Mungo

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4847504.stm

Why bother?

Oop, wrong forum.......

The Zohan

Because it was wrong what the MOD did to the bloke and his family wanted his name cleared.

He was suffering from PTSD but was tried and shot as a coward which does not seem right. He fought for his King country and the reward he got was to be shot by his own troops when what he really needed was help.

fast bloke

Imagine if they used firing squad instead of ASBO's now - that would put a bit of backbone in the country

Paul - I think what Mungo means is why bother - 90 years later - it aint gonna bring him back, and more than likely no-one outside his immediate family would remember anything about the circumstances. ANyone who has heard about the case in the past 10 years is going to think 'shot for PTSD - that a bit crap' I'm sure no-one still thinks he was a coward

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

His name is now clear now and im sure that means a lot to his family.i agree shame they cannot shoot the little ******* these days for not turning up to community service. Bring back corporal punishment

KiwiGTI

I totally disagree with it. While we can learn from the past the only way is to go forward.

This happened in a different time and place, the world was different back then and shouldn't be reassessed by todays standards and morals.

Bubba po

The culture and the individuals responsible for this atrocity against humanity need bringing to book, no matter how late.

The Zohan

"Why Bother 90 years later"

Well, he deserved better, he was wronged and i imagine back then when honour meant something his family where castigated becasue he was branded a coward.

I think it only right he was cleared - even 90 years later

jasey

If Tony Blair / The Queen go round the world apologising to people for beating them in wars then it's only right that we should do the same for our own.

Having said that - nobody really knows if the guy had PTSD or not - it was too long ago.

The Zohan

Taken from Shotatdawn.org - sadly this was not unusual.

"It was common knowledge that Farr was suffering from a medical condition that was then known as shell shock. On four occasions during 1915-16, he reported sick with his nerves. On the first occasion in May 1915, he was in hospital for five months. He had an uncontrollable shake that was so bad that nurses had to write his letters home to his wife. During April 1916 he reported sick again with his nerves and spent two weeks at a dressing station. In July he reported sick with the same complaint and was in hospital for two days. During September he reported sick to RMS Haking who told him to go to the dressing station, but because he did not appear to be wounded they refused to see him. RMS Haking now told him to go up to the front line with a ration party, but Farr remained at the transport lines.


Two accounts of what followed are detailed in the only too brief court martial papers that are reproduced below. Farr's account has a greater ring of truth to it. There is no evidence he was ever given an opportunity to request a "soldier's friend" and so defended himself. For a man as ill as he was, it was a formidable exercise. The entire proceedings took about twenty minutes.


The court was negligent in that it never explored Farr's medical condition sufficiently. It's interesting that the Medical Officer, who wasn't qualified in psychiatry, should later formally report his examination in a letter. Why did he take this unusual step? But it's clear he was uncertain of Farr's health. Why did he change the condition from good to satisfactory? 2nd. Lt. Marshall's evidence also reinforced the fact Farr was ill. And his medical history spoke volumes. He had relapsed having never fully recovered. Military experts agree, he should have been examined by an specialist in shell shock but was instead seen by a hard-pressed MO. Harry Farr was not only failed by the medical profession but more importantly the army itself who at the end of the day were in overall command.


The court accepted evidence presented by the Prosecution without question, even though the Defence contradicted it.


The senior officers responsible for confirming the court’s sentence accepted hearsay evidence in their approval of Farr's execution."

tmo

true very true

Mass murder, gross incompetence, neglect etc etc you could go on all day.
Trouble is the relatives of the people responsible for the deaths of so many soldiers are now living comfortably on peerages etc. sick and sad.

Mungo

Surely the facts of WWI, in all their horrific details of trench warfare, gas attacks, and executions for cowardice, are now part of history?
While we can study history and learn from it, attempting to change it isn't going to help anybody. IMHO it's a complete waste of public time and money for the MOD to even contemplate looking at this case. How far back are we going to go with this? You'll have people whose ancestors fought at the Battle of Trafalgar, or in the American War of Independence trying for compo from the MOD because their relatives were somehow unfairly treated, under today's code of morality.
Haven't we got more important things to worry about?