MoD send mum reminder of sons Iraq death

#1
Given Rose Gentle's very public stance since the death of her son, I find this story a little surprising.

23 March 2007
MOD SEND MUM REMINDER OF SON'S IRAQ DEATH
EXCLUSIVE

By Keith Mcleod

THE grieving mum of a Scots soldier killed in Iraq has been sent his Army dog tags.. still stained with his blood.




Daily Record
 
#2
A prize fcuk up - someone should be had for this.
 
#3
Now I know this woman has paid with her sons life and therefore has more rights than many to bitch but FFS at least have a point.
She also demanded that the MoD hand over all her son's effects. But she says the Army repeatedly refused to give up Gordon's personal dog tags, claiming that they were "evidence".

Rose asked a friend of the family to keep asking officials for the tags.

Eventually, the bureaucrats relented and handed them over. But Rose said: "My friend was horrified when they arrived.

"He told me they were covered in blood and asked if I still wanted them.

"I didn't know what to think, but I said I still wanted them."

Gordon's little sister Maxine, 17, can't bear to even look at the tags. But Rose said: "In a way, the blood makes me feel close to Gordon, and close to the time and place where he lost his life."
Either she is shocked about them being covered in blood or she is not, you can't have both.

Complete sensationalist non story. Like I said she has more rights to moan than most but she just sounds like she's whining for the hell of it.
 
#4
I didn't think that dog tags were personal effects, in fact I'm pretty sure that it's not standard to release them... it must have been the high profile stance followed by a fcuk up.

It's not that I'm insensitive but I do have a problem with the article... it smacks of dodgy half truths so I don't know what to believe. I'm not in the know about this particular incident but

<<Two years after Gordon's death, an Army board of inquiry admitted that his Land Rover wasn't fitted with hi-tech equipment that could have saved him. >> Remove could. Insert might but very probably wouldn't.

I hope people aren't feeding her the line that a bit of equipment might have saved him and it was all down to incompetence. ECM is dodgy at the best of times and new models and updates come out a few times a year.
I hazzard a guess that he died because he was very unlucky. RIP.

If people are winding mum up into this... leave her be.
 
#5
I suspect a lot of people are priming Mrs Gentle. She seems a genuine soul and is entitled to feel pissed off at the fact the CoC couldn't organise the kit that would at least have improved her son's chances. However, the Scottish Socialist Party (of Tommy Sheridan fame) have been extremely prominent since his death. I'm tempted to wonder how many times they popped round for tea before her son was killed.

They are the ones who came up with the 'economic conscript' label to describe Gordon and the other lads, and they've also been campaigning hard to stop RRTs visiting schools in deprived areas. 'Coz we all know, nobody from a poor background ever got anything good from joining up.

I can't remember ID tags ever being classed as personal effects before. Like MOD90s, they are Crown property I'd always thought. That's why you get charged for losing them.
 
#6
Of course, whatever Rose says shes justified to say it. She lost a son, which is tragic under any circumstance. Just rather than being stabbed by some scum bag or killed in a Road accident, he was killed in Iraq which was sheer bad luck. Wrong place, wrong time.

I dont agree with everyting she says, such as Gordon wasnt long out of training, when he went, and shouldnt have been there. It doesnt always matter how experiened you are, alot of sncos have been killed in Iraq. If you go back to 1982, Lt Col Jones , CO 2 Para, was killed, which ihaving a CO killed is unheard of in modern day conflicts.

However, it was insensitive to offer her the dogtags, but mistakes will happen. Rose Gentle understandably will always be against the war and despite her tragic loss, I wish her the best.
 
#7
Ditto.

The only personal effects that he would have had were the things he owned.

His uniform and other equipment are not his.

His hat, belt etc. may have been given over at the funeral. But dog tags aren't personal.

Mrs Gentle, as I have said before, is being used by people who really don't care that much for her, but they will use her to achieve their aims.

They would have prompted her to be upset if the dog tags had been sterilised.
 
#8
I disagree it was insensitive to offer her the dog tags because they didn't, she asked for them and against normal procedures she got them.

It's tragic that her son died but he was a grown man and simply unlucky in the fortunes of war - this was no ones fault other than the person who detonated the device and we'll probably never know who that was.

She's earned the right to moan as you say but at least have something to moan about or it just sounds like whining and dilutes her message.
 
#9
BaldricksBullet said:
I didn't think that dog tags were personal effects, in fact I'm pretty sure that it's not standard to release them... it must have been the high profile stance followed by a fcuk up.

It's not that I'm insensitive but I do have a problem with the article... it smacks of dodgy half truths so I don't know what to believe. I'm not in the know about this particular incident but

<<Two years after Gordon's death, an Army board of inquiry admitted that his Land Rover wasn't fitted with hi-tech equipment that could have saved him. >> Remove could. Insert might but very probably wouldn't.

I hope people aren't feeding her the line that a bit of equipment might have saved him and it was all down to incompetence. ECM is dodgy at the best of times and new models and updates come out a few times a year.
I hazzard a guess that he died because he was very unlucky. RIP.

If people are winding mum up into this... leave her be.

Have a glance at this to know more. The words were chosen very carefully.

Other than that, I agree with the sentiment and that of the other posters.
The article tries to have it both ways and I have little doubt that Rose - and others within MFAW - have been subject to an element of manipulation by those with political agendas, rather than just concern for the bereaved. Still, she has suffered a tragic loss, and has decided to deal with it in this way, as she is entitled to do so.

The Inquest is due fairly soon, so expect some more publicity on the topic in due course.
 
#10
The Daily Record said:
Eventually, the bureaucrats relented and handed them over. But Rose said: "My friend was horrified when they arrived.


"He told me they were covered in blood and asked if I still wanted them.


"I didn't know what to think, but I said I still wanted them."
Not much of a surprise when a civil servant / MOD type tells you they are blood stained.

I would bet that had they washed them then she would be up in arms that they had sterilised "evidence".

I hate to say it as she's a grieving mum but, while its a tradgy it's hardly unusual for soldiers to die in Iraq, and I don't remember her being quite so vocal before her sons tragic death.

While she has my up most sympathy I feel she is being used by the Scottish Socialist Party purely to gain a few more votes.
 
#11
Rose Gentle actually asked for her sons dog tags. As they were not part of her son's possessions a new set were ordered in order to satisfy her demand. Unless there was some sort of mix up I am not sure how they therefore could have been bloodstained.
 
#12
Gun_Empty said:
Rose Gentle actually asked for her sons dog tags. As they were not part of her son's possessions a new set were ordered in order to satisfy her demand. Unless there was some sort of mix up I am not sure how they therefore could have been bloodstained.
That's very interesting.

If this can be substantiated it suggests, a la f*ckwith (sorry, Piers Morgan), a created non-story.

Mrs Gentle is being taken for a ride by people with larger agendas than the personal catastrophe of her sons death.
 
#13
Gun_Empty said:
Rose Gentle actually asked for her sons dog tags. As they were not part of her son's possessions a new set were ordered in order to satisfy her demand. Unless there was some sort of mix up I am not sure how they therefore could have been bloodstained.
Is this so? I thought the story sounded utterly bizarre - I simply could not believe that PS4(A) could allow anything like this to happen to anyone, let alone in this case.

Whilst certainly possible (and without going into unnecessary detail), it seemed a little questionable in any case that the tags could have become as bloodstained as shown on the front page of the Daily Record.

Thank you for putting my mind at rest.
 
#15
Saw it in the paper today. I think this was just genuine incompetance from the army. Unless it was his unit (3 para) that actually wrote to 'him', if so thats even worse
 
#16
The Inquest is due fairly soon, so expect some more publicity on the topic in due course.
Building up the publicity prior to the Coroner's Inquest no doubt. Watch the puppet strings twang then. Its very sad in the morose sort of way, but untruths and manufactured stories is what The Record live on.
 
#17
armies said:
Saw it in the paper today. I think this was just genuine incompetance from the army. Unless it was his unit (3 para) that actually wrote to 'him', if so thats even worse
I suspect it was a computer generated letter from records and while insensitive hardly anyones fault.
 
#18
Ord_Sgt said:
armies said:
Saw it in the paper today. I think this was just genuine incompetance from the army. Unless it was his unit (3 para) that actually wrote to 'him', if so thats even worse
I suspect it was a computer generated letter from records and while insensitive hardly anyones fault.
No it was direct from the CO 3 Para :frustrated:
 
#19
The reason I said it may have came direct from his unit ( 3 para)..was because a capt from the regt who knew the particular soldier, apologised to the family by phone and letters. If it was the army at Glasgow that wrote the letter, 3 para wouldnt necessarily know about it.

Regardless, a mistake which im sure the CO would be embarrassed about.
 
#20
kennys-go-nad said:
Ord_Sgt said:
armies said:
Saw it in the paper today. I think this was just genuine incompetance from the army. Unless it was his unit (3 para) that actually wrote to 'him', if so thats even worse
I suspect it was a computer generated letter from records and while insensitive hardly anyones fault.
No it was direct from the CO 3 Para :frustrated:
No it wasn't - if you read between the lines, remember its the scum reporting here and they are not known for their ability to report the truth - it was a standard letter but the recruiting officer has put his hands up and taken responsibility.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top