"Palindrome" <me9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:VUhyj.345334$X76.313167@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mike G wrote:
>>
>> "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.
>
> I would quite like to know what the casualty rate has been for the
"front
> line base" he was deployed to. If the casualty rate has been and remains
> much lower than the average for front line bases, then we know it is
even
> more a PR stunt than ever.
What has that got to with Harry's intentions, except to make them more
difficult to achieve?
I got the figure of 1 in 6
> returning killed or injured, from somewhere, for such forward
deployments.
> But I can't find where..
And just how is that relevant to the criticism he's being given?
> I assume that, all the time he has been out there, there has been the
> genuine trained forward air controller sat kicking his heels waiting for
> Harry to be pulled out when it got a bit hairy or he got fed up playing
at
> soldiers...or it needed someone really skilled and expeienced to do the
> job.
OTOH maybe he was doing the job he was trained for. If he wasn't, I feel
sure it was no fault of his, so why bring it up?
Sounds like you can't think anything other than the worst of him or his
intentions.
I don't know the truth either way, but until I know otherwise, I'm not
going
to assume he made any attempt to avoid what would be expected of someone
with his qualifications. He was sent to his posting. AFAIK he didn't
request
that it be a safe one.
Mike.
|
