Jerry B Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 My xmas gift to me was this 14/15 star trio to John Hanks, 15th (1st London Welsh) Bn Royal Welsh Fusiliers. It came with copy paper work, his MIC and also some pension records etc which include mention of a charge for malingering and another for being AWOL. He almost certainly served with the Bn during its attack at Mametz Wood in 1916 with 113th brigade 38th Welsh division. http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-17018-0-56195600-1420044822.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-17018-0-96691900-1420044756.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-17018-0-94844600-1420044779.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-17018-0-48904000-1420044800.jpg http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-17018-0-37663100-1420044837.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-17018-0-39764800-1420044857.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-17018-0-71397600-1420044879.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-17018-0-73535000-1420044896.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-17018-0-73535000-1420044896.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-17018-0-03781900-1420044918.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_12_2014/post-17018-0-48214200-1420044935.jpg Amongst the docs he is listed as leaving the Z reserve because of a chest disease though another document states that his medical examination did not show any sign of this and refused his pension application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mervyn Mitton Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Hi - Jerry -a Happy 2015 to you. Interesting group and as always it's the paperwork that give it background. He was lucky that he wasn't shot - malingering was not looked on lightly at that time. Mervyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry B Posted January 1, 2015 Author Share Posted January 1, 2015 Hi - Jerry -a Happy 2015 to you. Interesting group and as always it's the paperwork that give it background. He was lucky that he wasn't shot - malingering was not looked on lightly at that time. Mervyn Thanks Mervyn, all the best to you for 2015. Perhaps because he was at home at he time at camp rather than in the frontline saved him from more serious punishment. I was lucky with this one in it having so much paperwork as most do not. Also for me an interesting unit, 15th RWF as I have an account of their war, Up to Mametz and beyond, which gives an extra appeal to this group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter monahan Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I suspect 'malingering', even in a war zone, was capable of multiple interpretations. Maiming oneself - the infamous shot through the foot - to avoid combat would be at the 'high' end of the scale and might in fact become a capital offence. Feigning a belly ache to avoid work detail, OTOH, would be less serious, though probably enough to cost a fortnight's pay 'pour decourager les autres'. And it can't have been uncommon, though probably dealt with by a cuff round the lug hole in many cases and not through official channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry B Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 A fine of 14 days pay and 168 hours is an unusual punishment, as when I have seen it previously -I have another medal with docs and FP awarded- it is given in number of days and is either FP #1 of FP #2. Both involved being fettered for up to 2 hours a day with in the former case being attached to a fixed object such as a wagon wheel and in the latter case that was not done. The punishment could only be done on 3 out of 4 days in a row. Malingering was a serious charge and was dealt with by the regimental commanding officer rather than just the company commander as would be done for less serious offences. His punishment works out at more than 2 months FP which is very serious and the max that could be given I think. I am surprised it does not state which type of FP it was, 1 or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter monahan Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Skimming rather than reading, I missed the 168 hours FP! That is harsh indeed. He must have been a very bad boy indeed but presumably one whom the CO decided could be salvaged for the regiment as opposed to being consigned to the glass house or shot. It would be interesting to see the details of the court martial. Here in Canada those records are available, though not on-line yet. Are they similarly accessible for British soldiers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishGunner Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I understand from the thread what "FP" was/is, but what do the initials stand for... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernhard H.Holst Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Hello Rick. I understand it to stand for Field Punishment. Bernhard H. Holst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishGunner Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Hello Rick. I understand it to stand for Field Punishment. Bernhard H. Holst Thanks! Edited January 3, 2015 by IrishGunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry B Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 I understand from the thread what "FP" was/is, but what do the initials stand for... ? Hi Rick, as Holst posted, Field Punshment #1 or #2. 168 hours is a heavy sentence for that type of punishment, though I assume as it was at home he did not go to prison. I have a good appendix that covers the subject in a book, I'll scan it in and post it when I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 A very nice Christmas pressie even if from yourself. A lot of paperwork from the surviving records I've seen (which isn't a great deal) mentioned some kind of punishment from RoP through to FP 1, if the crime itself was mentioned then more often than not it had something to do with alcohol, insubordination, AWOL or bad language. Here are some punishments http://www.1914-1918.net/crime.htmFP 1 and 2 are down the bottom. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry B Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 A very nice Christmas pressie even if from yourself. A lot of paperwork from the surviving records I've seen (which isn't a great deal) mentioned some kind of punishment from RoP through to FP 1, if the crime itself was mentioned then more often than not it had something to do with alcohol, insubordination, AWOL or bad language. Here are some punishments http://www.1914-1918.net/crime.htmFP 1 and 2 are down the bottom. Tony Thanks for adding the info on FP Tony. 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