Drunken Disorderly Division

[Desmond7]

Quote P118 'Survivors of a Kind' by Brian Bond.

He writes (in an article about F. P. Crozier) - Crozier had indeed made a very favourable impression amidst the general shambles on 1st July (1916) and despite the (Ulster) Division's relapse into DRUNKEN DISORDER (my caps) after the battle, he was awarded .... etc

On what grounds does the author use such disparaging terms? Where is the evidence that the Ulster Division 'relapsed' into 'drunken disorder' ...

I find no records of any such disorders nor of wholesale drunkeness ... court martial records, I suggest, will paint a very different picture to that portrayed in this book ..

The Ulster Division, love 'em or hate 'em, deserves better treatment than this by a published author and historian.

Debate.

See link below for an article written from the war diary 12th Royal Irish Rifles, from 3rd July 1916 to start August. I do not see a great deal of time for drunkeness and disorder.

http://www.freewebs.com/ballymenaww1/12ririfjulyaug16.htm

I had earlier posed this question in 'Book Reviews' but had little response. I thought it was worth airing on this 'broad' section of the forum.

For Interest-

Some facts regarding the sobriety of members of the 36th, in comparison of Courts Martials for drunkenness between Battalions of the Division and other Irish units.

1st October 1916 to 28th February 1918.Tried for drunkenness.Total courts martial offences in brackets.

REGULARS

1st Inniskilling Fusiliers - 15 [total offences for this period-63]

2nd Royal Dublin Fusiliers-19 [93]

36th DIVISION

10th Inniskillings-4 [24]

14th Royal Irish Rifles -4 [18]

9th Royal irish rifles-9 [19]

The three Battalions combined compare with one battalion of regulars. With the 9th rifles supposedly being the most undisciplined of the 36th coming from the Industrial heart of West Belfast [shankill Road].

[MelPack]

Des

Is there an element of deja vu about this topic?

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...showtopic=44407

Are the Holts and Bond working from a common source?

Regards

Mel

[AlanCurragh]

Des - I'm reminded of a thread of yours a couple of years ago - the Holt's Guide to the Battlefields-South claiming the Ulster Division were "alcohol fuelled" - from looking at the thread again, I see that they told you they would reconsider this description for future editions. Did you ever find out why they thought it was a suitable description?

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...showtopic=44407

I wonder whether Mr Bond has picked up this inference from the Holt's guidebook and used it to embellish his description of the Ulster Division after the 1st July? I'm certainly not aware of any other sources that suggest "drunken disorder"

Alan

Edit - Mel beat me to it!

[MelPack]

Edit - Mel beat me to it!

Alan

Only because I haven't been drinking.

Regards

Mel

[truthergw]

Most annoying to see rubbish like this being peddled. Presumably those who have access to the likes of WFA will make strong representation on this and demand evidence or retraction. Those who feel very strongly may also be minded to write to the author via his publisher and tackle him personally on this. The Northern Irish like their southern neighbours and their brethren across the sea in Scotland maintain strong links. This may be the time to see how strong they are.

[Desmond7]

Well remembered Mel and Magic ... I actually consider this to be a far more damaging piece of text which could somehow slip its way into the books of future authors.

I can fully accept that any body of around 18,000 men will have a proportion of drunks, scrappers and general rogues ... but to claim this Division, which is widely considered to have served with great distinction throughout its service on the Western Front, 'relapsed into drunken disorder' is an insult to those who served, those who died and their descendants.

If I can be shown evidence which justifies the use of these terms I will happily accept it. The british army's own statistics (unless there has been a monumental cover-up) indicate otherwise.

By the way this is not me being a rose tinted glasses enthusiast ... I am a believer in giving future generations a full and frnak picture of the lives of these men and the actions of their formations.

Des

[Stanley_C_Jenkins]

Although one hopes that the Northern Irish do indeed like their southern Irish neighbours, I cannot help feeling that there should have been a comma in the sentence "The Northern Irish like their southern neighbours and their brethren across the sea in Scotland maintain strong links". Having made that somewhat frivolous point, I agree that the accusation is totally disgraceful.

[6th Shropshires]

I actually consider this to be a far more damaging piece of text which could somehow slip its way into the books of future authors.

Hi Des

That's what's likely to happon, one author makes an unfounded statment and years down the line people quote it as fact.

Annette

[centurion]

Before we indulge in too much righteous indignation and general breast beating it's worth looking at The Irish Regiments in the Great War: Discipline and Morale By Timothy Bowman which contains the following "Following the battle a number of men in the 36th (Ulster) Division appear to have succumbed to drunkenness. Private Ellison Whitley of the 1/7th West Yorkshire Regiment was sent to relieve the 36th (Ulster) Division and remembered "The Ulster Rifles (sic) who were still alive were all roaring drunk"

Following this battle the 36th (Ulster) Division appears to have experienced low morale. Even Cyril Falls the divisional historian acknowledged this.."

The book includes footnotes to credible sources.

I would add that half my family have roots in Ulster but one should not let pride of place blind one.

[Desmond7]

Centurion - the courts martial figures for drunkeness are from Timothy Bowman's book. And yes, Timothy Bowman is credited extensively in the footnotes to the piece in 'Survivors of a kind' ...

Now, Bowman states:

"Following the battle a number of men in the 36th (Ulster) Division appear to have succumbed to drunkenness. Private Ellison Whitley of the 1/7th West Yorkshire Regiment was sent to relieve the 36th (Ulster) Division and remembered "The Ulster Rifles (sic) who were still alive were all roaring drunk"

Following this battle the 36th (Ulster) Division appears to have experienced low morale. Even Cyril Falls the divisional historian acknowledged this.."

1. I am quite willing to accept that it would be perfectly reaonable and entirely possible that quite a few of those who survived 1st July got drunk.

2. Bowman uses the words 'appear to have succumbed to drunkeness.' He then quotes Pte. Whitley who states "The Ulster Rifles (sic) who were still alive were all roaring drunk" (you rightly point out through your SIC that this was not the name of the regiment at that time).

3. In the context of the relief by 1/7 West Yorks in the trenches in and around Thiepval and the Ancre .. just how many men would Pte. Whitley have seen to allow him to state that all those Riflemen still alive were 'roaring drunk'? Is Prof. Bowman's thesis built mainly on the words of Pte. Whitley?

Appear .. a crucial word which can be read in many ways. I am equally sure that many men who came back down the wounded choked trenches of Thiepval Wood could have appeared drunk and some may well have had the smell of rum on their breaths ... but perhaps these men were more traumatised and exhausted than 'roaring drunk' ... just a theory.

Falls actually said: 'The men were very silent in these first few days after the battle. Not one of the survivors but had lost companions who had been two years at his side; many friends of a lifetime. But if ever a gift be God-given, it is the healing effect of time. And in days of war a week even is a long period.'

As I have stated, I can accept that any Division of 18,000 men will have instances of post-battle trauma involving drink and discipline problems; what I cannot accept is the insinuation that the Division was, as this quote implies, 'a drunken disorderly division' prior to 1st July nor can I accept that it can be characterised as 'relapsing into drunken disorder' after 1st July. It is the insinuation that the Division had any meaningful record of 'drunken disorder' which annoys me .. not the possibility of 'a number' of men getting full in the wake of storming the Schwaben Redoubt.

With sincere respect.

Des

A Division cannot be brnded in this way surely - there must be post battle reports somewhere from perspective of Corps or Army HQs which assess the behaviour of Divisions after this battle.

[centurion]

2. Bowman uses the words 'appear to have succumbed to drunkeness.' He then quotes Pte. Whitley who states "The Ulster Rifles (sic) who were still alive were all roaring drunk" (you rightly point out through your SIC that this was not the name of the regiment at that time).

3. In the context of the relief by 1/7 West Yorks in the trenches in and around Thiepval and the Ancre .. just how many men would Pte. Whitley have seen to allow him to state that all those Riflemen still alive were 'roaring drunk'? Is Prof. Bowman's thesis built mainly on the words of Pte. Whitley?

Apparently not as the note to this reference also refers to an account by a Pvt Eastburn also of the West Yorks. These appear in a thesis 'The Leeds Rifles and their antecedents' 1983 University of Leeds. I think its unfair to refer to "Professor Bowman's thesis" as the passage is but part of a much largely scholarly work covering the discipline in all the Irish regiments. The sic BTW is Bowman's not mine.

Bowman covers quite a bit of the history of the Division showing how its discipline radically improved as the war progressed. It certainly seems to have had some early rocky phases (including a number of drunken brawls and a minor mutiny in the 1914 -1915 period).

[Desmond7]

Quote Centurion: Bowman covers quite a bit of the history of the Division showing how its discipline radically improved as the war progressed

My point exactly. It did not 'relapse into drunken disorder' ...

There is no doubt that there were various problems in 107 Bde. prior to March 1916. They were swiftly tackled by Nugent who sorted many other problems, many of which were common in all New Army Divs ... i.e. dug-outs, unsuitable NCOs etc etc

Early 'rocky phases', an unquantifed numberof 'drunken brawls' (again common behaviour whether in service or in civvie life at the time) and a 'minor mutiny' (I am unaware of any incident which would merit such terminology, but keen to hear more) do not, in my estimation, give the author a basis for characterising them as 'relapsing into drunken disorder'.

Even in the aftermath of 1st July all the evidence points to units being kept busy, assimilating new drafts, training, marching etc.

I would argue that it would be equally wrong (as some have tried to do) that the Ulster Division was a Bible-reading, Psalm singing Division on the basis of the relevant chapters in Bowman's book ... i.e the OC of 4th Division being surprised at how many Ulstermen spent time reading their Bibles and having 'wee meetings' etc. Just as there would be drunks in any Division there would have been committed Christians in any Division. The comment remains, in my opinion, unwarranted and unsupported by the neccessary weight of evidence to impose such an insulting brand.

[centurion]

Early 'rocky phases', an unquantifed numberof 'drunken brawls' (again common behaviour whether in service or in civvie life at the time) and a 'minor mutiny' (I am unaware of any incident which would merit such terminology, but keen to hear more)

Taken again from Bowman

In the 36th (Ulster) division at least three mutinies took place during the Divisions training. That in the 9th Royal Irish Rifles over poor accommodation has already been referred to. Another mutiny occurred following maneuvers by the 109th Brigade in the Antrim hills in June 1915. In this incident, the men of the 14th Royal Irish Rifles refused to to march back to Shane's Castle Camp insisting on a train being provided. The battalions CO, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Chichester defused the situation by conceding to this demand and chartering a train. No man in the 14th RIR received any punishment for this action but from then on the other battalions in the brigade referred to them as 'Chocolate Soldiers'.

Much more serious was the mass mutiny of the 36th (Ulster) Division in early September 1915. At this time a number of battalions of the Division mutinied as they believed, wrongly, that they were to be sent overseas immediately, without home leave first. Rifleman J.MacRoberts related how this situation was defused in the 14th RIR,

"One evening a rumour reached us from the huts that no leave was going to be granted before going to the front, and that several of the battalions had - to use the only possible word - mutinied. That night we were paraded and addressed by Major B[ruce?], at that moment in a lamentable, intoxicated, state.

If we did not get leave he said, we were not to mutiny, no matter what the other battalions might do and what they might say about us. We had joined the army for King and Country and had undertaken to abide by its rules and commands. This was the first war most of us had been in and probably it would be the last, thus it behaved us to abide by the rules like men. So let us play the game and to hell with the Pope. The proceedings were a scandal and a shame to the British Army, but the reckless dare-all manner of the major had a great influence with the troops"

MacRobert's account (from his diary) does not make it clear who was in a "lamentable intoxicated state" on parade - the men or the Major but either way is not very creditable.

It would appear that no one was held accountable for any of these incidents.

I would add that two of my Great Uncles were serving in the RIR at the time.

[Desmond7]

Re the 14th Rifles - that scenario is well known and the response of the other soldiers in the Division tells its own story. My reading of the situation was that they 14th were incapable of completing the march rather than unwilling and mutinous. Others may differ.

re the September 'mutinies' - I certainly have records of discontent and delegations to Btn officers. Resentment at a perceived injustice .. certainly. But mutiny?

Re MacRoberts etc .... he is quoting (and by my reading he is clearly referring to Bruce) a man who is in an intoxicated state (had he just come from a mess 'do' and had to improvise due to discontent?) and thus whose appreciation of the overall situation must be viewed in that light.

BTW: The History of The 36th (Ulster) Division by Cyril Falls. Late Lieutenant, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers and Captain, G.S., 36th Division. M'Caw, Stevenson & Orr, Limited, The Linenhall Press, Belfast, And 339 High Holborn, London, W.C. 1922. This History is dedicated to the men of the ULSTER DIVISION, returned from the War, and to those who have not come back; of whom I name two friends:HARRY GALLAGHER, D.S.O.,Captain, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers,killed at the Battle of Messines, 1917;and GEORGE BRUCE, D.S.O., M.C.,Brigade Major, 109th Brigade,killed near Dadizeele, 1918.

I will forgive him for his possible intoxication and robust & (if quoted correctly by MacRoberts) sectarian language. He didn't do badly in the end?

Mutinies? Sorry .. mountains, molehills.

I return to my salient point which you have answered in quoting prof. Bowman ...

Quote Centurion: 'Bowman covers quite a bit of the history of the Division showing how its discipline radically improved as the war progressed.'

Devil'sa dvocacy accepted up until now but .... a final simple question, would YOU classify the Ulster Division as a drunken disorderly formation? Do you accept that post-Somme is did not 'relapse into drunken disorder.' No prevarication now ... straight answer required.

Des

[centurion]

' No prevarication now ... straight answer required.

This is becoming personal!

I'm merely pointing out that the suggestion cannot be ruled out merely as a slur and an insult as there is some evidence to support it to the extent that further evidence is need to bottom it out rather than poohooing any such suggestion out of hand. I would suggest we leave it there.

[Desmond7]

By no means personal - I asked for your honest opinion. I apologise if you think I was becoming personal. Not my intention at all. I simply wanted to mount a robust defence of the Division and you have (as your are quite entitled to do so) put forward a different view.

Amazed.

Des

[Roxy]

An interesting thread. I, like Des, find it difficult to believe that, following a battle a body of 18000 men could descend into drunkenesss - where would they get all the drink for a start! However, I am also failrly certain that a proportion of those men would have drunk whatever they could find. I suspect that Des was asking (forgive me if I misrepresent you, Des!) whether or not a few rotten apples spoil the barrel? I also suspect that it was only personal because it is only Des and Centurian that are participating in the discussion - more are reading with interest!

I look forward to reading more.

Roxy

[6th Shropshires]

Also who's say these men were drunk, they may have been badly shell shocked.

[truthergw]

As Roxy says, others are reading and following the thread with great interest. If no charges of mutiny were brought , there was no mutiny. A lot of raw soldiers showing their lack of discipline by refusing to march. Reprehensible certainly and in a regular battalion, would probably have led to some disciplinary actions especially among junior NCOs. The fact that a train was provided shows that perhaps the men were right and had been asked to do too much. Senior NCOs and Officers might be held responsible there. I have seen nothing in the thread that would qualify as a mutiny. I suspect the author was looking for something to add a touch of drama to his account. Perhaps he felt that the history of a division in the Great War needed a bit of ginger?

Centurion, you cannot choose to play the part of Devil's Advocate on a subject as sensitive as this and not expect to meet with some robust argument.

[rob elliott]

Hi all,

Not sure where to start my post so sorry if it drifts a bit.

Regarding Des' first post about the book, i think this can be disregarded as a 'chinese wisper' and reflects more on the authors lack of research than it does on the Ulster Division.

I was taught a long time ago that when researching if it couldn't be cross referenced then you had to disregard it or qualify it as such.

This can be difficult to believe when using things like a war diary but most of us that have done serious research will know these documents can be flawed.

Centurion, The problem with Tim Bowman's book 'Irish Regiments' is he makes a statement that clearly has no foundation in available material [see below] and uses a quote from Patricia Morris theses taking the statement of Pte Whitley as gospel with no secondary reference or even qualifying it by saying 'allegedly, according to one soldier of the West Yorks the men of the Ulster Rifles.....' etc

Bowman also states 'the Ulster Division appears [get out clause] to have suffered low morale...Even Cyril Falls the Divisional historian acknowledges this'.

No he doesn't, no-where in the history at the end of the battle of the Somme does Falls use the words LOW MORALE.

So now Centurion you repeat these quotes and add a bit, by saying in your post that the information comes from credible sources, where you also refer to Pte Eastburn being part of that account to give it some credence. As far as i can see Bowman only refers to him in the notes and does not quote him.

So can you add some light on what he [Eastburn] said about drunkeness of the Ulstermen and what the credible sources are.

From what i understand Patricia Morris' theses is very detailed. So i wonder did she actually interviev Whitley and Eastburn and has she quoted them verbatum or edited it. I think the reference to 'Ulster rifles' indicates that Whitley may have been interviewed later in life when the term Ulster Rifles was more relevent as at the time of the 1st War surely the term Irish Rifles was the norm! The thesis was done in 1983 so he may well have still been around.

I raise this purely to see if he was a primary source for it or not.

Again i would ask the question already raised, where was he when he saw all these drunken men?

I have tonight trawled through all my documents to see if there is a single reference to any man drinking on his return to the trenches on the afternoon or evening of the 1st/2nd July. I can find none whatsoever.

In fact everything points to the first thing the men needed was water.

Col Ricardo of the 9th Inniskillings in a special after battle report stated ' I sent off everyman i had, my own servant, my shorthand clerk..and so on to get water out of the river; the pipes had long before been smashed.On their way, many including the two above, were killed by shell fire'.

The Royal Engineers of the 121st Field Co were busy all day and evening maintaining the water supply to the front line, it being destroyed as fast as they repaired it, sustaining many casulties.

10th Inniskillings war diary says 'Our front trenches were being manned from Elgin Avenue westward to the river Ancre by the 16th Royal Irish Rifles [pioneers], 5th West Yorkshire Regiment and apparently some Co's of one of the West Riding Regiments [could this be Whitely's unit -6:00pm]. Men of the 10th Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, as they returned to our trenches were collected and sent back to their assembly trenches. A party was sent to Paisley Dump to draw rations and another party to Speyside for water and the men made as comfortable as circumstances allowed'.

F.P.Crozier from 'Brass Hat in No Mans Land'. Talking of the men in out in front of the wood 'sun-baked, parched, uncared for, often delirious and at any rate in great pain'.

James Devennie, 10th Skins from his letter to Martin Middlebrook [for his book] relating to 1st of July, stated 'when we got back to our trenches i was given a mug of water and a marmalade sandwich'.

Every reference points to water being the priority. There was a set procedure for clearing the front line trenches of the wood. A large wide trench running diagonally from Speyside toward the front corner.

There were Officers and NCO's sorting the walking wounded and marshalling those fit [?] for battle.

I just can't see how anyone thinks there was drink available or the opportunity for the men to take it that day.

What Whitley probably saw, as Crozier mentions and one post suggests is traumatised soldiers who appeared drunk, staggering and slurring their speech.

I do find it amazing that a researcher with the experience of Bowman wouldn't query this.

Which leads me onto his mutiny statements, that again, Centurian quotes as if fact.

I assume that MacRoberts left out the Officers name out of respect as its clearly the Officer that is drunk. As Des says, if he was off duty why would it be a problem if he was a little drunk. Even in that state he appears to have diffused a situation and the men responded well when he appealed to them so i'd say a credit all round.

Not sure if it was Bruce though, thought he was only a Captain, although a Brigade Major, late in the war.

I think there was a Major Brush, will check. There was a Major Barton of the 10th Skins, same brigade, who i think liked a drink.

My grandad made his own arrangment with the army, one week in four off. Middle name was awol.

Joking aside though, he did like to go walkabout while the 36th Division was in England and they didn't seem to do a lot about it other than dock his pay.

Was a good lad in France though, well goodish.So makes you wonder about inconsistency of getting a serious charge against you.

Bowman does make a good valid point, in that it was not in the interest of Officers to always report every incident, as it may reflect badly on them.

Therefore a zealous officer may put lots on a charge, whereas a lazy or crafty one wouldn't and look , on paper to have a better disciplined unit.

This would not necessarily reflect on its fighting capabilities though.

I think this example could apply to all regiments irrespective of its homebase. I have the history of the 10th York and Lancs, written in the 1930's.

Very frank, from Officers diaries and interviews. Refers to incidents of men spitting on the backs of Officers on parade and one of a drunken Pte grabbing an Officer by the throat, with no action being taken at all. It seemed that the junior Officers were a little wary of the men, who were Yorkshire miners, they being mostly southern gentlemen.So gave them lots of leaway. This may have backfired as the afterbattle report for Loos September 1915 slates the Officers and NCO's as mostly 'useless'.

Using Bowmans tables regarding men being charged, i don't see a lot of difference in the numbers of offences or type between the Ulster Division battalions time in England [May to Sept 1915] or France [Oct 16 to Feb 18] when you take into acount the time scales and number of men passing through.

Again the turn-over of Officers could just as easily affect the recorded offences.

Compare the Ulster Division against the regulars or the 16th Division. The latter were held back from going to France partly because of discipline problems.

Their 6th Connaught Rangers had a serious mutiny where two men were killed.

There is nothing in any of his tables to suggest that there was the slightest possible problem with drink in the Ulster Division at anytime.

What does appear evident is that as the regular battalions were diluted with new recruits as the war went on then the number of offences dropped significantly.

Last bit, YCV's catching the train. Think there was never a problem. They just decided to catch the train. Not aware that they had to charter a special.

I think they caught standard train back to camp and were back after the other battalions had marched there. So makes me wonder if they had just decided to take the time as a rest period having been on manouvres for two days.

It would be difficult for the Btn CO to say to the Divisional CO, sorry the boys wanted to catch the train without it being OK'd.

Regarding this Bowman again quotes two sources, Gardiner Mitchell in 'Three Cheers' and 'The Road to the Somme' by Phillip Orr.

In Three Cheers its stated that the YCV's were 'adamant they were not marching back'. Thats fine, because you can take that as they either told their Officers 'no way are we walking back' or said to other Btn's who continually were trying to wind them up '[ha ha] were not walking back'.

Its just the way its said.

In the Road to the Somme, Phillip Orr quotes a YCV soldier who said that their CO had arranged for the train. And that due to ribbing from the other [inniskilling] Btn's about being soft the YCV later arranged a remarch to prove they could do it. Conveniently left out from Mr Bowmans account, where he made it into a mini mutiny.

Bit longer than i anticipated,

Rob

[Roxy]

I hope that centurian doesn't get the impesiion that this has become a 'get at centurian' thread. I don't think that it has. I think that he has quoted atricles and individuals that seem to provide some evidence as to why the Ulstermen may have been given the reputation that Des initially commented upon. To my mind this does not imply that he agrees with the suggestion; simply that all the evidence should be viewed and debated - I agree wholeheartedly. I am also inclined to believe that the information posted can be shown not to apply to the Division as a whole.

Looking forward to some more.

Roxy

[truthergw]

Once again, I agree with Roxy, this is not a disagree with Centurion thread. I think however that we have to try to weigh our evidence when we present it or give enough references to allow readers to do so. We ought not to simply present several statements as if they were all equally good as evidence. We are all aware that not all statements should be accorded the same degree of credence.

[rob elliott]

Roxy,

I don't think this is personal at all. A point was raised by Des and a reply provided.

Des then asked for something to back up the statements. As i see it nothing has been put forward to support Centurion's comments.

As Tom suggests evidence is needed to back up some statements, preferably with a few reliable cross references.

This hasn't been done, just a reliance on a repeated statement.

And now in your closing line you say 'I am also inclined to believe that the information posted can be shown not to apply to the Division as a whole', thereby implying it does to some of them.

So i will now ask, as Des did, do you know of any evidence to support your statement. Can you provide any information at all to support the notion of drunken Ulster Division troops on the 1st July 1916 or at any time after this date that may be deemed exceptional in comparisson with any other unit in France at the time?

Again quoting Tom, its fine to play Devils advocate but it helps to have some sort of argument.

I hope you don't take this as a lets get Roxy post. Its not, i do appreciate peoples comments, even if i don't agree with them always.

The thing is if we didn't have disagreements on our subjects there would be some mighty short topics!

Rob

[Just Barbara]

Well for a load of apparently drunken hooligans, I don't think my kinsmen did too badly.......

Barbara..

[Roxy]

Rob,

I think the point is that centurian did not answer Des' question.

Furthermore, perhaps I should clarify myself. I have seen no evidence to support centurian's claim that the 36th (Ulster) Division was a drunken rabble - you have, in my opinion, adequately refuted all his arguements.

However, I would like to see your evidence that the division was full of men who had signed 'the pledge' and went to church every Sunday! It is, in my opinion, inconceivable that, in a group of up to 18000 men, there were no footpads vagabonds or drunks - hence my assertion that the there was no evidence to blacken the name of the 36th (Ulster) Division as a whole.

If you are still unhappy, start a let's get at Roxy thread - see if I care

Roxy