Retrospective VCs

[domwalsh]

Mr Ed, I believe Steven's comments on Pte Beharry were ironic!

[David B]

AVS,

Irrespectively of dotting the I's and crossing the T's I suspect we are in agreement - I don't think it is a good idea at all that the idea of retrospective awards of VC's

is a good idea.

[Steven Broomfield]

Mr Ed, I believe Steven's comments on Pte Beharry were ironic!

I thought that too.

[auchonvillerssomme]

Sergeant Jackson climbed out onto the burning wing of his Lancaster bomber with a fire extinguisher. For flip sake how difficult could that be, he had a fire extinguisher!

Perhaps we should have a thread for irony?

[centurion]

Perhaps we should have a thread for irony?

You mean sort of like steel wire?

[MrEd]

I thought that too.

lol oops, i scan read the whole thread then replied! will wind my neck in now......

lol

[peterhogg]

As an aside, why would a committee need up to one year to come to a conclusion either way?

[Steven Broomfield]

Connor, you've obviously not spent much time on government committees.

1. Name committee

2. Terms of Reference

3. Constituent members

4. re-name committee to reflect members' interests

5. Redraw TORs: new members bound to have opinion.

6. Tea or coffee? (Full costings from representatives of the beverage industry - competitice tendering essential and best value practices to be observed)

7. Chocolate hob nobs or digestives? (Brain storming and blue-sky thinking sessions to be moderated by senior civil servant)

And so on. Personally, I think a year is ambitious.

[ss002d6252]

In some ways I would see this as a disservice to the men - not awarding it at the time and then (possibly) awarding then up to 90yrs later is a bit of a kick in the teeth of them and others. Almost like saying we don't think you deserve it but lets have 90yrs of thinking before we award it, if its due it should be recognised at the time and not years later.

I am also , personnaly, of the opinion that things like this shouldn't ve re-visited once a decsion has been made as its unfair to others - why re-consider some mens actions and not other ? . The decsion at the time was made for good reasons. You cannot put todays views on things that happened in the past and use it to re-write history.

Connor, you've obviously not spent much time on government committees.

1. Name committee

2. Terms of Reference

3. Constituent members

4. re-name committee to reflect members' interests

5. Redraw TORs: new members bound to have opinion.

6. Tea or coffee? (Full costings from representatives of the beverage industry - competitice tendering essential and best value practices to be observed)

7. Chocolate hob nobs or digestives? (Brain storming and blue-sky thinking sessions to be moderated by senior civil servant)

And so on. Personally, I think a year is ambitious.

Sounds like the comittees where I work (local government)

[dfaulder]

As an aside, why would a committee need up to one year to come to a conclusion either way?

To let the long grass grow (before kicking the subject into it).

David

[AnthonyStaunton]

But again my point is that the The Victoria Cross for Australia was created by letters patent signed by Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, on 15 January 1991. 1991, so therefore it did not exist prior to that date, it is a seperate award from the Victoria Cross. In my very humble opinion you cannot make a retrospective award of a medal that did not exist at the time of the action.

I think it is safe to say that without exception all Imperial awards have been awarded prior to the date of their institution. And more than 100 other gallantry and distinguished service awards of the Australian Honours System have already been awarded for both the Second World War and Vietnam.

The Victoria Cross for Australia is an award of the Australian Honours System. Obviously the name is inspired by the Victoria Cross but it is a separate award of an independent country which can make their own rules and has done so.

[AnthonyStaunton]

But the creation of the Victoria Cross for Australia would prohibit the award of the 'other' VC to Australian's so that doesn't work either.

The current VC regulations restrict eligibility to Commonwealth countries that are participating in the Imperial and British awards system. In 1975 and reaffirmed about 1990 Australia indicated it would not in future participate in Imperial or British awards. Furthermore, the Australian 'Order of Wear' indicates that Imperial and British awards that are awarded from now on are treated as foreign awards.