Re: British media blackout on Harry, Afghanistan- oh the joys of press freedom
- From: UltraLazarus <ultralazarus@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:40:36 -0800 (PST)
On 29 Feb, 15:26, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
So, can we take it that were it in fact the Crown himself, or the
Crown's son, you would have no objection to the news being disclosed?
On the contrary, I can just imagine that when a United Kingdom
monarch eventually does take up arms on behalf of this country on a
foreign battlefield, you will be here calling for this very salient
fact to be bookmarked and "delayed" for a few months or so.
In due
time after the event it would have been made known and celebrated.
Or perhaps not. Who knows? That is the wonder of the British
constitution, everything is done with the tilt of the head and the
quick shuffling of feet.
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.
Precisely, which is an excellent and very apposite reason for
this nation's security why we should not allow any serving members of
the Royal family to exist in combat, where they may endanger other
lives and their own, and significantly alter the lineage of this
kingdom. On the other hand, if our collective interests are to be
ignored and abused in this way, then we have every right to know that
this is happening, and when it happens, not afterwards.
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.
This is not about the Army or "operational reasons". They would
keep everything secret if they could. The Army are the servants of the
Ministry of Defence. That is a subsidiary of the British State, of
which, like ir or not, Harry is an integral part. It is a question of
why our State can take up arms and raise its standard on its own
behalf in secret, but its agents and subjects must travel openly. This
is quite plainly wrong.
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.
I am as ever modest, and wish never to impinge on others'
feelings, Mel. But I suspect my service to this country is somewhat in
excess to yours.
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.
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.
This has not prevented very detailed, specific statistical
annotations of British Army geography, the arrangement of their
residences and troop-strength around Afghanistan and Iraq revealed
openly on the internet or the BBC. I repeat again: concealing this
would save many lives. If we operated in complete secrecy (Nixon,
Cambodia?), it would be very difficult for the Taliban to bomb us so
frequently, since they would it harder to find us.
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.
No, it is not. No member of the State is. Several American
presidents would have found their ratings very different if they had
revealed whichever horrendously debilitating diseases they were
suffering from, such as Roosevelt's polio.
They do have, of course, the *legal* right to conceal this. But
there is no compulsion for the media not to report it.
You seem to be under the impression that we can apply different,
diluted standards of justice to a Monarch, simply because they are
ceremonial.
However, the
interest of the public as opposed to the public interest (not the same
thing)
I'm not sure what the difference is.
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.
This is a ludicrous comparison, given the difference between a
serving Royal and the average person in the street.
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.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Prices of a gallon of gasd around the wolrd
- Next by Date: Re: PRINCE HARRY on the Front Line
- Previous by thread: Re: British media blackout on Harry, Afghanistan- oh the joys of press freedom
- Next by thread: Re: British media blackout on Harry, Afghanistan- oh the joys of press freedom
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
