In reply to The Lemming:
> Those medals on his chest are for real bravery.
On point of fact and pedantry, and not wishing to detract in any way from Capt.-Col Toms' remarkable acheivements, (and expecting a slew of dislikes) those medals are service medals, not gallantry medals. L-R as worn.
War Service Medal, awarded to anyone serving for miniumum 28 days during period 3-9-39 to 2-9-45
Burma Star, awarded to anyone for serving 1 day minimum in Burma.
1939-45 Star, awarded for minimum of 180 days service overseas.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/medals-campaigns-descriptions-and-eligibility.
So if your wish is a debate on the nature of heroism in modern times, is a hero someone who served? Served with distinction? Served and survived? Or, as I suspect with Capt. Tom and many many NHS staff today, someone who did their job, did it very very well, and consequently came into harms way. And continued to do their job very, very, well. Is 'Hero' a retrospective label that others confer from a position of safety onto a bemused recipient? Do you become a hero by virtue of longevity and outliving your peers who also served, and if so is your hero status somewhat symbolic or representative rather than that of your individual or personal conduct? I don't have any great answers but I think there is a pertinent debate to be had on the differing natures of the heroism of service, and the heroism of gallantry.
Post edited at 16:20