Choice of units, territorials and the Derby scheme

[imd6662]

I'm trying to understand the range of choices which faced men in late 1915 with respect to their options for enlisting (or attesting), to either join territorial units or under the Derby scheme.

Particularly, I'm trying to figure out the following:

1. Up to what date did men effectively have the choice to sign on with the Territorial Force, presumably under the usual TF enlistment conditons, except as modified by way, e.g. 5 years service rather than 4 and increased likelihood of overseas service (assuming their unit had elected the ISO -- did any refuse)?

1a. Once the Derby scheme was in operation could men still elect to enlist in the TF? Or could they jsut attest/enlist under the Derby scheme?

2. Did men enlisting or attesting under the Derby scheme have a choice of units or force or were they all enlisted in (or later called up for) New Army units. Were Derby scheme men enlisted to TF units?

On a more general note, would it have been seen as advantageous for someone in late 1915 to voluntarily enlist in a TF unit (hopefully for home duty) instead of entering the Derby scheme or waiting for the possibility of conscription?

[Graham Stewart]

From what I've come across during my own researches recruiting for the TF remained open throughout 1915. Recruiting for the Derby Scheme, itself I believe began in April 1915, when a register of "Grouped" men was began, but these men weren't called forward until January 1916.

Ironically the first batches of 'Derby' lads called forward were being sent to the TF infantry, but I know they were also given the option to opt out of TF service to serve with other 'regular' units, as somewhere I have a newspaper advertisement encouraging 'Derby' lads to join the Tyneside Scottish. However the War Office put a ban on recruiting for Locally Raised Battalions and all new recruits had to join either the regulars or TF