FrancesH Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 Members may be aware through other threads that I have been exploring the cases of officers court martialled for 'gross indecency with a male person'. This query relates to their re-enlistment. An officer court martialled on 1.1.16 who then subsequently served in the ranks has a note in his OR record stating that he was 'deemed to have enlisted on 2.3.16'. Of course, he was actually in prison then and remained there for over 12 months more. Does this mean that these officers were being automatically conscripted as other ranks, and therefore were expected to join their new postings immediately on leaving prison? Obviously as conscription began in January, they would technically be liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 (edited) I’m puzzled by that Frances because it’s a very long standing regulation/protocol that time spent in confinement, or absent from duty/service, does not count towards ‘reckonable service’. That is important for things like service towards any pension or long service award. I imagine you will have to examine the contemporary manual of military law (MML). Edited 22 August , 2022 by FROGSMILE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrancesH Posted 22 August , 2022 Author Share Posted 22 August , 2022 Oh, that's very interesting! 2 March is 2 months and a day after he was sentenced, so he definitely did have a lot of his sentence to go. However ... also in the OR service record, immediately after the 'deemed' bit, it says 'service regarded as commenced 24.10.17'. which is 22 months (I think) after his sentencing, and therefore plausibly the date of his release, with a bit of remission. But why have the remark about 'deemed', then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffnut453 Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 Not sure it's pertinent to your specific research area, @FrancesH, but I came across the record of one Philip Aloysius McGuinness who was a 2Lt in the 3rd Northumberland Fusiliers and later qualified as a pilot in the RFC. He was dismissed from service following a General Court Martial on 27 Aug 1917 but re-enlisted as a Sergeant Pilot on 16 Nov 1917. He continued to serve in that capacity until his dispersal on 4 Apr 1919. There's an interesting footnote about a submission to the King to grant his commission so that he could be demobilized as an officer, this on account of his "excellent efficiency" as a Sergeant Pilot overseas. His service record notes promotion to Temporary 2Lt on 3 May 1919, which was also the date he was moved onto the Unemployed List, so it seems the submission was successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrancesH Posted 22 August , 2022 Author Share Posted 22 August , 2022 Hi Buffnut -- was your man actually in prison, though? That's the bit that's got me scratching my head in the case I mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffnut453 Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 I suspect not, and the reason for his Court Martial isn't stated...hence why I suspected it wasn't of interest to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 16 minutes ago, FrancesH said: Oh, that's very interesting! 2 March is 2 months and a day after he was sentenced, so he definitely did have a lot of his sentence to go. However ... also in the OR service record, immediately after the 'deemed' bit, it says 'service regarded as commenced 24.10.17'. which is 22 months (I think) after his sentencing, and therefore plausibly the date of his release, with a bit of remission. But why have the remark about 'deemed', then? I’m sorry that I can’t help more beyond that it’s very likely to be connected with ‘reckonable service’, which if you look at surviving service records is accounted for by years and days. You will really need to consult with a MML which given your interest and research would be a must I think. A Royal Army Pay Warrant for pay, pension and allowances too I should think. Some of these are accessible online via the internet archive I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrancesH Posted 22 August , 2022 Author Share Posted 22 August , 2022 Sorry, Frogsmile -- what does MML stand for? I'm sure it's very obvious ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 3 minutes ago, FrancesH said: Sorry, Frogsmile -- what does MML stand for? I'm sure it's very obvious ... Manual of Military Law, Frances. I think it was mentioned in connection with your earlier inquiry about officers who were ‘cashiered’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrancesH Posted 22 August , 2022 Author Share Posted 22 August , 2022 Duh! Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 1 minute ago, FrancesH said: Duh! Thank you! It’s my pleasure. Incidentally I found some useful detail about cashiering in this etheses that you might find of interest: https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/7822/1/Deeks17PhD.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie962 Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 50 minutes ago, FrancesH said: deemed to have enlisted on 2.3.16' Could that be the theoretical conscription date for him? It doesn't mean it counts for service for other circumstances.Which is why you have a later ..Service to count from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrancesH Posted 22 August , 2022 Author Share Posted 22 August , 2022 Thank you Frogsmile! On the topic of 'temporary gentlemen' I don't know if you've seen this article? https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/ojii_volumes/72/ Just now, charlie962 said: Could that be the theoretical conscription date for him? It doesn't mean it counts for service for other circumstances.Which is why you have a later ..Service to count from. Yes, I think that's very possible. I don't have complete OR service records for anyone else: if I did that might provide corroboration because the 'theoretical' date would relate to their imprisonment date in the same way, presumably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, charlie962 said: Could that be the theoretical conscription date for him? It doesn't mean it counts for service for other circumstances.Which is why you have a later ..Service to count from. If it’s the date that he would have been called up, enlisted to the Reserve (under the 1916 Military Service Act) and then immediately sent home to await call up in his age group and marital classification, then that would work and make sense I think Charlie. Edited 22 August , 2022 by FROGSMILE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie962 Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 I'm not good on the calc but it must relate to his age and marital status etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrancesH Posted 22 August , 2022 Author Share Posted 22 August , 2022 So he was being treated as though he hadn't previously been in the army and was just an ordinary bloke who needed to put into the conscription system? I suppose as you say that makes sense. Wow, so all your previous service as an officer has vanished in a puff of smoke ... Just now, FrancesH said: So he was being treated as though he hadn't previously been in the army and was just an ordinary bloke who needed to put into the conscription system? I suppose as you say that makes sense. Wow, so all your previous service as an officer has vanished in a puff of smoke ... To BE put in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 Just now, FrancesH said: So he was being treated as though he hadn't previously been in the army and was just an ordinary bloke who needed to put into the conscription system? I suppose as you say that makes sense. Wow, so all your previous service as an officer has vanished in a puff of smoke ... Yes that’s about the sum of it. 3 minutes ago, charlie962 said: I'm not good on the calc but it must relate to his age and marital status etc. That was very intuitive and bang on the money Charlie. Kudos… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie962 Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 LLT says for single men: Class 1 was for those born in 1897. They were 18 years old. They were told they would not be called up until they were aged 19. Class 2 was for those born in 1896, Class 3 for 1895 and so on up to Class 23 for those born in 1875. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, FrancesH said: So he was being treated as though he hadn't previously been in the army and was just an ordinary bloke who needed to put into the conscription system? I suppose as you say that makes sense. Wow, so all your previous service as an officer has vanished in a puff of smoke ... To BE put in! Yes it’s worth remembering that service in the ranks and as an officer are separated legally. That is why when a man was commissioned from the ranks he had first to be discharged and then on the next day he was commissioned. What you have outlined is that procedure in reverse, with the 1916 Military Service Act and it’s classifications factored in. It all makes sense now. Edited 22 August , 2022 by FROGSMILE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie962 Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 1 hour ago, FrancesH said: deemed to have enlisted on 2.3.16'. That date is specifically tied in here: (again from LLT) The Groups for single men closed at midnight 1/2 March 1916 and from that time all legally eligible men not exempted were deemed to have passed into the army reserve. It was not necessary to attest these men but their basic details had to be entered on the enrolment form B.2513. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 22 August , 2022 Share Posted 22 August , 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, charlie962 said: That date is specifically tied in here: (again from LLT) The Groups for single men closed at midnight 1/2 March 1916 and from that time all legally eligible men not exempted were deemed to have passed into the army reserve. It was not necessary to attest these men but their basic details had to be entered on the enrolment form B.2513. Brilliant stuff Charlie, you’ve completely closed the loop. 👍 Edited 22 August , 2022 by FROGSMILE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrancesH Posted 22 August , 2022 Author Share Posted 22 August , 2022 Quite unexpectedly my original query has thrown up some really interesting stuff! Charlie, that's amazing. Many thanks to you and to Frogsmile, once again the GWF shows the high calibre of its contributors. I can't help wondering about the psychological impact of this legal situation, however logical it was -- and I do see the logic. The man I originally queried about (Herbert Montrose Singer) was a pre-war Regular so it must have felt even more of a blow for him. Thank you again Charlie, especially for the point about 1/2 March, which would have applied to most of my group of men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now