Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Not sure how Prince Harry's continued presence in the army can now be allowed. I thought it was fairly obvious once he signed up that once deployed in any war situation that he would be a highly prized scalp. This cannot be news to the powers that be or himself. The British Army is a target and to say to his men that we are prepared to risk their lifes but not his is laughable. If this was going to be an issue then he should never have been allowed to sign up in the first place!

MAKING DECISIONS FOR HARRY? YOU WOULD THINK HE WOULD DO WHAT HE WANTED AND TAKE COMMAND OF HIS OWN LIFE

No man should be demeaned into obedience...that is not even a women's job in our great land....

Isn't Harry his own man.?.don't you think he would do what he wanted and take command of his own life...?

We all used to ...until imperialist usurper drugs took us down!!!...

They are mocking ....Gladiator or Gladioli...as if they could decide his future or any of ours...

They are our common enemy ...

Muslims enjoy the love of mother nature...every Muslim family must be sent flowers...

and we must join together to defeat the imperialist medimockers....!!!

Benedict Davey... a lover of life...not the death wish cadaver of devastating davinity as presumed...

We look forward to Harry's wedding ...an occasion of the Pleasures Of Peace

The Prince Harry situation is an interesting one. One take on the situation is that maybe he is not up to the job! Maybe he is just not a very good soldier and in that way would be a danger to his mates. I don't believe that the Royals have been very good at any of their activities ( I will stop short of saying job!)

Some say that he would have been a danger to other forces as he would have been targetted.

I cannot see how this is possible.

All the soldiers are about the same age / have the same haircut / wear the same uniform, and are largely covered by helmets anyway - how would anyone have been able to "pick him out"?

Given that his unit has already left - it's been known for some time that he was not going (if he ever was !)

The PR may have done his image some good though, or it may backfire .... we'll have to wait and see.

There wouldn't have been a problem if the deployment had not been publicised and the media had been persuaded to not report on this deployment.

In my opinion - following the Iran hostages debark le - this demonstrates that - like the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ office, the Ministry of defence is in a shambles.

GRAMMAR NOT MERITOCRACY...The nation's empires of liberal mediocracy should not be funded by taxpayers anymore...

Meritocracy means in practice that people can believe in whatever they write that uses words with precedents of social value...

Grammar ...encourages knowledge of the many socialisms of the leadership of language throughout the world....and supports the practic-call-ity that the nation can follow...

Sociocracy not meritocracy is what makes conservatism workable practical vocational due-call and rude enough to be wealthy, dutiful and capable ....

Cameron is a liberal who expects people to be the way he likes...obedience not objectivity.... and behaviour rather than each lad making his own name playing for the positions he loves with a hedonistic appetite for the future rather than a belief system in the enforcement of his kind of mediocracy...

Thinly investigative syllabuses or confused menial understandings are not knowing or worthy enough for our nation and youth... and the commonality of the national curriculum is deliberately selectively demeaning...

They have used drugs to prevent the gangability and gymnastic views of lads who want to contribute and know society not how much to fear for themselves ...

It is a popular choice of the nation to want schools open all year round...to want the whole of academia sacked for wasting our time ...and knowledgeable performers invited in by old boys and old girls of each school to prepare students with the knowledge they ought to have to prepare their own way to contribute more to society....professionally with the courage and confidence of knowing what is worth doing...and the experience of choosing what to care about...and whose leadership to follow...as and when wanted and as offered to those they would like to choose...

We want a nation full of potential great company wealthy appreciation and ambitions hopes and futures free from mentalist repressions or psychiatric attacks on the nation's sportingly proud forward thinking who would destroy them....

Cameron supported the destructive machiavellian euthanasic sexist hatreds and fears of the sociabilities of Great Britain that polluted our nation's conservatisms...we must restore common sense and get rid of his kind of indulgent infatuatedly pathetic deluded simpletons...

BCD TLC

What a mess. Harry dammed if he went (and probably killed along with his patrol), and now dammed as he won't.
Damage was done by announcing he was to go, but judging by the media presence, for him to "slip out" without anyone noticing would be well nigh impossible. Harry must be devastated and unable to look his troop in the face when they are posted.
His career is now finished and he should resign and do what he does best-living it up in the clubs of London and give the media more reasons to photograph him in a drunken state.

As Mr. Keys showed this action will be hard to stomach by all those who have lost their sons and daughters, but don't blame Harry but blame those that allowed him to get into this position. He wanted to go but to my mind every terrorist in the Middle East would have targetted him in a glorious death as they would see it. As one soldier said, who would want to be around him when out there as he would be a marked man alongside his patrol and yet another mother's son?

And what will William now do? Probably a nice safe "staff officer's" job which 1st.WW soldiers liked to decry playing leapfrog.
Prince Philip was right. They would have been better protected by the Navy, unless, that is, they were not sent on boat patrols to Iran!!
I wonder if every mothers son can now refuse orders under the claim they might be shot at or blown up.

Mike Cricks report on the deputy labour leadership contest was a hoot.
Harriet Harman said" do we need another man to be deputy leader, do we need an all male team" well how about the best person for the job Harriet, regardless of ones gender, its not original that one, and there is no need to chew on it, in some quarters its called common sense, i.e, how about choosing the best candidate, and for any one who talks about equality for all but gets a bit selective when it comes to choosing your childs school, well hypocrisy and socialism do go hand in hand, and on that basis Harriet, you don't get my vote.

Hazel Blears: apparently she won the crowd with her speech, well according to Mr Crick she did, with the use of humour no less; as any public speaker knows, you can talk jibberish, but slip a few jokes in and you will win the crowd over every time and hazel knows the power of humour or has certainly been coached from her script writer; Gordon Brown knows this too, remember that one-liner he gave in the commons recently, about all the extra jobs created under labour and that new one vacancy, referring to tonys departure, I've forgotton how it goes but you know the one, the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ repeated it time after time, do you see my point? hope so. Me thinks Hazel came first in this "unscientific" poll because nobody likes Harriet Harman really and hazel is the only other woman in this contest and the chances are the audience are half women, if not more; sisters will always stick together. Crick "Who did you vote for?", woman voter, "Hazel", crick "why" woman voter, because she's a woman'. Am i living in a parallel universe here or what, what is going on, are you not even a little bit bemused by the quality of these candidates, not to mention the voters who's voting criteria is suspect, " shes a woman alright, she gets my vote" Jesus H, sorry but i am starting to get really worried with all this deputy labour leadership contest, anyway Hazel, you don't get my vote.

Surprise of the night was Hilary Benn, well, of the short footage we saw of him, he inadvertently upset the socialist sisterhood with comments that "women are practical and nuture children and families" ect. Hilary dug himself a hole with these comments and incensed a sister heckler to shout " don't stereotype us"; since when has the ability to be practical and have the skills to nurture children, been a bad thing. In the socialist world view, we are all equal regardless of your gender, sorry to destroy that view you adhere to my dear misguided socialist brotherhood( or should that be sisterhood?), did you know that men have 60 percent more upper body strength than women? but for some strange reason we have women in the armed forces as well as the police; shall i go on? yes lets, of all the studies that you can dig up, in how women compare to men in the work place the only conclusion that has been produced by these studies is that: women under-perform compared to their male counterparts every time. Don't get me wrong, all i am saying is that we have different strengths and weaknesses, i'll fix my car, my wife makes the brew, if i want my roof fixing, the chances are its going to be done by a man and if i want flower arranging, it will probably be a woman that will do it, but if i need a lawyer, well am not bothered, long as that lawyer is good, regardless of their sexual orientation. ( i might need one after this ,"Cherie, how much does it cost to defend a man for telling the truth?".) Hilary might get my vote.

Peter Pain: he abolished the grammar schools in northern Ireland , sits under a sunbed and therefore is unsuitable for high office. No vote for peter.

My money is on Alan Johnson because he is media friendly, pleasant and uncomplicated and has no noticable ego, he will probably not want my endorsement but he is the best on offer; my vote goes to Alan because he's a general all round good chap..

declared and prices.

alan: 3/1
hazel: 1000/1 down to 5/1
hilary: 33/1 (good odds) suffragette weakness though??
peter: 50/1
harriet: non starter
other fella: form unknown

Sir, What an anti-climax. How does Gordon Brown expect to govern an already divided Labour party without even the appearance of a debate? As the architect of New Labour, Brown will have to perform a miracle of somersaults to convince the electorate that he has 'changed'. He doesn't do change. He controls, briefs and is a master of the black arts of political thuggery as witnessed by his briefings against John McDonnel within hours of their meeting on Sunday. This is a man not to be trifled with and unfortunately for the 'socialists' left in the party it is going to be more of the same and the devil take the hindmost! Sincerely, Steven Calrow. L'pool.

How fragile is the belief of those monarchists whose tea cups rattle at the thought of danger. And how surprising. For monarchy is based on the belief of divine preference to hold certain office. Ludicrous of course and is this very ludicridity the root of the complete psychological collapse within the monarchist camp?

A true monarchist would believe that heaven is on their side and as daniel went into the lions den there is nowhere a monarchist cannot go if the protection of heaven is there to ensure they fulfil their destiny? If a monarchist should fall then it is part of the divine plan and should be accepted as such. The life may end but the glory goes on. But clearly the monarchists do not believe that anymore preferring a debased long life of mind numbing ceremony over glory. They cannot believe in the protection of heaven. Do they believe in heaven or even God anymore?

The shame brought upon the UK is because of the collapse of monarchial belief among its supporters. If they no longer believe in the divine basis of monarchy and its subsequent protection by heaven why should anyone else? The claim of divine ordainment to the role of Head of State by those who have manifestly turned their backs on its basic premise may mean that the writing is on the wall?

It's obvious that Harry's presence in Iraq would not involve the normal game of russian roulette ordinary soldiers play. He would be a primary political target for political reasons beyond any possible military objective (such that they exist) in the same way a politician visiting would face different odds to the average Joe on a walkabout. To portray this situation in other way is dishonest.

It does raise the question though, that with the prevalence of Islamist terrorism in the foreseeable future, what the role of Royals in military service can be.

The decision not to send Harry was the correct decision. As a former military man I can understand the tactical reasoning behind this. His unit would have become a major target by the fighters in Iraq and would have probably led to many casualties amongst British troops particularly in his own unit, something which I think no-body would want to see. It's nothing to do with politics, the decision was about protecting lives and was tactically the best decision for all concerned.

I’m sure that Princes Harry wanted to go and still does, I would imagine he wanted to be treated as another part of his platoon. However, he obviously is not just another soldier. And just because he wears the same uniform does not mean he wouldn’t get recognised. I imagine that given the seriousness of the situation he will understand the decision not to send him and stand by it. And I would imagine other people reading this would do also.

TerenceW
Royal Air Force
(Retired)