Channel 4's "The Taking of Prince Harry": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctFdozEs5FM
Official Press Review
The programme "The Taking of Prince Harry" was full of these questions: in such an extreme case,
would the government be forced to abandon its hard-line stance against negotiations with terrorists? Would they
accede to his captors' demands of total withdrawal from Afghanistan? Or would they rescue him by forming a secret
alliance with Pakistani intelligence in order to save face? Obviously, the programme didn't know: here, Harry - played
by a look-a-like actor - eventually made a daring escape. What a bloody brave bloke he probably is.
The drama documentary depicted thorough analysis of standard negotiating procedures. Interestingly,
since kidnap is categorised under criminal law, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police. Also, most
kidnappings in Afghanistan - reportedly 15 per week - are driven by money rather than political ideology. A
kidnapped westerner is a valuable commodity and bargaining tool, worth more alive than dead. Only in the hands of
al Qaeda might they be used as propaganda. It also illustrated that crisis operations are hosted from a secret
bunker underneath Whitehall by a government cabal called Cobra (which stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A)
and which the Prime Minister is in attendance.
A Clarence House spokesman said: “Speculating about the security of Prince Harry, both as a serving
member of the Armed Forces and a senior member of the Royal Family, is unhelpful.”
Former SAS commando Andy McNab, 50, raged: “What these people forget is there is still a war going on.
This comes at a bad time and is in bad taste. “It’s highly likely Harry will be going back to Afghanistan now they have
spent so much money on his Apache chopper training but it’s not just insensitive to Harry, it’s insensitive to all the
troops and the mums, dads, wives and kids with lads out there. Showing the behind-the-scenes process could even
be seen as a training video for some of these nut cases.”
An Ministry of Defence Spokesman said: “ It would be inappropriate for the M.O.D. to comment on any
potential course of action in the event that a member of the Armed Forces was taken hostage. To do so may
prejudice the operational security of any potential action.”
"I have just watched this fictionalised account of what might happen in the event of Harry being captured
by the Taliban. A documentary styled account on Channel 4 here in London entitled "The Taking of Prince Harry".
Most people know he has already served there and due to an Austrailan Women's magazine printing an article
about this, he was immediately flown home as, until this exposure, it had been Top Secret that he was involved in
Military Operations there. What came to light in this film was also the fact there had been a complete news blackout
regarding this sensitive information which only of course serves to prove what I have said that similarly there must be
one, probably a "D Notice", regarding any and all correspondence made by Andrew or indeed anyone to the Media
regarding this site and its equally sensitive content.
However returning to this documentary film and again reiterating that it is a fictionalised one; I can't help
but wonder why it has been televised, since if it is at all factual in any of its content at all, I would imagine it's being
quite dangerous as well as extremely helpful and informative to the enemy! I will not go into details why this is so but
would suggest people watch it and see for themselves. After all my detailing such information here on a public
website, free for anyone; I would be seen perhaps to be assisting in this, would I not?
It was interesting also to learn that in spite of her grandson Harry's being held prisoner with a price on his
head that Her Majesty was reported to be carrying on with her daily duties as normal and Prince Charles issuing a
statement that he hoped Harry would be treated by them as any other soldier but in Harry's case now a captive of
the Taliban and it was equally made clear that they do not abide by the rules and regulations imposed by the
Geneva Convention and alternatively are known to be brutal with their captives; often ultimately resulting in they're
being beheaded if their demands are not met. So I would imagine Charles would be strongly advised to not issue
such a uninformed statement publicly or risk fuelling the fact as I have made mention of that the Royals are often out
of touch with things.
During the drama documentary factual footage was included with interviews by people who had been
Taliban hostages and rescued as well as footage of those not so fortunate who indeed were executed. What came
to light was a statement made by the British Prime Minsiter who publicly announced that " The British Government
does not bargain with terrorists " after a ransom was demanded for Harry's life as well as a futher demand that all
British troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan immediately. It was also noted that, fact not fiction, having been faced
with similar demands for the release of a German captive of the Taliban that ransom was paid by the German
government and he subsequently released. It being argued that were the British Government seen to be responding
to such demands by the Taliban or Al Qaeda, what message would this be sending out other than to invite further
strategies of this nature being deployed by them.
Well indeed a catch 22 situation! The drama documentary interestingly also showed that often one
Taliban group might well barter and buy a captive from another and in Harry's case, he wound up across the border
in neighbouring Pakistan which is where the Taliban Organisation originated from; so viewers were left to recognise
the subsequent group he was held by were somewhat more informed and professional. Also it being noted they were
a recruitment group welcoming new members and so including those from the U.K. Frighteningly therefore whilst the
original Taliban group had not recognised the identity of their prisoner, this new recruit for this Talban group most
certainly did and immediately informed them of their prize, so even his alias as Henry; which is of course his real
name; was exposed but hence raising the stakes in their favour for negotiations and of course marvellous
propaganda for them. Yet still in spite of all this the British Government were not intent on meeting any demands
submitted to them. Goodness knows in the event of Harry, called ironically in this film "The People's Prince", losing
his life whilst on duty defending his country, what the people would have thought of the Government, the British
Establishment and what subsequent confidence they'd have ultimately had for it; as naturally my death as well as his
would have commanded global media attention as even it was shown his being captured had already done.
The horror for me though personally about this fictionalised documentary which showed real footage of
my youngest son during his primary deployment in Afghanistan (Only to be released after his time there having been
served ) is the fact that he is personally intent on a return and equally William as determined to serve there. On the
one hand they both being involved in training in the Military and not wishing to be given preferential treatment, this
something they'd both therefore naturally welcome happening but on the other they are perfect trophy's for the
enemy to bargain with and I cannot help but wonder at what ultimate cost? I am aware they read this site so I
personally hope that active service in this region is blocked for them because of the repercussions which would
ultimately certainly follow their individual deployments to this region!"
I have just watched this harrowing drama documentary with Andrew and Diana, empathizing on the emotions Diana
must have been going through as a mother seeing what could possibly happen were Harry, or indeed William, to
return to active service in Afghanistan.
I have little to add to what Diana has already said, except that I feel it would be extremely dangerous for either Harry
or William to do active service in this region. Unlike the Falklands in which Prince Andrew served, as was pointed out
in the program, in this conflict the British forces are facing a disparate collection of Taliban groups who do not
respect the Geneva Conventions.
It was also apparent in this drama documentary that the first captors did not realize who Harry was, and their
demands were purely mercenary. However by the time he was passed (for money) to the more professional group
and was recognized by a British-born Taliban recruit, the demand for his release had been raised from a mere cash
sum to the withdrawal of all British troops from Afghanistan, a demand which would be much harder for the British
government to meet.
Of course, as an opponent of this war anyway, I would support this withdrawal, or at least the replacement of the
deployment of British and American troops with a UN force.
The showing of this drama documentary, despite an attempt to prevent it being screened, was sending an important
message to the government, the British people and indeed the two princes themselves that if they were to perform
active service in this war zone (again in Harry's case) and were captured by the Taliban, the consequences would
The other message the program clearly put out was that the British government does indeed censor the Press since
it was an Australian magazine which broke the news of Prince Harry's last deployment in Afghanistan. If they can
censor this, they most certainly censor other things they don't want the public to know or be aware of. The idea that
we have a 'free press' in the UK is therefore a myth.
Upon Harry's safe return to the UK the Prime Minister makes a public speech saying that the British Establishment
has emerged victorious with its integrity and principles intact, in other words without need to reconsider the original
policy of Her Majesty's government that it does not bargain with terrorists. It would seem even when a Prince of the
Realm's life is at stake!'