I agree with everything that Keith has said. Many of us have had direct family members serve especially in WW1 and 2. It's irrelevant to me what gongs they were awarded because that's not why they volunteered to go and fight. I'm just proud they had the courage to do it.
Once the cat was out of the bag in regard to retrospective awards it was never going to go back because even if it was stopped there's been so many awards already awarded.
The Sheean case shows that not only will politicians do an about turn (never surprised by what they do) but the tribunal will also do that. If the tribunal has said that Sheean shouldn't get the VC how could it then say seven years later than he should? What new evidence was there if any that made them change their minds? My reading of their findings shows there wasn't. Sheean's case was supported by the Navy and various naval organizations which is hardly surprising since they've wanted a VC to the navy for decades. The family had also lobbied for decades for a VC to be awarded. I guess it's a case of the squeaky wheel gets the most grease.
In regard to interviewing survivors in the 80's, while I'm not saying they aren't telling the truth, they're telling what they remember and memory is a very frail thing, especially over that expanse of time. Eye witness accounts written down in the 40's is far more reliable.
Last edited by lifeochil; 15-08-20 at 12:06 AM.
|
14-08-20, 11:59 PM
Threaded Mode