William, Harry, their Girlfriends and the Press

[Skydragon]

---- snipped --- that the mistakes her grandchildren make now, or their lack of participation in royal duties, don't really matter because they will have so many years of dutiful royal service later on.

If they continue to treat the public as idiots, the chances of the monarchy continuing after Charles, fade into the distance. Duke of Marmalade and I are not the only ones beginning to question Williams suitability based on his apparent honesty!

What proof do you have to offer that the base mods are doing what you claim?

Would you really expect me to give you the names, ranks and serial numbers of the mods that I personally know to be able to make the statement?

 

[kimebear]

Would you really expect me to give you the names, ranks and serial numbers of the mods that I personally know to be able to make the statement?

Well, it would help to have some actual evidence and not just a claim that such hush-hush dealings with a royal were actually occurring. After all, I'm in the real estate business and I know a lot of other people that are as well. I could say that I know for a fact that Donald Trump is covering up a recent problem he had with with a dishonest employee and a goat because it would be potentially embarassing in the press. It may be true, but if you only have my word for it, it doesn't give much reason to believe that it is true.

 

[Roslyn]

Well, it would help to have some actual evidence and not just a claim that such hush-hush dealings with a royal were actually occurring. After all, I'm in the real estate business and I know a lot of other people that are as well. I could say that I know for a fact that Donald Trump is covering up a recent problem he had with with a dishonest employee and a goat because it would be potentially embarassing in the press. It may be true, but if you only have my word for it, it doesn't give much reason to believe that it is true.

Not unless we accept you do have access to sources and resources which would enable you to know such things and we consider you to be a witness of truth who would not say it if it were not true.

 

[Skydragon]

Well, it would help to have some actual evidence and not just a claim that such hush-hush dealings with a royal were actually occurring. After all, I'm in the real estate business and I know a lot of other people that are as well. I could say that I know for a fact that Donald Trump is covering up a recent problem he had with with a dishonest employee and a goat because it would be potentially embarassing in the press. It may be true, but if you only have my word for it, it doesn't give much reason to believe that it is true.

You could always register on any one of the base sites and watch the posts appear and disappear! They are hardly hush hush dealings with a royal, it is a simple case of the OC ordering their mods to not only remove any negative comments, but to also note IP addresses of anyone making such comments!

As with any of the information given by any of the posters, yourself included, it is up to the individual what or who they choose to believe, presumably based on whether they have given credible information in the past!

Therefore your comparison could be seen as insulting.

 

[kimebear]

You could always register on any one of the base sites and watch the posts appear and disappear! They are hardly hush hush dealings with a royal, it is a simple case of the OC ordering their mods to not only remove any negative comments, but to also note IP addresses of anyone making such comments!

Registering at one of the sites now would hardly prove the point if the relevant posts have already been removed.

As with any of the information given by any of the posters, yourself included, it is up to the individual what or who they choose to believe, presumably based on whether they have given credible information in the past!

From our community rules:

• Whenever possible, opinions should be based on factual information obtained from reputable sources and should be backed up by references to those sources.

You yourself have made requests for proof on several occasions from more than one poster. I don't think I should have to point out that a claim of a military supported forum engaging in an extreme form of censorship is a fairly serious charge and it is quite reasonable to ask for proof of this.

Therefore your comparison could be seen as insulting.

My comparison was made to show that anyone can make unsubstantiated claims. It was not at all insulting.

 

[Skydragon]

Registering at one of the sites now would hardly prove the point if the relevant posts have already been removed.

Not at all, it is an ongoing thing. You could take a look at egoat1, egoat2 or ARSSE

Whenever possible, opinions should be based on factual information obtained from reputable sources and should be backed up by references to those sources.You yourself have made requests for proof on several occasions from more than one poster. I don't think I should have to point out that a claim of a military supported forum engaging in an extreme form of censorship is a fairly serious charge and it is quite reasonable to ask for proof of this.

My opinions are facts, backed up by the most reliable sources, probably more so than any of the articles posted from the tabloids. However, if this is such a problem then perhaps I should refrain from posting any military information, most of which appears in the tabloids within a week or two anyway. If the military wish to question the facts being displayed on this forum, I am sure they would be made to look complete asses in any court of law. The Base forums are not open to civilians and are not 'run' by the military, the moderators do the job in their free time but are still subject to orders from their OC and Persec. My 'claim' of censorship is backed up by the threads in the above links.

I ask where someone got their information when A poster states as fact that a royal did this or that, I ask where they obtained the information, especially when nobody else was apparently present apart from the royal concerned. 9 times out of 10, the 'fact' is a repeat of a rumour that was once in a tabloid as a rumour, as in the fairytale of Major Shand having words with Charles!

It was not at all insulting.

Really, that is not how it came across!

 

[kimebear]

Not at all, it is an ongoing thing. You could take a look at egoat1, egoat2 or ARSSE

I took your advice and registered at these forums and then spent the morning reading them as I am very interested in what actual military personnel have to say about the events that the media write stories about William and Harry. I was quite pleasantly suprised to see many existing threads on them including William's accelerated career, the stag party flight and the landing in Kate's field. Some of the posts being, well quite frankly, vulgar yet remaining and quite a few more supporting the princes. Not unlike here, in fact (minus the vulgarity, of course). Having read them, I'm not quite ready to mourn the downfall of the monarchy if the decision to keep it was completely left up to the people serving with them.

My opinions are facts, backed up by the most reliable sources, probably more so than any of the articles posted from the tabloids. However, if this is such a problem then perhaps I should refrain from posting any military information, most of which appears in the tabloids within a week or two anyway. If the military wish to question the facts being displayed on this forum, I am sure they would be made to look complete asses in any court of law. The Base forums are not open to civilians and are not 'run' by the military, the moderators do the job in their free time but are still subject to orders from their OC and Persec. My 'claim' of censorship is backed up by the threads in the above links.

Here we are going to have to disagree. I read the censorship threads and it was my impression that the censoring was taking place on a variety of issues, not just about the latest semi-scandal involving William. Not that I was suprised considering that I had also read a thread detailing a very clear warning that the princes were to get the same respect of privacy as any other member of the military with regards to their career. Of course, seeing the other posts, it is clear that this is not followed. However, you say here "The Base forums are not open to civilians and are not 'run' by the military" but in your previous post you said "You could always register on any one of the base sites and watch the posts appear and disappear". So, considering I registered quite easily at the sites you provided, are these the base sites you are referring to? As far as censorship goes, it is a litle more complex when it involves the military, as you know, given the fact that, unlike here where we talk for fun and interesting information, a military based forum has to be wary of the leaks for the sake of personal safety as well. I can't say I really blame them for being more precautious.

I ask where someone got their information when A poster states as fact that a royal did this or that, I ask where they obtained the information, especially when nobody else was apparently present apart from the royal concerned. 9 times out of 10, the 'fact' is a repeat of a rumour that was once in a tabloid as a rumour, as in the fairytale of Major Shand having words with Charles!

Exactly what I did. I asked where you got your information. Not that the sites you provided are the paragon of truth and not gossip. Many of the posters there still perpetuate the unfounded gossip about Harry being James Hewitt's son.

Really, that is not how it came across!

It is not our practice here to discuss, at such length, any other forum. I am in no way criticizing how the sites you referenced conduct their moderating and operations. I'm making a point about all of this because I am concerned about claims that infer that things are being hushed up in military circles where the royals are involved as a method of covering up potentially embarassing situations as a result of media leaks. That becomes an issue for all the citizens of which William is expected to become monarch. There doesn't seem to be much of that going on by what I was able to read. Some posts addressing such issues go back years and are still there. If there were others that have been removed, they can hardly be used as evidence.

 

[Skydragon]

Here we are going to have to disagree. I read the censorship threads and it was my impression that the censoring was taking place on a variety of issues, not just about the latest semi-scandal involving William. Not that I was suprised considering that I had also read a thread detailing a very clear warning that the princes were to get the same respect of privacy as any other member of the military with regards to their career

I don't believe I said that censorship only took place regarding William or Harry. It would be somewhat pointless to discuss the other threads being censored on a William/Harrythread, perhaps you would like to point out where this was either said or inferred.

"The Base forums are not open to civilians and are not 'run' by the military" but in your previous post you said "You could always register on any one of the base sites and watch the posts appear and disappear". So, considering I registered quite easily at the sites you provided, are these the base sites you are referring to? As far as censorship goes, it is a litle more complex when it involves the military, as you know, given the fact that, unlike here where we talk for fun and interesting information, a military based forum has to be wary of the leaks for the sake of personal safety as well. I can't say I really blame them for being more precautious.

I posted links to the 'open to the public rumour mills', not to the base forums which, although I have access to, you will not. I was under the impression that you required 'proof' of censorship and felt ARRSE or it's RAF equivalent would do.

Exactly what I did. I asked where you got your information.

Your question was

What proof do you have to offer that the base mods are doing what you claim?

This I have done, although plainly, not to your satisfaction. If the 'open to all and sundry' forums are being censored, then it should be easy to work out that the base forums are as well.

I can't see what you are trying to make a point about quite frankly, certainly not disproving that censorship is a regular occurrence on any of the sites. The sites are read by the military, they are censored by the military and you have only confirmed that and ensured that two of the sites are read by many who knew nothing about them.

 

[kimebear]

I don't believe I said that censorship only took place regarding William or Harry. It would be somewhat pointless to discuss the other threads being censored on a William/Harrythread, perhaps you would like to point out where this was either said or inferred.

But the thing is, none of the links to posts you provided spoke of censorship regarding William or Harry specifically at all. They just spoke of censorship in general and there is a wealth of subjects at the forum. It could be anything, up to and including William and Harry.

I posted links to the 'open to the public rumour mills', not to the base forums which, although I have access to, you will not. I was under the impression that you required 'proof' of censorship and felt ARRSE or it's RAF equivalent would do. Your question was This I have done, although plainly, not to your satisfaction. If the 'open to all and sundry' forums are being censored, then it should be easy to work out that the base forums are as well.

I asked for proof of censorship as it pertains specifically to William and Harry in response to your post of

The rules were manipulated to accommodate Williams personal ambitions and that along with his other deceptions is shameful. (Which is why the base mods are at full tilt monitoring and removing)!

I didn't find any in the open forums, although I would be willing to concede the point if you have a specific reference that I did not get to, I obviously can't attest to what has been deleted before I got there and if it is taking place in a private forum that the rest of us cannot ever access, I'm not sure how it can possibly be claimed as a source if there can be no independent verification of it.

I can't see what you are trying to make a point about quite frankly, certainly not disproving that censorship is a regular occurrence on any of the sites. The sites are read by the military, they are censored by the military and you have only confirmed that and ensured that two of the sites are read by many who knew nothing about them.

My point is simply that, according to what you provided, one cannot verify the claim you made that is quoted above. The claim implying that censorship of discussions by military personnel is occuring because William's behavior is seen at some high level to be, in your description, shameful.

 

[Skydragon]

But the thing is, none of the links to posts you provided spoke of censorship regarding William or Harry specifically at all. They just spoke of censorship in general and there is a wealth of subjects at the forum. It could be anything, up to and including William and Harry.

As far as I am aware, this is a William & Harry themed thread, why would I post anything to do with censorship of any other subject?

I asked for proof of censorship as it pertains specifically to William and Harry in response to your post of

No, you asked for proof of censorship by the military

I don't think I should have to point out that a claim of a military supported forum engaging in an extreme form of censorship is a fairly serious charge and it is quite reasonable to ask for proof of this

This has been given.

I'm not sure how it can possibly be claimed as a source if there can be no independent verification of it.

An accurate source is a source, whether you can access it or not. The fact that you believe there are few in the military who question the use of the military to fulfill the Wales boys dreams, means the mods are doing a very good job. In the same way that anyone looking at these threads would believe the moderators views equals agreement by all posters, after all if you remove a post/thread, anyone visiting would never know it existed.

Having read them, I'm not quite ready to mourn the downfall of the monarchy if the decision to keep it was completely left up to the people serving with them

That is equivalent to saying there would be no problems if Edward and Sophie were appointed as the next King and Queen, because there are very few anti posts on their thread. Or with the censorship on the Sarah thread, everyone in the UK will suddenly think she is the best thing since sliced bread. That is what censorship or some moderation does.

My point is simply that, according to what you provided, one cannot verify the claim you made that is quoted above. The claim implying that censorship of discussions by military personnel is occuring because William's behavior is seen at some high level to be, in your description, shameful.

My post reads - The rules were manipulated to accommodate Williams personal ambitions and that along with his other deceptions is shameful - that is something I have said all along and many UK posters also feel that way, especially those with any experience in or with the military. It goes on to say after the full stop and in brackets - (Which is why the base mods are at full tilt monitoring and removing)! Just as I understood your comment about Estate Agents, Trump and Goats to be insulting and you apparently did not, it is all in the individuals interpretation/reading thereoff.

What proof do you have to offer that the base mods are doing what you claim?

You asked for proof of censorship by the military, this was given.

I see little point in continuing this discussion with you, it appears to me that you would disagree with anything and everything I put. You put, as your main point 'It is a serious charge' to state the military indulge in censorship, well it may be but it doesn't alter the fact that the military forums, discussing anything negative about William or Harry are censored/moderated.

 

[kimebear]

No, you asked for proof of censorship by the military

Yes, as it pertains to William and Harry. I did not find anything of the sort in the links you provided.

An accurate source is a source, whether you can access it or not.

If it is information that is only available to a certain group of people, it is a unverifiable source.

The fact that you believe there are few in the military who question the use of the military to fulfill the Wales boys dreams, means the mods are doing a very good job.

Hardly. Considering the amount of uncensored ribbing, name calling and general griping about privileges that the boys have received that I read (including William, Harry, Charles, Andrew and Edward all being nominated in their turn for something called W****r of the Week), it just seems to me that negative comments are not readily deleted nor censored and that there are not nearly as many people in the service who are ready to turn to a republic as we may be led to believe.

I can see we are just going to continue to go around in circles. I maintain my position that you cannot offer as proof something that cannot possibly be verified by the person asking for it.

 

[AuroraB]

Sorry to interrupt, but one visit to a site cannot give anyone an idea what has or has not been deleted.

 

[kimebear]

True enough. That is the problem. If posts aren't there, it is impossible to determine if they ever were by someone who has not been a regular reader. Hence the problem with using it as a source.

 

[Elspeth]

This is exactly what I think the queen believes: that the mistakes her grandchildren make now, or their lack of participation in royal duties, don't really matter because they will have so many years of dutiful royal service later on.

I remember when Charles was roundly criticised for going to Cambridge after getting A-level results that wouldn't have let him get anywhere near the place if he had to rely on his own merits. But if I remember right, the majority of the criticism was levelled at the Powers That Be at Cambridge for letting him in. It's probably a good thing for him that Princess Anne was at the time fairly unpopular in the press, because the comparison between his privileged entry into Cambridge and her equestrian successes, which were perceived to be far more a matter of merit, would probably have been a lot more cutting.

Wasn't there also criticism of his being able to advance in the Navy after failing his navigation exams in a way that other junior officers wouldn't have been able to do? I mean, undeserved privilege is part of the whole royal experience, from mediocre students getting into Cambridge to underqualified officers getting military advancement.

 

[Idriel]

True enough. That is the problem. If posts aren't there, it is impossible to determine if they ever were by someone who has not been a regular reader. Hence the problem with using it as a source.

With all due respect it is obvious that what both Skydragron and AuroraB were suggesting is that you stick out for more than a couple of hours with these sites to really evaluate the level of censorship. Only a regular following could inform you correctly.
It is very possible for example that vulgar posts are not deleted because the crassness makes it difficult to take seriously whatever argument the poster is making. It would be a good way of making it look like only rude idiots are criticising the princes. Maybe when a criticism is well-written it get censored.
I am just theorising there. The point is one would need to follow those sites for more than a couple of hours to have a clear idea of how they work.

Anyone visiting the Royal Forums as a 'tourist' would never had any idea what amount of discussion get deleted and edited, whereas as a long term poster this is obvious to me.

I mean, undeserved privilege is part of the whole royal experience.

I agree. Royalty and meritocracy do not mix.

However, the problem isn't that William is treated like the special person he is. The problem is the amount of deceit and misinformation going on.
There has been an ongoing lack of transparency when dealing with William. Things are presented a certain way and the truth is only discovered after the press does some digging.

By all mean give the future head of the Armed Forces honorary RAF wings, but be honest about the fact that they are honorary and don't make it sound like he won them fair and square.
By all mean give him an opportunity to have a real job for a while, but be honest about the fact he has been given the place as a special favor, don't make it sound like he used a rule anyone else could have used.

Maybe you can blame CH or BP for mishandling the PR surrounding William's army career, but some of the blame falls on him too, like his appalling behavior throughout the chopper jolly fiasco.

It looks like he isn't just enjoying his royal privileges (on of the few upside of being a Royal, after all) be is out-rightly and cynically abusing them.
All the while he is giving TV interviews moaning about wanting to be normal and not wanting to be given any special treatment.

 

[AuroraB]

Excellent summation. Thank you.

 

[Elspeth]

I don't think it's really new that royals are presented as doing things on their own merit when in fact they've been given a free pass round the system. With the Charles/Cambridge situation, I seem to remember Cambridge dons being wheeled out to claim that of course HRH was an exceptional young man whose A-level results had been unfortunately affected by his need to do extra studies to prepare him for his future role as King and yada yada yada. I think students with excellent A-level results who'd been turned down at Cambridge would have been less offended by an honest "look, he's the son of the Queen, as long as he gets the statutory two A-level passes we'll take him regardless of how dim he is" than by these ridiculous excuses that he was an academic powerhouse who had underperformed in his A-levels through no fault of his own.

These days society is less deferential and the media outlets are more intrusive, so some of these thin excuses are being peeled away and ridiculed. But the excuses didn't start with this generation.

 

[Charlotte1]

I don't think it's really new that royals are presented as doing things on their own merit when in fact they've been given a free pass round the system. With the Charles/Cambridge situation, I seem to remember Cambridge dons being wheeled out to claim that of course HRH was an exceptional young man whose A-level results had been unfortunately affected by his need to do extra studies to prepare him for his future role as King and yada yada yada. I think students with excellent A-level results who'd been turned down at Cambridge would have been less offended by an honest "look, he's the son of the Queen, as long as he gets the statutory two A-level passes we'll take him regardless of how dim he is" than by these ridiculous excuses that he was an academic powerhouse who had underperformed in his A-levels through no fault of his own.

These days society is less deferential and the media outlets are more intrusive, so some of these thin excuses are being peeled away and ridiculed. But the excuses didn't start with this generation.

Another older example. During World War 1 The Prince of Wales ( future Edward VIII) was allowed to join the Coldstream Guards, it was an elite regiment/ company. So elite infact that it had a height requirement, Edward was height challenged ( he was quite short) and he definitely didn't make the height requirement and yet he still joined the Coldstream Guards. ( Can't remember what explanation was given, or maybe none, as it was understood royals get privileges.)

 

[kimebear]

With all due respect it is obvious that what both Skydragron and AuroraB were suggesting is that you stick out for more than a couple of hours with these sites to really evaluate the level of censorship. Only a regular following could inform you correctly...

I can understand why you may feel that way but, in reading through the links provided and seeing just what is left undeleted (vulgar and well written alike), I did not get the impression that deletion was occuring for:

Any and all negative or questioning comments, the same as here.

That is an all encompassing and fairly shocking claim which is what originally caught my attention. I found that there are plenty of negative and questioning comments to be found about William, Harry and the other royals in threads that concern themselves with the incidents that we have become familiar with thanks to the newspapers and other media outlets.

As with any moderater duty, I well believe that some comments are deleted by one mod that might not be deleted by another and also that some comments are sure to be deleted to offer legal protection against defamation and slander complaints. This would be true with any forum that tries to run with some sense of responsibility and, IMO, does not necessarily constitute a large scale censoring of negative royal opinion among military personnel.

But the excuses didn't start with this generation.

Absolutely not. One of the events that I came across during my time on the military sites this morning was a rather frank discussion of an incident that I was not familiar with before, although I'm sure many of you may be. It involved the helicopter of a Queen's Flight some years ago where Charles took over the controls from the original pilot in flight. After reading the MoD's report (kindly provided via link by the poster), it was apparant that while the equipment was in Charles' control, several bad calls were made regarding the approach, weather conditions and other factors. The landing was poorly executed and a good degree of damage was done to the equipment. However, the report reads that it was the original captain and the navigator who were held to blame, not Charles. Several of the posters believe that Charles' poor flying ability was the cause of the accident and the captain and navigator were forced to allow it because of Charles' position.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I see little point in continuing this discussion with you, it appears to me that you would disagree with anything and everything I put. You put, as your main point 'It is a serious charge' to state the military indulge in censorship, well it may be but it doesn't alter the fact that the military forums, discussing anything negative about William or Harry are censored/moderated.

I believe anyone who had ever contact with the military knows that censorship is the most normal thing in this sphere - so there is quite a high probability that negative posts about William or Harry are in fact censored because they could have the effect of "Wehrkraftzersetzung", as we say in Germany, - undermining of military morale or troop demoralization.

The next thing you ask of Skydragon is for her to prove that the Earth is a globe, not a disk...

 

[kpusa1981]

Would Prince Charles's marks really not been good enough to get into Cambridge in 1967 or '68? Since the marks were a B and a c.

 

[wbenson]

Would Prince Charles's marks really not been good enough to get into Cambridge in 1967 or '68? Since the marks were a B and a c.

He most likely wouldn't today (as a regular person, at least). That would require at least three A-levels, all with a grade of A, according to the entrance requirements on Cambridge's website.

 

[Elspeth]

Would Prince Charles's marks really not been good enough to get into Cambridge in 1967 or '68? Since the marks were a B and a c.

Absolutely not. For most people, it would have taken three or four A-levels, all at grade A or maybe with one B in the mix, as well as a slew of O levels (Charles only had six, which was pretty mediocre in general but poor for a university entrant, and there were no science subjects among them), and an S-level pass wouldn't have hurt.

I know someone with 12 good O-levels, three grade A A-levels, and one S-level pass, who didn't get into Cambridge. The notion of someone with six O-levels and two not all that great A-level passes sailing into Cambridge, ostensibly on merit, would have been pretty hard for her to swallow.

 

[Elspeth]

Monitoring and removing what, exactly?

Any and all negative or questioning comments, the same as here.

Oh, please. All negative and questioning comments? Come off it.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I know someone with 12 good O-levels, three grade A A-levels, and one S-level pass, who didn't get into Cambridge. The notion of someone with six O-levels and two not all that great A-level passes sailing into Cambridge, ostensibly on merit, would have been pretty hard for her to swallow.

I can imagine that the idea that Charles got in due to his "merit" is hard to swallow for everybody. But that's how it works. The son of our former chancellor Kohl got a place at Harvard.... guess why? (and if someone doubts the source of this information I'm willing to prove to a mod that I in fact had been in a position to have knowledge about this.)

 

[Idriel]

I don't think it's really new that royals are presented as doing things on their own merit when in fact they've been given a free pass round the system.

Oh, I know. I wasn't claiming that was anything new, I was just pointing out that was the point of contention.

This attitude of taking the public for idiots has to change. Just because it has been the modus operandi for decades doesn't makes it right or appropriate fot the 21st century.
As you observed, both the public and the media are nowhere near as deferential they were 30 year ago. William's gloss as Diana son has faded. Most of William's PR disasters could have been avoided with a little bit of honesty.

William also needs to stop with that 'I want to be normal' nonsense when he is liberally abusing his privileges. It just makes him look uterly hypocritical. I don't think Charles was ever guilty of that (or was he?).

I generally agree with the posts you have been making.

 

[Skydragon]

Idriel brilliant summation.
-------------------
Most of the downright filthy posts are removed, what you see are the watered down versions, they are not ballerinas after all!

I can understand why you may feel that way but, in reading through the links provided and seeing just what is left undeleted (vulgar and well written alike), I did not get the impression that deletion was occuring for:

Perhaps because it has been deleted.

Any and all negative or questioning comments

Pertaining to William and Harry's unusual advancement

That is an all encompassing and fairly shocking claim which is what originally caught my attention.

This is the original post that 'caught your attention I believe - 'The rules were manipulated to accommodate Williams personal ambitions and that along with his other deceptions is shameful. (Which is why the base mods are at full tilt monitoring and removing)! You replied with 'It is a serious charge' to state the military indulge in censorship and asked for proof that the mods were censoring posts, I gave you links to two of the forums that confirmed they do indeed censor them.

I found that there are plenty of negative and questioning comments to be found about William, Harry and the other royals in threads that concern themselves with the incidents that we have become familiar with thanks to the newspapers and other media outlets.

Most people would then wonder why the lack of posts/threads about any of their other escapades.

As with any moderater duty, I well believe that some comments are deleted by one mod that might not be deleted by another and also that some comments are sure to be deleted to offer legal protection against defamation and slander complaints. This would be true with any forum that tries to run with some sense of responsibility and, IMO, does not necessarily constitute a large scale censoring of negative royal opinion among military personnel.

But you are not talking about any other forum, such as this. You are talking about military forums moderated by forces personnel, who have no option but to obey the orders laid down by their OC, and from the posts that were deleted, (that I have seen), none of them were slanderous or would have been deleted on any normal forum.

 

[Skydragon]

Oh, please. All negative and questioning comments? Come off it.

Well, there certainly appears to be a policy of calling questions or negative responses regarding some individuals, bullying, (which in itself could be called bullying)!

 

[kimebear]

Pertaining to William and Harry's unusual advancement

But that is the whole point. You said Any and All. I have pointed out more than once that there are several negative and questioning comments specifically concerning their unusual advancement which have been left undeleted. Some going back years in the past. It is just a fact. Period.

Most people would then wonder why the lack of posts/threads about any of their other escapades.

Not at all. After all, we don't always discuss every single thing that every royal does here and it is not hard to imagine that, with an active campaign going on, the military boards have more important things to discuss than what William and Harry are up to. I'm sure there have been many comments that were deleted for all manner of reasons, but you just cannot claim total military censorship when it is not true.

 

[Skydragon]

But that is the whole point. You said Any and All. I have pointed out more than once that there are several negative and questioning comments specifically concerning their unusual advancement which have been left undeleted. Some going back years in the past. It is just a fact. Period.

Censoring does take place, the moderators remove any or all offensive posts about William and Harry, on your short visit, you were unable to fnd them, so it may be a fact in your sphere but not in the real world of the military. Nor does it alter the fact, that you said "it is a serious charge to state the military indulge in censorship". Clearly they do, otherwise there would be no need to 'move the goalposts'.

Not at all. After all, we don't always discuss every single thing that every royal does here and it is not hard to imagine that, with an active campaign going on, the military boards have more important things to discuss than what William and Harry are up to.

We don't? We discuss the length of so and so's hair, their dresses, suits, shoes, handbags, visit to the......., you mean there are things everyone has missed! The threads concerning campaigns, as I'm sure you can imagine, or perhaps not, are heavily censored, if and when service personnel consider posting on them. That is work, the Wales boys are just a passing annoyance.

I'm sure there have been many comments that were deleted for all manner of reasons, but you just cannot claim total military censorship when it is not true.

Can you show me where I have claimed total military censorship, (apart from the removal of any or all offensive posts concerning William and Harry, which to my mind does not equate to total anything) because if you have read that into any of my posts, we clearly have a problem with speaking the same or even a similar language. Total would be every thread or post with any mention of either of these men, including those you claim praise them.

As I said, if I state that black is black, it appears you would answer with it may be black except where it is white. Lest we forget, this is the comment that you first started questioning - Which is why the base mods are at full tilt monitoring and removing.(294) You then asked "Monitoring and removing what, exactly"? (296), my reply was and remains "Any and all negative or questioning comments", If you have found negative comments about the men, they are clearly either fairly old or not seen as particularly negative, just backroom banter, not unlike the vulgar posts you commented on, (although I haven't found that many).

I couldn't help but notice that my original post (294) has an edited by kimebear note for todays date?