Finally we are on the same page about something Foxy. It might be a good time for me to retire from making any further comments on OLO.

So much of what we all do here is only cheering for our side, I was beginning to wonder why any of us bother.

Just taking Harry's helicopter a little higher to get a better perspective, adventure, self-testing and risk-taking are particularly important to boys to develop. Where things are breaking down is in the lack of models, specifically fathers, in their lives.

However, even where there are fathers, there are also claims that those fathers are time poor - which to a previous volunteer in sport and adventure activities such as myself - is not always a convincing argument at all. Often it is preoccupation with the Net and other toys (and lack of effective father parenting themselves) that prevents fathers from spending the necessary real time with their sons.

By the time they might be old enough for the military is usually far too late to help their development, mental health and anti-drug resilience.

However Prince Harry and many others know that and put heaps of time into many other Award schemes and adventure activities for boys. A very good example and choice for parents generally and solo mothers with boys is the Scouting Movement,
http://www.scouts.com.au/

A interesting article on raising boys from a mother's perspective,
http://www.mamamia.com.au/parenting/raising-my-adolescent-son-is-hard/

As a believer in an egalitarian society I have little regard for the thoughts and opinions of out of touch privileged members of the British royal family. This from Harry Windsor is a another one of those "let them eat cake" comments to what is a serious social and economic problem. A suggestion by someone who is not, and is never likely to be, in the position of those he comments on. At best it is an out of touch suggestion, with no practical merit what so ever. It does not sit well with the "new" image the establishment likes to project for the young royals of being carers and sharers in society when the reality is, given their privileged position, they would be incapable of fully understanding the problems of those beneath them. That is not a comment on heartlessness of royalty, but the reality created by their position. I will go as far as saying Harry and William etc may well be nice people, but the inescapable fact is they, by their very nature, represent the divisions that exist within society, including the British society.
I was somewhat flippant with my last posting. But seriously I see royalty as an irrelevancy in the twenty first century. What maintains the young royals popularity, is a well orchestrated constant stream of positive feel good feeds through the media, nothing short of a propaganda campaign to ensure the royal place and its long term survival as an entity in society, and not simply become an irrelevant anachronism is maintained.

cont

cont

G'day, o sung wu,

MY "thoughts on a National Service". I am not in favour, I much prefer equality of opportunity through education, leading to the acquisition of worthwhile life skills. Children who have been educated in a stable social environment with positive roll models, and have obtained those necessary skills to equip them for the future, rarely if ever, become a burden on society. In fact they become a positive asset to society, contributing more than their fair share, but of course there are the exceptions. Trying to reshape failed people later in life through national service or as you would know, prison, is doomed to failure in too many cases. I see young kids in trouble, drugs, petty crime, anti social and uncontrolled behavior, you don't have to ask them about their home life and their schooling, you know the answers. Many of these kids had no chance from day one and by their 18th birthday its too late, their life has been set in concrete, and nothing will change its path to destruction, but there are exceptions and they are worth the effort. Many of us simply want to inflict retribution on these people for their "sins". I am no bleeding heart liberal, I know the law has to be upheld and respected, and ultimately prison is the only answer for some people, but if we had did a lot more earlier in life thing would be a whole lot better for many individuals, and society in general.

Paul1405,

So anyone you can stereotype as coming from a 'privileged' background is forever damned for it and is not to be listened to and should be castigated at every opportunity, and conversely any who are unsuccessful and even criminal can claim fault in others for their state?

That is emotional ruling the man and is a flawed world view. Splitting, as so many leftists do.

Personally I would never dismiss the views of anyone without first understanding what s/he is saying and why s/he is saying it. That has come from experience and my belief in continuous life learning. It has served me well too and I am constantly amazed by the understanding and solutions that evolve from seeking out and really listening to, the views of people from vastly different backgrounds and with different skills to me.

Paul1405, it is not advice you want to hear and doubtless it is comfy and secure and involves less brain hurt to stereotype and split the world into those categories, but you sure are missing out of a lot by doing it.

With those 'Class' blinkers on you miss the obvious positives, virtues, of those you unfairly, wrongly despise and are bigoted against. For instance, Harry's immediate dismissal of the opportunity offered to him by some Oz feral media 'personalities'(sic), Kyle Sandilands in particular but his production team and management as well, to laugh at one of their own (I will not disgrace his target by adding her name) who suffered an unfortunate highly embarrassing mishap. Harry's reaction was to stand firm, sensitive, understanding and fair, to reject the 'humour'(sic) and offer understanding and sympathy to the target of the bullying, the woman. He would have done so for a man too, which further separates him form PC clowns of the Oz media and politics.

Few others would do the same. Harry has character, ethics and principles. You could rely on him as a friend, and as someone who doesn't even know you but can be relied upon `to step in to insist on fair play.

What about this too?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337882/Harry-saved-gay-hate-attack-Prince-extraordinary-showdown-troops-threatened-gunner.html

OTB, over the years I have heard little of interest from members of the British royal family, that is not to say they have never made a constructive comment, they have. At times Charles has been forthcoming with valued opinions as did his wife Dianna from time to time highlighting wrongs that badly needed addressing. The problem for the royals is not to be seen as becoming too political and that limits what they can say. Shock horror, should they step outside the boundaries, and certainly not to the left.
In this case I very much disagree with Harry, but for someone who has expressed an opinion on this forum in support of citizen gun clubs, I suppose compulsory national service, would sit well with you.
As for "class blinkers" you are one who applies tags all the time, Noting good ever comes from the "progressives", nothing of good comes out of the mouth of a Green politician, feminists, Marxists, Trotskyist etc, you disparagingly refer to so often here. You chide me for what you perceived as an attack on Harry Windsor, a public figure who made a public comment, but you have no problems attacking those public figures of the left as worthless, you so stridently disagree with all the time.