In response to Booker's piece on Afghanistan yesterday, a number of commentators disagreed with his "take" on the situation. One, who called himself "Praetorian" even went so far as to argue that the situation in Helmand was largely under control.

View full article here

As your links creep the time-span destroying his contention, it is like watching a stick of bombs marching along.

The Telegraph is slow at putting new comments up on Booker's piece.

Richard, I take it you have submitted a response to Praetorian, with a link to your detailed reply here?

Richard

1. You are getting as sloppy as Helen ! This must be cross-posted on DotR .

2. It is obvious from the various comments you and Booker have been getting recently from 'Praetorian' and others that some senior officers in the Armed Forces and senior persons in the MOD are getting quite worried by your/Booker's coverage and analysis. I am certain we can expect the 'hostile' comments to increase on your thread(s) as the powers-that-be get more and more rattled by the accuracy of the coverage and the conclusions that are being drawn from your coverage, conclusions that are not very complimentary to senior officers and MOD office holders. What next, I wonder ? Maybe some MOD civil servant will suggest to some police officer that you represent a 'threat to National security'. Expect anti-terrorism officers blundering around Wibsey trying to find where you live. They will probably barge down the wrong door and have to pay to get it fixed !!

I will cross-post it when it is finished. At the moment, it is still work in progress.

Yes, I put up a holding comment, with a link to the operation on 3 April. It has not been published.

It's clear they are thoroughly addicted to censoring comments.

Will Christopher Booker be able to reply next week with a link to your piece? [Rhetorical question.]

Brilliant post, a high scoring victory for you I think, I especially liked the bit about recovering kit following the hand over and the amount of force and tactical positioning required to make it secure. Facts, facts and yet more facts thanks for such an accurte hit.

The telecrap's filters are working nicely to "frame the debate".

The only two comments to get through in the last fours hours have Praetorian perceived as an expert and that "[t]here is nothing wrong with the British military except that they are usually under-resourced."

Labour, Al beeb, telecrap ........... no difference.

Richard: a great bit of journalism! And an excellent refutation of officialdom's very misleading line. Thank you.

Watchet

It'd pretty much disgusting that the Torygraph will not post any more comments to this article.

They allowed another comment by "Praetorian" but, so far, have not published two of mine. I have written to the Telegraph thus:

I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms about what can only be a deliberate stance on the part of the moderator of this piece to favour "Praetorian" and exclude contrary comment. Whether intentional or not, the claims made by Praetorian are misleading and false, running contrary to the official records of operations in Helmand. I have twice sought to introduce the official records and on neither occasion has the moderator allowed its publication. See here:

http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2 ... -time.html

This, where the pretence is of an open forum, effectively amounts to censorship and a quite deliberate distortion of the record, expecially as you have now closed down the comments and are allowing no further input.