Talk:Bevin Boys

Early posts

FYI, the eerie confluence of facts on the web about this subject makes me think they are all derived from a single source--which may be the cited reference, or may be something the cited reference was directly based off of. There is one fact from that reference which seems strange, citing 10% of draftees 18-25 as being Bevin Boys but then saying that every month, *2* out of 10 numbers were chosen to go to the mines, which should give 20%. It could be that he was taking a percentage of the total draftees, though.

Oh, also, please feel free to modify my spellings and anything else to be British. I am from the U.S. --Jkeiser 08:39, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

---

The information I have on the Bevin Boys' selection was that those with a conscription number ending in 0 were sent to the mines. This would confirm the 10% figure and cast doubt on the random selection. Tiles 09:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't personally doubt that part of the story, because a miner's personal story confirms it (though perhaps he was exaggerating?). In an interview (see [1]), he said that 0 and 5 were up at the time he was called, and his number ended in 0. That might actually be the source of the 0 belief. Where did your information come from, BTW? (My research was not meticulous, I just went and looked at like 15 or so websites related to Bevin Boys that I got from a couple of Google searches.) --Jkeiser 16:57, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

See Jock Purdon. I got the information from the reference in the article Tiles 08:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I haven't read that article (there is no clicky clicky and I have to go to work), but it could be an implication thing: "his number was 0, therefore he became a Bevin Boy" does not imply the reverse, "all Bevin Boys were chosen because their numbers were 0." Given that we do have two seemingly independent resources saying that two numbers were used (Laurence Wood in that article talking about 0 and 5 above and the reference on the Wikipedia article talking about the hat selection) it might be worth reading the third one in that context to see if it really contradicts or not. (Still, that miner did happen to have 0 as the last number, he just remembers that 5's went too.)

Does the article you reference say that 0 was *always* a number, or does it leave it up to interpretation whether it might have been different numbers at different times? Similarly, does it explicitly say that 0 was the *only* number? The reference I quoted above, the interview with Laurence Wood, leaves it ambiguous whether the numbers changed over time, but is quite clear that two numbers 0 and 5 were potential Bevin Boys. "If your number ended in a nought or a five, you became a Bevin Boy." --Jkeiser 16:25, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

If there was more than 1 digit involved there would have been more than 10% of the conscripts allocated to the mines. I will do some more research to determine the actual process. Tiles 08:07, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My suspicion is, either that number is wrong, or it is 10% of *all* conscripts during the entire war. 20% of the conscripts 50% of the time is 10% of total conscripts. But it could be either way. I am plum out of resources to research though, at least until I hit the library again. --Jkeiser 06:58, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Information from a reliable source, Gavin Purdon , whose father, Jock Purdon, was a Bevin Boy: "There were 33 blind draws held between Dec 1943 and May 1945. The last digit of your call up number was the decider.

Out of the 33 blind draws 0 was drawn 3 times and 5 twice. All numbers 0 to 9 appeared at some point. Jock's number was 0 so he was one of the very first contingent designated for the mines on 14 Dec 1943. 0 did not reappear until Sept 1944 by which time he was already a trained miner working at Harraton Colliery". Tiles 22:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, so now we have confirmation that there was in fact a blind draw (the hat story is still plausible :)). I don't read this as saying whether there were 1 or 2 numbers drawn at the same time though, do you? --Jkeiser 02:45, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

I am now feeling a lot better about the original source, now that I found this by the same person, a personal testimony. Unless you disagree, I think we can call the information reliable--I don't see contradictions in any of the reports, his is just super specific. --Jkeiser 02:58, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Tiles 03:28, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Have you guys noticed that your source links do not work anymore? I just followed a link, but this is an interesting story. LeaNder 12:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Another comment: I do not want to mess up your work here, but how about linking this up to Ernest Bevin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Bevin. Sorry still have not studied the basics, like how to link orderly, but will do soon. Admittedly I was curious: Why "Bevin Boys". And all things web like "define: Bevin Boys" link back to the wonderful Wikis out there. LeaNder 13:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The boys

I believe Bevin is actually spelled "BEVAN"...someone should double-check this and make it easier to search. thanks, 71.211.167.248 05:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Fulcher

Incorrect -- read the article, they are named after Ernest Bevin. – ukexpat (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

New sources available

If anyone is still working on this page, there are two new BBC articles on the Bevin Boys that you could use: Brown honours wartime Bevin Boys and 'Rough, tough' life of a Bevin Boy JoelUK (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion of merging

I am not convinced this article is sufficiently notable to warrant its own private page, However I do believe that it is notable to an extant so the content aught to be preserved. My provisional suggestion is that it be merged with National Service#National Service in the United Kingdom. However I would love to hear other ideas, perhaps a new article "National Service in the United Kingdom?" Johnzw (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree for now to the merging of this article with National Service page (Section on the United Kingdom).

The reason is, the National Service Section on the United Kingdom is in dire need of being spilt from the page. I think this issue should be resolved first, before then merging the Bevin Boys into a dedicated page on National Service in the United Kingdom--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the idea of merging the two sections into a new article?Johnzw (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, if your Suggesting merging these two sections in a new article called i.e ``National Service in United Kingdom``, as per National Service in Singapore then i Agree --Rockybiggs (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the situation was like in April, but at this point the Bevin Boys article is much more than a stub, and should not be merged. I don't think there's any notability concern either. Therefore, I'm removing the {{mergewith}} tag from the top of the page. --Quuxplusone (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This page hasn`t changed much since april, see [2]. Still feel this should be brought in the same page as Conscription in the United Kingdom

--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell the son of a Bevin boy that his father didn't do national service and he's likely to hit you. It was by all accounts in intent and actuality national war service. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Tony Benn

Sorry if I am out of order here I have read the guidelines etc. but still am not sure qutie that I get it right. Wasn't Tony Benn a Bevin Boy, or have I got that totally wrong?

si_trew - 1 Dec 2008 9.40am GMT (UST)

Rejects

I can just about remember the Bevin Boys and seem to recall that there were large numbers of Bevin Boys who were perfectly fit for Active Service but had to be rejected from mining for Claustrophobia reasons.AT Kunene (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Escaped

The origins of the Bevin Boys is more complex than the article describes. With the outbreak of WW2 the government almost immediately introduced the Reserved Occupation status for skilled industrial workers. These were categories considered essential to the war effort and therefore exempt from all military service and on that list were coal miners.

Upon receiving mobilisation orders any RO was then supposed to apply for exemption. In the case of the miners, large numbers saw this as an excellent opportunity to escape from the regular disputes with the mine ownwers and simply didn't apply for their entitled exemption.

By the time wartime government woke up to large numbers of miners escaping from the coal face it was too late to get them back and the Bevin Boys was the legacy of this mass escape.

How successful the scheme really was is open to dispute. I can just remember this period and was to hear many tales of BBs unable to cope with the conditions deep underground and local communities totally despising the incoming BBs.

For those unable to cope with the nderground conditions there was little else around any colliery as most above ground jobs would be held by local men above the usual age for military service.AT Kunene (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions

Coal mining isn’t exactly safe; are there any records of casualties? Or a comparison of the risks involved? There’s a good chance being a Bevin Boy was more dangerous than if they had actually gone into the Armed Forces.

Also, does anyone know what happened in WWI? If anything there was more demand for coal then, yet a lot of miners went into the army; was there a similar scheme in WWI? Moonraker12 (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

BBC has a wartime program at, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hnuin5PVRk (about 29 minutes in)that contains a short account of the Bevin boys. It mentions casualties and risks, I think Bevin boys is an interesting and worthwhile subject to pursue, as according to the BBC program, the Bevin boys were forced to labour for three years after the end of the war before being 'demobilized. This peacetime aspect of conscription by a Capitalist democracy seems rather indicative of how far peacetime freedoms may be restricted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrofulousagain (talk • contribs) 05:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable Bevin Boys: Removal of name; and Titles

1 (a) Should Jimmy Savile remain on this list?

One must assume that men chosen by lot will include the same proportion of sinners as the general population. It is therefore almost certain that there will be murderers and rapists among former Bevin Boys. Why mention Savile only? The only reason I can see is that he is by far the best-known serious malefactor who was a BB, and for completeness all well-known (for good or evil) Bevin Boys should be listed. The reason for his removal is that this should be a list celebrating the subsequent achievements of BBs.

1 (b) Jimmy Savile - why "Sir"?

It is normal practice to remove all titles and honorifics when a person dies (Ref. 1), unless it is necessary to identify them, or it is otherwise relevant. If Savile's name is to remain on the list, please remove the "Sir". Identification in this case is NOT necessary. If Savile were alive now, it is certain that he would have been stripped of that honour anyway.

2 Adding honorifics The following two gentlemen are happily still with us:

  Brian Rix should be Lord Brian Rix.
  
  Peter Schaffer should be Sir Peter Schaffer

3 Showing achievement

You have added (Lord) [your brackets] before the late Paul Hamlyn. I would not quibble with that, despite the recommendation in Reference 1, as it emphasizes the recognition accorded to some Bevin Boys.

  Please add (Sir) to Stanley Bailey - and perhaps add "Chief Constable".

Item 1 (a) is IMPORTANT and for decision.

Items 2 & 3 should be implemented as a courtesy to the two living Bevin Boys and a tribute to the two dead ones.

References 1 The Economist Style Guide : Part I : Section T : Titles 2 For named Individuals, see the Internet links already given in this Wiki entry in section 4 "Notable Bevin Boys"

80.229.167.229 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

unless someone goes back through history and removes him from participating as a Bevins Boy, then we will report him as a Bevin Boy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. For consistency, none of those listed should have their honorific included, or all should. In this instance, it's probably easiest to remove the 'Sir' from before the name of Jimmy Savile rather than include the honorifics for everyone else.121.222.58.52 (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bevin Boys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714065513/http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/sources/coal/bevin/page41441.html to http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/sources/coal/bevin/page41441.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)