Sia,—I have read the article contributed to your October 24th
issue by Lieut-Colonel Sampson with interest, and I am sure that most Home Guards will be in general agreement with what he says. There are, however, a few points of detail with which I disagree, namely:
(i) Surely his compulsory attendance of six hours per month was a misprint. To fulfil a routine of one parade per fortnight, one class per week, and one guard every to days, the ordinary obligation of 48 hours' service per month is necessary.
(ii) It is obviously unfair that a man can be sent to prison for fail- ing to attend his fire-watching duties, and not for failing to attend his Home Guard duties. It has always seemed to me that the same penalty should be inflicted on the Home Guard absentee. Dismissal from the Home Guard is not a satisfactory solution for, as long as attendance is voluntary, every man has periods during which he shirks his duty ; and every man will therefore—sooner or later—be dismissed.
(iii) I heartily agree with the retirement of over-age Home Guards. This particularly applies to the senior officers, a large proportion of whom are about 7o. One realises thankfully theit desire to do their bit, but for positions of high responsibility to be held by men with Crimean ideas is only too common. I have always thought that the higher ranks in the Home Guard should be held by serving officers in the Regular Army, only too many of whom are doing paper work in the War Office, which could well be done by the veterans.— Yours faithfully, C. S. K. BENIIAM. 66 Wagmore Street, London, W.I.
Previous page
