Opinion Poll

Billy_Bishop · 5 January 1999, 03:54 AM

I really like the way this one is going.

VBR,

Al Lowe

5 January 1999, 09:34 AM

"I like the way this one is going."
But Al! The jury hasn't seen the evidence!

Billy_Bishop · 5 January 1999, 05:34 PM

What evidence?

6 January 1999, 09:39 AM

Exactly! What evidence? There isn't any!
(Cheap shot, I admit it.)

Barrett · 6 January 1999, 09:49 AM

As I recall, I'm the one who suggested this subject for a poll--serves me right! Actually, regarding a "jury" and "evidence," we would have to stipulate that all jurors read Phil Markham's OTF article and balance that against Al's info on the J.20 move of late May/early June 1917.
More specifically, narrowly, and lawyerly (yuk!), the question "Did Bishop deserve the VC?" is more easily answered than "Did Bishop raid an airdrome?" The answer is NO: Bishop clearly did NOT deserve the VC because it was presented in violation of the warrant requiring witnesses to the act, and evidently no other VCs in the 130-odd year history of the gong were ever presented under such peculiar situations.
OTOH: with VCs, I reckon that possession constitutes 10/10 of the law. Maybe more!

Billy_Bishop · 6 January 1999, 06:03 PM

Basing whether or not Bishop deserves the VC on the warrant controling award of the VC is a valid point, HOWEVER, with missing information on the award of Bishop's VC, we could be missing information that was presented by 3 independent witnesses, as called for in the warrant.

The reason I mention this is that as far as I've been able to determine, the announcement of the award for Bishop's VC took longer than any other awarded to a RFC/RNAS/RAF ace. And most likely, took the longest of any awarded during that war.

But I will only stipulate to the awards to other aces, as they are the only ones to which have pertinent data available here to make that statement.

It is my OPINION, that based on the amount of time, they likely gathered witnesses from some source who confirmed Bishop's attack.

Unfortunately, as pointed out in Markham's article those documents related to the VC award, other than the announcement of the award it's self appear to have been lost or destroyed. Consequently, we'll never know for sure. But I can't, I WON'T believe (until proven 100% otherwise) that the British Empire would suspend the rules for their highest award simply to create a hero.

I have to think that some bureaucrat in the PRO or where-ever decided that Bishop's reputation was beyond reproach and didn't need the corresponding documents to his VC award, thus destroying them to make space for some more deserving soul's records.

And if that isn't good enough, as Barrett said, possession is 10/10th's of the law.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Billy_Bishop · 7 January 1999, 11:17 AM

As a follow-up to my previous message, I recently found out from Mike Chapman, the owner of the VC Reference page, that 264 VC awards in WWI took longer than 70 days (about the time that Bishop's award announcement took)

So my previous statement still stands. Of all the ACES who received the VC, Bishop's took the longest from the time of the deed to the date of announcement.