Hello Paul,
Tedious or otherwise as this ding-dong may be for others, it is true that important new material is being revealed............... or obviously held back, on this subject and a is valuable research work in progress on what actually happened in 1941.
The purpose of this discussion and several associated is either to convince readers that "a coupe of cowards" were identified by their actions by the senior cadre of the RN and their actions subsequently covered up or that two would-be "revelatory writers" have built a Ziggurat of Supposition relying on flimsy evidence based on a hazy recollection of an elderly officer.
We live in an age where access to the public ear for "false News" and spurious Conspiracy Theories has never been easier If you have opinions on the thread subject, please share them. Many have visited, contributed for a while, realised the unreasonability of those spinning this yarn, and after receiving a few minor insults departed, or maintained a watching brief to see what new developments may come forth. I am sadly less sensible.
We are all so very fortunate that Jose Rico hosts this enormous website, allowing forum discussions which vary from the serious factual, like this, to the unashamedly "fan" elements within various threads. Forum members can contribute or ignore, as takes their fancy.
Hello Alberto,
The minutes of meetings come in a variety of degrees of detail, however, things that are not mentioned at all, like any contemplation of any disciplinary action against certain officers can hardly be
well understandable for everybody
They are simply
not there.
Wrong !
Pound letter to Alexander includes intentionally Barnes position
Pound's communication contains two elements, his content and a simple quote from another document. His content only concerns Leach, following what Brockman mistakenly surmised, and Barnes' quote includes both because two months earlier when Churchill's ire was maybe still active, Pound asked Barnes to lay praise on thickly. By the time Brockman contacted him Pound had clearly forgotten W-W was criticised at all. Not surprising since he still held both officers in high regard.
Capt.Leach, Sir Henry, former First Sea Lord, believed cynically
Since his father was actually given decorations by Pound, who was supposed in a 20 year old recollection to have wanted him Court Martialled, I expect Sir Henry took the pragmatic approach over "milk that was not even spilled". We have already discussed Sir Henry's own bullish attitude to Government interference in naval matters when he was First Sea Lord.
HE DID INTENTIONALLY HIDE INFO
Please calm yourself! There is no absolutely need for shouting.
I gave you a
just SYNTHESIS, well understandable for everybody
early last year, of these trifling bureaucratic memos. The idea that the War Cabinet was still interested in the performance or alleged under-performance of two officers four whole months after the action is laughable. No wonder Alexander's memo was stamped on by Churchill's underling. W-W and Leach was a sideline to Denmark Straits which was a sideline to the Bismarck affair, which was sideline to Crete, which was a sideline to the conduct of the War, which was a factor the running of the UK.
This year I have given you the 31st letter with its clear denial of a Court Martial threat, only Board of Inquiry, never before quoted by any authority, whilst you still withhold the 1962 letter to Roskill. The Unaligned, like Paul, can judge who is being free and fair with information and who is withholding with a view to publishing this scurrilous attack .
All the best
wadinga
this is said by a person who was quibbling about what was the purpose of minutes and who was INCORRECTLY saying that minutes are detailed descriptions of the discussion. They are just SYNTHESIS, well understandable for everybody as they apparently were for Pound, Alexander and Churchill.... 
