It would be difficult to mention the Court Martial attempt since it happened (if it happened at all) after the period covered by the dispatches. None of the other stupid ROOF signals to Tovey's detached units are mentioned.neither the Cout Martial attempt nor the " Towing signal " has been mentioned into Adm Tovey dispatches
Now we have the umpteenth tedious reposting of the redacted version of Tovey's letter, in which the first thing and therefore first priority is the ROOF signal which would be obvious, if Alberto had not removed it. In four letters in total, CMDS is only mentioned at all in two. It was obviously not significant for Tovey, I believe because he knew it was not a real threat and whatever was said was uttered thoughtlessly in a heated argument about the ROOF signal which is what Tovey was really peeved about. ROOF was what he kept on about for 11 years.
That these letters largely witter on about an imagined instruction to continue to the "Coasts of France" shows that Pafford's assertion that Tovey misremembered and exaggerated was absolutely spot-on, and applied as early as 1950. Just because Roskill found Tovey personable during his researches, does not mean his information was at all accurate.
Alberto has tried to muddle things with
But since the 35 rows include the whole theatrical "Rule of 3" presentation of the author's heroic stand, against the might of Admiralty (I want-no, I really, really want-no, I really, really, really want-NO!............. Oh. OK then- I give up) is this significant? Whereas somewhere in the redacted 11 lines is described the First Sea Lord, dripping with gold braid, imperious in his Majesty, having to apologise to his underling for the "stupidest signal ever sent", eat a bakery-full of humble pie and promise to do the impossible........... ie expunge the inexpungeable.11 rows are dedicated to point 1, the towing signal
35 rows are dedicated to the Court Martial threat (I have posted them entirely, see above)
As self-attested experts on naming and shaming I would hope you would add those authors who have lazily parroted the CMDS story without adding the Kennedy caveats and Pafford's reservations about his former boss's memory failings. Churchill has always been a controversial figure and most of these accounts were written during the period when kicking against his deification was most fashionable. Not bothering with further detail about such a hazy insubstantial threat was acceptable because there was no harm done. The potential victims were instead rightly lauded for their efforts, loaded with honours and continued to give good service to the RN to the end of their days.
As recent deveolpments have shown there is much to learn about CMDS.
All the best
wadinga