shot at dawn

[Kate Wills]

The reason a blanket pardon was necessary was due to the Case files having been thinned previously which made it impossible to review each case on an individual basis.

Even more of a reason to leave things well alone, and trust to the judgement of those who were there at the time, who did not know how or when the war would end. By this reasoning, the 90% who were guilty but survived should have their convictions excused too.

[montbrehain]

I would say Jonathan it was mostly those who sought a blanket pardon for all SAD cases (including the murderers) because they believed the soldiers were all shell shocked innocents and victims of mis-trials. All of which comes from applying today's values and standards to people who lived in another era. It also displays a huge ignorance of the facts and is an insult to the serving officers, NCO's and soldiers there at the time.

Gunner Bailey

Although vowing to myself to keep out of this debate and not even look at this thread, (that lasted along time , didn't it ) I have to whole heartedly agree with GUNNER BAILEY on this one. "MO"

[Jonathan Saunders]

Jonathan I believe the flaw in that approach is that just because a few were imperfect it does not mean at all the rest were bad verdicts or bad justice.

I also think the pardon was given by a politician who wanted to end a subject that had been on the back of previous Defence ministers for a long time. That does not mean it was the right decision. To me it was burying it. It didn't change history.

Gunner Bailey

An equally acceptable point of view is that it is just as, if not more, important to give back the honour and due respect to an innocent man executed through a miscarriage of justice as it is to ensure those that were "bad eggs" have their convictions upheld after death.

I havent explained that well but I hope you understand the point I wish to make.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[Stephen Nulty]

Although vowing to myself to keep out of this debate and not even look at this thread, (that lasted along time , didn't it ) I have to whole heartedly agree with GUNNER BAILEY on this one. "MO"

Ditto

Reading through this thread has reminded me of the reasons that the subject was taboo.

Now I'm off to look at some interesting threads in which there's no danger of being hit by low flying mud, dummies and abuse but instead consist of people posting interesting, reasonable queries and discussion points.

[Gunner Bailey]

An equally acceptable point of view is that it is just as, if not more, important to give back the honour and due respect to an innocent man executed through a miscarriage of justice as it is to ensure those that were "bad eggs" have their convictions upheld after death.

I havent explained that well but I hope you understand the point I wish to make.

Regards,

Jonathan S

Jonathan

The only thing that differentiates these men from others who were subject to military justice was that they were shot. Are you saying that all men subject to military justice in the WW1 were subject to miscarriages of justice and that all men, including those on lesser charges also innocent?

If so this is an untenable position and again puts modern values on past times. When Derek Bentley was pardoned for murdering a policeman, there was no call to pardon all others who were hung.

This pardon came about because of one case where the family were particulary active. In that case the only doubt was the change in his character caused by shell shock. This does not in any way confirm that all the other trials were faulty or the verdicts wrong.

As to giving them back honour and respect I think the Commonwealth War Graves Commission have done that by burying these men with other soldiers.

Gunner Bailey

[Steven Broomfield]

Now I'm off to look at some interesting threads in which there's no danger of being hit by low flying mud, dummies and abuse but instead consist of people posting interesting, reasonable queries and discussion points.

The one on advertising on the Forum has closed.....

[Jonathan Saunders]

Are you saying that all men subject to military justice in the WW1 were subject to miscarriages of justice and that all men, including those on lesser charges also innocent?

I cant see what I have said that leads you to that conclusion.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[Jonathan Saunders]

By this reasoning, the 90% who were guilty but survived should have their convictions excused too.

If you think that would help give back the respect and dignity to those amongst the SAD that were executed through a miscarriage of justice then I agree lets excuse the other 90% too, although I do not think they, or their families, suffered in quite the same way. Nor have they been maligned in history as their anonymity protected them.

[Gunner Bailey]

I cant see what I have said that leads you to that conclusion.

Regards,

Jonathan S

It was your use of the word innocent. There was never any shred of evidence that any of the SAD cases were innocent.

Gunner Bailey

[T8HANTS]

I remain passive concerning the merits or otherwise behind the reasons why these men were shot.

I am however greatly troubled by the gesture politics that saw these men offered a pointless pardon, to appease modern sensitivities. I understand there was an equally pointless suggestion to retrospectively "free" all the slaves once held by the British Empire as part of the commemorations of the abolition of slavery last year.

History is history, debate over it, fight with daggers drawn over it, but please don't try to alter it. There will always be a copy of the photo where Trotsky is still in the picture.

Gareth

[Gunboat]

There was never any shed of evidence that any of the SAD cases were innocent.

Gunner Bailey

I think it is generally accepted that there was evidence that some of SAD cases were suffering with Shell Shock and as such were not really accountable for their actions/innactions at the time and as such should have been deemed innocent in the eyes of the law.

But other than that I take your point.

[nicko576]

Kevin

excuse my ignorance,

but where exactly is the memorial, i have never heard of it before

Nick

[Jonathan Saunders]

It was your use of the word innocent. There was never any shed of evidence that any of the SAD cases were innocent.

Gunner Bailey

With regard to the SAD then I think in some cases the evidence actually speaks far louder than the decision of the Court. If you want to hold to the fact that Stones cast away his rifle in a meaningful way so as to avoid conflict with the enemy and that he was a coward, thats entirely up to you but I think you do him a grave injustice.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[joseph]

Jonathan,

Re, Sub/Lt Dyett

"I am more than happy to discuss Dyett should you want to do so. He was a very capable Merchant Navy officer and volunteered to serve at sea and having been drafted to the RND did on several occasions make the request for sea service. His unsuitability for Front Line action was well known and considered a hindrance to other who would serve under him by his senior officers. The fact he was not transferred to sea service and that he was put in to the position he was, was not his failure but the failure of others."

Was he a Merchant Navy Officer prior to joining the RNR as he was Commissioned June 1915.

Regards Charles

[Stebie9173]

This man shares my surname and may well be related back in the depths of history:

http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/beeby.htm

I'm afraid that even with a bias due to a shared name, I cannot find any reason (in view of the times) why the man shouldn't have been subject to the punishment laid down for his crime.

The debate in his case would only have been to the severity of his sentence. From the evidence shown here he seems to have been guilty of desertion on two occasions, was never in the presence of the enemy, and was caught "red handed" attempting to leave France. If the punishment for his crime was the death sentence, then I can't argue with it, except from the point of modern sensibilities.

I suspect that if this man's cause had been championed as an example of miscarriage of (military) justice above others in the SAD Campaign, it would still be ongoing.

Steve.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Was he a Merchant Navy Officer prior to joining the RNR as he was Commissioned June 1915.

He had been a Merchant Navy officer previously. He was RNVR.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[joseph]

Jonathon,

"He had been a Merchant Navy officer previously. He was RNVR."

Must have been the extingencies of the service, a professional seaman would have gone in the RNR. His father was a Master Mariner but cannot find a reference to him being in the Merchant Navy.

Regards Charles

[Kate Wills]

If you think that would help give back the respect and dignity to those amongst the SAD that were executed through a miscarriage of justice then I agree lets excuse the other 90% too, although I do not think they, or their families, suffered in quite the same way. Nor have they been maligned in history as their anonymity protected them.

...and anonymity WOULD have protected the executed 306 - if certain persons had not decided to deny them this, and publish the name of each and every one.

[salesie]

...and anonymity WOULD have protected the executed 306 - if certain persons had not decided to deny them this, and publish the name of each and every one.

If you are implying, Kate, that these men should have been left to rest in peace then I couldn't agree more. Indeed, the blanket pardon has been granted and, in my opinion, any debate now is perhaps even more meaningless than it was before. What now, a campaign to reverse the gesture of the blanket pardon?

Despite much deliberation I find both sides of this argument to be unconvincing. In that:

If those in favour of the blanket pardon believe that the innocent SAD victims now have their dignity returned then they must believe in an after-life, and that these men now have a smile on their faces - but, surely, if so then the guilty amongst them must be smirking? For the life of me, I cannot see any valid practical reason why this campaign ever got started - except for the age-old reason of individuals wanting to make reputations, and the modern reason of selling books and making television programmes. If this campaign was truly interested in the dignity of the innocent SAD cases then surely they would have left them to rest in peace, and if truly interested in justice then why campaign for one side of that double-edged sword to be seriously blunted?

Those who argue against the blanket pardon tend to use as a mainstay the argument that the past is being viewed with modern values, but fail to explain how viewing it with old values can be achieved - after all, no one lives in a vacuum and aren't we all products of our own time? Consequently, if we don't use our own modern values to judge history, then how can we see how and why our own values developed - how can we learn from the past?

I know it's a forlorn hope, but please let these men rest in peace - there is absolutely nothing to be gained by further debate (unless of course there are now books to write and TV programmes to make about the guilty being pardoned).

Cheers-salesie.

[Chris_Baker]

A benefit of the pardons have been granted is that the cemetery registers are not being defaced as often as they used to be.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Jonathon,

"He had been a Merchant Navy officer previously. He was RNVR."

Must have been the extingencies of the service, a professional seaman would have gone in the RNR. His father was a Master Mariner but cannot find a reference to him being in the Merchant Navy.

Regards Charles

Charles,

I am assuming you have a First Edition of Sellers "For God's Sake Shoot Straight!" p 46 "He was for five years an apprentice in the Mercantile Marine and, since his entry into the Naval Division in June, 1915, has made four separate applications for transfer into the Navy or Royal Navy Reserve."

Regards,

Jonathan S

[Jonathan Saunders]

...and anonymity WOULD have protected the executed 306 - if certain persons had not decided to deny them this, and publish the name of each and every one.

Unfortunately anonymity did not extend to the families or stop the shame (or injustice) they felt.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[T8HANTS]

I am not well versed in the Napoleonic period, but are the names of those who were shot/hung for desertion with accompanying trial proceedings still on record? I believe there were 2 or 3 from the 95th Rifles.

Gareth

[joseph]

Jonathan,

"He was for five years an apprentice in the Mercantile Marine"

Thanks for that, he was not an officer, that why the RNVR. The RNR was short of officers and at the time and transfer from the army was not hard.

I have not read that book, I tend to stay with the contemporary accounts, I did read "For the sake of example" the title put me off and I was right it is using what happened in 1914 - 1918 and wrote by a legal mind of the 1980s.

Regards Charles

[Gunner Bailey]

I think it is generally accepted that there was evidence that some of SAD cases were suffering with Shell Shock and as such were not really accountable for their actions/innactions at the time and as such should have been deemed innocent in the eyes of the law.

But other than that I take your point.

My earlier point was that probably all men in the trenches suffered from shell shock to come extent, but the vast majority stayed there and did their duty. Only a fraction broke and ran, but quite a number of the SAD cases never even got to the trenches, and deserted en-route.

Your second point is seeing history through 21st century eyes and in military law you were either fit to be in the trenches or not, on duty or not, fighting or running away. Military law is very black and white. People either did what they were ordered to or they didn't. If someone was so unfit through shell shock they were normally rotated out of the trenches for a while. The trenches were not filled with quivering wrecks. How could they fight if they were all like that? There are many instances of soldiers and officers being hospitalised for shell shock. The army did not ignore it. It was taken into account in many cases hence 90% of death sentences getting a reprieve.

Those who were executed were, by and large the worst cases. Some had been given death sentences before for the same offence. The Army gave them a second or third chance and they still absconded. I am pretty sure these men knew exactly what they were doing, and the consequences.

Gunner Bailey