After this, if you had a son in the forces would you be comfortable placing his life in Harry’s hands given his seeming lack of threat recognition?.

Yes, I would, since British armed forces personnel are trained, when on duty, to behave in a totally professional, and dedicated fashion, and we are justifiably proud of them, an emotion that no amount of snide remarks, from the likes of you, will change.

At least in the American forces, as an officer, you’re expected to conduct yourself in a certain manner at all times.
I’m not sure group nudity with stangers qualifies.
In other words, you’re held to a higher standard. So, some actions, while not illegal, can have repercussions on one’s career.
You’re expected to be reasonably sober, pay your debts, keep your pants on in public and to fair in dealing with others.
The UK forces may be different.

Dear God, preserve us from this po-faced holier-than-thou twaddle. He wasn’t “in public” was he? (something that you can’t, or won’t, grasp); he was, as he thought, in private, and one of the (American?) “guests” let down his trust in them. Your snide comment about U.K. forces is noted; strange, when you consider how glad your forces are, to have our men fighting alongside, when the going gets tough.

You’d think that he would have learned his lesson with the Nazi fancy dress party costume.
As an officer, pilot, and adult, you’re expected to learn from past errors.

So, which is he, an adult, or a “silly young kid?” You can’t have it both ways.

I’m not calling him a bad person, just very foolish.

Just about the only thing with which I can agree; maybe he’ll have his parties with people that he knows he can trust, in future.

I’d still call him a “silly young kid” if he did other stupid things…being drunk in public, minor drug use, etc.

But he hasn’t, has he, so what’s the point of making up a list of transgressions that haven’t happened, or does the U.S. military find you guilty before you’ve done anything?

Or are we going to let his military service be an excuse for anything?

Excuse? For what? For taking off his clothes in his (allegedly) private bedroom, and being betrayed by (nameless) others? Well, yes, if a young man is prepared to lay his life on the line, to defend mine, I can forgive him a huge number of indiscretions.

It seems that a reluctance to discuss events, like that, is a widespread (and understandable) emotion. I knew a man, who was a member of HMS Hood’s crew, but was hospitalised just before her final voyage; until the day he died, he would never speak of the ship, or his shipmates.

The bulges over the outer .303″ compartments were standard practice, to clear the rear of gun’s breech block; sometimes they were right across the top surface of the cover, at others, they were just a small oval.
The “tear-drop” bulges, over the wheel wells, were a post-war modification, to allow for the different position of the wheels, when the axles were repositioned to set them straight fore-and-aft, due to running on hard, rather than grass, runways.
The controversy, over the apparent “B” wings, on several Mk.IX airframes, was caused by a late 1942/early 1943 modification to the wings’ leading edges, which saw the “outboard cannon front mount casting” cut off, and faired over, since it was viewed as being redundant, due to the (almost) universal use of the “C” armament, and the use of that compartment, in the IX, to carry the hot-air pipes out to the outer .303″ Brownings. This modification was rescinded in November 1943, when both of the castings were, once again, needed for the coming “E” armament. The fact that the RAF also used (unofficially) the terms “A” & “B” to designate engine types on the IX, compounded the felony even more.
It’s likely that MH434 had a different, wider, bulge, on its cannon covers, at first, since the narrower bulge wasn’t introduced until January 1944.
The long carburettor intake was designed for tropical use, and, initially at least, only the Mk.VIII, but the IX was also eventually included, from November 1943, especially when earmarked for the Middle East; presumably, being home-based, it was thought unnecessary to convert MH434.
The “anti-collision beacon” is actually an upwards-shining recognition light, which could be operated by the pilot as a continual light, or to transmit morse code. The RAF show it as being deleted in February 1943.
The bulged top cowling, on the IX, didn’t occur until mid-1944, and was caused by the different coolant pipework/header tank on the XVI; rather than have two separate cowlings, it appears that Castle Bromwich went for a “one-size-fits-all” option. The VIII, being built by Supermarine, had no such problems.
The intake, on the right side of the top cowling, was to cool the Heywood compressor, on the engine.

Don’t worry; I can confidently predict that we’ll see the smug features of Ed Balls-up smirking onto our TV screens, very soon, whereupon he’ll tell us that he has all of the answers to this country’s woes. Funny how a British political party (of any colour) can spend 10 years making a complete ricketts of managing the economy, but, give them a few short months in opposition, and they can put everything right. Perhaps we should let oppositions run this country, since they’re so much cleverer when they’re out of elected office.

I liked the remark in one of the newspapers, that he must have felt out of place, being amongst all of
these medal winners, when he has never won anything when wearing an England shirt.

True, it’s been a dreadful shame that they’ve never been able to find 10 other players, with equal talent.

Dear lord, change your name to Jimmy, and put “Dismal” in front of it.
One thing that I fervently hope that these Games have killed off is the idea, propounded by “Those Who Know Best,” that sport is bad for youngsters, since their delicate little minds shouldn’t have to suffer the trauma of tasting defeat; maybe if that trauma had been around a bit more, those “little darlings” might not have rioted, last year, when they were told they couldn’t have what they wanted.
If it stops school sports fields being turned into monolithic housing estates, I, for one, will rejoice. We’ve had to suffer years of watching our sportsmen and women, largely, being also-rans, and our football and cricket teams humiliated (the huge wages, of some footballers, han’t turned them into world beaters, so maybe some more skilful training might be in order?) Sports clubs (e.g. Marlow Rowing Club – not exactly as famous as Leander, just upstream in Henley,) locally, have announced huge increases in applications for membership. Jamaica says that virtually every little boy wants to be a sprinter; I wonder why.

Money might not buy success, but it makes failure more bearable – ask any bank manager.
Years ago, a group of us ran a model exhibition, at Stoke Mandeville, raising money for the sports stadium (until “Elf & Safety” banned it because we were overcrowding the venue,) and the manager told me how the first “Games” were a very ad hoc affair, with only tented accomodation available, and, without thinking, they had them laid out alphabetically; this meant that Iran, Iraq, and Israel, were next to each other, but everything passed off peacefully.
Thursday, BBC2 9.00p.m., “The Best of Men” is the dramatised story of Dr. Ludwig Guttman, who started the Stoke Mandeville saga.