|
Mr W Leitch. Mr Andrew Robathan MP. Deans. Livingston Ministry of Defence. EH54 8NE. Floor 5 Zone B Main Building Whitehall. London. SW1A 2HB.
Mr, Andrew Robathan, MP. 14/05/2011.
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT PUBLIC PETITION 1312
In writing to you as I am, a copy of this communication is being addressed to Prime Minister, David Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, and Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, Sir Gus. O’Donnell, for their attention.
Within a communication addressed to Minister Alex Neil, MSP dated 15th June 2010 ref: MSU/04/04/02/12/cc., you wrote the following, which I now quote for its terms therein; * “You wrote to the then Defence Secretary on 18 March 2010 on behalf of the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee about the ‘Yangtze 1949’ clasp to the Naval General Service Medal (1915) (NGSM), and the claim to that award by veterans who served in the destroyer HMS CONCORD. Frank McVeety MSP, the Convener of the Scottish Parliaments Public Petitions Committee, to whom I am copying this letter, also wrote on the same issue and I hope that he will take this as a reply to his letter as well.
As a result of the petition and the concerns that have been raised by naval veterans over a number of years, a review has been conducted by the Department into the institution of the ‘Yangtze 1949’ clasp to the NGSM. I enclose a copy.
You will see from this that, quite apart from the long standing Government position of successive administrations that no consideration can be given to reviewing medals that were instituted many years previously, there appears to be a clear reason why HMS CONCORD was not included in the list of ships and units that are eligible for the clasp therefore see no reason for reversing that decision. I recognise that this will be a disappointment for the veterans concerned; but this does not, of course detract from CONCORD’s service on the night of 30/31st July1949 or the respect in which her crew deserve to be held.” * Unquote.
For anyone wishing to view the terms within the ‘review’ that Mr Robathan, make’s reference to, the following will take you directly to it on the internet: - http://www.parliament.uk/s3/committees/petitionsubmissions/sub-10/10-PE1312e.pdf
Where, Mr Robathan, within the concluding paragraph of your communication quoted above you are seen to state; “there appears to be a clear reason why HMS CONCORD was not included in the list of ships and units that are eligible for the clasp therefore see no reason for reversing the decision.” Yet in stating such you do not elaborate upon what you are deeming to be, a clear reason.
Now being that you Mr Robathan, whilst purporting to perform your duties were the one that submitted the review, which was compiled by the Naval Secretary (Honours and Awards) S01, to the Scottish Parliaments Public Petitions Committee, ‘the buck’ to put it mildly, for the terms within that review, which is now on record stops at you, and as such, I am now going to quote word verbatim from the review that you submitted to the Scottish Parliaments Public Petitions Committee, items 11 and 12, I quote; · 11. Examination of T300/71 shows that, the HD Committee were not invited to consider whether HMS CONCORD should be included as one of the units whose personnel would be eligible for the medal. This is central to the veterans to the veterans’ claim that HMS CONCORD’s part in HMS AMETHYST’s escape on the night of 30/31 July 1949 was deliberately covered up and this alleged cover up led to HMS CONCORD being omitted from the list of units that were specified as qualifying for the medal.
· 12. This allegation is not sustainable. As the HD papers show, eligibility for the medal was based on actual risk and rigour experienced by those ships and units that were involved in the actions on 20 and 21 April 1949, and in recognition of HMS AMETHYST’s incarceration in the river between 20 and 31 July 1949. It is a matter of historical fact in accounts of HMS AMETHYST’s escape down river on the night of 30/31 July when she was met by HMS CONCORD early in the morning of 31 July, that HMS CONCORD was not subjected to the same degree of actual risk and rigour as that which the other ships and units experienced in April 1949. In fairness, this has never been alleged.” *Unquote.
Mr Robathan, note the terms within that item; It is a matter of historical fact in accounts of HMS AMETHYST’s escape down river on the night of 30/31 July when she was met by HMS CONCORD early in morning of 31 July, that HMS CONCORD was not subjected to the same degree of actual risk and rigour as that which the other ships and units experienced in April 1949.
Now note this historical account of events, taken from H.M.S. Concord’s log: -
July 27 0900 sailed from Hong Kong with COSSACK, COMUS and CONSTANCE Night exercises with JAMAICA. 2200 Detached by Capt D8 to act independently.
July 28 In Yangtze Entrance
July 29 0555 Hoisted White Ensigns at both Yard Arms 1315 Duty part of the watch employed in getting ammunition up 2000 ½ hrs notice for steam
July 30 0015 Reverted to 2 hrs notice for steam
July 30 0740 Gun crews to drill 2125 10 mins notice for steam 2132 Anchises passed ahead 7 cables under tow by Caroline Muller
July 31 THE DAY
Aug 1 0115 Exchanged identification with COSSACK 2355 Anchored in Saddle Islands
Aug 2 1100 Cleared Lower Deck. Captain addressed Ships Company
Now from the terms within item 11 in page two of this communication, we are being shown that the HD Committee were not invited to consider whether H.M.S. Concord should be included as one of the units whose personnel would be eligible for the medal.
Then in item 12 we have that pathetic excuse touching on risk and rigour being brought into the equation, Well lets see from a news item that I found among the papers of the Commander-in-Chief, Far East Station, Admiral Sir Patrick Brind, what he had to say in reporting the, THE FULL FACTS of the incident to the news media, from the item titled THE FULL FACTS, I now quote; * “Subsequently, when the Amethyst lay in the river awaiting a safe conduet, Colonel Kang, the representative of General Yuan, Commander-in-Chief of the district, told Lieutenant Commander Kerans that his ship would be destroyed immediately she moved.
He constantly threatened and abused and made it clear that the granting of safe conduet was conditional on admission by me that the British were guilty of intruding into the river and we were responsible for the whole incident. This, of course, I could not possibly accept.
During the three months in which Amethyst was detained she was allowed to buy fresh vegetables from local contractors, but in July she was getting desperately short. There seemed no prospect of replenishment awaiting at Shanghai ever being allowed to reach the ship in spite of the repeated requests. As a result of this deadlock, I decided to authorise an endeavour to escape in spite of the risk.”*Unquote.
As a result of this deadlock, I decided to authorise an endeavour to escape, in spite of the risk. In other wards the Commander-in-Chief, Far East Station, Admiral Sir Patrick Brind, in making that statement was announcing to the world via the news media that he set up a covert mission to bring about Amethyst’s escape, ‘in spite of the risk’.
At the time of that covert mission being set up, China’s Yangtze River, was a war zone, with a 12-mile exclusion zone surrounding the rivers estuary, and as H.M.S. Concord’s log shows, H.M.S. Concord, entered the Yangtze River on the 28 July 1949.
On page one of the Review, that you Mr Robathan, submitted to the Scottish Parliaments Petitions Committee, under the heading, ‘The institution of the ‘Yangtze 1949’ clasp to the NGSM, at item 2 it is stated, “The institution of a medal is an administrative process albeit one predicted on the requirement to recognise operational activity. In brief, the Commander-in-Chief in a theatre of operations, almost certainly partly guided by precedent, will make a submission that the risk and rigour2 faced by personnel under his command should be recognised by the institution of medalic recognition.
Within footnote 2 on page two of the review, it is stated; “Risk and Rigour” is an imprecise term but one that is used by medal administrative authorities to define the risk to life and limb exerted by enemy forces as well as the environmental rigour and exigencies of Service life on operations where this is assessed to be significantly above that expected to be tolerated by UK Armed Forces personnel.
Prime Minister, Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Clegg, Gus O’Donnell, Sir, might I suggest to each of you, ask your self’s, how is it that Mr Robathan, a veteran with 15 years military service behind him never spotted the environmental risk and rigour of the covert operation H.M.S. Concord’s ships compliment were subjected to between the dates 28th July 1949 to 31st July 1949.
Mr Robathan, It has not escaped my notice that on the 26th April 1949 when Jim Murphy (East Kilbride Labour) put forward his question to ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the review of the rules governing the award of military medal will report. You Mr Robathan replied; The Government are undertaking a review of the rules governing the awarding of military medals inline with its commitment in the programme for government. The review is currently with the Prime Minister and deputy Prime Minister for final evaluation. I hope to announce the conclusions of the review shortly after Easter.
Well if the review is currently with the Prime Minister and Deputy, Prime Minister for final evaluation, then for the benefit of all veterans I trust it will be nothing like the review you submitted to the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee concerning the H.M.S. Concord’s role as a unit in the (1949 Yangtze Campaign Awards System).
To conclude, Mr Robathan, give some thought to standing down from the office you now hold, as one thing that’s for certain is, Prime Minister, Cameron is going to be called upon to evaluate your position, being that you are a foreigner to truth. Sincerely William Leitch.
BEING ATTACHED NAVAL SIGNALS
This photograph of H.M.S. Amethyst was taken as she passed H.M.S. Concord at 0530 the location known as the Woosung Forts where Concord, was at that time covering her. Secured to the Jack-Staff and A. gun is the awning that was used as an aid in an effort to disguise the ships silhouette. “In a fashion that tall's another story.” However from that time and location both ships proceeded down river at a 19 knot, nautical speed. From time to time because of the Course being navigated the speed of the ships fluctuated from the speed of 19 knots to 11 and 10 knots, the lesser economical speed allowing for mine detection.
The above photo of Amethyst at 1150 hrs as she was about to drop anchor in preparation to receive Concord, coming along side. Hanging over the ships side is the canvas with the Union Jack that had been painted on it. That canvas was upon the order of (Lt Commander B.M.S. Skinner RN) Captain of the Amethyst, un-furled over the ships side on the 20th April 1949 as shells fired from gun batteries on the Communist held North bank of the river, were fired over and around the Amethyst, without causing damage to the ship or injury to the ships compliment.
Here above you have a photograph that was taken at 1205 hrs as can be seen Concord is alongside of Amethyst, and the land fall in the background is one of the Saddle islands, within the estuary of the Yangtze River. At 1212 hrs Concord rang off main engines, with two hours notice for steam. Transferred stores and discharged 147 tons of fuel oil to Amethyst. When Concord hove to alongside Amethyst, the Amethyst only had 7 tons of fuel oil left. At 1800 hrs Lt, T.J.D. Grant a navigation officer was drafted from Concord, to Amethyst on temporary loan, as was, 1 signalman and 1 telegraphst. At 2000 hrs Concord slipped from alongside Amethyst. And in company set course for Hong Kong. A short while later, outside of the 12 mile exclusion zone, both ships were met by H.M.S. Cossack (Captain D) it was at that juncture that (Captain D) ordered Concord to proceed on patrol leaving Cossack, to escort Amethyst back to Hong Kong. Concords logbook was taken out of commission and replaced.
And here, for its terms therein, is a copy of a telegram that was sent out by no lesser a person than His Majesty’s Ambassador, Sir Ralph Stevenson, who was stationed at the British Embassy, Nanking. This telegram along with other naval papers, signals and letters relating to the Amethyst Incident, were deposited within the Churchill College Archives by Rear Admiral Sir David Scott, who at the time of the incident was Flag-Lieutenant to the Commander-in-Chief, Far East Station, Admiral Sir Patrick Brind.
There within that telegram, for all to see, in many ways,
is the work of a Judas, that is seen to be using his office to influence
others; not to let it be known that H.M.S. Concord, entered Chinese
territorial waters, when in fact it was within his knowledge that the ship
was ordered into Chinas territorial waters by no lesser an authority than
the British, Commander-in-Chief, Far East Station, Admiral Sir Patrick
Brind. Prime Minister, Cameron, you will no doubt be familiar with the adage, Those Who Forget Or Ignore History Are Distained To Repeat It. Well on the 27th July 2010 your Secretary of State For Defence in a letter ref: D/Sof S/LF MC02752/2019. To Grame Morrice MP, within that letter he is seen to state; “HMS CONCORD did not go into action at any time during the period that the ship was deployed into the River Yangtze to assist HMS AMETHYST.”
From History, it is a known fact that in July 1949 the River Yangtze was a (WAR-ZONE). A historical fact that your Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Fox, was either ignorant of or one that he deliberately omitted to mention, in that, by the very fact that HMS CONCORD was deployed into the River Yangtze to assist HMS AMETHYST on the 28th July 1949, the “Risk and rigour” attached to that deployment, can only be assessed, to be, significantly above that which might be routinely expected to be tolerated by UK Armed Forces personnel.
A further matter, that is of importance, on page one at item 3 of the Review, which Mr Robathan, MP, submitted to the Scottish Parliaments, Public Petitions Committee, the Naval Secretary (Honours and Awards) SO1 is seen to state; “HMS CONCORD had entered the Yangtze river very early on the morning of 31 July” when in fact Concord was deployed into the River Yangtze on the 28 July. He is also seen to state; “It has been suggested that mobile Chinese batteries were deployed on the river banks further down downstream and that the two ships remained at risk during their passage downriver beyond Woosung. Whether this can be verified is not known but, as with the fort at Woosung, the ships do not seem to have been detected, or at least, were not engaged at any time before they reached safety.”
The Review, to which I’ve referred, was compiled by a, Mr. S. J. Spear, a civil servant, titled, Naval Secretary (Honours and Awards) SO1. Navy Command HQ, in May 2010 and at the time of compiling that review, Mr S. J, Spear, as the Naval Secretary (Honour and Awards) SO1 had access to a copy of a Naval Signal which the Commander-in-Chief, Far East Station caused to be transmitted to H.M.S. Concord. 30/07/1949. The signal read: - TO_ CONCORD. FROM C-IN-C.AFLOAT. MY301801. NO RECENT INTELLIGENCE OF BATTERIES. THEY USED TO EXTEND INTERMITTENTLY FROM WOOSUNG TO KIOTOAN BEACON. WOOSUNG FORTS HAVE HEAVY GUNS. 301808
For almost 63 year now, partly due to the Official Secrets Act, the Ships compliment of H.M.S. Concord, have been silenced. Today in this present day and age, May 2011 there exists 24 veterans, who served on-board H.M.S. Concord, and all are capable of relating to the ships role in the Yangtze Incident 28th to 31st July 1949.
These veterans are the eyewitnesses, to the event so to speak of, the people who are capable of deponing to the incident or events that occurred; yet they have not been called upon to do so by any of the UK Government, administrative sources, and that includes the present Coalition Government. ***************************************
|
