A chip off the old block

Re: A chip off the old block

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:28:23 GMT

If MK had been there, and Cardigan had said "I'm not obeying that ****fool order. I won't send my men or my horses to their deaths," then Maurice would have charged off by himself-and it would have been the Charge of the 1, not of the 600. He would probably have got away with it, the Russian gunners being convinced they were halucinating, because NO-ONE would be that mad !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Has anyone read the obituary to Gerald Plumbly (today's Telegraph )-another eccentric veterinarian, who (unlike Maurice ) miraculously avoided landing in court on motoring offences!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wynne

Re: A chip off the old block

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:02:31 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

No No No Evelyn

The trouble with Lord Cardigan's officers was that they were TOO obedient, even when orders were obviously wrong.

Maurice's problem is the other way round. Tell him to do something, and he says "WON'T " Tell him not to do something , and he straight away goes and does it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wynne

[/quote]

No, Lord Cardigan's subordinate officers and men had no option. Lucan and Cardigan may not have been very bright, but they could both see that there was something wrong with the order they had apparently been given by Raglan. Raglan must take a great share of the blame in my opinion. Nolan's rash utterances completed the cock-up. The reasons why Lucan and Cardigan obeyed what they thought was the order are, when one looks closely, complex. To Lucan's credit, he did halt the Heavy Brigade before they too charged the Russian guns. To Cardigan's credit, he did not flinch before the task he thought he had been given.

I thought Kirk would fit as one of Cardigan's officers because a) his personal courage is not in doubt; b) he really sees himself as the young squire who can do what he likes ; c) he would certainly treat war as a jolly jape; d)EDITED voluntarily

Re: A chip off the old block

Clive Ansell — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:59:08 GMT

MK was found not guilty this time around, the waste of court time and taxpayers' money is the fault of the police for a jumped up charge and CPS for bringing a frivolous action.

Re: A chip off the old block

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:15:57 GMT

No No No Evelyn

The trouble with Lord Cardigan's officers was that they were TOO obedient, even when orders were obviously wrong.

Maurice's problem is the other way round. Tell him to do something, and he says "WON'T " Tell him not to do something , and he straight away goes and does it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wynne

Re: A chip off the old block

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:05:13 GMT

So he's just wasted swathes of time for the police and the court, and swathes of taxpayers' money (a 13-day trial!) through his own silly boasting and game playing.

Born in the wrong century all right. I can see him as one of Lord Cardigan's officers.

Re: A chip off the old block

Clive Ansell — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:45:26 GMT

He was acquitted despite conducting his own defence up against a CPS barrister and legal team, he must be a good advocate (plenty of practice I guess) or the case against him was rubbish.

I don't think he is mad, but then again if he wants to meet GWB he must be.

Re: A chip off the old block

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:28:06 GMT

Amused and educated !! - I gleaned two new facts from that - first, I now know of the existence of the "Barry and District News" though I fear it might be quite some time before I feel the need to read from it again. And second, I didn't know the stuff about Maurice landing next door to George Bush and then being remanded in a mental hospital. That must really be the pits - being considered mad even when they have got George W Bush to compare you with.

Re: A chip off the old block

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:17:11 GMT

Full story in the Barry and District News

Re: A chip off the old block

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:05:58 GMT

Maurice has been found not guilty on the firearms charge, but apparently is still locked up

Wynne

Re: A chip off the old block

J G Wray — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:52:46 GMT

Well just one then

DH was Pres RCVS in our Final Year and was invited to address the year at a lunch at Hawkshead. He arrived early, he had driven, and a few of us showed him round on an informal basis. He went to his spot at the High Table and replaced the water in his carafe with a clear spirit from a bottle in his pocket. By the end of the meal his carafe was empty and he was in high spirits. There followed a rousing speech with an overview of the role of the RCVS.

The highlight of his speech was a precis of the Disciplinary process which went as follows:

"..If it ever gets that far we sit down, consider all the evidence, then clear the vet.."

He drove himself home.

Does anyone see any irony here?

JGW

Re: A chip off the old block

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:36:48 GMT

Don't know enough either, but Dr Storey -Pugh was a veterinary surgeon who reached the highest ranks of the profession (President of BVA and RCVS ), a bon vivant, and had a war record which included imprisonment at Colditz

Just Don Haxby and Maurice Kirk should be enough to get on with

The jury at Maurice's trial are probably wandering if they've strolled into a Monty Python sketch by mistake

Wynne

Re: A chip off the old block

J G Wray — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:00:34 GMT

Ah, alas for Horace people have been ignoring this excellent advice for two thousand years.

In the case of The Veterinary Saint there is no need to speak ill, only truth, and just a few which didn't make it into the book to give a perspective on the person and the recent past.

Regs

JGW

Re: A chip off the old block

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:14:34 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"]

Now, a new generation knows of MK. I have it mind to reveal some stories of another veterinary leg-end, one recently "canonised" posthumously in veterinary terms, in a heavily Bowdlerised book. Is there any market?

[/quote]

De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

Re: A chip off the old block

J G Wray — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:50:37 GMT

Ah, I fear I know far too little of Mr Storey-Pugh. Why don't you go first?

Regs

JGW

Re: A chip off the old block

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:07:34 GMT

Jonathan If you mean Don Haxby, why don't you write a compare and contrast type essay ? Peter Storey- Pugh is another you could include

Wynne

Re: A chip off the old block

J G Wray — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:25:38 GMT

JGW

Re: A chip off the old block

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:12:17 GMT

Niall You're probably right

Wynne

Re: A chip off the old block

Clive Ansell — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:07:46 GMT

I agree there is, and shouldn't be, no legal exemption for MK, but I doubt he poses a risk to the general public if the gun were confiscated. There is a shortage of prison places, and many of the early released, potentially dangerous murders, rapists and paedophiles would be better deserving of the place in the cell.

In one of his court appearances in Guernsey many years ago, he turned up dressed in a Nazi uniform. In another case, he carried out a citizens arrest on a barrister after the hearing for "contempt of court" . He is certainly a source of amusement.

Re: A chip off the old block

Niall Taylor — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:02:48 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]everyone (even MK ) is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and confiscating the machine gun should have been sufficient to protect the public.[/quote]

I wonder if he gave any thought to the possibility that something along the lines of "Gosh, you're right, I'm so sorry, I'll sort that out straight away" if uttered early in the proceedings might have resulted in a different outcome?

Cheers,

Niall

Re: A chip off the old block

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:24:07 GMT

I agree we can't have functional machine guns , in the hands of the public, so as you say "either the thing was deactivated or it wasn't "I suppose the reason I feel refusing bail was heavy handed is that everyone (even MK ) is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and confiscating the machine gun should have been sufficient to protect the public. If found guilty, then I would certainly agree with a lengthy prison sentence.

I googled his web-site yesterday, and he seems to be up to his usual antics in Court. He'll end up with an additional sentence for contempt if he isn't careful

Wynne

Re: A chip off the old block

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:25:32 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]I agree that locking him up for months on end, and refusing bail is a bit heavy handed[/quote]

It might seem so, but then we weren't in court, we didn't hear the evidence or the submissions opposing bail. We don't know.

As regards the offence: it has been illegal in this country for civilians to possess machine guns (unless deactivated) since round about 1930. Either the thing was deactivated or it wasn't. If it was deactivated, he is not guilty on that charge (but it was stupid of him to boast that it was not deactivated, which sounds a Kirk style thing to do). If it is not deactivated, it is thoroughly illegal and I have no sympathy whatsoever. Once again, Kirk reckons the law doesn't apply to him. (All right, we all feel that way sometimes perhaps, but only in minor matters usually). Incidentally, it may not have had ammunition with it but the 303 ammunition it takes is readily available.

It's a pretty poor argument that to preserve our engineering and military historic heritage (which I agree we should), a machine gun cannot even be deactivated, if it's to be owned by a private citizen. In any case, this particular one seems not to be entirely original, just partly original with various ''non-standard" bits of unknown origin tacked in.

And while we are on authenticity, that one doesn't seem particularly appropriate to attach to an authentic DH2. In the picture it looks like the infantry Lewis gun. That was indeed fitted to aircraft, but was almost immediately modified first unofficially and then officially by reduction or removal of the cooling jacket from he barrel.

Re: A chip off the old block

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:21:32 GMT

I agree that locking him up for months on end, and refusing bail is a bit heavy handed

Wynne

Re: A chip off the old block

Clive Ansell — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:04:57 GMT

It seems this current case is being blown out of all proportion. He sold a WW1 aircraft machine gun to a specialist RAF collector, not to a street drug dealer or to Osama Bin Laden. I can't see that he poses a threat to national security, and cannot really see why he is in prison.

Re: A chip off the old block

Laurence Webb — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:58:59 GMT

That's harassment! He should write something about that on his website.

Oh, hang on....

Re: A chip off the old block

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:52:59 GMT

2 further tales-possibly apocryphal Firstly, a complaint had been made to Royal College many years ago. His reply to the PIC letter asking for his side of the story was a Transit van full of box files, filled with illegible handwriting. No-one on PIC could be persuaded to take something like 6 months off to wade through it all, so the complaint was dropped !!!!!!. Also, when still a student , he borrowed his fathers plane, and dive -bombed the graduation Garden Party.Both sound incredible, but dropping in uninvited for tea with George Bush !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

His latest brush with authority has been to get arrested for selling an unlicenced WW1 machine gun. Maurice says it's deactivated, so doesn't need a licence. South Wales Police say not.

Wynne