to have a military background and states that soldiers are allowed to debate orders and present ultimatums to senior officers is either a fantasist or a liar.
I think you are no more than an armchair soldier you are kidding yourself and making a fool of yourself.
Let’s repeat it again ‘private to officer’ “ I’ve decided not to fight tomorrow, I’m having a day off and, if you object I’ll jolly well leave “ yes Mr. ‘shotgun’ absolutely.
(Anonymous) 05/03/08
You believe that the Army allows it’s soldiers to debate orders and give ultimatums to senior officers and I don’t.
I am very happy with my position here.
(Shotgun) 05/03/08
Abolish the lot of them I say and so do many others in this country and in the Labour Party and we eventually will.
No one should have any power who hasn’t been elected, who are these people you refer to, these donors. Is this a fact or have you made this up.
(Seeyoulater) 06/03/08
“Could you possibly be refering to the "R" word“ ?
If the shoe fits, it’s as I expected, you goons are not subtle are you ?
Unlike you I will watch the programme before coming to any conclusions.
As an ex soldier that has served 24 years and with a daughter currently serving in Iraq, I feel that I am qualified to comment on this issue. Harry has a commission in th earmy and as such he has a right to resign that commission. He has not given an ultimatum to the top brass, what he has done is informed his superiors that if they insist on wrapping him in cotton wool he would exercise his rights and resign.
I attended my daughters passing out at RMCS and met a number of young officers who had not been selected for th eunit of their choice and despite having been put through the rigorous traing at Sandhurst they opted to resign their commissions before even joining their active unit.
I regularly speak to my daughter and other serving soldiers (male and female) and I have yet to hear a derogatory comment about Harry. There have been a lot of positive comments, which is why I find it difficult to relate to your stance on the subject.
(Shotgun) 18:28
This is nothing more than a very long winded attempt to muddy the waters.
I have always known that service people can buy themselves out, it’s one of the first things a recruitment officer tells you.
The point here is that Harry gave them the ultimatum and they backed down. That’s what makes them unfit to lead.
Terry,
You still haven't asnwered my very simple question - what is the difference between the Kennedy's, the Churchills, the Chaimberlains etc and the Castros?
And the fact that you agree with one and don't agree with others isn't good enough.
(Shotgun) 06/03/08
“so they rightly decided that it was better to RETAIN a trained and qualified officer”
What an absolute crock of S--- they did nothing of the sort, if he hadn’t been Prince Harry his feet would not have touched the ground.
Sometimes your sycophancy is silly and sometimes, like this, it is quite sad.
The British Army allowed a soldier to give them an ultimatum and they accepted it, why ? Because he was “a trained and qualified officer” that’s it, of course it is, they just couldn’t survive without him right ?
as McEnroe would say
“ you can not be serious” for god’s sake get a grip of yourself.
(Anonymous) 09:4
The first lot got there because of money and privilege.
The Castros got there because they won a revolution and sustained it for 60 years, against the most powerful nation in history. How’s that ?
Ben---
That’s a bad start Ben, I don’t consider you any more qualified than me or any other member of the public to comment on this issue.
“what he has done is informed his superiors that if they insist on wrapping him in cotton wool he would exercise his rights and resign”
That’s an ultimatum.
“they opted to resign their commissions before even joining their active unit”
I have never suggested that officers can’t resign or that soldiers can’t buy themselves out, the point here is that an officer was able to tell the senior commanders what to do and they did it.
“which is why I find it difficult to relate to your stance on the subject”
My stance is simply that the army, ‘not Harry’ let themselves down by agreeing to this farce, Harry’s agreement to go along with this shows poor judgement and it will make it even more difficult for him to be accepted as a real soldier, quite simply, real soldiers don't go into combat surrounded by a personal bodyguard of Ghurkas and SAS men.
The truth of the matter is that Royals joining the armed forces is a way of selling the monarchy.
The days of monarchs and princes in real combat are long gone it’s con which has simply been highlighted, most people already knew the real situation.
"The days of monarchs and princes in real combat are long gone it’s con which has simply been highlighted, most people already knew the real situation."
Thank goodness that real combat situations are few and far between. However, under the current Labour regime our armed forces have been commited to combat in at least four separate theatres of operations viz, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of the Royals that have served, the Duke of Edinburgh and Earl Mountbatten served with distinction in the Royal Navy during WWII. HM the Queen herself served in the Women's Auxilliary during WWII.
Prince Charles was a naval officer as was Prince Andrew who was a navy pilot during the Falklands conflict. Now Princes William and Harry are serving the country.
It would appear your posting has more to do with your bigotry and hatred of the Royal family. Why let the truth get in the way of your own prejudices?
If you are so against the way in which our society operates why not move to one of those socialist paradises of which you are so enamoured? I'm sure Cuba, Palestine and North Korea would welocme you with open arms
I repeat:
"The fact that you agree with one and don't agree with others isn't good enough."
The Kennedy's and Churchill's have equally great accomplishments to their names, you just don't happen to like those accomplishments.
Again, what is the difference?
Cllr Terry Kelly said...
(Shotgun) 07/03/
Clean it up or you won't be printed.
You think Harry got his way because the Army needed him, I think he got his own way because he is Prince Harry.
“A disconnection is apparent between a media dazzled by the athletic Harry - at - war and anger at the grass roots where the hero - prince does not wash”
(Leo Docherty - British Army Iraq & Afghanistan & author of - Desert of Death : a soldiers journey from Iraq to Afghanistan“ but, what would he know ?
It must be comforting for you to know that all ‘the lads’ have their own personal bodyguard of Ghurkas and SAS, just like ‘the lad’ Harry.
Saturday, March 08, 2008 8:02:00 PM
(Anonymous) 11:54
Perhaps we might make progress if you tell me the difference or, if there is in your opinion no difference you could say why.
The end of WW2 saw the last Royals in action, I don’t believe the Andrew story, if he had been anywhere near danger there would have been books documentaries and films made about his heroism.
“It would appear your posting has more to do with your bigotry and hatred of the Royal family”
I don’t hate the Royal Family, despite their behaviour.
I am a republican and consequently I want to see and end to the monarchy, hardly a unique position and quite legal.
Your last para. Is juvenile and pathetic, I’ll stay here and fight for change.
(Shotgun) 08/03/08
Why bother with stuff like this when you know it won’t be printed ? Just how thick are you. Remove the sleaze and try again.
The debate is that you think Prince Harry with the news and camera crews and his personal body guard of Gurkhas and SAS as well as telling the top brass what to do was just ‘one of the lads’ and I don’t, I enjoy getting the chance to repeat it.
Shotgun from the 8/3/08 - I’m not impressed.
I assume you have given up ? quit.
You're a scary man right !
The fact that Raul took over immediately after the retirement of his brother, coupled with the fact that Fidel's Niece is rapidly rising through the party ranks and is tipped as a future President, is indicative of some kind of familial order of succession, or "dynasty".
I don't neccessarily think that's a bad thing, much as I dislike Castro and his regime. But you have such an intensive hatred of any kind of privilidged, elite dynasty that it seems odd for you to not have any qualms about it.
I really can't explain it any more simply than that.
(Anonymous) 15:14
Reigning PM’s hand over to others in this country as well. I think that 50 yrs. At Fidel’s side and a niece doing well does not compare in any way with what is so common in western societies.
The fact remains that this kind of thing has been going on since time began, if this was a case of nepotism in Cuba I would condemn it but, I don’t see that.
Post a Comment