Re: British media blackout on Harry, Afghanistan- oh the joys of press freedom

On Feb 28, 11:21 pm, UltraLazarus <ultralaza...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 28 Feb, 22:08, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And why would anyone wish to publish this fact in the public domain?

    I think you will find that if the third-in-line to the head of the
British executive of is engaged in a foreign conflict which that
executive has authorised and bears sovereign responsibility for, then
we have a reasonable interest in being appraised of this as it occurs,
Mel, since presumably the activities of the State are of direct
immediacy and import to our lives. This is generally what is known as
open and accountable representation, a misnomer in Britain I know.

He is not the sovereign and in all probability never will be. In due
time after the event it would have been made known and celebrated. He
may be a senior member of the Royal Family but in this role he was
nothing more than a modest ranking officer serving with his men. There
is no a priori reason as to why his presence should be given any
greater prominence than that of any other.

On the other hand his position is such that it would be unrealistic to
suppose that he is not more vulnerable than others. To a lesser extent
it can be seen that those serving under him too are more vulnerable
through association. The Army therefore has two operational reasons
therefore to keep his presence in theatre secret. We are after all not
fighting a proper enemy that respects the conventions of warfare but
guerilla forces who are undeserving of any consideration whatsoever.

If he were to be killed in action then it would be a tragedy but no
more of a tragedy to his family than it would be to any other family
whose loved one has suffered a similar fate. His capture would be a
national disaster and even greater tragedy to his family since I very
much doubt whether the government of the day would be able to yield to
the inevitable demands that would follow,

I suspect you would revel in such a scenario.

    On the other hand, if the simple aim is to save lives, we should
not be reporting troop levels, location of British bases, the ratio of
marines to ordinary units, etc. All of which is extremely useful in
Taliban hands, and would save hundreds of lives if concealed.

Pure bull***!

The Army has always issued its communiques on operations. In recent
times it even carries correspondents with it in theatre. The flow of
information from the front has always been but it has always also be
heavily censored and selective out of operational expediency. The Army
has always kept its secrets where deemed necessary and perhaps beyond.

Thousands do serve anonymously in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thousands of people are currently in hospital with cancer.  Were
it a member of the Royal family, would you have no objection to a
complete television, newspaper and radio black-out and a cordon around
any future reports to conceal this?

A pathetic non sequitor!

The Royal Family is as entitled to its privacy with regard to the
personal health of its members just like any other. However, the
interest of the public as opposed to the public interest (not the same
thing) dictates that we are kept informed in general terms of the
health of its members whenever they are unwell or enter hospital and
we are.For instance everybody knows that George VI died of lung
cancer. Until his death everybody knew he was unwell but nobody
outside the circle of his family and doctors knew why. His death was
the appropriate and customary time to release details of his illness.
Until that time it was no business of anyone except himself and those
mentioned.

All this enthusiasm for total freedom of information impresses me.
Perhaps you could set the ball rolling by publishing your name and
address here?

Where above did I ask for Prince Harry's address? I was not
saying his exact location should have been revealed, merely the fact
that he was in Afghanistan.

I think Priince Harry's home address is well known!

It amuses me that those who seek to perserve there own privacy do not
extend the same right to others. There was no good reason why the
presence of Prince Harry in Afghanistan should be announced any more
than the presence of any other soldier. Further not only is he
entitled to his privacy, in this case, he needed it.

.

Quantcast