Prince Harry

Should he be allowed to serve in Afghanistan again?

IMO, I think he should. He obviously loves his job, serving his Gran and his country. Watching this clip and the ones on the beeb (ironically voiced by Nicholas Witchell) my opinion of him has grown and I think he is a great royal role model. Yes, he has made mistakes in the past, but he has learnt from them and moved on. He comes across as very grounded, passionate and a thoroughly nice chap. Would love to have a beer with him

The question is, should he be allowed to leap-frog over much more senior RAF officers for the plum job of Apache pilot just for PR purposes?

And no, we haven't forgotten about his getting drunk with cocaine and prostitutes in Las Vegas either.

He's not the pilot.

And you really do like to place a lot of importance of tabloid 'reporting' don't you?

My information is not from tabloids. And what do you mean he's not a pilot?

I didn't say he's not A pilot, I said he isn't THE pilot. He was not the pilot of the Apache on this last tour. He was the gunner. Information is in the link and on the Beeb.

Ah yes, I forget about your 'sources'

I'm talking about him being being trained and put into Apaches so fast, which is highly sought after. It makes no difference to me if he was a gunner on his last tour. As for the sources, I'm not talking about CIA, just websites where journalists publish before they get censored by the mainstream media.

Why must royalists get so personal, so fast?

Where was I personal?

I prefer facts rather than gossip, hearsay and rumour.

And yes, I am a Royalist, proudly so. But I also look at the person, rather than the title. Something many anti-Royalists appear not to do.

My question is, why shouldn't a young man, who clearly loves what he is doing and appears to be successful at it, not be allowed to carry on doing it. Not whether he should be doing it at all, which seems to be your point?

You immediately imply I read tabloids and that my sources are either fictional or stupid, this is a standard reaction when debating with royalists, I have learnt over the years. They debate the man, not the argument.

I'm not saying Harry shouldn't be allowed to do it, I'm saying he should stand in line behind all the other officers who were ahead of him for Apache tours. As for the "person" argument, what can I say? His father is a billionaire and the CIC of the regiment, and his colleagues all swear an oath to defend not the country but his grandmother, and also him personally. He is not an ordinary "person".

Calm down children

Because when debating the Royals, I have yet to see you post a substantiated quote. You have quoted 'sources' but nothing official, hence my statement about preferring fact.

My post regarding looking at the person, was referring to the individual rather than the title. Many of the Royals do very good work, raising money and profiles for charities, creating jobs etc. But the Anti-Royalists only appear to see the 'drain' on the British public, how much they cost etc.

I am not making this into a Royal v. anti-Royal as it will be like a game of ping-pong.

I should think so given the amount they cost the nation. And job creation? What about when William Windsor tried to shut down a newspaper and a magazine last year putting hundreds out of work? Good job his PR people pulled him off of that.

I said... calm down.

Don't you mean

?

That's very offensive to scousers. So yes, that is what I mean.