Re: 'Harry' in Afghanistan

"Fred" <Fred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:9c2dncco7_-mCVTanZ2dnUVZ8sbinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mike G wrote:
>>
>> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:zJqdnUPwcuo28VTanZ2dnUVZ8saonZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "OM ****VA!108" <grimus108@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>
news:56925164-c2cf-4cc8-9a71-30ce1c9f0282@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/01/royalsandthemedia.military1
>>>>
>>>> Working out british bastard 1-2-3 anger on the Pasthtun does not make
>>>> the little **** a hero - it just gives the silly tosser some rather
>>>> nasty karma to have to deal with in future.
>>>
>>> Master James Hewitt may be a bit of a b******d, but there is no need
for 
>>> language like that!
>>
>> I agree.
>> And I don't understand why there is so much animosity directed against 
>> him.
>> He is not responsible for his parentage, any more than he is
responsible 
>> for the way he is treated by the media, and for the decision to bring
him 
>> home.
>> IMO he's the victim of his cir***stances. Not the perpetrator.
>> Mike.
>>
>
>    Absolutely. who would choose to be born into that situation? In a 
> goldfish bowl from the word go!

I get the impression that all he wants is a relatively normal life. Not
that 
he's ever going to be allowed to, but you can't blame the guy for trying.
The media will never permit it. They're too interested in selling 
newspapers, and as long as there are people who feel they have a need to 
know what every x y z celebrity is up to at any or all the time, they'll 
continue feeding them with every piece of gossip or tittle tattle they can

unearth about them. Regardless of the affect it might have on the
individual 
concerned.
Mike.