In answer to the posts directed at me:

Firstly to Guest 12:24 and to Greg F:
Mock all you like but neither of you have ever been able to refute and counter a single thing that I have stated which makes your contributions to the discussion nothing more than irrelevant "white noise" - It would appear that you know nothing, understand nothing, are prepared to learn nothing, classic examples of boorish, pig ignorant buffoons who revel in portraying yourselves as being as thick as shit and proud of it - The pair of you make Dumb & Dumber look intelligent.

Jim Carroll:
"Hearsay" is not considered as being evidence of something having actually happened. Stories can simply be stories "urban myths" abound - none of them are true but thousands if not millions believe them to be true.

My explanation for Harry's story about officers summarily executing soldiers specifically states that he probably heard it from someone else and that the stories originated from British Units operating alongside French troops who had actually seen such executions IN THEIR ARMY.

"What kind of people are you that go to such lengths to defend an establishment that cold-bloodedly slaughtered a generation of British youth."

The kind of people who believe in the fundamental legal principle that someone who is accused of something is "Innocent until proved Guilty" - so far you have offered no substantive evidence at all to convince me of their guilt. I also believe that the people responsible for "slaughtering a generation of British youth" between August 1914 and November 1918 were the enemy, I also believe that that generation of men from Great Britain were responsible for slaughtering a rather larger number of Germans - That is what happens in War Jim, your own father must have fully realised that when he went to Spain to fight, he did not go down there to dissuade and befriend the enemy he went down there to kill and defeat them.

Now then Jim when it comes to declining to reply - tell us all about these "Special Groups of Military Policemen", how did they know where to position themselves? Who was it defined what the allowable time to "get over the top" was?

Harry Patch served as part of a Lewis Gun crew in the Cornwall Light Infantry and was sent to France with his Unit in June 1917, he was wounded in September 1917 and evacuated back to England to recover from his wounds. In France he would have moved, trained and fought alongside men that he had served with in England - He was not attending a social the other units he would come across would only be in passing as his unit moved up to the front. His main opportunity for talking to soldiers from other units would have been in hospital.

Finally Raggytash:
Cherry picking? No you specifically addressed my attention to that particular section of the interview and I answered the point that you were attempting to make, i.e. that what Harry Patch said in the interview was conclusive proof that summary executions were carried out - I merely pointed out the anomalies, which you have conveniently completely ignored.

The interview was conducted 80 years AFTER the event - if Harry Patch did not recognise the term Shell Shock in 1917 (By then the term had been coined and people were aware of it to the extent they were having misgivings about it) then he sure as hell would know what was meant by it when he gave that interview and when specifically asked to comment about it in 1997. - TRUE??

"Do you really believe that he never met anyone suffering from "shell shock"?"

While he was in France in 1917? Yes I do believe he never met anyone suffering from shell shock as his three months deployment to France would have consisted of:
- Transport to France with his Unit
- Training in France with his Unit
- Movement up to the forward area in the build up prior to the launching of the Passchendaele Offensive
- Fighting in that Offensive
- Suffering his shrapnel wound and being cleared to the rear as a casualty
- Evacuation as a casualty to Southampton.

By the way the extent to which I did not cherry-pick Harry's interview - I would suggest you read the bit right at the end about "the mutiny" where after the war while waiting for demob his section refused to turn out for bayonet practice - you will find out exactly what would have happened to any officer attempting to summarily execute one of their number.

"Thirdly, and I'm sure we'll come back to this point, I find this quite bizarre you state "Just a little bit of information for you - neither an Officer or an NCO can so much as strike a Private Soldier because that is an offence under military law" Are you truly expecting us to believe this didn't happen?

On the contrary I am sure it did on occasion, but that does not negate the fact that such an action is an offence against the Army Act and if any Officer or NCO did strike a Private soldier he could face disciplinary proceedings for it - that being the case do you really think that summary execution would be sanctioned? Rhetorical question it wasn't if it happened it would be construed as "Murder".

"Do you want to tell us about the floggings of Indian troops?"
While punishment by flogging had been removed from the Army Act affecting British troops it remained as a punishment in the Indian Army (Unduly harsh?? Hardly, people are still flogged in Pakistan to this day - Pakistan being part of India during the First World War). Floggings were not carried out on the whim of any individual the punishment was handed down as part of due process - unless of course you have evidence which proves to the contrary.

"Finally, as I know this is a subject you are deeply interested in,could I suggest that rather than making automatic responses claiming that the hierarchy of the British Army were all good men and true you contact the MOD, Judge Advocate General and Lord Chief Justice and just ask them the question."

Ehmmm no Raggy the boot is firmly on the other foot. It is Jim Carroll, yourself and others that "believe" on the strength of pure unsubstantiated hearsay that those commanding the British Army during the First World War ordered or at least sanctioned summary executions of British troops by junior officers commanding them. It is therefore up to you to raise the matter with the proper authorities - that is if you can be arsed, which you would be if you really did think there was a case to answer - But you don't do you?