Haig's achievement.

[Crunchy]

While it is true that I just joined the forum, that does not mean that I am not well read or unacquainted with good research. With over forty years of interest in this subject area and as an author of over 150 refereed journal articles, I think I know more than most about both. To get back to the point at hand - I stand by my "old, hackneyed, flippant quip" as concisely capturing the very-much dual-sided nature of Haig's "accomplishments".

I think it is simplistic to think that Haig has been somehow exonerated by recent research. Niall Ferguson, one of the foremost historians of his generation, is most certainly not a fan, and nor am I.

No-one is suggesting that simply because you have just joined the forum, that you are not well read or unacquainted with good research. We'd just like you to demonstrate it with some logical, well reasoned argument to back up your quip.

Nor are we suggesting Haig is completely exonerated, we are simply looking for a balanced view on the man. Personally I am neither pro nor anti Haig. I simply accept he was an above average soldier, with normal human faults, who was given an extraordinarily difficult task, that neither you nor I would have even come close to doing any better. As I have said previously, I find it ironic that those who have never served in the military, let alone experienced the chaos of battle, never had to plan or fight a battle, and have never had the awful responsibility of command, feel fully competent to pass judgement on those who have.

As for being an author of refereed articles; being one myself I wouldn't put that up as evidence of any form of superiority of knowledge. Some refereed articles, and books by PhD qualified authors, I have read simply demonstrate the author's ignorance on the subject of war and the way armies work, with facile judgements that don't stand up to scrutiny.

I not sure what throwing in Niall Ferguson's name adds to the debate. He is indeed a fine historian, but that doesn't mean he is infallibly correct in his opinions, or that we have to accept them without question. There are other as equally fine historians who wouldn't necessarily agree with Niall's opinion. That you and Niall agree is wonderful, but don't expect other people to accept it as gospel just because Niall says so. Most of us, I hope, form our own opinions

Regards

Chris

[Crunchy]

I think that you need to lighten up, or perhaps I have misunderstood and that this forum is meant only as means for intellectual sword fencing.

Ah, you haven't read many threads. How we miss our recently departed Tom Rutherford - he certainly lightened up many a good thread - but he did it with clever, erudite and charming wit.

Regards

Chris

[PMHart]

Hi chums,

I am afraid I must take issue with my good friend Crunchy. I personally feel refreshed to discover that there is still much missionary work to be done amongst those still clinging to a simplistic view of Haig. This is particularly so amongst those who have actually written peer-reviewed articles or even read books by Niall Ferguson. The chance to 'spread the word' about Haig amongst such promising 'virgin' territory at the very pinnacle of academic achievement could make your mouth water in anticipation. Their witty contributions are not a boring retread of an old argument but a chance to tilt once more at the windmill of despair....

Furthermore, I think the jokes made by both Wexflyer and Kitchener were utterly hilarious and that Crunchy should be ashamed of himself for not splitting his sides with laughter. After all, it is not as if he was personally involved in the ongoing attempts to rescue Haig's reputation from the sneers of politicians, media commentators, the stupid, the misinformed and - clearly - the intellectual elite!

Shame on you Crunchy,

Pompous Pete

[Crunchy]

Hi Pete,

Thank you my good friend for pointing out the errors of my ways. I feel suitably chastised for not immediately recognising such fine tuned, and devastatingly witty humour, and for being such a humourless old f***. My oh my, where is Benny Hill these days.

Inspired by your riposte, I shall rip down to the stables, saddle Rocinante, and ride with you on your gallant, but I fear unprofitable, quest. Remember, we don't know more than most on the subject, not by a long shot.

I am told there will be one hellava p*** up in Dundee this weekend. Keep an eye on George and Charles - they are likely to lead you astray.

Best wishes chum

Humourless Chris

[phil andrade]

As a baby boomer, I can honestly say that I was taught - literally taught - at school to endorse the Donkey concept. We read the War Poetry, we saw Attenborough's screen version of Oh ! What a Lovely War ! and we were constantly being reminded about Vietnam being an uncomfortable continuation of the sort of Imperialist impulses that had allowed the world to undergo the ordeal of 1914-18, the fiftieth anniverary of which we were currently commemorating. To make the cup run over, the BBC was screening its ground breaking documentary series, and the impact was shocking. My English teacher explained that the Great War was uniquely dreadful ; the Second World War was characterised by smart and humane generalship, with the fighting being mobile and the casualties light by comparison. Any doubters were advised to survey the school's war memorial, on which, sure enough, there were three or four times as many names from 1914-18 as there were from 1939-45.

I made my own voyage of discovery into the world of John Terraine. At first, I repudiated his views : an understandable reaction to the emotional impact of what I was being taught.

I often reflect on how far this was a "generational" thing. Dad and his pals were all middle aged veterans from the Second World War, seeing their sons entering adolescence, and surely this made them think about how they had themselves endured the war years despite the promise of the " War to End Wars." There was a feeling that their fathers had been duped, and callously led. Haig was the best possible target for the popular revulsion.

There was also a kind of " class" thing about it, too. I find it hard to articulate here, but it's as if Haig exemplified the "Toffs" who escaped from the Titianic while the passengers in steerage class persihed.

All this stuff has been challenged and repudiated. It still won't go away. After all the scholarship that has been available to us to give the War and its generals a proper assessment, I have to ask...what else is there that can be done ? I suspect the answer lies in the appraisal of non British historians.

Phil (PJA)

[tn.drummond]

This argument resonates with a recent passage read from 'Gallant Gentleman - A Portrait of the British Officer 1600-1956' by E S Turner*, he is commenting on the state of the regimental officer throughout WW1:

"The generals who rose from the regimental ranks of the Old Army had patriotism, integrity, courage, industry, unswerving purpose, and a readiness to accept monstrous responsibility. According to LLoyd George, they lacked resource, pliability, vision, ability to learn from experience and to admit mistakes...He (LLoyd George) complains: ' Men of great intellectual powers are not tempted to join a profession which offers so little scope for the exercise of their powers and where the awards have no particular reference to special capacity. To be a good average is safer than to be gifted above your fellows'

In all of LLoyd George's indictment there is some measure of truth. But it is harsh treatment to put a man in the dock and charge him with not being a genius when the country had taken especial care to discourage geniuses in uniform, and with preferring the company of gentlemen instead of self-advertisers. As for the charge that commanders persisted in folly, it is notorious that if a general clings to a plan which eventually succeeds, he has shown inflexibility of purpose; whereas if his plan fails, he has shown obstinacy and lack of imagination"

* Pub 1956 Michael Joseph p288-289

Suddery

[JimSmithson]

If any readers are wondering about Niall Ferguson, the book referred to will be The Pity of War and to give a flavour for Pals it has such brilliant ideas as:

1) It was not any media hype that led men to fight for 'Team GB' but because 'they enjoyed it'.

2) Germany had an inexhustable supply of men because they could call up as many as they lost in any one year. (no facts to back that statement evident

3) "If the British Expeditionary Force had never been sent, there is no question that the Germans would have won the war". (Wow! Sir John would love reading that but I'm not sure old Joffre would)

Ferguson is foremost an economist and I won't even go into what he says would have happened had Britain kept its nose out, except that we would have had a united Europe without another war.

Given all that, any comments upon Haig are not really relevant.

Peter - shall we try and arrange a meeting between your good self and Mr Ferguson to allow some missionary work to be carried out (and not the naughty sort if that is where your mind just went )

Jim

Edited because I keep using a,b, c in lists but b with a bracket is turned into a silly face!!

[Old Tom]

May I suggest that much of the criticism of Haig would have been equally applicable to any officer who was appointed to command the BEF in WW1. Such failures of command as there were, were, I believe, due to factors such as the huge increase in size of the army and the unaviodable lack of experienced and well trained officers, and the limited means of communication available for most of the war. The matter of casualties, while painful, was a feature of the technology of the period. In that respect, and risking going well off topic, the responsibility for the casualties rests with those that started the war. Once it had started the results were foreseeable. Indeed one might say that Kitchener and Haig had that foresight.

As I suggested earlier in this thread it is much to Haig's credit that he - if you will excuse a trite phrase - kept the show on the road.

Old Tom

[hazelclark]

May I suggest that much of the criticism of Haig would have been equally applicable to any officer who was appointed to command the BEF in WW1. Such failures of command as there were, were, I believe, due to factors such as the huge increase in size of the army and the unaviodable lack of experienced and well trained officers, and the limited means of communication available for most of the war. The matter of casualties, while painful, was a feature of the technology of the period. In that respect, and risking going well off topic, the responsibility for the casualties rests with those that started the war. Once it had started the results were foreseeable. Indeed one might say that Kitchener and Haig had that foresight.

As I suggested earlier in this thread it is much to Haig's credit that he - if you will excuse a trite phrase - kept the show on the road.

Old Tom

I agree with what you have said, and i suspect that there are many many people other than myself on this Forum who stay out of discussions such as this because they have neither the background in the subject, nor the time to research the sources given in the various books that they have read. I THINK i have average intelligence, and although I can't tell you how many books on the subject i have read, I still could not make an informed decision about Haig. He was a very private man and a product of his generation, which gives fodder to the critics of a hundred years later who have the benefit of both hindsight and access to original documentation not necessarily available at the time. Yes, he and many others made mistakes which cost the lives of thousands, and people like my great grandmother, who lost her son, and my granny whose husband lost his arm had reason to complain. But what was the alternative? Once the war was in progress it took on a life of its own it seems, and it also seems that Haig was the best person at the time. So, I guess he did his best, although not everyone agrees that his best was good enough.

Hazel C.

[George Armstrong Custer]

While it is true that I just joined the forum, that does not mean that I am not well read or unacquainted with good research. With over forty years of interest in this subject area and as an author of over 150 refereed journal articles, I think I know more than most about both. To get back to the point at hand - I stand by my "old, hackneyed, flippant quip" as concisely capturing the very-much dual-sided nature of Haig's "accomplishments". I think it is simplistic to think that Haig has been somehow exonerated by recent research. Niall Ferguson, one of the foremost historians of his generation, is most certainly not a fan, and neither am I.

[…..] Trolling, it is not - I think that you need to lighten up, or perhaps I have misunderstood and that this forum is meant only as means for intellectual sword fencing.

I see a familiar pattern emerging here. ‘Wexflyer’ and ‘Kitchener’s Bugle’ enter an on-going discussion on Haig. Both post inane one-liners. This is pointed out by other contributors and links are given to previous source-based discussions on Haig. ‘Wexflyer’ and ‘Kitchener’s Bugle’ are invited to expand on and justify their one-liners in similar fashion, if they can. But no, instead they pass no comment on previous reasoned and sourced debate on the links given them, nor do they put together anything that resembles a coherent justification of their earlier posts. Instead they resort to, in the case of one, a threat to quit the forum, and from the other an admonishment that anyone calling for a rational argument founded upon referenced sources in place of glib one-liners needs to ‘lighten up.’ In other words, members of this forum ought not to correct specious nonsense but treat it as a legitimate contribution to debate for fear of those new arrivals spouting it flouncing off. This is a familiar tactic of those who have very little grasp of a topic they’ve elected to post reductively crass comment on when they are called to account.

‘Wexflyer’ now tells us that his ‘contribution’ on Haig in post # 29 is arrived at after more than “forty years of interest in this subject area and as an author of over 150 refereed journal articles.” On that basis, he goes on to tell us, he knows “more than most” about the subject. Well with that impressive pedigree, his post must obviously have contained a profound pearl of wisdom which we’d all missed and which would richly repay a second reading. Otherwise, of course, he’d have quoted at length, or linked to, one of his many published articles on the subject he’s studied for the best part of half a century. So let’s go back and give ‘Wexflyer’s’ post the serious attention he says it deserves. Here’s what he said:

“FM Haig would go down in history as the most successful Scottish soldier ever, having succeeded in killing a record number of English.”

Let’s scrutinise that – because ‘Wexflyer’ has posted again to say that “I stand by my "old, hackneyed, flippant quip" as concisely capturing the very-much dual-sided nature of Haig's "accomplishments".

So, according to 'Wexflyer', Haig ‘succeeded’ in killing a record number of his own men. The ‘succeeded’ clearly carries the implication that this is what Haig was trying to do. The first reductive element of this sentence is that Haig is basically a murderer, then. Next, despite being C-in-C of the BEF, Haig is defined as ‘Scottish’ and the men whom he ‘succeeds’ in killing are ‘English.’ The next ‘concisely captured’ revelation which ‘Wexflyer’s’ quote gives us on Haig, then, is to reduce him to a Scotsman killing Englishmen. Not only is this laughably ludicrous, it is also an offensive repudiation of the reality of the make-up of the armies Haig commanded, consisting of men from all constituent nations of Great Britain and the Empire. One of the logical implications of this tosh, if one were to suspend disbelief and take it seriously for a moment, is that all of the Germans killed by British bullets on the Somme from August 1916 were actually victims of their own C-in-C, von Hindenburg (though they were presumably all Bavarian victims of the Prussian Hindenburg); as all the French deaths at Verdun had been caused by their own commander, Petain.

How illuminating! I can’t see how it could have crossed anyone’s mind that ‘Wexflyer’ might be a troll instead of a published researcher whose decades of research into this subject have given him a clearer insight ‘than most’ into these matters, and who chooses to ‘concisely capture’ the fruits of his scholarship with this masterful insight.

One final point regarding the pompous claims of the anonymous ‘Wexflyer’: If an author clearly doesn’t have a clue about the subject he’s pontificating on, then any of his ‘peers’ who have ‘refereed’ it will by definition be similarly clueless. What is more germane is the reaction of recognised experts to something once its been published. As an example the WFA has published a seemingly endless string of articles on all manner of diverse Great War subjects by one Dr David Payne. Many of these are riddled with embarrassingly inaccurate facts and hackneyed, long discredited misinterpretations. Yet presumably someone on a peer level with Dr Payne thought they were ok to publish under the banner of the WFA. However when they were put online, several recognised published experts in specific fields reviewed them on the WFA Front Forum to their great detriment. So I wouldn’t set too much store in someone trying to lend a specious credibility to a piece of nonsense they’ve posted here by claiming to be the author of 150 'peer refereed' articles – particularly so when it’s an anonymous someone referencing uncited articles. And the sole secondary work by someone else which ‘Wexflyer’ cites has been succinctly nailed for its shortcomings by Jim Smithson, so I’ll pass on further comment on that one!

I’ll deal as briefly as I can with ‘Kitchener’s Bugle’s’ disingenuous attempt to put a gloss of credibility on his post # 30, whilst at the same time hopefully making some references of interest. The reality of DH’s refusal to confirm the vast majority of death sentences put before him as C-in-C has been set out by others here. ‘KB’s’ linking in his first post of Haig signing “all those death warrants” with the dentistry connection was so close to trolling as to be indistinguishable. ‘KB’s’ subsequent waffle about there being any connection between Haig, the sending of dentists to France and the establishment of the Army Dental Corps in 1921 can also be entirely disposed of. Haig was treated for toothache in October 1914 by Charles Valadier, a Franco-American dentist who had been working in Paris prior to volunteering in September 1914 firstly for service with the British Red Cross society, prior to being attached to the RAMC No 13 General Hospital which arrived on 16 October, and subsequently being commissioned on 29 October. The first study of Valadier was by J E MacAuley in ‘Charles Valadier: A pioneer in the Treatment of jaw Injury’ in Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, February 1974. McAuley makes no mention of Valadier’s treatment of Haig, but notes that he was accepted for duty with British troops on 29 October 1914 and commissioned. “Thus,” states McAuley, “Valadier seems to have been the first dental surgeon to provide treatment officially for British troops in France.” The History of the Great War (1922) states: “Dental surgeons began to arrive in France in November 1914.” This was a process which was not dependent on Haig having had a toothache which Valadier attended to, and would have happened when it did regardless. Haig had absolutely no input to the process. In April 1986 Colonel William P Cruse of the US Army Dental Corps published a Paper titled “General Haig’s ‘Dental Surgeon From Paris’: Sir Auguste Charles Valadier, A Pioneer in Maxillo-Facial Surgery," for the US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Penn. It is the title of Cruse’s article which has given rise to the idea amongst some that Haig had some involvement, either directly or inadvertently, in the provision of dentists for the BEF. In fact, as Cruse notes in his article, citing McAuley, “Valadier, who was an American citizen at the time, became the first dentist to serve officially with the British forces in World War I.” Cruse goes on to conjecture that “In all likelihood, his first official task was to relieve General Haig’s toothache, even though no official records indisputably support this conjecture.” In other words, Valadier was already engaged by the British Army in an ongoing process of providing dentists for the BEF before he treated Haig. Cruse cannot even establish without doubt that it was Valadier who treated Haig – however my own research (I’ll say that word again for the benefit of ‘Wexflyer’ and ‘Kitchener’s Bugle’ – R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H) has subsequently found documentary evidence that Valadier indisputably was the dentist who treated Haig – but only after he had already been engaged as a dentist by the BEF. The suggestive title of Cruse’s article led to a short un-annotated piece by the appropriately named Stephanie Pain titled ‘Can’t Bite, can’t fight’ in the ‘New Scientist’ in March 2007. In this she extrapolates a completely unsupported direct connection between Haig’s toothache and the creation of the Army Dental Corps: “Douglas Haig, commander-in-chief of the British forces in France, got terrible toothache, and his staff was forced to send to Paris for a dentist. Within months the army had hired a dozen of its own. By the end of the war in 1918, it had 831. It was another three years before it went the whole way and created the army dental corps.” And it is Pain’s specious suggestion which – surprise, surprise – Wikipedia repeats and references in its inaccuracy-ridden entry on Haig. Despite virtually repeating the Wiki article verbatim in his post # 49 I would hesitate to suggest that that’s where our chum ‘Kitchener’s Bugle’ lifted it from – were it not for the fact that juxtaposed next to each other there are the paragraphs on Haig and death warrants and Haig and dentistry. So it seems that ‘KB’s’ depth of knowledge on a subject he’s pontificating to others here on is about as in-depth as his compadre ‘Wexflyer’s’.

What we’ve seen at play on this thread is the old story of one or two who think that an equal right to post an opinion on a forum like this equates with an equal right to have that opinion taken seriously, or given respect simply because it was posted. It doesn’t. If, for instance, you want to take up an anti-Haig position, that’s fine. But until you can frame your dislike in terms of sustainable argument based on referencable sources, don’t expect to be taken seriously by those who’ve invested the time to read as widely as is possible in primary and/or secondary sources before coming to their own conclusions and formulating their posts based upon those sources. When someone who has made a post like ‘Kitchener’s Bugle’s’ initial one here gets pulled up for it and responds with sneering talk of ‘intellectual swordfighting’, what is he actually saying? What he really means is that he can’t be bothered to put in the time to research and make a sustainable argument himself, but that people who have invested a bit of time and effort in researching a subject should dumb down to his level and pretend that his inanities are actually rational argument on a par with their own. Speaking for myself, I don’t think so.

George

[JimSmithson]

Hello George! You've forgotten to take your tablet again - nursy did tell you!!

[George Armstrong Custer]

(Sigh!) And you were doing so well for a minute there, Jim!

[squirrel]

May I suggest that much of the criticism of Haig would have been equally applicable to any officer who was appointed to command the BEF in WW1. Such failures of command as there were, were, I believe, due to factors such as the huge increase in size of the army and the unaviodable lack of experienced and well trained officers, and the limited means of communication available for most of the war. The matter of casualties, while painful, was a feature of the technology of the period. In that respect, and risking going well off topic, the responsibility for the casualties rests with those that started the war. Once it had started the results were foreseeable. Indeed one might say that Kitchener and Haig had that foresight.

As I suggested earlier in this thread it is much to Haig's credit that he - if you will excuse a trite phrase - kept the show on the road.

Old Tom

Spot on IMHO.

[Crunchy]

Nice to see you have risen from your sick bed George. Well done.

Regards

Chris

[tn.drummond]

Cannot we stick to destroying arguments rather than people ?

Custer makes many valid points but the manner in which they are delivered devalues each and every one.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I don't think 'Wexflyer' or 'Kitchener's Bugle' need you as their knight in shining armour to fight the battles they initiated for them, Suddery. They are both big boys and I'm sure they can take a response given in the manner of their own posts.

[Crunchy]

Cannot we stick to destroying arguments rather than people ?

Custer makes many valid points but the manner in which they are delivered devalues each and every one.

Come, come. Wexflyer and Kitchener's Bugle, with great pomposity and little regard for the members of the forum, come flaunting in and set about destroying Haig with hackneyed phrases that we have heard time and again, and which have been refuted time and again. As Salesie would say, to refute their arguments without mentioning them or their childish content is like writing about the sinking the Titanic without mentioning the iceberg.

Regards

Chris

[PMHart]

And there we go - the age-old classic passive-aggressive response from dear old Suddery. Either too innocent to realise that he has just personally attacked George, or else deliberately trolling - who knows. But surely even a passing bunny rabbit (Byong! Byong!) happening upon a computer keyboard for the first time must realise that in saying "Custer makes many valid points but the manner in which they are delivered devalues each and every one" he can only be trying to cause trouble and disharmony in our happy community.

For the record I thought George was admirably restrained: for a start he had the good sense not to comment on people quoting - and at that indirectly - from Lloyd George as a source on the intellectual merits or otherwise of Haig and his contemporaries!

Good doggy George,

Pete

[Crunchy]

For the record I thought George was admirably restrained

Me too. I am concerned for his health.

Chris

[salesie]

Come, come. Wexflyer and Kitchener's Bugle, with great pomposity and little regard for the members of the forum, come flaunting in and set about destroying Haig with hackneyed phrases that we have heard time and again, and which have been refuted time and again. As Salesie would say, to refute their arguments without mentioning them or their childish content is like writing about the sinking the Titanic without mentioning the iceberg.

Regards

Chris

Soon or later, I'm sure that someone will try to blame Haig for the loss of the Titanic as well, Chris.

As for Suddery's input, could he please explain how devaluation of a point is brought about by direct reference to the person's input that is under scrutiny? I know that we are all supposed to be scrupulously courteous in the "mess" these days - but really," no names no pack drill" would eradicate interesting and informed debate almost totally (a trend, I regret to say, that seems to be happening on this forum over the past few months).

Cheers-salesie

[Crunchy]

Soon or later, I'm sure that someone will try to blame Haig for the loss of the Titanic as well, Chris.

Cheers-salesie

It could well be the subject of a refereed article, Salesie.

Nice to be in contact with you again.

Regards

Chris

[phil andrade]

Sometimes, when I reflect on the nonsense that we were encouraged to swallow about The Donkeys, I feel that we were so badly let down by the commentators and teachers of the time ( 1960s) that, in an effort to repudiate them, I fear swinging too far the other way. I don't think that there has ever been a military leader who has had this effect on posterity....or at least, not to the same degree.

Smuts wrote that Haig was " A great soldier and a greater gentleman." A lifetime later, the late and lamented John Keegan, IIRC, spoke of Haig being a "profoundly unattractive figure". He might have been alluding to Great War generals as a whole, in popular perception, but I suspect the comment was aimed principally at Haig.

Phil (PJA)

[IanA]

For the record I thought George was admirably restrained:

Does he like that sort of thing? Silken cords, I'll be bound. No, George'll be bound.

[Crunchy]

Sometimes, when I reflect on the nonsense that we were encouraged to swallow about The Donkeys, I feel that we were so badly let down by the commentators and teachers of the time ( 1960s) that, in an effort to repudiate them, I fear swinging too far the other way.

You'd have to swing a b****y long way to even achieve a respectable balance Phil.

Regards

Chris

[tn.drummond]

don't think 'Wexflyer' or 'Kitchener's Bugle' need you as their knight in shining armour to fight the battles they initiated for them, Suddery. They are both big boys and I'm sure they can take a response given in the manner of their own posts.

[/quote

PMHart' timestamp=1346362065' post='1791203]

And there we go - the age-old classic passive-aggressive response from dear old Suddery. Either too innocent to realise that he has just personally attacked George, or else deliberately trolling - who knows. But surely even a passing bunny rabbit (Byong! Byong!) happening upon a computer keyboard for the first time must realise that in saying "Custer makes many valid points but the manner in which they are delivered devalues each and every one" he can only be trying to cause trouble and disharmony in our happy community.

For the record I thought George was admirably restrained: for a start he had the good sense not to comment on people quoting - and at that indirectly - from Lloyd George as a source on the intellectual merits or otherwise of Haig and his contemporaries!

Good doggy George,

Pete

Ah I see the rules now. To quote something you disagree with is to troll, to quote something you agree with is to be in the gang.

Perhaps I'll 'byong byong' off and lick me little wounds.

Third form psychology of the 'passive-aggressive'type comes over a bit passée, bit like your argument really. Presumably you've never quoted anybody - just sailed on content in the knowledge of your indisputable correctness. I keep forgetting you are the shibboleth of modernity, how remiss.

Passive enough old bean ?

Oh and George, I'm nobodies knight and I didn't agree with their comments it's just I don't like to see the pack in action without redress.

Pip Pip