GrandsonMichael Posted 3 November , 2004 Share Posted 3 November , 2004 Crumbs William, It can at times be difficult to interpretate the written word...both ways... I sure hope you don't think my anger was directed at you personally, absolutely not. No hard feelings, okay? cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOMMESOLDIER Posted 3 November , 2004 Share Posted 3 November , 2004 Hi There, Rogue is used nowadays in a loose way anyway. It's an interesting thread and on balance, I'm with you William. Cheers Tim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandsonMichael Posted 3 November , 2004 Share Posted 3 November , 2004 Rogue is used nowadays in a loose way anyway Very true.....that's why I didn't mention this 'more modern'definition. Because if that is the way the Rogue Gallery is intended, there is all the more reason to be 'not amused'... Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOMMESOLDIER Posted 3 November , 2004 Share Posted 3 November , 2004 Hi Michael, I do know where you're coming from, and I understand you're point of view. I just look at it slightly differently.Nice to see people with you're passion I'm sure that chap would be proud of you. You can defend me any time you want if I get in trouble ! Cheers Tim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Bluestein Posted 3 November , 2004 Share Posted 3 November , 2004 I sincerely hope that none of these gentlemen will ever fall into the clutches of a police organization, .[/b] ‘…Fall into the clutches of a Police organization.’ ??? I’m not sure I understand your point here, and I apologies now in advance if I have miss understood your statement. I count myself as a proud member of a Police organization for eleven+ years. My uniform includes the flag of my country, of which I believe I serve. My colleagues and I serve and protect our community in good times and bad. We do this I think to the best of our abilities and with a great deal of respect and professionalism in sometimes dangerous circumstances. To describe someone as ‘falling into the clutches of...’ generates visions in my mind of how I would describe one falling into the hands of the Gestapo or a shady organization etc.? It is a loaded statement that blankets Police as dubious and dangerous. I take offence to such a point of view, and am regularly saddened to see some in our communities see us in such a way. Most of whom that do, are people who we have done business with us in the past (i.e.: been arrested or on charges etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broznitsky Posted 3 November , 2004 Share Posted 3 November , 2004 Hear, hear David. Once again you have typed what I was thinking. I am not quite sure myself what Bert means . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandsonMichael Posted 3 November , 2004 Share Posted 3 November , 2004 You can defend me any time you want if I get in trouble ! You're on Tim and be assured you are in good hands. I'm a stubborn **** (I admit it) and have forced large corporates to their knees... Right, that's the fun part, now I suggest we all put an end to what is turning into an unpleasant slogging match and get on with what we're here for: to learn from history and each other. Cheers, michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bert Posted 4 November , 2004 Share Posted 4 November , 2004 I think GrandsonMichael is entirely correct and the verbal meanderings about what is, after all, a purely subjective judgement, and the precise sub-titles of regiments, etc., have obscured the original point and intent. I'm sorry that David_Bluestein was offended by my phraseology - that was not my intention - but, as a man who has had the unpleasant duty of arresting and interrogating police officers, I must say that 'dubious and dangerous' is a good description for many of my old 'customers'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOMMESOLDIER Posted 4 November , 2004 Share Posted 4 November , 2004 Hi Michael, Couldn't have put it better myself mate. I look forward to your next debate and I'll be sure to check my facts everytime you're around. Take Care Tim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broznitsky Posted 4 November , 2004 Share Posted 4 November , 2004 as a man who has had the unpleasant duty of arresting and interrogating police officers, I must say that 'dubious and dangerous' is a good description for many of my old 'customers'. As we all should know, 5% of the population causes 98% of all the problems. This is a policing maxim, most everywhere. I wonder if your unfortunate encounters with certain police officers has tainted your impressions of the rest of the good 'uns? May I ask if the officers you arrested were from North America, or Great Britain, or perhaps some other country where standards of policing might be different than what we in the so-called First World are used to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archer Posted 4 November , 2004 Share Posted 4 November , 2004 Bert, you write ... the verbal meanderings about what is, after all, a purely subjective judgement, and the precise sub-titles of regiments, etc., have obscured the original point and intent. If you're going to make a fuss, send letters of complaint, and track down descendants, please have the courtesy not to regard an accurate description of a man's unit as irrelevant. Michael: I didn't think your anger was directed at me personally. No hard feelings. As I keep saying to you and Bert, Regards anyway William Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Alexander Posted 4 November , 2004 Share Posted 4 November , 2004 To return to the 16th Battalion, Broz had a string on the CEF Study Group site regarding this unit. Some information to clarify the designation of the 16th Bn: The Scottish units of Canada had a fairly powerful lobby with the Minister of Militia. Hughes had allowed the 13th Battalion to be recruited under the Black Watch and the 15th under the 48th Highlanders of Toronto. These Scottish militia units, the 50th, 72rd, 79th, and 91st were given representation in the composite unit, the 16th. (Much like the 10th represented both Winnipeg and Calgary.) The 16th was later reinforced by the 11th Reserve Battalion, which in turn was affiliated with Manitoba recruiting. Towards the end of the war, when the recruiting scheme in Canada was re-organized to a territorial system the 16th was fed by the Manitoba Regiment. This likely originated with the 79th Camerons contribution to the original unit. Thus the connection between the 16th and Manitoba. Post-war the 50th Gordons were amalgamated with the 88th Victoria Fusilers and renamed the Canadian Scottish. They perpetuated the 16th Battalion. Of note the 50th was appears to have recruited another full battalion in World War One the 67th Western Scottish. Other Scottish units in the 16th also recruited more battalions, some of which became units of the Canadian Corps. (The 43rd, the 173rd, and of course the 72nd Bns, plus others.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bert Posted 4 November , 2004 Share Posted 4 November , 2004 Bill Alexander: Many thanks for yr lineage information on the 16th Battalion. Was not the 67th Western Scottish converted to Pioneers? GrandsonMichael: Please keep us informed as to yr progress, and once again, many thanks for your kindness. Broznitsky: To indulge yr curiosity, my 'customers' were all from North America, in North America. You're quite right about standards of policing being different in other parts of the world: I found the men of the Vietnamese National Police infinitely more reliable than those at home. Yes, it's possible that my experience has made me cynical - the reverse is also true. Police 'buffs' and friends or relatives of police officers have a natural tendency to believe that their friends or loved ones are not subject to the same fears and failings as 'ordinary' persons. As for England, I suggest you speak to some older, experienced, higher-ranking men, and ask them about Tanky Challenor (whom I hate to mention, as he was a good soldier) and others like him. You might also ask them about Sir Robert Mark and the activities of the Police Federation in the 1970s. Archer: I shall, in future, refer all questions of courtesy to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archer Posted 5 November , 2004 Share Posted 5 November , 2004 Why, thank you, kind sir. Archer Payze attested as Private, no. 28666, Canadian Overseas Expeditionary Force, at Valcartier Camp, Quebec on 23 September 1914. He was posted to ‘A’ Company (Gordons), 16th Battalion, CEF. According to my notes, the 16th Battalion was formed from four companies of unrelated Highland regiments and on the sea voyage to England it was still dressed in four different styles, tartans and badges. The Battalion motto, Deas Gu Cath (“ready for the fray”,) was adopted on the third day of the voyage to England in October 1914. It was sub-titled The Canadian Scottish on 16 December 1914, on Salisbury Plain. It was commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel R. G. E. Leckie, and formed part of the 3rd Infantry Brigade, 1st Canadian Division, under Colonel (later Brigadier-General) R. E. W. Turner, VC, with was composed of the 14th Battalion from Montreal and the Maritimes, and two other Highland battalions from across Canada (the 13th and 15th). The Battalion sailed for France on 12 February 1915, and disembarked at St. Nazaire three days later [sic]. I am, Bert, your most obedient humble servant William Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bert Posted 6 November , 2004 Share Posted 6 November , 2004 Gramercy, Good Sir. By the Rood, thy soothing words like me well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deepathart Posted 6 November , 2004 Share Posted 6 November , 2004 I have been doing some typing of records in return for them searching for my Grandad as I live in Australia and can't get to the Archives. I have been disturbed by information on the Medal records that state a medal was forfieted for theft or receiving of stolen goods, and penal servitude. So it is not just the Police records that are distubring for relatives but also the Medal records as well. Dee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bert Posted 6 November , 2004 Share Posted 6 November , 2004 Yes, Dee, I am familiar with those entries, and they are, as you write, disturbing. I also feel that they are unfair. A person is actually several different persons during his or her lifetime, changing in response to accumulated experience, emotional distress, or the need to survive. The nineteen-year old who ran into a hurricane of fire, the mind within his breast full of honourable thoughts, is an entirely different man than the forty-nine year old who pocketed a tin of meat at a shop because it was 79 pence higher than the previous week, even though they are the same person. I don't see why, in an age that prides itself on education and compassion, the good that a person has done should be trampled upon, merely because later in life they acted unwisely, out of desperation or ignorance. I'm sure many will disagree, but I'm also sure that if they were ever to find themselves in an equivocal position, they would much prefer to have an old fool like me taking their statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now