And who will pay ?

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

........... 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.

Ken - that isnt "my line" - its a quote from a post in one of the other topics. My views start after the quotation marks in post #1.

Tom

[centurion]

I'm afraid that Tom is drawing attention to what Kipling referred to as "the gods of the copy book headings". There is an enormous difference between what people would like to see happen (or even think should happen) and what in the cold light of economic reality is possible.

[ianw]

There is an enormous difference between what people would like to see happen (or even think should happen) and what in the cold light of economic reality is possible.

Quite agree that the ability of the financial bean-counters to back-slide, frustrate and delay expenditure will always beset us - as an example take the shameful failure to implement the full recommendations of numerous fatal accident inquiries over many decades. However, this just suggests to me that the public needs to maintain efforts to keep the system as "honest" as possible.

As witnessed by this thread, there are a wide range of honestly held opinions covering the whole spectrum of the debate from "Leave 'em be" to "Move Heaven & Earth to ID them". The new cememery at Fromelles may prove the high water mark of the efforts to ID and commemorate - but it does clearly demonstrate what is possible. It has set a benchmark. Having attended the Fromelles opening cemetery, it is unthinkable to me that the Fallen could conceivably have been left in their pits at Pheasant Wood.

But of course Fromelles was a to a degree a special case but the % success of DNA ID there does indicate that a DNA sample should be taken if practicable from all sets of remains found. I believe this is a proportionate way forward because I passionately believe that a man should be given a known grave if possible. Surely this is what "Remembrance" boils down to.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

This subject seems doomed to remain polarised with regards to the extent of any possible testing, and who should pay for it.

Notwithstanding very special circumstances such as Pheasant Wood, I am especially intrigued as to whom any DNA samples taken from remains found in the fields are to be compared with, and I have to say that to me (and I visit the Western Front a lot) the idea that recovered remains amount to some thirty examples a year is probably indicative of drastic under-reporting of finds. (I mean finds including those which are less than complete or near-complete skeletons).

Seeing there is apparently such strong support for widespread testing, why don’t the people proposing this line follow the example of, say, Help For Heroes, and set up a charity to deal with this whole issue. That way their demand for this testing and associated expenditure will be satisfied, and people like me who would prefer that any available money was spent on ensuring that our troops were properly equipped and supported would also be happy.

Tom

[Piorun]

My mother's side of the family were Humanists. We didn't believe in taking up space with our earthly remains. It may be that some who share that view would take offence at the thought that "Remembrance" is a piece of concrete and six feet of ground. With respect, Ian, I would ask you to consider whether or not "Remembrance" cannot take other forms. There is not a single headstone or grave marker in that side of my family. The only marker is for my uncle (see my signature) - and it doesn't make my sense of loss any less and it doesn't make my respect for all the fallen any less. For some of us, it is not about stones and ground, it is about thoughts and memories and tears shed for "what if?". Tom makes a good argument. "If them that wants it needs it, then them that wants it buys it". Harsh economics - but real economics. Fromelles benefitted from international attention and a certain economy of scale. I'm not being disrespectful, just realistic. Cheers, Antony

[Blackblue]

Whilst opinions are like $%^%^&*...and everybody has one, it seems to me that some of us are taking an extreme view of the state of affairs perhaps driven by some of the criticisms raised early in these threads. What many are suggesting is very simply that each recovery is treated in a situational manner...on the particular merits of the case and the wishes of the various stakeholders. What we all seem to agree is that the current situation requires improvement!

Has anyone here promoted the wholesale DNA testing of all found remains (a finger bone for example)? I think not! But when a substantial (body) recovery is made, there is circumstantial evidence pointing to possible identity or list of identities, with relatives that can be identified and support furthering the identification process, should DNA testing be considered by the authorities. My oath it should!

In such circumstances the cost of DNA testing would be negligible. That is the reality of it.

[Auimfo]

......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..

Conner,

I'm not sure which focus group you polled to think you can pass comment for 'most people'.

It seems that you may not have spoken to the many descendants of the men recovered at Fromelles. And I'm pretty sure a great number of them would be very upset to hear that they are considered by you as 'so close to death they might as well be dead'.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[peterhogg]

Conner,

I'm not sure which focus group you polled to think you can pass comment for 'most people'.

It seems that you may not have spoken to the many descendants of the men recovered at Fromelles. And I'm pretty sure a great number of them would be very upset to hear that they are considered by you as 'so close to death they might as well be dead'.

Cheers,

Tim L.

Obviously I haven't taken a poll or have I spoken to the "many" descendants, nor do I need to. C'mon. let's not enter a discussion while leaving common-sense in the lobby. Neither am I obliged to tip toe around imagined sensibilities in order to make a point. (I suspect that anyone old enough to remember a now missing soldier of the Great War has to be 100 or pretty close to it. I was referring to people who actually can "remember" the deceased from contact with that person, not that they heard of the person some years later. Such people likely have bigger and more immediate concerns, like drawing another breath, than my ragged thoughts and witless witticisms)

But you're taking my point out of context or missing it entirely and making too much out of my side-splitting asides. The issue is whether government agencies can be reasonably expected to assume the costs of a program that would not only encourage the reporting of any found remains but among other things, locate possible descendants, extract their DNA and conduct comparisons in order to identify the remains.

By applying the tools of common sense and day-to-day observations, i think I can draw a sufficiently realistic and accurate conclusion as to just where the Great War ranks in the interests of the electorate. Fromelles was a one-off and while well-attended and publicized, as Great War mass burial events go, it is hardly representative of ground-swell of support and enthusiasm on any national level. It's not exactly a house-hold name nor a subject that burns in the minds of the tweeting-texting set, not now, not then, when it was covered.

Thus, it is unlikely such a program will attain the kind of support from a sufficiently large and/or influential and/or vocal proportion of the electorate that would be needed to implement such an expensive and problematic program. As others have noted, there are any number of priorities dear to the hearts of people that don't include the identification of the remains of fallen soldiers from the Great War. And I write problematic, because, aside from the time and resources it would take just to determine or narrow down a sample group of possible descendants, I could foresee one very big issue that would hamper support. The success of a program would only be assured if there is some requirement that the people in these sample groups provide their DNA--the blueprint of their existence--en masse to a government agency. Good luck with that one.

Look, the notion of some soldier's remains being chucked aside or if recovered, essentially forgotten or neglected is appalling to me. And it would be wonderful if descendants might be notified and even more wonderful if they actually cared. And I have put my money where my mouth is in the sense that I have paid my respects in France and Belgium to The Fallen time and again over a space of some 20 years now. But I do not think that one can reasonably expect that the concerns many of us on this forum share with respect to the proper treatment of found remains is going to be embraced by generations who have no personal memory of surviving veterans of that conflict or have at best, a passing acquaintance with the history of the 20th century. I've exhausted my thoughts on this thread but I do enjoy reading other points of view and do respect and pretty much share most of them.

Phoebus, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Cheers and cheers all.

[sw63]

From today's Sunday Mirror...

"Graves of Heroes Hit"

By Mike Hamilton & Keri Sutherland

Military bosses are planning to slash funding to the War Graves Commission.

Secret papers seen by the Sunday Mirror show Ministry of Defence mandarins plan to reduce its budget by more than £16.5 million over four years. This year the Commission was due to receive £42 million...

Simon

[Piorun]

Connor: Regretfully, I find that some of your comments are really quite offensive. I met, spoke with, and worked alongside hundreds of survivors of The Great War. I golf, coach rugby referees every Saturday, enjoy hill-walking - and have the best part of thirty years before hitting my century. I can assure you that "drawing my last breath" is very far from my mind at the moment. You have rather contemptuously suggested that we don't enter a discussion "while leaving common sence in the lobby". To use your own analogy, may I suggest that you take the elevator down a few stories. You have some sensible points to make. But they don't have to be made at the expense of others or without the sense to listen and learn from others' experience. Remembering the veterans of WW1 is a reality for hundreds and thousands of us. The opportunity to keep learning from others' reality through this Forum is but a bonus. Antony

[ianw]

... why dont the people proposing this line follow the example of, say, Help For Heroes, and set up a charity to deal with this whole issue. Tom

If the rumoured slashing of CWGC funding goes ahead,such charity funding will be needed to keep up the basic maintenance of the cemeteries and memorials we know and love.

The vision of the future will be the dreadful removal of all grass from the majority of the cemeteries and their transformation into minimum maintenance " horticulture free" zones as per the CWGC "experiments". I am tempted to say "Over my dead body".

The CWGC and its activities cannot survive as we know it with a 40% budget cut.

[ianw]

With respect, Ian, I would ask you to consider whether or not "Remembrance" cannot take other forms(

Anthony,

I absolutely take your point on this and it has given me cause for thought. I agree that Remembrance is not just a named grave but constitutes much more.

I would cheerfully admit that I got great personal enjoyment out of going to Fromelles but I also think that the for the vast majority of those buried there, that the final result is what they would have wished to have happened. Similarly the end result would have been welcomed by their now departed immediate relatives - and certainly of course by the current relatives who travelled from Australia and other places to pay their respects. Giving a respected grave to the Fallen if possible seems a part of the military contract to me.

[peterhogg]

Piorun, um, the context of my comments were this. Those with the greatest emotional stake in the identification of the remains of the missing would be those who actually knew the missing man when he was alive, such that they would have been devastated by his loss. By implication I am referring to parents, relatives, wives, lovers, friends, and of course his golfing, rugby and hill-walking comrades. These are people who would now be roughly anywhere from 105 to 150 years of age. (Let's say 100 at the outside, if we are accounting for children with hyper-developed sensitivities and sensibilities, such that they remember their father in a profound way, before he died prior to November 11, 1918.

[ianw]

Connor - I wouldn't dispute that those with the "greatest emotional stake" have now moved on but I stood at Fromelles and heard surviving family members pay emotional tribute to their Grandfathers, Uncles etc - their emotions ceratinly weren't in any way second rate. You grossly undervalue the bonds of family that continue after "living memory" expires.

[Auimfo]

Conner let me address a few of your points

"The issue is whether government agencies can be reasonably expected to assume the costs of a program that would not only encourage the reporting of any found remains but among other things, locate possible descendants, extract their DNA and conduct comparisons in order to identify the remains."

Why not? Government agencies justify expenditure of vast sums of money each year and a proportion of that always seems to disappear on some very wasteful exercises. Why not use it for a more fruitful venture?

"By applying the tools of common sense and day-to-day observations, i think I can draw a sufficiently realistic and accurate conclusion as to just where the Great War ranks in the interests of the electorate. Fromelles was a one-off and while well-attended and publicized, as Great War mass burial events go, it is hardly representative of ground-swell of support and enthusiasm on any national level. It's not exactly a house-hold name nor a subject that burns in the minds of the tweeting-texting set, not now, not then, when it was covered."

I'm not going to draw any conclusions to what Canadian electorates generally think about remembrance nor what they may know (or not know) about Fromelles but it's pretty obvious you haven't discussed either topic with very many Australians.

"And I write problematic, because, aside from the time and resources it would take just to determine or narrow down a sample group of possible descendants, I could foresee one very big issue that would hamper support. The success of a program would only be assured if there is some requirement that the people in these sample groups provide their DNA--the blueprint of their existence--en masse to a government agency. Good luck with that one."

250 sets of remains found at Fromelles and over 2000 descendants registered - virtually all of whom were quite willing to provide their DNA. Tends to makes your 'problematic' issue a rather moot point.

Cheers,

Tim L.

P.S. It's a 'foyer', not a 'lobby'

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

.. Secret papers seen by the Sunday Mirror show Ministry of Defence mandarins plan to reduce its budget by more than ..

This breaking news, if even remotely true, brings the subject of this topic into even sharper focus.

I had raised the issue of someone forming a charity to facilitate this proposed DNA testing as a serious issue, but I have to admit that my comparison to Help For Heroes was not entirely transparent, as I personally believe that Help For Heroes is already being cynically used by the MoD / Government as a substitute for what should be publically funded issues. Id hasten to add though that the activities undertaken by Help For Heroes are in an entirely different league from the DNA issue.

Could I suggest that this CWGC funding issue should be raised as a new thread under Cemeteries & Memorials. Its an important issue in its own right.

Im afraid that since post # 30 nobody has said anything to cause me to alter my own views. This is not a cause which, under all but the most unusual circumstances, warrants the expenditure of British taxpayers money. (I note an amount of enthusiasm for the expenditure from certain overseas posters, but have to say, with all due respect either send a cheque or butt-out !).

The precedent has been set. If you want DNA testing then form a charity and finance it. "Put your money where your mouth is" really has to be the botton line, I think.

Tom

[Kate Wills]

Tom,

Your suggestion above

Could I suggest that this CWGC funding issue should be raised as a new thread under Cemeteries & Memorials. Its an important issue in its own right.

is already underway here:

Rumours of CWGC budget cut

[truthergw]

May I assume that the ' no current politics' rule has been set aside? Perhaps the admin can make a statement to that effect and indicate whether all politics can now be discussed on the forum?

[keithmroberts]

Tom

No, in a word. I think there is a fine line when matters that are under consideration by governments affect our concerns about the memory, of the Great War. Clearly any party reference is totally out, and I am sure that threads that have any current relevance will be watched carefully. So far as my own posts are concerned, I have tried to tread that thin line in expressing my concerns. If any of the other mods are concerned, I have no problems if they choose to delete any of my posts. I don't want the forum to lose its apolitical nature.

Keith

[ianw]

...I note an amount of enthusiasm for the expenditure from certain overseas posters, but have to say, with all due respect either send a cheque or but-out !).

Tom

Tom,

You really do want to have your cake and eat it. On the one hand you suggest that "Help for Heroes" may be being "used" by the MOD/HMG and then happily continue to suggest that perfectly sensible and proportionate small-scale use of DNA sampling/testing should be charitably funded. Of course such a suggestion is, in any case, totally impractical given the MOD's current prime responsibility for dealing initially with any found remains and attempting to ID them.

Your comment about overseas posters "butting-out" is pretty outrageous given that overseas countries contribute to the CWGC budget in proportion to their numbers of Fallen. They have a perfect right to make their opinion known. This is not a parochial UK-only matter.

[truthergw]

Tom

No, in a word. I think there is a fine line when matters that are under consideration by governments affect our concerns about the memory, of the Great War. Clearly any party reference is totally out, and I am sure that threads that have any current relevance will be watched carefully. So far as my own posts are concerned, I have tried to tread that thin line in expressing my concerns. If any of the other mods are concerned, I have no problems if they choose to delete any of my posts. I don't want the forum to lose its apolitical nature.

Keith

Thanks for the answer, Keith. The reason for my concern is that I do not believe it possible to separate government actions from the politics which inspire them. Once we allow any discussion of current political action, it then requires Mods to apply an arbitrary distinction between what they consider allowable and what they do not. I think that can only lead to rancour.

[Kate Wills]

The onus should be on each individual member to avoid posting comments which may transgress the rule.

[truthergw]

Of course, as you say, Kate. The onus must indeed be on us to ensure we abide by the rules. My point is that there is no longer a rule. There is a class of posts which may or may not meet with the approval of the admin team. No politics is a rule. Only some politics is not.

[Kate Wills]

Tom,

This subject is fair game as it is directly related to the Great War.

Anyone who is incapable of entering the debate without mentioning party policital affiliations or comments should stay away.

[ianw]

It would be nonsensical if this Forum could not discuss this matter - but of course in a reasonable and courteous manner.

Personally, I do not see this as a political matter as I can imagine that the CWGC budget would be viewed for economies by a government of any political persuasion - and the membership of this Forum is uniquely well qualified to comment on the matter.