Many Brits are unsympathetic toward Prince Harry !

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yea thats why countless SAS have done the same thing.

It's wrong whoever does it. Whataboutism won't win you this argument.

 

BTW nice dodge on the question of picking up the award for fighting racism that you later confirm doesn't exist. Top swerve ????

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, JonnyF said:

It's wrong whoever does it. Whataboutism won't win you this argument.

 

BTW nice dodge on the question of picking up the award for fighting racism that you later confirm doesn't exist. Top swerve ????

Whataboutism.....lol

 

If you take army commanders to heart so much then perhaps take into account what this one said. Up to you, I really don't care either way.

 

Prince Harry's 'self-destructive' behaviour could be sign of PTSD - and he should be protected, says Army veteran

Prince Harry's "self-destructive" behaviour could be influenced by post-traumatic stress disorder, according to a retired colonel who has also suffered with the condition.

Philip Ingram said he recognises many of his former traits in the duke's demeanour and that he physically "shivered" when he saw some of his recent interviews.

"I'm seeing a troubled individual and an individual that needs help, not someone who should be continuously criticised in the way he is being."

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harrys-self-destructive-behaviour-could-be-sign-of-ptsd-and-he-should-be-protected-says-army-veteran-12781533

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not a fan at all, but if he did at least read the book I strongly suspect he’s done more in that respect than most here who are denigrating him.

 

I neither praise nor denigrate him, I don’t know the man, and everything I do know of him is at least third hand reports, none I would as from the UK’s gutter press, or at least not directly so.

As for your presumption that I am a fan and your statement: ’’That would make a lot of sense actually…’’

 

That’s clearly two presumptions on your part.

 

 

 

Why do you keep blaming the "gutter press"? It's all in the book HE wrote (or put his name to), that's not a third hand report. It's straight from him.

 

For someone who's not a fan you do seem to defend and make excuses for his pathetic behaviour at every juncture.

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Whataboutism.....lol

 

If you take army commanders to heart so much then perhaps take into account what this one said. Up to you, I really don't care either way.

 

Prince Harry's 'self-destructive' behaviour could be sign of PTSD - and he should be protected, says Army veteran

Prince Harry's "self-destructive" behaviour could be influenced by post-traumatic stress disorder, according to a retired colonel who has also suffered with the condition.

Philip Ingram said he recognises many of his former traits in the duke's demeanour and that he physically "shivered" when he saw some of his recent interviews.

"I'm seeing a troubled individual and an individual that needs help, not someone who should be continuously criticised in the way he is being."

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harrys-self-destructive-behaviour-could-be-sign-of-ptsd-and-he-should-be-protected-says-army-veteran-12781533

OK, so you think it's OK to kill 25 people then discuss it openly in a book and describe them as chess pieces on a board, directly increasing the risk to yourself, your nuclear family and your extended family, as well as British soldiers abroad. Let's agree to disagree on that one.

 

Care to address why he accepted an award for fighting structural racism in the RF a couple of weeks before he confirmed the RF is not racist? You've swerved it twice now. 

 

[MRToMRT]

There should be a poll with this thread. Something like this ........

 

Is Harry a Pillock yes/no

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Why do you keep blaming the "gutter press"? It's all in the book HE wrote (or put his name to), that's not a third hand report. It's straight from him.

 

For someone who's not a fan you do seem to defend and make excuses for his pathetic behaviour at every juncture.

I’m not ‘blaming the gutter press’.

 

I’m simply making the factual observation that the ‘gutter press’ (that which hounded William and Harry’s mother) are in the habit of sensationalism and quoting out of context.

 

I stand by my first comment on this matter:

 

On 1/10/2023 at 7:48 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

It depends which papers these Brits read.

 

If they are reading the same papers that hounded Harry’s mother then yes, they’ll very likely hold the views they are being fed.

 

 

I haven’t made any excuses for Harry’s behavior, I’ve not even mentioned his behavior.

 

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

OK, so you think it's OK to kill 25 people then discuss it openly in a book and describe them as chess pieces on a board, directly increasing the risk to yourself, your nuclear family and your extended family, as well as British soldiers abroad. Let's agree to disagree on that one.

Now that I've heard his explanation in the interview where he explains the context in the book to that is more than ok yes. Hence why taking snippets out of context leads to speculation of his intentions. His intentions have been made clear.

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Care to address why he accepted an award for fighting structural racism in the RF a couple of weeks before he confirmed the RF is not racist? You've swerved it twice now. 

 

Why do I have to defend that? I never brought it up. On the face of it I would say it sounds hypocritical of him but again I'm not posting on the subject so my swerve as you put it has come all the way back to you.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not ‘blaming the gutter press’.

 

I’m simply making the factual observation that the ‘gutter press’ (that which hounded William and Harry’s mother) are in the habit of sensationalism and quoting out of context.

 

I stand by my first comment on this matter:

 

I haven’t made any excuses for Harry’s behavior, I’ve not even mentioned his behavior.

 

Where have they quoted him out of context? Everything I have seen has been direct quotes from the book. Often entires pages photographed. 

 

Please provide links where he was quoted "out of context".

 

This is all on Harry. Not the papers that report on his spiteful, hateful, privacy invading hit piece. If anyone is being sensationalist, it's Harry as he trashes his family and reveals extremely personal details about them (such as William being circumcised) for a few silver coins. Shame on him.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

Now that I've heard his explanation in the interview where he explains the context in the book to that is more than ok yes. Hence why taking snippets out of context leads to speculation of his intentions. His intentions have been made clear.

Why do I have to defend that? I never brought it up. On the face of it I would say it sounds hypocritical of him but again I'm not posting on the subject so my swerve as you put it has come all the way back to you.

OK so you can't defend him picking up the award? We have progress.

 

How about the fact that he let the rumours about his family being racist persist for almost 2 years without addressing them?

 

A couple of days ago he stated "Silence is betrayal". Indeed it was, his silence allowed the false rumours (that he and his wife started in the Oprah interview!) to persist for almost 2 years and he did nothing to quash them despite knowing they were untrue. 

 

Care to defend that?

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

OK so you can't defend him picking up the award? We have progress.

No why should I.........lol

 

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

How about the fact that he let the rumours about his family being racist persist for almost 2 years without addressing them?

You tell me? Not that I care.

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

A couple of days ago he stated "Silence is betrayal". Indeed it was, his silence allowed the false rumours (that he and his wife started in the Oprah interview!) to persist for almost 2 years and he did nothing to quash them despite knowing they were untrue. 

 

Care to defend that?

No I was posting about the out of context reports on his army days, that all. If you want to carry on baiting me on other topics go ahead.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Bkk Brian

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

No why should I.........lol

 

You tell me? Not that I care.

No I was posting about the out of context reports on his army days, that all. If you want to carry on baiting me on other topics go ahead.

Indeed. 

 

Indefensible.

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Where have they quoted him out of context? Everything I have seen has been direct quotes from the book. Often entires pages photographed. 

 

Please provide links where he was quoted "out of context".

 

This is all on Harry. Not the papers that report on his spiteful, hateful, privacy invading hit piece. If anyone is being sensationalist, it's Harry as he trashes his family and reveals extremely personal details about them (such as William being circumcised) for a few silver coins. Shame on him.

Here’s a claim that he boasted of killing 25 Afghans followed by Harry’s response and the full context of the quotation to put it back in context :

 

The Sun:

 

“Harry, 38, writes in his book Spare that killing 25 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan was like “chess pieces taken off the board”.

 

The BBC:

 

"It wasn't a statistic that filled me with pride but nor did it make me ashamed," he writes.

"When I was plunged into the heat and confusion of battle, I didn't think about those as 25 people. You can't kill people if you see them as people.

"In truth, you can't hurt people if you see them as people. They were chess pieces taken off the board, bad guys eliminated before they kill good guys."

 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20966702/prince-harry-put-british-troops-danger-taliban-killing-boasts/

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64231560

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Indeed. 

 

Indefensible.

To you yes. To me as I said its hypocritical on the face of it.

[actonion]

The bloke's an attention seeker just like his mother, sooner he's gone the better, take the  two bit actress with him

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here’s a claim that he boasted of killing 25 Afghans followed by Harry’s response and the full context of the quotation to put it back in context :

 

The Sun:

 

“Harry, 38, writes in his book Spare that killing 25 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan was like “chess pieces taken off the board”.

 

The BBC:

 

"It wasn't a statistic that filled me with pride but nor did it make me ashamed," he writes.

"When I was plunged into the heat and confusion of battle, I didn't think about those as 25 people. You can't kill people if you see them as people.

"In truth, you can't hurt people if you see them as people. They were chess pieces taken off the board, bad guys eliminated before they kill good guys."

 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20966702/prince-harry-put-british-troops-danger-taliban-killing-boasts/

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64231560

That's not out of context. It's a partial quote which is completely IN context. The context of his tour of Afghanistan. He DID think of them as chess pieces taken off the board, as the second quote confirms quite clearly.

 

I could argue there are parts in the second quote from The BBC which actually make it worse than the snippet used by The Sun.

 

[JonnyF]

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

To you yes. To me as I said its hypocritical on the face of it.

Well, you can't justify it - so by definition it is indefensible to you.

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by JonnyF

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, JonnyF said:

Well, you can't justify it - so by definition it is indefensible to you.

 

Whats the matter with you man. I've not read the book or seen the interviews so my reply that it seemed hypocritical on the face of it is sound and correct. 

[ozimoron]

14 minutes ago, actonion said:

The bloke's an attention seeker just like his mother, sooner he's gone the better, take the  two bit actress with him

The whole family has lived on attention seeking since oh, I don't know, forever. It's their brand. Royal Family. Pageants, ceremonies, etc.

[pegman]

Well seems all those Royal Court  eunuchs defaming & leaking about the warrior Prince to the British gutter tabloids have accomplished is making his book the fastest selling nonfiction book in U.K. history. 400k copies sold already. 

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

That's not out of context. It's a partial quote which is completely IN context. The context of his tour of Afghanistan. He DID think of them as chess pieces taken off the board, as the second quote confirms quite clearly.

 

I could argue there are parts in the second quote from The BBC which actually make it worse than the snippet used by The Sun.

 

Partial quotes are by definition ’Out of context’

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/out-of-context

[Doctor Tom]

On 1/10/2023 at 5:10 AM, Homburg said:

The writer of "Spare" doesn't seem to understand, Harry has not got the "booby prize", he has hit the jackpot.  Being monarch in the UK is just a chore.  The Monarch has to commit all his/her time but has no power.  Harry on the other hand has the title, has the prestige, the money & the lifestyle and only a very small risk of having to become monarch.  What's not to like? The book shows that the writer does not understand the UK Monarchy.  Harry should certainly understand it, so that suggests someone else really wrote the book.  I wonder who?

It was ghost written by J R Moehringer. 

[Doctor Tom]

45 minutes ago, pegman said:

Well seems all those Royal Court  eunuchs defaming & leaking about the warrior Prince to the British gutter tabloids have accomplished is making his book the fastest selling nonfiction book in U.K. history. 400k copies sold already. 

This just proves what I have always suspected, far too many people are just dim and stupidly naïve.  Many are like sheep, or Lemmings, pulled and pushed along by social media, without an original thought in their heads, and without their own opinions. Clearly that number is at least 400,000 strong and growing. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Doctor Tom said:

This just proves what I have always suspected, far too many people are just dim and stupidly naïve.  Many are like sheep, or Lemmings, pulled and pushed along by social media, without an original thought in their heads, and without their own opinions. Clearly that number is at least 400,000 strong and growing. 

All because they bought a book? What is it about the right wing and their selective hatred of free speech? Burn the books!

[Doctor Tom]

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The whole family has lived on attention seeking since oh, I don't know, forever. It's their brand. Royal Family. Pageants, ceremonies, etc.

That is what Royalty is about.  Yet another person who doesnt understand the institution of Monarchy..  Perhaps you would prefer some superannuated, washed up, self serving politician as a Head of State, or one who is clearly senile?  Yep, that would be an improvement eh? 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Doctor Tom said:

That is what Royalty is about.  Yet another person who doesnt understand the institution of Monarchy..  Perhaps you would prefer some superannuated, washed up, self serving politician as a Head of State, or one who is clearly senile?  Yep, that would be an improvement eh? 

Nothing could be worse. At least he would be elected.

Edited January 11, 2023 by ozimoron

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Doctor Tom said:

That is what Royalty is about.  Yet another person who doesnt understand the institution of Monarchy..  Perhaps you would prefer some superannuated, washed up, self serving politician as a Head of State, or one who is clearly senile?  Yep, that would be an improvement eh? 

Opinions differ.

[Doctor Tom]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

All because they bought a book? What is it about the right wing and their selective hatred of free speech? Burn the books!

Don't burn it, just don't buy it.  Thats not 'right wing', its sensible.  

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

Don't burn it, just don't buy it.  Thats not 'right wing', its sensible.  

Your message is don't read it. That's what I find ridiculous. You want to have a say about it but won't read it.

 

Why tell others not to read it? I don't care if they read it or not.

Edited January 11, 2023 by ozimoron

[orchis]

These Windsors are good at making money without doing much. Harry's advantage is he's doing it from sunny California.

[JonnyF]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Partial quotes are by definition ’Out of context’

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/out-of-context

Nope. From your own link, it makes it clear that partial quotes are only out of context IF

 

 The result that their meaning is not clear or is not understood:

 

The partial quote you provided did not change the meaning. It was exactly the same meaning as the full quote.

 

Try again.