Shot at dawn

The campaign to pardon those executed during the First World War has been a long one. Until now, the situation has been that whilst there is almost universal understanding of the relatives' wishes, the men were tried in the manner of their times for what they knew were serious disciplinary offences. I have no real understanding of this revisionist stance. If I had a forebear who was unjustly dealt with, I would find little benefit from a here and now recognition of that fact. How I feel is a matter for me alone; what others think is of no concern to me.

There were many who faced the fears and horrors in exactly the same situation as those who were shot. They did their duty. The ultimate duty of any soldier is to die; that is what makes their contract unique. We will not know whether the failure of one of those executed led to deaths of others who stuck to their contract.

I find it upsetting that this long line of reasoning is to be upset by the appointment of a politician who finds himself in a unique position to instruct his minions to propose grounds on which he may gain a personal victory. I don't know what was in the New Labour Manifesto about this. There are many other things more worthy and deserving of the time of his Ministry. However, the cloak he will wrap around himself as the Saviour of the Shot will attract votes. In the cess-pit that is politics, this is important.