Fouund the following in the Daily Telegraph today. No doubt someone is trying to rehash this old debt. Hot-headed, possibly. Brave, definitely The best-known Victoria Cross award of the post-war era was surrounded by controversy from the earliest days and questioned at the highest levels of the military, newly-released documents have revealed. Lt Col Herbert Jones, universally known simply as 'H', was awarded the VC for charging Argentine positions defending the settlement of Goose Green during the first land battle of the Falklands conflict. Lt Col Herbert Jones He died in the act, but his men, the 2nd Bn Parachute Regiment (2 Para), went on to take all of their objectives against heavy odds. Some time later, authors and historians began to report doubts about the award, suggesting that his actions were ill-judged and rash, much to the anger of his friends and many former comrades. But files show that even by the time the first recommendations for medals were received in London, less than six weeks after the final recapture of the Falklands, these doubts were already circulating. The VC is awarded only on the recommendation to the Queen by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary and they act only on the recommendation of the VC committee for the relevant service. This committee is made up of three senior officers and the deputy permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence. In turn, they act on the recommendations made through the chain of command, when senior officers can offer various levels of support for an award, from simply recommending them to strongly, or very strongly recommending them. The new papers show that Lt Col Jones's citation was "very strongly recommended" by the overall commander of Land Forces for the campaign. But his superior, the Task Force commander Adml Sir John Fieldhouse, had given it "only" a recommendation. The files also show that the committees considered awarding him a posthumous Military Cross instead. Papers composed by or for Lt Gen Sir Roland Guy, the Military Secretary of the Army and secretary to the VC committee, give an insight into why this may have happened. Sir Roland wrote to his colleagues about Lt Col Jones on July 24, 1982: "It can be argued that [his] action was reckless and that at a critical moment in the attack he needlessly risked his life and showed a lack of judgment rather than conspicuous bravery. "It is clear from the citation, however, that his action, which epitomises the determination, drive and offensive spirit which exemplified his leadership of the Battalion, was committed at what was the critical and pivotal moment of the battle; that its effect upon the enemy and his own battalion was decisive and that such action was necessary at that moment to break the stalemate which had already lasted an hour or more." Sir Roland did not include in his recommendation the remarks of his deputy, who had written: "The fact is that Jones's single-minded determination to get on, to close with and destroy the enemy so inspired his own battalion that they went to achieve a feat of arms which defied all accepted military theory. "It set the tenor for subsequent British land operations and gave the enemy a marked sense of inferiority in combat. There is no doubt that his VC, if approved, will also, inseparably, be 2 Para's VC." A similar approach had already been taken by a tri-service committee set up specially by the MoD "to adjudicate on overall standards [inserted] & to monitor the number of awards by grades to each service" arising from the conflict. They wrote of Lt Col Jones: "His was considered to be the key action at a moment of stalemate which probably unlatched the gate to further momentum and ultimate success. "There could be a view that his action was hot-headed and ill-judged but this did not detract from the conspicuous bravery he showed." Maj Gen [then Brig] Julian Thompson, his commanding officer, said: "In my opinion, a commanding officer does occasionally have to put his life on the line. I do not in any way think H was doing the wrong thing when he died. "I know that he was an impatient man, but that does not in any way detract from what he did." He told The Telegraph: "I think it was perfectly fair of them to describe that as 2 Para's VC. They were given a bloody awful job by me and were given no support and they won that battle with no support." Major Chris Keeble, then the executive officer of 2 Para, who took command when Lt Col Jones died, said of his commander's "reckless" charge: "At that moment we had to get going to sustain the momentum. "There is no question about it, it was a horrible, beastly battle and our momentum had to be sustained. "It was the first land battle of the campaign and it really mattered. Things had not gone well at sea. We needed a victory both militarily and politically. We needed to break the enemy's will. "It's summed up in the vignette of H's action. This is virtue and integrity that is at stake. "It's not performance management. It's valour. I know we live in an age of performance management, but this is a completely different lens we are looking through. "This is a man living up to what he stood for, for what the battalion stood for, for what the Army stood for."