Jump to content

Two Royal benefactors ?


Will H

Recommended Posts

I recently heard of Will and Harry being associated with a charity that is connected with North Pole ice adventures.

 

This means of course that any monies contributed to yet another charity will be shared by the two boys for expenses related to their involvement.

 

In other words Jo Public is paying for them to have 'Jolly Times on Ice'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Cheer up, it could be worse. If you had your way the young wasters living the life of O'Reilly at our expense could be the younger generation of , Browns, Kinnocks, Blairs, etc., oh I just realised, they already are. The families of the ruling elite in every society have always done this, and probably always will, it's what you do when you get to the top of the dungheap.

Do yourself a favour, read Animal Farm, and accept that life is like that.

AGD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will H - 2015-10-20 11:35 AM

 

I recently heard of Will and Harry being associated with a charity that is connected with North Pole ice adventures.

 

This means of course that any monies contributed to yet another charity will be shared by the two boys for expenses related to their involvement.

 

In other words Jo Public is paying for them to have 'Jolly Times on Ice'

 

 

 

Cheer up.

 

Supporting their charities is not compulsory

 

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Archiesgrandad - 2015-10-20 4:37 PM

 

Do yourself a favour, read Animal Farm, and accept that life is like that.

AGD

 

That's why we only contribute to animal charities ...............We cut out the profligate species B-) .............

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James

Finding a role for all the Royal Hangers On is a problem because any real job they are capable of would be considered beneath them.

What would you do with them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi Will,

Do we actually know that they take any money from the charity for their work.

They come across to me as 2 really decent lads, who cannot be blamed for their parentage. I am not particularly a Loyalist but while we have the system they are probably as good as anybody at what they do.

 

cheers

derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

derek pringle - 2015-10-22 9:08 AM

 

hi Will,

Do we actually know that they take any money from the charity for their work.

They come across to me as 2 really decent lads, who cannot be blamed for their parentage. I am not particularly a Loyalist but while we have the system they are probably as good as anybody at what they do.

 

cheers

derek

 

Quite right Derek. One has fought on the front line for his country in a dubious war. The other was an air sea rescue helicopter pilot and now a helicopter air ambulance pilot. And an uncle (who is a genuine freeloader) fought in the Falklands war and put himself between his ships and exocet missiles and saved a lot of lives. They can't help who they are, and probably wished they weren't who they are but no one can say they don't give a toss about this nation.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2015-10-20 7:57 PM
Archiesgrandad - 2015-10-20 4:37 PMDo yourself a favour, read Animal Farm, and accept that life is like that.AGD
That's why we only contribute to animal charities ...............We cut out the profligate species B-) .............

Same here....last year I donated two goldfish and a chihuahua   :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
derek pringle - 2015-10-22 9:08 AM

 

They come across to me as 2 really decent lads,

derek

 

Does this mean the 30 full time spin doctors at Buckingham Palace Press Office are doing a good job?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
nowtelse2do - 2015-10-22 2:28 PM

 

fought in the Falklands war

Dave

 

Apparently kept well away from danger according to Admiral Sandy Woodward who said that to put him in danger would have been 'A Career Limiting Move'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter James - 2015-10-22 5:51 PM
nowtelse2do - 2015-10-22 2:28 PM fought in the Falklands war Dave
Apparently kept well away from danger according to Admiral Sandy Woodward who said that to put him in danger would have been 'A Career Limiting Move'

A blinkered view from a very strong anti royalist.  Despite what Woodward said anyone piloting a helicopter, especially in an environment as harsh as the South Atlantic, exacerbated by being ship borne. is by the very act of doing so putting themselves in a position of potential danger.  Merely cross decking from Hermes to Intrepid saw the loss of a Sea King (Andrew piloted such a helicopter) and 20 lives so Peter please shut the heck up because you know not of which you speak.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
RogerC - 2015-10-22 6:56 PM

 

Peter please shut the heck up because you know not of which you speak.

 

Actually I was quoting Admiral Sandy Woodward who was in charge of the successful Falklands operation, so it is he who 'knows not of which he speaks' *-)

- and you who does *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter James - 2015-10-22 9:35 PM
RogerC - 2015-10-22 6:56 PMPeter please shut the heck up because you know not of which you speak.
Actually I was quoting Admiral Sandy Woodward who was in charge of the successful Falklands operation, so it is he who 'knows not of which he speaks' *-) - and you who does *-)

Possibly not as much as I might but a lot more that you quoting your secondhand/press distorted comments.  And I know that to be true from having carried more press than I care to recall to/from Port Stanley....Hands, Hanrahan, Nicholson and a few others to start the list off with.  

Andrew spent his Falklands conflict skimmimg the South Atlantic waves whereas I spent mine usually somewhere mostly between 20000-30000 feet above it and I know which of us was in the safer.....note 'safer' environment.  Whereas you were probably sat on your backside pronouncing your expertise from the comfort of your armchair. 
So Peter give the 'bashing' theme a bit of a rest because in reality all you do is portray yourself as a small minded silly little anti royalist happy to live under the banner of freedom so expensively earned and maintained by those who would go into harms way and/or do harm to others so you can live in relative freedom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
RogerC - 2015-10-22 9:51 PM
Peter James - 2015-10-22 9:35 PM
RogerC - 2015-10-22 6:56 PMPeter please shut the heck up because you know not of which you speak.
Actually I was quoting Admiral Sandy Woodward who was in charge of the successful Falklands operation, so it is he who 'knows not of which he speaks' *-) - and you who does *-)

Possibly not as much as I might but a lot more that you quoting your secondhand/press distorted comments.  And I know that to be true from having carried more press than I care to recall to/from Port Stanley....Hands, Hanrahan, Nicholson and a few others to start the list off with.  

Andrew spent his Falklands conflict skimmimg the South Atlantic waves whereas I spent mine usually somewhere mostly between 20000-30000 feet above it and I know which of us was in the safer.....note 'safer' environment.  Whereas you were probably sat on your backside pronouncing your expertise from the comfort of your armchair. 
So Peter give the 'bashing' theme a bit of a rest because in reality all you do is portray yourself as a small minded silly little anti royalist happy to live under the banner of freedom so expensively earned and maintained by those who would go into harms way and/or do harm to others so you can live in relative freedom.
Your criticism of me might be justified, but thats got nothing to do with it. Its just a trick politicians use when they are in a corner - attack the messenger to divert attention away from the message if you don't like the message. Its called Ad Hominem.This message came straight from the bloke in charge. Who brought the message is irrelevant. If you don't believe the bloke in charge then who would you believe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter like I have already written.....your comments come from a journalist report not from the man himself.  It was written as an interpretation of Woodwards comments as Woodward was not actually 'quoted' as having actually said those things.  Please read closely.....piloting a helicopter off a ship then transiting, at not very much altitude (less than 100ft), over rough inhospitable South Atlantic seas to land on the pitching deck of another ship is extremely dangerous.  Should you have the misfortune to crash, for whatever reason, the chances of survival (at that particular point in time and events) were very slim indeed.  So whilst Woodward may have intimated that he had difficulty in making a decision to place Andrew in, what one who is ignorant of every day occurrences and their dangers in such an environment is unable to comprehend, a position of danger he would not have allowed such considerations to influence his decision making processes.  To do so would undermine his ability to lead effectively and give rise to a great deal of issues on board ship particularly within the helicopter squadron Andrew was on duty with.

So as I have tried to address before ...you speak from ignorance of the truth, only from journalistic sensationalism so please give it a rest and be grateful the likes of Andrew, William and Harry are willing and able to do things you either choose not to do or are incapable of.  Because they have done what you are either unwilling or incapable of doing......putting their arses on the line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well a bit of a coincidence talking about the Falklands, I can't at this moment get in touch with my cousin because he's..............in the Falklands :-D. Steve was a medic on the Invincibile, when the St Galahad was hit and all hell was let loose. After things settled down a lot of the soldiers were naturally traumatised then returned home. Unfortunately a lot of them still suffer a lot of stress and unpleasant back flashes.

 

Steve, ison some sort of voluntary scheme and is now out there with a party of those lads trying to help them to overcome their demons. It's supposed to be therapy for them but to me it doesn't seem right, I don't think I would be wanting to go back there if it had happened to me. I'll come back to this when Steve makes contact.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to read about Steve....that was an awful time and those medics did a fantastic job.  As for the therapy/demons to rest/revisiting I reckon whatever works is fine by me.  Those guys need all the help they can get.  I reckon it's something to do with the military man's mindset to get back there, have a curse and swear, shed a tear, remember those lost and finally put things to bed.  It's the military way......get pi55ed, toast absent friends and get on with life but for some it's a bit more difficult to come to terms with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
laimeduck - 2015-10-23 10:45 PM

 

Some on here need to keep their heads down methinks?

 

http://tinyurl.com/o5kx5l9

 

 

 

They keep these powers so they could use them if we demanded our head of state and hangers on be elected, instead of being forced on to us whether we want them or not.

All we have is an unwritten understanding she won't use all her powers as long as things keep going her way.

At least her powers are illegal under European Human Rights law, which I think is the strongest argument for remaining in the EU. After all the House of Lords alone is bigger than the European Parliament since Cameron appointed another 40 unelected troughers to it.

What I find hardest to swallow is the notion that an unelected head of state and hangers on is some sort of guardian of our rights.

The fact is the rights and freedoms we enjoy were won for us by political activists like the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Chartists, and the Suffragettes. The monarchy never lifyed a finger to help them when their Armed forces were used against those fighting for our freedoms!!!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

I shouldn't worry Peter ;-) ..............

 

Its only a matter of time until you'll be living in the Kingdom of King Salmond & Queen Sturgeon :D ............

 

Plus they'll be elected, so you'll be happy as a bunny eh? :-> ...............

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
pelmetman - 2015-10-24 9:00 AM

 

Plus they'll be elected, so you'll be happy as a bunny eh? :-> ...............

 

 

We will still have the Royal Hangers On because Cameron bribed us with English taxpayers money to stay in UK :-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
RogerC - 2015-10-23 12:24 PMPeter like I have already written.....your comments come from a journalist report not from the man himself.  It was written as an interpretation of Woodwards comments as Woodward was not actually 'quoted' as having actually said those things.  Please read closely.....piloting a helicopter off a ship then transiting, at not very much altitude (less than 100ft), over rough inhospitable South Atlantic seas to land on the pitching deck of another ship is extremely dangerous.  Should you have the misfortune to crash, for whatever reason, the chances of survival (at that particular point in time and events) were very slim indeed.  So whilst Woodward may have intimated that he had difficulty in making a decision to place Andrew in, what one who is ignorant of every day occurrences and their dangers in such an environment is unable to comprehend, a position of danger he would not have allowed such considerations to influence his decision making processes.  To do so would undermine his ability to lead effectively and give rise to a great deal of issues on board ship particularly within the helicopter squadron Andrew was on duty with.

So as I have tried to address before ...you speak from ignorance of the truth, only from journalistic sensationalism so please give it a rest and be grateful the likes of Andrew, William and Harry are willing and able to do things you either choose not to do or are incapable of.  Because they have done what you are either unwilling or incapable of doing......putting their arses on the line.
So now its an ad Hominem job on the journalist that reported it. If Prince Harry had got to him he could have physically attacked him for it like he did the photographer carrying out his lawful duty in a public street. Since you ask I have worked on a fishing boat that pitches about more than a warship in a rough sea. I have also worked on a building site. Statistically the 2 most dangerous occupations, I think farming is third, and we only get state benefits if injured. Still, we don't keep on about the danger we faced. But perhaps you consider defending her realm more important than producing food or building homes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
RogerC - 2015-10-23 9:26 PM

 

Good to read about Steve....that was an awful time and those medics did a fantastic job.  As for the therapy/demons to rest/revisiting I reckon whatever works is fine by me.  Those guys need all the help they can get.  I reckon it's something to do with the military man's mindset to get back there, have a curse and swear, shed a tear, remember those lost and finally put things to bed.  It's the military way......get pi55ed, toast absent friends and get on with life but for some it's a bit more difficult to come to terms with.

 

I can understand people being traumatised by war. I would think it would make them abhor violence. Which makes it harder to understand how so many ex soldiers can use it as justification for turning to violent crime and ending up in prison????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...