And who will pay ?

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

"There is a concern expressed by members of this forum that insufficient efforts are made to identify found remains. ... a perceived reluctance by particularly the UK MOD to prioritise activities such as:

1.Ensuring that adequate steps are taken (including possible attendence of suitably qualified personnel) at recoveries so as to not prejudice identification.

2.DNA sampling of remains prior to burial.

3.Tracing of potential living relatives who may provide a DNA match." ... etc.

I realise that this isn't going to be popular, but contributors to the two topics currently discussing these issues seem to have failed to notice that here in the UK we have very recently –

# Lost our entire Harrier fleet.

# Found ourselves with two new aircraft carriers on the way, with no ‘planes capable of flying from them.

# Are in the process of sacking a good proportion of our trainee RAF pilots.

# Have just effectively sacked a good number of senior Army NCOs (by e-mail !).

# Have scrapped, at eye-watering cost, our entire Nimrod fleet (without a single aircraft going operational).

# Have announced about 2,500 redundancies amongst MoD maintenance and construction staff.

# Are to reduce the Royal Marine training intake by 30% (just before a major RM deployment to ‘Stan).

Yep; just the time to start badgering HMG about DNA testing “odd” bone finds on the Western Front (odd as in occasional, partial, mixed, etc). I'm sorry but these proposals, except in very unusual circumstances, are simply impractical. - And I'd repeat what I've said elsewhere, - if you introduce any kind of requirement for "compulsory reporting", and expect that farmers (for example) are going to comply with it to any extent at all, well ....

Tom

[ph0ebus]

Tom,

You raise an excellent point. This is a costly business we are talking about, especially given the economy (not just in th UK but almost worldwide) is in the crapper. Is there precedent for involvement of philanthropic organizations in areas like this in the UK? We have a precedent in the US but the UK I have no idea.

Thanks,

-Dan

[Ice Tiger]

Dan

Not that I know of

Even university departments need to demonstrate an evidenced based frugal approach in these days of reduced centralised funding not matched by the increase in tuition fees.

Even if a charitable organisation could be found, I fear Tom is right and any form of compulsory reporting would be viewed as lost productivity & will only encourage farmers, construction workers et al to cover up (no pun intended) any discovery of remains.

Andy

[ph0ebus]

Dan

Not that I know of

Even university departments need to demonstrate an evidenced based frugal approach in these days of reduced centralised funding not matched by the increase in tuition fees.

Even if a charitable organisation could be found, I fear Tom is right and any form of compulsory reporting would be viewed as lost productivity & will only encourage farmers, construction workers et al to cover up (no pun intended) any discovery of remains.

Andy

I was thinking also of an organization known as Earthwatch. Amongst other things, for the cost of a vacation you can pay to take part in an archaeological dig supervised by professional archaeologists.

Earthwatch

-Daniel

[roel22]

Even if a charitable organisation could be found, I fear Tom is right and any form of compulsory reporting would be viewed as lost productivity & will only encourage farmers, construction workers et al to cover up (no pun intended) any discovery of remains.

About ten years ago I interviewed a farmer in the Wijtschaete area and asked him if he had ever found WW1-remains on his land. Standing on the path to his farm he pointed at the ground beneath his feet: "If I would give you a spade and you would dig a hole, you would find the remains of a British soldier." During construction works he had found two British army boots, standing next to each other. Booth boots still containing bones. Most likely they had belonged to a soldier who was buried or had fallen into a shell hole, because the boots were found relatively deep at about 1,5 metres. With the bones still inside it was most likely the complete remains of this soldier were still there. Asking the farmer why he had not warned the authorities his reaction was quite shocking: "This is the entrance to my farm. When I warn the police I cannot visit my own farm for about two weeks." This farmer had six other spots on his land where he knew remains could be found (not all complete bodies). Being used to finding remains I'm quite sure he is not the only farmer who handles them this way. To him the war is ancient history he told me, and the next of kin of the fallen are most likely all dead by now. Meanwhile he has to make a living. Sounds very cynical, I know. But making a living is where he has to deal with.

Roel

[Ken Lees]

This is the real world, and for that reason alone I have refrained from reading the other threads on this subject.

If anyone would care to vote for higher taxes to pay for the things they advocate, then feel free, but expecting them to happen without a significant additional contribution from the noisy minority who "care" most is pie in the sky, in my view.

I realise that the first line of Tom's first post in this thread could be misleading and out of context, but I don't like to think that "There is a concern expressed by members of this forum that insufficient efforts are made to identify found remains. ..." as that sounds like someone speaking on behalf of all of the membership, which they certainly aren't.

[Andrew Hesketh]

..., I fear Tom is right and any form of compulsory reporting would be viewed as lost productivity & will only encourage farmers, construction workers et al to cover up (no pun intended) any discovery of remains.

I think that this is an absolute certainty. Maybe the first few times, but then the word will get round of the red tape and delays caused to their businesses (inevitably) and there will be a miraculous sudden dearth of discoveries.

[Steven Broomfield]

I also wonder how many people whose ancestors turn up on the Western Front really worried about them until the media got the story? Personally I am unaware of any relatives of mine who may or may not be out there; truth to tell, I don't think I'd be frightfully concerned if there were. I never knew him and any relations of mine who might have done are also long, long gone.

It strikes me that this is one of those things that (like electoral reform or dog control) worries those who are concerned a lot, but totally passes-by the majority of the population.

That said, it's a free country and anyone who wishes to campaign for funding for these things is entitled to their view. Just don't assume we all agree.

[ianw]

More than a bit fatuous to list every Defence economy not to say condescending to the membership of the Forum who are quite likely to watch the occasional news programme and therefore perhaps be aware of the economic climate we exist in.

The fact is that the CWGC has a budget and its duties to perform. A periodic review of the nature, value for money and scope of these duties is not inappropriate. A significant part of the CWGC budget also comes from governments who are not in as bad a financial state as our own.

To suggest that anyone is seriously suggesting the DNA testing of "odd" bone finds is in my opinion a travesty of the facts. The enormous potential for use of this technology has been demonstrated at Fromelles but it will only ever be used where there is a good chance of its success to help ID "closed" groups of casualties. I can certainly see its use being appropriate if further substantial numbers of remains are found say at Bullecourt.

Given the cyclic nature of our economic ups and downs, we can all perhaps look forward to moving into more "sunny economic uplands" in the future and securing a DNA sample now - say by extracting a few teeth - might well give the chance of an ID in the future when both funds may be easier and future DNA ID developments may make it cheaper. So a small investment now could be well rewarded later.

I certainly agree that the interests of the local people must be respected and considered. Many locals appreciate the benefit to their local economy that battlefield tourism represents. Fromelles is very proud of its new cemetery and is now much more "on the map" because of it. Take the example of Varlet Farm - redundant farm buildings converted into splendid award winning accomodation to profitably serve battlefield tourists.

[kenf48]

The fact is that the CWGC has a budget and its duties to perform.

The fact is, as noted before on this forum, it is the responsibility of the appropriate military authority to recover and pay for any associated identification tests, (in the UK the MoD) only after that are the remains interred by the CWGC.

At Fromelles the CWGC worked in partnership but it was not their responsibility to identify the remains. Therefore it's certainly not fatuous to mention Defence cuts, and fwiw I agree with the other Ken, and would certainly not seek to change the remit of the CWGC who were working on this long before the internet and tabloid concerns could be expressed so vocally.

Ken

[dfaulder]

"There is a concern expressed by members of this forum that insufficient efforts are made to identify found remains. ... a perceived reluctance by particularly the UK MOD to prioritise activities such as:

1.Ensuring that adequate steps are taken (including possible attendence of suitably qualified personnel) at recoveries so as to not prejudice identification.

2.DNA sampling of remains prior to burial.

3.Tracing of potential living relatives who may provide a DNA match." ... etc.

I realise that this isn't going to be popular, but contributors to the two topics currently discussing these issues seem to have failed to notice that here in the UK we have very recently –

>> list of major defence cuts <<

Yep; just the time to start badgering HMG about DNA testing "odd" bone finds on the Western Front (odd as in occasional, partial, mixed, etc). I'm sorry but these proposals, except in very unusual circumstances, are simply impractical. - And I'd repeat what I've said elsewhere, - if you introduce any kind of requirement for "compulsory reporting", and expect that farmers (for example) are going to comply with it to any extent at all, well ....

Tom

It is my original post (Recovery of Found Remains) quoted in italics, so I had better reply.

First, I am sorry if Ken thought I was speaking on behalf of the entire forum, that was not the intention - but a number of threads have contained comments from a number of contributors expressing serious concerns -and those contributors are "members" in as much as the forum has a membership - but "registrants" does not sound right either. "expressed by members of this forum" is different from "expressed by this forum" - I don't think this forum is capable of expressing a "collective view" - but forums are for the expression and exchange of ideas.

There are three main issues that I see Tom raising:

1. What constitutes "a set of remains" to be accorded "treatment"
2. The cost implications of what may be advocated
3. The implications of the introduction of "compulsory reporting" of remains.

1. What constitutes "a set of remains"

In my correspondence with CWGC, I raised the question of the "de minimus" criterion (see post 48, point (1) at the end of the large quote). I must admit that I was slightly surprised by the reply (in blue below):

(Presumably there is some form of pragmatic de-minimus requirement that determines when "any" remains are deemed human and of sufficient quantity to be acknowledged?)

[Not really as it depends on the circumstance and indeed service of the individual. Although during the war and just after, the Graves Registration Units determined a set of remains by weight, this is no longer applicable. In aircrew cases, the very nature of death can mean that only fragmentary remains are recovered but the chances of identification are high because, identify the aircraft and you know who was on it]

I have also reported the (different) practice in Gallipoli - Discovery Of Remains At Gallipoli which fitted more with my expectations.

We (the taxpaying public) have to be pragmatic (as always, whether we like it or not) - which means that there is either an acceptance of "informal practices" and/or a possibly uncomfortable debate as to what constitutes "remains qualifying for the dignity of official treatment". We are presumably talking about something between two extremes:

1. The fundamentalist view, that every bone shard that may be human is treated with the same reverence as we accord the fallen returning from Afghanistan, and
2. The ultra-pragmatist view, that what must be found should be a full skeleton

There seem to be a general view that there are about 30 sets of Great War remains found and recovered each year (although clearly with significant variations; CWGC reported (post 21 in the previously mentioned thread) "a total of eleven bodies were interred in 2009, together with two sets of additional or part remains", whilst in 2010 Fromelles distorted the numbers the other way - but as the result of a deliberate exhumation). It is highly probable that the Gallipoli approach (above) is taken in respect of partial remains; I don't think anyone has a handle on the level of non-reporting of more complete remains, but I would be surprised if it was that many multiples of those that are reported.

Obviously (dangerous word), the realisation that there is not a de-minimus criterion will modify the views of most of us - the idea of trying to extract a DNA sample from every finger bone that might be uncovered is, to me, absurd. (But that is why the question was raised. Now we have that answer we have to live with it - or challenge it.)

(Our present discussions have centred on "found remains", i.e. those that emerge due to wind/water/landslip or those that are exposed by ploughing, trenching or similar. A full JPAC approach of searching for all the fallen, is, I think, recognised as impractical and probably unwanted - on some form of feeling of "do not deliberately disturb the dead". Fromelles I have been told was "an exception".)

2. The Cost Implications

Any proposal has cost implications and, irrespective of the financial climate, they should always be considered. But a sense of proportion is required and one cannot use the "economy is down the financial toilet" argument to scupper any new spending proposal - otherwise one would not do anything until the deficit is paid off. We would also cancel the Olympics, cancel the Royal Wedding, cancel work on the Memorial Arboretum, cancel (tax-payer funded) improvements to Hedley Court, cancel all road repair projects, freeze all allowances etc. etc. In practice, one expects that life has to go on, but one looks at the costs of a proposal, applies value engineering and then considers the balance of costs against benefits (and in a finite financial system such as a company, a relatively easy analysis of the benefits from alternative uses of that expenditure).

Costs fall into three main areas:

1. Costs of Recovery
2. Costs of Identification
3. Costs of Burial

They are all however intermingled, because, for instance, the costs of recovery depend on what you recognise as "remains", your attitude to identification, and the costs of burial depend on how many set of remains qualify for "human burial" which is dependent on ... .

My original expectation of the way that this might go was that a number of us would end up (in a personal capacity) writing to MPs urging, for instance, that DNA samples should be taken in certain circumstances. And this being a forum of individuals, it is unlikely that there would be a uniform agreement about what those circumstances are! We cannot write "as a forum" - remember trying to get "a forum view" about a badge!?. But we can use the forum to try and clarify our own thoughts, share information, test ideas and draw other people's attention to the discussion.

My own (current) take on the circumstances when I would like to see DNA testing is:

• DNA extraction should be feasible - in some soil conditions I believe the remains decay so much that extraction is not feasible. I also understand that extraction from "shards" is usually impractical., and,
• The recovered remains pass a "de-minimus" test.

Some would argue for a third (additional) circumstance:

• That the remains come from an area where it is possible to determine a reasonable number of "possibles" for the identity of those remains.

(On balance I don't, because I personally feel that the cost of taking a sample - in the grand scheme of things - is sufficiently small as to be justified on a precautionary basis in case the situation changes and a review of identification is done. I suspect that I am in a minority, but I certainly prefer that to post-burial sampling.)

It looks as if we are talking about on average approximately 30 "remains" per year to be potentially sampled. This figure will be reduced where it is not feasible to extract DNA and may be increased were we to get a higher level of reporting. It is however a small number of incidents multiplied by a relatively high unit cost (the incremental cost of getting samples from archaeological remains I believe is a four figure cost). In orders of magnitude we are not talking about Harrier fleets, we are probably talking about the annual bill for coffees at MOD meetings with external parties (or possibly the annual light bulb changing cost at a single PFI'd hospital!).

There is then the cost of sampling potential relatives and I think it is here that we can apply value engineering. We are sampling from live people (probably by mouth swabs) purely to identify relationship data. Ancestry offer this at $149 per sample (DNA Testing by Ancestry.com reveals Ancestry and Genealogy) and paternity testing is now available over the counter for a slightly higher price.

I think it entirely reasonable that the MODs set some form of threshold for when they will pay for relative sampling - you have to avoid total blank cheques. This might be for instance where there are 15 sets of remains that could only belong to 60 names (a 1 in 4 chance). The "Big Society" (or similar) could (and does see Ligny Family Tree Overview - Ancestry.co.uk) do much of the tracing of potential relatives - although I do think that initial contact should come from an official body. They might (if they do not follow the idea of precautionary sampling of all feasible remains), set a further threshold (possibly a 1 in 20 chance) for when they will take and hold samples against which potential relatives can choose to ask to be matched at their (relatives') expense. (Note that further discoveries could then bring remains within the lower threshold.).

So costs are containable (assuming agreement over a de-minimus criterion), and to answer the original post, the MODs (i.e. the tax payer) will pay for some of the costs, some costs will be avoided by the use of volunteers, and some costs may be borne by relatives (or those supporting them).

The benefit is putting a name to a set of remains. Some will say "they are dead, their immediate next of kin are dead, so the value of this benefit is zero". That argument can be applied to driving new motorways through cemeteries, and not clearing graffiti off graves and memorials. The annual incremental budget for greater attempts (than now) at identification is small relative to other types of government expenditure which may also have intangible benefits. The case has to be made to our politicians.

3. The implications of the introduction of "compulsory reporting" of remains.

I would be very surprised if there was not already a legal (i.e. compulsory) requirement to report human remains (I think in the UK this comes under the various Coroner's Acts, I cannot imagine that there are not similar requirements in other Western European countries).

People who have been contributing to the Recovery of Found Remains thread have been discussing the likely implications of calling for "heavy handed" enforcement of existing regulation - the recognition being (as Tom states) a reduction in reporting. From outside the countries concerned there is little that we can do in this respect - other than hope that the attitude to reporting changes as the result of internal activity.

David

[John_Hartley]

Whatever other arguments there may be (and I full understand some of them), let us not be so silly as to think that the cost of DNA testing perhaps 30 bodies a year is other than a nominal amount. What's the price of a red herring?

[ph0ebus]

Whatever other arguments there may be (and I full understand some of them), let us not be so silly as to think that the cost of DNA testing perhaps 30 bodies a year is other than a nominal amount. What's the price of a red herring?

These days you can get a do-it-yourself DNA testing kit at any local pharmacy.

I think for farmers to get on board with this idea there needs to be a major upside to reporting remains. Of course, money and public recognition is a good place to start but perhaps others have better ideas. Certainly, if a proposal is all stick and no carrot it will be doomed to failure from the start.

In terms of cost, I say the private sector can and should have a major role.

-Daniel

[dfaulder]

These days you can get a do-it-yourself DNA testing kit at any local pharmacy.

>><<

In terms of cost, I say the private sector can and should have a major role.

-Daniel

I think that is a fair point - with regard to DNA sampling from the living; this is usually a saliva swab. For decayed remains it is unfortunately much more difficult and probably an order of magnitude more expensive.

That said you are sampling x remains and say 4 to 10 times x living relatives, so the ratios are at least in favour!

David

[ph0ebus]

I think that is a fair point - with regard to DNA sampling from the living; this is usually a saliva swab. For decayed remains it is unfortunately much more difficult and probably an order of magnitude more expensive.

That said you are sampling x remains and say 4 to 10 times x living relatives, so the ratios are at least in favour!

David

Good point. At least sampling the DNA of the family is not so bad, cost-wise.

Does anyone have an idea as to how many people visit battlefield sites in France, etc.? Is there a fee to do so? I know here in the states for the major sites you have to pay an admission fee and I wonder how much revenue could be raised via battlefield tourism for this purpose, either by instituting a small fee per person or soliciting donations from those who visit such sites? I know when I visited some sites here in the USA I gladly contributed to both, and it was not much money in the grand scheme of things, but I would bet it all adds up.

-Dan

[dycer]

Dan,

There are no battlefield sites that charge entrance fees,e.g.the Vimy Memorial.

Some Museums do have entry fees,e.g.the one in Albert.

I know you are not suggesting this but the only way that entrance fees could be charged to assist DNA testing of recovered remains would be for the CWGC to charge an entrance fee to gain entry to a Cemetery.

George

[peterhogg]

These days you can get a do-it-yourself DNA testing kit at any local pharmacy.

In terms of cost, I say the private sector can and should have a major role.

-Daniel

The farmer who finds some bones has to have an incentive to report the find and shut down his business for a while. That has to be a pretty lucrative incentive. And the logical result will be, bingo!, bones in farmer's fields found with increasing regularity cause someone is cutting them a cheque, per find. Who can blame them?

Since the remains in question are likely to be degraded and given the very real possibility of cross-contamination, the pharmacy DNA testing kit is not going to cut it. You need to follow certain protocols to ensure continuity and to account for any poss'y of contamintion and you need a data base. There's no point having DNA samples unless you have something with which to compare. And then you need to go out and find people, or more importantly, their DNA, for comparison purposes. And when I write people, I mean of course, people who might be related to the little pile of bones that used to be a soldier.

All of this requires money, and I have news for some of you, most people don't really care that much about the remains of the fallen from a war that ended almost a century ago. I do, you do, but the average person, is more concerned about their own financial affairs. And why wouldn't they? The people who knew the missing are dead, the people who knew the people who knew the missing are dead, or close enough that they might as well be, and all that remains (pun aside) are people like us on the forum who have a deep, abiding and sometimes morbid interest in the War. Time has passed, the veterans are all dead, and in a few years the Great War will be as relevant to most people as Waterloo.

I do agree that the private sector could get involved. (not should. Why should they?) And so my suggestion is that all of you who feel very strongly about this issue should pony up and bring your money to the table, form a corporation and finance all of the aspects of this scheme. I am sure that your MOD and the CWGC will give your corporation it's full cooperation. Talk and rhetoric are cheap, boys. Time for those of you who like to see the money spent start spending a bit of your own. Then we'll see how strong people feel about this issue.

Quite frankly, I am really tired of this type of thread and the tone that pervades, one that is frequently nasty towards dissenting voices and odious in its self-righteous, sanctimonious tone, to say nothing of being rather passive-aggressive. And there can be no denying this. I have read how those who have assumed the moral high ground seem unable to abide any dissenting view.

Finally, if you have a relative who is missing and that is part of your argument, then you have a personal stake, but don't pretend you are not relying on an emotional impulse as opposed to a reasoned or logical position. He's not missing, he's there. Deal with it.

Y'all have a nice day, hear?

I agree

[Piorun]

Good morning, Connor. Can you tell us how you really feel about this?

On a serious note, could I ask you to reconsider your thoughts on "this type of thread"? I believe that Tom's OP actually echoed the voices (dissenting, maybe) who were arguing the practical side of the matter with some difficulty in a thread on finding an ANZAC soldier. Dave Faulder started a new thread designed (at least in part, I think) to defuse the ticking bomb and has brought some well-thought suggestions to the table - and beyond. I think we all have to keep trying. Personally, I bring my money and my writing and my research to a subject which intrigues me on both the personal and military-organistaional level and still hope that, sometime before the after-life, I'll find the remains of my wife's uncle somewhere near the old North Station buildings where they have been since the start of Third Ypres. Practical? No. Human? I hope so. Cheers, Antony

[truthergw]

Tom,

You raise an excellent point. This is a costly business we are talking about, especially given the economy (not just in th UK but almost worldwide) is in the crapper. Is there precedent for involvement of philanthropic organizations in areas like this in the UK? We have a precedent in the US but the UK I have no idea.

Thanks,

-Dan

It is difficult to imagine a private set-up capable of carrying out the work as a charitable exercise. We are talking about quite a complex series of operations. From the first finding of the remains to the publishing of the experimental results. There is no organisation apart from a national criminal forensics unit which could provide that range of expertise. That implies a high cost per incident. It also implies international co-operation similar to Interpol.

[ph0ebus]

The farmer who finds some bones has to have an incentive to report the find and shut down his business for a while. That has to be a pretty lucrative incentive. And the logical result will be, bingo!, bones in farmer's fields found with increasing regularity cause someone is cutting them a cheque, per find. Who can blame them?

Since the remains in question are likely to be degraded and given the very real possibility of cross-contamination, the pharmacy DNA testing kit is not going to cut it. You need to follow certain protocols to ensure continuity and to account for any poss'y of contamintion and you need a data base. There's no point having DNA samples unless you have something with which to compare. And then you need to go out and find people, or more importantly, their DNA, for comparison purposes. And when I write people, I mean of course, people who might be related to the little pile of bones that used to be a soldier.

All of this requires money, and I have news for some of you, most people don't really care that much about the remains of the fallen from a war that ended almost a century ago. I do, you do, but the average person, is more concerned about their own financial affairs. And why wouldn't they? The people who knew the missing are dead, the people who knew the people who knew the missing are dead, or close enough that they might as well be, and all that remains (pun aside) are people like us on the forum who have a deep, abiding and sometimes morbid interest in the War. Time has passed, the veterans are all dead, and in a few years the Great War will be as relevant to most people as Waterloo.

I do agree that the private sector could get involved. (not should. Why should they?) And so my suggestion is that all of you who feel very strongly about this issue should pony up and bring your money to the table, form a corporation and finance all of the aspects of this scheme. I am sure that your MOD and the CWGC will give your corporation it's full cooperation. Talk and rhetoric are cheap, boys. Time for those of you who like to see the money spent start spending a bit of your own. Then we'll see how strong people feel about this issue.

Quite frankly, I am really tired of this type of thread and the tone that pervades, one that is frequently nasty towards dissenting voices and odious in its self-righteous, sanctimonious tone, to say nothing of being rather passive-aggressive. And there can be no denying this. I have read how those who have assumed the moral high ground seem unable to abide any dissenting view.

Finally, if you have a relative who is missing and that is part of your argument, then you have a personal stake, but don't pretend you are not relying on an emotional impulse as opposed to a reasoned or logical position. He's not missing, he's there. Deal with it.

Y'all have a nice day, hear?

I agree

Hi Connor,

You are probably right about the OTC DNA tests....not my forte by a long shot! And I should have clarified my comment re: the public sector...I was not trying to suggest that the entirety of the public sector shoulder the burden of cost, but rather those in the public sector who have an interest in shouldering the cost. Your point about the vast majority of the public not really caring is spot on.

I would also concur that these types of debates in the GWF do get quite heated. My approach is that if a thread is bothering me more than I am enjoying reading it, unless there is some clear reason I should stay, I check out. I really do think that if people really do want to see a change in this area, it can happen, but like anything else, there will be a lot of debate (some bordering on acrimonious) between here and there. My only minor point of disagreement with your post is re: the comment 'the veterans are all dead'. Almost, but not entirely accurate...a few still live.

Otherwise, thanks for your post.

-Daniel

[stevem49]

I believe that the MoD department concerning such things also deals with Afghan casualties etc. I contacted them over a year ago and from what I was told, they have many things to do. I waited for over a year for my case to be sorted but that is what I expected.

They have been 'known to God' for a 100 years, they are commemorated on the battlefields and no doubt they would wonder what all the fuss is about.

On a personal note, the bones are not the man (woman). I do not want my name on any stone or memorial and my ashes will be scattered in small corner of a foreign land.

Possibly some/many of the man felt as I do.

Mrs M and I found some bones on Gallipoli and we quietly said a prayer and re-bured them on the spot.

That's my pennies worth

[Muerrisch]

"Mrs M and I found some bones on Gallipoli and we quietly said a prayer and re-buried them on the spot".

Which is exactly the C of E practice for bones found away from graves in a churchyard ....... I know because I was a Churchwarden when this took place fairly locally. I wielded the spade, the Rural Dean said the prayers.

I happen to think that that should be enough for any bones.

Relatives when wheeled out in the full glare of the media, basking in their 15 minutes [Warhol] of spurious fame, rarely gave two tin sh*ts about their dead of the Great War, even if they had so much heard of them. There are honorourable exceptions, and it is those exceptions, personally interested parties, who should constitute pressure groups.

None of which is in any way disrespectful of our war dead, without whom German would not be my second language.

[truthergw]

"Mrs M and I found some bones on Gallipoli and we quietly said a prayer and re-buried them on the spot".

Which is exactly the C of E practice for bones found away from graves in a churchyard ....... I know because I was a Churchwarden when this took place fairly locally. I wielded the spade, the Rural Dean said the prayers.

I happen to think that that should be enough for any bones.

Relatives when wheeled out in the full glare of the media, basking in their 15 minutes [Warhol] of spurious fame, rarely gave two tin sh*ts about their dead of the Great War, even if they had so much heard of them. There are honorourable exceptions, and it is those exceptions, personally interested parties, who should constitute pressure groups.

None of which is in any way disrespectful of our war dead, without whom German would not be my second language.

That just about sums up my attitude, Mr. G.

[dycer]

Tom asks and poses a studious question from today

i.e.are we as the Brit electorate prepared to fund the financial Military reality,of today and the cost it brings,to the UK?

Or are we,as the Forum ,prepared to pressurise the British MOD and CWGC,to DNA test found remains,of a conflict,which shortly be 100 years old?

Writing personally as the Nephew of a WW1 Casualty,who is remembered on a CWGC Memorial in France.I would be rather he be left alone,wherever,he was killed and if his bones,resurface,assuming he has does not already have an "Unknown" CWGC Headstone or is within a mass grave, within the WW1 Cemeteries maintained by the CWGC,I am content.

George

[Steven Broomfield]

That just about sums up my attitude, Mr. G.

Me, too (tho' I did take a German GCSE voluntarily a couple of years ago)