Dead Men Risen: The death of Lieutenant Mark Evison

#1
Dead Men Risen: The death of Lieutenant Mark Evison - Telegraph

..'leading 15 of his men, plus four Afghan soldiers and an interpreterstruggling to get a proper signal on his Bowman radio in the middle of a firefight near Checkpoint Haji Alem'

8.46am, May 9th initial casualty report 'category C’
7 minutes later it was received at Brigade Headquarters
3 minutes later upgraded ‘Category B’, sent - failed to get through or was not passed up the chain of command
9am Apache on station 8 minutes after it had been called for pilot would not open fire because he feared killing civilians
34 minutes to extract casualty 450 metres to FOB
9.09am Chinook tasked, but it was too big to land inside
9.25 am, it was cancelled and a pair of American Pedro Black Hawks tasked instead
9.29am, two Pedro Black Hawks took off from Camp Bastion
Casualty experiencing massive bleeding for 49 minutes
9.39am final member of patrol back in FOB
9.47am Pedro made a ‘hot landing’ under Taliban fire another hovered firing 30mm rounds into enemy positions
33 seconds later lifted off
14 minutes to get back to Camp Bastion
10.03am casualty in operating theatre
1:23 minutes time from casualty being shot to arriving in Camp Bastion well outside the ‘golden hour’
3.55am local time pupils became fixed and dilated and a scan indicated he was brain dead
Casualty flown back to Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham, treatment book recorded details of more than 30 pints of blood
10.23am on 12 May parents turned off their son’s life-support machine

There was no helicopter available to take his close from his patrol base to Camp Bastion to bid farewell in Camp Bastion

At his inquest, however, the coroner was later to state he probably would have died despite the inexplicable helicopter delay.
 
#2
Dead Men Risen: Major Sean Birchall and the 'Afghan factor' - Telegraph

Apparently the MoD spent £150,000 of tax payers bunce on buying up the whole of the first print run of this book! They then had them pulped, which, we were told, took about 7 hours. 50 words were changed in the manuscript and it was then re-published - I heard the author discussing it on Radio 4 this morning on the way to work. ****ing extraordinary.

Dead Men Risen: The real reasons why the MoD wanted to stop my book – Telegraph Blogs

Dead Men Risen: The Welsh Guards and the Real Story of Britain's War in Afghanistan: Amazon.co.uk: Toby Harnden: Books
 

jim24

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
Yep, I wonder if the unedited original version might end up on the net somewhere....
We have been trying to get one for over a week but Toby and the publishers are tied into a very hard confidentiality agreement with the MOD, the ARRSE book club has been trying hard on your behalf, I'm hoping to have a meeting with Toby later this week I might have to revert to alcohol and see what I can blag
 
#5
With only 50 words changed, it might be difficult to spot the difference!

From TH's account in the Spectator, it looks as though the MoD will be bearing a grudge over this for some time!

"If the preoccupation with a gagging clause was an indication of the MoD’s priorities, then their deletion of a line in the settlement agreement made clear their feelings. An undertaking to deal with Quercus and the author ‘on a fair and transparent basis’ in the future was unacceptable to the MoD. Well, at least there was some honesty and consistency in that."

Pulped by the MoD | The Spectator
 
#7
In other words you want to try and blag a book to put out details which the MOD is clear will not only put our own troops at risk, but could also risk UK international relations and cause major problems for a lot of people.

In what possible way does this help support the troops? I've seen editing processes for other books and its not about CYA, its about protecting national security to safeguard people on the front line. Its done by experienced forces people who know what they are talking about.

Why do you want to put people on the front line at risk? What do you think will be achieved by this?
 

jim24

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
With only 50 words changed, it might be difficult to spot the difference!

From TH's account in the Spectator, it looks as though the MoD will be bearing a grudge over this for some time!

"If the preoccupation with a gagging clause was an indication of the MoD’s priorities, then their deletion of a line in the settlement agreement made clear their feelings. An undertaking to deal with Quercus and the author ‘on a fair and transparent basis’ in the future was unacceptable to the MoD. Well, at least there was some honesty and consistency in that."

Pulped by the MoD | The Spectator
the book club actually had the story before the Spectator
 
#9
In other words you want to try and blag a book to put out details which the MOD is clear will not only put our own troops at risk, but could also risk UK international relations and cause major problems for a lot of people.

In what possible way does this help support the troops? I've seen editing processes for other books and its not about CYA, its about protecting national security to safeguard people on the front line. Its done by experienced forces people who know what they are talking about.

Why do you want to put people on the front line at risk? What do you think will be achieved by this?

The MoD approved the book initially and then asked Quercus to pull it at the last moment. TH's point is that that anything relevant to OPSEC was removed for the first run. The implication is that the major rewrite requested by the MoD at the last moment was more to do with saving political embarrassment about an under resourced operation.

TH's note in the Telegraph left me with the impression that the excerpts that were previewed in the Telegraph were amongst those that the MoD wanted removed.
 

jim24

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
In other words you want to try and blag a book to put out details which the MOD is clear will not only put our own troops at risk, but could also risk UK international relations and cause major problems for a lot of people.

In what possible way does this help support the troops? I've seen editing processes for other books and its not about CYA, its about protecting national security to safeguard people on the front line. Its done by experienced forces people who know what they are talking about.

Why do you want to put people on the front line at risk? What do you think will be achieved by this?
If anything it has only been pulped to to save the face of the lying cnut who lied in the house of commons, got nothing to do with troops safety only saving Gordon Browns Arse for telling lies and causing the deaths of better men the him the cnut
 
#13
Contrast and compare with wikileaks?
 
#14
Listen to the article on the Radio this morning: BBC iPlayer - Today: 14/03/2011 and scroll forward to the 2hr 16 minute 34 second mark.

Apparently the pulping was done so the Estonians wouldn't get a cob on!
 
#16
I didn't mean the information contained but the various posters reactions to whether "secrets that might aid our enemies" should be published or not.

The definition of what information should be kept secret being set by the same department in both cases of course.
 

jim24

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
Listen to the article on the Radio this morning: BBC iPlayer - Today: 14/03/2011 and scroll forward to the 2hr 16 minute 34 second mark.

Apparently the pulping was done so the Estonians wouldn't get a cob on!
only part of the reason

"The truth is that the MoD was really motivated by politics and by embarrassment.

Politics in that it wanted to avoid a certain Nato ally pulling out of Helmand.

Embarrassment that the book reveals what happens to soldiers when there are not enough helicopters to keep troops off IED-infested roads.

Embarrassment that the results of the MOD procurement system failing to supply the right counter-IED equipment (which other nations were able to buy off the shelf) are shown.

Embarrassment that the book details how Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, one of the finest Army officers of his generation, lacked the equipment and manpower to do the job the Welsh Guards had been told to do and believed that British strategy was flawed and Operation Panther’s Claw was misconceived.""
 
#18
If anything it has only been pulped to to save the face of the lying cnut who lied in the house of commons, got nothing to do with troops safety only saving Gordon Browns Arse for telling lies and causing the deaths of better men the him the cnut
You just can't lay it all at Brown's door, the MOD both Civil Service and Military must shoulder their fair share of the blame.
 

jim24

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
Major (Retd) John Thorneloe, 88, Lt Col Thorneloe’s father, said recently:

Too bad if it makes uncomfortable reading for the Ministry of Defence and Her Majesty’s Government.


I ain't making this up I have a very good source,the author

And Tomorrow should be very interesting when both the Book and the Telegraph hit the shops
 
#20
"The MoD approved the book initially and then asked Quercus to pull it at the last moment. TH's point is that that anything relevant to OPSEC was removed for the first run. The implication is that the major rewrite requested by the MoD at the last moment was more to do with saving political embarrassment about an under resourced operation"

As I have repeatedly noted - there is, I believe, a very good reason why the decision was taken at the last minute and its nothing to do with MOD conspiracies or incompetence. If its what I strongly suspect it is, then its nothing to do with political embarrasment - despite the conspiracy theories to the contrary. I suspect if people knew why the decision was really taken, then bizarrely they might actually approve, or at the least understand.

As for the author - if his delusions of vanity are convincing him that the MOD is somehow quaking in its boots then thats his ego for you. There is no conspiracy, there have been dozens of books on Afghanistan, many of which have been hugely damning. They've not been banned, they've not been covered up, they've often caused acute embarrassment for the UK MOD but they've still been published. This is just another book, much of which isn't exactly new for anyone who knows how HERRICKs gone on, and those of us who have been there will doubtless recognise many familiar issues.

The MOD doesnt do censorship to save peoples careers. If it did, then a lot of HERRICK and TELIC related books would never have been published. This is what I find so frustrating about the whole saga - there is no conspiracy, no cover up theory, no effort to try to protect seniors. If there was, then the book would never have been written. A genuine problem has occurred, which has meant a rewrite for a bloody good reason. I'm sick of people trying to make out there is some kind of evil conspiracy on the 5th floor to prevent Afghan bad news emerging- if there is, then I've yet to see any evidence of it.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top