Former Wren, 100, put cardboard in her shoes to get into Edinburgh naval base
One of the last surviving Wrens who fought in the Second World War has told how she put cardboard in her shoes so she was tall enough to join the service.
Dorothea Barron, aged 100, said she was "dying to get involved" in the war effort, joining the Women's Royal Naval Service after leaving school, serving at a base at HMS Hopetoun in Port Edgar as a visual signaller.
In an interview with the Big Issue magazine, she said: "I'd tell my younger self that life is a continual battle. You've just got to fight it, you won't get anywhere if you succumb. That's what life has taught me. I'm afraid you've got to have fighting spirit all your life.
READ MORE: Edinburgh's Sir Chris Hoy forced to leave hotel room at 4am after late-night blunder
READ MORE: Inspiring Edinburgh pensioner hosts his first ever art exhibition aged 88
"Never envy anyone, just stand up and make the best of what you have. I was dying to get involved but wasn't tall enough to join the Wrens.
"We had to be 5ft 3in and I'm only 5ft 2in. So, I cut cardboard and shoved it in the heels of my shoes to push my height up, and I had this great mop of hair that I brushed up high.
Sign up for Edinburgh Live newsletters for more headlines straight to your inbox
"They realised I wasn't tall enough but could see how keen I was and took pity on me. I would have got in somehow. I'd have done anything to get in."
She added: "We were a group of girls who were desperate not to let the Nazis in. I was so enthusiastic. It was very fulfilling work. We felt we were contributing to the peace of the world."
Ms Barron said there are still not enough opportunities for women, and men still have the upper hand. But she added: "Men still underestimate women, our abilities and courage.
"Women have to get on with things and look after the family. I admire women tremendously but most men are mollycoddled these days. I have nothing but contempt for people who are happy to risk other people's lives for their own self-glorification.
Join Edinburgh Live's Whatsapp Community here and get the latest news sent straight to your messages.
"Because men start wars, women don't. Women are much more sensible and have to pick up the pieces and make life happen again."
The full interview is in the latest issue of the magazine, on sale from Monday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
An 'alarming show of force': San Diego elected officials denounce ICE work raids
Tensions remain high in San Diego after last week's Immigration and Customs Enforcement work raids at two Italian restaurants that ended with federal agents using flash-bang grenades against residents protesting the operations. Elected officials reacted with outrage. The incidents occurred Friday when heavily armed Homeland Security Investigations agents executed search warrants at Buona Forchetta and Enoteca Buona Forchetta in South Park, a serene and tree-lined neighborhood with popular restaurants, according to immigration and city officials. Yasmeen Pitts O'Keefe, a spokesperson for HSI, an agency under ICE, said the warrants were related to alleged 'violations of hiring and harboring illegal aliens and false statements.' She said four people living in the country illegally were taken into custody. Citing an ongoing investigation, she provided no other details. In a statement, Buona Forchetta said it was working with its attorneys to locate and support its employees and their families. It said it was also providing support to its staff who witnessed and experienced the incident firsthand. O'Keefe said as immigration agents were serving the court-authorized warrants, a large crowd began to gather, chanting "Shame!" and eventually preventing federal agents from leaving the area. 'The demonstrators became unruly and as a result less lethal noise flash diversionary devices were deployed to allow law enforcement to exit the scene as safely as possible,' O'Keefe said. 'When gatherings like these are formed, it not only places law enforcement in danger but also the demonstrators and onlookers attempting to impede law enforcement activity." Videos taken by demonstrators and bystanders have since circulated on social media. They show dozens of residents demanding federal agents to leave the neighborhood while cursing at them and calling them 'Nazis' and 'fascists.' They also show residents standing in front of a silver Chevy SUV, prompting a federal agent to use a flash-bang grenade to disperse the crowd but with no effect. At some point, five federal agents, most of them armed with assault rifles, approached the crowd as the government vehicles reversed and exited through another street. San Diego city officials denounced the operation and questioned the use of rifles and stun grenades for a worksite enforcement raid, which ultimately led to the public's response. 'Federal actions like these are billed as a public safety measure, but it had the complete opposite effect, ' San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria said in a statement. 'What we saw undermines trust and creates fear in our community.' 'This was an unnecessary and alarming show of force deployed by those federal agents at a restaurant in a residential neighborhood,' Councilmember Stephen Whitburn, whose district includes South Park, told The Times. 'Setting aside the debate over immigration policy, I would like to know the justification for sending dozens of agents, wearing masks, carrying machine guns and handcuffing all the workers to execute a warrant for somebody who might be undocumented. Are you serious?' 'Last Friday was completely unnecessary,' he added, 'and residents had every right to be furious about what they were witnessing and to make their anger known, and they did that, and I'm proud of it.' Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera echoed that statement and called on a collective response against what he said was 'state-sponsored terrorism.' 'I've seen firsthand the pain and trauma caused when our neighbors are targeted by aggressive, military-style federal enforcement — whether it's parents arrested while dropping their kids at school, residents deported while attending court, or workers ambushed while doing their jobs at local restaurants,' he said. 'When ICE agents stormed Buona Forchetta with military-style weapons, that wasn't safety — it was an attempt to terrorize San Diegans into compliance.' In a post on the social media platform X, Elo-Rivera's posted a picture of federal agents with the word 'terrorism' written over it. That post caught the attention of Stephen Miller, the Homeland Security advisor and deputy chief of staff to President Trump. 'We are living in the age of leftwing domestic terrorism. They are openly encouraging violence against law enforcement to aid and abet the invasion of America,' Miller wrote on X. Whitburn said he is a supporter of law enforcement and pointed to the professionalism of the San Diego police officers and sheriff's deputies who oftentimes take down criminals without, he said, having to use the amount of force used by federal agents last week. 'I doubt there was any need for that many agents at that restaurant on Friday,' he said. 'And that begs the question, if it wasn't necessary, why the big show of force? Was it to create fear? Was it to intimidate residents who live in the area? Is that what we want our federal government to be doing? Buona Forchetta said in its statement that it was grateful for the outpouring of support from residents and its customers. 'Buona Forchetta has always been, at its core, a family,' it wrote. 'We have built our spaces on trust, dignity, and care for one another. We stand together now and always.' Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Steve Bannon warns Ukraine risks escalating war after drone strikes
Key Trump allies have condemned the Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian nuclear bombers, warning the attacks risked escalating the conflict at a time when Washington is trying to keep both sides at the negotiating table. Steve Bannon, the White House chief strategist during Donald Trump's first term, used a Second World War comparison as he pointed out that Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, launched the operation just a day ahead of talks in Turkey. 'On the eve of peace talks or ceasefire talks he takes the Japanese role in Pearl Harbor – the sneak attack,' he said on his popular War Room show. He called on the Trump administration to immediately condemn the strikes if it had no warning that Ukraine was planning such a huge attack. Mr Bannon and his allies fear the world is hurtling towards a Third World War, as China and Russia deepen ties, and flashpoints ignite around the world. A day earlier, Ukrainian officials said the surprise drone offensive had destroyed or damaged more than 40 warplanes at air bases deep inside Russia. Operation 'Spiders Web', 18 months in the planning, targeted strategic bombers capable of launching nuclear weapons. As well as sending a message to Moscow, analysts said it was hard not to see a message for Mr Trump after his Oval Office showdown with Mr Zelensky, when he told the Ukrainian president: 'You don't have the cards. With us, you have the cards, but without us, you don't have any cards.' The strike was launched ahead of a big week of diplomacy. Mr Trump is expected to speak to Xi Jinping, the Chinese premier, and he will host Friedrich Merz, the new German chancellor, on Thursday. Mike Flynn, who was Mr Trump's first national adviser in 2017 before resigning over undeclared meetings with Russian officials, described the weekend strikes as a 'geopolitical insult' if Washington had not been informed in advance. 'People, and especially world leaders, need to realise the global implications to such an operation as Ukraine just pulled off,' he posted on X. 'Russia will respond. Action, reaction, counteraction. Those are the shifting tides of warfare. 'This wasn't a bold action, it was brash. Ukraine's short-term win could be the world's long-term loss.' The US president has moved one way and then the other as he tries to make good on his campaign promise to end the conflict in Ukraine. Long an admirer of Vladimir Putin and his hardline rule of Russia, he hardened his position on Moscow after a surprise meeting with Mr Zelensky at the Vatican in April, but has not pushed through additional sanctions and has given the Russian leader more time to show he is serious about wanting peace. On Monday, the two sides met for just an hour in Turkey. That was still enough time to agree to swap the bodies of 6,000 soldiers killed in action. Mr Bannon said: 'This is scampering up the escalatory ladder at the exact moment President Trump wants to get everybody off the escalatory ladder.' Mr Bannon and his allies speculated that the Trump administration had given tacit approval. 'There's no way that our intelligence services could not have known about this,' Jack Posobiec, a conservative activist and conspiracy theorist, told Mr Bannon's show. 'We've had intelligence services that have been on the ground, as we know prior to the war, that are directly embedded, direct embeds with Ukrainian intelligence services and Ukrainian security services.' Mr Bannon may no longer be in the White House, but he continues to talk with the president and his show is deeply influential with the wider Maga base. 'Russia is just not going to sit there and take it,' he said about the strikes 'The attack was audacious and bold and brilliant. That's also not the point.'
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lord Hermer, it is remaining in the ECHR that imperils our human rights
For an eminent barrister to regret a 'clumsy' choice of words is rather like a distinguished heart surgeon owning up to being wobbly with a scalpel. Just as we ordinary folk expect pillars of the medical profession to be careful with our atrial chambers and pulmonary veins, so we pay Lord Hermer KC to be precise in language and wise in judgment. When the Attorney General delivers a setpiece speech that is the exact opposite, forcing him to make amends for having compared anyone who questions our membership of certain international conventions to a Nazi jurist, then he is advertising his own incompetence. As it happens, I wrote speeches for three Foreign Secretaries and one Prime Minister and even I could work out that it was best to avoid 1930s or Nazi references. Apart from my stubborn belief that Basil Fawlty was not a model of public oratory, the inevitable row would obliterate the message of the speech. And what was Lord Hermer's message? I want to be fairer than he deserves and concentrate on his argument because I think he was trying to be reassuring. After 32 years at the Bar, he may even have changed his mind about something. Lord Hermer is trying to swim with the tide created by the Defence Review, published on Monday, which confirms plans to increase military spending to match the most perilous international situation arguably since 1945. It may sound strange but the Attorney General is re-positioning himself as, if not a hawk, then at least a realist. He denounced 'legal romantic idealists' for being 'dangerously naive' and willing to confine Britain to 'irrelevance in global affairs'. Instead, he argued that loyalty to international law was consistent with a 'hard-headed' approach to British interests in a dangerous world. Lord Hermer failed to repeat a doctrine he outlined last year that Britain must not just obey international law but 'go further than simply meeting our obligations' – surely the essence of 'legal romantic idealism'. But that was all of seven months ago; the new Lord Hermer no longer entertains such purism. He even thinks that treaties should be subjected to 'evidence-based criticism' and 'proposals to reform' while international organisations must avoid 'blindness or indifference to public sentiment in their member states'. When a human rights barrister shows sympathy for public sentiment, you know that something is afoot. Ironically enough, Lord Hermer's speech was his attempt to be moderate. He was trying to occupy the middle ground between 'romantic idealists' on the one hand and 'pseudo-realists' on the other, the latter being people who supposedly want to do away with international law altogether. But there is a problem: he doesn't mean it. Look at the asymmetry of his language: the idealists are naive, but the 'pseudo-realists' are imitating Nazis. And he stubbornly evades two central questions. Is it still the Government's position that Britain must go further than just obey international law? Or is that an example of Old Hermer-ism that is no longer operative? More seriously, why is it always wrong – even shocking – to withdraw from an international convention? They all provide for states to depart. Why would exercising that right imperil the whole system? Lord Hermer thinks that his critics want to 'pick and mix', breaking some elements of international agreements and obeying others. But if that were true, there would be no point withdrawing from any convention: we would just ignore them. The fact that Robert Jenrick wants to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not make him an enemy of the rule of law. It just means that he wants to use the procedure for withdrawal in Article 58 because he believes that continued membership no longer serves the British people. What is so wrong with that? For example, the British people have a security interest in their government being able to deport foreign nationals who commit serious offences. Keeping them here, no matter how dangerous they might be, breaches the state's obligation to protect its own people. Yet the courts have interpreted the ECHR in a way that effectively compels us to keep many foreign national offenders. Articles 3 and 8, which respectively prohibit torture and guarantee family life, are routinely used to defeat the state's attempts to deport them. Some go on to re-offend. Foreigners who avoided deportation committed 10,000 crimes in Britain in one year, 2021-22, according to Ministry of Justice data. That is 10,000 avoidable human rights abuses. Why is it wrong to observe that membership of the ECHR collides with the right of people in the United Kingdom not to fall prey to foreign criminals who could otherwise have been expelled? Is placing membership of the ECHR above the safety of the British public not a 'pick and mix' approach, and a pretty reprehensible one? Meanwhile, five European countries, including Finland and Poland, are withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention of 1997 which bans anti-personnel landmines. They believe they need these weapons to deter Russian invasion. Are they vandalising the international system? Should Britain be campaigning against their decision? I see no sign that we are. If our allies are allowed to leave a convention because it no longer serves their national interest, why can't we? After all, the biggest catastrophe for Finland and Poland would be a failure to deter Russian aggression. A smaller but still grave catastrophe here in Britain was 10,000 avoidable human rights abuses in one year, particularly if you happened to be one of the victims. If you insist on remaining in every convention regardless of the consequences, isn't that more extreme and irresponsible than exercising the legal right to leave? Will you not open the way for politicians who might respond 'stay in the conventions, but just ignore them'. Lord Hermer might be trying to re-brand himself as a moderate, but by placing membership of international conventions beyond question, he endangers what he wishes to preserve. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
