Hi everyone I have watched the debate on the Scratchley forts unfurl with interest but would like to add the following: If you disagree with what someone says violently, please do it privately. If you do not want to take the research or advice of others, then quite frankly do not join mailing lists!!! Most people answer queries because they wish to help - please respect their right to do so and do not use denigrating language. This is a valuable shared pool of knowledge, that has assisted many researchers in the past. More research is probably needed to answer this vexed question. Perhaps army records or the military museum at Fort Scratchley (NEWCASTLE) can assist Best wishes Jan Sydney -----Original Message----- From: William MOPPETT [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, 8 February 2003 5:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Scratchely forts My memory is adversely affected by Vaquez disease, but I vaguely recollect there was a general staff officer named McKenzie-Smith. If this be thee I defer to your authority on Army lore On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 01:33 PM, Graham & Vera McKenzie-Smith wrote: > Although you are right about Scratchley's role in the construction of a > range of "forts" in NSW, this is beside the point. Rubbish ! This IS the point. The name comes from the lt Col/knight of that name. > When your father was > discharged he was obviously on the strength of HQ of Scratchely > Battery, > Coastal Artillery which as others have pointed out was at Newcastle. My understanding of "on the strength of.." is apparently different to yours. I find it improbable that the HQ of coastal defence would be located at Newcastle. I am as certain as can be he never went near the Newcastle 'fort', but if you mean the military paper work was done there for his demobbing, I cant argue from knowledge > By that time any resemblance between the "forts" constructed by > Scratchley > in the previous century and the manned coastal defences was > coincidental. Apart from Bare Island which is nearly original, including some interesting period pieces, all Scratchely Forts have been further-developed with evolving technology. The 'fort' to which dad was attached sported 6 inch 'naval' guns, although the bombardment which failed to sink the burning 'patrol boat' on the evening of the Nip attack were smaller pieces at Green Pt & Georges head, directly in the line of the boom. > > Why he was on the strength of Scratchely Bty while being located at > Sydney > is a mystery but it is not unusual. I seek to uncover the facts, and discount opinions, particularly where I suspect vested interests. I suppose most officers & men amongst his patents are, like my father, deceased. Thank you for your opinion. All share the view that Fort Scratchely exclusively applies to the N'cle estab. and that it was HQ of Coastal defense. However this reminds me of a convict Ann Thornley, who arrived in NSW with an infant daughter. All my relatives without exception insisted she was born in Bolton, Lancs. Trouble was her daughter's age in the colonial records was wrong. Finaly in exasperation one proponent sent the court records of her trial and CF99/5616, documenting the completion of her sentance, which declared her native place to be Bury ! There she declared, doesnt that prove she wasnt born there ? Sure enough there was another Ann born at Bury, and with a daughter who exactly matched the Colonial records. Clearly everyone else was wrong and had accepted at face value a conclusion from a singular but erroneous source. I never heard dad refer to the establishment except as "the Fort". His discharge record is the first time I saw the name SCRATCHELY. Ann Thornley was my GGG grandfather; Thomas LISSON's mistress ! It is not apparent that Scratchely built the establishment at Newcastle, and I am sure you will not insist that it wasnt updated to meet WWII requirements. If you were the OC at the fort, you should declare this interest which would establish your authority beyond challenge. If the army had another appelalion, say Fort Bloggs I would lay more weight to the opinion that Scratchely applied exclusively to the Newcastle estab. I try to rate opinions, from guesswork or rumour to established 'fact' based upon convincing evidence. Your loose logic and erroneous suppositions undermine your credibility. It may, as you say be true that the paperwork for my father's discharge was done at the HQ of Coastal Artillery, which may have been at Newcastle. If you know this to be the case, please tell me how you know. Slagging me for challenging other respondents for unsupported fiats will be seen for what it is. I am sure they are trying to be helpfull, for which I offer gratitude, but I find the lack of argument, including pooh-poohing my query if South Head enjoyed the appelation Fort Scratchely somewhat challenging. Your assertion that there is no connection between Lt. Col Sir William SCRATCHERLY and the coastal defence forts for which he was responsible is plain idiocy. I dont wish to be unkind, but where did you get the idea that I implied the Army had never modified or updated Scratchely's fortifications ? I thank you for your observation "Why he was on the strength of Scratchely Bty while being located at Sydney is a mystery but it is not unusual." Here I assume you speak from peculiar army proceedures. If you paid any attention to my query, I would like to determine the facts, and ignore what you term "the obvious" (fiction ?) In my philosophy, a proposition may be true or false. I dont agree that the obvious is necessarily untrue. Please do not elabourate on why you hold this opinion ! I want to know why SCRATCHELY appears in my dad's discharge. It may have something to do with the Newcastle estab. but frankly I am unconvinced. Cheers William Moppett