Falklands hero - Stewart McLaughlin petition for outstanding gallantry and leadership

[REMEVMBEA1]

Originally Posted by altcar73

The petition appears to have been created by the individual seeking recognition. That in itself rings an alarm bell with me. I agree with what has already been said.

Whilst on the subject of medals and awards, I fully support the concept that creditable conduct should be suitably recognised but as someone who has no connection with the armed forces it has always been slightly bemusing to me to see just how many individuals in this Country who receive awards simply for doing their job and I'm not talking about long service medals and similar. IMO, long service medals aside, the only other awards which should be made to the armed services and the emergency services etc. are those given for gallant/brave conduct. For example, I can tell you that 99.9% of Chief Constables in the UK receive a Queen's Police Medal simply for being Chief Constable. Occasionally, the odd one who blots his copybook is pointedly ignored. A quota of Knighthoods is also dolled out to them. Of course business/industry are also given their share. I know that his also applies to the military. Goodness knows why, custom and practice I suppose.

Dave Wilkinson

I agree with your main points but I think that the awarding of GSMs (I've got one for NI) is well justified as these are only awarded where there is real danger of death or injury as is evidenced by the number of servicemen who died . Fortunately my regiment only lost one Lance Bombardier in 5 tours od NI duty.

[rockape560]

hi,

i feel if awards such as this is granted after such a period of time it leaves the door open for other dateing back to ww1 and beyond,which could be harder to prove

while i feel sympathy for the cpls family i feel that this would look and sound better if it had come from the cpls regiment

philip

[ubervamp]

I have to agree with the sentiments posted here regarding retrospective action, in general. With regards to the specific case mentioned here, I don't feel qualified to make an educated comment.

There are however one or two cases where I feel retrospective action is justified;

In the aftermath of WW2 the Norwegian merchant fleet, an important contributor to the allied success, was completely shunned by the government, and their contribution was neglected. Their families did not receive any compensation for loss of life at sea, and the survivors got no recognition for their brave commitment to their war effort.
Remember, Norway was under occupation, and these men chose to contribute.
It took 25 years before their contribution was officially recognized and rewarded. Just last week, they topped the list of "most important Norwegian" in a national newspaper, from a survey among the populace.

In August 2006, the British Defence Secretary Des Browne announced that with Parliament's support, there would be a general pardon for all 306 men executed in World War One.

A new law passed on November 8th 2006 and included as part of the Armed Forces Act has pardoned men in the British and Commonwealth armies who were executed in World War One. The law removes the stain of dishonour with regards to executions on war records but it does not cancel out sentences. Defence Secretary Des Browne said:

"I believe it is better to acknowledge that injustices were clearly done in some cases - even if we cannot say which - and to acknowledge that all these men were victims of war. I hope that pardoning these men will finally remove the stigma with which their families have lived for years."

I believe both these cases of retrospective action are/were justified.

Colin

[REMEVMBEA1]

While I agree about the pardons for those executed in WW1 I have a different attitude to the Norwegians , and all the East Europeans, who fought on the British side during WW2. With the greatest respect , they were not fighting for Britain but against the common enemy and we , the British, supplied the equipment to allow them to do it. It would be similar to us decorating members of all the allied forces and I think that should be done by their own countries. I often read of how the Poles in particular fought for us , they didn't they fought alongside us and we didn't finish paying for the equipment they used until some 50 years after the war. Brave men undoubtedly but British soldiers, sailors and airmen no , unlike the Americans who came over and joined our forces before America entered the war.These men should have been decorated by their own governments for fighting for their country.

[altcar73]

Originally Posted by REMEVMBEA1

I agree with your main points but I think that the awarding of GSMs (I've got one for NI) is well justified as these are only awarded where there is real danger of death or injury as is evidenced by the number of servicemen who died . Fortunately my regiment only lost one Lance Bombardier in 5 tours od NI duty.

Yes, I agree. My apologies for omitting GSM's (I'm not a military man as said previously) but of course specific periods of service in very dangerous areas deserve recognition. Aside from N.I., Afganistan, Iraq, Palastine, Aden and the Falkland Islands spring to mind but there have been others.

Dave.

[ubervamp]

Originally Posted by REMEVMBEA1

While I agree about the pardons for those executed in WW1 I have a different attitude to the Norwegians , and all the East Europeans, who fought on the British side during WW2. With the greatest respect , they were not fighting for Britain but against the common enemy and we , the British, supplied the equipment to allow them to do it. It would be similar to us decorating members of all the allied forces and I think that should be done by their own countries.

I agree the Norwegians were fighting a common enemy, and not for the British and as such, I was referring to the Norwegian government recognizing their efforts and sacrifice 25 years later, not the British.

Colin

[Mike Jackson]

I was interested to note that there are five American nationals who were awarded the VC. Three Danes (and also one German and one Ukrainian) were similarly honoured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_nationality

[JVR]

Whilst we are all entitled to our opinions, it is interesting that the only people who have commented on this are those that are opposed to retrospective awards. The comments that some have chosen to add are totally ignorant to the facts of the case. To say read "The Green Eyed Boys" is almost laughable, for anyone to believe that this book represents the truth of Mount Longdon. If anyone is interested in reading a factual account of 3 PARA's actions during this battle, then read Three Days in June. The allegations against Cpl McLaughlin have been totally discredited, and the so called facts, quoted in The Green Eyed Boys, that the Bn Padre, found ears on Cpl McLaughlin are totally false. The Padre, Derek Heaver has stated, that this is totally untrue, and that he found nothing untoward on any of the 3 PARA dead. Gen Sir Hew Pike, who commanded 3 PARA during the Falklands campaign, has in the last year written a second citation for this soldier, and firmly believes his bravery merits recognition. I know that Cpl McLaughlin's son, who was 18 months old when his father was KIA on Mt Longdon, has the overwhelming support, of both past and serving members of 3 PARA, particularly those who fought on Mt Longdon, many of whom witnessed his father's exemplary bravery and leadership. Unlike some Cpl Stewart McLaughlin, was not a keyboard commando, he was a warrior who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, to deny him the recognition he richly deserves is a travesty. If people feel they cannot support the campaign, fine, but do not make comments that are disrespectful to a brave man, and his family!

[Lewi Lewis]

100% Agree with JVR on this. Don't read the fiction (Green eyed boys) Read the Facts (3 Days in June) - I have read it and I for one support the campaign.

[Alan O]

3 posts all from new members with only one post each. I think its time to draw this thread to a close.