egafd.com

No, the Oxbridge wallahs who run the BBC are licking arse, as usual.

Von Boy wrote:

> Just watched the "brave, fearless" prince return........did you
> notice the 2 soldiers with him, especially the one behind him
> on the stairs...........i bet Gordon Browns good eye they are
> both SAS who have shadowed him from bog to barracks
> everyday.......
>

Do you mean the same "brave, fearless" prince who would still be out their if some fukwit hadn't decided selling a paper was more important?


> Also just out of interest, many years ago i flew with an ex RN
> helicopter pilot who was in the falklands with P
> Andrew.........did you know that andy was flying just the
> supply routes between ships and never flew over the islands
> until very very safe........

Do you mean the supply routes of ships attacked by the Argentine air force regularly?

I hadn't realised that helicopters could fly all the way to the Falklands from the UK so thought he was in the war zone (hardly safe) but obviously not.

Isn't amazing how you can get to Sandhurst and become an officer in the Army with just one grade E "A" level in Art.

It's been wall-to-wall "Harry the war hero" crap on the media since the sorry broke yesterday. There may have been a news blackout on it for the last 10 months - but boy are they making-up for it now!

How about now having a news blackout on ALL FUTURE ROYAL NEWS forever?

What I've seen over the last 24 hrs has been a master-class in media management. The papers and TV News have been full of pictures of Harry posing in his designer sunglasses on top of tanks with a revolver stuck in the webbing on his flack jacket. Pictures of Harry riding his motorcycle next to tank convoys ploughing through the desert. All very photogenic and utter crap !

He was supposed to be out there for four months. He has lasted ten weeks. I think either the top brass got fed-up babysitting him, or he had had enough and wanted to get back to his nightclubbing in Soho. Leaking the story to a US web-site was a good wheeze so they could say "bloody foreign press", it's there fault we've had to withdraw him from Afghanistan.

randyandy wrote:

>>


ERIC REPLIES:

Seems to me that this has all been contrived so that all parties concerned would emerge from it in a favourable light:

The Army and the MoD can now claim to be treating Hewitt "just like everyone else" (after being roundly criticised for not letting him go to Iraq).

The British media can hold its collective hands up and honestly claim that "it wasn't us, guv!" because the "leak" came from foreign media.

And Hewitt gets to come home early (which suits everyone) as a "hero" because it can now be claimed that he would have continued to ... ahem ... "fight shoulder-to-shoulder" with ordinary squaddies were it not for the additional risk caused by the media "leak".

End result? (a) Good press for Hewitt after all the negative headlines he's had in recent years and (b) by extension good press for the whole royal family ("of course we're not just a bunch of inbred, freeloading wasters - just look what Harry's been doing").

Basically, the whole fucking thing was "a party-political broadcast on behalf of the Royal Family".

What made me chuckle was the the carefully staged footage of a behelmeted and gun-toting Hewitt "patrolling" down the deserted street of a deserted village (another soldier appears briefly). Looked to me suspiciously like all the locals were cleared out in advance to eliminate any possible danger, so that the BBC film crew could then move in and shoot the "combat footage" of Hewitt "on the front line" (which reminded me a bit about the Billy Connelly joke about the Queen thinking that the whole world smells of fresh paint).

And ask yourselves this: If it WASN'T intended as a big publicity stunt for public consumption (either now or later on at the end of his posting) and it was all supposed to be so low-key - why the need for TV reporters, a camera crew and the whole media circus to be there at all, if all he wanted was to be treated "just like everybody else"?

Why not just a short press release from Clarence House to the effect that "HRH Prince Harry has just returned from an X-month posting in Afghanistan"?

It astonishes me that there are those here (all normally such intelligent, articulate folk with more than a streak of healthy cynicism) who are apparently taken in by all this guff!


randyandy wrote:

>>>


ERIC REPLIES:

It was about minimising risk, and AndyPrat was given the least risky jobs going while he was down there. And that WASN'T flying decoys for Exocets - although that was the lie that the public was fed at the time and indeed one that's perpetuated to this day. (For what it's worth, my own cousin (an ex RN Lt. Cdr.) was also down there and knew Prince Andrew personally - and he's also told me more than once that the "Exocet decoy" story was bollocks of the highest order).

And it would be exactly the same for Hewitt in Afghanistan: Sure there's going to be a level of risk to ANYONE setting foot there. But you can be sure that they wouldn't allow him to be exposed to anything more than the absolute minumum risk possible (probably something akin to the risk level that politicians are exposed to during their time on the ground when they sweep in for a photo-opportunity).

- Eric

Well done I wondered when someone was going to blame the UK for it. !laugh!

The reason for the photos etc now is because that was part of the agreement to go out there without the reports being made while he was.

How about now having a news blackout on ALL FUTURE ROYAL NEWS forever?

Like the work of the Princess's Trust etc or just the bits that show them in a bad light because some fukwits in the media (and a few others) want them to look bad?

Don't want to read it do what I do and don't buy the paper!

Of course no-one on here has yet mentioned how the story was blown by our allies - those wonderful people with whom we have a "special relationship", i.e we do as we are told and pay for the privilege - the Yanks, most of whom know as much about the rest of the world as we know about the weather on a planet circling a minor star in a far flung galaxy.

Whatever we think of Harry and the royals, just think what sort of uproar there would have been had the Shrub had a son out there and the Brits had blown his cover - not that that super dick head, who found every way of ducking out of Vietnam, would have ever had a son allowed to go.

The thought that the German paper and Drudge could have ben tipped off by a middleman acting on MoD orders has occurred to me as well, Eric.

Charlie can stick his trust up his arse.

Why are you guys so anti royal. Mind you a lot of people are so anti everything these days...But thats freedom of speech for you.

At least some of you like vinyl and Squeeze at least so you cant all be that bad.

The boy came back and squashed the I'm a hero thing. Harry and Wills are ok in my book.

Whats wrong with the UK having a Royal family? You guys are quick to go on about changes to traditions and stuff but when it comes to the Royals its like "Do away with them"

Back in the day Queen Vicky wouldve had it "orf with ones heads"