City of London Police Service Record - Help!

[bsward]

Hi,

Would appreciate any help with interpreting the below service record for an individual who served as a Special Constable in the City of London police force.

I think each date is a date of service and the number next to a date is number of days served since last date?

I guess the non-dates are for other forms of service or when equipment was issued? e.g. ARP as ARP warden, gas for gas mask maybe? No idea about MT.E.S.



Many thanks,

Ben

[Ken_R]

Guessing here but MT could be Motor Transport, i.e. qualified to drive vehicles, with the E.S. being the Station code where the approval was given.

The only other bit that I could offer a suggestion for would be W.S. Coat. Assuming that, for the period of the War, shiny buttons on uniforms were dispensed with. That said, in those days it would have been a case of being given a bag of black enamelled buttons and being told to sew them on yourself.

As an aside, it would be interesting to put all of those dates into a spreadsheet and identify the day of the week each fell on.

[Ken_R]

I think each date is a date of service and the number next to a date is number of days served since last date?

Don't think so. Specials, certainly now, and even probably back then, are only expected to 'serve' a minimum of one day a month.

I'd suggest the the entries _[month]# are actually an Admin entry where they couldn't be bothered to change the date stamp for the record card for each Officer. Imagine the scenerio. The local Station fills in a return, either on a daily or weekly basis. Even on a daily basis, the returns for the weekend don't reach Admin until Monday, possibly Tuesday, and will cover, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and possibly even Thursday night, and there are perhaps tens or more of these record cards to be stamped.

I certainly wouldn't want to be the one continually resetting the date for each record card. Far easier to stamp the Month/Year and then enter the day by hand.

[bsward]

Guessing here but MT could be Motor Transport, i.e. qualified to drive vehicles, with the E.S. being the Station code where the approval was given.

The only other bit that I could offer a suggestion for would be W.S. Coat. Assuming that, for the period of the War, shiny buttons on uniforms were dispensed with. That said, in those days it would have been a case of being given a bag of black enamelled buttons and being told to sew them on yourself.

As an aside, it would be interesting to put all of those dates into a spreadsheet and identify the day of the week each fell on.

Thanks for your replies Ken - I had read War Coat as US Govt, but I think you are right.

I have put all the dates into an Excel spreadsheet and there is a large variety of dates: 10 on a Sunday, 4 on a Monday, 9 on a Tuesday, 18 on a Wednesday, 9 on a Thursday, 8 on a Friday and 3 on a Saturday.

Any suggestions as to what PO.LBC. stands for and whether anything more can be deduced from the IRA entry and War Service enties - was the IRA entry in response and did the War Service entry entail received training?

Many, many thanks,

Ben

[Mutley]

MT? something to do with Metropolitan?
POL? Police?
LBC? London Borough City?

Wild guesses I am afraid.

[AnnB]

I would suggest getting in touch with the City of London Police Museum to see if they can help. Address and e-mail contact details are at https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a...ls.asp?LR=2744

Sorry if I am telling you something you have already tried ...

Best wishes
Ann

[arthurk]

I wonder if the "W.S..." entry is "W.S. Cont." - "War Service Continued". The RH column shows the start of War Service (red stamp, a few lines higher up), then the dates below "W.S. Cont" (or whatever) seem to carry straight on from the ones at the foot of the RH column.

Arthur

[bsward]

Apologies for the late reply. I have been moving houses and so had too much to do .

I have not yet contacted the City of London Police museum and will do so now. Sometimes the most obvious routes of enquiry are the hardest to remember! (I think that explains what I am trying to say).

Thanks all,

Ben