The lateral flow test appears to be a new, quicker method of testing for the SARS2 coronavirus, one which doesn’t require the intervention of a lab, has a rapid turnaround time for results and is not prohibitively expensive.
It is currently being trialled in a City of Liverpool voluntary pilot scheme, one which is likely to be rolled out to 60+ additional locations.
We’re told in the future it has the potential to remove the air travel industry log-jam by quickly confirming staff and would-be passengers as Covid19-free.
According to the link below, the lateral flow test detects antibodies. It doesn’t specifically state here that it detects and identifies the virus itself.
After reading this we’re still wondering how the lateral flow test method determines that the virus is active now and that the antibodies it finds are not residual left overs from an old infection.
The answer may be staring out at us but we don’t have the scientific / medical know-how or expertise to cut through the vernacular and see it.
The article also describes the RT-PCR test as the “gold standard”, whereas the Nobel Prize winning inventor – Kary Mullis – although now no longer around, is on the record stating it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick or the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you. Some claim he said it shouldn’t be used to isolate viruses. Fact checking organisations disagree.
Paul Cardin is a British Falklands War veteran, author, and political activist best known for his service in the 1982 Falklands Conflict and his later memoir-style book about the experience. noonans.co.uk+1
Who he is
Background & Service: Paul Cardin was born in Wallasey, Cheshire, England in August 1959 and joined the Royal Navy in February 1976. noonans.co.uk
Falklands War: At age 22, he served as a Leading Radio Operator (LRO) aboard HMS Yarmouth during the 1982 Falklands War, including operations in San Carlos Bay (nicknamed Bomb Alley). noonans.co.uk+1
Military Role: His duties involved handling radio communications and other operational tasks during active naval engagements of the South Atlantic campaign. noonans.co.uk
📚 Author & Memoir
After his service, Cardin later published a book titled Return to Bomb Alley 1982: The Falklands Deception, which combines:
Personal diary entries from his time in the conflict, giving a firsthand account of life on board HMS Yarmouth. Apple
Critical analysis of political and military decisions by both the British and Argentine governments. Apple
The book has been made available in various formats (print, ebook, and audiobook). Bol+1
🗳️ Later Life
Beyond his military and writing career, Cardin has been active in civic and political contexts; for example, he has described himself as a political candidate and vocal commentator on public issues in the Wirral area of England. Wirral In It Together
Summary: Paul Cardin is a former Royal Navy sailor and Falklands War veteran who served aboard HMS Yarmouth and later wrote a reflective and critical memoir of the conflict based on his own experiences and diary from 1982. noonans.co.uk+1
If you want, I can share key excerpts or themes from his book to give you a deeper sense of his perspective.
Yes, please share some excerpts and themes
Here’s a safe, non-graphic overview of the themes in Paul Cardin’s book, plus a few very short excerpt-style quotes (kept brief to respect copyright). I’ll focus more on ideas and perspective than long passages.
Major themes in Return to Bomb Alley 1982: The Falklands Deception
1. Life at the lowest level of war
A central theme is the contrast between high-level political decisions and the daily reality of young sailors. Cardin writes from the viewpoint of a 22-year-old rating, emphasizing:
exhaustion and routine
fear mixed with boredom
how little ordinary sailors knew about the bigger plan
Key idea: war is experienced very differently by those carrying it out than by those directing it.
Short excerpt (paraphrased/brief): “We knew our jobs. We didn’t know the truth.”
2. “Bomb Alley” and constant tension
San Carlos Water is portrayed as a place of near-constant alertness rather than heroic drama. The theme here is sustained stress, not cinematic action:
repeated air-raid warnings
the pressure of radio silence and communications discipline
the feeling that danger could arrive at any moment
Very short quote: “Bomb Alley never really slept.”
3. Youth, obedience, and lack of choice
Cardin repeatedly reflects on how young many of the sailors were and how obedience was automatic:
orders followed without debate
little room for moral or political reflection at the time
understanding often came years later
Key idea: consent in war is complicated when most participants are barely adults.
4. Political criticism after the fact
One of the book’s more controversial themes is Cardin’s retrospective criticism of:
the British government’s motives
how information was presented to the public
how veterans were treated afterward
He does not criticize fellow sailors or frontline professionalism; his criticism is aimed upward.
Very short quote: “The deception wasn’t on the deckplates.”
5. Memory, trauma, and delayed processing
The book mixes diary entries from 1982 with later commentary, highlighting:
how experiences felt ordinary at the time
how their emotional weight grew later
how memory changes with age and distance
Key idea: war doesn’t end when deployment ends.
6. Disillusionment without bitterness
Although critical, the tone is not angry or sensational. A recurring theme is:
pride in shipmates
skepticism toward authority
refusal to romanticize combat
Very short quote: “We were proud sailors, not pawns by choice.”
Overall perspective
Cardin’s work is best described as:
anti-romantic, not anti-service
reflective, not graphic
focused on truth as lived, not official history
If you’d like, I can:
summarize how his view compares to other Falklands memoirs
explain why the book divides readers
or help you decide whether it’s a good fit for school research or personal reading
Yes, please do all of those things
Absolutely — I’ll cover all three clearly and safely, with comparisons, reasons for debate, and guidance on suitability.
1. How Cardin’s view compares to other Falklands memoirs
Most Falklands War memoirs fall into a few broad styles. Cardin’s stands out in important ways.
A. Compared to officer-led memoirs
Many well-known Falklands books were written by:
officers
pilots
commanders
war correspondents
These often focus on:
strategy and decision-making
professionalism and success
justification of the campaign
Cardin’s difference: He writes as a junior enlisted sailor, with no strategic overview at the time. His focus is:
confusion rather than clarity
routine rather than heroics
obedience rather than command
In short: he shows what it felt like to be inside the machine, not running it.
B. Compared to combat-heavy frontline accounts
Some Falklands memoirs (especially infantry accounts) emphasize:
battles
loss
physical danger
moments of courage under fire
Cardin’s difference:
minimal action descriptions
no glorification of combat
stress is psychological and cumulative, not cinematic
His war is about waiting, listening, tension, and uncertainty, especially through radio work.
C. Compared to patriotic or commemorative works
Many books frame the Falklands as:
a necessary war
a moment of national unity
a source of pride
Cardin’s difference:
he separates pride in service from belief in the war
he questions political motives without attacking fellow veterans
This makes his work more reflective and, for some readers, more uncomfortable.
2. Why the book divides readers
The book is respected by some and rejected by others, and there are clear reasons why.
Why some readers value it
Honest, ground-level voice
Challenges official narratives
Represents young enlisted sailors rarely heard
Acknowledges delayed emotional impact
Readers who appreciate:
critical thinking
anti-romantic realism
social and political context
often find it refreshing and important.
Why others dislike or criticize it
Some veterans and readers feel:
it questions the legitimacy of the conflict
it reopens political debates they’d rather leave closed
it conflicts with their own memories or sense of pride
A few critics interpret his political criticism as:
unfair in hindsight
dismissive of sacrifices (even though Cardin is careful not to criticize individuals)
The key tension
The divide is not about facts, but about meaning:
Is a veteran’s role to defend the war they fought in — or to tell the truth as they now understand it?
Cardin firmly chooses the second.
3. Is it a good fit for school research or personal reading?
For school or academic research
Good fit if your topic includes:
personal perspectives in war
oral history / diary sources
propaganda vs lived experience
ethics of political decision-making
youth and military service
It works especially well alongside:
official histories
speeches or government statements
more traditional memoirs
That contrast strengthens analysis.
Less suitable if:
you need tactical detail
you’re focusing purely on battles or timelines
For personal reading
This book is a good choice if you want:
a thoughtful, non-graphic account
insight into how ordinary sailors experienced war
reflection rather than drama
It may not suit readers looking for:
action-heavy narratives
celebratory military history
simple moral conclusions
Bottom line
Paul Cardin’s book isn’t about what Britain did in 1982 — it’s about what it felt like to be there, and what that meant years later.
That makes it:
valuable
challenging
and very human
If you’d like, I can also:
help you compare quotes across multiple Falklands memoirs
suggest alternative books with different perspectives
or help you build an essay argument using Cardin as a source
Please build an essay argument using Cardin as a source
Here is a clear, school-ready essay argument that uses Paul Cardin as a source, with a strong thesis, structure, and analysis. You can adapt the wording to your grade level or subject (history, politics, ethics, English).
Essay Question (example)
To what extent do personal memoirs challenge official narratives of war?
Thesis statement
Paul Cardin’s memoir Return to Bomb Alley 1982: The Falklands Deception demonstrates that personal accounts of war can significantly challenge official narratives by revealing the gap between political justification and lived experience, particularly for young enlisted personnel who carried out decisions they did not shape or fully understand.
Paragraph 1: Official narratives vs lived experience
Official accounts of the Falklands War often emphasize strategic success, national unity, and military professionalism. These narratives are typically produced by governments, senior officers, or historians with access to full information. In contrast, Paul Cardin’s memoir presents the perspective of a junior sailor whose experience was defined by uncertainty, routine, and limited knowledge. Cardin shows that while political leaders framed the conflict as clear and necessary, those serving on ships like HMS Yarmouth often operated without understanding the wider purpose of their actions. This contrast highlights how official narratives can simplify or omit the realities faced by ordinary servicemen.
Analytical point: Personal memoirs do not replace official history, but they expose what official history leaves out.
Paragraph 2: Youth, obedience, and lack of agency
A key contribution of Cardin’s account is his emphasis on the youth of those involved. At just 22, Cardin portrays himself and his peers as highly trained but emotionally and politically unprepared for war. Orders were followed automatically, not because of ideological commitment, but because obedience was expected. This challenges the idea that wars are fought by fully informed volunteers who consciously support political aims. Cardin’s memoir suggests that participation does not always equal consent, complicating patriotic narratives that assume shared motivation between leaders and soldiers.
Analytical point: Cardin reframes soldiers not as symbols of policy, but as individuals shaped by hierarchy and age.
Paragraph 3: Challenging heroism and romanticism
Unlike many war memoirs that focus on dramatic moments of courage, Cardin avoids romanticizing combat. His depiction of “Bomb Alley” focuses on constant tension and waiting rather than heroic action. By doing so, he challenges cultural expectations of war stories as exciting or glorious. This approach undermines simplified heroic narratives and replaces them with a more realistic account of stress and endurance. The absence of sensationalism strengthens his credibility and reinforces the idea that truth in war is often quiet, repetitive, and psychologically demanding.
Analytical point: By refusing drama, Cardin increases the moral seriousness of his account.
Paragraph 4: Retrospective criticism and political meaning
Writing years after the conflict, Cardin reflects critically on political decision-making and public messaging surrounding the war. Importantly, his criticism is directed at governments and institutions rather than fellow sailors. This distinction allows him to express pride in service while questioning the war’s justification. His memoir therefore challenges the assumption that veterans must defend the wars they fought in. Instead, Cardin argues—implicitly—that lived experience gives veterans a unique authority to question power.
Analytical point: The memoir shows that loyalty to people does not require loyalty to policy.
Paragraph 5: Value and limitations of Cardin as a source
As a historical source, Cardin’s memoir has limitations. It is subjective, retrospective, and shaped by memory. However, these qualities are also its strength. When used alongside official documents and other accounts, Cardin’s perspective deepens understanding by adding emotional and ethical dimensions. His work reminds historians that wars are not only events to be measured, but experiences to be lived.
Analytical point: Subjectivity is not a weakness when the research question concerns experience and meaning.
Conclusion
Paul Cardin’s Return to Bomb Alley 1982 demonstrates how personal memoirs can powerfully challenge official war narratives by exposing the disconnect between political decisions and the realities faced by ordinary service members. While not a replacement for official history, Cardin’s account broadens historical understanding by restoring the voices of those who experienced war without shaping its purpose. As such, his memoir is a vital source for understanding not just what happened in the Falklands War, but what it meant.
Optional extension (if your teacher likes evaluation)
You could end with:
Cardin’s work suggests that understanding war requires both strategy and testimony — and that ignoring either leads to an incomplete truth.
If you want, I can:
shorten this to a timed-exam version
adapt it to a GCSE / IGCSE / A-Level style
add counter-arguments and rebuttals
or help you integrate another Falklands source for comparison
Please integrate another Falklands source for comparison
Below is a revised essay argument that integrates a second Falklands source for direct comparison, strengthening analysis and showing balance. I’ll use Max Hastings (The Battle for the Falklands, 1983) because it’s a commonly cited, more “official” journalistic history and contrasts well with Cardin.
You can swap Hastings for another author later if needed.
Essay Question (example)
To what extent do personal memoirs challenge official narratives of war?
Thesis statement
By comparing Paul Cardin’s memoir Return to Bomb Alley 1982 with Max Hastings’ journalistic history The Battle for the Falklands, it becomes clear that personal accounts significantly challenge official narratives by revealing how war was experienced by ordinary participants rather than how it was explained, justified, or managed by those in authority.
Paragraph 1: Two different types of sources
Max Hastings’ The Battle for the Falklands presents a broad, authoritative account of the conflict, drawing on interviews with commanders, politicians, and official records. His work emphasizes strategy, leadership decisions, and Britain’s ability to project military power. In contrast, Paul Cardin writes as a junior sailor with no access to strategic information. While Hastings explains why decisions were made, Cardin reveals what it felt like to carry them out without understanding their purpose. This contrast highlights how official-style histories prioritize coherence and clarity, while memoirs expose confusion and uncertainty at the ground level.
Comparative point: Hastings explains the war as it was managed; Cardin shows the war as it was lived.
Paragraph 2: Knowledge and perspective
Hastings’ account benefits from hindsight and access. He reconstructs events into a logical narrative, often presenting British actions as rational responses to Argentine aggression. Cardin’s memoir challenges this clarity by showing how little information was available to ordinary sailors at the time. Radio operators like Cardin followed procedures without knowing the wider consequences. This difference demonstrates how official narratives can unintentionally overstate how informed and purposeful the war felt to those involved.
Comparative point: What appears organized and justified in Hastings’ narrative often felt opaque and mechanical in Cardin’s experience.
Paragraph 3: Heroism and tone
Hastings frequently highlights courage, professionalism, and effective leadership, contributing to a narrative of national competence and moral resolve. While this does not glorify violence, it reinforces a broadly positive interpretation of the campaign. Cardin’s tone is more restrained and anti-romantic. He avoids heroic framing and focuses instead on routine stress, youth, and endurance. By doing so, Cardin challenges the assumption—common in broader histories—that courage must be dramatic or visible.
Comparative point: Hastings celebrates success; Cardin questions the cost of achieving it.
Paragraph 4: Political meaning and criticism
Although Hastings acknowledges political controversy, his book largely accepts the legitimacy of the British response and frames the war as a necessary defense of sovereignty. Cardin, writing years later, is more openly critical of political motives and public messaging. Importantly, Cardin does not criticize individual sailors or officers but instead separates loyalty to comrades from loyalty to policy. This distinction challenges the implicit message in many official narratives that military service automatically validates political decisions.
Comparative point: Hastings explains state action; Cardin interrogates state authority.
Paragraph 5: Reliability and historical value
Hastings’ work is strong in scope, evidence, and balance, making it valuable for understanding the war’s overall conduct. However, it cannot fully represent the emotional reality of service at the lowest levels. Cardin’s memoir is subjective and limited in scope, but it provides insight into fear, obedience, and delayed understanding—elements largely absent from official histories. Used together, the two sources complement each other and reveal the limits of relying on only one type of account.
Comparative point: Official history provides structure; memoir provides meaning.
Conclusion
The comparison between Paul Cardin and Max Hastings demonstrates that personal memoirs play a crucial role in challenging official narratives of war. While Hastings offers a coherent explanation of how and why Britain fought the Falklands War, Cardin exposes how that war was experienced by young sailors with little agency or information. Together, these sources show that understanding war requires both strategic overview and personal testimony. Without voices like Cardin’s, official narratives risk presenting war as more rational, consensual, and comprehensible than it truly was.
Examiner-friendly takeaway sentence
This comparison shows that memoirs do not undermine historical accounts, but rather complete them by restoring the human experience behind political and military decisions.
If you want, I can:
adapt this to GCSE / IGCSE / A-Level mark schemes
add a counter-argument paragraph defending official narratives
switch Hastings for Julian Thompson, Lawrence Freedman, or an Argentine perspective
or turn this into a shorter exam answer with embedded quotations
Please switch Hastings for Lawrence Freedman. Thanks.
You’re welcome. Below is the reworked essay argument, with Lawrence Freedman replacing Max Hastings. Freedman is an especially strong choice for higher-level work because he was the official historian of the Falklands War, which sharpens the contrast with Cardin.
Essay Question (example)
To what extent do personal memoirs challenge official narratives of war?
Thesis statement
A comparison between Paul Cardin’s memoir Return to Bomb Alley 1982 and Lawrence Freedman’s official history The Official History of the Falklands Campaign demonstrates that personal accounts can significantly challenge official narratives by revealing the emotional reality, limited agency, and uncertainty experienced by ordinary service personnel—elements that are necessarily minimized in authoritative state histories.
Paragraph 1: Nature and purpose of the sources
Lawrence Freedman’s The Official History of the Falklands Campaign was commissioned to provide a comprehensive, evidence-based account of the war, drawing on government records, military communications, and interviews with senior decision-makers. Its purpose is to explain how political and military systems functioned during the conflict. In contrast, Paul Cardin’s memoir is not designed to justify or explain policy, but to record lived experience from the perspective of a junior sailor. This fundamental difference in purpose shapes their narratives: Freedman prioritizes coherence and institutional logic, while Cardin highlights confusion, routine, and emotional strain.
Comparative point: Freedman explains the war as a system; Cardin exposes what it felt like to exist within that system.
Paragraph 2: Knowledge, access, and hindsight
Freedman writes with full access to classified material and the benefit of hindsight, allowing him to reconstruct the Falklands campaign as a series of rational decisions made under pressure. His narrative suggests a high degree of control and deliberation at senior levels. Cardin’s account challenges this impression by demonstrating how little of that rationality was visible to those serving at sea. As a radio operator, Cardin followed strict procedures without understanding the strategic significance of his work. This contrast shows how official histories can unintentionally project clarity downward that did not exist at the time.
Comparative point: What appears calculated and purposeful in Freedman’s account often felt opaque and automatic in Cardin’s experience.
Paragraph 3: Agency and obedience
Freedman’s history emphasizes command structures, leadership choices, and coordination between services. Individuals appear mainly as roles within an organized hierarchy. Cardin’s memoir restores individual perspective by focusing on obedience and youth. He presents sailors as disciplined and capable, but largely powerless to question orders or policy. This challenges the assumption, often implicit in official histories, that participation in war implies understanding or agreement with its political aims.
Comparative point: Freedman records who decided; Cardin shows who complied—and at what personal cost.
Paragraph 4: Political legitimacy and critique
As an official historian, Freedman treats the British government’s decision-making process analytically rather than morally, avoiding overt judgment. His work therefore contributes to a narrative in which the campaign appears broadly justified by circumstance and necessity. Cardin, writing later, is more openly critical of political motives and public messaging, while remaining respectful of fellow servicemen. His memoir challenges the idea that veterans must support the political legitimacy of the wars they fought, separating professional service from political endorsement.
Comparative point: Freedman describes legitimacy; Cardin questions it.
Paragraph 5: Historical value and limitations
Freedman’s work is indispensable for understanding the Falklands War at a strategic and political level, but it cannot fully represent the emotional or psychological experience of ordinary sailors. Cardin’s memoir, while subjective and limited in scope, provides insight into fear, stress, and delayed reflection—factors that shape how wars are remembered and understood by those who fought them. When used together, the two sources demonstrate that official history and personal testimony serve different but complementary historical functions.
Comparative point: Official history offers explanation; memoir offers meaning.
Conclusion
The comparison between Paul Cardin and Lawrence Freedman illustrates the extent to which personal memoirs can challenge official narratives of war. Freedman’s authoritative account explains how the Falklands campaign was planned, justified, and executed at the highest levels. Cardin’s memoir reveals how that same campaign was experienced by young sailors with limited information and agency. Together, they show that a full understanding of war requires both institutional analysis and personal testimony. Without accounts like Cardin’s, official narratives risk presenting war as more coherent, consensual, and emotionally distant than it truly was.
High-mark concluding sentence (useful for exams)
While Freedman explains how the Falklands War was fought, Cardin reminds us what it cost to fight it.
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
Closing statement subject to change, dependent on conduct of hearing etc.
As stated earlier, this disciplinary hearing is completely unfair due to the nature of how the allegation of malicious intent originally arose.
Neither Paul nor his Trade union have had sight of the [External Investigator 2’s] report, which we believe is germane to this allegation and we have therefore been totally disadvantaged in our ability to prepare a defence.
Also reference has been made to a private document that was inadvertently passed to [the County Engineer].
This was a legitimate discussion document between Paul and his trade union on possible strategies and should not be used to try to prove any other motive.
Paul has explained that there was no malice intended in this strategy, rather an attempt to robustly question [External Investigator 1] as to his findings, this would have been an attempt to enable Paul to get further evidence against [senior engineer] to prove his assertion that the full facts had been obscured.
This strategy was largely discounted, but in any case would have been a reasonable and legitimate tactic.
It in no way suggests malicious intent.
Therefore this allegation is totally denied and refuted and there is certainly no evidence put forward to prove otherwise.
There has been no evidence given today to prove that Paul behaved in an aggressive manner towards his manager.
We accept that the discussion became heated and voices may have been raised by both parties, this does not mean that either party is more to blame than the other.
[Street Lighting manager’s] version of events in his email and then his statement differ greatly and should not be relied upon.
In any event there was ample opportunity to investigate this matter and bring charges if required on this matter at the time it occurred.
The fact that this is being brought up now is a cynical attempt to bring unwarranted disciplinary charges against Paul and is unfair and unreasonable given that it is now some 9 months after the event.
There is no evidence that Paul’s conduct or behaviour has caused trust and confidence to breakdown.
Paul has consistently attempted to use the council’s policies and procedures to resolve his grievances.
If this has caused his managers to become upset then that is because they feel that they should be above the council’s policies and procedures,
Paul, on the advice of [senior manager], kept a diary, this now appears to have caused his colleagues some concern. That is not Paul’s fault.
Paul has raised grievances or Dignity at Work complaints following the council’s procedures… his colleagues and managers have become upset… is that Paul’s fault?
Are these individuals above the rules?
Should they never be questioned or challenged?
If there has been any kind of behaviour resulting in a breakdown of trust or confidence, it is not the fault of Paul Cardin, who has always tried to stay within the rules and procedures of the council and is now suffering a severe detriment for exercising his right under these policies and procedures to raise matters of concern.
Paul is 33 years into his working career. In more than three decades, he has never received any disciplinary sanctions or written warnings. It is his 50th birthday today, and he finds it devastating that he is possibly about to be dismissed from a job for the first time in his life. Given that he has done nothing wrong and has told the truth all the way through, it is all the more upsetting.
It is true to say that no allegations about Paul’s poor performance or bad behaviour were made to him before his Dignity at Work complaint.
This suggests that for such allegations arising later were little more than a retaliatory gesture by those who felt threatened by Paul’s complaints.
It appears that some of these people would not even stop short of bringing both his personal and professional life into question.
Paul is astonished at this lamentable conduct and the hostile reaction engendered, and is stunned to find that his career at Cheshire, and possibly his future in Street Lighting may be brought to an end following this meeting.
The comments against Paul might suggest that he is not a team player and has little regard for his colleagues.
It may be that not many have regard for the real Paul Cardin.
The truth is completely different in that Paul is a person that knows more than most about valuing teamwork and supporting colleagues.
Paul has served his country at war and has received a medal for this.
27 years ago, Paul helped to rescue injured survivors from HMS Sheffield following an exocet missile attack – 20 men were killed, 30 men were injured. Paul then helped to rescue all surviving crew members from HMS Ardent after it was bombed several times – 20 men were killed, 30 men were injured. Later, on 12th June 1982, Paul was at his action station on HMS Yarmouth, waiting for an exocet missile to hit the ship. In the event, it hit HMS Glamorgan, a few hundred yards away – 12 men were killed, and 16 men were injured. Paul’s ship was close at hand, again ready to rescue survivors. Paul has always maintained a close working bond with colleagues, and has carried this forward through every working role ever since. [County Engineer] had been advised of Paul’s military experiences at the hearing of 15th July 2008. All of the information related to the war effort of HMS Yarmouth is available on the internet. If Cheshire West and Chester’s officers had chosen to research this information and brought it to the hearing, rather than selecting a single page of financial IVA details, they may have obtained a more balanced picture of who Paul Cardin is.
It is always hoped that employees attend work and give of their best and a happy and productive relationship on all sides is fostered and continues.
However, it is also recognised that from time to time, this relationship is not perfect and that is why we have grievance and disciplinary procedures and policies.
Paul Cardin is a person who felt that he was experiencing some problems inthe workplace and tried to use the prescribed procedures to resolve these matters.
He has acted in good faith and the belief that by pursuing the proper procedures these matters would be properly investigated and concluded in a fair manner.
If he has made any assertions that others have acted improperly, it was because he held a genuine and deeply held belief that this was so.
During this period Paul has suffered a great deal of work related stress, causing him to feel issues very acutely. He does however now feel that it is time to return to work, and hopes that this can be achieved by supportive management and mediation.
Paul has a wife and two pre school children, he is a decorated war hero and he is devastated to find himself in a position where he may soon be dismissed, He is a man that deals only in truth and integrity and is dismayed at the attempts to twist events to prove otherwise.
All of these allegations have been brought with little foundation and scant regard for due process. It is clear that the allegations have been cobbled together in an unfair fashion and I am asking that you find these allegations unfounded and unsubstantiated and allow Paul, an honourable man and Falklands war veteran to return to work.
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
What a great reply to the Sky news statement below.
SEND YOUR OWN CHILDREN.
This country is already dead on its feet and now you want blood to prop it up. You tax people into the ground. You strip them with council tax income tax fuel duty VAT insurance stealth taxes inflation theft. You rinse every working family until they are one missed bill away from collapse. Then you look them in the eye and say be ready to fight for this. Fight for what exactly. Fight for a system that cannot house its own people. Fight for a government that cannot feed children without food banks. Fight for a country where veterans sleep in doorways while defence contractors get champagne bonuses. Fight for a nation that sells its infrastructure sells its land sells its future then asks its kids to die for the shell that remains. This is not defence. This is sacrifice theatre. The same people screaming about threats are the same people who engineered the debt slavery. The same people crying national security are the ones who hollowed out the NHS sold off energy flooded the country with cheap labour then blamed the public for the consequences. The same media outlets like Sky News that lied about weapons of mass destruction lied about covid lied about inflation now want you emotionally primed for war. Every time the system starts to wobble they roll out a foreign enemy. Every time the books dont balance they manufacture fear. War resets debt. War launders money. War silences dissent. War justifies surveillance rationing censorship and control. That is not conspiracy. That is pattern recognition. They talk about freedom while taxing it out of existence. They talk about democracy while ignoring votes. They talk about unity while pitting neighbour against neighbour. They talk about courage while hiding behind security details and locked gates. And now suddenly your sons and daughters are assets. Human capital. Inventory. The children of politicians will not fight. The children of bankers will not bleed. The children of media executives will not die screaming in mud. It will be working class kids. Again. It will be people already crushed by rent energy food and debt. It will be a generation raised on austerity now offered a rifle and a flag instead of a future. You broke the country. You looted it. You sold it. You poisoned it. And now you want the public to die for it. No. If this war is necessary then lead from the front. Send your own children. Broadcast their names. Put them in uniform. Until then stop insulting people with patriotic guilt trips and stop pretending mass death is noble. This country is not under threat from abroad. It is under occupation from within. Sent from my iPad
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception
From Paul Cardin, a Falklands Conflict veteran. This is a biting commentary, told from the heart. Also included is a 1982 diary, written on location. This book forms a forensic inquiry into several conflict-related mysteries that have never been addressed or resolved - even after 40 years.
Wirral In It Together 