Violating war graves

[Clio]

I have been shown evidence that a marine war grave is being violated. I should know the answer to this question but I simply dont. Who should I report the matter to ?

[truthergw]

This is a criminal act. Consult your nearest main police station. You could also contact MOD to seek their advice.

[Clio]

Right, I will do just that.

[Wrecktec]

Hi Cleo

What is the Marine War Grave called ? There is just a handful wrecks that have been designated as 'War Graves' and are protected by law, the Royal oak is one of them;) Any ship sunk during wartime where crew were lost should be classed as such but it doesn't work that way, sadly.

Cheers Ron

[phil@basildon]

I know that Scuba divers websights give details as to whether a wreck is a war grave. Sadly too few wrecks that should be are not designated as such.

[Clio]

The wreck in question is the British submarine H5 and it is explicitly covered by legislation.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Hope you get results.

[Clio]

So do I - but I wont hold me breath. Anyhow its reported now.

[Wrecktec]

So do I - but I wont hold me breath. Anyhow its reported now.

Good for you Cleo

Cheers Ron

[George1916]

A few comments here..

[Wrecktec]

A few comments here..

Seemed no violation on the Video; did not touch anything or go inside, in fact they laid a wreath to honour of the guys who died. Only other thing is, did they have a permit to dive over it??

Cheers Ron

[phil@basildon]

Where is the H5? Does it lie in waters that the British have any administration?

[NigelS]

This page on the MOD website may be of interest (also follow the link under "Related News")

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceN...stingPlaces.htm

NigelS

[sotonmate]

Phil

17 miles off the west coast of Anglesea,in Caernarfon Bay.

Sotonmate

[Wrecktec]

Where is the H5? Does it lie in waters that the British have any administration?

It lies 9.82-n.miles SSW of Holy Island in Caernarfon Bay, Wales, in British Terratorial waters.

Ron

[grantowi]

Contact the coast guard and ask for the local "reciever of wrecks", these are the "wreck police" in charge of every item recovered from the sea.

As a Diver, I know that most divers are responsable people and am totally opposed to every ship that was sunk with loss of life to be classed as a war grave !

The battle fields of every single battle should also be classed as War graves, but each year millions of people trapse over them, in and out of trench's, pill box's and bunkers - people died in these places and in some places their remains are still to be uncovered - but all this is considered OK. But a ship that is visited by a fracton of the people must be considered a "no go zone"

There are no bodys left on these ships - the sea has seen to that - unlike the many that are still lying to be uncovered on land sites that are walked over every day by people who will pick up finds that have been uncovered by the plough, are these people not violating a war grave? or is it OK "because it was just lying there"

I have dived on many so called war graves, always with respect to the memory of those who were lost with them - Civillians as well as military - in fact proberly with a lot more respect than their companions who died on land get.

Unlawful desecration of any war site is wrong, but there is a damm sight more of it occuring above the waves than there is below them.

Grant

[phil@basildon]

Grant, Having looked at several scuba diving sites I am aware that the vast majority are responsible people. Also I could see nothing untoward in the film clip, indeed the divers showed their respect by placing a wreath on the wreck. I remember a few years ago a WW2 U-Boat was discovered off the East Coast of the USA, a lot of research failed to identify the vessel and it was only identified by a diver entering the vessel and removing artifacts including personal effects. When human remains are found on land usually every effort is made to identify them so I believe the actions taken with regard to the U-Boat were justified. A relative of mine was lost in the same area as the H5 during WW2, he was flying a Halifax bomber at the time, and I personally would have no objections if the wreckage was found of part of it being recovered for identification purposes.

[Wrecktec]

Hi Guys

I have no objection to people diving on or around a wreck, even if it is classified as a war grave. The problem occurs, is when artefacts or 'trophies' are recovered from a wreck-site that has been previously identified and being an ex diver of 35 years, I know that this does happen. Most divers are very responsible people, but a few of them are anything but. Certainly without the diving community, none of the wrecks would have been identified and that means initially recovering various objects to do so, However after that, if the wreck has been classified, it should be repected as such. Nothing should be removed and no one should attempt to enter the wreck, just the same as you would walk around a cemetery.

Cheers Ron

[TeeCeeCee]

I have dived on many so called war graves, always with respect to the memory of those who were lost with them - Civillians as well as military - in fact proberly with a lot more respect than their companions who died on land get.

Grant

the key word is 'graves', the ship that sailors died in is their grave as that's how the govt. see things... the craft was the final container and site where servicemen died and the govt. is doing the best thing it can for the remaining familys and have classified the site/wreck as a 'grave'.

On land, people walk over battlefields, and, in your phrase, 'enter pillboxes' but they are not 'graves', nor do the poeple walking the battlefields enter or disturb a known gravesite. They are simply walking the earth.

On a more practical level, if we fenced off large every tract of land where tere had been a 'battle' and someone has died, there would be a huge swathe of europe from france to russia where people could not habitate. And then how far do you go back? WW1? Why not Waterloo and earlier? Culloden? Preston Pans, Naseby? Hastings?

I'm not saying the govt. is perfect.. didn't they allow lifting the gold from the EDINBURGH? (the ship Kitchener died in?) Or is it the wrong ship/case?

[phil@basildon]

The reason the gold was recovered from the Edinburgh was that it belonged to the Russians and they wanted it back! At least it was done with due reverence to those who died. And as it also proved that the gold was recoverable so what was there to stop a "treasure hunter" for stealing the gold?

[Clio]

Just to clarify matters the cause of my concern was an artefact , not the infamous U-Tube video (which first appeared in 2008, though allegedly shot in 2007).

[Wrecktec]

Yes you are 100 per cent correct Clio, whoever it is that has pillaged from the wreck should be prosecuted, the same as if some one had taken something from a grave in the cemetery.

Cheers Ron

[centurion]

One question that arises out of this (and one I've asked before without response) is how long is it before a wargrave ceases to be one? That there is a period after which this happens is plain - The Mary Rose was raised with no concern that sailors had died in her during battle and in a more extreme case archeologists quite recently disinterred the bones of men who had clearly died whilst defending one of those ancient earthern forts against the Romans (a clear case of defending Britain against a foreign invader!). So is it 200 years, 300? or what?

[Wrecktec]

Yes, that is a difficult question to answer and a one that the government would have to give an answer to. Often, after a given number of years, cemeteries are very often closed and the remains that are found are disinterred to be buried somewhere else. However a wreck in the sea is a slightly different case as long as there is a wreck at that site, it should remain untouched.

Cheers Ron

[RobL]

The same goes for human remains in general - you can see human remains on display in museums etc, but how many years will it be before our grandparents will be on display in the V&A?