12 replies to this topic

[centurion]

My thoughts on this were prompted by a recent local case of some one convincing the doctors that they could barely walk more than a few steps (and that in great pain) to obtain benefits and being  filmed taking part in a fun run (which sort of suggests that they may have been suffering from near terminal stupidity). Now whilst there are many documented cases of men faking the medical to get into the forces in WW1 there must also have been men feigning disability to stay out. Doubtless many experienced and  hardened army medics would spot such lead swingers (and they may have even erred on the side of passing some genuinely unfit men) but it may have been more difficult for less experienced quacks to do so.

• Was it an offence to fake the medical?
• Was this a criminal or military offence?
• What was the penalty for being detected?
• Does anyone have any verifiable examples?

[Magnumbellum]

The problem with this question is that it presupposes that every potential conscript had a formal medica before call-up. The Military Service Act 1916 is extraordinarily vague on the matter, providing only "ill-health or disability" as a ground for claiming a certificate of exemption from a military service tribunal - a body not required to have any experience of qualification in assessing such a claim.

The implication therefore is that the onus was on a conscript to initiate such a claim, and if he chose not to, who was going to complain? There is an account of a conscientious objector who claimed on that ground and was refused by both his local and appeal tribunals, so was called up, refused to report, was duly arrested, taken before the magistrates, handed over, and escorted to the barracks. There he was brought before a major, who observed that he had one leg a few inches shorter than the other (poorly disguised ny a built-up shoe. The major immediately had him discharged as unfit.

All this is to be contrasted with WW2, where the National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939 explicitly provided that no-one could be called up until he had been certified fit by a duly appointed medical board (quite separate from any other ground for exemption).

[ScorpioUnbound]

What ho Centurion.



Only a partial potential answer but I hope this helps.  An absolutist (i.e. he would do nothing for the war effort) Quaker, named Stephen Hobhouse, was imprisoned, under civilian auspices, for not taking the medical. As concientious objectors were not necessarily treated well in prison (examples of torture are known) it can't have been an easy decision to refuse all types of war work.  I rather think that anyone boasting about 'failing the medical' on purpose would have been given pretty short shrift by anyone that found out regardless of the threat of prison.



Cheer ho.


John.

[Magnumbellum]

I am puzzled by the  suggestion that Stephen Hobhouse was "imprisoned under civilian auspices for not taking a medical".

He was mentioned on GWF so long ago as 2004, when he was reported by Terry Reeves in the "Pacifists and Conchies" thread:

"The most well known of these was Stephen Hobhouse, whose absolutist stance drew much public attention. Hobhouse, who had been granted an exemption at his local tribunal in August 1916, conditional upon him joining the Friends Ambulance Unit, refused to accept the decision or appeal against it. He was subsequently taken by the military but refused to soldier and was court-martialled and imprisoned."

This version makes sense. The procedure outlined by Scorpio relates to WW2, and there was no example of it in WW1.

[ScorpioUnbound]

Magnumbellum, on 23 March 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

I am puzzled by the  suggestion that Stephen Hobhouse was "imprisoned under civilian auspices for not taking a medical".

He was mentioned on GWF so long ago as 2004, when he was reported by Terry Reeves in the "Pacifists and Conchies" thread:

"The most well known of these was Stephen Hobhouse, whose absolutist stance drew much public attention. Hobhouse, who had been granted an exemption at his local tribunal in August 1916, conditional upon him joining the Friends Ambulance Unit, refused to accept the decision or appeal against it. He was subsequently taken by the military but refused to soldier and was court-martialled and imprisoned."

This version makes sense. The procedure outlined by Scorpio relates to WW2, and there was no example of it in WW1.

What ho Magnum...


Gerard DeGroot  in Blighty - British Society in the Era of the Great War makes no mention of Hobhouse being imprisoned by the military although I may (as ever) simply have got the wrong end of this particular stick for which I apologise as necessary.  This subject is not one that seems to have been widely taken up and the few contemporary sources I have omit such things entirely (DORA?) with the exception of the passing of white feathers.


Cheer ho


John

[truthergw]

There were many time honoured methods for faking illness, all known the the soldiery of the British Army. Chewing a cigarette butt could give you a fever and in India, get you a couple of days excused duties. The standards for acceptance were not high so I cannot think many men who were actually fit could fool the examiner. We have discussed a related fact before, that most MOs judged a man on sick parade a malingerer and had to be persuaded otherwise by incontrovertible evidence but the medical examiners were civilians, I believe? Never say never but, in this case, I think I'll chance a few and seldom.

[healdav]

Don't forget that things could work in the opposite direction as well.

My grandfather worked in Devonport Dockyard and was in the TA. He shot for the Devons.

One day he and a load of others were ordered to go for a medical before being called up. They had their medicals, then the doctor (Navy Doctor), stood up and said, "You've all failed. Go back to work". End of any talk of calling them up.

Now that, I think was at least a moral offence.

[truthergw]

healdav, on 24 March 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Don't forget that things could work in the opposite direction as well.

My grandfather worked in Devonport Dockyard and was in the TA. He shot for the Devons.

One day he and a load of others were ordered to go for a medical before being called up. They had their medicals, then the doctor (Navy Doctor), stood up and said, "You've all failed. Go back to work". End of any talk of calling them up.

Now that, I think was at least a moral offence.

Or the use of common sense to avert a bad mistake. I believe Nelson set a precedent.

[Magnumbellum]

truthergw, on 23 March 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

The standards for acceptance were not high so I cannot think many men who were actually fit could fool the examiner. We have discussed a related fact before, that most MOs judged a man on sick parade a malingerer and had to be persuaded otherwise by incontrovertible evidence but the medical examiners were civilians, I believe? Never say never but, in this case, I think I'll chance a few and seldom.

This presupposes that there was a routine medical examination before enlistment, for which I am still awaiting any clear evidence. Certainly, the way resisting conscientious objectors were dealt with points in the opposite direction. When a CO, having been rejected by his local and appeal military service tribunals, ignored his call-up notice, the military sent a notice to the local civilian police, who arrested him and brought him before the local magistrates' court. There he was formally handed over to an awaiting military escort, who took him to the requisiite barracks. There was no built-in requirement for a medical.

This may be contrasted with the WW2 procedure, where a CO who hed been rejected by his local and appellate tribunals was first sent a notice to attend a medical. If he refused to attend, he was brought before the magistrates' court, where they could fine or even imprison him, but they could not force him to take a medical. So long as he continued to refuse medicals, however many times he was imprisoned, the armed forces never got near him.

[truthergw]

Magnumbellum, on 24 March 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

This presupposes that there was a routine medical examination before enlistment, for which I am still awaiting any clear evidence. Certainly, the way resisting conscientious objectors were dealt with points in the opposite direction. When a CO, having been rejected by his local and appeal military service tribunals, ignored his call-up notice, the military sent a notice to the local civilian police, who arrested him and brought him before the local magistrates' court. There he was formally handed over to an awaiting military escort, who took him to the requisiite barracks. There was no built-in requirement for a medical.

This may be contrasted with the WW2 procedure, where a CO who hed been rejected by his local and appellate tribunals was first sent a notice to attend a medical. If he refused to attend, he was brought before the magistrates' court, where they could fine or even imprison him, but they could not force him to take a medical. So long as he continued to refuse medicals, however many times he was imprisoned, the armed forces never got near him.

We know that men were graded into different categories and that certain men were rejected. Are you saying that that was done after enlistment? Were men enlisted then discarded after falling below a certain standard? I have no evidence to set against that but it seems a wasteful way of doing things. Were they perhaps enlisted, examined and then those who had been accepted for service sworn in and the others sent home?

[Magnumbellum]

For clarification, we need to separate two different scenarios:

1) In the case of voluntary enlistment, before conscription was enacted in 1916, there is some evidence of a routine medical examination as part of the enlistment process. I have seen a press photo, c 1914 , of men lined up at a recruiting centre with their shirts off, and a caption to the effect that they were awaiting examination by a doctor.

2) In the case of conscripts, however, as I have already pointed out in this thread, the only exemption on health grounds provided by the Military Service Act is as awarded by a Military Service Tribunal on application by the liable conscript, with no mention of the authorities taking any initiative of their own on the matter.

It is of course quite possible that compliant conscripts were routinely medically examined after enlistement. They are not my subject of interest, and I have no examples one way or the other. But resisting COs, forcibly enlisted, do not appear to have been medically examined.

As I have said, it is notable that a wholly different procedure was adopted in WW2, and it would not be the only example of the authorities having learned by experience.

One other point I would make is that there was apparently a routine medical examination for volunteers at the time of the Boer War, but the civilian doctor was paid by results - 2s 6d for a passing a man fit; 1s for failing a man. One can draw one's conclusions as to the validity of the examinations.

[Magnumbellum]

ScorpioUnbound, on 23 March 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

Gerard DeGroot  in Blighty - British Society in the Era of the Great War makes no mention of Hobhouse being imprisoned by the military although I may (as ever) simply have got the wrong end of this particular stick for which I apologise as necessary.  This subject is not one that seems to have been widely taken up and the few contemporary sources I have omit such things entirely (DORA?) with the exception of the passing of white feathers.

It is not clear whether you are saying the source for your claim that Stephen Hobhouse was imprisoned by a civilian court was Gerard DeGroot, but if it was then the book is unlikely to be worth the paper on which it is written.

As to a more useful source, since my re-posting earlier in this thread of a comment by Terry Reeves, I have established that he copied it verbatim from John Rae, Conscience and Politics, 1970.  Credit where credit is due.

[brucehubbard]

An isolated example, I know, but my grandfather volunteered in 1914. He can't have had a medical before he took the shilling, as four days later the Army took the view that he was so nearly blind that he would be unlikely to be of any use as a soldier, and would be better employed behind his plough, and so he was out in just four days, returning to his tenant farm.
My other grandfather never had a medical either, but then he was in a reserved occupation...as a printer. He worked for Waterlow's, the Govt. printers, and someone had to print all those forms that the war generated.
Not a very glorious past, I'm afraid.

Bruce