TO READ ALL MY
PAGES ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND HMS GANGES, EITHER GOOGLE "NAVY THINGS"
NAVY THINGS - Google Search AND CHOSE THE
FIRST OFFERED OPTION OR CLICK ON THIS PAGE
NAVY PAGE
OPTIONS AND TAKE THE OPTION REQUIRED.
SOUND FILE ENCLOSED !
Can you see this image on the left or the one
below, under the printing in blue which begins [Please note.......]? If you can't
there are two things to tell you. First off that you are missing
out by not seeing the countless hundreds of thousands of graphics
published across the internet for the enhancement of browsing, and
second off, that you can easily download one {a Player} now, for free,
from this site
Adobe - Adobe Flash Player which will reveal all.
This graphic reminds me of HMS
Ganges when I was there {1953}; whenever the mouse pointer is
outside the hemisphere which represents HMS Ganges [synonymous with me not being there], the sunny days appear, but as
soon as I and the pointer are inside {the perimeter walls of
Ganges} the dark days appear. By left clicking the
mouse when the pointer is inside the hemisphere a rainbow can been seen
synonymous that not all the days were dark. Whilst open to
correction and perhaps criticism, most of us think that way and very few
I'll wager, would want to relive those days again !
In a moment I am going to tell you a story which will be the main theme of
this webpage. IT HAS NEVER BEEN TOLD BEFORE AND I
BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL BE VERY INTERESTED BY WHAT IS REVEALED. However, I have so many stories which I will eventually
publish on this site, and they all affect HMS Ganges in one way or another.
They are all OFFICIAL STORIES from the Admiralty, and they will sort out
the myths, the wild boasts and misleading anecdotes which are proverbially know
as either 'swinging the lamp' stories or more succinctly, plain old bullshit,
and Ganges boys' are chief protagonists in this area! To whet your
appetite for the future, these are just some of the subject I will cover:-
a. A study of New Entries to HMS Ganges dated 1973
b. HMS Ganges organisation of meals - covering the galley in the Long
Covered Way/messdeck dining, and the introduction of the CMG block /communal
dining - dated 1952
c. Punishment of Juniors [U] at HMS Ganges dated 1970
d. Restrictions on the caning of boys as a punishment dated 1929-1931
e. 1914 and HMS Ganges' Fleet Paymaster absconding with the Establishment
funds
f. Plans of Harwich defences and Shotley's RNSS/Naval Establishments
dated 1900
g. The excavation under the River Stour from Parkeston to Shotley to
install a submarine cable in 1915
h. The incorporation of HMS Ganges' dead into the civilian Shotley Church
1940-41
i. The transfer of the entire training of W/T offices' to Shotley dated 1915
[note the change over began in 1913]
j. Where the WW1 bombs fell on Shotley in 1917,
k. Plus literally many other papers which are of extreme interest to those
who served in the navy in the 50's through to the 80's.
[Please note: All of these
papers have been purchased by me personally {this one alone cost £120-00 GBP} and it
is not my intention that you should do other than read them in-situ.
Moreover, I have permission to use them to publish to my own personal website,
but were you to attempt this, you would be in default of the Copyright Law until
you yourself have negotiated a personal approval.
Please therefore, do only as I ask. Thank you. To make the story
much easier to read, I have broken it down into manageable sections so that you
can take a break and re-visit when you are in the mood].
To re-run this animation, simply click on your browser
REFRESH button
As you are about to see, 1954 went
down in HMS Ganges history as a year without precedent throughout the
period 1906 to 1976, namely its entire history - in
short, more boys ran away from HMS Ganges in 1954 than at any other time and
transcended the numbers returned by HMS St Vincent by a huge margin. I was in Ganges for
the whole of that year training to be a Boy Telegraphist, a fifteen month
course. In those days, only seamen and communicators trained in Ganges, the
former undertaking just a twelve month course. I was an AC {Advanced Class} boy,
better able to cope with academic school work than boys who were graded as GC
[General Class]. A little later on the GC classes where split into GC {U}
Upper and GC {L} Lower where all but for GC{L} could be trained as
communicators. So, I
start with a little cameo of my Ganges time showing my rapid promotion
{?} from Boy 2nd Class to Ordinary Telegraphist which includes my very first
ship, HMS Tintagel Castle {Commander CARRINGTON RN} based on Portland in Dorset - soon after, I was
whisked away to join HMS Tyne {Captain BENNETT RN} for the Suez War of 1956. Before I
continue, have a look at this page, then click on your BACK button to return to
this page when finished - BOREDOM CAN DO
FUNNY THINGS. Note that
my passing out results were signed by "DOD" who was my names sake, viz,
Lieutenant Commander D.O. Dykes Royal Navy the OIC of the Signal School [whose
death was very sadly published in the March 2009 Navy News], and anybody trained
at Ganges in the years 53-55 as a boy telelgraphists will have the identical
entry on their 'history sheet' to mine but of course with different marks possibly,
and that I was awarded TWO MONTHS accelerated advancement, the maximum, {in recognition of my
overall results - i.e. a FIRST CLASS PASS} which meant that I was advanced to the Able Rate {to a Telegraphist} earlier than the norm, so effectively gaining extra pay on the higher pay band
- the difference between 'ordinary rate' and 'able rate'. This, incidentally, occurred when I was
in the carrier HMS Eagle in 1957 {Captain Michael LE FANU RN who had been
my second Captain of HMS Ganges - and was so when I left - the first
being Earl CAIRNS} and, as you will have read in the
"Boredom.......Things" file above, was a grand total of FIVE MONTHS accelerated
advancement leading to a rather large pay day. It is strange to relate
that I did my Boys training at Ganges and I passed for the Telegraphist
Rate [my Able Rate] in the Signal Training Centre [STC] St Budeaux which had
been the Boys' Training School HMS Impregnable and which at
the time shared the barracks with the WRNS of the Plymouth Command whose
Quarters it had become. In those days, under AFO 2712/51, Communication Boys were
rated Ordinary Telegraphists when aged 17½ and
Telegraphist [providing they had passed the appropriate examination] when aged
18¾. In my case [and others of course] I became a Telegraphist at 18¾ {18
years 9 months} back-dated for five months accelerated advancement to when aged
18 years and 4 months. This picture, specifically the third
entry, "Boy Tel - 6 to 15 February 1955" is LEGEND
for any ex Ganges Boy and worth a short explanation. At this point, our
training has officially finished and we are released from attending classes and
doing all the "nasty" things we have been made to do over the past 15 months or
so. In one weeks time [approximately] we would leave Ganges for the
last time - hooray, hooray, hooray - and join our first ship at sea. Therefore,
in this one week we are more-or-less free spirits and could [and did] lord it over
every other 'poor' boy still under training. We wore our Number 3 blue serge suit
but without a collar as dress of our day, along with brown canvas shoes, and
that jumper had our branch badge sewn on the right arm which we made sure all
the other 'poor' boys recognised and acknowledged - Seamen boys joined the
fleet as 'general part-of-ship fodder' and qualified in gunnery, radar or
torpedo/anti submarine warfare when in the navy proper: they therefore left
Ganges without badges on their jumpers. This period was called
"DRAFT CLASS ROUTINE", a most enviable position to be in, and it gave us cart
blanche to push into the queues for food, the NAAFI Canteen or the cinema.
Whilst we remained at all times in awe of the training staff, other boys not in
the Draft Class who had formerly been our peers, were now looked down upon as
mere B O Y S, peasants with still a great deal to learn about the navy {!!
unlike us !!}, diffident and ill at ease in our presence. Although from
different divisions, we were just one of several Draft Classes waiting for our
first sea draft. Before I leave this introduction I thought that I would
complete the circle of my 'achievements' whilst at Ganges. In BR1938, my
issued copy of the Naval Ratings Handbook dated 31st October 1951, I have
written the following on the amendments page:-
10.09.54 352 Class Gunnery Finals PASS
10.11.54 352 Class AC School Finals PASS
07.12.54 352 Class Pre W/T Finals PASS
25.01.55 352 Class Gymnasium Finals PASS
03.02.55 352 Class W/T Badge Finals PASS
10.02.55 352 Class Kit Finals, Captain Roberts RM,
Rodney DO. PASS
Ganges added one entry only to a trainees Service
Certificate [S459] which was always VG SAT [Very Good character and Satisfactory
as a 'trained' trainee leaving basic training]. My Ganges assessment was
signed by Captain Michael Le Fanu RN. In addition, just the one entry was made
upon the ratings 'comic cuts' immediately before being drafted to sea to his
first ship - [S264a] and this is mine. The reference that I play "rugger a bit"
is a bit mean seeing that I played regularly for the Royal Rodney's as
'stand-off' but never shone and this is what he probably meant! As for the
"minor sickness" he is referring to a badly cut leg, an injury sustained whilst
climbing over a gate which had barbed wire attachments when out on a Divisional
Cross Country Run, at which time, for a short period only, I wore No3's instead
of No8's and was classed as "Light Duties" or was that a "sickbay skate" ?
I was excused boots and gaiters [so no parade ground training] and of course PT,
wearing as my footwear a pair of brown canvas shoes which all boys were issued
with - the nearest thing the navy had to slippers ! The entry is signed by
George W GLYDE RN {no, not Bush !} and he was a Commissioned Gunner and the
second DO of the Royal Rodney's. I am lucky in that I have every document
written about me from Ganges to my leaving to pension [30 years worth] -
including medical/dentist documents, kit issues, permanent and temporary,
general service and submarine services, courses and my results, etc. The bottom
line in the picture below is the first line of my first report from my first
ship, HMS Tintagel Castle.
Whilst on the business of SCHOOLING and
TECHNICAL TRAINING [the latter, W/T, V/S or Seamanship] let us spend a little
time on the Passing Out Grades [1st, 2nd and 3rd - the University Degree
equivalents of a 1st, a 2-1 and a 2-2] and for that matter the
Passing In Grades also. In this section too, I will touch upon the PRIZES that
Ganges boys could win as well as other interesting snippets.
Ganges took two types of recruits, the ones
from the high street recruiting offices and the ones from the Nautical Schools.
The high street recruit was given an intelligence/aptitude test before being
accepted and that assumed the boy had the very basic minimum to get through
the gates of the Annexe at HMS Ganges but not necessarily that he would last the
first day there before being considered by the 'Ganges System' as unsuitable.
During the first few weeks in the Annexe a more detailed test would ascertain
whether the boy was suitable, and how he would respond and cope with either of
the two levels of academic training given at the establishment. If, at the
academic test, his score was above a certain level he would have been considered
suitable for the ADVANCED CLASS [AC] syllabus, and if below, for the GENERAL
CLASS [GC] syllabus. Subsequent to this test and the sorting procedure, it was
always possible to change syllabus if a boy was not coping with the school work,
or, but on few occasions only, a GC boy was reassessed upwards to join an AC class.
However, it was found necessary to further sub-divide the GC classes into GC[U]
and GC[L] as explained above, but if assessed as a GC[L] boy, the only technical
training he could undertake was that of the boy seaman: all other academic
groups could be either boy seamen or boy communicators, visual or wireless. Once
sorted into academic groups, boys could now volunteer to become either seamen or
communicators which would dictate their technical training, and indeed, with
rare exceptions, the branch they would enter into when in the royal navy proper on leaving
the training establishment. Boys were chosen to be trained as communicators
after a very basic aptitude test which any boy who had been in the Scouts and
who had the slightest understanding of the Morse Code would have passed.
Once selected as a communicator trainee, boys stated their preference for either
the Signalman side or the Telegraphist side after watching a small instructional
film followed by a lecture. Boys who didn't make the grade set for a
Telegraphist [nearly always because of the ever increasing speed of the Morse
Code] were re-classed to Signalman or to Seaman.
In 1937 an OU Book [Official Use] called
"The training of boys', their welfare and fleet requirements" was superseded
by a BR [Book of Reference] called "Training Service Regulations". I have
that book which laid down many of the rules which governed the running of Ganges
right up to an including the watershed in 1972 which changed the age of 15 to 16
for school leavers. On the 8th July 1952 that book was superseded by a re-write
of the 1937 edition {plus amendments] which was called "Boys' Training
Instructions 1952". The 1952 edition tweaks the rules of the 1937 edition
and adds new rules and regulations in the light of experience gained from WW2
and from the intervening training years from 1937 until 1952*. This book became
known as the 'bible' and was used in both St Vincent and Ganges,
where all in the BR applied to Ganges and all except for the
Communications Syllabuses applied to St Vincent. In addition to the
'bible' each Establishment had its own 'mini bible' and Ganges recorded her boys
academic and technical achievements in a series of T.S. "rough books" and
documents printed and issued by the Admiralty. All of the following data
comes from the 1952 edition of "Boys' Training Instructions". However, as
stated, we are going to look at the academic and technical sides of training
only but don't worry for I have published the BR as part of my research work as
a webpage.
*Later, in 1956 the rules were rewritten again, this time to rid the
Rules of the word 'BOYS' to be replaced by the word 'JUNIORS'. Then, in
1961 came a major rewrite to reflect the changing times, heralding in a
more liberal punishment system, the introduction of other branch boys
into the Establishment, and the lessening of the standards that had been
the norm since training was restarted in 1946. This set of Instructions
lasted until 1966 when virtually all branches trained at Ganges.
In 1966 a larger [in terms of pages but not size of book] set of
Instructions were issued followed by another major change [Change 1]
effective from 1968. This edition lasted until 1972 when the
school leaving age was increased from age 15 to 16 when the final
edition was published. This reflected that Ganges would be for Part I
training only sending their juniors to Fleet Establishments [Schools]
for Part II training much reducing the course time required at Shotley.
The files below SCAN 1,2 and 3 show the training manual extant in
1966 and SCAN 4 that in 1968 until the school leaving age was increased
from age 15 to 16 in 1972, when, thereafter, Ganges was demoted to Part
I training only, closing in 1976.
In a paragraph above, viz "Ganges
took two types of recruits....." we have seen the route taken by a boy who had
left school at the age of 15 and who on average, had joined the navy at the age
of 15¼. The navy took what they were
given, but ideally the navy wanted as many 'bright' or 'clever' boys as it could
get. The system in the public sector denied boys [if they were able] of
any leaving qualifications other than a written final school report from the
headmaster, a School Certificate {known as a School 'Cert} only available to
Grammar School boys or boys from Technical Colleges and those usually at the age
of 16 issued by national authority: the equivalent to today's GCSE certificates.
To achieve this, the navy looked to the many Nautical Schools who had recruited
much younger boys ostensibly to be trained for a sea-going career. These
schools also followed a national curriculum with added modules biased towards
naval matters, so the navy put it to the owners of the Nautical Schools that a
further 'bias' on academic teaching would benefit both sides [owners and the
navy] and that 'bias' manifested itself by fine tuning the national curriculum
to the standards required for an AC boy at either Ganges or St Vincent.
Boys from the Nautical Schools joined the navy in exactly the same way as did
boys from ordinary schools except that boys from Nautical Schools could be 4
foot 10½ inches tall whereas all others had to be 4
foot 11 inches. However, as soon as they joined they undertook an
examination which included school work, squad drill, seamanship and swimming,
and if they passed with 60% or more they became first class boys on entry. For
each boy so passing with the exception of the Royal Hospital School Holbrook,
the navy would give his Nautical School the sum of £20 and if more than 40% of
the boys passed the navy exam the Schools would receive £30 for each boy.
In addition, further gratuities were paid to the Nautical Schools as follows:-
for each boy who entered but didn't pass the AC exam who had been in the
Nautical School for at least eight months prior to joining would be paid £5, and
for those who had been in the School for eighteen months £10, but this was only
for the twentieth boy and upwards recruited from any one of the Schools in
the financial year. Again the RHS Holbrook did not receive this gratuity but the
£20/£30 and the £5/£10 gratuities were paid to T.S. Arethusa, T.S. Mercury, T.S.
Indefatigable, T.S. Parkstone and the National Sea Training School. The
more boys the better both for the navy and the Nautical Schools. The boys
themselves did not go unrewarded for passing the AC entrance examination. Prizes
were awarded annually to the best boys who passed the AC exam as follows :-
Royal Hospital School Holbrook three prizes of £3, £2 and £1 - all other Schools
two prizes of £3 and £1, where the £3 prize could be a book or an object of
lasting value chosen by the winner, and the £2 and £1 prizes were to be in the
form of naval books of interest. Before leaving the subject of prizes which to
date have been solely for boys recruited from Nautical Schools, there were
several other prizes awarded during boys training. For classes who collectively
achieved high marks in either school or technical studies a prize of 1 shilling
[5p] was given to each boy in a GC class and 1 shilling and 6 pence [7½p]
to each boy in an AC class, a V/S class, a W/T class and a Seamanship/Gunnery
class. For Religious Studies/Knowledge, a prize of up to 7
shillings and 6 pence [37½p] could be awarded to
one boy in each class who attains the highest mark in this subject: religious
education was given each fortnight and self study gratuitous issue book were
made available. In the case of an Anglican it was the Common Prayer Book
and the Holy Bible; for the Non Conformist faiths the Methodist Book of Service
or the Holy Bible/Hymnary, and for the Catholics, the New Testament [Vulgate
Edition] and BR413, a Guide to Heaven. Finally, there was The Royal Society of
St George's Prize awarded each term in Ganges and St Vincent to
the boy considered by the Commanding Officers to have made the most progress in
that term. The prizes were books of naval interest. Other prizes for
sport are not included here.
The system of
"classing-up" was that Seamen GC classes were from 1 to 99; Seamen AC classes
101 to 199 and Communicators 201 to 399. Seamen would train for 5a + 36b + 0c +
3d + 9e = 53 weeks [1 year 1 week] and Communicators for 5 + 36 + 15 + 1 + 12 = 69
weeks [1 year 17 weeks] where, in both cases a = new entry training/b = main
course a mixture of school and technical training/c = extensive technical
continuation training/ d = work ship/e = leave.
Ganges training for W/T Boys' was adjudged by the Fleet to be, at best
inadequate and at worst darn right poor: quote from Admiralty letters.
For
W/T Communicators [the technical module for V/S Communicators was shorter], the
size of 'c' [extensive technical continuation training] was made so for the
first recruitment of 1951and before that, under the 1937 [BR] 'Training Service
Regulations' the length had been 12 weeks making the overall course 66 weeks [1
year 14 weeks]. The reason for this increase in training time is summed up
in this article taken from Pages 67 Vol 4 No 2 of the Communicator Magazine
of Summer 1950.
The passing-out grade
from either Ganges or St Vincent was graded under Article 0315 of the "Boys'
Training Instructions 1952" as amended by Admiralty Fleet Orders [AFO's].
The number of subjects [on a boy telegraphist Wireless History Sheet - Boys'
Examinations] is 10 and each carries 100 marks, a total of 1000 marks. Radio
Theory and School 'required' marks are not shown on my record but I am reliably
told that they were 60. If you add together the ten subject marks you need
to achieve to get a basic pass mark, they totalled 765 marks: below
that total mark is either a failure or a partial failure. Anything below 800
marks down to 765 marks is a THIRD CLASS pass and gains no
accelerated advancement. 900 to 801 marks is a SECOND CLASS pass
and earns ONE MONTH accelerated advancement. 901 to 1000 marks is
a FIRST CLASS pass and earns TWO MONTHS accelerated
advancement. Note: Before the war and before moving to St George,
the standards were W/T or V/S 'A Pass' = 70% pass mark or more : W/T or V/S 'B
Pass' = between 70% and 55% : W/T or V/S 'C Pass' = between 55% and 40%.
Below 40% was a failure and a back class/retry. This had no real bearing within
Ganges itself, but once into the Fleet proper, 'A Passes' got onto the
advancement rosters first with 'C Passes' bringing up the rear often many months
behind. In just about every detail Ganges in the mid 30's onwards was just the
same as it was when I joined in 1953 - same number [and names] of divisions and
whilst the Annexe was called thus, everything associated with it was called "The
Preliminary Course", the C.O., "The Preliminary Officer". 'AC' and 'GC'
boy's were trained to the same exacting standards.
Now let's get on with the DARKER SIDE OF
SHOTLEY as the title of this page indicates.
There are [and always were] many stories
spread by Ganges boys about the cruelty and brutality at HMS Ganges. By
and large they are myths {99% of them}, put together by idle, mischievous and
troubled minds, or by boys who never came to understand the difference between
naval discipline and abject abuse. One such ex boy came to my notice in
2003 and what follows is a verbatim copy of an article I placed on the then HMS
Ganges Association Notice Board, which was still extant [nearly six
years on] until it was deleted recently by the 2010 webmaster. This is the quote:-
QUOTEGodfrey Dykes <godfreydykes@msn.com>
Many months ago, Bill Ethel, a Ganges boy in 1965 and now domiciled in
Australia, wrote an article and placed it on the noticeboard concerning the then
Captain [1965], Captain Godfrey Place VC.
The following is a direct quote from his article........ "But in addition to his
own penchant for ritualised floggings, Captain Place presided over a camp where
every few months some poor youth attempted suicide and where sadistic brutality
was used to break the spirit of those that rebelled. As well, paedophilia was an
acknowledged and accepted eccentricity of some of the instructors".
At that time, I challenged Ethel, to "come clean" with the details of
his claim which I found unacceptable. He sent me and my little group a further
email endeavouring to justify his claim.
He refused my second request for information particularly on the paedophilia
claim and, as it were, he went to ground and appears to have gone into hiding.
I took the matter up with the MOD and the Chief Constable of the Suffolk Police
Force [Ganges being on his patch]. The case was handled by the Detective
Inspector in charge of the Child Protection Unit [Ganges boys were just that;
boys]. The MOD confirmed that there had been no reported cases from Ganges
during the 1964-1966 period. The Chief Constable, wrote to Ethel asking for
details of his claim ending his letter by saying that if Ethel had not replied
by the 22nd November 2002, the case would be dropped. This week, rather
belatedly, I heard from the Suffolk CID that the case had been dropped and that
Ethel had chosen not to cooperate.
G.DYKES 1953
19June2003 UNQUOTE.
Ethel was, and probably still is, one of the
many raconteurs who took enjoyment out of 'padding' his stories with sheer lies,
designed with the specific aim of gaining popularity amongst his peers. In
actual fact, by concocting such stories he brought total ridicule upon himself
[especially when he made his claim after Rear Admiral Place has CTB],
and had he not have been living in Oz at the time of his claim, he would have
almost certainly been left with "egg on his face". There never has
been any official report received by the Admiralty for 1965/6, but in 1967 a
father complained about treatment at HMS Ganges, and the News of the
World newspaper got hold of the story. This is what they printed:-
News of the World, London, 23 April 1967
Storm over canings for navy boys
By David Roxan
FIERCE controversy has been aroused by the revelation that 69 boys
in the Royal Navy were caned during the past 12 months. The boys were
given up to 12 strokes on the buttocks with a cane for offences ranging
from stealing to being absent from duty.
The Royal Navy calls this corporal punishment part of "our tradition,
like the issue of a daily rum ration". Said a navy spokesman: "Don't
forget at one time we flogged them round the Fleet, used the
cat-o'-nine-tails and made the men walk the plank."
Yet in contrast the R.A.F. has never sanctioned corporal punishment
for its cadets and apprentices and the Army abolished it in 1956, even
though it has four times more boys in uniform than the Senior Service.
And 300 Royal Navy boys stationed at H.M.S. St Vincent at Gosport,
Hants, are not subject to caning because they serve with adult ratings
and the Navy has decided it would be wiser not to introduce the
punishment in such establishments.
Those who are caned are at the all-boy shore bases of Ganges (1,700
boys) at Shotley (Suffolk) and Fisgard (440) at Plymouth, Devon. They
are aged 15 to 18.
Last week in Parliament Mr Anthony Crosland, the Education Minister,
expressed his opposition to corporal punishment and said it was rapidly
dying out in our schools.
A Navy department spokesman commented: "We cane boys just like any
decent public school. At the moment we have no intention of stopping
this practice.
"Generally, boys are caned only for anti-social behaviour and only
with the Captain's approval. The actual caning is usually done by
someone like a chief petty officer. There are no regulations controlling
the size of the cane.
"No clothing is removed and the punishment is administered under
medical supervision."
Of the 69 boys who were caned, 22 were punished for stealing, 18 for
improperly leaving the establishment, 10 for assault, six for
disobedience, four for offering violence, three for striking a superior,
two for bullying, and one for contempt, willful damage, indecency and
absence from place of duty.
Abolition
A spokesman for the Army, which has 10,065 boys compared with the
Navy's 2,600, said: "We abolished corporal punishment in 1956 by order
of the Army Council because we considered it to be a progressive step.
We have no reason to regret this decision."
Mr Harry Howarth, Labour MP for Wellingborough, Northants, is to ask
Mr Denis Healey, the Minister of Defence, to abolish all corporal
punishment in the Services.
He said: "These canings are disgraceful. No wonder 15-year-old boys
who sign on in the Navy for long periods are unhappy and want to get
out.
"The situation is even worse because the other two Services maintain
discipline without caning.
"I found out boys were being caned when a parent came to see me to
discuss his son's education. I thought that sort of punishment went out
with Nelson."
If Mr Healey turns him down, Mr Howarth intends to force an
adjournment debate or to introduce a Bill under the 10-minute rule.
"It would mean changing the Queen's Regulations," he said. "Most of
the Cabinet are against corporal punishment. Boys in the three Services
should be treated exactly the same."
For such a story to "paint an overall picture" of what
was going on in the navy, a comparison has to be made with like-for-like
conditions at HMS Ganges in a relatively near time-frame period,
to ascertain whether punishments were on the increase or in decline, and perhaps
of greater importance, whether they were more or less severe than in times past.
As you have seen, 69 canings were administered and for the reasons stated.
Of these offences, there were 18 cases of boys improperly leaving the
establishment, colloquially known as doing a "runner". That a boy who has
properly left the establishment but doesn't return, proverbially known as AWOL
or Desertion, can be considered in the same way, is not in doubt. The
relatively near time-frame period I have chosen is 1954. By comparison
1954 transcends 1967 in terms of misdemeanours and associated punishments by a
margin large enough to render the 1967 figures insignificant and of no real
consequence or concern. The comparison is cognisant of the numbers of boys borne
on the books during each period, with both periods more or less the same,
differing little - although the navy was smaller and thus required fewer
recruits, by 1967 Ganges was training a larger percent of the navy's requirement
including the technical branches. In 1954, no fewer than 176 boys did a "runner"
[some of them more than once] and 12 boys deserted, making the overall figure
188. Ganges had an average of 1750 boys [ranging from 1600 to 1900]
and the total number of punishments returned were 1850, more or less 1
punishment per boy per annum. Nearly 260 boys were caned,
many receiving the maximum of 12 cuts, and one boy, Boy 2nd Class J. BEAUMONT
J926340 [during my time at Ganges] received the most severe punishment
ever {recorded} administered at Ganges - in five days, he received 24 cuts [Monday
and the Friday] for doing two "runners" back-to-back, with, believe it or not, a
spell of No 11's punishment in between. As you will read in great detail, BEAUMONT
was discharged as unsuitable for naval training. Incidentally, post-war Ganges
figures never reached the 2000 mark, but in the period 1936 to 1939 the figures
were respectively 2425 [see the PDF
file inside this file
The health of the Navy in 1936.htm (2012_11_19 20_20_07 UTC).html and scroll down to Training Establishment Boys - HMS
Ganges - to see the 'ill health' statistics of the Establishment in 1936]
2500,
2500, 2675 getting on
for 1000 more boys than in 1954 - where the hell did they put them all ?
So, clearly, times had change [moved on 14 years since my
time] and one would expect conditions to have become less severe and more
tolerant as these News of the World figures show. OBVIOUSLY,
Ganges was getting easier in 1967 just as it was easier for me in 1953
compared to a boy 14 years before me in 1939. However, could it be
the case that our parents, WW2 hardened, were less likely to go running to their
MP to complain, and perhaps we boys, born pre-WW2 were more likely to "take it
on the chin" than the juniors of the middle to late 1960's did ? Before
leaving this section let us look at some percentages. Take the number of boys
under training to be 1800, so in 1967, "runners"/deserters score 0.01 and
canings 0.04, and in 1954, "runners"/deserters were 0.104 and canings 0.144, or
put another way:
YEAR
FRACTION OF "RUNNERS"/DESERTERS
FRACTION OF CANINGS
1954
roughly 1/10th
1/7th
1967
1/100th
roughly 1/26th
However, at this point it is important to know that the 1954 'run away from
Ganges' figures were not necessarily the result of an over-harsh regime, and
they were attributable to a rule change issued by the Admiralty to take effect
on the 1st March 1954, which forbad caning for first offences unless desertion
could be proved. The ruling "opened the flood gates" to boys temporarily
affected by homesickness [for example] who seized the opportunity of
breaking-out half hoping that their crime would be seen as a prank without an
ulterior motive of desertion. Nevertheless, boys were
becoming more bolshie and the overall crime rate was on the increase, pushing
hitherto innocuous crimes up the punishment level and rendering more and more
boys open to cuts [No 20 punishment] for non-running away offences. There was
also an added complication which preoccupied many a boys mind, in that in the
same month [March 1954] the Admiralty introduced a Discharge by Purchase scheme
but few would benefit in the early days of the scheme. It is reasonable to
say that the morale of the boys at Ganges during the period 1953-1955 was at a
low point, and that "blind obedience" was becoming unfashionable leading to
volatile situations. The two Captains most involved, The Earl Cairns and
Michael Le Fanu [who we rather rudely but with great affection later called the
'Chinese Admiral'] were both absolute gentlemen, kind to a fault, much admired
and respected, rightly went on to higher things after their appointments.
The Earl Cairns Earl Cairns -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia was promoted to Rear Admiral and maintained
a high profile in naval matters [even after retirement] and Michael Le Fanu
became my Captain on HMS Eagle our largest ever warship and aircraft
carrier, and still so today, circa 2009
Michael Le Fanu -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. His early death was a great shock to
the navy.
Over the years, there were
several newspaper stories about corporal punishment in the armed services.
For balance, here are a few more of them:-
Hansard (House of Commons), 9 May 1902
Questions and Answers Circulated with the Votes.
Birching in the Army.
MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthenshire, W.)
To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his
attention has been called to the fact that Joseph Kibby, of the
Grenadier Guards, was in or about the month of March flogged; and
whether he will state the offence this man had committed, and also the
offences for which punishment by birching is allowable in the Army.
(Answer.) The boy was birched by order of the commanding officer. The
offence was disobedience of a regimental order, which forbade boys
smoking, and absence without leave; for the latter offence he was liable
to trial by general court-martial. Birching is not allowed in the Army,
except in Army Schools under restrictions. The Commander in Chief
disapproved of the commanding officer's action, and has taken the
necessary disciplinary action.
(War Office.)
HC Deb 09 May 1902 vol 107 c1231
Daily News, London, 10 August 1903
The Naval Manoeuvres.
By A.G. Hales.
(extracts)
[...]
The Life of the Sailor.
Work, Play, and Punishment.
H.M.S. JUPITER, AT SEA, Later.
A British ship of war is capable of supplying a journalist with more
pen and ink studies than any place of its size I have ever lived in. The
life is clean, wholesome, and hard. It is a nursery for men, and it
makes men. Seldom have I had such an opportunity of understanding the
term "English gentleman" as this trip has afforded me. Here, within
these iron walls, one is brought into hourly contact with the naval
officers, and a page is added to life which is worth the keeping. I
watch them at their work. In truth, they know the meaning of the word,
for they work unceasingly in working hours, and play like merry boys in
playtime. Early and late these men and boys attend to their duties with
a conscientious exactness which is a credit to the service. No wonder
the British Navy is the pride of the nation, for the men who run the
Navy work for their prestige.
[...]
The work is hard and the hours long, the food and liquors plain, the
life pleasant and healthy, and the discipline taut as steel. The
cardinal sin is "slackness."
Boy Life Aboard.
The boys on board have a healthy time. Nine out of every ten of them
will get a better up-bringing than they would have received in their own
homes. They have to do as they are told, and do it as promptly as a bird
flies from the spring of a cat.
[...]
No boy may smoke until after he is eighteen years of age. If he does,
and is caught, he will most certainly be flogged across the buttocks
with a stout cane. If he lies and is found out the same punishment
awaits him. If he is impudent to his superior officer he is soon taught
that a civil tongue is a jewel beyond price in the Navy. All offenders
are tried publicly, no matter what their offence.
I have seen several of these trials, during which some twenty men and
boys came up in custody, and I defy anyone to find fault either with the
system or the conduct of such trials. When first tried the prisoners in
a batch are marched aft to the quarterdeck in the custody of the ship's
police. The commander hears the charge read out, the prisoner stands
forward, cap in hand, and listens.
"What have you to say for yourself? Are you guilty or not guilty?"
asks the commander.
"Not guilty, sir."
"Very well. Call the witnesses."
The witnesses are called, and the commander delivers his verdict. The
first one charged is a lad of sixteen, who has been caught smoking. The
second was charged with neglect of duty, and insolence. He, too, was
about sixteen or a little over. The charges were proved up to the hilt.
For smoking the lad was sentenced to receive three strokes with a cane.
The other fellow was to get six.
[...]
Boys' Punishment.
I went to see the boys punished. In the waist of the ship stands a
dummy gun; beside the gun a ship's corporal and a file of men. The
ship's corporal is a ship policeman, a big, powerful fellow, who fingers
a stout cane, such as schoolmasters in my school days used to use.
The prisoner who has been smoking comes forward, hitches his pants,
and throws himself across the gun upon his stomach; his head hangs down
one side, his feet on the other. A couple of men kneel by his head and
take a wrist and an ankle each and draw them together so that the
trousers fit very taut in the most prominent place.
The corporal throws himself into a striking attitude. Evidently this
is to be no child's play. Swish! That boy would give every cigarette in
his possession to be able to rub the spot where the cane has fallen, but
he can't rub, he can only writhe and wait for the next.
The corporal is in no hurry. The first stroke had been a sort of
overhead and downward cut. This second one -- whew! -- swish! It comes
underhand and upwards. Offer the boy a plug of tobacco now and he will
gnash his teeth and curse the very memory of Sir Walter Raleigh. He
wriggles on the gun, and every wriggle wakes a memory of my school days.
He has my sympathy, but I know it is for his soul's good. He will be a
man some day, not an asthmatic weed.
Whizz! -- slosh! A straight forearm cut fair across the other two
lines. The men let his hands and feet go, he springs erect with flushed
face and suspiciously brilliant eyes, and trots off to his duties. He
may smoke again. Probably he will; but he won't sit down to do it for a
day or two.
The other lad gets his half-dozen, and the next time he feels like
neglecting his work or "cheeking" his officers he will pause and
consider the matter; but it is safe to wager that if he gets his
portrait taken shortly he won't send one to the ship's corporal. That
much you can read in his eye as he glances at the policeman in passing.
I fancy I read a little more than that, but I may be mistaken.
I hope that no sentimental person reading this account of ship's
punishment will cry out about it. The boys were not damaged; they got
just what they deserved; they learnt, and it is well that they should
learn in youth, that the way of the transgressor is hard, mighty hard.
A MUST READ ARTICLE. ONCE
READ IT WILL SET THE SCENE FOR ALL THAT FOLLOWS
The Times, London, 13 June 1904
Corporal Punishment In The Navy.
To The Editor Of The Times.
Sir,
-- Certain doubtless well-intentioned but mischievous persons have of
late devoted themselves to raising an agitation against corporal
punishment in the Royal Navy. I propose to set forth exactly what are
the King's Regulations on the subject.
Section 729. -- "It being requisite for the
maintenance of the efficiency, discipline, and even safety of his
Majesty's ships of war, that the power of inflicting corporal
punishment, when absolutely necessary, should be continued; such
punishment, under the following conditions, may be inflicted under the
responsibility and authority of the captain, who is, however, to
exercise the power vested in him with the greatest discretion and
forbearance compatible with the discipline of the Service.
"Note. -- The power of commanding officers to award corporal
punishment for any offences tried summarily under section 54, Naval
Discipline Act, is suspended till further orders."
The Regulations then proceed to lay down --
(a) A maximum of 25 lashes.
(b) Necessity of a warrant properly completed 12 hours
before punishment (except for mutiny).
(c) Exemption of petty and non-commissioned officers and
first-class conduct men from summary sentence (except for mutiny).
(d) Exemption of second-class conduct men from summary
sentence, except for (1) mutiny or (2) violence to a superior officer.
(e) That in case of (2) violence, summary corporal
punishment is not to be carried out on board if the prisoner can be sent
to a prison; and that, if reasonably possible, a Court-martial is to be
held.
(f) That in peace time the approval of a flag officer
present is necessary.
Section
730. -- "When the captain ... is of opinion that no punishment
(other than corporal) would be applicable or expedient under the
circumstances, then (except in open mutiny) he is to appoint one or more
officers to inquire ... and after the report ... and after full
investigation on his own part, he is to act as may seem right in his
judgment."
Section 732. -- "Exceptional power is hereby given
to the captain or to the commanding officer in the case of open mutiny.
When an immediate example is necessary ... any person under the grade of
subordinate officer ... may be summarily punished corporally ..."
Section 734. -- "By corporal punishment is to be
understood the usual punishment at the gangway ... according to the
custom of the Service, in the presence of the captain, the officers, and
the ship's company."
Section 659. -- "Should a Court-martial award
corporal punishment, it is not to be carried out without the previous
approval of the Admiralty."
Section 759. -- "Birching is to be confined solely
to boys rated as such, and is to be inflicted with the birch as supplied
from the dockyard; the birching is to be given over the bare breech, and
is never to exceed 24 cuts; it is to be inflicted by the ship's police
in the presence of the executive officer, a medical officer, two or more
petty officers, and all the boys."
"(The punishment is to be awarded by warrant, with (in flagships) the
approval of the flag officer.)"
2. "Caning on the breech with clothes on is limited to boys, and is
to be inflicted with a light and ordinary cane,. The number of cuts is
not to exceed 12."
3. "Drummers under the age of 18 may be caned, but not birched."
The extracts given above show exactly what naval law lays down. I
proceed to state how it works in practice.
Caning
of Boys. -- Our boys do not differ essentially in their human
nature from other boys. They are good-hearted, easily led, full of high
animal spirits, and inclined to kick against the minor laws of routine.
And, as in any other collection of boys, there is a percentage of
ill-conditioned youths, lazy, dirty, foul-mouthed, and at first useless
to the ship. To such a minority the word of his lieutenant, the advice
of a chaplain, the reprimand of a commander are as nothing. But "six
with the cane" exactly meets the case. It surprises the densest
hobbledehoy into sensibility, and the law becomes something tangible and
actual in his existence.
It has been my professional duty to see every boy who has been caned
in ships where I have served after his punishment, and I state
conscientiously that I have never found any boy the worse for it
physically or in character. I have known self-respect grow side by side
with respect for the arm of the boy's corporal who wielded the cane. I
have heard over and over again, "No, Sir, it wasn't too bad; but I'll
not let Corporal So-and-So have another go at me."
Birching. -- The birch is reserved for liars,
thieves, and offenders against decency and common morality. I have seen
it applied (a) to a boy who was habitually filthy, (b) to one whose
leisure was given to telling foul stories to his mates, and (c) to a boy
who had been grossly cruel to a ship's pet -- a monkey. There was not a
man or boy on board who did not think the punishment fitted the crime.
The cane used is the familiar object of our school days, in the hand
of a ship's corporal, who has generally some confidential instructions
as to whether he is to lay it on hard or light. I know at least one
officer who has taken "six" himself so that he might know to what sort
of thing he was condemning others.
The birch is an ordinary birch, which, as some of us know, stings
freely and occasionally breaks the upper skin. But the birch hurts less
than the cane in the end. As for the birching being disgusting and
degrading, I submit that it is never given save for disgusting and
degrading offences. A boy who gets the cane for a boy's prank or for
kicking against rules generally takes it like a man; a boy birched for a
mean or low offence often howls like a cur. I speak of what I have seen
and known.
Flogging. -- No case of flogging has ever come under
my notice. The regulations quoted above are sane, moderate, and framed
so as to emphasize the responsibility of the captain ordering the "cat"
to be used. The "cat" will never be laid on again in the Navy except for
open mutiny, brutal assault of an officer, or unnatural crime, in my
opinion. But it is kept in reserve as the ultimate argument of the
powers that be, and if a vote were taken for and against the retention
of the "cat" as a possible punishment for crimes against country and
humanity, the British sailor would uphold the custom of the Service and
the Regulations of his King.
I hope, Sir, that I am as humane as the "humanitarians," but I know
what I am talking about, and they do not know the Navy or human nature,
if one judges by their published opinions. No man who has not grown old
in the service of his country at sea, who has not learned to appreciate
the strenuous virtues and strenuous vices inseparable from seafaring,
should consider himself capable of judging a matter which lies outside
the scope of his experience and knowledge. Yet we of the Service are
willing to recognize that "humanitarians" are sincere and well-meaning
men, although we consider their methods wrong and their opinions lacking
in authority.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
IN PARTIBUS MARIS.
NOTE: The
translation of "IN PARTIBUS MARIS" which is Latin, is "UPON PARTAKER
HUSBAND" which is, to say the least, cryptic.
Western Morning News, Plymouth, 7 November 1936
Boy disillusioned
Learnt His Mother Was In Mental Home
From our own correspondent Portland, Friday.
When two boys appeared before a court-martial in H.M.S. Titania at
Portland to-day, on certain charges, the Chaplain of H.M.S. Nelson,
flagship of the Home Fleet, in which they were serving, told the Court
that one of the boys was "thrilled when he learnt he had a mother."
But, added the Chaplain, he was disillusioned and his character
disoriented when he found that his mother, brother, and sister were in
homes for mental defectives.
The lads were ordered to receive twelve strokes of the birch each.
Dorset Daily Echo, Weymouth, 7 November 1936
Boy In Tears at Portland Court-Martial
Two youths, both with the rank of "boy" aboard H.M.S. Nelson, were at
a court-martial on H.M.S. Titania at Portland yesterday ordered 12
strokes with the birch. They were accused of an offence aboard H.M.S.
Nelson.
The Rev. D. Bunt, chaplain, said one boy's character deteriorated
after he found his mother was in a mental hospital. He had also been
"ragged" because he was seen in chapel a lot and saying his prayers.
This boy wept when he told the court that people laughed at him
because of his smallness. At times he found himself not caring what he
did. He never had letters like other boys, and said he seemed to have no
one to think of.
Evesham Journal, Worcestershire, 17 April 1980
Letters to the Editor
For corporal punishment
Sir -- I refer to the letter from Tom Scott of Teachers Opposed to
Physical Punishment.
I was undergoing training as a boy-entrant at an RAF Wireless School
in 1937. A trainee was found guilty of stealing a florin (a week's pay)
from a comrade and since he was under 18 his parents' permission was
sought, and obtained, for the intended punishment of nine strokes of the
birch. The entire trainee population of about 80 were formally paraded
three deep around the gymnasium to witness the meting out of the
punishment.
During my remaining ten months at that training school there was no
recurrence of the offence. It proved a total deterrent. At the annual
reunion of the survivors of those days, that birching usually comes up
in discussion over 40 years after the event.
The culprit, far from being "humiliated" in the modern jargon, went
on to become one of the best sportsmen of his Entry, and served his
country well in war.
Is it just coincidence that when we had birching and some discipline
in the home: (a) we had virtually no mugging, (b) people could go about
their normal lives in our towns and cities after dark, (c) public
transport was well patronised and treated with due respect for other
users, (d) no schools were burnt down, (e) citizens could attend sports
functions without fear of stabbing, or being struck by a dart or bottle,
(f) the nation was not confronted with the vast sums now contemplated,
to build more "corrective establishments" to house louts for whom one
dose of the birch would have been adequate correction.
Could it also be coincidence that in those times there didn't exist
the lucrative posts of educational psychologist and all the other 'ologists
who still fail to find answers half as effective as the proven birch?
David E. Williams,
Squadron Leader retired.
Lynsted,
Malinshill Road,
Hampton,
Evesham,
Worcs.
April 11, 1980.
Additionally, there were
several boys who made the head lines simply because their parents, and in some
cases their MP's, believed their ridiculous stories and challenged, ultimately,
the Captain of HMS Ganges and his officers as to their decision making. As
we go along, I will mention the most dramatic of them which ended up in
Parliament.
Just reading some of these pages
I have, brings me
much melancholy and answers questions I have been asking myself for nearly 56
years. Why, for example do so many ex boys say that they liked their time
at Ganges when I hated just about every minute of it. The official answer
says that a very large proportion of Ganges boys came from either single
parent families or were orphans and being in Ganges provided them
with more happiness than they had experienced at home. Nothing could be further
from the truth in my case. It also transpires that I was one of the last
of the groups to join the navy with a reasonably high achieving overall RT
[recruiting] score: I joined on the 13th October 1953. On the 1st November 1954,
one year later, the navy had to lower the RT score from 45 to 35, thereby
opening the gates to a much less able boy which was to bring with it its own
training problems. This led to there being AC boys, GC1 boys and GC2
boys, the latter one imagines to be a bunch of very low calibre ratings! A point to mention
here is that in 1954, four out of every five breakouts [runners] were GC boys,
and persistent or dedicated "runners" were from the GC2 level. For some
boys, it would seem that they were haunted by letters from their mother
[single, abandoned or divorced] asking "why did you go away and leave me ?", or "I
wish you were here to give me money as I can't manage on what your father gives
me." Some of what you will read you will find unpalatable, almost
unacceptable, especially when the head of Naval Law [NL] says that caning boys
for breakouts is and has been for several years illegal, and an abuse by several
Captains of Ganges. There is a section which
explicitly states "The investigation resulting from the caning twice within a
week of Boy Beaumont has revealed that at HMS Ganges at least the authority
given in 1936 has been abused. It is clear that Ganges are now caning for
simply breaking out. The 1936 document specifically stated that
breaking out is a boyish prank and should not be punishable with cuts, whereas,
deserting [difficult to prove] is. Another highly
contentious statement reads "It only needed Mrs Beaumont to go to her MP and
complain that her son had received a total of 24 cuts within in a period of 5
days, for us to have another newspaper campaign on our hands - this time on the
grounds of cruelty." Naval law also pointed out that the navy were
the only organisation which still administered the punishment of caning: it
wasn't awarded in the Army, the RAF or by civilian courts, and as such, the navy
stood the chance of being dragged through Parliament as a Dickensian force.
It is this last reminder which made the News of the World's report shocking, not
necessarily that 69 boys had been caned. I wonder what the press would have made
with the norm [in the 30's and 40's] being 6 cuts for smoking ?
Now we know that flogging in
the navy stopped in 1883 and moreover, we know that discipline thereafter was
just as hard. We also know that the navy were not slow in coming forward
with other harsh punishments and they remained in several forms for the
remaining part of the 19th century. Men's punishment in the various fleets
were not normally given to boys, especially those concerned with prison and
cells or deprivation of food, but loss of pay and leave restrictions were not
unique to men only.
It would be grossly unfair to
say that Their Lordships were uncaring about boys discipline and associated
punishments, but I am confident that I can get away with using the word
ambivalence for many of the admirals. What went on in BTE's*
[Boys Training Establishments] produced the future men for the fleet and the
admirals were well pleased.
*
There were several of them Ganges, Impregnable,
Fisgard, and from 1927, St Vincent. Ex St Vincent boys
should note that St Vincent started its naval life as 'HMS Ganges
Overflow'. After the Royal Marines moved out of Forton Barracks in 1923,
the barracks remained empty for nearly four years until boys from a "bulging"
Ganges were trained there [to the Ganges syllabus] in Gosport.
Shortly afterwards, it became an autonomous Command and trained only boy seamen
and Fleet Air Arm ratings during the war, with the boys going to the Isle of Man
to HMS St George.
They were also preoccupied with
the needs for an operational fleet as the troubles in Eastern Europe came to the
fore and Germany became more and more aggressive towards the enemies of
Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey particularly Serbia. WW1 wasn't too
far away! However, none of this concerned the commanding officers and
their officers in the BTE overmuch, for they in their turn, were preoccupied with
meeting a quota and the conveyor belt must not stop, except during main leave
periods, when maintenance could be done. With the best will possible, they
'tampered' with the welfare of the boys, and when the BTE crime rate fell
punishments were moderated to become less severe, but when they increased, boys
were positively harshly treated. Remember that even in the 1950's/early
1960's, that most dreadful of all punishments, group punishment, was
regularly used and to an adverse affect on the vast majority of innocent boys.
Younger members will know of the 'Shotley Routine' [the ultimate group punishment]
almost as a throw-away statement, but I, although fortunately never a victim,
remember it vividly. I was in Rodney Division with, as it were, our front
doors in the long covered way. Our back door was directly opposite the laundry
and between it and us, was the infamous laundry-hill. Laundry-hill was a
major venue for those poor boys undergoing Shotley Routine, and we looked upon
them [or at least I did] with pity and horror at their plight. The fear of
cuts filled one full of awe, but the fear of this beastly punishment offended
ones very being as inhumane. What Ganges used for punishment
[especially the use of the cane] came from the very start of the birth of the
RNTE [Royal Naval Training Establishment] in 1905 and the rules were more or
less the same right up to the 1930's.
Of considerable importance was
the cessation of the birch to punish boys and this occurred before RNTE Shotley
was opened. However, birching was retained to punish homosexuals. The petty officer instructors, as you will read, commented
that the boys were more disobedient than they were when this punishment tool was
in vogue, and that they were generally disrespectful towards the training staff.
That there is/was a fear of the birch, appears to be irrational vis-à-vis
the cane, as quite clearly stated in the newspaper article above 'Corporal
Punishment In The Navy' when the writer states [under Birching, third paragraph]
that the birch hurt less than the cane.
It is the following document
which sent a "spanner into the works". A letter from the Captain of HMS
Ganges Captain E J Hardman Jones OBE Royal Navy. Note the address of
Ganges [Harwich Essex] - most peculiar ? - and that cute telephone number -
you can just imagine the little village lady switchboard operator saying "Woolveston
5...whose speaking please ?" or "Hello, Harwich 43... who would you like to
speak to?" Unlike Harwich which is opposite Ganges on the
other side of the wide and tidal River Stour, Woolveston is on the same piece of
mainland as is Ganges, but by foot, a very long hike away. Note the wide distribution to just about every naval outlet in
and around Chatham because he considered the subject to be very serious.
The John Bull Magazine article
referred to in the PDF file above refers to the treatment of
Boy 2nd Class Edward BENNETT JX 125040. That story will become apparent in the following PDF file.
Note the mistakes in the letter which must have further annoyed the Captain -
one overtyped corrected letter and one typing mistake in the misspelling of the
word 'true'. The story had many flaws as well as being a pack of lies,
chiefly because it referred to a single case [which was never proven] and
because it was published five years after the alleged event took
place in HMS Ganges. Its story came from Hansards, the Daily Record
of speeches and proceedings in the Houses of Parliament. When the story
was first mooted [which in itself was a full year after the person involved had
been discharged from the navy] a prospective parliamentary candidate decided to
latch onto the case thereby suggesting to the voters that he had their interests
at heart [and private simmering grievances too]. He went on to win the seat and
a couple of years on, brought the matter to the attention of the House. It was
widely believed that the editor of John Bull lacked a suitable story befitting
the imagine of the magazine for that issue, and so went for the sensational.
The 'Extract from Board
Minutes' enclosed in the PDF above, comes from N.L. = Naval Law Department.
The First Lord is a civilian who is the Head of the Board, senior to all its
admirals. He expresses concern about the number of the canings in the two BTE's
[Ganges and St Vincent] carried out by Captains following the old
rules set in the early 1900's. His concern is so great he is going to get
the Board to consider the whole question. This affair involved the
Admiralty, the British Legion and Parliament.
Actual punishment figures
separating canings from other punishments. Note at the bottom of page 2 that in
1929 [under the old rules] there were 4426 boys in the Royal Navy and 4747
punishments were administered. Shocking reading really ! Note also one
page 1, under HMS Ganges, the very high percentages of caning especially
in 1927, 28 and 29. In 1927 particularly, no fewer than 36% of the boys
were caned this representing 289 boys out of an average of 803. Again, in 1927
[a very bad year] the "All punishments" figure is 142% of 803 boys meaning that
1140 punishments of all kinds were meted out. Observe the relatively few boys in
Ganges compared to the middle years of the 20th century with over twice
as many boys training. The remainder of the file gives one a good insight into
the reasons for and subsequent production of an Admiralty Fleet Order [AFO]
although in this case a Confidential one [CAFO]. The new rules are
succinct and unambiguous and they very much "tied the hands" of the over strict
captains. What it does mean of course, is that if you know of anybody who
received cuts after this watershed, then you will know that they deserved their
punishment because no captain would run the risk of exceeding his authority or
"even sailing too close to the wind" on the subject matter. Others, in
addition to the Board Admirals and the Commanders-in-Chief, were watching and
waiting to pounce!
This is
the only Admiralty case involving a Ganges ex boy who took the navy to
Parliament: it is therefore a unique story.
This file was originated in the
NL Division [Naval Law] of the Admiralty. Note [page 2] that it covers the
new rules and restrictions adopted in 1930 and with it, the new type of monthly
returns for C's-in-C scrutiny, and on page 3, two further subjects namely the
John Bull magazine story and the claims made by ex Boy 2nd Class Bennett {one
year after he had been discharged as being unsuitable for the navy} and five
years after discharge, the case coming to Parliament.
Boy 2nd class Edward BENNETT
joined HMS Ganges in 1925 and seven months later he was discharged as
totally unsuitable for navy life. Evidently he waited just over a year to make
any form of meaningful complaint against his dismissal, but eventually, almost
three years on, his complaint caught the imagination of a 'prospective
Parliamentary candidate' running for election. His motives were probably
honourable, although he used the event to demonstrate that he had the interests
of his would-be voters at heart. Even before the General Election
United Kingdom general election, 1929 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the
prospective candidate Fred LONGDEN {standing for Deritend, Birmingham} had
written to the Captain of HMS Ganges, bringing to his attention the
"rather terrible case" of young Bennett. The letter needs no further explanation
except to say that the reference to "Suffolk Station" means No 5 Suffolk Street
Birmingham [the address of the recruiting office]. His claims of ill
treatment are of course possible especially against some of the petty officers
of those days, although the birch is a non-starter [unless of course he was
immoral or a homosexual]. Cuts, with an ordinary type schoolmasters cane,
were always administered in groups of 6, never fewer, and no person was ever
punished for having cigarettes [or using them] for their own sake, but was
punished because the rules said you were not allowed them full stop. Thus he was
punished [if at all] for disobedience. Bennett's claim was used for the story in
the John Bull magazine published in June 1931. Out
of context but necessary informative adage: ALL
Boys who had joined Ganges in 1953 were born before WW2. ALL
Children at school in the 1940's and early 1950's were eligible to be caned at
school for trivial offences by their headmaster without fear of parents
complaining, such was the trust in society at large. ALL
Children were open to "abuse, measured by today's standards" in the home, either
from strict [but good and well intentioned loving parents] or from the
cruel, often inebriated father, who cared naught for all things. Policemen
also where given parental authority to chastise erring juveniles, and doffing
ones cap to the likes of local Doctors was the accepted norm at least in the
back waters of the Yorkshire Dales. Joining the navy and hearing about
punishments given with the cane, were not as off-putting as one might
imagine, and moreover, whether it was called respect or diffidence, boys of
those times accepted the norms of Ganges routine. Looking back,
through the mirror provided by the social standing demonstrated by many of those
boys today, there was not only an academic difference but a social difference
also between the various groups of boys. Ganges, like all levels of eco-social society had 'good
quality boys' training alongside boys of demonstrably 'poor quality boys', and I
claim that our officers and senior rate instructors treated us as one group,
namely as 'mediocrity' biased to the side of poor quality.
On receipt of Mr Longden's
letter, the Captain of HMS Ganges acknowledged it. He then
seeks advice from his C-in-C, who in turn, without answering the letter, passes
it to the Admiralty for action. Note the rather curt reply using the one
word "Sir", leaving Mr Longden in no doubt that the Admiralty distances itself from
the current mental/physical state of the complainant.
Page 1 says a great deal when
the Head of Naval Law states that he doesn't want to enter into a discussion with a
person who has no legal or obvious connection with the complainant. There is of
course much duplication of material in these files, but please be aware that
there are several Divisions within the Admiralty dealing with this problem each
producing minutes, draft letters and letters proper. Note that on Bennett's
Medical Examination for Entry, Surgeon Captain MacDonald also signs for
Bennett on the Certificate. C.L. means Civil Lord. On page 10, Naval Law says "It seems to me it might be prudent [in
our interest not the complainants] to have this all medically reported on.
This would ascertain the present condition if only to dispose of what is
hinted at that his condition is due to caning or ill treatment at Shotley".
He goes on to say "The case at present seems to be an unsupported, post hoc
{after this} propter hoc {on account of this}........etc". Again, "There is no
medical evidence of the reason of his present condition. It seems
desirable that we should get all the medical evidence possible." Bottom of
page 11, Naval Law says "In view of AG [above signature initials] support [spelt
incorrectly] submitted whether to reply {indicating ?} liability on the ground of
non-attributably to the service; and leaving to the other side the task of
making out their medical case. Possibly at a later stage further medical
exam might be advantageous , but to ask for it now might raise false hopes & be
interpreted to imply that we were anxious on the score of the point of
attributably. Submitted". On page 12, bottom comment, Head of Naval Law, he
says " If you see no objection it is proposed to support an answer as in the
added draft. If they should submit medical evidence on which can be founded a
prima facie that the present illness is attributable to naval service,
it would then be proposed to have the boy medically examined on our account. The
draft reply was approved and subsequently sent.
The Admiralty letters were from
the office of the Civil Lord, a man often called Mr Hall but he went on
[eventually] to become a
Viscount,
NationMaster - Encyclopedia: George Henry Hall in whose name, his Private
Secretary and when not him, a person signing a "pp" {per pro} on his
behalf usually a deputy Private Secretary. The letters are self explicit.
He went on to serve the Admiralty well, following his appointment as Civil Lord
with Financial Secretary to the Admiralty [1942-43] and returned as the boss-man
of Admiralty, the First Lord from 1946 to 1951.
You will see that Fred Longden
has consulted a private medical opinion namely a Doctor Markow concerning ex
Ganges Boy BENNETT. The results of the medical inspection revealed
that BENNETT's condition was not inherited from his parents. By inference,
he continues to suggest that BENNETT's condition is due in total to his period
of ill treatment and brutality within HMS Ganges.
The opening letter from Fred
Longden gives notice that he will speak in the House on the adjournment of the
days business. When there is no Parliamentary time voted for a private
member to bring a matter to the House, the adjournment is his/her only way of being given a
slot to speak. However, it is not popular with MP's who have already spend
many hours in the House that day dealing with official Government business -
they have to stay behind, and of course many do not being too busy for trivia
[as they see it]. Thus the opening statement in this Hansards Report made by Longden is "I
deeply regret to detain the House at this hour....."
The opening letter is
also the opening letter in the file above [Hansards.....] but is included to
make sense of the Minutes published.
As you will have read in the
HANSARDS file, the Naval Secretary speaking in the house, offered to reopen the
case if there was any new information to hand. He pointed out that the
event was a long time ago and that the petty officers of BENNETT's time [1925/6]
were not known and could not therefore be interviewed. The business in the
House was adjourned at 19 minutes to 11 o'clock [2241] and Longden would not be
given another chance for a second adjournment. From hereonin,
any progress could only be made by lobbying the Admiralty either in person or by
a continuing stream of letters, but the Admiralty stuck to their guns and the
case petered out. Ex Boy BENNETT did not get a pension or a disability
allowance [which at 32s 6p per week] would have been generous in the extreme,
bearing in mind that my own father was 19 in 1926 and his take home pay was
£1-13s-9d.
This was the first case involving a Ganges boy [current or ex] who took the navy to
Parliament involving Their Lordships in the Admiralty, the press and of course
the general public.
Virtually up to and until
JUNIORS were recruited instead of BOYS, so that is prior to 1957, punishments in the Royal Navy
rarely moved with the times, and never kept pace with the changing attitudes of
"socially correct" {today, in 2009, that's now plus "politically correct"}
Great Britain who was moving away from harsh civilian punishments. Arguably,
the harshest of all was hanging [or, the death penalty] and on this score I have
used Great Britain on purpose because it abolished hanging in 1969 whereas
Northern Ireland {under the emergency powers Act} abolished it in 1973: {for
those of my readers who are not familiar with our Island[s] Nation, Great
Britain is England, Wales and Scotland and when Northern Ireland is added, the
four of us become the United Kingdom}. The last death sentence ordered by
a Court in the UK was in 1973, passed upon William Holden for the capital
murder of a British soldier in Northern Ireland. The sentence was not
carried out. However, to get a better picture of punishments in the United
Kingdom, one needs to know the dates of the last hangings in each of the
separate four countries, temporarily elevating Wales from a principality to a
country. In England it was a
double hanging [for the same murder] of two men one in Liverpool and one
in Manchester both at 0900 on the 13th August 1964. In Scotland the occasion was on the 15th August 1963 in Aberdeen,
the victim a man. In Northern Ireland
it was in Belfast, a man, on 20th December 1961 and finally, in
Wales, in Swansea a man was hanged on
the 6th May 1958.
The Royal Navy
[Admiralty Courts] had the jurisdiction over all offences
committed on the high seas which were outside the jurisdiction
of the courts of common law - such as
murder, piracy, and
felony on the high seas, and this bizarre horrific murder of a
naval boy was an example, plus others.
Sailors in
naval uniform and commanded by naval officers who were serving
in the WW1 trenches with the Naval Brigades of the RND [Royal
Naval Division] came under Army discipline as this extremely sad
story shows. It is taken from the War Office files, this
one WO 141/41 of 1919-1920
The Admiralty
Court also had authority to administer discipline in the Royal
Navy; but since the Naval
Discipline Act of 1866, that authority has been administered by
naval
courts-martial.
That situation remains except that Royal
Navy personnel who are accused of murder are tried and punished
as though they were civilians. That also applies if the punishment for the crime
committed is life
imprisonment. However, there were other crimes which carried the death penalty
which were inter alia, "arson in royal dockyards",
"treason and piracy with violence" and "espionage", although
there was a lesser penalty for less serious espionage which was
14 years in prison. In 1971 death
for arson in royal dockyards was abolished and much later on, in
1998, life imprisonment replaced hanging for treason and piracy
with violence. The NDA [Naval Discipline Act] of 1957 reduced
the scope of capital espionage from "all spies for the enemy" to
spies on naval ships or bases. Note is this file that the
sections 78, 79 and 80 on death are still there but purposely left blank
1957 Naval
Discipline Act [NDA].pdf - please note that the hyperlinks
within the pdf have been disabled.
This 1957 NDA also started a new era of naval discipline,
although in fairness, it didn't filter down to Boys at Ganges
post 1957 and so they didn't benefit by it, the status quo
remaining, meaning that these boys suffered virtually the same
as say, 1954 recruited boys did. Later, the Armed Forces Act 1981 abolished the death penalty for
espionage.
We have already seen that the navy kept the
cane and caned its personnel long after the army and the air
force had abandoned these punishments and of course after
schools had stopped such corporal punishments. Other punishments too had
been 'designed' as long ago as the 1920's and were still extant
when Ganges closed, in one
form or another, regularly practiced in the Royal Navy BUT
MUCH WATERED DOWN. In
a moment I will show you a list of those which affected a boys'
training establishment, the majority of which, in the early
1950's, involved
deprivation, extra work, and physical punishments. The punishments of old, still extant at
Ganges in NUMBER FORM ONLY were much less
severe by the start of the 1970's.
In the early 1950's [and, as I have generously
stated above, ongoing from that point] the standard punishment
for boys {men in the fleet had different punishments] were as
always, rolling forward with amendment after amendment to QRAI
[Queens Regulations & Admiralty Instructions] latterly known as
QRRN where Admiralty Instructions are supplanted by Royal Navy,
QRRN CHAPTER 19 AND 20 ARTICLE 1953 as follows;-
NUMBER OF
PUNISHMENT
MANIFESTATION OF PUNISHMENT
No 1
Imprisonment for a period not
exceeding three months
No 2
Dismissal from Her Majesty's Service
No 3
Detention for a period
not exceeding three months
No 4A
Disrating of Instructor boys
No 4B
Disrating of Badge boys
No 10A
CMG working party [pre breakfast post
supper] instructions not interrupted [INI]
No 11A
Strenuous Drill, early/late musters,
re-orientation, for a period not exceeding 30 days [INI]
- really, the worst of all Ganges punishments.
No 14
Extra work or drill not exceeding two
hours a day for a maximum period of 7 days. [INI]
No 15
Admonition - not found guilty but not
proven innocent either.
No 20
In the old days No 20's was
birching and No21's was caning. Cuts - shown as 6x20, 9x20 or 12x20.
Notice that this early 1950's list of
punishments is almost devoid of explicit money [or pay]
penalties but full of 'aggro' and harsh punishments.
Implicitly of course, if one were to lose ones badge boy extra
money [No 4B punishment] one would lose money, so compare this
list with that issued as yet another amendment to [QRRN Chapter
19 and 20 et seq] of 1970. Although this page
will reappear as an integral part of the next pdf file, it is
published here as a stand-alone 'comparing' punishment document.
In 1970, the above punishment list looked like
this:-
Number of
Punishment
Manifestation of Punishment
No 1
Stet [above]
No 2
Stet [above]
No 3
Detention for a period of not
exceeding three months
No 4A
Disrating of Badge Juniors
No 9A
Extra drill or work for a period not
exceeding 14 days
No 10
Stoppage of leave for a period of not
exceeding 30 days
No 11
Mulcts for improper absence. Mulcts
meaning "to penalise by fining or demanding a forfeiture"
No 11A
Stoppage of pocket money for a
maximum period of 30 days. The deprived pocket
money was credited to the boy and paid into his POSB
[Post Office Savings Bank] account paid to him when he
left Ganges. However, a boy could claim a small
allowance for his essentials [soap, toothpaste etc]
during this period.
No 14
Extra work or drill not exceeding 2
hours a day for a maximum period of 7 days
No 15
Admonition - not found guilty but not
proven innocent either.
Wow, look at all that money, and no cuts, nor
harsh treatments as of yore? Boys now have become
conscious about money and what it can buy. In the early
1950's there was nothing to buy except the odd sticky bun, and
although cigarettes [Woodbines in open top paper packs of five]
were available in the NAAFI, it was ILLEGAL TO SMOKE.
Modern TV programmes are written by ex Ganges boys, at least
Porridge was {?}, where "snout" [tobacco] is the currency of survival
behind bars. In this programme, cigarettes are traded for
favours and mark my words, Ganges ran on exactly the same
lines. Running parallel with "snout" was what was to become
known to us as we joined the fleet as a "rubber" [a term not
used in Ganges during my time] which simply meant that you borrowed
money with an interest pay-back option. Failure to meet the
commitment of the option chosen rendered one to becoming a target
by the lenderor his appointedmafia. It is a fact that this "habit"
continued when into the fleet proper, where "bars" {a dictionary
word} and "half a bar" were common expressions of currency.
My next story involves money - that junior
rates get too much of it, as the navy enjoyed better pay rises
than hitherto awarded.
A very shrewd Ganges Captain picked up
this point [excessive cash] which again, unlike my time [53-55]
at Ganges was aligned to generous leave ashore, albeit in
unattractive venues like Ipswich, Harwich, Dovercourt,
Fexlixstowe [and others]. He saw that these boys were
purchasing personal things, like films for personal cameras, fu
fu, posh soap [where we were issued with pussers-hard] nutty,
sandwiches, attending movies, sending home generous allotments,
and overall, they had an independence not seen in HMS
Ganges in former times. It was time to introduce a new punishment which
would DIRECTLY HIT the POCKETS of Ganges trainees,
where, clearly, the new punishments shown above, had ever
increasing little effect on misdemeanours.
Our man is Captain M J BUTTON Royal Navy
and this is what happened.
He was the Captain who resided in Ewarton Hall
in the period 1969-1971. These pictures were taken in
January 2009 at the Captains House [his married quarter]
The group picture [well
over 100 years of Service if the photographers time is added]
shows John Eilbeck on the left Ganges 1949 and again as
an CPO Instructor in the mid 1960's, Mike Challinor centre
[joined Victoria Barracks 1951] and me on the right Ganges
1953. The photographer was Preston Willson, Victoria
Barracks 1954.
Note in this file below the signature [last page] of
P. HILL-NORTON [if you are able <by virtue of age and service> to appreciate it!]. Peter
Hill-Norton , Lord Hill-Norton, became an Admiral of the Fleet
and was the very first such person to have his own TV programme,
mainly about naval gunnery. He used to appear in his bath,
full centre screen, where he would address his audience about
the WW2 virtues of the Royal Navy - impressive stuff as I
recall. I served with his son Nicholas Hill-Norton who
went on to become a Vice Admiral. A talented naval family
without doubt. Here is the file about punishing
juniors by depriving them of their "massive" fortnightly
pay, something that hurt them far more than "jankers".
GANGES new 1970 financial punishment.pdf. Their pay
[page 3] when compared with mine for a Boy 1st class in 1954
[fortnightly pocket money - column two] of £10-0-0 GBP, makes my
£0-7-6 <37½p> look rather sad!
Throughout the many years Ganges [at
Shotley Gate, not at Shotley, which is a village some two
miles distant from the main Ganges gate situated in
Caledonia Road, as is common place when referring to the
establishment] viz, 1905 to 1976, many tens of thousands
of boys and men were trained, the boys from 1905 to 1940
[approximately] and from 1946 [approximately] to closure
<although recruitment stopped some time before the closure> and
the men, as HO's in the WW2 years, many hundreds of letters
would have be written home complaining about conditions in HMS
Ganges. Many of these would have invoked a response
by parents who wrote to the Captain seeking clarification on the
points raised in those letters. Clearly, the vast majority
of these were politely answered and soon after, the matter was
closed. Surprisingly few were recorded for posterity.
Those that have been, cover subjects which had they fallen into the
wrong hands [the press for example] could have been profoundly
embarrassing for Ganges and the royal navy. Already on
this page, we have covered a unique story dating from the mid
1920's which involved Parliament, a new set of punishments
extant from the 1930's followed by a settling-in period, the
gearing-up for war and subsequently the cessation of boys
training at HMS Ganges until approximately 1946 which for all practical
purposes brings my continuing story into the 1950's. I say
that advisedly because events show that the "complainers of
petty incidences" were few from 1939 until the late 1940's at a
time when most people were pre-occupied with the ramifications
of the war, counting the cost of human and materiel losses, and
all, civilians and sailors alike making the best of bad job, hoping
and longing for better days to come.
Two such cases of notoriety occurred in the
first half of the 1950's but before I tell you of these, it is
important that you understand this general statement which will
become obvious to you as you read your way through the following
documents. Between the watersheds of
1930 and 1954 [remember that before 1920 punishments were
harsher] one had every chance of being punished unfairly and
illegally whilst at HMS Ganges. This abuse could
not, and did not continued in the royal navy [and therefore at
HMS Ganges] after 1954. The word illegally needs to be
clarified. Captains of HMS Ganges had
misinterpreted the "spirit" of the 1930 caning rules, and not
the rules themselves, and they had administered severe
punishment when the rules suggested an alternative measure.
The first case revolves around BOY FIRST
CLASS J.C. WILSON JX 912355, whose case took up a
disproportionate amount of the Admiralty time to resolve the
issue.
John Christopher Wilson hailed from
Leeds and joined the navy at the same recruiting office as I did,
exactly one year before me in October 1952 - but unlike Wilson, I
don't come from Leeds. He was a GC Seaman, did twelve months at
Ganges, and a month after I joined Ganges,
he was drafted to sea to the aircraft carrier HMS
Indefatigable on the 10th November 1953. According to one of
his mothers letters of the 22nd September 1954 he had been
discharged from the navy, invalided 3rd May 1954 -
see last page of file.
File 1, is the loose leaf cover of the
Admiralty file started on Boy Wilson
WILSON
- OPENING FILE LOOSE LEAF.pdf. There is, of necessity, some
duplication on letters etc.
File 2, is a Blake Divisional letter to Wilson's father telling
him of his sons unsettled ways. Wilson's father was ex royal
navy and ex merchant navy and was disabled.
WILSON - FIRST HINT OF UNHAPPINESS.pdf
File 3, indicates that there is a letter missing
from the file from Mr Wilson in response to the letter in File 2
above. This file, again from Blake Division shows
that Boy Wilson is settling down
WILSON - SETTLING
DOWN.pdf
File 4, is a rather sad and pathetic letter from Wilson's mother
claiming abject cruelty in the way her son was treated
WILSON -
LETTER FROM MOTHER.pdf
File 5, a letter from the Captain of Ganges [my Captain
in my time] The Earl Cairns RN., stating the punishments
given to Boy Wilson. The letter is all-telling with a
desertion, a period in cells in close-custody, 7 days No11A's
<one hell of a punishment in itself> and 6 cuts for his
desertion. The punishments are separated by many weeks
indicating that he was not a permanent "pain in the arse" or a
despicable "skate" [one who feigns situations to get them out of
doing a duty]. If, as stated, this was desertion
then the punishment of cuts was appropriate, but had it
been a "runner" then he was wrongly punished. This
was an important issue and the Captain had to be happy in his
mind that the Boy was leaving without permission fully intending
never to return to HMS Ganges or the royal navy per se.
For a first offence today, leniency would be exercised and the
boy would not be caned [were caning still extant] but not so in
those days. This, as you will
soon read, was central to the Admiralty in telling Captains of
BTE's that caning was only to be used on the worst cases and not
for simply doing a "runner". However, File 6 below is
unequivocal in that the Boy had desertion on his mind.
WILSON - GANGES LETTER TO CINC NORE.pdf
File 6, covers letters between Wilson's father
and HMS Ganges. He addresses his letter either to
the Divisional Officer or to the Chaplain, but the Commander,
Commander H W Firth RN., answers it. The third letter in this file, Mr Wilsons answer to Commander
Firth, he forewarns the Commander that Boy Wilson has it on his
mind not to return to HMS Ganges, in essence, to desert.
This, Boy Wilson does, and from Mr Wilsons letter and a letter
from Mrs Wilson to follow in File 7, Boy Wilson has to be
arrested at his home in Leeds and brought back to HMS Ganges
in "irons".
WILSON - GANGES COMMANDER TO MR WILSON.pdf
File 7, almost brings a tear to my eye, for I
find it so depressing that a mother should be put in such a
position.
WILSON - MOTHERS UNDATED LETTER OF CONCERN.pdf
File 8, shows the true nature of Boy Wilson, for
clearly he was a waster !
WILSON - GANGES LETTER WARNING OF NO PROGRESS.pdf
File 9, gives an indication
of Staff Work at its highest possible level and yet on an
irksome mundane subject. Mrs Wilson's letter shown first in File
4 above accusing the navy of cruelty, has yet to be answered.
In this file we see a Commander in Chief, the Second Sea Lord
and the First Sea Lord all active in the production of a draft
letter answering the accusation, and then to see that letter
dispatched to the lady.
WILSON - ADMIRALTY LETTER TO MRS WILSON.pdf
Finally, File 10. Once again, it is a sad
letter written by a distraught mother, even possibly temporarily
unbalanced by the trauma of the past two years during which he
son was a royal sailor.
WILSON
- FINAL LETTER FROM MOTHER.pdf
Now for the second of
the two stories, that of Boy Beaumont, the anti-hero of all boys
who went through Ganges. He is the only boy who in
one week [five working days] received no fewer than two whacks
of 12 x No 20 punishment, i.e., 24 cuts.
Whilst the Boy was totally inadequate and an
undesirable [as you will read], his punishment, though
justified, was unprecedented and never again repeated. Thus, if
you were at Ganges in 1954, you can claim without contradiction,
that you saw discipline, although an isolated case, at its most
severe.
It was without doubt THE darkest hour in the history of Ganges
discipline
a time when a boy,
notwithstanding, would "work his ticket" and the Captain met
obduracy with obduracy, stubbornness with stubbornness,
bloody-mindedness with bloody-mindedness, and had no
answer [in or outside the rules] to step aside to tackle the Boy
with an approach befitting his social rank, his
experiences, all driven by an understanding [or lack of] of human
nature. He punished a Boy who absconded twice but he was
not prepared for the Boy to abscond another dozen times or more
if needs be. Would the Captain, I wonder, have ordered 12
cuts for each and every subsequent break-out, because in the
end, with this Boy, he would have been beaten at his own game?
The Captain and the royal navy could have so easily have been
dragged through Parliament and possibly the Courts, and were
quite literally saved by Beaumont' mother, who, for whatever
reason, did not go global with her complaint. As the days
and weeks passed, the Admiralty feared that Mrs Beaumont would
go public and frankly, they were amazed that she didn't.
The Head of Naval Law said on the 6th
February 1954 "In 1936, the Board authorised Boys
Training Establishments to punish by caning first
offences of breaking out, providing the boy did it with
intent to desert. The investigation resulting from
the caning twice within a week of Boy Beaumont has
revealed that at HMS Ganges at least, the
authority given in 1936 has
been abused. It is clear that Ganges are now
caning for simply
breaking out."
On the 5th March 1954 the Head of
Naval Training at the Admiralty sent Captain The Earl
Cairns RN., a PRIVATE LETTER[NOT
THE USUAL SERVICE PRACTICE !} In it he states that the
Admiralty considered the two canings to be legally
justified but that they sounded a warning that the
propriety of the punishment of caning must be very
carefully considered before it is awarded. It is
generally agreed, as you say in your letter of the 17th
November 1953, that caning is 'swift', stimulating and a
surprisingly good deterrent. In this particular case,
however, the inefficacious of caning as a deterrent was
strikingly demonstrated by his immediate repetition of
the offence after the first caning. If Mrs
Beaumont had written to her MP., or a newspaper, we
might well have had a very difficult situation to deal
with. Nothing would be more likely to arouse
public indignation than the award of 12 cuts twice
within a week, even without any suggestion that the boy
had an hernia at the time. No doubt you will have these
considerations in mind when dealing with any future
cases."
Boy 2nd Class JAMES BEAUMONT J
926340 joined HMS Ganges on the 9th June 1953 as I joined on the
13th October. Beaumont was a Scot from the Edinburgh area.
He became a Communications Boy and commenced his training to
qualify as a Boy Signalman. However, he failed his
8th-week examination and was re-categorised to the Seaman
Branch. Shortly after his re-categorisation he was
discharged to the Royal Naval Hospital at Chatham pending an
operation to mend an hernia. His mother signed the
necessary forms, but the operation was not performed [being
considered unnecessary] and whilst in hospital he was discharged
as 'unsuitable' taking effect on the 29th October 1953. He
never returned to Ganges and never had a days instruction in
seamanship. He left as he came, a Boy 2nd Class.
My first file reveals the file of
Naval Law {File NL 3806}. It is manifest that the two
canings of Boy Beaumont within a five day period polarised the
minds and thoughts of the main Board Members of the Admiralty.
They show the wheeling and dealing [and the ducking and diving]
of internal politics, and whilst they are of one accord that the
punishment was probably well deserved and delivered within the
rules governing the Captain of HMS Ganges {and other BTE} they
are closing ranks to make sure that
a. there is no come back on
The Board:
b. there is no come back to their Desk:
c. that the punishment is never ordered again:
d. that the Captain of HMS Ganges is given a
friendly tip-off [the semi official private letter]:
e. if Mrs Beaumont does bring the affair into the public
domain that the Naval Law Department is fully prepared for what
can
only be regarded as 'lambs to the slaughter', at the full
mercy of the British public:
f. the deceit [yes, the deceit] of reneging on a promise
to Mrs Beaumont is maintained unless scuppered by Mrs Beaumont herself:
In the event, in sub paragraphs e
and f, Mrs Beaumont did not "spill the beans" or demand that the
promise made to her by the Admiralty should be fulfilled, so the
Admiralty were let off lightly, but, although an expedient,
the Admiralty brought ignominy upon itself because that deceit
remains a stain on their record even to this very day.
In this file I will highlight
some of the salient points, but for a real understanding of how
the issue was resolved [or otherwise] one needs to read the file
in depth. Even today, now 55 years later, it is still a good
indicator of boys training just nine years after the end of WW2.
Page two
points to an OFFICIAL Admiralty Letter dated 1.3.54 which orders
a clear policy on caning, and to a DEMI/SEMI {Demi means Half
whereas Semi means Denoting Half] OFFICIAL Naval Law letter
{5.3.54} to the Captain of HMS Ganges, pointing out
the political damage upon the navy were he not to carefully
consider administering punishments the like of which he ordered
for Boy Beaumont. It goes on to mention Beaumont's discharge from the
navy.
Pages three and four show the
signatures of the Board Members.
Page 5 [use the Adobe zooming tool
for a better read] is a minute from the Head of Naval Law to NCW
[Naval Conditions and Welfare] asking them to promise Mrs
Beaumont a further letter about her sons treatment in HMS
Ganges.
Page 7, note the first entry by the
Director of Manning. Weak seaman recruiting and the reluctance
to lose any rating. However, the second
entry needs no further explanation.
Page 8, the first paragraph,
written by Naval Law, is really the start of the deceit. The
second paragraph starts the story of Boy Beaumont' crime and
punishment .
Page 9, the first paragraph last
sentence. Naval Law is in effect challenging Ganges.
Paragraph three, highlights a corruption in the rules - note the
first and second offences and the 6 cuts/12 cuts punishments.
Paragraph four condones the punishments.
Page 10, paragraph 6 is worth a
full read. Note in paragraph 9, the words "which might possibly
be sent to Mrs Beaumont".
Page 11, is an amazing statement given the folk
law of Ganges as I and thousands of other boys
knew it. What the head of Naval Law is saying runs
contrary to what happened in Ganges up to this
case in 1954.
Page 12, another astonishing claim in that the
rules written in 1936 on caning, designed to be more
liberal than in previous times and therefore lessening
the harshness of Ganges punishments, were in
fact, DELIBERATELY omitted from the Ganges copy
of the rules to be followed by the CO.
Page 13,
paragraph one, acknowledges the Boards broken promise to
Mrs Beaumont - deceit. Paragraph 3, last sentence,
makes it abundantly clear of the abuse of HMS Ganges
towards punishment. The rest of this page pulls no punches in
its desire to bring Ganges to book, to address its abuses
prior to this point.
Page 14, says that whilst an
Admiralty Letter is on record as saying that Boy Beaumont'
punishment was improper, Director of Naval Training suggest that
this was an insinuation only [i.e., hinted at] and that
Ganges should be told that the punishment was proper [i.e.,
factually correct] and that the status quo should be
maintained until new rules are issued. Confusing and
contradictory.
Page 15, the Director of Welfare
and Service Conditions writes that the Captain of Ganges,
the "man on the spot" should make the judgements of punishments
but that he didn't explain his actions {about Boy Beaumont} well
enough to get the whole of the Board on his side. Note in
paragraph two, his [joint Board] reluctance to honour a promise
made to Mrs Beaumont. Paragraph three, is a mild reprimand for the
Captain of HMS Ganges and his many predecessors, and not
having the necessary rules [Admiralty Letter of June 1936*] was
no excuse for abuse because he {they} could have sourced a copy.
In the absence of that Letter, Captains had administered
punishments sanctified by customs [of Ganges and NOT of
the navy]. * This
letter is included as page one of the next BEAUMONT PDF File
below.
Page 16, unreservedly, paragraph
four says that the Captains interpretation of "gross and
continued disobedience" was wrong and that the second caning
caused an embarrassment for the Board, and to justify it would
cause further embarrassment; full stop. In paragraph five, the
Director of Welfare and Service Conditions almost ridicules the
wisdom {?} of punishments in boys training establishments.
Page 17, the wisdom herein is
apparent. But note - the Admiralty clearly did not like this
double caning of 24 cuts in a five day period. It brought
embarrassment but equally it challenged the sensitivities of
each of the Board members. It is clear from this paragraph
six that the only reason the Board did not sanction the Captain
of HMS Ganges was because the Captain thought he was
doing the correct thing based on long-standing practices at
Shotley - even though they were wrong and therefore abusive.
Page 18, Head of Naval Law
reiterates the abuses extant in HMS Ganges in 1954.
Paragraph five is of great interest. It did become
desirable, and no punishments, except for imprisonment, were
recorded on Service Certificates [SC's]. This of course post
1954 gives carte blanche to all ex Ganges
lamp-swingers who claim to have done 'this and that' whilst at Shotley.
Page 19, states that the 1936 norms
should continue as 1954 norms. Note in paragraphs seven
and eight, the reluctance to give Mrs Beaumont the promised
letter concerning he sons punishments whilst at Ganges.
Page 20, the Board agree with Naval
Law. Paragraph two say that in view of the political implication
on the NDA [Naval Discipline Act] it would be advisable to add
the "heavy guns" of the Parliamentary Secretary and the First Sea Lord
to the circulation of the file.
Page 21, the first paragraph has an
added letter 'y' to the left of the text - see Page 22 below for
its use. The second paragraph is succinct.
For my money, I wish that Mrs Beaumont had taken this
route. Page 22,
Head of Naval Law writing to the Secretary
to the Second Sea Lord, says that he assumes that the Second Sea
Lord will wish to give a briefing to the Parliamentary Secretary
re the paragraph marked with a 'y' in Page 21 above. The copy of
a letter referred to in the last minute on this page is shown in
the next PDF file.
This next Beaumont file looks at
Letters and other Minutes
BEAUMONT - Letters and other Minutes.pdf. Note how
many Service letters are endorsed with PRIVATE ! The
matter was so near to political disaster that much
circumspection was the order of the day. Note also that in some
cases the letter ending breaks the rules, namely that when
writing to a person in the first instance [e.g. Mrs Umbrella]
one writes "yours sincerely" and when writing to otherwise [say,
to a Sir or a Madam] one writes "yours faithfully", at least
this is the way I was taught in my grammar school !
Page 1,
shows the 1936 Admiralty letter which put a stop to caning boys
willy-nilly for absconding and reserved the punishment only for
boys who ran away with the intention of deserting.
Commanding Officers were tasked to put on their 'detective hat'
and investigate before lashing out with the cane.
Pages 2 is a letter from the
Admiralty [6.10.53] to Ganges, C-in-C Nore and RNH
Chatham, telling of Mrs Beaumont' visit to London and Whitehall.
It also mentions her visit to see her son in Ganges.
Above all else, travelling such distances [Edinburgh-London-Shotley-London-Edinburgh]
in those days was not an easy task and would have taken up to
four times longer than an equivalent journey of today: it
would also have been expensive for the woman. Note her claim of
being treated less than well whilst in Ganges.
Page 3, a hollow threat ?: a
child's cry for his mother ?: a letter addressed as in Page 2
above for all to take note!
Pages 4 - 8, contain a letter from
Ganges to C-in-C Nore and also the RNH Chatham. It
gives a full summary about Boy Beaumont listing his crimes,
punishments, attitude and suitability for naval Service.
Page 9, a letter from Captain
Earl Cairns at Ganges to Mrs Beaumont about Boy Beaumont'
health and happiness.
Page 10, a letter from Boy
Beaumont' parents to Ganges.
Page 11, C-in-C Nore's letter
recommending that Boy Beaumont be discharged as unsuitable.
Page 12, a Surgeon Rear Admiral's
letter giving notice that there is nothing medically wrong and
that he proposes to discharge the Boy back to duty [back to HMS
Ganges].
Pages 13 and 14, a Confidential
Signal, DTG [Date time group] 121450Z sent by C-in-C Nore asking
for an early approval to discharge the Boy, and a letter
follow-up. Note the Central Mail Office date stamp - 13 Oct
1953. This was the date I arrived at the Annexe HMS
Ganges to start my naval training.
Pages 15 and 16, Admiralty letters
to Mrs Beaumont informing her of her sons health and status as a
naval rating
Page 17, Admiralty letter of
approval to discharge
Page 18, by date at least [10
November 1953] this letter from the Admiralty appears to be
retrospective bearing in mind that the boy has now been
discharged with Admiralty approval.
Pages 19 and 20, a letter from
Ganges to C-in-C Nore
Page 21, a letter of caning support
from C-in-C Nore to the Admiralty
Page 22, the first draft to Mrs
Beaumont - despite the promise to her, not sent
Pages 23 and 24, a minute
from head of Naval Law extolling the virtues of Their Lordships
back in 1936, proposes that their wisdom remains as a guide for
punishing Boys of the mid 1950's.
This, was to SPECTACULARLY
back-fire on Their Lordships of the early 1950's, because,
according to the Captain of HMS Ganges, the unprecedented
"runners" of 1954, immediately after the edict of reinstating
the 1936 rule [wisdom] was issued (1.3.54}, was due
ENTIRELY to the non-caning of boys for the first
offence of running away if desertion could not be proved.
Page 25, a minute from head of
Welfare and Service Conditions answering Page 23/24 above.
Page 26, is a warning from the very top of the
navy especially paragraph 4. Here they point out
that the navy is already out of step with
EVERYBODY ELSE
[Army, RAF, Schools, Courts, Prisons and Borstals] and
that even if the existing rules in the RN are obeyed to
the letter, those outside the RN are waiting to pounce
to pour ridicule upon the Admiralty for its Dickensian
ethos.
Page 27,
is, yet again, one of those "PRIVATE" letters between the
protagonists in Boy Beaumont' case. It is a clear yet muffled
"slap across the hand" for the Captain of HMS Ganges.
Finally on
this page [more to come on others] is the main breaking story of
when Ganges produced the worst punishment figures ever recorded
and which brought Ganges into the national spotlight.
The year was 1954 and whilst
there was nothing to suggest to their Lordships that
there was anything untoward which would question the morals, suitability of
purpose and high professionalism abroad amongst the Captain, officers and
training staff of HMS Ganges certain things came to lightwhich
rang "warning bells". All punishment returns [as well as annual
reports covering morale, welfare etc] were submitted to C-in-C Nore whose legal
department [working in HMS Pembroke] perused every word to make sure it
met the strict requirements of [in this case] QRRN and BR 697 Boys Training
Manual. All Flag Officer
summaries were submitted, for retention, to the Admiralty. This report,
ordered because of Parliament pressure,
all 260 foolscap pages of it though not all will be used here, "tore" through the Admiralty
not to mention the civilian population, and from it,
emerged a rethink on No 20 punishment relating to caning or
cuts and to discipline per se. Thereafter, which for most of you was in your time,
things got better and a much softer approach was encouraged, nay, demanded by
Their Lordships.
Changing the subject for a moment for a
necessary info-byte, the paper reminds us
of the Ganges recruiting pattern. Every five weeks [three per term - two
of 14 weeks and one of 15] a recruitment joined the ANNEXE. The numbers in each
recruitment varied greatly and were generally between 125 and 195 with an
average of 170 boys. A normal entry produced two AC [academically Advanced
Class] and four GC [academically General Class] classes of
seamen and one AC plus two GC classes of communication boys; the average number
in a class was 21 boys. The training day was controlled by a watch system either
Port or Starboard. When boys in the port watch were in school, the starboard
watch were undergoing technical instruction in the signal school, the seamanship
school or at gunnery class. Then they would change over. The school [and
therefore the Instructor Officers] knew just how many AC boys and GC boys would
be in each watch, so they could prepare their teaching pattern accordingly as we
were taught separately, School grading did not affect technical training
so AC and GC communicators trained together in the signal school. Generally
speaking, there were two W/T classes to every one V/S class.
The story starts here
1953
Boys Uprising at HMS Ganges.pdf Where possible, pages
are in date order. The anonymous letter was later accredited to
Boy Second Class A.K. BLAIR J 926380.
Pages 1 and 2 of the file
show the minute markings [a file] started in response to the
receipt of correspondence sent to the Admiralty by Commander The
Right Honourable T.D. Galbraith M.P. RN Retired, MP for Pollok
Scotland: Secretary of State for Scotland and soon to be, in
1955, elevated to the Peerage as Lord Strathclyde. He had
served in the battleship HMS Queen Elizabeth as a lieutenant
during the Battle of Jutland in 1916.
Page 3, shows the typed Boys' letter which started the whole
affair.
Pages 4 to 7, contain the actual Boys' letter and their
enveloped addressed [reasonably well] to Commander Galbraith.
Page 8, expands the file
Pages 9 and 10 show a
letter from a Mrs Elizabeth Cooper [dated 6th October
1954] mother of a Ganges Boy. She states that no fewer
than FORTY BOYS ran away from Ganges, and that a Boy
hanged or tried to hang himself in his mess. Her letter
is strong, positive and articulate and clearly this
mother wants answers.
Pages 11 and 12, expand the
file to include Mrs Cooper's input. The Private Secretary to the
Parliamentary Secretary suggests that at this stage the Second
Sea Lord should get involved.
Page 13, things are starting to move but not apparently
expeditiously at this stage.
Page 14, Ronayne is a naval secretary at the Admiralty, whilst
Rennie is the secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland
Page 15, a second
articulate letter from Mrs Elizabeth Cooper. Like her
first letter, it was addressed to her MP, MP for the
Windsor district. She states that she actually
went to HMS Ganges because of the concerns
addressed to her in her sons letters home.
Although assumptive [the improvement of the petty
officers fox example] it was a mature and generous letter given the
reason for her visit. She says that she was pleased with
what she saw and had no further concerns. I like
this woman's penmanship, Ooops, penwomanship!.
Page 16, is a reply to the
question raised in Page 14 above
Page 17, is a letter from Mrs Cooper's M.P., office to the naval
Parliamentary Secretary.
Pages 18, 19 and 20, refer to a letters exchanged between Mrs
Coopers MP and the Admiralty
Page 21, in parlance, the herald has arrived to say that the
"shit has hit the fan shaft" !
Page 22, a letter from Commander Galbraith MP RN Retired
to the Naval Parliamentary Secretary Alan Noble Esq DSC RN
Retired M.P. I like the rather old fashioned way of
referring to "young blighters". His last line reads "at
any rate see the letter".
Page 23, letter from Admiralty to Commander Galbraith M.P., from
naval Parliamentary Secretary. The word "discursive" means
rambling - what should he expect from young Boy sailors ?
Page 24, here we see the navy closing the case with a promise to
Mrs Copper's MP that it will monitor complaints.
Page 25, Admiralty tells Ganges that should the writer[s] of the
letter be identified, he [they] must not be punished.
Page 26, Ganges tells the Admiralty that the writer was Boy
Second Class A.K. Blair J 926380.
This
appeased Mrs Cooper, subdued Boy Second Class Blair and his
fellow complainants but set the "cat amongst the pigeons"
elsewhere, not least in Parliament. As is regularly
stated in potentially 'juicy' stories, questions were asked in
the House !
Here the Captain of HMS
Ganges reports to his C-in-C on the numbers of boys running
away from the Establishment in the years 1953 and 1954.
The 1953 runaways would have been caned routinely whereas only
some of those 25 in the 1954 quarter ending March would have
been, unless second offenders.
Captain Ganges - Improperly Leaving.pdf. Note paragraph 3 -
it is a "slap in the face" for the Board Admirals who wanted
less caning. His paragraph 5 tells of a harsher regime in
terms of punishment and yet the crime rate stays the same or
increases. Paragraph 6 tells a little of the unrest amongst us
[that is me included] during his period of incumbency.
Fisgard and St Vincent replies.pdf
- For Fisgard [answered by C-in-C Plymouth] a nil return.
For St Vincent [a more like-with- like comparison] caning
was the norm for those who ran away. However, as is
patently clear from paragraph 1, the overall discipline at HMS
St Vincent was known pan-navy, to be much less severe
than at HMS Ganges. Ex St Vincent boys do not, nor
did they ever whilst serving, have this hang-up about their boys
training - it was certainly different from their civilian life
beforehand but not so as to affect them for the rest of their
lives. They do not for example have a known camaraderie,
an Association, a reunion: their alma mater was second-hand when
they moved in, now passed down the line as a civilian school and
its future now in question. Ex Ganges boys do have an
Association [though I personally am not a Member] and a
camaraderie, and they lament the passing of their alma mater
which was built for them and now stands empty and forlorn after
them, awaiting disposal. St Vincent's totals are,
regrettably, difficult to analyse since no mention has been
stated of
the number of boys under training. Even so, 11 second or more
offences out of 37 is a high offending rate, and the
discharged figure is comparable to that of Ganges, and
this with markedly fewer boys.
Number of Runners - Captain Earl Cairns' last letter.pdf -
this was Captain Earl Cairns' last report before his appointment
became time expired. It is to C-in-C Nore, and from him to
the Admiralty. His paragraph 3 {only 3 AC boys out of 32
boys....} is of some interest, suggesting that running away has
something to do with academic ability - this theme is built upon
by Captain Le Fanu in the next routine report. If that means
that a boy is off-put by his school and vocational [branch]
studies, then I can quite understand that, because from my point
of view, if I had done a "runner" it would have been because of
everything else other than the 'classroom' which I personally
enjoyed. I tolerated Ganges but hated being
there. Note, again, in paragraph
6, that punishments are on the increase both in numbers awarded
and in their severity [number of days punishment awarded]. Of
the listed items, I can empathize with all except for item [i]:
perhaps the Captain was correct about 'ability'! Irksome,
a "pain in the arse", needlessly repetitive, thank God I am a
sparker and not a dabtoe or a gun-buster, and many more
derogatory comments, yes, but not understanding, no.
Captain Le Fanu' first and last report.pdf - the last report
as indicated in C-in-C Nore's letter to the Admiralty. Academic
ability again is mentioned. It must have some bearing when
we remember the return from HMS Fisgard on Boy Artificers was
zero - nobody ran away. I have empathy with all the reasons,
only I would add into [c] 'did not like' in lieu of 'scared' and
into [e] I would add the words 'me not being at' between 'about'
and 'home'.
Put
quite simply, this is a MUST READ by all ex Ganges
Boys'. It is profound, of original thought, and were you
to encourage your children to read it they would get a better
understanding of what went of in Ganges than you will
ever be able to impart.
Unlike the case of Boy
BENNETT [mentioned above] whose case was raised in Parliament in
a spoken question to the House by his M.P., this investigation
and answer was in response to a written Parliamentary question
which is very different. In this case an M.P., had asked
the Admiralty for a report because he had received a written
complaint. The written complaint to which I refer came
from Mrs Cooper, who later, visited Ganges to see for
herself what her son had accused the Establishment of doing.
She was satisfied that all was well and had considered the case
closed. Thus her M.P., had adopted a similar stance.
The anonymous letter from a Ganges boy who subsequently
was named as Boy Second Class BLAIR, was not treated seriously
by the M.P., who received it [Commander Galbraith RN Retired]
but he did consider that a check might be prudent in order to
ascertain that all was well at Ganges. It was
therefore a paper-exercise, although it revealed many anomalies
which benefitted all boys who went to Ganges after 1955.
Because I have recommended that you read the file in full, I am
not going to attach a quasi index.
On this page I bid you
farewell. However, before I go I wonder if you know that you
actually trained at a PLACE OF FURTHER EDUCATION as defined by
the Ministry of Education, after a thorough inspection, with "no
holds barred" of all aspects of of HMS Ganges in 1952
by that Ministry. The report is so full and comprehensive
that it belittles anything written about the function of Ganges
by the Royal Navy, and it is the definitive guide to HMS Ganges.
I intend to publish that soon, and with it, the reasons
why the navy asked for the Ministry for their blessing and the
why the navy didn't like all the report!