And who will pay ?

[ianw]

I note that a Commons Committee has evaluated MOD waste during the past year at between £5,000 million - £8,000 million.

Let's hope the solution to the above problem isn't seen to include ashphalting war cemeteries and abandoning the identification of our Dead.

I guess all we can do in these straightened times is to make such representations as we deem appropriate and hang on for a rough ride. In respect of the CWGC budget, I fear that changes that we live to bitterly regret may be made in pursuit of small cost savings. Let's hope this outcome can be avoided.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

.... 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......

......... such as building multiple Pheasant Woods, which seems to be the ultimate aim of the DNA advocates ? Dream on, I'm afraid. The money simply isnt there.

I'm terribly sorry but I'm joining Terry (post #93).

Tom

[Blackblue]

......... such as building multiple Pheasant Woods, which seems to be the ultimate aim of the DNA advocates ? Dream on, I'm afraid. The money simply isnt there.

I'm terribly sorry but I'm joining Terry (post #93).

Tom

This is farcical...have you not read a thing thats been said? DNA will continue to be used in appropriate cases whether you like it or not...mark my words.

[Auimfo]

......... such as building multiple Pheasant Woods, which seems to be the ultimate aim of the DNA advocates ? Dream on, I'm afraid. The money simply isnt there.

I'm terribly sorry but I'm joining Terry (post #93).

Tom

Come off it Tom. Only a few posts ago you were telling everyone that the Pheasant Wood recovery was atypical and that it couldn't be used as representational of the norm. Now you're applying it as a future standard to support your argument. You can't have it both ways mate.

And besides, even without any kind of ID process being used at Fromelles, the CWGC still had to create a cemetery so the costs are irrelevant to your argument. Or would you rather we left them undiscovered and unrecognised so the CWGC might save a bit of cash?

I'm still querying where you find any suggestion from DNA advocates that 'multiple' Pheasant Woods be created. Let's be totally clear here; all anyone is saying is that when remains are located (be it singularly or in groups) where circumstances dictate that an ID might be possible, that we use all scientific means at our disposal to make that identification and that a workable standard procedure for reporting/recovery/ID be introduced.

Cheers,

Tim L.

P.S. - I have edited my post because it referred to a comment that has now been deleted

[ianw]

Some people are trying to have a serious debate here about very serious matters. There is a wide range of opinions that should be respected if expressed sincerely and without insults to people who hold different opinions.

I have said before that Fromelles may prove to be a high-water mark in the treatment of the Fallen in terms of an entirely new cemetery being constructed. However, the process of identifying the remains at Fromelles would seem to me to be a model exercise that will surely be repeated if similar "closed" groups of remains are found say at Bullecourt or elsewhere.

As Tim says above, once remains are recovered whether subsequently identified or not , the resultant graves have to be accomodated somewhere. I would imagine that it would be much cheaper to utilise existing cemeteries - with an extension if necessary - rather than construct a new one. I would find any economies achieved by this route acceptable.

Perhaps this rather tainted thread should be closed and this debate continue afresh - maybe the thread starter would oblige in this.

[Chris_Baker]

Nonetheless the original question has not been answered. I think those who would wish to see improvements in recovery, identification and communication are going to be very disappointed over the next few years. I hope this will not be the case but believe it will be so.

[AlanCurragh]

PLEASE can everyone drop the off topic comments and the sly digs at each other or this thread will be closed. If I have deleted one of your comments, I'm sorry, but this topic is too important for points scoring.

Thanks

Alan

[ianw]

I think those who would wish to see improvements in recovery, identification and communication are going to be very disappointed over the next few years.

Chris,

I share your fear that this will prove to be the case.

However, I would dispute your contention that the "question" has not been answered at least to some extent. It has been pointed out that part of the JCCC's mission statement taken direct from the MOD website is to secure identifications and make contact with relatives. It therefore follows that a budget should be made available to complete this task in the most cost effective manner. Therefore, the MOD should pay for appropriate use of DNA ID techniques as they are the best way to achieve their stated aims.

As to who will pay, well that's the great unknown. The proof of the pudding will be seen as and when remains are recovered in the future -especially any "Fromelles" type sets of remains. Fascinating times ahead.

If the MOD comes out and says "We're on our uppers. The "Big Society" will have to charitably fund this work" all well and good. Something could then be done perhaps via the Heritage Lottery Fund or whatever. What would be unacceptable would be for them to clutch the responsibility to their bosum, closing out all other parties but then not do the job themselves.

[centurion]

Given the shortage of resources in general is there any prioritisation? Would the identification of WW2 bodies (where there is a greater possibility of immediate relatives who knew them in person still surviving) take precedence? So for example if DNA testing capability had to be rationed would the crew of a Halifax excavated during re development in say Badd Felstein take priority over bodies found on M. Jean's farm ?

[ianw]

Centurion

Interesting question. I don't know if such a policy exists. I would certainly understand such prioritisation for WW2 remains as long as efforts were made to secure a satisfactory DNA sample from Great War remains for possible future use - but of course only where future ID might prove to be practicable.

Has DNA ID been often used for aircrew? Assuming the identity of the aircraft is known, one would have the ideal "closed" group to work with. Much easier than working with a battalion or 2 as the "closed" group.

Of course, the whole question may be rather hypothetical as the MOD has "form" when it comes to dragging its feet in recovering aircrew remains in the UK e.g the famous case of Sgt Gilders (now at Brookwood) recovered by an amateur in Chilham Kent who was subsequently prosecuted under the Military Remains Act 1986 because he had been refused permission to excavate by the MOD on the grounds that the remains were unlikely to be in the aircraft! A sour grapes prosecution or what! Having the family's permission, he received an absolute discharge.

It would appear you are better off if your aircrew relative's remains lie in the Netherlands as they have a much more enlightened policy.

[Auimfo]

Chris,

Although the question has been discussed and a number of relevant propositions suggested, in truth it's not something that can be 'answered' with anything more than conjecture unless someone has the ability to see into the future. (and if you do I'd like next weeks lotto numbers please!)

I tend to disagree with your beliefs about the future but that could simply be the difference in cultures. It may prove quite true that the British MOD may cut back on the ID process but given the strength of Australian attitudes towards remembrance, I doubt very much that we will abandon them.

And therein lies another twist to this discussion. It's not just a British decision. Although they themselves may not wish to pursue the ID process, other nations may and therefore efforts should be made to standardise recovery procedures to provide the best possible chance of ID's by those who endeavour to take that option.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[MelPack]

Nonetheless the original question has not been answered.

Chris

There was no original question.

Tom's opening post advanced the assertion that advocates of DNA testing 'seem to have failed to notice that here in the UK we have very recently' experienced a series of cuts in frontline military expenditure.

I don't think that the 'failure to notice' aspect is worth further comment but the assumption on which Tom has built his edifice certainly is. Tom appears to believe that the allocation of public funds is an entirely rational process and that there is a direct trade off between expenditure on one item as opposed to another. It is palpably not a rational process as the Select Committee's report published this week listing an estimated £10 billions of wasted expenditure on procurement has demonstrated.

The allocation of expenditure within a Government Department is ultimately a political decision. It is one thing to suggest that expenditure on the identification of recovered remains may not be high in the list of priorities in the context of budgetary constraints; it is entirely another to suggest that the cost of a DNA test on a set of remains means one less flak jacket for a soldier on the ground in Afghanistan.

Tom concluded his opening post with a very nice quixotic tilt at windmills:

'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'

I am unaware of any single contributor to this thread who is in favour of the use of DNA testing, advocating anything other than it being used for a closed group where the prospects for securing an identification are very high.

We can all engage in the deception of embellishing our arguments by claiming that they are firmly rooted in reality. We can also all nominate one area of public expenditure that should be cut and diverted to another. My current favourite would be the 'nudge' unit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/20/nudge-unit-oliver-letwin?INTCMP=SRCH

Perhaps its budget of £500,000 could be applied to the identification of the BL15 and then for debate to ensue as to what should be done with the remaining balance of £480,000?

The point remains that 'reality' is what you make of it.

Mel

[Chris_Baker]

There was a question - it is in the thread title. The question is unanswerable as none of us have insight into current and proposed budgets. The clear messages we are being fed (in the UK) are that budgets are being cut across the board, and how that can translate into good news in regard to this subject is hard to see. And that is my last post in this rather wearying thread.

[Auimfo]

The 'Nudge Unit'? Reading the article it sounds more like a new-speak junket that will probably produce an annual report to gather dust in Minister's bookcases.

What WAS interesting in the article was the fact that the 'Nudge Unit' annual budget of over 500,000 pounds was considered by Ministers to be 'low cost'. Based on that fact, it's a fair assumption that the cost of an ID process for the usual handful of recovered remains each year must be regarded as miniscule.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Piorun]

There was a question - it is in the thread title. The question is unanswerable as none of us have insight into current and proposed budgets

You are quite right, Chris. There was a questions in the thread title but, as I posted in #100, I believe it is answerable. The UN-answerable question is "who will pay?" If we expect the current government agencies to do so (with our money of course), then we might as well start a private fund right now, because none of the current government agencies will ante up. If we expect to get financial assistance from the private or charitable sector, then we might as well do the same - start a private fund right now and get stuck in. Cheers, Antony

[ianw]

The "Nudge" Unit was visited by the Radio 4 "PM" programme recently. It was clear from the piece that from Letwin downwards no one had the slightest clue what they were supposed to be doing. But they were happy to take the pay and hope that their next job might have some real value - or at least that they would continue to pick up their monthly cheque.

I continue to hope that the fact that influential people (whose grandfathers were "butchers and bunglers" to a man) may agree that IDs for the Great War Fallen is a "jolly good thing", will protect the JCCC budget. Much better than giving the money to the poor to spend on fags, cheap cider and Sky dishes.

[MelPack]

Much better than giving the money to the poor to spend on fags, cheap cider and Sky dishes.

I am first in the queue!

Mel

[ph0ebus]

Hi Chris, all,

Indeed, the question as phrased in the title is an unanswerable one, as was pointed out in a recent post. We cannot divine the future, only put forth guesses and propose potential alternatives. That said, though cuts are appearing like wildflowers in the spring, I have not heard (or read) that finalized cuts to government agencies in the UK are directly affecting the precise work we are talking about. There is yet hope.

I would also add that several people who posted to this thread, in an honest effort to venture possible solutions the identified problems, came up with some very practical and realistic possible solutions, including (but not limited to):

(1) assembling trained volunteers who are willing to volunteer their time for free

(2) engaging returning veterans to do this sort of work, funded through government rehabilitation programs

(3) financing the work through the nonprofit sector

(4) financing the work via charitable donations

(5) financing the work via lottery proceeds

(6) financing the work via creating efficiencies in government spending

(7) targeted philanthropy (stranger things have happened)

(8) soliciting voluntary donations at the door at various cultural institutions connected to the Great War (IWM, etc.)

There is nothing to prevent any one or any combination of the above ideas to be pursued in earnest. I would think that engaging with local veteran organizations would help this effort considerably.

I do not recall anyone saying every single scrap of bone found should be tested; in reality, scientifically speaking, that is not possible. Some will be too small to sample, some will be too degraded to be sampled, and some will be too contaminated to sample. I also do not see anyone advocating for the wholesale cheek-swabbing of the entirety of the public to find DNA matches. I understand the privacy concerns, but what this would look like on the ground would be (and currently is) not nearly as Orwellian as some might think it to be. It would only make sense to ask for DNA samples when you have a decent idea of who the lost soldier is, just as they do in criminal investigations. In the interim, if you have privacy concerns, unless compelled by a court order, you can keep your DNA to yourself, as is your choice.

I have read several people speaking on behalf of the farmers (as if they were a unified block, which they are not) and would wonder if the question was broadly put to them as to what would need to be done to make reporting of finds more likely, I wonder what they might say. I know what people here think they would say, and I know what a few farmers have said, but lets not confuse the voices of some with the voices of all. Clearly some farmers can and do report finds, so that would indicate to me that there is perhaps some hope that a better outcome is possible in this aspect of the issue we are discussing.

In regards to the current state of affairs, I would think keeping the public eye on recovery efforts and using the free press to hold governments accountable should they fail to do their due diligence is a way to at least preserve what we have. One debacle in the press about how the government could have identified a soldier and cheaped out in the end would certainly bring this issue to the forefront, I would think...something like that certainly does in the states.

Lastly, regarding the suggestion that thread participants 'put up or shut up'...even saying that implies that those of us participating in this thread are not already putting up. I would suspect you do not personally know most of the thread participants, and have no direct knowledge of what they are or are not doing. To criticize someone for alleged inaction when in reality, they may be doing far more in this area than you, seems a bit inappropriate. Soeaking for myself, I have already ratcheted up my efforts from my side of the pond and would encourage others to follw their hearts and do what they feel is right.

Take care,

-Daniel

[peterhogg]

I've been absent from the forum for a couple of days (don't be fooled by the who's visiting list at the bottom, i forgot my password so never log out) but I see the level of insults and infantile rejoinders has yet to reach Wilde/Round Table at the Algonquin aspirations. Due to a bout of insomnia (no doubt I am repressing memories of my unforgivable and bad acts) I wade in yet again. (The sad thing, is that we all have tremendous respect for the dead of the Great War and want to see them remembered, albeit in our own way.)

Do some of you not get that by resorting to those tactics you take away from the legitimacy of your own points, leaving reader impressed only by your smallness and pettiness? (as a small and petty man myself, I am an expert in these things) The more smug or shrill the insult, the more the reader is left to conclude the writer is not all that confident in the strength of his own point that he resorts to an ad hominem to avoid a considered and helpful response. So let's try to be a bit more objective. The fact someone disagrees with your cherished point of view or cause, doesn't make them fair game or Hitler.

Now, I have a point to make and a question to pose related to this topic.

1. Information data banks. Dear Auminfo, to suggest that those who raise concerns over the integrity of such data banks are deluded or conspiracy theorists and breezily conclude that legislative schemes are in place so that won't happen does little service to your argument and is, sadly, a predictable response by those who don't really get these things. Yes, there are those that see government conspiracies under every rock and who wear tin-foil hats, may of them shaped like those funny hats Australians wear. (Oops, see what I did? threw in an ad hominem. hee hee. See above re my expert, smallness, pettiness. Don't judge me, pity me) Anyhoo, I'm not obviously talking about evil government agencies sharing this information. Data banks such as Criminal DNA banks, Criminal Intelligence banks, Census information, Witness Protection data banks, as examples of data banks that contain a considerable amount of personal information, are not freely shared whatsoever, even within the same agencies. Ironically, that's a problem when, for example police agencies do not share information due to privacy concerns. Generally government agencies are extremely careful about the sharing of private information. And if let's say a new data bank was formed to help identify a group of bodies found in a particular area, i am sure that these safety measures would be in place. But you fail to appreciate that there are other private interests, rather more contemporary, that have to be anticipated or at least for which there has to be an accounting. To sniff and snort and think, that's not going to happen is well, kinda unrealistic...

The concern is where private litigants seeking this information for other purposes challenge these legislative schemes and protocols. When such challenges occur, the forum for access is the court. No matter how careful or well-intentioned a legislative scheme, it cannot anticipate every challenge, nor is it paramount to a court which is the final arbiter. You, like Canada, have a constitution, unlike the UK, which as you know, or should know, means a politicization of courts of law. Courts can strike down or "read down" laws inconsistent with the lofty principles of the constitution. A very real example, before the courts in Canada involves parties seeking access to an information data bank containing the identities of otherwise anonymous sperm donors in order to learn the identity of their father. Obviously one of the concerns that follow is such challenges will also be used to ground financial claims. The people advancing this cause are not really concerned about the opposing point of view, 'cause they think they are right, and don't care that this data bank was set up to allow men to donate sperm while remaining anonymous.

Here is another example. You set up a data bank from a certain region for another Fromelles-like project. I am representing a client charged with murder in that same region from which volunteer samples are taken . The victim's body in my case contains trace samples of unidentified DNA. (could be hair or saliva or semen, or transfer, who knows) I would demand that, in order for my client to receive a fair trial, that samples from this bank be released for independent testing to suggest another party was the culprit. This is not fanciful, nor conspiratorial, this is called real life. Your constitution, like Canada's provides for due process, which includes the right to full disclosure.

Notwithstanding the Crown's efforts in court to oppose this application to release the information, a court can still find the application has merit. Defence counsel, as of course, routinely seek massive disclosure orders of police and third party records to defend their cases. Hell, if I decided to move to the other side of the dais, that's exactly what I would do. If I knew you had a data bank of DNA taken from people living in a certain region, as a defence counsel, I could care less why it was created, I'd see the possibility of reasonable doubt for my scummy, albeit innocent client!

So the point I am making, is that don't assume that in setting up a DNA bank of some sort that putting in a place a few rules will make everything rosy. Believe it or not, not everyone out there is part of the Fromelles mutual admiration society. They may have personal interests inconsistent with the spirit and intent of any such data bank, and they are not likely to be won over by your sentiments.

2. Now my question. If, we are talking about Fromelles-like projects, how exactly do you decide from whom you would solicit samples of DNA? I had earlier posed this question but no one paid attention. I am no expert on Fromelles so don't presume to have much knowledge on how or from whom samples were elicited. So, for example, if five unidentified remains of believed to be Australian or a mix of Australian and maybe Canadian remains are found, how would you decide who might be a member of a class of relatives?

PS. It would be nice if all Commonwealth nations could agree at one of their conferences to set up a little fund to cover this DNA tracing initiative, like passing the hat or something. Memo to members, don't think this is a good time to ask New Zealand...(too soon?)

[Blackblue]

So the point I am making, is that don't assume that in setting up a DNA bank of some sort that putting in a place a few rules will make everything rosy. Believe it or not, not everyone out there is part of the Fromelles mutual admiration society. They may have personal interests inconsistent with the spirit and intent of any such data bank, and they are not likely to be won over by your sentiments.

2. Now my question. If, we are talking about Fromelles-like projects, how exactly do you decide from whom you would solicit samples of DNA? I had earlier posed this question but no one paid attention. I am no expert on Fromelles so don't presume to have much knowledge on how or from whom samples were elicited. So, for example, if five unidentified remains of believed to be Australian or a mix of Australian and maybe Canadian remains are found, how would you decide who might be a member of a class of relatives?

PS. It would be nice if all Commonwealth nations could agree at one of their conferences to set up a little fund to cover this DNA tracing initiative, like passing the hat or something. Memo to members, don't think this is a good time to ask New Zealand...(too soon?)

I think the question has been answered a number of times Connor. By investigation and consideration of other circumstantial evidence surrounding recoveries and then invitation. DNA would obviously only be provided by relatives by consent. It has never been suggested that DNA be obtained without this. If people don't want their DNA compared...don't provide it!

I don't know if some disclaimer was used in the case of Fromelles. Surely the possibility of private litigation is such circumstances is extremely remote....if you need someones DNA get a court order and obtain it otherwise as they usually do in such cases.

I take the point about Australia and UK being different. Perhaps by and large we do see rememberence differently here. When a recovery is made that requires funding....I will be the first one putting my hand in my pocket. In the meantime I know I can rely on the Australian Government to pay.

Rgds

Tim

[ph0ebus]

I don't know if some disclaimer was used in the case of Fromelles. Surely the possibility of private litigation is such circumstances is extremely remote....if you need someones DNA get a court order and obtain it otherwise as they usually do in such cases.

Rgds

Tim

This is what JPAC has to say re: DNA:

"Privacy Assured

If you donate a sample of your mitochondrial DNA, you can rest assured that it will only be used for the purposes of assisting remains identification and will not be used for any other purpose or be released to other government agencies or any other organizations."

I have an inquiry in to JPAC...details to follow.

-Daniel

[Auimfo]

1. Information data banks. Dear Auminfo, to suggest that those who raise concerns over the integrity of such data banks are deluded or conspiracy theorists and breezily conclude that legislative schemes are in place so that won't happen does little service to your argument and is, sadly, a predictable response by those who don't really get these things. Yes, there are those that see government conspiracies under every rock and who wear tin-foil hats, may of them shaped like those funny hats Australians wear. (Oops, see what I did? threw in an ad hominem. hee hee. See above re my expert, smallness, pettiness. Don't judge me, pity me)

Connor,

Your understanding of a DNA 'databank' implies samples randomly taken and stored eternally for use to determine identifications in future recoveries - but if you read carefully you'll see no one here is proposing that. (I'm not sure how many times we have to reitterate that!!)

What we are discussing is select and targeted testing of only those people for whom a body has already been recovered potentially belonging to their ancestor (determined through solid historical and genealogical research). It doesn't even mean just because you are a possible descendant, you're DNA is of use - it all depends on genetic lines to determine whether comparable DNA is likely to be present.

Once the comparison work has been completed (whether successfully matched or not), I would expect the provided DNA sample be destroyed thus rendering any future 'misuse' impossible. This means the existence of the DNA data has a limited lifespan of only a few months and specific only to the use it was intended. Now given the average number of recoveries made each year, reduced by those where useable DNA is not present in the remains, the number of donors whose DNA data is being kept on hand at any one time is only ever likely to be a small handful. And when you add the fact that the donor identity is kept private throughout the process, it's hard to validate any argument that suggests this DNA could be misused by a third party at some future time.

In fact, a very similar procedure has successfully been in use for many years. As a police officer and crime scene analyst, I regularly obtain 'elimination fingerprints' from people whose prints we expect to find at any given crime scene. (i.e. the occupants of a house that has been burgled) This assists to narrow down a series of prints, some of which potentially belong to the offender. Once the elimination prints have been accounted for at the scene, they are destroyed and no record kept. Because of this procedure, there has never been any case of elimination fingerprints being misappropriated for third party use.

That's why I consider all those raising concerns over the integrity of an 'apparant' DNA databank as conspiracy theorists and deluded.......deluded about what is actually being suggested.

It's the predictable response by those who 'don't really get' what's being proposed in the first place.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Piorun]

Tim: can't you make your point without calling other Members "deluded"?

[Auimfo]

Actually Piorun, it's the correct word and not intended in any derogatory way.

Deluded: to hold a fixed belief that is false.

i.e. in this case, to maintain and vocalise the mistaken belief that ID advocates are proposing some form of long-term DNA databank.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Blackblue]

Nonetheless the original question has not been answered. I think those who would wish to see improvements in recovery, identification and communication are going to be very disappointed over the next few years. I hope this will not be the case but believe it will be so.

Some of us obviously see it differently mate. If you read it with the rest of the title and contents it seems a 'statement' - the crux of which is that people are deluding themselves if they the UK MoD 'should' pay for recoveries in the current economic environment. Discussing the 'shoulds' is a natural extension of the original statement.

Going back to Tom's original post....and knowing little about UK politics is there even any point asking such a thing in advance? If people in the UK don't think the MoD is going to support attempts to identify appropriate recoveries using commonplace technology then perhaps its better to make a song and dance about this (if you think this is stance wrong) as recoveries occur. Surely no politician or the DoD there is going to make a blanket commitment to recoveries without knowing the specifics of each case?

Call me deluded...but what I just can't get my head around the fact that a deceased soldier's current day compatriots (given some of the opinions raised in this thread) do not support every reasonable effort being attributed to giving a person who died so they could live in peace - a name. As some have contributed have pointed out....we must just have a different philosophy over here.

I pity the UK people if their Government and MoD to not share the sentiments of some of the UK members who support thorough investigation and the use of whatever reasonable means are available. I for one know we can rely on the current Australian Government and the Australian Defence Force to see appropriate recoveries through to the end.

Rgds

Tim