Search

Paul's Blog

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.

Posted by on in Uncategorized

Anonymity can hide a multitude of sins. The Crown Prosecution Service in Wales has announced that there is insufficient evidence to lay negligent manslaughter charges against two members of the Special Air Service following the deaths of three reservists during a mountain route march on one of the hottest days of last summer. I can understand why the two men are not being publicly identified - they are innocent until proven guilty and as they were never charged, the extent of their guilt, if any, cannot be established in a court. What interests me is not the names of the men but what their part in the events was. Are we talking about two instructors who failed to pull the men out of the march, one of the main tests would-be SAS troopers have to pass, when they were obviously in distress or are we talking about the senior members of the regiment who may have failed dismally to meet in their supervisory responsibilities. Say that the men at the checkpoints the three reservists had to pass through took rather too macho an attitude to what the three should be able to stand in the way of heat exhaustion, which may or may not be so. Are the men at the checkpoints to blame for that or does the blame lie with the senior soldiers who put those men on the checkpoints? Soldiers cannot be wrapped up in Health and Safety regulations, soldiering is inherently dangerous and until recently the British Army used to lose more members in training than it did in action. But one cannot help but feel that Lance Corporal Craig Roberts, Corporal James Dunsby and Trooper Edward Maher need not have died in July 2013. A Coroner's Inquest is to be held later this year which will no doubt make some systemic recommendations along the lines of more medics on the course with the power to pull people from the march against the wishes of both the candidates for selection and the instructors. It remains to be seen if the Army will hold those truly responsible for the three deaths to account. Anyone remember Teflon?

Continue reading
Hits: 566
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

Shock-horror – small children allowed to look through army sniper sight near Stirling! How long before they turn into killing machines? Apparently, the Army had some of its equipment on show at the recent Armed Forces Day in Stirling and it let some kids touch it. Any tacky journalist can see a chance of generating a story here. There must be someone out there who thinks this is a bad idea. Why yes, there’s at least one so-called Human Rights lawyer and a spokesman for the Quakers who will speak out against this outrage.  I wonder how many Human Rights lawyers and Quakers survived Dachau or Bergen-Belsen.  That’s of course providing that looking through the sights of a sniper rifle or an anti-tank missile launcher will indeed start children on the slippery slope to becoming a mindless mercenary killers in the pay of an evil British government.  Perhaps we should stop children from learning to read – that way they will be unable to take in the war pornography that is an army recruiting leaflet.  I myself remember that it was seeing an army parachute display team dropping into the carpark at East Kilbride Town Centre that came close to setting me on the road to ruin. The news that I had 12 ½ years to wait before I would be allowed to take the Queen’s Shilling didn’t discourage me in the least. The wife of one of my mates wouldn’t let her sons have toy guns. They made their own out of Lego.  Somehow I don’t think their dad lives in fear that this means that they will quit school so, in Winston Churchill’s words, “We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do us harm”. Thank goodness there are brave journalists out there prepared to take a stand.  We can all sleep better knowing we can never do too much to discourage interest in our own defence.  Never remember that if you want peace, prepare for war.

Continue reading
Hits: 594
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

I just listened to some BBC World Service mischief making. Its United Kingdom reporter Rob Broomby went to a Glasgow bar for the World Cup game between Uruguay and England and asked the patrons who they were shouting for. He expressed surprise that they declared themselves firmly in the Uruguay camp. If he was genuinely surprised, that only adds to the red flags already flying high regarding his suitability for the job. The English throw their support behind the Irish, Welsh or Scottish if their own team do not qualify and are hurt to discover that this is not reciprocated. And to be frank, the guys Broomby interviewed came over as boorish and ignorant. But I have no way of knowing how many sensible people he taped who gave a more rational explanation for their choice - sensible people to not make "good radio". One of the reasons is the BBC itself. Before the English Football Association killed off the oldest international football fixture in the world because they said the Scots were too crap to be worth playing, Scottish fans were subjected annually to the most obnoxious English partisan punditry by the so-called national broadcaster. The BBC more than lived up to its reputation as the Home Counties Broadcasting Service. I have avoided discussion of the Scottish Independence referendum because I do not live in Scotland and may be missing some of the nuances of the debate. I have plenty of friends and family members to keep me up to date. But one thing I will say, every time Prime Minister David Cameron opens his mouth he puts his foot in it and displays a lamentable lack of awareness of how things stand in Scotland. Perhaps he is relying too much on the BBC World Service for his information.

Continue reading
Hits: 495
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

 

I've often thought that it might be better if people had to pass their motorcycle test before they could sit the test for a full driving licence. When a car and a motorbike collide, the car usually comes off best. I don't know if there are any figures to back this up; but my feeling is that the car driver is usually to blame. Motorcyclists are not stupid and they know they will end up paying for car drivers' mistakes. This makes them more aware and safer drivers than their counterparts on four wheels. And the good driving habits they learn on two wheels can be carried forward when the graduate to four. As a teenager I had a motorbike and attempts to teach me to drive a car did not go well. I felt sitting in a steel box divorced me from the realities of what was going on on the road. Looking through the windscreen was like looking at a television screen. But maybe that was just me. Of course, insisting on folks sitting the motorcycle test before they can sit the car test would not be a smooth process. Those learning in the winter would face greater challenges. I had to give up my motorbike and switch to four wheels when I was a reporter on Tyneside. When I was heading to work in the early hours of just too many winter mornings there were two things on the road - black ice and big lorries. It was only a matter of time before I ended up being crushed in the middle of a road junction when the bike slid from under me as I tried to stop at a red traffic light. Of course, the real answer is to make the driving test more demanding. But in a democracy, no government is going to deprive the majority of the electorate of their cars.

Continue reading
Hits: 543
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

I once crossed the Atlantic trying to sleep on a giant packing crate containing a jet engine being carried in the belly of a Hercules transport plane returning from Europe to Canada. Believe it or not, that was not my worst transit of the Atlantic. That honour has to go to a commercial flight from Boston to Glasgow. I was reminded of it a couple of days ago when I saw that one of the airlines is getting rid of reclining seats on its planes. Big deal, said many in the comments section of the website that I found the story on. What's the big deal about two inches of headroom, asked the posters to the website. If they had been on that accursed Boston-Glasgow flight they would know that some of the seats go back more than two inches. When the fellah in the row in front of me put his seat back, two inches was the distance it stopped from my forehead. OK, maybe it was four inches - but not much more than that. The flight was the stuff of nightmares. The plane had 20% more seats squeezed into it than was wise. Legroom was minimal and when the seats were reclined, headroom was completely inadequate. The air recirculation system was not up to processing all the carbon dioxide the cramped passengers were breathing out. The body heat they were generating pushed the temperature up to hot-house proportions. Then someone had the bright idea of supplying the passengers with limitless free alcohol. Normally, I would have thought this was welcome development. But with sweltering temperatures, inadequate oxygen, and seats reclined into people's faces, well, tempers were easily frayed. The men drank too much and their wives loudly nagged them for drinking too much. My idea of Hell would be that flight going on in perpetuity - a sort of airborne Flying Dutchman. Give me sprawling out on a giant packing in the belly of a piston-engined plane shuddering its way across the Atlantic any day.

Continue reading
Hits: 572
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

When the 3rd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were sent to Kandahar in Afghanistan in early 2002 I was still a newspaper reporter and I put together a story about the equipment they would be taking with them. One of the officers said an interesting thing - "The most important thing is my weapons delivery system - my body". He may well have been repeating something he'd read in Soldier of Fortune magazine but I liked the quote and used it in my story. It was an interesting way of putting things. But I have to wonder if it's a view shared by the men running the Royal Regiment of Scotland. Apparently, the regiment has a major fitness problem. Over a three year period something like 630 of its soldiers failed the British Army's fitness test. Some would say that comes to one-in-five members of the regiment. When I first read that the army had an fitness problem, with almost half the troops overweight and one-in-five judged obese, I thought the fatties would be concentrated in some of the more sedentary army trades. So it was a bit of a shock when it was revealed that the RRoS has fitness issues. And I would suspect that it's not the recruits from overseas who are the problem. Perhaps it should not be a surprise that a regiment that recruits from the country that brought the world the deep-fried Mars bar is experiencing fitness problems. But anyone who knows anything about Scotland would have grip on the situation. There are Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics. The bare figures never give the full story. But it does seem there is cause for concern. A little more PT may be the answer but the worry has to be that this is a symptom of a more deep-seated leadership problem within the RRoS.

Continue reading
Hits: 666
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

As I get older, I get grumpier. One of the phrases that increasingly gets my goat is "investigative journalist". Surely all journalists are investigative?  Otherwise they would just be shorthand typists. Or even just typists. Of course, some stories do take longer to put together and involve more digging than others. But all stories involve a bit of thought and, dare I say it, investigation. I don't know if the sort of investigations that say the Sunday Times Insight team used to do are becoming rarer or not.  One of the biggest problems with Insight-style journalism is that the reporters have to get a result and that result has to be legally water-tight. Cops don't lose their jobs, usually, if an accused walks free from court after a jury of his or her peers finds them not guilty. But losing a libel case can bring a journalist's career to a sudden and irrevocable halt. The chances of a journalist managing to get his or her hands on irrefutable evidence are not good. A lot of what passes for Insight-style journalism these days seems to rely on making mountains out of molehills found sitting in files available via an access to information requests lodged with some level of government.  I used to have a boss who thought that he was entitled to describe any story he wrote that the competition didn't have as an "exclusive". Technically, that was true and he had a lot of "exclusives". Sadly, he failed to grasp an important thing about true exclusives - that competitors had to want the story. I can't remember a single one of his "exclusives" that a competitor actually followed up. Regrettably, he was typical of a lot of people who call themselves "investigative journalists". When I hear someone describe themselves as an investigative journalist I often also hear the words "pompous" and "egotistical" echoing around the extensive caverns of my mind.  Can I add "pretentious" as well ?

Continue reading
Hits: 658
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

Thanks to online search engines and such sites of Wikipedia, reference books are going cheap at second hand bookshops these days. In fact I might go so far as to suggest that the book dealers are almost giving dictionaries of biography, atlases, and encyclopedias away. These books may be going for a song but are they worth even that? I guess a lot depends on how much reliance can be put on the information a person finds on the internet. Even Wikipedia has problems. Self-appointed guardians of the truth, often former lecturers at such hallowed halls of academia as Coventry University, can wreak havoc. Oh, don't get me started on how Margaret Thatcher kept her promise of widening access to a university eduction by allowing technical colleges to call themselves universities. But back to how reliable the internet is. When I was researching Scottish Military Disasters, book after book named a Commando regimental sergeant major who took charge after all the officers in his raiding party in 1941 were killed or incapacitated as Campbell. But I also stumbled across a website set up by the son of one of the soldiers who fought in the same battle and it named the sergeant major as Tevendale. That was a red flag that I paid attention to and further research found the website was correct and the books were all wrong. It turned out that one author had got the name wrong just after the Second World War and his mistake had been repeated again and again by nearly every subsequent author. As a young newspaper reporter I soon became aware that just because a dozen people all said the same thing, that didn't count as corroboration of the facts if they all got their information from the same single source. Anyway, the moral of the story is that while those who supply words to usually reputable sources of information are often held to a higher standard of fact-checking than some enthusiast writing for their own website, they are not infallible. A copy of the BlankBlank Dictionary of Biography for a pound is a good deal, but run the relevant entries through an internet search engine too. That's what I think anyway.

Continue reading
Hits: 607
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

Apparently, the Ministry of Defence doesn't trust British Members of Parliament. A House of Commons attempt to investigate just how much British officers were to blame for a disastrous 2012 Taliban attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan found the MoD "obstructive and unhelpful". It would appear that the MPs ended up relying heavily on a censored US report that they found on the internet when they prepared their report into the attack. The Americans sacked two generals after six Marine Corps Harrier jets were destroyed by 15 Taliban raiders. The commander of the Harrier squadron and a US sergeant were killed. The incident failed to put a brake on the careers of any British officers. Of course, one can understand why the MoD decided the MPs could not be trusted. I mean, everyone knows that Prime Minister Harold Wilson was a Soviet agent. Don't they? Statistically, Harold Macmillan was more likely to have been the traitor. Nearly all the damaging and grotesque British traitors that we know of came from privileged backgrounds - Anthony Blunt, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and Kim Philby. By pretending to be a fascist sympathiser, Philby managed to become head of first of all the anti-communist counter-espionage and then MI6's liaison with the American CIA. He was able to pass on the secrets the Americans thought they were sharing with their British allies direct to the Kremlin. Speaking of stupidity, I can only hope that the members of the RAF Regiment photographed posing next to the body of one of the Taliban raiders at Camp Bastion will find themselves on civvie street sooner rather then later. Posing with the bodies of dead enemies is juvenile in the extreme. Perhaps with adrenalin pumping through their veins the RAF folk weren't thinking straight. But being photographed suggests a degree of stupidity that should mean they should not be allowed to carry guns ever again. We will obviously have to be more careful about to whom we give guns.

Continue reading
Hits: 1180
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

Is it too early to comment on the centenary of the First World War? Perhaps not. Many of the books being published to cash in on it have been on the shelves for more than year now. It must be a delicate balancing act for publishers. They want to be among the first to take advantage of the interest generated by a centenary but they also have to wait until the centenary generates some interest. Books these days literally have a short shelf life. If they don't sell, they're gone pretty quickly. Most publishers and organisations certainly haven't waited until the centenary of the outbreak of the war arrives in August to get their contribution out there. I just wonder if the centenary is going to catch the public imagination. Here in Canada the bi-centenary of the War of 1812, in which an American invasion was repelled, was a bit of bust. The First World War may be too controversial. The slaughter of the cream of British manhood on the battlefields of Europe, Turkey and the Middle East was followed by something almost as painful - a war on the poor. Before 1914 the poor were seen as people who needed help. After the Russian Revolution in 1917, the poor of Britain were seen as potential Bolsheviks. Was it really necessary to put tanks on the streets of Glasgow in 1919? So much for the promised Land Fit for Heroes. It will be interesting to see if the bi-centenary of Waterloo next year generates more interest than say the centenary of the battles at Neuve Chapelle or Loos.

Continue reading
Hits: 929
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

Is the Geneva Convention a bad thing? Can war ever be civilised, with codes of conduct and rules? War is brutal and brutalizing. It's not fair. I remember as a kid that when I complained that something wasn't fair I was told that "Life isn't fair". To which the answer should have been "Maybe, but that's no excuse for making things worse". There is an argument which says that by pretending that there can be rules and laws in War we actually make it more likely. Those who argue in favour this point of view point out that War should be known to be so terrible that it will always be a last resort. In the really olden days, those who led their people into war also led their people in war - literally. Leading meant being in the lead in those days and the guy in front was often the first to die. War was not undertaken lightly. But in the West these days the people who declare a war are actually the least likely to die. They can retreat to secure well guarded bunkers if things go pear-shaped while the rest of us on the surface face oblivion. Perhaps the only rule of war that we need is that whoever declares one should literally put their life and the lives of their family members in prime position on the chopping block. But somehow, I don't think that's going to happen.

Continue reading
Hits: 525
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

I owe some of you an apology. Believe it or not, the Ask Me section of this website is one of the most popular features. The answers seldom appear on the site because the information people seek is usually only of interest to them, ie which unit wore the same uniform as my great-grandfather is wearing in this old family photo? Then a couple of weeks back the flow of queries dried up. That sometimes happens. It's sometimes a feast-or-famine thing. I tested the "contact me" feature and got a confirmation that the email had gone through. I suspect a lot of people in recent weeks received the same automated confirmation. The problem was that the messages were not actually going through: I messed up. I always personally acknowledge a query. So, if you sent a query and got no acknowledgement, then I didn't get receive it. Sorry. I just sent myself another message and the system appears to be working again. So if you sent me a message and haven't stopped visiting this site in disgust at my ignoring your query, feel free to send it in again. And if you don't get a personal acknowledgement, I still have a problem.

*I'll be running a daily check to make sure the "contact me/comment/ask me" button is working. I'll let know if there's a further problem.

Continue reading
Hits: 582
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

What do you do when your boss tells you to do something you know is stupid and can only lead to disaster? If you don’t obey their instructions and they find out – well, not so good. If you do what they say and as predicted it all goes pear-shaped; well the blame usually somehow doesn’t end up where it should go. Suppose you somehow, knowing the probable consequences of what you’re being asked to do, manage to mitigate the worst of the damage. This could be the worst option of all. People don’t like being rescued from the consequences of their actions. Often, the rescuer is the only witness to someone’s craven cowardice, deceit, or blatant incompetence. Folk don’t generally appreciate having such witnesses around. More often than not, they will do everything they can to destroy their rescuer and remove them from the picture. Not so good.

Continue reading
Hits: 572
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

A couple of years back I heard someone being interviewed about Afghanistan on a Canadian radio current affairs programme. What the woman had to say was both balanced and sensible. Last Friday that voice came very close to being silenced. The woman being interviewed turned out to be Associated Press journalist Kathy Gannon. What she had to say in the interview was in such contrast to most of the nonsense peddled about Afghanistan that in a case of "praise where praise is due" I contacted her to say how much I appreciated hearing a voice of reason among the general ill-informed babble. I've been to Afghanistan a couple of times.  Kathy turned out to be a really nice woman. So, imagine my feelings when I switched on the radio on Friday morning to hear that she had been badly wounded in a shooting that had claimed the life of her photographer colleague Anja Niedringhaus. A well informed public is a crucial component of what passes for western democracy. Perhaps if the world had paid more attention to events in Afghanistan after the Soviet pull-out the past 14 years might well have been very different for a lot of us. Sometimes gathering and bearing witness to events involves an element of personal risk. The people of Afghanistan have few better friends than the likes of Kathy Gannon who work hard to shed a light on what is really happening in their benighted country. I wonder if the Afghan cop turned gunman who tried to murder her, apparently in revenge for the death of family members in a NATO bombing raid, appreciated that.

Continue reading
Hits: 526
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

The Americans apparently believe they didn't lose a war until Vietnam. What then, it has to be asked, was the War of 1812 when the United States tried to take advantage of the Napoleonic War to annexe Canada? The war ended with the 1814 Treaty of Ghent restoring the pre-1812 status quo. The US failed to annexe Canada, therefore it suffered a defeat. I have a real problem understanding what present day Americans believe the war was about. I suspect many think the British invaded the United States and were driven back. The Americans at the time tried to justify the invasion of Canada by complaining that the arrogant British had been kidnapping their sailors for service in the Royal Navy. Putting aside the number of deserters from the Royal Navy who were crewing American ships, the Atlantic states were by far the least enthusiastic supporters of the war. That suggests "impressment", as it was called, was an excuse for war rather than a reason. Which brings us back to national myths. The real reason the United States failed to sweep aside the skeleton British force in Canada, aided by local volunteers,  was that the war was unpopular. The bulk of the US troops were militiamen who had signed up to defend their own homes, not invade other countries. The American invasion was half-hearted, if not quarter-hearted, and that is why it failed. Sadly, the lessons of 1812 were not learned.  Well, one lesson was learned: when a large part of Mexico was annexed by the US in 1848, the job was put the hands of the regular army. Just over 150 years later, it did not take long for the American public to work out that their sons were being sent to die in Vietnam to prop up a deeply unpopular, and often downright criminal, regime. One of the lessons here is that the United States cannot win prolonged wars overseas that are unpopular at home. It is a lesson that has been plain to see since 1812.

Continue reading
Hits: 601
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

You have got to love the way the BBC puts quotation-marks around the word massacre, as in Batang Kali Massacre. I guess if Her Majesty's Government says the Scots Guards did not gun down rubber plantation workers in cold blood in Malaya in 1948, then it's important that the BBC should cast doubt on claims that 24 men were murdered. The BBC spent a lot of money in the 1990s making a television documentary which concluded the massacre did happen. But I suppose the BBC can't be expected to take the word of its own journalists when their claims conflict with the Government's official line. Last week an English court condemned the government's continued cover-up and said the confessions of some of the Guardsmen involved that the ethnic Chinese workers were indeed shot in cold blood and not, as was and is still claimed by HM Government, shot while attempting to escape should have been properly investigated in the early 1970s. But the judges declined to order a public inquiry, on a technicality which they felt might well be challenged successfully in a superior court. Much of the BBC's coverage of events last week was careful to put quotation-marks around the word massacre.  I just wish the BBC showed the same caution, evidenced by the use of quotation marks, when it comes to other stories involving Her Majesty's Government. I don't recall any quotation marks around what the Government claimed were old military flares washing up on the beaches of south west Scotland in the early 1990s. They were not flares; they were the extremely flammable phosphorous cores of Second World War incendiary bombs. They were supposed to have been dumped far out in the Atlantic after the war ended but some were thrown into the sea between Scotland and Northern Ireland. They burst into flames, which could not be quenched, as soon as the phosphorous dried out. That doesn't sound like any flare I've come across. And yet the BBC insisted on continuing to refer to these potentially lethal and destructive left-overs from the war as flares long after they had been tipped off about their true nature. But given a choice, the BBC seems to prefer the Government's word to the facts.
See Batang Kali Revisited

Continue reading
Hits: 582
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

There is much debate at the moment about the impact of the First World War. For a long time I believed that it had made my life tougher than it needed to be. Neither of my grandfathers met their fathers. Both of their fathers, who would be my great-grandfathers, were killed after volunteering to fight in the First World War. The two men left behind widows with three children a-piece. The lives of the families they left behind were hard; very hard. One of them had a good job on the printing presses at Glasgow-based book publisher Wm. Collins before he joined up. It would not have been unusual for his sons, grandsons, and even great-grandsons to follow him into the skilled and unionised world of commercial printing. And I could have been one of the afore-mentioned great-grandsons. I always liked and admired the print and production folk at the papers where I worked as a young journalist. I particularly liked the fact that they had a strong union. Media employers only needed to find people who could read and write to fill the columns of their newspapers or the short amount of broadcast airtime devoted to news. Even that’s a qualification they seem to have dispensed with. The BBC World Service told me this morning that Crimea had voted to split from Russia. Its Canadian equivalent informed me that the last words heard by the crew of the missing Malaysia Airlines 777 jet had been “Alright, good night”. I suspect those were the last words known to have come from a crew member, in this case the last message broadcast by the co-pilot. Anyway, back to great grandfathers. I always thought great-grandpa’s death in Gallipoli had killed any chance of skilled unionised berth for his descendants. But recently I found out that Wm. Collins went out of its way in the 1920s and 30s to find jobs for the children of its workers killed 1914-19 when they themselves reached working age. I have no idea why my grandfather did not take up that offer. Perhaps his own service in the Second World War took him off in another direction. Maybe the hiring policy changed. But what modern day employer would even dream of having such a hiring policy?

Continue reading
Hits: 689
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

I was tempted to use this column to wonder why when the British Army is facing some many problems, one of the more senior officers was taking time to instruct his officers on how to behave at dinner parties and the correct use of a knife and fork. The Ministry of Defence insists that Major General James Cowan's letter to the "Chaps" at 3rd Division was intended to be light hearted. I'll take their word for it. Instead, I think I lament the fact that Cowan, a former commanding officer of the Black Watch and the first commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, has 2,500 commissioned officers and 20,000 other ranks under his command. Even with my poor maths skills, that seems to work out at more than one officer for every ten men. And as a lot of the real work is done by the senior non-commissioned officers who are included in the figure of 20,000 the number of commissioned officers might strike some as excessive. A very quick look reveals that the 2nd Highland Battalion in 1757 had 41 officers in a unit totalling1,088 men. Now, granted, in 1757 the Army didn't have as many much-needed administrators or planners as it does now. Nor did it include the number of technical specialists who are granted officer rank these days. But I think questions have to be asked as to whether the Army is heading towards a too-many-chiefs-and-not-enough-indians scenario. Some may believe that the weight of the present cuts to the Army is being borne by a disproportionate number of  highly experienced senior non-commissioned officers while leaving the Officer Corps relatively intact. Perhaps the answer is to cut admissions to public schools such as Eton, Winchester and Ampleforth. Then the Eton dominated British Cabinet would not need to find so much work on the public payroll for their less talented brethren. The British Army is the biggest employer of Old Etonians on the planet. And I'm sure the Old Etonians would not require instruction from Maj-Gen. Cowan on dinner party etiquette or to be chastised by him for eating sandwiches in the mess with one's bare hands.

Continue reading
Hits: 828
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

I do not usually approve of trial by media. When I was a young reporter in Scotland once someone was arrested and charged with a crime, little more than the name of the accused and the charges were published. Very little else appeared until after the accused until after the trial and verdict. Pre-trial coverage in England seemed a little more relaxed and material would appear in the papers that would have landed a journalist working in Scotland in the dock in front of a judge. American justice is a contradiction in terms because trial by media is interpreted as a freedom of speech issue. Canada’s criminal law is based on England’s but court coverage is heavily influenced by the example set by the American media. So, some of the material in the Canadian media causes me concern when it comes to a fair trial. But to my point; I think showing a bloodied knife killer addressing the a cellphone camera  to explain why he had just murdered an off-duty British soldier on a London street last year was a good thing. In most cases I would have regarded the on-camera confession as evidence that should only have come out at the trial. And, I would usually question the wisdom of promoting the idea that if you feel your views are being ignored, why not get on national TV by murdering someone. But the cellphone footage revealed the killers to be a pair of misguided clown inadequates. I am not sure if the dim duo were smart enough to hope that their stupidity would spark a wave of attacks on British Muslims but if that was their intention, they pretty much failed. There were some foolish attacks on mosques but common sense prevailed. Such attacks could only have acted as recruiting drives for the extremists. You will have noticed that I have not named soldier Lee Rigby’s killers. They don’t deserve the recognition.

Continue reading
Hits: 715
0

Posted by on in SMD Blogs

The Glasgow Highlanders. The Photo Identification feature attracts more reader queries than anything else on this site. Folk are always sending in photos of their ancestors in the hope that I can help work out which unit they served with. In a surprising number of cases, the answer turns out to the Glasgow Highlanders. Though sometimes, I’ve come close to giving the wrong answer. The Glasgow Highlanders were part of the Highland Light Infantry, in the First World War, they were the HLI’s 9th Battalion, but their uniform was modelled on the Black Watch. I was about to get back to someone to say the photo they had sent in was entirely consistent with a Company Sergeant Major in the Black Watch when I looked a second photo. It showed not the CSM, but his best friend, who was killed in action. The friend was wearing what looked like a Black Watch kilt and a Tam o’ Shanter. It was the headgear that gave the game away. The Black Watch wore red hackles in their Tam o’Shanters. This guy had a badge and the Glasgow Highlanders wore a badge. My hunch that the CSM was a Glasgow Highlander panned out. It was even possible, because he won the Military Medal, to come up with his army number. A Second World War photo showed what looked like a Black Watch kiltie with the lion rampant shoulder flash of 15th Scottish Division on his upper sleeve. The thing is that the Black Watch did not have a battalion serving with the Division. But one of the two Glasgow Highlander battalions in the war was part of the division. The guy in the photo proved to be one of the large number of Englishmen who served in kilted regiments in both World Wars. So, anyway, if the First World War photo shows suggests the Black Watch but the soldier has a badge rather than a hackle on his Tam o'Shanter, then possibly he's a Glasgow Highlander. Oddly, I've never had a query that involved the Royal Scots' "Dandy" Ninth Battalion, which also wore kilts during the First World War.

 

Continue reading
Hits: 811
0
Go to top