Arts, Books, Britain, First World War, History, Military

Book Review: ‘Die Hard, Aby!’…

DIE HARD, ABY!

… For sufferance is the badge of all our tribe (William Shakespeare)

RECENT BOOKS, many by Pen and Sword such as Shot at Dawn, have highlighted the often shocking cases of young British soldiers in the Great War being executed by their own side. All too frequently their trials were cursory, the evidence flimsy and the defence wholly inadequate. Such scandals has appalled right-minded people of all political persuasions, not least as there is strong evidence that the authorities turned a blind-eye to under-age boys serving illegally on the Western Front.

Die Hard, Aby! is a book that examines in depth the shocking case of a Jewish boy, Abraham Bevistein who enlisted in the Middlesex Regiment at the age of seventeen. By all accounts an exemplary young soldier, Aby was wounded in action and hospitalised.

After what was probably a premature release, his battalion suffered a major bombardment and Aby reported sick. Declared fit for duty, he then made the fatal mistake of not returning immediately to the front-line. The authorities arrested and tried him. The conduct of that trial is examined in close detail and clearly flouts every convention of natural justice.

His execution by firing squad caused horror and utter disbelief to his family and those who knew him and readers who engage this masterly written book will, equally, feel outraged. Aby’s case featured, too, as a major part of the Channel 4 drama documentary Boy Soldiers of the First World War.

This superbly researched and, for many, highly emotive account of a specific case of grave injustice will likely fuel yet further the controversy over such executions. Die Hard, Aby! is sure to appeal to all who feel any sentiment for their fellow humans.

At the end of the book it will be for the reader to decide whether Abraham Bevistein has been afforded fair justice from the country for which he died – even after all these years.

FAIR JUSTICE?

Soldiers who were shot during the Great War have, at times, become an emotive and recurring, national argument and topic. As David Lister, the author of this compelling work ‘Die Hard, Aby!’ writes:

… It is a recurring, national itch that requires scratching at regular intervals.

There is possibly a nagging feeling by some that justice has not been done; others may just wish the subject would fade away, and pretty much feel that justice was done in the first place.

There are several books that address the issue but, even before the first of them had been conceived, interest on the subject has bubbled away under the surface from a time well before the cessation of hostilities in 1919.

The Thin Yellow Line was published in 1974. Its author, William Moore, drawing on questions raised in Hansard (House of Commons), had to make a good as a job of it as possible without recourse to official court-martial papers. Those had been closed to the public: marked ‘not for release’ until the expiration of 100-years.

A decade later, Anthony Babington’s For The Sake of Example was the first book published by an author who had been allowed to see the papers, still not yet, though, within the public domain.

75-years after the executions, the government relenting to public pressure, the war office documents were released earlier than first intended, enabling more research. At the time of the release, another publication Shot at Dawn (Julian Putkowski/Julian Sykes) had been made. This was the first book to report in detail of individual cases, as well as the first to record the names of those executed within the main-body of the text (as opposed to within a table or index).

All of these books lean towards the injustice of the situation, with the latter making a strong case for the ‘pardoning‘ of all those executed for military disciplinary offences, such as desertion or sleeping at post. Recently, though, works by Cathryn Corns and John Hughes-Wilson, produced there well-researched (but unsympathetic) publication entitled Blindfold and Alone. Here, the authors take the general stance that the executions were, for the most part, necessary and properly carried out.

For God’s Sake Shoot Straight (recently published as ‘Death for Desertion’) by Leonard Sellers tells the true story of Sub Lieutenant Edwin Dyett, one of only two officers shot for military offences during the First World War.

Die Hard, Aby! follows a logical sequence of events that trails in the wake of publications previously made available. Whilst Moore brought the issue of executions into the wider public domain and Babington examined the case in more depth, Die Hard, Aby! similarly seeks to examine the story of the enlisted men and in particular Abraham Bevistein, who like an estimated 15% of all fighting ‘men’, had signed-up as a soldier, under-age.

Lister sets out to tell the whole-story of Abraham Bevistein: where he was born, where he grew up and what, chain of events brought him to his fate. Abraham was a very ordinary boy amongst the hundreds of thousands of ordinary boys and men who died in the trenches and whose lives have not even left a footnote on the pages of history, other than a name merely scribed on a stone or a memorial panel.

Abraham has been recorded and mentioned in Hansard on occasions, now, spanning in excess of 75-years. His story exemplifies an injustice that has been allowed to endure for far too long.

David Lister’s book considers not that of the 306 men executed for military offences; but of one boy who suffered that end, Abraham Bevistein, who served under the name of “Harris” and whose gravestone even bears the name spelt incorrectly as ‘Beverstein’.

Much of Lister’s work speaks of Abraham’s times and the setting for his life. The writer acknowledges that with the passage of years, there is little to be found in records and archives of the life of one boy who grew-up in a poor part of London.

Abraham is followed from the Russian annexed land of his birth, across Europe and the North Sea and into a new land for which he chose to fight, and for which he ultimately died. A little is learnt of his school life, the regiment he joined and of the events that brought him to his untimely death.

The premise of Die hard, Aby! is a sad-case of an executed boy – taken up in Parliament – based on how letters from the front, scribbled on scraps of paper, were brought to the attention of the nation.

In a carefully choreographed story, based on real-life events, David Lister exposes brilliantly the injustice of Abraham’s untimely death by execution.

Standard
Britain, Government, Health, Medical

Nursing code of conduct under review…

NURSING RULE BOOK AND THE NEED FOR ‘COMPASSION’

The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is to overhaul its code of conduct, an eight-page handbook setting out good practice. This comes in the wake of a damning report into the Mid Staffordshire hospital scandal which has ordered the profession to show more compassion.

While for many people it would seem a prerequisite for the job, nurses could for the first time be ordered to treat their patients with compassion. The word is not mentioned anywhere in the profession’s current official code of conduct.

Such an obligation could lead to more nurses being struck-off or suspended for failing to care properly for patients or by treating them with dignity.

Last week, concerns over nursing standards were raised in two separate reports.

One, into the controversial Liverpool Care Pathway, said many nurses were ‘callous and brutal’ in their treatment of dying patients. The other, into needless deaths at 11 failing hospital trusts, found nurses did not have time for basic acts of compassion such as holding the hand of a dying patient.

Professor Judith Ellis, a member of the NMC council, said the new code of conduct would be drawn up this autumn. She said that a working party has been looking in depth at the code which needs to be reviewed because ‘it can get out of date.’

Introducing a requirement to show compassion would send a powerful message to the profession, reminding nurses of their basic duties which could see more staff being struck-off or suspended if they fall short. At present, very few nurses are disciplined just for not being compassionate – the most common offence for those disciplined is for physical abuse, followed by failing to keep adequate records.

The chief nursing officer for NHS England, Jane Cummings, has backed the move, saying:

… It is appropriate that compassion is reflected in the code of conduct.

Baroness Emerton, a retired nurse and crossbench peer, said nurses should not be put out at being reminded to show compassion. But she also added:

… You would hope that all nurses have compassion but it can be difficult if patients are aggressive… I do not think any nurse should be offended by being told that in difficult circumstances they have to stay compassionate.

A representative for Patient Concern, an organisation committed to promoting choice and empowerment for all health service users, said that whilst nurses should be reminded that they must be kind and considerate to patients, they shouldn’t be abdicating this responsibility to healthcare assistants.

WHAT NURSES ARE TOLD NOW

  • You must treat people as individuals and respect their dignity.
  • You must not discriminate in any way against those in your care.
  • You must act as an advocate for those in your care, helping them to access relevant health and social care, information and support.
  • You must treat people kindly and considerately.
  • Other sections of the nursing code tell nurses to maintain patient confidentiality, not to have inappropriate relationships with patients and to work well with other staff.
  • Nurses are also told to alert managers if they think staff are putting patients at risk, and to get patients or relatives’ consent before beginning treatment.
Standard
Britain, Government, National Security, Politics, Syria

Engage in Syria at your own peril…

SYRIA: A RISKY VENTURE

The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, has hinted that hundreds of British soldiers could be sent to Syria to prevent a chemical threat to the West.

Mr Hammond has refused to rule out ordering troops to the war zone to rein in President Bashar al-Assad’s regime or seize stockpiles of illegal weapons.

He said it was ‘unlikely’ but no option was ‘off the table’ – in the most serious warning yet that the UK could deploy forces to Syria.

Mr Hammond gave his remarks after the outgoing head of the Armed Forces, General Sir David Richards, said Britain risked being dragged into the war.

Sir David, who has stepped down after three years as Chief of the Defence Staff, said ministers ‘would have to act’ if hoards of chemical weapons were discovered.

The UK must be prepared to ‘go to war’ if it wanted to stop the bloodshed inflicted by President Assad to crush a pro-freedom uprising in his country, he said.

At a ceremony at Horse Guards Parade in London to mark the end of General Richards’ tenure, the Defence Secretary said:

… I think it’s very unlikely we would see boots on the ground but we must never take any options off the table.

… It’s not our job to decide how and when and if to deploy forces but to make sure the Prime Minister and the National Security Council have the maximum range of options open to them.

General Richards revealed planning for a major operation led by Special Forces was under way. He said:

… The risk of terrorism is becoming more dominant in our vision for what we do in Syria.

… If that risk develops, we would almost certainly have to act … and we are ready to do so. Some could characterise that as war.

OPINION

The Prime Minister should consider very carefully the words of the outgoing Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, before promising to give military assistance to rebel forces in Syria.

On leaving his post, Sir David has warned that plans under consideration to arm the rebels and set up a no-fly zone (NFZ) would be the start of a deeper and more dangerous British involvement. Stemming from that would invariably be aerial attacks on ground targets, followed by advisers to train the rebels, and, potentially, British combat troops on the ground.

Do we really know who these rebels are? Can we be confident that if they overthrow Assad, who has an advanced Air Force, they would govern any better? If Britain was to arm the rebels, could those weapons be used against British or other Western targets?

Syria has evolved into a pernicious bloody civil war with complex sectarian dimensions the West barely understands.

Standard