Nigel Farage suggests Prince William ‘sticks to the BAFTAs’

Elegran I wrote my reply well aware that you had said 'may be'.

Monica Re your post at Fri 23-Feb-24 21:19:37, my words were " . . although each side may be " not that each side is

maddyone

Never mind what Farage said about Prince William, I’ve just seen a clip of him making a speech in America promoting Trump as the future President!!!!!

Liz Truss has also spoken in support of Trump "or whoever the Republicans choose".

She says we need to import American Conservative values to the UK.

I read it as Trump 😀

I’ve just reread my post and it reads as if Prince William was promoting Trump!

A man of truth !

Never mind what Farage said about Prince William, I’ve just seen a clip of him making a speech in America promoting Trump as the future President!!!!!

Dressagediva123

Why anyone would give credence to anything Farage says is beyond me .

Quite.

I never took him for a republican either, unless he sees himself as a would-be President.

Why anyone would give credence to anything Farage says is beyond me .

A holocaust survivor interviewed on the radio last week said that what the Israelis should have done after the Hamas attackes on 7 October was - nothing.

There should have been no retaliation. Just a chance for the world to see how low Hamas had sunk and the full extent of its atrocities could be seen and recorded by the outside world.

Elegran

The stumbling block, as in all wars, is that although each side may in private be prepared to seriously consider a ceasefire proposal by the other combatant neither of them is willing to be the first to publicly take the step of making that proposal themselves.

I am not sure that is true. Do you really think Putin will consider any ceasefire that does not involve the complete capitulation of Ukraine, or at very least keeping all the land of that country that his forces have occupied?

Similarly during the civil war in Syria, I doubt if President Assad would have considered any ceasefire that did not give him complete control of Syria.

Ceasfires occur when one side is losing and wants to avoid losing face by being defeated or where one side can see distinct benefits by agreeing to a temporary ceasefire.

The other thing that is a stumbling block to ceasefires is if one side suspects that the other side will use it as an opportunity to recover from losses, and move men and materiel into position to restart the fighting.

Elegran

The stumbling block, as in all wars, is that although each side may in private be prepared to seriously consider a ceasefire proposal by the other combatant neither of them is willing to be the first to publicly take the step of making that proposal themselves.

Quite so Elegran.

Another stumbling block is that each mostly want to make a ceasefire conditional... "you do xyz first, and then we'll talk about it". And, of course, there's the point that neither trusts the other to hold to the agreement.

Do any combatants actually ever agree to an unconditional ceasefire?

Also, though I have no liking whatsoever for Netanyahu - it's still difficult to comprehend Hamas as a common-or-garden combatant when you consider the unspeakable brutality of their attack on 7th October.

Does Netanyahu even want to 'ceasefire'? Would Hamas respect a 'truce'?

And all the while the hostages must be wondering if they will ever see their families again - or even if they will survive... their families desperately worried, with their lives completely on hold, feeling completely powerless. And the killing of men, women - and particularly innocent children - goes on.

The stumbling block, as in all wars, is that although each side may in private be prepared to seriously consider a ceasefire proposal by the other combatant neither of them is willing to be the first to publicly take the step of making that proposal themselves.

William said he wants to see an end to the fighting.
Both sides are fighting, both sides should stop.

Chief Rabbi of U.K. has praised William for his compassion

maddyone

I certainly don’t think William’s words were a green light to Hamas, but I agree they could be construed as a reprimand to Israel.

I agree.

It was Farage who thought Hamas had been given 'the nod' by William's statement... he appears to believe it will embolden them. If so, they must be very stupid if they think they've found encouragement in his carefully crafted words...

I certainly don’t think William’s words were a green light to Hamas, but I agree they could be construed as a reprimand to Israel.

Shandy3

Why should he not express his feelings on the matter. He has shown how he cares for our planet, wouldn't it be strange if he didn't care for it's people? Well done William!

He can express his feelings - as long as they are politically neutral - the heir to the throne is supposed to be impartial as he will be a representative of the whole country.

Unfortunately, his statement has been construed, by some, as a reprimand to Israel and, by the more fanciful mind, as a green light to Hamas.

Why should he not express his feelings on the matter. He has shown how he cares for our planet, wouldn't it be strange if he didn't care for it's people? Well done William!

I’ve just seen a post from Grany on another thread. She posted at around six o clock this evening, so all must be well with her.

Nannashirlz

I agree with Nigel on this one. If he’s going to comment on one war he’s going to have to do it for them all but he can’t pick and choose he should stick to shaking hands

Nannashirlz

Although the comment was pre-arranged and cleared by the government - William was listening to those working for the Red Cross who were specifically relating their direct experiences with this war.

No doubt if he'd been talking to those involved in other wars, he'd also have made a similar 'relevant' comment.

To write - as Nigel Farage has, that "The intervention overnight from Prince William, I think is the most direct political piece of interference that has international and global implications that I think we've ever seen" is, in my opinion a gross exaggeration. And to suggest that "Some will see that as being given a free pass to Hamas." is, surely, stretching hype to its limits?

If you look back in history, the monarchy has, from time to time 'involved' itself similarly in various catastrophic events - in a far more pointed fashion than that which can be deduced from William's comment. The government 'approved' his observation because it's in line with their thinking.

The late Queen wasn't averse, as some believe, to making the odd comment with political overtones, in certain situations.

Anyway, William is due to visit a synagogue next week - and no doubt will be commiserating with them over the brutal attack on thousands of Israeli innocents.

Farage is exploiting the statement for his own ends.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Either GSM or Starmer has lured her back

Germanshepherdsmum

Where is Grany? She would make a hoo-ha about it.

Grany posted on one thread the other day, then said she was going again.

Yes I mean it's so jumping through hoops if William just goes there & says how pleased he is to be there & what wonderful work they do - they could get a Royal robot for much less cost to trot out the same. The late Queen did give us some human feeling occassionally & we respected her the more for it. I know this is billed as "political" but it isn't is it? He was neutral & expressed his personal dismay at the situation. Again, an Artificial intellegence might just look at numbers killed and not feelings of connection & context, but William is a human being and in the same way that Ukraine upset most of us more than Syria, Israel v Hamas upsets him more than Burma v the Rohinga. & agree, who cares what demogogue Farage says?