A question for the organisers of the In from the Cold project

[dycer]

Tom,

I also saw the original post,which is why I rushed to JH's and TD's defence but tried to use the word "reprehensible" with caution.

I'm sure we all,at times,have been accused of rumour-mongers and as Neil says possibly Chris could have chosen his words better.

Whether an apology at this late date would achieve anything is for others to decide but the salutary lesson, to us all, is read all posts on a given subject before jumping in on the open Forum or use the PM facility to clarify an individual issue.I have used the PM facility when I have felt, for example, I have overstepped the mark or sought guidance on a point raised which requires individual rather than group input,as have colleagues to me,and to date we all still seem to be on speaking terms. Is it my turn to buy the coffee?

George

[Guest geoff501]

I think it all comes down to this:

(harribobs @ Dec 15 2008, 02:38 PM) *

we have always paid for all our research into non coms ourselves on the manchesters group

I should perhaps point out that I know a good number of the members of this project continue to pay time and money for research into non-comms who fall outside the scope of the project. And I don't imagine any would seek any sort of reimbursement or financial reward for their sins. In most cases, as already pointed out, the DC cost is usually the smallest item.

Funding for the DCs (which is all we need to get the non-comm 'in') cost of the project was sought simply because of the very large numbers involved. Initial estimates were up to a couple of thousand names.

I note the OP has not returned to explain his misunderstanding.

[Kate Wills]

A polite request to the IFTC project:

Would you kindly confine your postings on the GWF to WW1 casualties please.

The occassions when you have placed names from other conflicts here have elicited a stream of Reported Posts; and indeed it is against Forum Rules to post on non-WW1 subjects, unless posted in Skindles.

Your co-operation is appreciated.

Thankyou.

[Guest geoff501]

A polite request to the IFTC project:

Would you kindly confine your postings on the GWF to WW1 casualties please.

The occassions when you have placed names from other conflicts here have elicited a stream of Reported Posts; and indeed it is against Forum Rules to post on non-WW1 subjects, unless posted in Skindles.

Your co-operation is appreciated.

Thankyou.

Could you give me a link to one example please?

Confused, of Bexhill-on-Sea.

[Kate Wills]

There have been examples Geoff, but they have been removed.

This was posted twice last week "...Field Marshal LAMBART is one of the five WW2 high ranking non-com cases which I put forward last year. There is one more to follow in due course."

I can understand IFTC's pride in finding him for comemmoration, and I almost feel embarrassed to ask this; but you do not have to deal with the clutch of complaints that arrive when WW2 makes an appearance on the GWF.

[Guest geoff501]

There have been examples Geoff, but they have been removed.

This was posted twice last week "...Field Marshal LAMBART is one of the five WW2 high ranking non-com cases which I put forward last year. There is one more to follow in due course."

Now I see your problem. These, I believe, are WW1 veterans who had the fortune, or mis-fortune, to die in wartime after 1940, when they automatically became due for CWGC Commonwealth War Dead commemoration. I think the forum has more significant problems.

[eviltaxman]

I think the forum has more significant problems.

????

Such as?

Les.

[Terry Denham]

Kate

Will do.

They appeared because Chris gave his clearance for WW2 cases to be discussed under the 'Non-commemoration' sub-forum.

If this is now revoked - fair enough.

[Kate Wills]

Not necessarily Terry.

We are trying to hit a happy medium here. If there is a WW1 connection, e.g. someone who served in WW1 and subsequently died, I see no problem.

I would be interested to hear how others feel about this.

[eviltaxman]

My personal feeling about the WW2 aspect is not to discuss it. I only say that because if we start including WW2 topics (although they stem from WW1), other areas of the forum may take this as a lead to discuss, say, pre-war service or even Boer War troops that no longer served but died (of natural causes) during the WW1 era. I know it's a different kettle of fish and all, but it could open the flood gates.

As I say, that's my opinion. I'm happy to go along with whatever decision is made.

[Terry Denham]

The clearance given by Chris was only for cases where GWF members were involved and on the basis that such cases are extremely rare.

I have no problem with them not being mentioned though. It is only once in a blue moon that they come up.

No WW2 cases involve the In From the Cold Project as that is an entirely WW1 exercise - at least until WW1 is cleared up!

[Kate Wills]

No WW2 cases involve the In From the Cold Project as that is an entirely WW1 exercise - at least until WW1 is cleared up!

I hadn't realised that. I thought IFTC sought to comemmorate everyone who had slipped through the CWGC's net, irrespective of when they fell.

[Terry Denham]

Kate

IFCP is only working on WW1. That is a big enough task for now.

The target finish date for IFCP is 2012. If we do actually finish the project and there are enough of us still willing (or alive!) at the end, perhaps something could be organised for the 'other war'.

Meanwhile IFCP would only follow up any WW2 in-service case if it were to be directed towards the project by an individual. There is no process in place for us to systematically search for them. No WW2 case has been referred to the project to date.

Personally, I follow up cases from WW2 if I stumble upon them or they are pointed at me but they are pretty rare.

[Kate Wills]

Can you actually finish the project?

How can you ensure you will have found every single person who matches the CWGC's criteria by 2012, or indeed at any time?

[geraint]

Very good question Kate. Of my present list of 101 on a local memorial, I have 15 who do not turn up in my CWGC searches. Apart for me, I don't think any other people know of their existence. How would they be acknowledged?

[Terry Denham]

There can be no way we can tell if we have everyone. In fact, I am sure we will not have 'everyone'. All we will be able to say is that we have made every human effort to find the bulk of them. Whether that final number found will represent 100%, 99%, 80% etc of those in-service cases actually missing, nobody will be able to say. All we will know is that we have rectified X number of cases - a satisfactory result in itself.

There are human factors to consider - people making errors, some microfiche pages being unreadable, records being incomplete etc. We are only human and can only work with the records that exist.

The end of the project will occur when each of the sources we have set out to search has been completed to the best of everyone's ability - those sources being Airmen Died in the Great War, SDGW and (the big one) the GRO Overseas Military & Naval Death Indices 1914-21. If another likely source crops up, that could be added at the end.

The 2012 target is simply that - a target. It has no meaning. If we finish before the end of 2012 - great. If not, we simply carry on until it is finished. It is better to have a timescale in mind and, with the way things are progressing, that date seems quite feasible.

Geraint

That is a problem faced by many who research local war memorials. Often names do not appear on CWGC for a variety of reasons.

Some of them may be post-discharge cases which are outside the remit of IFCP.

[Kate Wills]

So, returning to the original question, will the funding cease in 2012?

[Jim Clay]

Can you actually finish the project?

How can you ensure you will have found every single person who matches the CWGC's criteria by 2012, or indeed at any time?

Kate

I think the point here is that the project is attempting to identify all those who have possibly missed commemoration that it's possible to identify from the available records. Terry estimates the investigation may take anothe 3-4 years - but this, I guess, will depend on the availability of willing volunteers to do the investigation. The records are finite. There's no guarantee that ALL non-comms will be identified, but a good stab will have been made - as good as CAN be made.

Jim

EDIT: as TD has said above

Edited 18 December , 2008 by Jim Clay

[Terry Denham]

There is no funding as yet as has been stated several times.

However, if anything is granted, it will be a set sum and will certainly not be open ended (I wish!).

[geraint]

Terry

Can you refer me to a basic bog standard introductory/criteria link on Non Coms? I've not been involved in any way, but feel that I may be able to do my bit.

[Terry Denham]

Geraint

Nice to hear that you may be interested.

At the beginning of the Non-Com sub-section under 'Cemeteries & Memorials', there is a pinned post setting out the basic criteria of the various categories. If you read that, you will get sufficient info to get you started.

If you have any more queries, please feel free to PM/email me or just ask your questions in the Non-com section.

[Guest KevinEndon]

A Field Marshall who died in WW2 must have served during WW1. I feel (the question was asked) that they should be on the forum because when his name was listed I searched what he did, what rank he was and where he was during WW1, so I see it relevant to the forum. Ok maybe not his date of death but his history. It's a bit like saying my grandfather served in France during WW1, survived and died of old age, these posts stand, they have the same connection as the Field Marshall so I hope that the post on the high rankers coming in from the cold is replaced.

Kevin

[chrisharley9]

Not necessarily Terry.

We are trying to hit a happy medium here. If there is a WW1 connection, e.g. someone who served in WW1 and subsequently died, I see no problem.

I would be interested to hear how others feel about this.

As Terry said Chris Baker allowed us to discuss non commemorateds of both conflicts also those misssing off the Armed Forces Memorial - have tried raisng this subject on the WW2 forum but there was no interest so this appears to be the only place for it to be discussed

Chris

[Guest geoff501]

It is only once in a blue moon that they come up.

Exactly. And they don't usually start extended discussions on WW2.

But it seems the mods get 'a clutch of complaints'. Very odd.

[geraint]

Thanks Terry