MelPack Posted 10 October , 2009 Share Posted 10 October , 2009 In view of the flourish of interest in the search for the relatives of the missing soldiers it might be opportune to provide an update on the project. Our Ancestry tree has expanded enormously to include more than five thousand relatives. We have established contact with potential relatives of 260 out of the 332 missing. Exactly half of the 332 missing now have relatives in contact with the MoD for the DNA testing programme. There are still certain problems that have not been resolved. The MoD/SPVA still refuse to include Stanley Nokes 182nd Coy MGC on the list of the missing on grounds that are frankly nothing short of idiotic whilst at the same time as insisting that 23 soldiers, whom by coincidence are commemorated on the Loos Memorial but have nothing to do with Fromelles whatsoever, remain there. In my view, the raising of expectations of the relatives of those 23 men is wholly unethical and the treatment of Stanley Nokes and his relatives is nothing short of reprehensible. Mel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auimfo Posted 11 October , 2009 Share Posted 11 October , 2009 Mel, Are they really remaining stubborn about Stanley Noakes? That is truly unbelieveable......especially after all the evidence of similar cases you compiled. Makes one want to tear out great tufts of hair. Cheers, Tim L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelPack Posted 23 October , 2009 Author Share Posted 23 October , 2009 Tim I am sorry that I overlooked your post. Stanley Nokes has been denied inclusion on the list by no less than four functionaries in what can best be described as an a**e covering exercise. I am led to believe that Christ was only denied three times before the cockerel crowed. I suspect that Stanley would be flattered by his unique status. Methinks that it is time for a long overdue crucifixion. Mel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisharley9 Posted 23 October , 2009 Share Posted 23 October , 2009 Mel on what grounds are the refusing him For that special treatment Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedelmar Posted 24 October , 2009 Share Posted 24 October , 2009 Having looked at the evidence I cannot begin to understand how these people can exclude him. There are more reasons to include him. Isn't the something about 'beyond reasonble doubt' hovering around this? Bright blessings Sandra 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