MOD and the discovered dead of WW1

[Seadog]

I have started a new thread on the above topic as I and no doubt many others have grave concerns regarding the treatment of our British war dead whom an accident of fate has led to their discovery on the battlefields of WW1. To this end I have forwarded the following document to Lord Faulkner who in turn has sent it to Dr Murrison, an MOD minister and the PMs special representative responsible for the 100th commemorations. I hope that members will see that I have stuck to the known facts and I sincerely believe that this is a situation that deserves both discussion and action. Feel free to use the document if you so wish.

Document

DISCOVERY AND EVENTUAL BURIAL OF WW1 BRITISH SOLDIERS HUMAN REMAINS

FACTS

(1.0) Each year the human remains of WW1 British soldiers are found on the old battlefields of WW1.

(2.0) The JCCC department of the MOD is responsible for attempted identification

(3.0) The remains are stored in the custody of the CWGC

(4.0) Eventually the remains will be released by the MOD to the CWGC for burial in a war cemetery, at present it is estimated from CWGC data that at least 70 sets of remains are stored by the CWGC this figure includes the 15 soldiers found in Beaucamps-Ligny (BL-15) in 2009. The vast majority of the remains date from at least 2009 and maybe earlier At one time these remains were buried on a regular basis The CWGC announce the details of such burials on their web site

(5.0) The MOD are responsible for issuing press releases when remains are found but do not do so.

(6.0) Detail of the BL-15 (4.0) discovery in 2009 was only published in the French Press

(7.0) The MOD are still to confirm the burial date of the BL-15 planned for October 2014 and if left much later this will make it almost impossible for the relatives of the dead to arrange accommodation due to the fact that 2014 is the 100^th commemoration year.

CONCLUSIONS

The MOD intend releasing the estimated 70 sets of remains including the BL-15 for burial in 2014 which seems to be an attempt to use the 100^th commemorations as a cynical excuse for their gross inefficiency in expediting their responsibilities towards the discovered dead in a timely manner.

It would appear from the evidence available that the long-term storage of the dead is to become a deliberate policy of the MOD which is not acceptable and should be changed as soon as possible

In respect of the BL-15 after much pressure the MOD have agreed to use DNA profiling to attempt identification of these fallen and it would appear that some success will follow.

Will the MOD continue this process of using DNA profiling when the circumstances permit in future discoveries similar to the BL-15 and as was also used to great effect with the finding of over 200 soldiers at Pheasant Wood, Fromelles?.

What action is the MOD prepared to take to ensure that when applicable press releases regarding the finding of British soldiers are made to the UK Press?

What action is the MOD prepared to take to improve the communications between the concerned public and the JCCC?

Thank you for reading and considering the above

CWGC = Commonwealth War Graves Commission

JCCC = Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre

BL-15 = The human remains of 15 soldiers of the York & Lancaster Regiment found in the village of Beaucamps-Ligny France in 2009 and dating from 1914.

*Note: Also sent to the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence" and my own MP who is one of the Deputy Speakers of the House

[BelgianExile]

The MOD intend releasing the estimated 70 sets of remains including the BL-15 for burial in 2014 which seems to be an attempt to use the 100^th commemorations as a cynical excuse for their gross inefficiency in expediting their responsibilities towards the discovered dead in a timely manner.

It would appear from the evidence available that the long-term storage of the dead is to become a deliberate policy of the MOD which is not acceptable and should be changed as soon as possible

I was with you sticking to the 'known facts' until these two sentences...

I'm not having a pop - I completely support what you're trying to do in expediting identification and burials, and improve communication from the MoD - but I'm not sure you'll win many supporters within the organisation with comments such as these (and those on other threads referring to the JCCC who are like many other government departments in terms of limited resources).

[Seadog]

Thanks for the comment, unfortunately the facts speak for themselves. What other reason can there be for the MOD to store up the number of human remains that they have since at least 2009 and as I state perhaps even earlier and then to announce that all the "backlog" will be buried in the anniversary year?. Remember that there will also have been many other remains found and placed in the custody of the CWGC so the figure that I quote will be higher.

Norman

[roel22]

Norman, I understand you are wondering why it takes so long to identify/bury the remains of men found in 2009.

Without saying who is right or wrong: in my own country Holland it took two years to identify two WWII-pilots. Not that strange: the Dutch MOD only has two, maybe three employees.

I don't know how many employees the MOD has, but they have to deal with casualties from two World Wars.

Plus identifying remains from WWII will probably have greater priority, because the chances of finding direct relatives are much greater.

Roel

[Seadog]

Roel I am not questioning the apparent length of time it is taking to ID the human remains by name for it is the case that the vast majority cannot and will not be identified. Please understand that the system works by the CWGC creating a report which is forwarded to the MOD. This report will give full details of the remains plus descriptions of any artifacts found with them. In 99% of instances this will result in minimal identification such as rank or regiment only or even just “A soldier of the Great War". Given that this is the case then delaying the proper burial of these remains is in my view completely unacceptable and is a complete diversion from what happened in the past when these remains were buried in a timely manner as they deserve. Never to my knowledge has there been such a large number of remains still awaiting proper burial after an inordinate time following their discovery and never have the MOD announced that such a number will be buried in one year. This is compounded by the reluctance of the MOD to place the news of any discoveries into the public domain therefore nobody outside of the MOD has any idea of the numbers involved. The figures that I quote were supplied by the CWGC following a question from Lord Faulkner, Chairman of the All-Party War Heritage Group.

Regards

Norman

[roel22]

Reaging your answer I must agree, Norman. When it's clear remains cannot be identified I also see no reason to wait a couple of years to (re)bury them.

Roel

[Seadog]

Roel the present system adopted by the British MOD can lead to grave doubts as to exactly what is happening with our discovered dead. The total lack of transparency regarding both the finding and the attempted identification of the soldiers leads to suspicions as to just what is being done by JCCC to expedite their responsibilities towards the fallen. Make no mistake if it were not for concerned people which included many members of the GWF taking up the cause of the Beaucamps-Ligny 15 then I have no doubt that all these would have been buried as unknowns. The question must be are there any similar cases amongst the number stored by the CWGC at their mortuary in France?

Norman

[Stoppage Drill]

. This is compounded by the reluctance of the MOD to place the news of any discoveries into the public domain therefore nobody outside of the MOD has any idea of the numbers involved. The figures that I quote were supplied by the CWGC following a question from Lord Faulkner, Chairman of the All-Party War Heritage Group.

Regards

Norman

Sorry if this sounds naïve, but can't you use FoI Act ?

[Gareth Davies]

I have started a new thread on the above topic as I and no doubt many others have grave concerns regarding the treatment of our British war dead whom an accident of fate has led to their discovery on the battlefields of WW1. To this end I have forwarded the following document to Lord Faulkner who in turn has sent it to Dr Murrison, an MOD minister and the PMs special representative responsible for the 100th commemorations. I hope that members will see that I have stuck to the known facts and I sincerely believe that this is a situation that deserves both discussion and action. Feel free to use the document if you so wish.

Roel the present system adopted by the British MOD can lead to grave doubts as to exactly what is happening with our discovered dead. The total lack of transparency regarding both the finding and the attempted identification of the soldiers leads to suspicions as to just what is being done by JCCC to expedite their responsibilities towards the fallen. Make no mistake if it were not for concerned people which included many members of the GWF taking up the cause of the Beaucamps-Ligny 15 then I have no doubt that all these would have been buried as unknowns. The question must be are there any similar cases amongst the number stored by the CWGC at their mortuary in France?

Norman

Do you think Lord Faulkener will appreciate the pun?

[Seadog]

Sorry if this sounds naïve, but can't you use FoI Act ?

Sorry you have lost me there what are you talking about?

Norman

[AlanCurragh]

I think SD means the Freedom of Information Act

[Stoppage Drill]

Indeedly. Sorry if it wasn't clear what I meant, no intention of being obtuse.

Google the Act to see what it allows you to do.

Submit queries to MoD using the templates included here . . . . https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence/about/publication-scheme#how-to-make-an-official-request-for-information

There are grounds upon which official bodies may decline to answer, such as undue cost involved and national security. MoD will decline all requests relating to Special Forces but apart from these provisos they have a legal obligation to respond.

CWGC is NOT subject to FoIA - http://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php/Main_Page

[johnboy]

Will the MOD continue this process of using DNA profiling when the circumstances permit in future discoveries similar to the BL-15 and as was also used to great effect with the finding of over 200 soldiers at Pheasant Wood, Fromelles?.

Out of interest, how does DNA profiling help in identification?

[David Ridgus]

Will the MOD continue this process of using DNA profiling when the circumstances permit in future discoveries similar to the BL-15 and as was also used to great effect with the finding of over 200 soldiers at Pheasant Wood, Fromelles?.

Out of interest, how does DNA profiling help in identification?

My understanding is that the scientists extract what DNA they can and construct the profile. However it is only useful if there is another sample to match it against. It tends to prove useful when there are well publicised recoveries. So for instance at Fromelles they had matches for dozens of soldiers. After it was publicised then hundreds of people came forward who thought they might of had relatives in the battle. And many matches were made. It is less useful for the discovery of an isolated burial in which there is limited public interest.

David

[johnboy]

Thanks for that.

Where do they appeal for possibles relatives?

[David Ridgus]

I don't think it's formal. Something like Fromelles is simply widely written about in the press and I presume some families say, 'Great Uncle Albert died there didn't he?'', and get in contact.

If I'm underestimating the proactive side of this then I'm sure other Forum members will correct me

David

[alastaircox]

It was pro-actively requested through the press, TV, internet etc. Fromelles was a small battle and most families, especially Australians, would know if a loved one was lost there. The bigger battles would be nigh on impossible due to their scale.

DNA samples from the fallen need to be recovered in controlled, sterile conditions. The overalls, masks and hats worn by the archaeologists weren't for show, they were to avoid contamination of DNA samples. DNA cannot always be recovered and relatives do not always exist or want to take part.

What this boils down to is money. Identifying the fallen is incredibly complicated and expensive. There are no shortcuts, especially with mass graves. I would love to see more work done but at the same time I would rather the MOD spent its money on protecting those who serve their country now.

[BelgianExile]

What this boils down to is money. Identifying the fallen is incredibly complicated and expensive. There are no shortcuts, especially with mass graves. I would love to see more work done but at the same time I would rather the MOD spent its money on protecting those who serve their country now.

With respect to the JCCC (who seem to be taking a battering in these threads), their primary role at present (and rightly so) is assisting with the management of casualties (in every sense of the word) overseas, and their families. They also deal with current serving personnel who are having compassionate issues. For example, if you were serving in Afghanistan and your wife/mother/father etc became seriously ill, they would move heaven and earth to get you back to the UK. I think they do a fantastic job, and among the MoD they are massive contributors to providing the military covenant, and moral obligation that we have to our service personnel who serve.

I don't know how many staff they have, but they are almost certainly under resourced for the job they are doing. Perhaps as things quieten down 'over there' they will have more resources to use on the fallen from previous conflicts.

[Blackblue]

Having seen Norman's concerns before I am aware he is not calling for wholesale comparison of remains. He is suggesting further investigation and DNA comparison only where other evidence suggests probable identity. DNA sampling is actually very cheap and there is no reason samples could not be taken from remains that are viable, pending the uncovering of other evidence.

Rgds

Tim D

[glosterman]

Having seen Norman's concerns before I am aware he is not calling for wholesale comparison of remains. He is suggesting further investigation and DNA comparison only where other evidence suggests probable identity. DNA sampling is actually very cheap and there is no reason samples could not be taken from remains that are viable, pending the uncovering of other evidence.

Rgds

Tim D

Define "very cheap". Whilst taking a swab from a living donor is easy I believe taking samples from teeth or bones involves a lot of special equipment and analysis so I doubt it is cheap. Then multiply the cost against the number of samples and possible donors.

I'm not saying it cannot or should not be done but as with everything public sector related cost may be a factor

Kevin

[Seadog]

Putting the matter of DNA profiling in perspective it is a fact that in the normal course of events using such a technique will not be possible as the remains will be isolated and perhaps no other form of ID is found with them. To my knowledge and with the exception of the Fromelles case the British MOD have only used DNA profiling once and this in the case of the 2009 discovery of the BL-15 so it would seem that the cost implications have not applied as yet. The more important issue in my opinion is the "storing up" of the dead and then undertaking a large number of funerals in what would appear to be a deliberate policy following retention of the dead for an unacceptable period which in some cases may exceed 5 years. Another glaring example of the inefficiency of the MOD is to be seen in their inability or reluctance to confirm the date in October 2014 when the BL-15 are to be laid to rest. This in my opinion is ludicrous for the CWGC have indicated that the actual date will be the 23rd October 2014 but the MOD will not confirm this. Sadly yet another example of the complete lack of transparency and communication shown by the JCCC. For the JCCC response to the above regarding the BL-15 see Post 465 on this topic:-

 

The failure to respond to emails from a possible relative of one of the fallen is also mentioned in the above, the JCCC admit that they had in fact mis-typed the email address!

Regards

Norman

[Seadog]

I have received today the following reply from my local MP who is also a Deputy Speaker in the House. This follows my sending the document detailed in Post One.

Norman

“As we approach the 100 year anniversary of that conflict I would hope that the MOD would be acting in a sensitive manner. It is disappointing to read that this may not be the case.

I can therefore confirm that I have written to raise this matter with the Secretary of State at the MOD and I will let you know when I receive a response”.

Member of Parliament

[towisuk]

Excellent Norman, some of these moribund public bodies need a reminder that they are servants of the public and not vice versa......

regards

Tom

[Seadog]

Thanks Tom if this achieves nothing else it will have least brought to the attention of the MOD that they do not operate in glorious isolation and that their actions or inactions are noticed.

Regards

Norman

[towisuk]

Thanks Tom if this achieves nothing else it will have least brought to the attention of the MOD that they do not operate in glorious isolation and that their actions or inactions are noticed.

Regards

Norman

Ok Norman, I sent a letter to my MP a month ago with regards to the recovery and identification of remains in the Battlefields, I'm still awaiting a reply.

But he's probably forwarded it to the MOD or Battlefields Heritage Group and is awaiting a reply from them.

regards

Tom