Aurel Sercu Posted 2 February , 2003 Share Posted 2 February , 2003 Dear All, It has never been my intention to inform the visitors of this Discussion Forum about the results of a specific research I have been doing for the past half year, by putting a message on this Forum. I am very well aware that this is not the most appropriate method and place. It had been my intention to make it public in a magazine or on my own website, in due time. However, some very unpleasant circumstances leave me no other option. Since last summer I have done extensive research about Private JOHN CONDON (born Waterford, Ireland), the youngest soldier (age 14) who died in Flanders in the Great War (24 May 1915), and officially buried at Poelcapelle British Cemetery (near Ypres). In this research I was motivated by other people here in Flanders who found that in-depth research urged itself, as some points in the John Condon story clearly had to be treated with suspicion and scepticism. These are the main conclusions of my extensive research : 1. Beneath the headstone of John Condon at Poelcapelle British Cemetery are NOT his remains. 2. With almost absolute certainty it can be said whose remains are buried there instead. 3. The place where John Condon is buried - if he was - can be considered as unknown. 4. There very serious reason to believe that John Condon, when he fell, was not 14, but (almost) 18. My research is not over yet, though what still has to be done can be considered as 'technicalities', not endangering my conclusions. For personal reasons (being engaged in other time-consuming occupations right now) I cannot come out with an exhaustive and complete version of these conclusions yet. The main reason however that I feel I have to come out with these limited results now, and on this Forum, is that it has come to my knowledge that a person whom I had taken in my confidence about my research, who had joined me some time ago, and with whom I thought I had a gentleman's agreement, intends to make them public in the (very) near future, through other channels (website) before I do. I think I can say that I consider this an extremely unfair practice. I know that the Discussion Forum is not the place for personal attacks. And so I will not, on this Forum, go into details and I will mention no names. I can also add that it is not my intention to give more information about my research - such as providing evidence - in this thread. This is for later on a different platform and with more appropriate means. Aurel Sercu Ypres www.diggers.be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NeilYork Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 Dear Forum Members We consider six months a reasonable time to have waited in our Gentleman's Agreement, whilst well meaning British visitors continued to be duped into grieving at Condon’s alleged grave, together with the injustice done to the man truly buried there. The article we have produced is our own text, not plagiarised, and it is the result of original research undertaken by us in parallel with Aurel. We are not satisfied that he has sufficient reason, other than his own TV agenda, to suppress this case any longer. There appear to be many Gentlemen’s Agreements in operation with Aurel, which is tantamount to a conspiracy of silence. Our conscience does not allow us to stay silent with regard to this matter indefinitely. If there are any unpleasant circumstances or unfair practice, it is the suppression of the story. No individual has copyright on it. The evidence was entirely sufficient six months ago to prove the case. Our article will be available for viewing later today at the Campaigners for War Grave Commemorations website. http://www.cwgc.co.uk Neil York Co-Webmaster Campaigners for War Grave Commemorations http://www.cwgc.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 Well, I am saddened and surprised by this. Aurel is well known as a decent and honourable man, and I and others have been aware he has been engaged in this research for some time (indeed he has consulted me about it and I can confirm that I think his conclusions are well founded). He has not done this for any "TV agenda", but for honourable and laudable reasons, and to be underminded like this is sad, and just down-right wrong. I'm not sure what can be done about this now, but if nothing else Mr York has shown us what type of person he is and I hope we will profit from this experience. I also hope forum members will post and/or send messages of support to Aurel, and voice their unhappiness with Mr York's actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hill 60 Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 I sincerely hope that this thread isn't going to degenerate into a slanderous morass of accusation and counter-accusation. I wasn't aware of the matter concerning Pte John Condon and am suprised at the revelations. With all due respect to Neil York, I don't know anything about him. Maybe I should have heard about him, maybe everyone else has, I haven't. Aurel, on the other hand, I have heard about on many occasions. I have heard him praised by many people for his work and I find it hard to believe that he has a hidden agenda; I may be wrong but I don't think so. I hope that whatever the outcome of this is we don't lose sight of the fact that we are talking about the loss of a soldier (maybe two) and that is all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 I appreciate there is normally two sides to every story but I would echo Lee's comments that Aurel is well known in WW1 circles for his honesty, integrity and diligence and it is difficult to associate him with "hidden agendas". It remains to be seen whether Neil York and the Campaigners for War Graves Commemorations are not making a large error of judgement. It is a shame that such an important investigation is going to be tainted by a bad taste in the mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewThornton Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 I was very saddened to read this message thread. A couple of years ago I sent a message to Mr York broadly in support of his efforts in trying to aid the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (who I hasten to add do a fantastic job with limited funding) in amending the details of soldiers who for whatever reason had not been commemorated. What I have read today, including his very personal attack on the motivations of Mr Sercu, has compelled me to dissassociate myself with his campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 Without knowing anything about the Condon controversey but knowing of Aurel Sercu's fine reputation I want to join those supporting him as a man who can be taken at his word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 3 February , 2003 Author Share Posted 3 February , 2003 Dear all, I am very well aware that if I only write 5 percent of what I think and feel, Webmaster Chris Baker will banish me from the Forum and remove this thread. So how I feel about Mr York will be said (and has been said) in my email correspondence with him yesterday and today. So, Lee, no need to be alarmed : if there is one thing I do not want, it is seeing this thread "degenerate into a slanderous morass of accusation and counter-accusation". If I accuse anybody, it is also myself, maybe even in the first place. For having been naïve and having allowed other people who I thought I could trust, to work behind my back with ... a hidden agenda. I indeed feel like a fool in what is happening right now. As to Mr York's reply to my opening of this thread : 1. Sorry for having the wrong dictionary : mine did not mention that a gentleman's agreement is only valid for a 6 months' term. 2. Mr York has a very broad interpretation of the words "original" and "parallel" if he thinks that his his "original research was undertaken in parallel" with mine. 3. I hope that Mr York realizes that his words that my Gentlemen's Agreement with other people are "tantamount to a conspiracy of silence" contain a serious accusation. Which I hope he can corroborate. 4. I do not know of any suppression of the story. Certainly not from my side. Why would I carry out a six-month research and then hide it ? 5. Contrary to Mr York I have no hidden agenda. If Mr York wants to hear the main reason why I have not come out yet with my conclusions in full, or why I think this is too soon : I have not been able yet to contact possible relatives or descendants of the soldier whom I believe is buried beneath John Condon's headstone. I think it is absolutely unfair to come out with my conclusions as they are now, unless one has done everyting possible to reach that aim. I am not sure if Mr York has even tried. If he has, I'll be glad to hear that. I will not publish the conclusions of my research on our own website yet, as this would, in my opinion, and as I have tried to explain, be premature, no matter how convinced I am that my conclusions fundamentally are correct. All I will say to end is : I do hope that Mr York has a conscience that can be appeased successfully. Thanks to the people who have already replied in this thread and who support me morally. And I can say is that I am not ashamed to confess that I need it. It is not easy to be the victim of shamelessness and betrayal of confidence. To Webmaster Chris Baker : if he considers this reply in any way offending, and / or not in conformity with the rules of this Discussion Forum, which I certainly want to respect, I would like to ask him if necessary to censor parts of my reply, or even to remove this reply (not the whole thread please), to inform me that this has been done, and to give me the opportunity to rephrase my message in a more appropriate way. Aurel Sercu Ypres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Lines Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 This is just a plea to anyone who is thinking of joining this thread. As others have already asked please let's keep it civil. Aurel is a well known and greatly respected member of this Forum, Neil is new to the Forum and should be treated with respect. I suggest that the time to start mud slinging (if ever) is when all the facts are known which may be a while. Fair enough if we have a go at each other about things like the SAD and the way the War was conducted threads but let's be careful where an individual(s) personal integrity is involved, where the full facts are not known. The Talbot House thread I feel was a good example this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 As long as there are no personal attacks or comments made here which could be in any way actionable, I see no problem with this thread from the viewpoint of moderation of the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Missinne Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 Dear Members of this Forum About two years ago, all information which was available at the time with regard to Private John Condon, was compiled for the making of the website 'Age 14' on Age 14 This information had been brought together by several experts with a strong interest in the history of the Great War in the Westhoek (the area Ypres, Poperinge, Veurne). The initiative for this co-operation and the making of the website was taken by me, being a teacher in a small primary school near the place where John Condon died and at a short distance from 'his' grave. The sole aim of this project was to keep reminding young people of the atrocities of this and any war by making a project at school. Among the experts in this team, even at that time, a few doubts had been cast both with regard to the age of Private John Condon and the place where John Condon was said to have been buried originally. About half a year ago this study group met again, this time extended with a few more experts. Among them Aurel Sercu. It is thanks to Aurel's passionate and in-depth research that a few questions that had been raised before, were answered. It never was and never will be the purpose that "the mystery" re John Condon will be guarded eternally. In this work group it was agreed that a thorough study had to be made, and that no idle rumours were to be spread. Not in the least out of respect for possible relatives of both Private John Condon, and the fallen soldier who is supposed to lie beneath the headstone with the inscription 'Age 14'. Now that 'some people' reproach Aurel that this case is suppressed for his own TV agenda, it appears that Aurel's integrity and the integrity of the other persons involved in this project are stained in a base manner. People who know Aurel, know better. 'Others' actually are not worth wasting words on. Robert Missinne Age 14 The Great War in Flanders Fields Beste leden van dit forum Een tweetal jaren geleden werd alle toenmalige beschikbare informatie omtrent Private John Condon gebundeld voor de aanmaak van de website ‘Age 14’ op Age 14 Deze informatie werd aangebracht door meerdere deskundigen met sterke interesse voor het oorlogsverleden van de Westhoek. Het initiatief voor deze samenwerking en de aanmaak van de site werd door mijzelf genomen, als onderwijzer van een kleine basisschool vlakbij de plaats waar John Condon stierf en op korte afstand van ‘zijn’ graf. Dit project had als énig doel jongeren blijvend te herinneren aan de gruwelen van om het even welke oorlog en dit door middel van een schoolproject uit te werken. Vanuit deze ploeg van deskundigen werden toen reeds vraagtekens geplaatst bij zowel de leeftijd van Private John Condon als bij de plaats waar John Condon oorspronkelijk begraven zou zijn. Zowat een half jaar geleden kwam dezelfde werkgroep weer bijeen en werd de groep uitgebreid met nog enkele deskundigen waaronder Aurel Sercu. Het is door het gedreven opzoekingswerk van Aurel dat een aantal van de vroegere vragen een antwoord kreeg. Het was/is geenszins de bedoeling dat ‘het geheim’ omtrent John Condon voor eeuwig bewaard zou blijven. In de werkgroep werd door de teamleden overeen gekomen om er een gedegen studie van te maken en zeker geen loze geruchten te verspreiden, niet in het minst vanuit het respect voor eventuele nabestaanden van zowel Private John Condon als van de vermoedelijke gesneuvelde onder het zerkje met de melding ‘Age 14’. Nu ‘sommigen’ Aurel gaan verwijten dat publicatie enkel wordt uitgesteld met het oog op zijn ‘TV-agenda’ wordt de integriteit van Aurel en zijn medewerkers ten onrechte en op een lage manier besmeurd. Mensen die Aurel kennen, weten dit maar al te goed. ‘Anderen’ zijn het in feite niet waard om woorden aan vuil te maken. Robert Missinne Age 14 Wereldoorlog I in de Westhoek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Harris Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 I copied John Condon's service papers from Kew for Aurel a while ago when we discussed his ongoing research, what struck me from the first time we discussed this issue was his absolute commitment to obtain all of the facts before making any conclusions on what is indeed a sensitive subject. I know for a fact that Aurel intended to approach the relatives of John Condon before any "public" announcment would be made and am sure that if they had wished no further action then so be it. I was once advised that to close a subject is bad history as further evidence may come to light in the future that could unbalance any previous viewpoints. Whether or not this is the last resting place of John Condon and his actual age remains to be seen, I for one can wait until Aurels research is complete and then and only then weigh up the facts presented to me. Previous incidents involving Kiplings son and Pte Nugent at Lochnagar have shown that if such stories are announced to soon, perhaps because a book publication or TV documentary is imminent an element of doubt remains long after the hype has died. I for one will not be rushing to view "breaking news" on Neil Yorks website, keep up your efforts Aurel, we will wait your findings in the fullness of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AOK4 Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 I won't interfere in the discussion about who has the right to publish this article. If Aurel is right and his research was abused by Mr York, I feel sorry for Aurel, although I can understand (not approve) someone else wanting to publish the story. I would always advise not to talk to anyone about your idea if you have a good one and never wait too long. Having said that, I read the article of Mr York and I was a bit upset about the tone of it. It all sounds so agressive. OK, it seems some errors were made, but instead of attacking the CWGC etc, why not just presenting your findings and inviting the people to discuss the matter? It heard the whole research about Kipling did seem correct in the beginning, but was refuted later? So, be a bit careful and let the door open for other views... Jan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Marshall Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 Aurel Never let the knowledge that some people may betray your trust to alter the way that you give your trust...this is life, as you know. And my views on some of the points that have been raised. The grave marker of Pte. John Condon has been there for a few years now and a little more time will not make too much difference to the issues involved, if all avenues to come to the truth with compassion and diligence are to be followed. I think people will come to their own conclusions based upon people's actions and not on factless accusations. If you have not had the privilege to have met Aurel, you may not understand why people like myself will always support him in the safe knowledge that he is an honourable man, if you have met him you will know what I mean. Regards Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 It appears to me that certainly Aurel has been abused here and a lot of high and mighty talk about not deceiving visitors to Poelkapelle Cemetery does not stop the stench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenwoodman Posted 3 February , 2003 Share Posted 3 February , 2003 I have to agree with Jan about the aggressive, self-righteous tone to the article, and to the site in general. You learn all you need to know when you see that someone has taken the trouble to register www.cwgc.co.uk, called his site the very awkward "Campaigners for War Grave Commemoration" and then check out the tone of the site. But the real point of plagiarising someone else's intellectual property comes at the end of the article. "I've debunked John Condon, but I've found the real youngest soldier, aren't I clever" No, not clever, and no gentleman either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 3 February , 2003 Author Share Posted 3 February , 2003 Mr Morecombe and Mr York Maybe you deserve the "Mr" in this opening. After all you are in plumes. Even if you are showing off in borrowed plumes. However, you will understand that I refuse to call you "Dear". For the simple reason that I refuse to be a hypocrite. Kindly remove the cynical words "our Belgian comrade" and "our Belgian pal". I'm not going to name the people that I'd rather be the comrade and pal of, instead of you. The company you would be in, would not be flattering. I think it highly inappropriate to refer to me in such terms knowing that I curse the day I met you. I know that this may be a considered a personal attack. If so, I apologize to everybody reading this. If the webmaster wants to censor it or remove it, I understand. Some urges simply are too powerful to be kept under control. Though maybe they should... Aurel Sercu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morcombe Posted 4 February , 2003 Share Posted 4 February , 2003 To all parties currently reading or fuming, Some contributors to this discussion seem to have introduced the phrase "hidden agenda" whereas it was "TV agenda" that was actually stated. But this too should be withdrawn, as it was based on Aurel's comments to us that he was involved with the "Forgotten Battlefields" TV programme & only inferred that this was his chosen forum. This has clearly sent a few folk off the deep end. We do not mean to call into question Aurel's integrity etc. & wholeheartedly agree with all the nice things said about his character. But, this case is not a private matter for one man to claim as his own. When we (reluctantly) agreed not to write about this case, back in August last year, we thought "Well, we'll give him 'for the time being' (as Aurel termed it) but this is such a high profile case, just the ticket for our website dealing specifically with CWGC errors, but let's not upset him & wait to see what happens." Six months later & nothing has occured. It appears we would have been better to go with our instincts at the time & refused to keep silent. An article showing more than enough evidence against the Condon ID was easily possible then. What people don't appreciate about the Condon ID, is that it is an 'open & shut case.' A schoolboy equipped with the burial return & the "Soldier's died CD ROM" could tell you which soldier is buried there. Therefore we cannot understand why nothing has yet been done to put things right. Plenty of Aurel's pals have rallied to his defence on this forum, but we have yet to hear from those victims of the hoax, the poor dupes who still visit Condon's(?) grave in ignorance. How do they feel about the continued inactivity when proof is so easily accessable? Amendments to the site text as requested by Aurel & the producer of "Forgotten Battlefields" John Hayes Fisher, will be made ASAP. John Morcombe Co-webmaster cwgc.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate Wills Posted 4 February , 2003 Share Posted 4 February , 2003 Mr Morcombe, Why are you so insistant in describing this as a 'hoax', which implies a deliberate deception? The Imperial War Graves Commission and CWGC have always been staffed by human beings, who quite naturally fall victim to human error. You seem to forget that the circumstances in this case involve one young man among millions, in an age that was not blessed with instant communications and searchable databases. Yes, mistakes were made. You seem to imply that the CWGC is guilty of skullduggery. imposing false information against dead men. Why the hell should they want to make work for themselves? Frankly, I think Aurel (whom I do not know, by the way) has shown remarkable restraint in his postings. His aim has been to tie up as many loose ends as possible, to present a watertight case. That is known as intellectual integrity; which comes packaged with his own personal integrity. Just the ticket!! You claim "When we (reluctantly) agreed not to write about this case, back in August last year, we thought "Well, we'll give him 'for the time being' (as Aurel termed it) but this is such a high profile case, just the ticket for our website dealing specifically with CWGC errors, but let's not upset him & wait to see what happens." Six months later & nothing has occured." This makes you sound like an impatient tabloid editor. How ungrateful of Aurel to deny you a cherry for your cake. "...but we have yet to hear from those victims of the hoax, the poor dupes who still visit Condon's(?) grave in ignorance. How do they feel about the continued inactivity..?" Well, blissfully ignorant, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 4 February , 2003 Share Posted 4 February , 2003 In my opinion gentleman's agreements do not expire after the effluxion of a period of time chosen arbitrarily by one of the parties. When making such an agreement , care should be taken to ensure that both parties are "gentlemen". This seems to be the problem in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hill 60 Posted 4 February , 2003 Share Posted 4 February , 2003 Some contributors to this discussion seem to have introduced the phrase "hidden agenda" whereas it was "TV agenda" that was actually stated. As I seem to be the person who started the Hidden Agenda term in this thread, which has apparently upset someone enough to point it out, I can only apologise. I used the term Hidden Agenda as, in my view, any agenda that isn't in line with the original agenda is a hidden agenda. Oh well, I suppose I'd better brush up on my English literature so as not to make the same mistake twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_McGarry Posted 4 February , 2003 Share Posted 4 February , 2003 Having had the great pleasure last year to have met Aurel when he was kind enough to take the time to show me and my chums around the dig. I think the words "honourable man" best describe him. A gentlemans agreement should not come with unspoken conditions. Aurel you have my unreserved support. I will wait until YOU publish the FULL facts before I comment on the condon case. "THANKYOU" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 4 February , 2003 Share Posted 4 February , 2003 I don't want to get involved in a 'good guy-bad guy' argument about two people I have never met. I am not qualified to comment and to focus on the personalities involved misses several important points. First, whatever the rights and wrongs of breaking a gentleman's agreement, real or imagined, Neil should reflect upon the consequences of his action in securing co-operation of other people for any future projects he may have in mind. He should not expect a rush of people to help him. Second, whatever was thought of Aurel's attitude to the timing of the disclosure, it is discourteous not to give him full credit for his part in this investigation. To withhold his name and to refer to him as a 'Belgian researcher' is both demeaning and unfair. Phrases like these say much more about Neil than they do about Aurel. These two points not withstanding, at a technical level, Neil and/or Aurel seems to have done a superb job. I have had a quick look at the website. I want to go through it at my leisure later, but it looks like a first-class piece of detective work. It's a great shame that these other issues have been allowed to obscure what appears to be a wonderful piece of work. So 10/10 for research method, data analysis and conclusions; 0/10 for presentation and communications skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 4 February , 2003 Author Share Posted 4 February , 2003 To Mr Morcombe I can hardly say how much I appreciate that, at my request, the reference to me as "Belgian comrade" and "Belgian pal" will be removed from the website. Hypocrisy indeed is one of the most unbearable things in life. As I may have suggested, referring to me as X is more than enough honour. Which does not imply that this way justice has been done. Aurel Sercu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 4 February , 2003 Share Posted 4 February , 2003 When we (reluctantly) agreed not to write about this case, back in August last year, we thought "Well, we'll give him 'for the time being' (as Aurel termed it) but this is such a high profile case, just the ticket for our website dealing specifically with CWGC errors, but let's not upset him & wait to see what happens." Six months later & nothing has occured. John Morcombe Co-webmaster cwgc.co.uk I think this says it all - this is a disgraceful admission; and I think Mr Morcombe just doesn't realise how disgraceful and how patronising this sounds. That's the difference here - Aurel was working hard to correct an injustice; Morcombe and York were out for publicity for their website. Shameful, just shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now