And who will pay ?

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

....... 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.

.... 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.

Ian - Firstly, the notion that we could be talking about "..perfectly sensible and proportionate small-scale use of DNA sampling/testing .." doesnt hold water. This whole DNA testing issue has got "Pandora's Box" (or even "Jack-in-the-box" ! ) written all over it. Any publically funded department set up to deal with this issue would be out of control before you could whistle Dandy. Apart from anything else it's throughput would be unpredictable and in practical terms, uncontrollable. (In publically funded department I also mean any existing department given additional responsibilities, etc).

Overseas countries which contribute to the CWGC do not contribute to the relevant costs of the British MoD, and by the very nature of the situation we are discussing the practicallities of dealing with finds on the continent will inevitably head Britain's way as a first stop.

Tom

[ianw]

... and by the very nature of the situation we are discussing the practicallities of dealing with finds on the continent will inevitably head Britain's way as a first stop.

Tom

Absolutely, and we should feel honoured to field that responsibility - especially on the Western Front which is a stones throw from us but many thousands of miles away from the nations who sent their sons to die there. My goodness how quickly we forget their sacrifice when a few lousy quid is at stake. I really can't believe this attitude.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Can I also just clarify that posters replying to "Tom" about "political issues" are not (I'm assuming ) replying to something I've said, but to the "other Tom".

As we are discussing suggested expenditures by the public purse I dont think it is possible to avoid the use of the word "government" (etc). Technically I suppose you could call that "political", but its not meant (by me) in any "modern politics" sense. I dont see this as a "political issue" in terms of partisan politics. Its simply possible expenditure by the public purse, and that inevitably involves "government".

Tom

[Piorun]

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.

Thank you for your courteous response, Ian. I think we're on the same page of the hymnal. Antony

[Piorun]

Thank you, Connor, for explaining the context. I had assumed that anyone old enough to remember a survivor would also have been old enough to remember a missing soldier had he survived. However, I can tell you that the sense of loss felt by my generation for the dead we never knew isn't much diminished when one realises that one's mother, in her dying months, has forgotten both her late husband and her living son and, instead, believes that her son is her long-gone brother whose remains, in reality, lie in the mud of Somme. I knew his comrades. I grieve that I didn't know him. I take a softer view of your post now. Antony

[peterhogg]

"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'

One can't lard the success of Fromelles, a success particular to its facts, by touting it as a model for a much bigger project, which is what is being discussed. Fromelles was specific to a particular event, in a particular area with particular goals in mind. I'm sure it was met with great enthusiasm. But do you honestly think that the same sort of enthusiasm and interest will be sustained where a much larger and much longer project would have to be put in place? One that requires much more patience, generating far less fan-fare? I agree with you, it would be great to see, and government money always seems to be there for something I may not like and never there for something dear to my heart--me, for example or my car. But it can't be there for everything.

And, if as you say, Fromelles is representative of a ground-swell of support for finding the fallen, i wonder how sustainable that enthusiasm will be in the long term, especially when personal interests and concerns start clashing with the higher, moral calling of finding the fallen. The quickest way to make my point is provide this example.

Let's say the Australian government (it could be Canada or UK but let's use Australia, due to it's monopoly on Great War remembrance sentiment) announces the Gallipoli project (or it could be the Ypres and Somme project, whatever) We keep finding these remains so we'd like anyone with a descendant who fought there to register and provide a sample of their DNA. We're going to put it in a data bank and hold onto it for goodness knows how long, but don't worry it's safely held. No doubt, in Australia at least, even the dingos will be lining up to provide their DNA. And, let's then assume an 18 yr-old person, with no doubt a keen knowledge of troop movements in the Dardanelles, gets wind of this well-kept data bank and, her appreciation of the sacrifices of Australian youth aside, wants access to that data bank now to advance a paternity suit. Or, let's assume a rash of well-publicized sexual assaults and murders on hiking trails in the Australian hinterland is putting tremendous pressure on the police to stop this monster. The families of murdered women want some closure. They are demanding the government stop this killer. Hey, there's a data bank, and the samples were voluntary, maybe those assurances about use of the sample are a little less strict than the wording anticipates, since the samples were obtained voluntarily ( an important distinction) Let's get a search warrant and find out, say the police, guided by an intrepid Crown Prosecutor who believe this is the right thing to do, no matter the cost. (heard that before?)

Do you see now what I am talking about? It would be sort of like confusing a foyer with a lobby.....

[Chris_Baker]

If the news above is true, the funding for CWGC looks set to be cut by £4m per year.

As a matter of interest the Heritage Lottery Fund is asking for your views on how it should spend the £205m per year that it has at its disposal. http://www.hlf.org.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/Pages/Consultationonourstrategicframeworkfor20132019.aspx

[peterhogg]

Thank you, Connor, for explaining the context. I had assumed that anyone old enough to remember a survivor would also have been old enough to remember a missing soldier had he survived. However, I can tell you that the sense of loss felt by my generation for the dead we never knew isn't much diminished when one realises that one's mother, in her dying months, has forgotten both her late husband and her living son and, instead, believes that her son is her long-gone brother whose remains, in reality, lie in the mud of Somme. I knew his comrades. I grieve that I didn't know him. I take a softer view of your post now. Antony

[/quote

Hi Phoebus,

Remember in e-mails words often sound harsher on the page than they are intended; seems my hilarious sense of humour is diminshed by the medium too. I was drawing too from a personal anecdote, (knowing I can only go so far with that) as I remember my grandmother always mourned the loss of my uncle, killed in the Second World War. My father likewise felt the loss. (He was a veteran of the Second World War too) I would have loved to have known my Uncle but "know" him only from the recollections of those who knew him in life. I just don't think I can have the same sense of loss. That's just me. Interesting thread. Always enjoy your posts.

[Piorun]

If the news above is true, the funding for CWGC looks set to be cut by £4m per year.

As a matter of interest the Heritage Lottery Fund is asking for your views on how it should spend the £205m per year that it has at its disposal. http://www.hlf.org.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/Pages/Consultationonourstrategicframeworkfor20132019.aspx

Not the easiest survey to complete Chris but, if one hangs in to the end, one can put in a plug for funding CWGC. Thanks for the link, Antony

[Blackblue]

Ian - Firstly, the notion that we could be talking about "..perfectly sensible and proportionate small-scale use of DNA sampling/testing .." doesnt hold water. This whole DNA testing issue has got "Pandora's Box" (or even "Jack-in-the-box" ! ) written all over it. Any publically funded department set up to deal with this issue would be out of control before you could whistle Dandy. Apart from anything else it's throughput would be unpredictable and in practical terms, uncontrollable. (In publically funded department I also mean any existing department given additional responsibilities, etc).

Overseas countries which contribute to the CWGC do not contribute to the relevant costs of the British MoD, and by the very nature of the situation we are discussing the practicallities of dealing with finds on the continent will inevitably head Britain's way as a first stop.

Tom

Don't know what was meant by 'but-out' Tom. Last time I looked Australia and other relevant members contributed appropriately to CWGC as members of the 'Commonwealth'.

I had no idea that the British MoD contributed to wholly Australian recoveries??? Even if they do in some little way then perhaps that is some small recognition of the Australians that lost their lives in foreign fields for the 'empire' as it then was. They didn't have to go...you would be aware they were all volunteers...every single one.

If these men and women (and the other various members of the Commonwealth) did not then I fear that you lot would probably be gobbling sausages and sauerkraut and wearing lederhosen as we speak. I for one probably wouldn't be here (my grandfather was British Army and barely survived the war). So before telling us this discussion is not our business...please stop and think.

I am similarly dismayed at the degradation of UKs defence capabilities. Similar cutbacks have been occurring in Australia. But for me the proper recovery of the dead (when they are discovered) will never become unnecessary or superfluous...despite the passing of time. It has no correlation to the equipping of our defence forces. In Australia the problem rests elsewhere...at a higher level...not within Defence itself. Instead of of taking money off Defence perhaps our governments need to look elsewhere for savings. Thats is MY opinion on the matter.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

... Last time I looked Australia and other relevant members contributed appropriately to CWGC as members of the 'Commonwealth'.

... I fear that you lot would probably be gobbling sausages and sauerkraut and wearing lederhosen as we speak.

Black&Blue - I'm slightly confused. Firstly you quote me saying "Overseas countries which contribute to the CWGC do not contribute to the relevant costs of the British MoD, ..", and then you say ".. Last time I looked Australia and other relevant members contributed appropriately to CWGC ".

If you could explain which bit of "Overseas countries which contribute to the CWGC .." you didnt understand, then I'll try to address your issues.

As for ".. you lot would probably be gobbling sausages and sauerkraut and wearing lederhosen .." - fine (its a long time since I last heard Mr Connolly's views about "that" city and it's inhabitants, but I recall them, and you are certainly adding weight to them ).

As for the comment elsewhere ref ".. a few lousy quid .." - I'm quite happy for the poster to decide how his tax dollars should be spent, but when he decides its his place to decide how my tax dollars are expended ... take a hike.

Tom

[ianw]

As for the comment elsewhere ref ".. a few lousy quid .." - I'm quite happy for the poster to decide how his tax dollars should be spent, but when he decides its his place to decide how my tax dollars are expended ... take a hike.

Tom

My Tom, you really are quite a charmer.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the tax system works in a democracy. We all have right to lobby the Government on how they decide to spend the generality of our tax monies - you and me alike.

You'll forgive me if I decline your request for me to "take a hike" in the same way that another Australian member has rejected your suggestion that "overseas posters" (your quaint phrase) "but-out" . You might wish to consider toning down your comments on this Forum. They certainly don't assist your arguments.

[AlanCurragh]

There have been a few comments verging on personal insults recently - if this thread is to stay open, please can pals consider before they post

Thanks

Alan

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

...... I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the tax system works in a democracy. We all have right to lobby the Government on how they decide to spend the generality of our tax monies ..

I understand perfectly well how the tax system works in a democracy, and if there were to be some lobbying of the Government for this DNA scheme then you can bet your bottom dollar that I would be counter-lobbying for any available monies to be spent on our currently serving forces personnel, and those who have had medical discharges, - not on 100 year old bones recovered from a battlefield.

I notice that no counter-argument has been put forward for the DNA issue to be charity financed.

Tom

[ianw]

I notice that no counter-argument has been put forward for the DNA issue to be charity financed.

Tom

Not quite sure what you mean by this comment. In my post 46 I commented that your suggestion that DNA testing should be charity funded is impracticable given the MODs overall responsibility for the recovery and identification of remains. That they would contemplate the involvement of a charity in "their" process stretches credibility more than somewhat. It's a total non-runner.

[Blackblue]

Black&Blue - I'm slightly confused. Firstly you quote me saying "Overseas countries which contribute to the CWGC do not contribute to the relevant costs of the British MoD, ..", and then you say ".. Last time I looked Australia and other relevant members contributed appropriately to CWGC ".

If you could explain which bit of "Overseas countries which contribute to the CWGC .." you didnt understand, then I'll try to address your issues.

As for ".. you lot would probably be gobbling sausages and sauerkraut and wearing lederhosen .." - fine (its a long time since I last heard Mr Connolly's views about "that" city and it's inhabitants, but I recall them, and you are certainly adding weight to them ).

As for the comment elsewhere ref ".. a few lousy quid .." - I'm quite happy for the poster to decide how his tax dollars should be spent, but when he decides its his place to decide how my tax dollars are expended ... take a hike.

Tom

I know mate....I understand completely!! On the contrary...I have every right to comment!

I was making the point in response to the 'but out' comment that members of the Commonwealth also deserve a voice as to UK government funding of the CWGC (who play a very important role in the recovery process). If the UK government reduces contributions (and the alleged expenditure of your hard earned tax dollars) on remembering/recovering the dead then it obviously effects wider CWGC business.

This also effects other contributors to the CWGC as it reduces CWGC capability...does it not? The UK government has an obligation to continue to contribute to these matters...in proportion. One in all in...as it was when the Commonwealth went to war and lost a generation. It all comes from the same bucket of money originally.

As far as DNA testing goes. They are also MY tax payers dollars we are talking about and the Australian Defence Force, Australian Government and CWGC has MY permission to spend every single cent in the right circumstances.

Pandora's Box?? I seem to recall similar sentiment when DNA began to be introduced into criminal investigations. Perhaps we all need to move with the times.

Who is Mr Connolly anyway?

[ianw]

Who is Mr Connolly anyway?

BB,

I think Tom is probably amusingly referring to Billy Connolly and his stage act.

Billy is of course in Aus at the moment and I understand doing a charity concert in Brisbane in aid of the recent disasters.

Good on him.

[Blackblue]

Ahh...of course.

Sorry Tom...I have not seen that particular piece.

Rgds

Tim D

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Not quite sure what you mean by this comment. In my post 46 I commented that your suggestion that DNA testing should be charity funded is impracticable given the MODs overall responsibility for the recovery and identification of remains. That they would contemplate the involvement of a charity in "their" process stretches credibility more than somewhat. It's a total non-runner.

That they would contemplate the involvement of a charity in "their" process stretches credibility more than somewhat

Au contraire - For example the MoD are more than happy for Help For Heroes (a charity, you will recall) to be very heavily involved with the Rehabilitation Complex at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court, just a couple of miles up the road from me (and under threat of closure, due to - yes, lack of funds .. Headley Court in total, that is).

See Help For Heroes at Headley Court HERE.

Tom

[ianw]

The following is the description of the activities of the JCCC from the MOD website :-

"The JCCC has a small team that answers enquires relating to individual military fatalities outside the recent past and co-ordinates investigations following the discovery of human remains of personnel killed in the First and Second World Wars,. This fascinating work involves attempts to identify the casualty and trace their next of kin or descendants. We will then arrange an appropriate military funeral in the country concerned, if that is the wish of the family."

Given that the analysis of DNA is often the only viable way of achieving identification for older remains, (as demonstrated so clearly at Fromelles), to achieve their stated aims , the JCCC should deploy DNA techniques where appropriate. Suggestions that this element of their activities or any other part of the JCCC's "fascinating work" should be charitably funded are nonsensical.

The activities of the JCCC represent the final "paying off" of a grateful Nation's debt to a man or woman who gave their life on the battlefield for their country. This debt should be settled fully and without carping about it. I would consider it a sacred debt of honour.

Of course, if one considers the remains of Great War soldiers as simply "100 year old bones recovered from a battlefield" (as per post 65) then one might well take a different view.

[Auimfo]

[ Let's say the Australian government (it could be Canada or UK but let's use Australia, due to it's monopoly on Great War remembrance sentiment) announces the Gallipoli project (or it could be the Ypres and Somme project, whatever) We keep finding these remains so we'd like anyone with a descendant who fought there to register and provide a sample of their DNA. We're going to put it in a data bank and hold onto it for goodness knows how long, but don't worry it's safely held. No doubt, in Australia at least, even the dingos will be lining up to provide their DNA. And, let's then assume an 18 yr-old person, with no doubt a keen knowledge of troop movements in the Dardanelles, gets wind of this well-kept data bank and, her appreciation of the sacrifices of Australian youth aside, wants access to that data bank now to advance a paternity suit. Or, let's assume a rash of well-publicized sexual assaults and murders on hiking trails in the Australian hinterland is putting tremendous pressure on the police to stop this monster. The families of murdered women want some closure. They are demanding the government stop this killer. Hey, there's a data bank, and the samples were voluntary, maybe those assurances about use of the sample are a little less strict than the wording anticipates, since the samples were obtained voluntarily ( an important distinction) Let's get a search warrant and find out, say the police, guided by an intrepid Crown Prosecutor who believe this is the right thing to do, no matter the cost. (heard that before?)

Ahhh, I see what you're driving at....that old chestnut. It's been floated around before by a few conspiracy theorists who have become rather quiet of late because their 'concerns' were shown to be unfounded. With privacy laws the way they are these days, and correctly worded legislation to back it up - there's absolutely no precedent or evidence to support your fears.

And anyway, who said anything about an en masse 'DNA bank'. We're talking about research to discover a handful of possible descendants specific to a particular recovery.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Blackblue]

Ha...I missed that one. What is this 'monopoly on remembrance' rot anyway?? I keep forgetting we colonials are not entitled to an opinion here!

All I see here is the highlighting of a lack of appreciation and understanding of how DNA testing actually works. Its is extremely heavily regulated by law, overviewing bodies and the courts. I have never even heard of a case that corresponds with what you are saying...apart from deluded ravings of those paranoid civil libertarians who live in the dark ages and cannot acknowledge that its here to stay (who invariably quickly change their minds when themselves or a member of their family is attacked).

I am surprised at the continued extreme views of those opposed to DNA testing for identifying our war dead. It has been proven an outstanding success over recent years. It has never been stated by anyone that there should be wholesale testing!! Read the posts! If potential relatives don't wish to provide samples to identify our war dead then thats their business, their tough luck and nobodies loss but their own.

What have you got to hide anyway Connor?

[ianw]

I keep forgetting we colonials are not entitled to an opinion here!

I think I can safely say that this view is not held by the overwhelming majority of the members of this Forum.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

... Of course, if one considers the remains of Great War soldiers as simply "100 year old bones recovered from a battlefield" (as per post 65) then one might well take a different view.

This is simply a matter of prioritization. On the one hand we have a shortfall of finance to properly equip our troops in the field, - and then we have a further financial shortfall with regards to their treatment and rehabilitation if they are wounded or otherwise incapacitated (costs already significantly supported by charitable finance) …………… and on the other hand we have a suggestion that public purse finance should be channeled towards this proposed DNA scheme for battlefield recovered remains. All of this at a time when the finance available is shrinking.

Personally I believe that that is a no-brainer. The living have to take precedence over the dead.

I also think that it should be emphasised that the situation at Pheasant Wood was unusual in the extreme; it was almost a one in a hundred years event which is quite unlikely ever to be repeated. The bodies there had originally been buried quite meticulously, en-masse, and with much of the original equipment and effects still with the remains. Also, and very importantly, the “origin” of the Pheasant Wood remains was fairly obvious from readily available evidence, and very importantly the burial site had not been subjected to nearly a century of cultivation.

Pheasant Wood was a completely atypical event and to try to use it as the bedrock of arguments for this DNA testing proposal is disingenuous.

Tom

[ianw]

Personally I believe that that is a no-brainer. The living have to take precedence over the dead.

Tom

So, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, I presume you would be in favour of closing the CWGC operation completely and giving the £40 million saved annually to the MOD use as it sees fit? (I suspect they would waste it in about 45 minutes!) You will also be aware that some people use similarly puerile and simplistic arguments to request that all Government monies be used to support the heath service and certainly not the MOD and the defence industry.

As regards your claim that Fromelles is "completely atypical", I would agree only in relation to the number of sets of remains found there. Other similar discrete sets of remains (albeit with lesser group numbers) are in the possession of the CWGC and , in the opinion of many, should be treated similarly to secure IDs. The huge and welcome success of the DNA ID process at Fromelles was surprising to many - myself included. The DNA genie is out of the bottle as regards its appropriate use on WW1 remains.

I suspect we may well see DNA used successfully again if/when another "completely atypical" discovery of remains is made on the Western Front - say in the near future at Bullecourt.