Journalism more worthy than the Army?

I know it's a few days old but are you as upset by the attached Gruniad Article as I was? If so, do as I did and email the good P. Preston ( and let him know just how worthy you think his career is.

But of course, where would the world be without posh furniture designers like Linley. What a benefit to the world that is.

I have posted this in the Officers' Forum but all otheres please feel free to contribute. Hopefully we can sink the tw*ts's inbox.

Remeber, this tw*t thinks that YOU have wasted your life!!


this guys in box is going to be fuller than duty wheels on a saturday night!!!

Long may he suffer
According to Peter Preston, the Army is a waste and

The army in its upper reaches is cut off from society, not fully part of the nation that must be ruled.
Peter Preston's email address is: (clickable link)

Perhaps we should tell him what we do whilst he is sat on his fat ARRSE and writing articles on how useless we are. I believe that this man might be a CNUT

I've recently come across this little beauty. Don't know who it was written by but seems apt. My bold by the way.

The Soldier

It is the soldier, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier, who salutes the flag,
who serves under the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
who allows the protestor to burn the flag."
On a personal note, I can't think of anything worse than being a journo. Writing about the deeds of others rather than actually taking part or succeding in any themselves. Maybe that's why they have to always stick the knife in, to some how make themselves feel good.

Let's face it, I'd rather see Prince William picking up litter or emptying the dustbins than be a journo.

Edit to fix quote.
Well I wrote to P.Preston to let him know that I don#t think he's in any position to say that William has made the wrong decision.
Thirty years ago I began reading The Guardian. A few weeks ago I stopped. The reason is it's increasingly full of articles and letters by lefty, knowing, 'ironic', chattering bar stewards who (like as not) haven't done a proper day's work in their lives but feel qualified to tell others how to live theirs. In a knowing, ironic way of course.

Journalism, done well, informs and educates. Done badly - and how often that is the case - it allows people with more influence than wit to undermine the morale of people who know more about honour and bravery than they ever will.

Rant over.
Lefty, a very well written post..... have you ever thought of taking up writing? :wink:
Where's Lefty's post?
Do we expect any better from a newspaper that has employed members of terrorist organisations, and even paid them to glorify the terrorism they advocate within its own pages?

I have yet to see the Grauniad in an Army Officers' Mess and was genuinely surprised to find one in a RAF Officers' Mess. I can understand its absence from the first - but can't understand its presence in the second.
I might have not read it correctly but I understand him to have explained that the life of an Army Officer is a waste for Prince William. Whilst I don't entirely agree with his sentiments (although admit I am biased) he puts a good arguement forward to say that given HRH is unlikely to serve 'properly' (active service, treated as normal) and is therefore a wasted choice. I believe his hint to journalism was tongue-in-cheek and subtle acknowledgement of his own biased view.

Anyway, what do you expect from the Guardian?
NonGrad - you are right in that the overall aim of the article was to put across Preston's entirely subjective view that a military career is a waste for Prince William. The claim that Royals do not serve 'properly' is, of course, incorrect as to fact - several members of the Royal family have seen action (the latest being Prince Andrew), and some were killed in WW2 - but this clearly does not fit Preston's agenda, so he has ignored it.
Putting Prince Andrew in the line of fire is not in the same league as doing so to the heir to the throne. Simple as that. Journo though he may be, this bloke's got a point, and some have obviously completely missed it.
ViroBono: Fair one.

But do we really expect to see Prince William serving a full tour somewhere dodgy? [Not saying that he wouldn't want to.]
The article doesn't slate the Army - it states that William will never be allowed a proper military function whilst serving. It may not portray the Army in the most favourable light but fortunately we live in a society that allows the press to write such articles.

What Preston fails to recognise is that Wiliam will never fulfil a 'normal' function in whichever profession he chooses - had he been a journalist or a cartographer or a teacher he would still be selected for special attention, his mistakes would be splashed across the press and he is unlikely to ever suffer the indignity of failure in a career. That's the reality of life as the heir to the throne.

Personally I wish the man well in his military career. I hope he enjoys it, his soldiers respect him and that he makes a valuable contribution to military life. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that his OJARS will be above average and that he wil pass whatever course he elects to undertake - brave would be the DS who failed the future monarch!!

As an aside, it seems a pity that men like Preston rarely acknowledge that it is soldiers, sailors and aimen who die to ensure that we do live in a country where human rights are taken for granted and where people like him can express whatever opinions they wish without fear of punishment or retribution.
petermtm - if you'll forgive the pedantry, putting Prince Andrew in harm's way in 1982 was *exactly* the same as putting William in harm's way would be today. William is second-in-line to the throne, just as Andrew was when he was in the South Atlantic.

I agree that the overall context was different, though - a new 2nd in line to the throne was on the way - William was born on 14 June 1982 (prompting the suggestion from, IIRC, 2 PARA that he should be called 'Stanley'), and it was clear that Andrew was unlikely to become king - whereas William is an automatic choice for the job. That said, what if Charles and Diana had been killed in an accident on the way to an engagement at some point while Andrew was in the South Atlantic? He'd have been the next in line in one fell swoop.

I make the point because people tend to forget that Andrew was actually fairly important in the line of succession when he went to the South Atlantic.

Similar threads

Latest Threads