UK

Partly Sunny with Showers 13° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Army loses highest-ranking officer since Falklands War

Roadside bomb kills soldier and his commanding officer in Afghanistan

By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent

Lt-Col Rupert Thorneloe was directing his troops, including Trooper against Taliban forces in Helmand province

MoD

Lt-Col Rupert Thorneloe was directing his troops, including Trooper against Taliban forces in Helmand province

The highest ranking officer in the British Army to be killed in combat since the Falklands War is among the latest fatalities in Afghanistan. Lieutenant-Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, the commanding officer of the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, died in a roadside blast in Helmand which also killed another soldier and injured six.

Lt-Col Thorneloe was killed while engaged in a mission to clear Taliban positions 8km north of Lashkar Gar, the capital of Helmand. The operation, codenamed Panchai Palang (Pashtu for panther's claw), was in preparation for the launch of the long-expected "surge" of 4,000 US Marines ahead of the elections in August.

Lt-Col Thorneloe and Trooper Joshua Hammond, of 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, died after a Viking armoured vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb. Their deaths took the number of British service personnel killed in Afghanistan to 171, eight fewer than the total number of those killed in Iraq.

The last officer of equal seniority to die in action was Lieutenant-Colonel Herbert "H" Jones, who was killed at Goose Green in 1982. The commanding officer of 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for his gallantry. He and his men had been ordered to attack dug-in positions and he was leading the charge from the front when he was shot. Until yesterday, only seven army commanding officers had died on operations in command of their units since 1948. A memorial at Sandhurst's Royal Memorial Chapel commemorates them.

Lt-Col Thorneloe was made an MBE during service in Iraq in 2006, when he held the rank of major. He had been deployed with the Welsh Guards around Lashkar Gar. The town, which had come under increasing attack from a resurgent Taliban, had experienced a number of suicide bombings. Nearby areas were being used to transport fighters, arms and opium to other parts of the province.

Lt-Col Thorneloe was directing his troops in an operation involving 500 British and Danish troops who were seeking to outflank Taliban positions around Babaji, beside the Helmand River, and Gereshk. The insurgents put up fierce resistance and American and Canadian helicopter gunships had to be called in to support the mission.

Lt Col Thorneloe's wife Sally said: "Rupert was my very best friend and his death is a devastating blow. Our daughters Hannah and Sophie will have to grow up without their beloved Daddy, although I will see a part of him in them every day."

Shortly before his death, Lt-Col Thorneloe said in an interview: "Our job is to give steady and visible assurance to the Afghan people. We are working alongside the ANA [Afghan National Army] and of course the main aim is to let the Afghans take full control of their affairs as soon as possible and without the threat of insurgent violence."

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, said last night: "The deaths of Lt-Col Rupert Thorneloe MBE and Tpr Joshua Hammond during Operation Panchai Palang in Helmand Province is a devastating blow to the Welsh Guards Battle Group and to the Army as a whole. Lt-Col Thorneloe was an outstanding commanding officer and a born leader, who I knew well.

"His courageous, thoughtful stewardship of 1st Battalion Welsh Guards since October last year has seen them superbly prepared for the demands of Afghanistan, both in terms of their professional capability and their unbreakable spirit as a team.

"At the leading edge of his generation, his loss will be felt deeply not only by his family but also by his soldiers and others, who like me, had the privilege to serve with him.

"Tpr Hammond was a first class tank crewman who epitomised the spirited and determined approach to operations expected of Royal Armoured Corps soldiers."

In a statement released by the MoD, his family, from Plymouth, said: "Joshua was a tremendous son. He was proud to be a soldier and died doing a job he loved."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Sad news
[info]ianpurdie wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 11:39 pm (UTC)
Very sad news. With the announcement of every Australian casualty I get angrier than ever.

Our troops shouldn't even be in Afghanistan. The Taliban never attacked anyone. Not the Twin Towers, not London, not Madrid and not Bali!

Equating the Taliban with Al-Qaeda is a ludicrous smokescreen for another agenda.
Sad Loss
[info]kimeron wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 12:53 am (UTC)
This is a very sad loss and I felt upset on seeing this news.
I do not know how to solve the problems in Afghanistan.
The Taliban are ruthless killers and life under their rule is horrific.
But there is no easy solution and intervention may have just caused more problems.
Perhaps it would have been better to have left the Communists to cope with it.
But Western leaders wanted to impose democracy so we are left with a legacy of war and terrorism and loss of lives.

Re: Sad Loss
[info]a_al_amin wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 01:17 am (UTC)
Go back to home with your demoncrazy.
Leave the muslim countries alone. Do not even pretend that you are here to help us, we can very well see your motives in this era of neo-colonialism.
Re: Sad Loss
[info]kimeron wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 11:48 am (UTC)
Of course the Taliban are not just ruthless killers. Many of them have had very tough lives and that is the only way of life they know. They see British forces as being their enemies.
There seems no trust on any side of this highly dangerous conflict which involves different factions and power struggles. Somehow we have to try to get a dialogue with those among the Taliban who want peaceful lives.
We mourn the death of British soldiers but we want to stop the killing of civilians and the sad deaths of young men who joined the Taleban because that seemed their only option in life. There may not be trust, but perhaps there can be some useful debate.
Re: Sad Loss
[info]paul999 wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 04:11 pm (UTC)
Yeah cos Afghanistan has so much to offer the West.
[info]johnk100 wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 02:48 am (UTC)
Why doesn't the UK and USA entice the Russians to return to Afghanistan promising them we will leave and not aid the Taliban against them
[info]alanski wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 04:32 am (UTC)
I don't think the Russians would have much stomach for Afghanistan they got burned there and they'll not be keen to bail out the US/Uk adventure. Iraq showed the way that even the mightiest forces in the world are little match against sn army that wears no uniform. But the big difference is that enemy is fighting for it's own land. You may not like their way of doing things but it is their way. Installing western style democracy will not work and neither will the Russian version. If extra troops are needed recruit from those more gullible and needy of the cash. Geogia, Bulgaria, Albania etc they're always blathering about wanting to join the 'clubs'.
[info]reiksares wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 12:26 pm (UTC)
Why the *hell* should Russia come and bail-out yankee-doodle? The stinking yanks started that war - if they want it so much, let them DIE for their damn war.
Reply to John
[info]topolcats wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 03:42 pm (UTC)
Because Russians are not dumb enough to believe those pledges-American and British promises are for fool. But just for the record, if the USA did not create Osama bin Ladin and fund Madrassas to stop Afghanistan being a socialist state. What you would have today is a stable Afghanistan, same as Kazakhstan, and all the stans in that area.
[info]explodingbadger wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 03:07 am (UTC)
Although I feel sorry for the mans family he was involved in the occupation of a foreign country and as a member of the army got a taste of what they are dealing out to. other people every day.
The use of the Viking is criminal folly
[info]lewis_northants wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 04:58 am (UTC)
The use of the Viking armored vehicle in Afghanistan is criminal folly. Its bolt-on armour plates only provides protection against 7.62mm -piercing rounds, and 0.5kg charge anti-personnel mines. It doesn.t provide protection against heavy machine guns, the RPG , anti-tank mines, or the Taliban weapon weapon of choice the IED. This vehicle is little better than the snatch land-rover. The MOD officials who send the Welsh Guards into battle with these vehicles when asked why , can only reply with words similar to those of Donald Rumsfeld who said. when questioned about the unsuitability of the armour of US vehicles in Iraq . . "As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Our brave soldiers and marines in Afghanistan are like those of the First World War. They are lions being lead by the donkey officials of the MOD.
Re: The use of the Viking is criminal folly
[info]tjgodden wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 08:49 am (UTC)
Whilst agreeing that the Viking is an inappropriate vehicle for the rigours of Afghanistan, in particular the weapons systems employed by the Taliban, I have to take offence at your likening of this situation with that of The Great War. The military leadership of The Great War was far more advanced than you give it credit for. Yes, loss of life was high, but in the standard proportions to every other battle in history. The military leadership of the Great War is often misrepresented by those who have a stunted education in the facts, those that rely on 'Oh What a Lovely War', 'Blackadder' and a series of bitter pseudo-histories written during the 1960s.

The MoD can only work within the political limits given to it, both budgetery and tactically. I suspect the level of logistics, planning, command &c. is way above that of your Local Authority and, indeed, most other cabinet offices.

Though, that all does not detract from the incredible loss to the British Army of the death of Lieutenant Colonel Thorneloe. It has taken seventeen years to create a leader of his calibre and stature, that will not be easily replaced.

My thoughts and prayers are with his family and with his men.
Cymru am Byth, Sir. Rest in peace.
Re: The use of the Viking is criminal folly
[info]jakem1 wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 11:16 am (UTC)
It seems a hell of a lot better than any armour that the Taliban have and yet I don't hear them whingeing and complaining all the time.

At the end of the day this guy joined the army to go out and kill people. He's now dead and hopefully that means that fewer Afghanis will die.
Why we talk of seniors now when juniors by the time they come back will be very seniors. What do the
[info]famulla wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 06:32 am (UTC)
What is the point in telling us now? We went there. They did not send the invitation cards. Why we talk of seniors now when juniors by the time they come back will be very seniors. What do they get? 21 guns salute and a box of 6*2, medals posthumous and the widow the life policy of 125000 Italian liras.
What is going on these days when Obama talk to Russia about the cold wars? Said Obama: "I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev that Putin understand that the old Cold War approaches to U.S.-Russian relations is outdated. ... Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new."
If you're American when you go into the bathroom and American when you come out, what are you when you're in the bathroom?
European!
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Why are we there?
[info]giuseppesaponi wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 06:47 am (UTC)
Because Osama Bin Laden attacked the U.S.? Funny, that out of all the crimes that the FBI want him for, 9/11 isn't one of them.
Because the Taliban attacked the U.S.? They didn't.
Because the Tailban will be here, slaughtering us, if we were not over there slaughtering them? Bullshit!

The crusaders are on a hiding to nothing and apart from the death of another crusader, how many Afghans have we killed so far, how many are we going to kill and for what?

To paraphrase Chairman Mao - it ain't over till the guerrillas have won.
Re: Why are we there?
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 08:02 am (UTC)
Good points and you are right, the Americans are going to find out the long hard way that Afghanistan just cannot be tamed.

The Americans have a lot to learn about fighting an insurgent guerilla force, the US coalition is slow to move, slow to react against highly mobile and easily dispersible guerilla forces that allows them to fade into the shadows always leaving the US groping in the mud.

And what a way to go, when they should be winning hearts and minds, up pops CIA controlled drone after drone, devastating whole communities and recruiting huge swathes of brand new and highly motivated recruits, if the US had worked a "softly softly" approach they may have had a chance, corrupting the government and butchering anything and everything that moved not wearing a yank uniform blew it out of the water...
Just Another Statistic:
[info]neil639 wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 06:59 am (UTC)
These deaths are just more statistics for some cold marble memorial obelisk, and a meaningless medal. Unfortunately, when you invade other peoples' countries this is what happens. If a foreign army invaded Britain under the false premise that it was giving us democracy (and we could well do with some real democracy), we too would be using the same sorts of guerrilla tactics to get rid of them. We are losing just handfuls of people - the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan are losing hundreds of thousands of people to Western bombs.
Terrible news. I extend my sympathy to the relatives.
[info]colin_brown wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 08:52 am (UTC)
However, Isn't it time we removed our aggressive presence from 3rd world countries? Perhaps if we did, they'd be less inclined to plant roadside bombs?

Just a thought.
Nothing
[info]shahrik wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 09:54 am (UTC)

He died for NOTHING...not for anything except the adventure of going abroad, killing people for
sport, in the name of "defending democracy", playing soldier boy...where else would our soldiers get
the exercise?

Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else in the world...the UK has NO BUSINESS being in any of these countries.

What is super-disgusting is the way one death, of a toff ex-public school boy come soldier, gets headline news, while the deaths of scores of Afghany civilians, indiscriminantly killed, gets not even a mention.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Re: Nothing
[info]sheepcrofter wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 11:24 am (UTC)
Shahrik would do well to grow up. Two soldiers died fighting a war that they were sent to by the UK Government - soldiers do not choose to go to war, they get ordered to by our democratically elected leaders.

Whilst everyone has the right to an opinion on the rights and wrongs of a particular war, a degree of respect for the brave individuals who sadly lost of lives would be more likely to support reasoned debate on the issue.

Your attacks on individuals who are not able to defend themselves and their background set you out as a jealous, dissatisfied individual who cannot develop argument, but can only insult.

Would you, Shahrik, be brave enough to give your life in service to your country?

Re: Nothing
[info]robz53 wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 08:41 pm (UTC)
Just what "service" are coalition soldiers providing to their country?soldiers DO choose to go to war,as soon as they join the armed forces of their country.Occasionally[relatively speaking] a soldier dies in combat as part of an invasion force in a foreign land,EVERY DAY civilians die in those countries as a direct result of the overwhelming Military power of the invaders who know full well that they will never have to properly account for the death and misery inflicted.
Re: Nothing
[info]ianpurdie wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 10:10 pm (UTC)
soldiers do not choose to go to war, they get ordered to by our democratically elected leaders

To which I would add - this is done in our name and WE are responsible. Have any opponents here written to their members of parliament voicing their concerns?

I have in Australia. The stock answer here is: "Since 1948 it has been the policy of every Australian government to supports UN resolutions unconditionally".

My response to that is, "this misadventure in Afghanistan is [as with all resolutions] from the UN Security Council. An anachronistic and unrepresentative body which does not necessarily reflect world opinion".

To commentators elsewhere: Soldiers obey orders, those orders come from govenments. The military is not a democracy where a vote is taken. Don't pick on the troops unless you believe we are better off without them leaving you totally unprepared and defenceless. We went there in 1939/40. Please remember that, it was a very close run thing.
Re: Nothing
[info]proximaking wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 10:46 am (UTC)
I agree 100% with shahrik. Whether the rest commenting here like to admit it or not the reason his name is up in lights is precisely because he was a toff who knew Charlie boy, another nobody on the public purse who couldn't get a job doing anything else, but now he is just another dead body. The airtime given over to him because "he led from the front" exactly as the others don't shows us exactly what is wrong with the British forces. Leaders who can't lead and are there only because of plums in the mouth, if you doubt it pop down to Sandhurst and listen for yourself. A friend of the family was out in Afghanistan for years and he got really pissed off because a) his officers were always "on training" back in Blighty of course, or b) holiday, yes officers can get holidays too, and c) when he and his men conceived of plans and acted on them with absolutely no input from the chinless wonder brigade he and his men were awarded medals but the officers were awarded higher medals even when they took no part in anything but were nominally their superiors and often weren't even in Afghanistan at the time.

No point just getting hyped about "princes" William and Harry avoiding duty when the legions of hangers-on in the armed forces are also avoiding their duty. Cowards we used to call them and cowards they are. Not one British soldier or airman should be out there why don't we try a new tack and send the legions of officers for a change, officers like the "princes" and they could take some of the dozens of admirals with them as they have more admirals than ships. Time for a clearout of the armed forces and it should start at the top.

And again shahrik is correct the Afghan civilians count for nothing to these people except as a means to beat the Taliban. Why else would their own TV adverts for the Army show them planting a bomb on the side of a house they haven't checked and which could have a completely innocent family inside. If that is what they do in a TV advert what do they do in reality?

Sheepcrofter must realise that soldiers who are drafted are worthy of respect but those who choose that career have no right to expect anything from any of us but a pay check each month, these are not world war 1 or 2 or Korean veterans these are people who CHOOSE to be in the forces and the government has nothing to do with that. They don't die for their country bcause if they did we wouldn't have to pay them to do it and they would demand shahrik's right to say anything he wants be respected and not have him told to "grow up". The argument that we must respect the dead, however wrong headed they were, has been the battle cry of sychophants and the right wing the world over for years. I don't pay taxes to kill foreigners who don't have not the slightest possibility of harming me or mine. All the 7/7 bombers were in Britain by right and what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq directly led to those murders on trains and buses I had used only months before, THAT affects me and avoiding THAT means getting the troops out of there and keeping them out and massively cutting the armed forces that are nothing more than a badly organised job creation scheme for no-hopers at both ends of the "social scale".
RE:Nothing
[info]gordon123 wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 11:02 am (UTC)
How do you justify your assumption that Lt Col. Thorneloe was " a toff ex-public school boy", the article contains no such information. Your post is as deeply offensive as it is inaccurate. He was clearly an exceptional soldier who lead form the front
RE: Nothing
[info]neil639 wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 11:33 am (UTC)
Where this man was educated is irrelevant - he is dead, and for what? For absolutely nothing. Whether we like it or not that is the stark reality of the Western invasion and military occupation of Afghanistan. It was not too long ago of course that the USA wholeheartedly supported and armed the Taliban which, with its sympathisers, will be in Afghanistan long, long after the last Western troops have left the country. It is not for us to decide who runs other countries - if we had real democracy here in the UK we would never have become involved in this pointless adventure. These soldiers, whatever their rank, status etc, will be just be yet more names etched onto cold, impersonal marble obelisks, at which, once a year our corrupt and hypocritical politicians, who have never been at the wrong end of a rifle barrel, will pretend to pay homage (and probably claim back in expenses any money spent on wreaths).
we are in DARK AGES AGAIN
[info]famulla wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 11:44 am (UTC)
IS THAT YOU Kim?
I am afraid this is useless piece of news as the ones who sent him know not, of him, and his family. They will read your article, fold it to kill the fly and play the crossword . You think they care. Try to die? They dont know you or him. THAT IS IT.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla

Two losses - too many
[info]caurnie1 wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 01:11 pm (UTC)
The loss of the two soldiers is a tragedy and my thoughts and prayers go out the families involved. When we lose any soldier it is a tragic loss but my concern is the number of soldiers under the age of 20 who lose their lives. We give electricians, plumbers, teachers etc periods of up to 5 years training before we recognise them as fully trained and yet we ask young men of 18 to go into dangerous situations of war with very little training. We criticise other nations for using "boy soldiers" are we not leaving ourselves wide open to criticism for our actions. Better training might save lives.
Is the death of a professional soldier tragic?
[info]rjd8 wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 01:11 pm (UTC)
I am always bewildered when the press print stories about the death of a professional soldier. The death of someone who voluntarily signs a contract which clearly outlines the manner of their death (overseas missions to "defend" what the govt's foreign policy deems to be the country's interests), sad though it may be to those close to the indivudual, is not tragic and almost always not newsworthy. When our armies send in drones to kill innocent Afghan/Pakistani civilians at wedding parties, these truly tragic victims receive a few lines in our press which almost always doesn't know or really care the exact number killed, let alone bothers to get quotes from the dead civilian's relatives about how wonderful they were and how much they will be missed by their kids. All deaths in war are to be mourned but if we rightly gave more weight to the ones who didn't chose to die, it might evoke greater disgust among the general public which in turn might force us to find other means to deal with conflict. But that would be boring wouldn't it. No heart breaking stories about the poor kids left behind as a result of the death of one of our own. Only boring stories about how conflict was avoided by recourse to civilised means.
Re: Is the death of a professional soldier tragic?
[info]robz53 wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 08:28 pm (UTC)
Have to agree mate,while it is sad that children are left fatherless ,it is no more sad than the fatherless, motherless,sometimes limbless children in any war zone where new age imperialists seek to impose their vision of the new world order on the luckless and usually near defenseless locals."Soldier dies in war" is hardly startling news is it?
Very Sad
[info]topolcats wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 03:36 pm (UTC)
It is always sad when life is lost. Can you now imagine the pain countless of innocent Afghans civilians, bombed killed daily, (unreported) must feel when there loved one dies for an oil pipeline they never heard of called "Nabucco".
Barve Allied soldiers sacrificing their lives again to liberate humanity!
[info]nooraza wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 07:38 pm (UTC)
We owe our liberation to these really brave Allied soldiers, globally! The Islamist Neo-Nazis of the 21st. century, who dream of an Islamic Empire are the biggest threat; and such Dark age barbarians to ordinary civilized Muslims and non-Muslims alike!
CORRECTION: Brave Allied soldiers sacrificing their lives again to liberate humanity!
[info]nooraza wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 07:58 pm (UTC)
We owe our liberation to these really brave Allied soldiers, globally! The Islamist Neo-Nazis of the 21st. century, who dream of an Islamic Empire are the biggest threat; and such Dark age barbarians to ordinary civilized Muslims and non-Muslims alike!
We're still so much a two-tier society ...
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 08:36 pm (UTC)
I listened to Radio 4's coverage of the deaths of these two soldiers tonight and was again reminded of the entrenched "them and us" nature of our society. Much focus on Colonel Thorneloe, the most senior officer to be killed thus far in the Afghan conflict, who apparently lived, moved and had his being in the "upper" echelons of our society, and in consequence merited a quite lengthy tribute from the Prince of Wales who appears to have known him personally. And, as with previous reports of conflict fatalities, just a brief mention of Trooper Hammond who, I take it, had no such wonderful connections. Yet both died in the same incident, engaged in the same fruitless, US-generated conflict, and both no doubt are mourned equally by their devastated families.

Again and again during the MPs's expenses scandal, members of the public made the point that there seems to be "one law for them and another for us". This seems to me indicative of a thread that runs right across our national life in our time no less than it did back in the Imperial heyday of the mid-nineteenth century. MPs "make errors for which they sincerely apologize" while the rest of us commit crimes that must be punished. The trained police dog handler who leaves two dogs to bake to death in a police vehicle is immediately shielded by a smooth police PR exercise emphasizing that the incident will be investigated, lessons learned, and affirming the value that the force in question places on its dogs, whereas an ordinary citizen doing the same things would be promptly charged, with no-holds-barred statements of condemnation from police and RSPCA. And the death of a well-connected officer draws perceptibly more "hushed awe" than that of an ordinary bloke in " the poor bloody infantry".

The sad thing is that, as bankers resume their whacking salaries and bonuses in the very institutions that have triggered the present recession, more ordinary men and women will be forced by the economic meltdown to join the Forces to earn a living because the businesses that might otherwise have employed them have contracted or gone under because the financiers ballsed up the economy. While, without in any way demeaning the death of Col Thorneloe and the loss his family must be feeling, the prosperous and well-connected on the whole continue to live the good life of privilege, comfort and safety.

And to think that, back in the 60s when I was young and a brave new world seemed to beckon, I thought all those old divisions and inequities were passing. But no, still "one law for them and another for us ... " And people seriously suggest that all we need to put things right is a new Conservative government ...! Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Re: We're still so much a two-tier society ...
[info]proximaking wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 11:01 am (UTC)
Don't lose hope, it aint over until the fat lady sings and one day probably a helluva lot sooner than you think it will be more than police officers being held at her majesty's pleasure for doing anything wrong, up to and including her "majesty".

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date