Friday, May 18, 2007

The right to reply

Obviously there are many shades of opinion on just about every matter of import; my views are not sacrosanct and I enjoy a lively debate, which is one of the reasons I like to keep this blog and have the occasional rant.

My recent entries about the royal redhead and our own Tory councillor have attracted a comment which couldn't be channelled through the normal "comments" section, for reasons I am unable to understand - there is no ploy to prevent debate, the only stuff I won't publish is abuse against me (open your own blog for that) or something I think might be libellous.

Anyway - Dong has sent me a email about the two entries and has said he's happy to have it published. I'm happy to do so, but I don't guarantee that I'll always oblige!

Dong wrote:

"Hi, I cannot get a comment published on your blogsite as I appear to need a google user name and password – this may be your ploy to limit comments so you can have these and publish if you wish

First as to young Harry of the house of Windsor, as a matter of balance my info is that more than most he is hot to trot as a soldier but will – without question – be targeted as a “Trophy Scalp” thereby putting at very high risk his platoon of the poor serfs who signed up for Queen and Country that you refer to.

His grandfather was rather dashing in the RN in WW2, seeing action on more than one occasion, his uncle stooged around in the very dangerous “decoy” helicopter role on the Falkland campaign, his great uncle commanded a destroyer – HMS Kelly – in WW2 which was sunk under him and as a “Trophy Scalp” got blown to blazes by the murdering IRA, his dad drove a minesweeper for the RN – not spectacular but he would have had to know about munitions and how to use them, his auntie Anne would make the most formidable military commander – believe me, I have met her. And lets not forget his Great Grandmum who at the height of the blitz with Buck House being bombed said something like “the King will not leave London and I will not leave the King”.

I believe you are wrong to suggest that there is any lack of guts in the House of Windsor.

There are around 100,000 soldiers in the British Army, of which some 25,000 can be fielded as front line troops, it takes 3 at the back to maintain one at the front, are you suggesting that 75,000 members of the Army are “Chocolate Box Soldiers” being paid like front line troops but not actually being killed? That seems to be the thrust of your dig at Harry – condemn one and you must condemn them all.

You may like him or not but he is subject to rules and responsibilities that we – thankfully – are not, what would be said of him if he openly defied or questioned in public his orders – a damn site worse criticism than your’s I’ll warrant.

I may not like or approve of the antics of our royal house – but I’m damned sure we are better off with the stability they represent and even more sure of the chaos that would ensue in some hopeless cause to come up with something any better.

On another matter Sheryll Murray got 521 votes not 543, I do not like her either for many of your own reasons but I think it would have been more humane not to knock her so savagely when she has such family trouble and concern"

Thanks to Dong for the contribution.

No comments: