egafd.com

Whose Baby?

I take i you guys aren't that keen on him???

This for once is a class, insightful, cutting piece of journalism, forget about all the horseshit the 'meeja's' being spouting over the last few days:

Robches wrote:

>>>


As I said in the other Harry Hewitt thread though, Rob - it was all about minimising the risk to Prince Andrew.

Sure, there's always a risk to ANYONE entering ANY war zone. But down in the South Atlantic, the Invincible, along with the other carrier (Illustrious, I think it was) was probably the safest ship to be on and the least likely to be hit - at least in that particular conflict against that paricular opponent (the Argentine Navy and Air Force).

Why? Various reasons:

a) There was a picket line of destroyers whose specific job it was to defend the carriers and - if necessary - take any incoming Exocets meant for the carriers. HMS Sheffield was on this picket line when it was hit (so in that grim sense, did its job).

b) The Argentinians only had 8 (count 'em - eight) Exocets IN TOTAL!!!

c) The Argentinians had no surface fleet to speak of - certainly nothing capable of getting within range to take on the carriers (with the possible exception of the Belgrano, which was why HMS Conqueror took it out at the first opportunity).

d) The Argentinians had no decent subs that could have got close enough undetected to pose a threat to the carriers.

e) The carriers could sit far enough offshore to be out of range to Argentinian land-based bombers (their Mirage IIs and Skyhawks).

In a bigger scrap against a more potent enemy, it may have been a different story. But all in all, the likelihood of Prince Andrew ever being in any real danger from the Argentine forces was pretty remote. He was probably in more danger of his lackey spilling hot tea in his lap in the officers' mess.

And Brian Hanrahan was in far more danger down there than Prince Andrew ever was.

- Eric

The other carrier was the Hermes.

I accept that some of the stuff about Andy flying as an Exocet decoy might have been bullshit, I've no way of knowing. Anyway, his helicopter, the Sea King, was designed for anti-submarine work, and the Argies did have a couple of decent-ish subs. Enough at any rate for the navy to have to keep flying anti-submarine patrols to protect the carriers. It's hardly Andy's fault he was on one of the carriers, the Sea King is a big helicopter, and usually has to fly off a carrier, so the point is he did as much as any of the other Sea King pilots in the campaign. The ships which really copped it in the Falklands were the frigates and destroyers, but they are not called escorts for nothing, it's their job to protect the carriers, and that's what they had to do.

I saw a picture of him in a newspaper yesterday and he looks the spit of his real father.

Alice In Blunderland wrote:

> Shaun Pollock?

LOL! There was a phase when Diana seemed to fuck anything in trousers - so we can't rule out South Africa's premier all-rounder as the father. !wicked!