After the leaking of the story that Prince Harry has been in Afghanistan for 10 weeks, he is now to be withdrawn. I find this story quite remarkable, simply for the fact that the media agreed to stay quiet on it, and stayed quiet for 10 weeks about a story! Not a shocker that he's being withdrawn though....

this is the original story:

Prince Harry on Afghan front line

Prince Harry has been fighting the Taleban on the front line in Afghanistan, the MoD has confirmed.
Harry, 23, who is third in line to the throne, has spent the last 10 weeks serving in Helmand Province.

The prince joked about his nickname "the bullet magnet", but said: "I finally get the chance to do the soldiering that I want to do."

The deployment was subject to a news blackout deal, which broke down after being leaked by foreign media.

Chief of the General Staff Sir Richard Dannatt, who is head of the British Army, said he was disappointed the news had leaked.

In a statement, he said: "I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us.

"This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations."

Sir Richard said he would now take advice on whether the prince's deployment could continue.

The news blackout followed a voluntary agreement between the MoD and newspapers and broadcasters in the UK and abroad.

In exchange for not reporting the prince's deployment, some media organisations were granted access to the prince in Afghanistan for interviews and filming.

The Society of Editors said the deal could have been broken at any time over the past eight months.

The BBC's media correspondent Torin Douglas said it was surprising the agreement held for so long, as an Australian magazine and website published the story in January.

But it was only when it appeared on the influential US political website, The Drudge Report, that the agreement broke down, our correspondent said.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Prince Harry had been an "exemplary soldier".

"The whole of Britain will be proud of the outstanding service he is giving," he said.

"I want to thank Prince Harry and all of our service personnel for their contribution and service."

Prince Harry - a member of the Household Cavalry - has been based in a former madrassa along with a Gurkha regiment, in southern Helmand.

He is acting as a tactical air controller - calling up allied air cover in support of ground forces.

He also goes out on foot patrols.

In an interview while in the Afghan province, Harry talked about life as a soldier on the front line.

"I haven't really had a shower for four days, I haven't washed my clothes for a week.

"It's very nice to be sort of a normal person for once, I think it's about as normal as I'm going to get.

"I am still a little bit conscious of the fact that if I show my face too much in and around the area - luckily there's no civilians around here because it's...a no-man's land.

"But I think that if, up north, when I do go up there, if I do go on patrols in amongst the locals, I'll still be very wary about the fact that I do need to keep my face slightly covered just on the off-chance that I do get recognised, which will put other guys in danger.

"The Gurkhas think it's hysterical how I am called the 'bullet magnet', but they've yet to see why."

The deployment comes after the prince's planned tour to Iraq last year had to be cancelled because of a security risk.

Speaking ahead of this tour, Harry spoke of his relief over the mission.

He said he felt: "a bit of excitement, a bit of phew, finally, [to] get the chance to actually do the soldiering that I wanted to do ever since I joined really."

The Prince of Wales's communications secretary, Paddy Harverson, said: "Prince Harry is very proud to serve his country on operations alongside his fellow soldiers and to do the job he has been trained for."

Yeah keeping their mouths shut that long is a miracle :lol:

"I haven't really had a shower for four days, I haven't washed my clothes for a week. " That made me laugh cos some poor buggers don't even get that! Does he actually wash his own clothes? :unsure:

Glad that nothing happened to the prince in Afghanistan. Although I'm sure that the media leak put him in serious danger. Harry-your country is proud of you!! (insert smiley face waving the Union Jack here) :D

I couldn't give a shit about him to be honest, nor whether he serves in the army or not. And as I do nto support our presence over there then i can't realyl respect him for going.

I'm not a big fan of the Royals, but i respect all of the soldiers who are out in Iraq or Afghanistan, regardless of whether or not i agree with our presence in either country. As far as I;m concerned Harry is just another soldier, and for that reason I respect him for doing his job. You couldn't pay me to go to Iraq or Afghanistan.

:yep: fair play to him - he wanted to be in the forces and he didnt shirk any responsiblity despite the danger it may well have placed him in.

You couldn't pay me, but as I say I don't support it so I can't really respect it. People are never just 'doing jobs' in such circumstances. They have fully consented to the role, what comes with it and to being told where to go and knowing that they might have to do something that is morally questionable - like killing, invading innocent people etc. In this day and age soldiers have a choice and have full knowledge of what they might get into. it's not like WW1 and there is no conscription. I find it bizarre that people can make such a decision, but they do and that's up to them. But I won't be praising them for it. I am not pro war, invasion, military action except maybe in the most exceptional circumstances and on occassions when protecting the innocent is involved. My partner, friends, and family are all the same way inclined and we thankfully have no one in the forces although George's sister keeps threatening it! Sometimes we wish she would go :lol: It would be as a chef, she would suit military cooking. I shoudl know I used to work in a restaurant with an ex miltary chef years back, the language was appalling, and she was a nigthmare to work with! :o

As I say he can do as he pleases. But someone was saying on a programme that his presence actually places other troops in danger. No one found out thankfully but had they done so it woudl have so they said. Some folks were sayign that Kings and Queens lead their troops traditionalyl and I can see that, but it isn't Bodicea's age and I think we need to move on and consider safety of the tropps in general - that is my purely miliatary arguement, being against the invasion aside. :)

so you're in favour of abolishing our armed forces entirely?

No I am not arguing that - I just think that those who join up make a conscious choice and they need to be responsible for that like all of us. They certainly should not expect to be revered, nor should they expect to be excused from responsiblity when the forces actions come into question. They are not all saints either - if you live in an army town as I have done (thankfulyl they are going though) you'll certainly get a taste for what the behaviour of some of them is like and why they do the job; some of what I have seen and heard about isn't pretty. Not saying that is everyone, i used to go out with an ex Raf guy. Also I have worked with a lot fo ex-forces folks and I've heard soem horror stories. They certainly are not whiter than white ro above any law, that's all I am saying.

Btw when I was a young girl I wanted to join the forces, went to all the career talks etc. Then my political conscience kicked in. I wanted to join the police, then my dodgy knees kicked in. :lol: Then I realised I'm glad I didn't. And I ende dup in Customs by accident, but never liked the enforcement and throwign your weight about aspect. I didn't enjoy it when my colleague was hee captive at gun point in a store either. It shoudl have been me on that visit. :phew: Just trying to illiustrate that I've not always bene anti and that I've developed quite an anti feelign over the years.

but that's not what i said - I said i respect them for going out there and doing their job. If they do their job incorrectly - torture prisoners, massacres of unarmed civilians - then they deserve to be punished for their actions. The same as if a policeman kills an unarmed man they deserve to be hauled up in court to explain their actions.

I agree that they should be held accountable for their actions, but I also think that we still need the armed forces in this country, in fact i'm not sure that there's any country that doesn't have some sort of armed forces - even Switzerland, a neutral country has an army which tends to make up the bulk of UN peacekeeping troops. it's just infortunate that our esteemed leaders chose to send them off to Iraq....... :rolleyes:

Well I think we basically agree. :) I just hear so many people who have unconditional respect for the actions of the forces, and I just don't think anyone commands that let alone them.

Yes I take yoru point abotu incorrect actions, like torture. That aside though if you join up you coudl still be acting in an approrpriate manner but be involved in something immoral. I find it really hard to get my head around why some people want to do it, and it also worries me that some some to have no conscience. Or if they did have they become very hard boiled. I've spoken to a lot fo ex servicepeople, it's a very nasty envirnment and I feel sorry for them for that. As I say I've heard some horror stories and we are not talking active service but daily life at the base. And these are things that happened in the 80s and 90s when I thought they were supposed to have moved on.

Sadly the way things are everyone has to have an army for security. I see it more as a defence back up thing though rather than an attacking world domination thing. It's a real shame the way things are.

But I think they took that into account - hence the news blackout and harry himself making sure that he tried to keep his face averted and out of public eye and being withdrawn the minute they thought his presence was known and would place others in more danger - and the troops seem to have appreciated him going out there with him.

I am not a royalist by any means, and I certainly dont have an unconditional respect for the armed forces - I just feel, personally, that respect was due to Harry, and any other soldier, who are out there doing what they can in conditions I wouldnt want to go through myself.

I am a big cowardly custard afterall :unsure:

yep, i would much prefer to have the armed forces as a defence back-up or being used as peacekeepers, rather than invading countries.

I also wonder why people join up to be in the army - wonder if there's been any research done in to it. :unsure: But with Iraq and Afghanistan you've gotta remember that no matter how much we may disagree with our actions there, lots and lots of people agree with the decision to go to war. In fact, if it had gone as the politicians seemed to be promising - something like wham, bam, catch bin laden, catch saddam, pull the troops out - then i suspect lots of people would still support it. As it is there's a growing backlash both here and in America against the decision to go to War in Iraq.

Oh yes, I agree totally. Peacekeeping is what I woudl like to see but sadly it's nto that way.

And yes, a lot of people do support acts of war, invasions, etc. People are all different, I'm not saying everyone should think like me but I am grateful that I am not surrounded by knee jerk jingoistic types, I've suffered enough fo that in the past. And things like this often get used to garner politcal support - look at Thatcher and Falklands for eg. and people seemed to like that, as they did with Adolph and the likes. I'd be interested to knwo what doe smake people join up, I have read a few things but I sadly know that often it's because the person has no real mind of their own or alterntively needs a job. But I do know people who used ti as a steppign stone to train for a profession. Geroge's dad for one, he used his surveying skills in Holland to reclaim the Polderland. He is very anti war though, but I think the job he had would never have involved fighting. Hydrographic surveying I think. I am not heartless, I sympathise with the troops for what they have to endure, but it is nothing like WW1 and WW2 these days. I've read so much abotu trench warfare it was enough to make me anti war for life. :yikes:

* since the dawn of time any policital entity of any size has always needed a defence force and that is not about to change

* as members of a democratic society, like it or not, we are responsible for what is done in our name by any army too (although not what is done without authority or with unlawful brutality etc.)

* it is one of the very few arms of the UK state where people routinely and uncomplainingly achieve astonishing excellence in their chosen field above and beyond the call of duty without complaint and accept that it may be part of their role to pay the ultimate price for the goal they have been asked to achieve, whether they believe in it or not, and without endlessly bleating about health and safety or pay and conditions

* I think we are astonishingly lucky with the quality of our small and highly professional army - just a shame that it is consistently being asked to do such daft things

* great army though it may be, I would not want to be in a bar 'relaxing' with a bunch of off-duty squaddies of a saturday night - but that goes with the territory I think

* two minds about Harry - fair play to him for taking the risk, but it is beyond doubt that his deployment would have created extra logistical difficulties and cost and he would not have been exposed to similar risks as other young men who are not Princes - for what return? - was he the pawn in an MoD stunt designed to gain some nice headlines and some support for what we are doing in Afghanistan in the face of relentlessly poor headlines?

I've always thought of Harry as a bit of a dick to be honest and this latest charade has done nothing to change my view.
As for the whole "leaked" story. I don't buy it for a moment. It is obvious that they wanted us to know about his stint so that we could all fawn over the brave prince and then he could be whisked back home to safety. They must think we are all stupid!
What really gets my goat is the way harry acts like it's been a treat to have been let out there. Is a bit of a kick in the teeth for the troops who have been out there for months and hate every minute. For Harry it's like some theme park outing.
Pointless him being in the army, total waster like the rest of his family.

I do agree with you, very outspoken view but I like it. :ok:

On your first paragraph there BS, I don't agree at all. I didn't vote for the governemtn that wen tot the Falklands, I am therefore not tresponbile. I didn't vote for this government either, I am therefore not going to be held responsible in any circumstances, theoretical or actual.

On the second one, yes I agree. And I have seen them and the landlord of a local pub had hsi face smashed in by them. And when I first moved here me and my firends received disgusting abuse form them. And a local one was involved in a rape. Territory or nto though, that si just wanker behaviour fo the highest order and they get away with ti too often.

And your last paragraph is very interesting and well though tout, of course ti is a stunt of some sort. :)

It's a bit debate in itself, and the proposition gets more difficult as society gets bigger and life gets more complicated. And, of course, when you put it in terms of absolute direct responsibility (as I may have been guilty of doing) it's relatively easy to disagree with - I have never killed an Iraqi.

I think that the former speaker Bernard Weatherill put what I am trying to convey as well as anyone I have heard on the topic:

"The penalty that good men pay for failing to participate in public affairs is to be governed by others worse than themselves."

I am guilty of slagging off the government - I hate this lot - but what am I doing about it......

Oh yes I know it is very complicated that argument. And I do like that quote, it is very true. Thing is though unless you devote your life to beign a political activist or start a revolution what exactly CAN one do except vote every few years for a bunch of people that are the same in essence and don't necessarily represent your views. That si why I am a big fan fo the referendum being used regularly, then I get an active choice on an actual real issue there and then, and the government has to go with what people choose. More democratic than what we currently have.

:lmaao: dont hold back WA, say what you feel! ;)

I'd hope its not a stunt - my cynicism hasnt quite kicked in yet - give me another couple of years! - but he has been out there for ten weeks - hasnt he? :unsure: Stunt or not, he must have been in a teeny bit of danger...

*waits to be told of the lovely lush hotel they put him up in for ten weeks* :blink:

I actually disagree with referenda being used. If we have a referendum on anything would everyone in the country actually sit down and read the laws and the polcies that relate to it? For example, if we were to hgave a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would everyone go and research how the EU works now, and what the Lisbon Treaty is proposing - would it really matter to you how many votes Poland gets under the system of Qualified Majority Voting? Or would everyone let the newspapers tell them what each law means and what effect it is going to have? You might be conscientious when it comes to doing research, but an awful lot of people wouldn't be.

i have issues with how our voting system works and have long been a proponent of a system of proportional representation, which would lead to better representation in parliament and hopefully less adversarial politics and a bit more consensual policy making. There are problems with PR but i'm sure it's got to be better than what we've got at the moment.

IMHO PR is a terribly undemocratic thing to do unless the voting system is made very complex.

The good bit is that if 20% vote Monster Raving Loony, we get a big representation in parliament.

The bad bits are:

a is that under most systems devised by politicians the inviduals who get into the parliament are chosen by the party, so all you need to do to be endlessly in Parliament is to be at the top of your party's greasy pole and, however much you personally are detested, you are always an MP provided the % of votes is high enough. No more 'bye bye Portillo' type constituencies. I agree we have safe seats, but even they bung out horrible individuals because there is a direct link with the electorate

b perhaps I am a by-product of first past the post, but I think the best thing for a government is knowing it can be swept out of office if we don't like it, like the Conservatives. With PR that happens very rarely same bunch end up making coalitions of a slightly different hue all the time so the same individual can be in power for his/her entire career - think how that helps corrupt practices re contracts suppliers etc..


Any PR system would, for me, have to 1 keep individual policitians in touch with, and at the mercy of, the electorate and not their party hierachy 2 enable unpopular governments to be kicked out

Trouble is, no politician really likes that, so I don't trust them to devise a fair system.

but there are so many different variations of PR that it is possible to keep the constituency link and have a more proportional system. the Single tranferable vote would be better than our system - where you get to rank your candidates in order and the winning candidate must get over 50% of the vote. Or the top-up system with an open-list for the PR component - so that voters get to choose both the party and their preferred candidate. i think a fully proportional system tends to end up in gridlock more often than not (take a look at italy during the 80s and 90s), but I think a more proportional system would be better overall for participation in the electoral process. there's more chance that a minor party will get some representation - and even if this means that some unsavoury parties get a seat in parliament, people will be less likely to view their vote as unwasted. Plus there's likely to be a proliferation of minor parties so peopel are more likely to find their views represented.

Yeah there is no perfect system - becuase there si always the flaw that you might not be represented. And I don't just mean bizarrely names minority interest parties, but I know for a fact that where I live there have been a very small array of parties to vote for - nto even Green on occassion. It's because it is such a Tory stronghold that they don't put up many alternative and left wing candidates. I know though that down the road I can vote Socialist Worker if I wish or whatever it might be. I think porportional rep does have mor eof an element fo fairness about it than our system though, I woudl certainyl support it 's introduction. There are so many types though it gets confusing, but the principle is clear.

I know what you mean about people informting their choices, but I don't see that as an argument against referenda at all. People are just as ill informed when they vote at the general election and also in many decisions in life. They of course have every right to be so, you don't have to be a fountain of knowledge to have the right to an opinion (I am a prime example :lol:) but it is not desirable I know to be so uniformed and yet makign big decisions. We would need to educate and inform better to get around that. In fact we are supposed to do that anyway but in reality we don't. I never learnt politics until I left school (well nto on the curriculum anyway).

I think refernad serve as an important tool to keep government sin check. And Anyway, they con people with those opinion polls they send out and they don't inform us on them do they?

yes, people are often uninformed when they vote, but on big issues and on specific laws parliament scrutinises them - they go through variosu readings, debates, committee stages, through the Lords - where there often is a lot of expertise on specific subjects. I might not agree with a lot of the decisions, but i at least know that the bill has been read :shrug:

I don't necessarily see it as democratic that something like the Lisbon Treaty may well end up bein decided upon by people who have never read it, have no idea how the EU operates and have no idea how the Lisbon Treaty will affect it. The future of the country may well be decided by people who believe everything they read in The Sun and the Daily Mail.

i'm not quite sure what you mean about opinion polls? But in terms of learning about politics, all students now have to take citizenship education, which covers various aspects of politics.

Well I think people are able to decide on things like whether to join the EU as they did years back, whether we go to war on Iraq, and decisions affecting the way the NHS or schools are run. I'm not arguing that they make everythimg a referendum but I think that certain issues definitely warrant public choice and involvement.

With regards this citizenship stuff - I haven't seen what they teach cos it is realtively new but it doesn't seem to be turning out better citizens does it :unsure:

The opinion polls are these documents you get every so often about public policy decisions - like transport. We had one about whether we get a tram, bendy bus, or train going up the road. It was all phrased so as they got what they wanted at the end of it, BUT what si funny is that the public vote went 70% against their proposal and they still decided to do it anyway :lol: