And who will pay ?

[Auimfo]

Precisely Ian. If Tom would like a more typical example then perhaps recovery and identification using DNA of Private Alan Mather might suffice. (and I think you'll find the Australian Gov't paid for that - not the British MOD)

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Auimfo]

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” !.

Just going back through the thread and must've missed Tom's comment.

Assuming I'm one of the overseas posters you're referring too......lets see.

Three years of my time, money and services (still ongoing) of genealogical research to identify and locate descendants of the Fromelles missing for potential DNA comparisons. Added to this is much hard graft to investigate the lives of the missing and put together the biographies of their lives. I don't want to seem like I'm boasting but without the work myself and a couple of others put into the research, quite a number of those identified (and more to come) would still be in a grave marked Known Unto God. All done voluntarily. I don't know what value in dollars and cents (or pounds, shillings and pence) this translates into but you only have to check out what a genealogist charges per hour to get a fair idea.

Now, since my cheque has been well and truly cashed, I do believe I have every right to offer my opinion. Or do you still maintain that I should "butt-out"?

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

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? ....

..... puerile and simplistic arguments

With regards to your first statement, that is not a "logical conclusion" to what I said in post #75, nor any other post. Its certainly not an idea I'd ever propose. I do take on board however the notion that not only do you think that you are responsible for deciding how I spend my money, but you are now seemingly the self-appointed custodian of my thought processes

Apropos your second statement; yes, some quite childish proposals have been made with regards to this DNA issue. I also note that wild enthusiasm for the proposal steadfastly refuses to venture into the area raised by another poster much earlier during this thread - "If them that wants it needs it, then them that wants it buys it".

Tom

[J Banning]

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.

As reluctant as I am to enter a thread such as this I do have to raise issue with some of the points you have made in the above statement.

The ground at Pheasant Wood which contained the burial pits was not cultivated as it was just too wet – right up against the side of the wood. There was no way farm machinery could go on this ground in Autumn or Winter as the ground was simply too soft. However, had this not been the case and the ground cultivated by the landowner, it would have had no effect whatsoever on the pits and their contents. As has been shown on many archaeological digs the remains of trench infrastructure are just beneath the ground surface, normally at a depth of two feet or more. As the deepest a conventional plough penetrates the ground is about 8 inches, it means that these features are safe from harm. Just look at the digs for the proposed A19 extension across Pilckem Ridge at Forward Cottage or, more recently, the dig at Mametz in May last year and you will see that these sites, both heavily cultivated in the past 90 years showed remarkable trench features – at a depth of about two feet below current ground level. As the bodies in the burial pits were found at a depth of about a metre, it would not have mattered whether or not the ground was cultivated.

I also find the summary of the situation at Pheasant Wood as highly unusual and unlikely ever to be repeated as rather strange. As we all must know by now, the western front is full of mass graves (Peter Barton found records of a further 30 or so just in the immediate vicinity of Fromelles itself) and with the meticulous record keeping of units contained in the German archives I would be very surprised if your sweeping statement turned out to be true. You may well be right but I don't see that it can be said in the authoritative manner in which you have done so. After all, you don't actually know this do you? In point of fact, who does?!

[MelPack]

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

Pheasant Wood is not atypical.

The Beaucamps Ligny 15 meet all of the criteria that you have specified in your post:-

The bodies there had originally been buried quite meticulously, en-masse, and with much of the original equipment and effects still with the remains.

The BL 15 were interred precisely in this manner and the surviving artefacts provide compelling evidence that the recovered (whole and intact) skeletal remains belong to men of the 2nd Battalion Yorks & Lancs who went missing in combat between 18-25 October 1914.

Also, and very importantly, the "origin" of the Pheasant Wood remains was fairly obvious from readily available evidence ...

The same applies to the BL 15 with a wealth of extant evidence not only in respect of the precise location and circumstances where the men went missing but also important physiological evidence that can be compared with the findings of the forensic anthropology.

and very importantly the burial site had not been subjected to nearly a century of cultivation.

The BL 15 were interred in the rear garden of the village cafe thereby providing limited scope for the use of a tractor.

There is also a very important further point. The BL 15 are drawn from a discrete group of 58 missing soldiers. Compatible DNA donors have been identified for two thirds of that number already. The prospects for the successful identification of most, if not all, of the BL 15 is very high.

Do I take it that you are opposed to a DNA testing programme for these men on the basis of some imaginary direct trade off between named graves for 15 sets of '100 year old bones' or equipment for frontline troops in Afghanistan?

Mel

[ianw]

..... but you are now seemingly the self-appointed custodian of my thought processes

"If them that wants it needs it, then them that wants it buys it".

Tom

In answer to the first point - "Heaven Forbid! That is not a position I would like to apply for."

In answer to the second, in respect of properly acknowledged MOD responsibilities - viz the JCCC - this is done via the generality of all of our taxes.

Similarly, I think our troops need better equipment in Afganistan - but I don't think a charity should be set up to provide it.

[Blackblue]

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

Well aware of that Ian. It does seem to be the position of 'the few'. Pardon the analogy!

Tim D

[Blackblue]

With regards to your first statement, that is not a "logical conclusion" to what I said in post #75, nor any other post. Its certainly not an idea I'd ever propose. I do take on board however the notion that not only do you think that you are responsible for deciding how I spend my money, but you are now seemingly the self-appointed custodian of my thought processes

Apropos your second statement; yes, some quite childish proposals have been made with regards to this DNA issue. I also note that wild enthusiasm for the proposal steadfastly refuses to venture into the area raised by another poster much earlier during this thread - "If them that wants it needs it, then them that wants it buys it".

Tom

Where are these childish proposals Tom? Perhaps its just that some have a more robust understanding and have been more exposed to its use and benefits? Look at some of the recent recoveries made by JPAC and the ADF. Many of the missing have identified through DNA. We are not just talking of Pheasant Wood here. The 'scattered bones' and 'wholesale testing is an invasion of privacy' argument will never hold any water. As has been clearly outlined all that has been suggested is treating each recovery on its merits and considering DNA testing in appropriate cases. It works when used in such a manner...thats the simple reality of it!

Rgds

Tim

[Chris_Baker]

Surely all this talk of DNA testing is a red herring in the context of Tom T-M's original post? There are discussions going on at present on GWF bemoaning the processes of identification of human remains finds in France and of the communication with regard to their progress. Given the slashing of public funding that is going on in the UK, and seemingly not excluding the CWGC, it is hardly credible that there will be an extra penny made available to improve the situation. Indeed, funds available are likely to be reduced. None of us on this forum has any idea of just what is presently being spent on this, or whether the funds that are available are being spent to best effect. We can only assume that they are (mind, having spent 20 years as a consultant whose job was profit improvement I would eat my hat if that were 100% true).

The fact is that if you as an individual believe that more needs to be achieved, Tom's question remains a valid one and it does not matter if we are talking about exhumation officers, DNA testing or more news on a website: where are the funds coming from?

[Terry_Reeves]

Would it be unreasonable to suggest that those who feel very strongly about DNA testing make a contribution to the cost of it? Just a thought.

TR

[Blackblue]

Chris,

Good point. However whilst the original title was 'And who will pay?" there were another of other points made and by Post 5 we were also talking about the nature of DNA testing. A main thrust of some arguments is that it is far too expensive to worry about. I say that if carefully managed and applied to appropriate cases the cost would is negligible. I too have a view!

I find suggestions that I should 'but out' or 'put my own money up' quite offensive...particularly when I have just as much say in how our Governments should spend public monies as any of DNAs detractors. Its hypocrisy at its finest!

Rgds

Tim

[MelPack]

Would it be unreasonable to suggest that those who feel very strongly about DNA testing make a contribution to the cost of it? Just a thought.

TR

They do - I believe it is called taxation.

MP

[Terry_Reeves]

Tim

I put an alternative point of view. Surely we all entitled to have a say where our taxes go? And does it not occur to you that there are those of us on here also have relatives with unknown graves but might just not have the same point of view?

TR

[Terry_Reeves]

Mel

I refer you to my reply to Tim. I am also a tax payer and I have a right to say how my money is spent as well.

TR

[Blackblue]

Tim

I put an alternative point of view. Surely we all entitled to have a say where our taxes go? And does it not occur to you that there are those of us on here also have relatives with unknown graves but might just not have the same point of view?

TR

Certainly we are all entitled Terry. That was my point exactly!

They do - I believe it is called taxation.

MP

Exactly!

[ianw]

I quite agree that as tax-payers we all have the right to lobby and attempt to influence how our tax monies are spent and I suppose this lobbying might well follow on from taking irrational exception to all sorts of things and demanding that people fund these activities themselves.

As I understand it, the MOD website currently specifically states that the JCCC is responsible for securing the identification of WW1 and WW2 and other remains. If this is the case, in appropriate circumstances, DNA techniques are a cost effective way of completing this task - perhaps the only way. If the MOD decide that the costs of securing these identifications is too high, I would expect them to announce this formally. It might then be that alternative funding for DNA based activities would have to be sought by way of a public appeal, charitable foundations, the pockets of rich men - that nice Lord Ashcroft for example. At this stage , I would have to consider putting my money where my mouth is.

I accept that there are folk who do not want their relatives remains identified if found and given a known burial but the current process of attempting to secure an ID is a stated aim and appears to have broad support.

[Terry_Reeves]

Tim

Dear oh dear, I give up. This is farcical. Good luck with your campaign, I do genuinely mean that.

TR

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

... Three years of my time, money and services (still ongoing) of genealogical research ...

Your altruism on behalf of your countrymen is to be commended, but your post does nothing to address the question in post #1.

Tom

.... After all, you don't actually know this do you? In point of fact, who does?!

Of course I don’t know how many burial sites similar to Pheasant Wood may exist, but I’ll bet there are at least two organisations in the UK who will not be champing at the bit to see any of them excavated. I’d refer you to the topic elsewhere which is discussing a rumour of a reduction of CWGC’s funding.

How much did Pheasant Wood cost to construct ? (never mind all the other costs) – Not too far off a million Euros ?

Your post is interesting but it does nothing to address the question in post #1.

Tom

... Pheasant Wood is not atypical.

Mel, Pheasant Wood is atypical in the context of the majority of finds on the Western Front. I said atypical; not unique; atypical.

Other than that your post is interesting but it does nothing to address the question in post #1.

Tom

Where are ...

Tim – your posts are interesting but do nothing to address the question in post #1.

Tom

...I say that if carefully managed and applied to appropriate cases the cost would is negligible. I too have a view!

Tim, can we see your detailed evidence in support of that statement ?

Again, your posts are interesting but do nothing to address the question in post #1.

Tom

.......... the identification of WW1 and WW2 and other remains.

This isn’t the first post that muddies the waters between WW1 remains and the remains resulting from later conflicts, - aircraft identifications have previously been mentioned, with no context at all.

Again, interesting but does nothing to address the question in post #1.

Tom

[ianw]

Tom,

Let's recap.

Here again is what the MOD website says the JCCC is set up to do :-

"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."

So the short answer to your great "life, death the universe and everything" question in Post 1 "And who will pay?" is that to effectively achieve the tasks alloted to the JCCC by the MOD itself, the MOD via the JCCC budget should fund cost effective use of DNA sampling and testing where appropriate. I presume that such funding was made available for Fromelles DNA testing in association with their Australian Defence equivalent. However, these monies may not have gone via the JCCC budget, I suppose.

As per my post 92, if the MOD states at any time that they cannot afford to continue their efforts to ID the remains of military personnel over a certain age, we would then have to consider whether charitable funds might be used to fill the gap. At this stage public donations might be sought and some of us might be minded to cough up some cash.

I hope I have stated my position clearly enough.

[Blackblue]

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

These are the statements that most seem to have been 'addressing' Tom. If you wanted some views on the funding question alone then perhaps these comments should have been left out? What exactly about cost benefit analysis of DNA testing of remains is not relevant to what else has been posted? As far as detailed evidence how many recoveries suitable for DNA testing occur each year? Not very many! As far as DNA extraction and comparison costs have a look online. You are looking at no more than $1000 USD or so per case.

Our Governments should pay. They, regardless of who was in power at the time, were the ones that sent the fallen to war as the elected representatives of the people. There are plenty of areas outside Defence where money is wasted hand over fist...perhaps they could divert some of this!? I would rather my tax payers dollars spent on this than to fund some dole bludgers monthly entertainment bill. Unfortunately deciding how this can be realised occurs well above my pay grade and sphere of influence. In the meantime DNA testing will continue to occur in the right circumstances despite the detractors - that is now the reality of it. The funding of the forces on operations is a seperate issue.

Terry,

You obviously miss my point. What exactly is farcical? The fact I have an opinion which differs to yours? As I have said all along...stakeholders/relatives deserve the choice to contribute...or not contribute. That is their prerogative.

;-)

Rgds

Tim

[glosterman]

Tom,

Here again is what the MOD website says the JCCC is set up to do :-

"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."

So the short answer to your great "life, death the universe and everything" question in Post 1 "And who will pay?" is that to effectively achieve the tasks alloted to the JCCC by the MOD itself, the MOD via the JCCC budget should fund cost effective use of DNA sampling and testing where appropriate. I presume that such funding was made available for Fromelles DNA testing in association with their Australian Defence equivalent. however, these monies may not have gone via the JCCC budget, I suppose.

As per my post 92, if the MOD states at any time that they cannot afford to continue their efforts to ID the remains of military personnel over a certain age, we would then have to consider whether charitable funds might be used to fill the gap. At this stage public donations might be sought and some of us might be minded to cough up some cash.

I have watched this thread develop with interest over the last few days. There have been good (and bad) posts on both sides of the debate, but I fear Tom & others are correct when they suggest the UK MoD cannot and will not provide additional resources to undertake work to ID or recover the fallen, whist cutting front line units. Reports of a cut in CWGC funding may just be the first of further cuts impacting on this area. How safe is the JCCC team referred to above if employed just on this type of work in the current climate? That said, I and many on this site believe our Govt has a duty to continue and fund this work.

Out of interest, does anyone know how much money the MoD (JCCC) sets aside for this task each year?

[centurion]

Its a harsh fact but the living have votes and the dead do not, moreover those who might stand as representatives on behalf of the dead are a small minority of the overall population. One can resent this, feel its unjust, wrong, disrespectful, a betrayal or whatever but it doesn't change much - a government in a democratic system looks at where the votes are and puts what money it has available in that direction. Funding DNA research where it helps catch a sexual predator even a common or garden burglar or where it may help diagnose and solve hereditary disease will come first. So will putting money to support forces on a front line and heaven knows there hasn't been enough in either area.

[ianw]

I quite agree that we live in times of massive spending cuts and it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the MOD's JCCC was disbanded or "amalgamated" and its activities kicked into even longer grass. However, I would submit that the amounts of money we are talking about within the context of the Defence budget are sub-miniscule.

I am also mindful of the profound irony that here we are talking about DNA testing in a very specialist area when HMG is seriously contemplating dismantling the entire Forensic Science Service - an organisation that is the envy of the world and a leader in developing these self-same DNA ID techniques.

That said, I am convinced that it is right that we should attempt to make these IDs where practicable and I would make a charitable contribution to this cause if needed.

I would have to declare that there are other spending cuts in other areas that concern me more and I am making my views known to the powers that be in the normal manner. However, this issue is also important.

[Piorun]

"And who will pay?" is the question of the thread. Who should pay is irrelevant to the question posed. We all agree that we all should pay (the Government only pays with our money) but the Government has spent our money on other things. Unless we are prepared to set up a fund right here and now, we have exhausted the topic and posting aggressive comments will not help one bit. Antony

[Auimfo]

Interesting post Tom T-M.

I don't mind discussing the original issue from post #1 but find it fascinating that after having engaged in the resulting conversation throughout this thread, you've suddenly decided to avoid the questions addressing some of your own comments by telling us we're interesting but not relevant. And your plan almost worked......

So back to post 1.

Firstly let's clearly define the costs we are talking about.

We can discount the CWGC cost related to interment and maintaining cemeteries. That is what they exist for and are provided a budget to do no matter whether remains are identified or not.

We can discount the cost of a physical recovery because that applies regardless to all reported remains discovered whether identified or not. And in my view 'mandatory' reporting of the discovery of human remains should be a natural given no matter what the circumstance.

Therefore the only real additional costs we are discussing are those associated with DNA testing, possible anthropology and descendant searching.

Do I believe that the respective Governments should pay for the ID process when a chance exists? - Yes.

Can they afford to pay for the ID process? - Yes, The cost associated with the relatively small number of remains recovered each year isn't even a drop in the budget bucket and has negligible effect on spendings (whether justified or wasteful) elsewhere.

Will the respective Governments continue to pay for the ID process? - Who knows.

Cheers,

Tim L.