Not all that good at reasoning or logic are you Raggy. Like your other "usual suspect" pals all you are interested in doing here is argue. This you normally do in your passive-aggressive mode from a position of clueless ignorance.

Tell me Raggy - 81 years after the event one "old soldier" can remember vividly names, exact time, date and location of what must count as being the most traumatic event in his life. The contender for "proving" that summary executions took place could not name his best friend of 18 months who was shot right in front of him? He could not name the time, date or place of this murder by an Officer he must have known and served under for months - I'm sorry Raggy but irrespective of how you look at it that just simply does not add up. It just becomes another unsubstantiated story that provides proof of nothing.

As for "clutching at straws" Raggy, the only person clutching at straws in this discussion Raggy is you:

On the sparse information, which is very vague and general in nature, contained in the article we have a time frame dictated by the 18 months specified on from some point in time from August 1914 and December 1914 when Sydney John Hollis and best mate, "The lad from Cannock", volunteered. You have consistently refused to accept that the period we are talking about details a time when the British Army on the western front were engaged in no offensive operations - which means that nobody was being sent "over the top". Instead you keep putting up information that just does not fit.

Harry Patch can hold any view he likes - he lived through it, fought through it, he earned that right - so did Sydney John Hollis. That does not mean that others, far removed, who were not there, who did not live through it, who have never served in their lives, have any right to take unfounded and unsubstantiated stories and use them, without any sort of investigation to accuse people who are now no longer able to defending themselves of murder - That is just simply not only not right, but totally unjust particularly since the motive for doing so seems to be based on "class".

Difference between me and thee Raggy is that you are ideologically all too prepared to argue for "myths" that fit your idiotic and totally unrepresentative stereotypes ( or those of your "usual suspect" pals) without any sort of critical assessment. I, on the other hand, will examine anything I am told, I will look for substantiation/verification, I will look at the event critically and seek proof. I will base my opinion on fact not fantasy - so far in this discussion you have not been able to refute a single thing I have stated - not one single fact.