CWGC News; The Identification of the Unknown Fallen

[Matlock1418]

To compliment my thoughts on transparency I perhaps had better publish some of my own ideas on transparency by CWGC and the relevant 'national defence authority' ['n d a' = MoD in the UK]

CWGC is the apparently recognised entry point for cases of potential non-commemoration submissions which then go on to the relevant 'n d a' for ajudication and then commemoration [or not] works backwards = Fair enough.

But there should be a documented and publically published submission and ajudication process(es).  Professional organisations should have published defined process(es) & standard(s) and offer guidance to others who might be interacting with them - we don't seem to be able to see any such methodology etc..  Not least a burden of proof level should be established and published publically - in such matters reasonableness, and not absolute/beyond doubt, should probably be considered an acceptable standard [otherwise very little/perhaps nothing will get through].  From my perspective there is also not enough use of circumstantial/interpreted evidence [Good enough in many courts of law!]  One 'defiitive' document does currently seem likely to defeat 10 perfectly reasonable pieces of 'circumstantial' evidence/interpretations, even if the latter have come from a number of other documents/sources.

CWGC do sometimes appear to currently seem rather acting as an initial filtering gatekeeper and potentially blocking cases forward on-pass  - and I believe this is not their task well that's my feeling based on a lack of published process by CWGC et al .  As evidence I offer a personal submission where I've been told my rejected case has been discussed by a 'panel' but not exactly by who, what happened and why etc. I was not able to aquire better understanding of its rejection despite a reasonable request for more explanation on process and decision [except was told that my CWGC correspondent had been on the panel, of I seem to recall five members, but no further clue as to who they might have been and their individual decision(s) - unanimous conclusion or by majority? = ???].

As CWGC are not the national ajudicators they should not act as a gate keeper but rather as a conduit and should pass on all cases presented to them to the relevant 'n d a' - but then they might also perhaps act as a helpful intermediary and offer suggestion(s) on how a presented submission(s) might perhaps be improved - perhaps suggesting something like a death Certificate would be a valuable additional document [and often easy to obtain] etc. - but they should not block on-pass.  They should be reasonable in their requirements/suggestions and should not ask for unreasonable documents or information items [e.g. not for evidence of an inside leg measurement (OK, I'm being a bit facetious to make my point!) - totally unreasonable requirement in my opinion as arguably impossible to find anywhere - and/or at least that requirement should have been publically identified upfront!]  They should then pass on further evidence to the 'n d a' if it is subsequently presented within a timescale suited to the ajudication process.  The same level of reasonableness should apply to 'n d a'

There should be transparency about any CWGC filtering and/or suggestion-making - Who/what/when/why/how etc.  There is no upfront report on methodology and or the amount of additional research or data/documents they and 'n d a' might be accessing and considering.  Just what do they have or can find that might perhaps also be within or outwith the public domain?

Target and/or at least approximate timelines should be offered to a submitter(s) for the process - they should not be left hanging in the dark.  Most professional organisations like to try and provide such indicative service level agreements [sla] - these should be reasonable and these need not be strictly binding but should be reasonably indicative [and of course could be altered according to a time-varying workload].

The 'n d a' should adjudicate and then pass back both the decison(s) and the rationale behind it - It should explain in detail how [one person or a panel etc.], the burden of proof required/encountered and why a case was accepted or rejected [present the evidence, especially any extra, they have considered] and offer info on potential further action/events regarding a commemoration or rejection. Nice to hear of an acceptance and what will follow.  In the case of a rejection it's very unclear if there is a right to an independant appeal process.  Without the case notes any potential appeal is very hard to establish.  Though not necessarily required for general public consumption [though it would be nice I think] such case notes really should be passed by to the presenter of a submission(s) - if for no other reason than to perhaps assist in making a further submission(s) capable of being accepted.

I feel that CWGC and 'n d a' must have an internal documented file(s) on such cases [surely as professional they must ??]

The CWGC should pass that ajudication and evidential and future process info back to the case submitter for information and/or potential further action based on the detailed feedback provided by the ajudicator(s) - e.g. funerals and/or other commemorations etc.  The 'n d a' might also/alternatively do this more directly to interested parties.

When making anouncements on accepted commemorations/updated commemorations the CWGC and 'n d a' should both be more upfront as to how the cases were brought to light/their attention and if an external submission was the source then they should identify it along the lines of "from a member of the public"' [family or other researcher], even by name 'from Joe/Jane Bloggs" [if it is acceptable to the presenter] or "from a historical research body" [or even by organisation's name e.g. "from In From The Cold Project"] etc. It certainly seems the impression currently given to me, and likely others here on this forum, is that the organisations are surreptitiously 'bigging up' their proactivity when I suggest a considerable amount of their work is brought to them with much of the research already done [I'm not saying they don't do any work as part of their professional duties - actually we can't tell how professional they might have been as we haven't been given a process or standard(s) against which we could reasonable audit them.  How professional is that?]

Come on, lets have some helpful transparency from both CWGC and 'n d a' - would likely make you look more professional and perhaps more efficient/effective in achiving your published goal(s).

Well that's my case for now.

Thoughts and discussions? - Not a problem for me.

M

Edited 6 October , 2022 by Matlock1418
typo - there is always one or more!

[PaulC78]

12 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

As CWGC are not the national ajudicators they should not act as a gate keeper but rather as a conduit and should pass on all cases presented to them to the relevant 'n d a'

Just an initial thought to what you've posted, but it seems to me that the CWGC are "gatekeepers" both by design and necessity. You cannot, as far as I'm aware, bypass them and appeal to the MoD directly; if you could then the CWGC would serve no purpose in this process. And if they didn't screen submissions and reject any that don't meet a certain standard, then the MoD could be swamped with cases that have no merit, and they seem to be struggling with things as they are now. I do agree with some of your other points, that these processes seem rather opaque and that due credit often seems to be lacking.

[jaykayu]

13 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

I've yet to be contacted about cases I have submitted and had accepted - I actually don't want my name published, but I would like to hear more - maybe I should wait longer. ??

M

Here's what waiting longer to hear more from the CWGC about a case entails, and it's not encouraging reading!

I have been following the CWGC announcements of rededication services since March this year for Great War British casualties. This lists a total of 43 cases whose rededication services will have taken place by 19 October.  For some of these there are posts on GWF or news online that reveal when the case was originally sent into CWGC, and so the total length of time a case takes from presentation of evidence to rededication service can be discovered.  This info enables estimates to be made on the average time each case takes, and the unique number each case is given by CWGC can increase the accuracy of this estimate. E.g. if the presentation date of a case is known, any lower case number must have been presented  earlier and vice versa.

Here's a summary of the 43 cases that will have had rededication services between March and 9 October.

• Average case length from submission of evidence to rededication service, 5 years 4 months.
• Shortest duration 3 years 0 months (this case was probably fast-tracked for the sake of efficiency so its rededication took place at same time as another case/rededication (duration 4 y 10m) at the same cemetery).
• Longest duration 10 years 6 months (2x very old cases numbered 12D & 12F)
• I estimate there will be approx. 60 rededications of British Great War servicemen this year

(*The Covid pandemic will have contributed to the above periods)

So we can include this info into a timeline of the typical communication that a researcher may receive from CWGC on a case for the identification of a current unknown serviceman's grave.

• Following initial submission to CWGC, the researcher will receive acknowledgement and a case number from CWGC one week after.
• CWGC review case and reject it or request for more evidence from the researcher, 2-3 years after submission OR
• CWGC review case, agree it 'has merit' and pass it on to MOD for review, 2-3 years after submission BUT NO COMMUNICATION MADE TO THE RESEARCHER 
• MOD review case and reject it or approve it,  2.5 - 3.5 years after submission.

To answer the question 'how long after presenting a case would a researcher currently have to wait before hearing its been approved?' Assuming it takes 12-18 months from case approval to the rededication service taking place, a researcher will have to wait approximately 3.5 years to hear their case is approved.

So for a new case a researcher submits today they will have to wait until 2025 or 2026 to hear it's been approved, and the rededication service will not take place until 2027/2028!  What's worse is that I believe the backlog of cases is increasing.

It's my understanding that the MOD (JCCC section) passes army cases to the National Army Museum. The work they do is good but unfortunately it appears there is still only one person who reviews the cases, which is just going to add yet more time to the above.  Details of their adjudication work is here on the The WFA site

My concern is for the families - people who's grandfather and great uncles are still missing  are not getting any younger and still carry the loss passed down to them from their relatives - I even know of a niece of soldier who attended his rededication ceremony in 2019!  You frequently read about their wishes to finally know what happened to their grandfather/great uncle etc after over a century.  It would be wonderful to give these people the news that their relative has at last been found whilst they are still with us and there's still time.

Is 5 years really the best that can be done? even with budget cuts etc!  including 3.5 years to look and verify written evidence!!  This is not scientific analysis of remains & DNA etc!

I hope CWGC/MOD etc are looking at how they can reduce the current 5 years it takes for a case to be completed and the family final stand at their relatives grave.

J

[Matlock1418]

7 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

Just an initial thought to what you've posted, but it seems to me that the CWGC are "gatekeepers" both by design and necessity. You cannot, as far as I'm aware, bypass them and appeal to the MoD directly; if you could then the CWGC would serve no purpose in this process.

Personally I think the CWGC should not be gatekeepers - they are about/for commemoration purposes.

The 'n d a' [MoD] could initially screen for themselves [if there was a will and action to give them the resources to implement] but at least there would be likely be a more common standard/approach etc. for this.

M

Edited 6 October , 2022 by Matlock1418
typo!

[PaulC78]

1 minute ago, Matlock1418 said:

Persoanlly I think the CWGC should not be gatekeepers - they are about/for commemoration purposes.

The 'n d a' [MoD] could initially screen for themselves [if there was a will and action to give them the resources to implement] but at least there would be likely be a more common standard/approach etc. for this.

Perhaps the "nda" don't have sufficient resources for this task. Not unreasonable that they would have the CWGC do it on their behalf. I don't agree that doing it themselves would make any appreciable difference.

[Matlock1418]

1 minute ago, PaulC78 said:

I don't agree that doing it themselves would make any appreciable difference.

I guess we differ a bit - but I've not got a high level of expectation either way at present [Except perhaps a long wait]

M

Edited 6 October , 2022 by Matlock1418

[Matlock1418]

12 minutes ago, jaykayu said:

Here's what waiting longer to hear more from the CWGC about a case entails, and it's not encouraging reading!

Thanks - Oh dear!

Not sure I have that much time left [I hope I do] - But I'd better prime my NoK for the good/bad news on my presented cases, [Just in case!].

Likewise think I it really is a terrible shame for the relatives of the fallen as so many will also be on a short lifeline [We are all on a reducing one - but for some things are likely to be more pressing].

M

[ss002d6252]

Quote

The WGAU always uses all the available sources to provide a full assessment of a case, as well as to be able to confirm other facts such as age at death, regimental particulars and, if it’s not already known, place of burial. 

Evidence suggests otherwise, with the number of cases where it's stated official documentary evidence 'could be wrong'.

Craig

[Matlock1418]

10 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

  Quote

The WGAU always uses all the available sources to provide a full assessment of a case, as well as to be able to confirm other facts such as age at death, regimental particulars and, if it’s not already known, place of burial. 

WGAU = War Grave Ajudication Unit - at the National Army Museum I believe.

All available sources ???

Full assessment ???

able to confirm other facts ???

If so - Where are its detailed findings published?  [Presenting decisions alone seems potentially very suspect, or at least might look so, as I have mentioned in my recent post above]

10 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

Evidence suggests otherwise, with the number of cases where it's stated official documentary evidence 'could be wrong'.

Would be interested to know how you obtained this "official documentary evidence 'could be wrong'"

Or are you quoting from our discussions about what CWGC have had to say in the past? [as copy posted elsewhere on GWF] Sounds so familiar and quite likely from an e-mail reply I've received from CWGC. !!! ???

M

[ss002d6252]

5 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Or are you quoting from our discussios about what CWGC have had to say in the past? [as copy posted elsewhere on GWF] Sounds so familiar and quite likely from an e-mail reply I've received from CWGC. !!! ???

Yes, that's what I mean. The stated point of considering all evidence is at odds with replies people have been given,

Craig

[Matlock1418]

On 06/10/2022 at 14:27, ss002d6252 said:

number of cases where it's stated official documentary evidence 'could be wrong'.

On 06/10/2022 at 14:54, ss002d6252 said:

The stated point of considering all evidence is at odds with replies people have been given,

This is an incredible explanation for non-commemoration.

I got this sort of response for a non-commemoration for a case of a man after short service in the UK being discharged with a respiratory condition, his pension file was initially marked as 'not eligible' but subsequently further marked 'probably tuberculosis', he got a disability pension, he died of tuberculosis [on his Death Certificate - obtained at my expense!] and his widow and child got a pensions and allowance.  Like much of the research and obtained at my expense were details of his grave and a visit to take a photograph to send  to CWGC!! [Not that CWGC would appear to recognise and acknowledge such expenses!] If the MoP as one of the guardians of national finances was prepared to accept liability and pay out on behalf of the nation then why won't the CWGC commemorate him? Why? - because apparently "the MoP made mistakes" [and rather unfortunately there was no document in black and white said specifically 'this man was discharged with tuberculosis from or aggravated by his service, got a pension for for it and should be commemorated by the IWGC"].  Such a poor 'excuse' cannot acceptable, nor be used willy-nilly.

If you go down that bland/blanket explanation route of "made mistakes", the War Office, Admiralty, Ministry of Pensions, General Register Office, Imperial War Graves Commission and Commonwealth War Graves Commission etc. etc. have all made mistakes, so nothing should be accepted as acceptable evidence from them = No more commemorations. ??? This is not logical or supportable or acceptable.

Nor the non-acceptance of circumstantial evidence/explanation as grounds for non-commemoration.  Nor is the non-acceptance of lack of specific documented evidence to be treated as an absolute impediment.  Criminal law juries across the country can and do use this sort of 'evidence' and also can use majority verdicts when it comes to 'beyond reasonable doubt' [and 'so far as is reasonable'] and 'on the balance of probabilities' in the civil law scenario.

Commemoration is not a criminal law process so the adjudication process should not be excessive in the manner with which it may be seen nowadays.

The absence of clear 'rules of engagement' and guidance and standards and processes etc. from CWGC etc and the lack of transparent detailed ajudications etc. is really a poor situation and a great frustration to me and clearly many others too.  And dreadful for the families of men and women who really ought to be commemorated in a timely manner before death overtakes them too.

The timescales currently experienced are certainly not really acceptable.

I hope matters can be changed and more men an women suitably commemorated, now and in the future - and more quickly.

But I don't want shoddy short-cuts either.

I live in hope of improvements before I also die. [Sooner improved the better. Sometime in the next 20 years or so! I hope!!]

M

Edited 7 October , 2022 by Matlock1418
typo

[PaulC78]

A disability pension is not part of the commemoration criteria. I can only comment on what you've posted above, but if your case lacked any clear evidence that death was related to wartime service then it's not surprising to me that it was turned down. The criteria are very specific. You may not like it, but you can't argue your way around it, and a different body making the decision won't necessarily give you the answer you're looking for.

Everyone makes mistakes, the CWGC's records are certainly full of them, but that only underlines the need to set a high bar when it comes to evidence and verifiability.

Regarding non-coms specifically rather than the identification of unknowns (I don't know to what extent these processes differ), I do know that NAM are no longer part of the process and cases are now handled by JCCC at MoD (for British Army cases, of course; other branches of the military handle their own). To what extent this makes a difference remains to be seen.

One final point with regards to the CWGC and adjudication, as I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong) they do handle civilian, merchant navy and other non-military cases directly.

[Matlock1418]

8 hours ago, PaulC78 said:

A disability pension is not part of the commemoration criteria. I can only comment on what you've posted above, but if your case lacked any clear evidence that death was related to wartime service then it's not surprising to me that it was turned down. The criteria are very specific. You may not like it, but you can't argue your way around it, and a different body making the decision won't necessarily give you the answer you're looking for.

Again we have to disagree, but your reply is welcomed and debate is healthy - a solo voice rarely provides discussion.

My case was offered to assist discussion and hopefully a bit more understanding, in the case presented, and more generally in the CWGC/''nda' adjudication system and its aftermath.

The first point is that CWGC commemorate if a man's/woman's death, during or after their service, was caused by/was attributable to their service - directly or by aggravation within a defined period.  According to the apparent system the 'nda' have to determine this but neither of theses parties seem to release much on what and why an outcome was reached = essentially very non-transparent on most of the process/ocutcome.

In the case I offered - if the MoP was satisfied 100+ years ago that his condition and subsequent death made the man and and his family eligible for pensions who are we to now suggest that the MoP got it wrong and his death was not caused by his service?  After all the MoP had essentially the same decision to make - was a man/woman disabled/dead because of his service? - and was an audited and accountable national body responsible for considerable national funds.

Sure there is no black and white historic document to immediately and irrefutably 'prove' eligibility [and if there was apparently it "could be wrong"] - must there be such a document?  Where does it say that there must be? [there is no published or definitive document on what constitutes the grounds for the documenting of a case] The point is that there still enough physical and circumstantial evidence to support the MoP's earlier decision and thus I think eligibility for commemoration.

By a counter stroke - Where is the historic documented evidence that supports the rejection?  There is not [known to me] to be any. 

The further point I make is that you & I and likely everyone else/most who is reading this does not know what went on behind the CWGC/'nda' closed doors. No report or account of their decision and the process by which it was arrived at has been publically made available = Totally non-transparent on process and decision making.  The same applies to many other decisions - accepted or rejected.

I would add that the process do not encourage or even allow active involvement by a submitter.  At least in a law court the case can be argued along the way.  CWGC/'nda' appear to have a one-shot approach and don't engage in any  further discussion/communication with a submitter - especially important in a case of potential rejection.  Why not?

The system appears broken or at least significantly handicapped by the current approach of the CWGC & 'nda'.  Sure they make decisions but such decisions should be fully open to scrutiny and appeal.  Their words of transparency and thoroughness appear to ring rather hollowly to me, and it seems to others too.

Lack of transparency seems to be being used as a potential shield for CWGC/'nda'.  It is not useful in the wider context of aspiring to get suitable commememorations [or to eliminate those that are not approriate]

Their claims that they cannot make 'subjective' judgements based on 'circumstantial' evidence is wrong too.  Why not?  Juries do so every day.  Obviously the more evidence, both physical and circumstantial, and the better cases are argued the better but at least they make judgements which are transparent in the presentation of evidence, can be reviewed and appealed.

Even in cases of poorly presented cases in their field the CWGC/'nda' are professional people [commonly versus amateurs] and should have access to better knowledge, skills and resources to develop the case investigation leading to their decisions.  Just how much original research and extra work do they do?  We don't know - because they are not transparent.

Really would be helpful if a wider discussion with CWGC etc could be engaged upon and improvements actually made - their current 'talk' doesn't seem enough.

But has anyone here got the conduit to them and hopefully to the road to that desirable outcome?

8 hours ago, PaulC78 said:

Regarding non-coms specifically rather than the identification of unknowns (I don't know to what extent these processes differ), I do know that NAM are no longer part of the process and cases are now handled by JCCC at MoD (for British Army cases, of course; other branches of the military handle their own). To what extent this makes a difference remains to be seen.

You may have the advantage of knowledge over me but really whoever the 'nda' is then there should be be more transparency etc.

8 hours ago, PaulC78 said:

One final point with regards to the CWGC and adjudication, as I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong) they do handle civilian, merchant navy and other non-military cases directly.

Likewise I don't know as I have never dived into those particular pools but would hope for transparency etc. there too.

Thoroughness, reasonableness and transparency upfront/during/after should be applied equally whichever route is taken - with proper engagement with the public and submitters, not just self-laudatory 'talk' and opaqueness.

M

Edited 7 October , 2022 by Matlock1418
The ususal - typos

[PaulC78]

I could pick apart some of the things you said above, but I'm not sure what you want to accomplish from this discussion besides venting your frustrations. Clearly you don't like the way things are done, and that's fine, but the rules aren't going to change simply to make you happy. Accept the system as it is and work within it, rather than trying to rage against it.

[Matlock1418]

8 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

I'm not sure what you want to accomplish from this discussion besides venting your frustrations.

Sure I am venting some of my frustration.

What do I want? - a way to get into CWGC/'nda' and get discussion and change.

Looking for a way in to try and achieve change/improvement.

9 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

Accept the system as it is and work within it, rather than trying to rage against it.

Not raging for the sake of it.

Change is always a possibility - and a worthy aspiration for things to improve.  Or should we stay in the 'dark ages'?

Trying to get some response that achieves the above.

But if CWGC/'nda' won't discuss/engage then how do you suggest we at least start a discussion with them?

M

[PaulC78]

Appeal to the CWGC directly? Change is good, and I'm sure most of us would agree that the CWGC could do better, but maybe narrow your focus to something specific and realistic. A lot of what you've posted amounts to a complete overhaul of the adjudication process, i.e. who makes decisons and how they are made, and I'm sorry but I think you're wasting your time even thinking about it. Decisions simply are not made the way you would like, and you must accept this. Greater transparency and more constructive feedback regarding rejections would certainly be an improvement, though.

[Matlock1418]

6 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

Appeal to the CWGC directly?

Have previously engaged in a brief e-mail discussion with their head of commemorations and then such exchanges were dropped by them. !!!  How next?

7 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

A lot of what you've posted amounts to a complete overhaul of the adjudication process, i.e. who makes decisons and how they are made,

Why not?

8 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

I'm sorry but I think you're wasting your time even thinking about it. Decisions simply are not made the way you would like, and you must accept this.

Why?

8 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

Greater transparency and more constructive feedback regarding rejections would certainly be an improvement, though.

Agreed!

M

[PaulC78]

Well, if you think a complete overhaul to suit your own way of thinking is both realistic and acheiveable, then I may as well just wish you luck and leave you to it. I certainly admire your spirit, but I fear that anything else I say would just fall on deaf ears.

[Matlock1418]

51 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

Well, if you think a complete overhaul to suit your own way of thinking is both realistic and acheiveable, then I may as well just wish you luck and leave you to it. I certainly admire your spirit, but I fear that anything else I say would just fall on deaf ears.

I appreciate your expression of "luck" but I think prior preparation and making a good case may have a lot to do with any approach to CWGC et al.  Of course good luck is always handy!

Not "on deaf ears" either but, though I think you would appreciate a change, I do rather get the impression that you are a possibly bit 'sticky' and perhaps overly tolerant of the current status quo. ??? 

I hope we are not falling out over this, well certainly not from my perspecitve as such discussions are helpful in learning and progressing such matters - and I very much hope you continue your good works.

However ... I also wonder what the lads in the trenches [the mud], in non-man's land [the blood] and in the advance to victory [the greenfields beyond] 100+ years ago might might have thought about unchanging tactics and now scenarios such as this. And nowadays what their relatives might think. I think I might anticipate their likely answers.

Surely an attempt to engage in discussion and to implement some change(s) should be made in their memory and for their relatives.

Not sure about leaving it all to me - Would you be behind a 'Big Push'?

In an assault numbers are important - Other members' ideas and positions also sought.

M

Edited 7 October , 2022 by Matlock1418

[PaulC78]

44 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

I hope we are not falling out over this

Not at all, just a difference of opinion! I just don't see all of the problems you see, and I'm not convinced they are really there.

[dickaren]

Another annoying thing (for me) about CWGC is they do not regularly update the list of ID and mis ID cases, the last time being June 2021.

Richard

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, PaulC78 said:

Not at all, just a difference of opinion!

 That's fine by me. 

1 hour ago, dickaren said:

Another annoying thing (for me) about CWGC is they do not regularly update the list of ID and mis ID cases, the last time being June 2021.

Annoys/frustrates me too! 

Part of their need for more transparency about what has historically been decided [notably in terms on non-commemoration situations] and what is currently going on in terms of case reviews.

M

[PRC]

16 hours ago, PaulC78 said:

The criteria are very specific. You may not like it, but you can't argue your way around it, and a different body making the decision won't necessarily give you the answer you're looking for.

Paul,

Totally respect your point of view, and have certainly worked in the past for government bodies where I had to follow the law and the interpretative guidance. Wherever you set the criteria there will be what appear to deserving cases will fall on the wrong side, and poor cases will fall on the right side. Many of my colleagues spent more time in front of appeals boards and in courts explaining their decisions than actually doing their day job - which incidentally left a massive backlog for everyone else, generating additional work dealing with enquiries from the individuals concerned, but also MP's and Ministers, and created a lot of ill-will both internally and externally towards the Department.

I may have been lucky but in the thousands of decisions I made, I only had two appeals. One came from someone who could start an argument in an empty room, if you said day he said night, etc, etc, and who didn't turn up on the day. The other one I actually her asked to appeal because she was suffering and I was incensed that her "good" case fell on the wrong side of those "strict" criteria through no fault of her own. I put her in contact with the best advocate I knew and encouraged her to take it all the way. The government changed the law about nine months later but by then she was dead.

Why did I have so few appeals? It certainly wasn't because I rolled over and just gave away public funds on an 'anything for a quiet life' basis. But when I was going to make decisons people wouldn't like I'd offer to meet them first, explain what the law said, explain what the guidance on the law said, laid out the facts I had to make a decision on and (briefly) laid out my reasoning for coming to the decision I was going to formally make. Very, very few people gave me additional information that would cause me to change my mind, I can't think of a single instance where someone asked for a follow up meeting to challenge me on the detail, and I got to spend more time on my day job.

Long story but in one word it was down to communication.

At the moment the CWGC are like too many of my old civil service colleagures - and btw, I worked with plenty like that in the private sector as well.

The system probably doesn't need to change - it's the ethos. I suspect like my old civil service colleagues they worry that if they communicate it will just generate more work. The grim reality is that I suspect a lot of their workload is caused by individuals chasing previous enquiries, and them chasing up other like minded parts of the system. (The uncharitable viewpoint is that parts of the process are hiding how little value they add).

The tools are probably all there. In my last e-commerce type job we had a common database that the customer facing website would go away and look up. It was full of information we would never want the end customer to see - our purchase prices, triggers for discounts, warehouse stocks levels, installer availability, re-stock levels, fault levels, etc, etc. The webform that the customer filled in when placing an order was written to only query the information we wanted them to see - unit price, availability, self-install or install, etc, etc. As a belt and braces the internal facing data fields were also locked down to reject enquiries that originated from the public web in case someone screwed up when re-writing the webform. BTW - the database was nothing flashier than an Excel spreadsheet with macro's!

If the CWGC don't have such a tracking system in this day and age I would be very surprised. The system could be automated to generate reports as needed - probably daily, and auto-feed the CWGC website. One for non-comms, one for identifications \ mis-identifications and we'd all be a lot happier. If that system told me that each of the seven cases I'd submitted was with the JCCC since xx/xx/xx it would still be a massive advance. A short description of next steps would be brilliant - specialist input on medical record \ retrieval of specific documentation would seem good reasons for it not moving on, and a date of follow-up.

And being selfish and looking at my seven cases, they are all in essence identical. Men discharged with tuberculosis  - as documented by the Army - caused or aggravated by service according to the Army in all but one case. The one case, and I know this thanks to Terry but not the CWGC, is the one case that has so far made it through the system and been accepted. The Army diagnosed but refuted the caused or aggravated side. It took two appeals, one supported by his MP, (how little things change!), before the Ministry of Pensions agreed it was aggravated. By the time the formal award came through that man was dead.

So it would seem in that case the Ministry of Pensions decison is good enough for the CWGC & the JCCC to accept him as a non-com.

If that's acceptable the others should be a doddle from the CWGC side. They served in the right strict criteria time period, they were discharged with tuberculosis caused or aggravated by service, they died from tuberculosis in the strict criteria time period. Should be a rubber stamp - not just me but possibly a number of other cases going through the system. It's not seven different decisions but the same decision seven times. Fast track those through and there would be more time to look at the complex cases where maybe the JCCC could value add.

Everytime I buy a death certificate I have to give it serious consideration on my income level - so if actually the CWGC were to turn round and say thoses cases were accepted or rejected it would really help me. I have at least 5 more to purchase, and working through the Silver War Badge records of the Norfolk Regiment I may potentially have many more.

I'm happy to work within the system - however struggling to see why these sorts of ethos and communication changes shouldn't be either cost neutral or actually generate a saving. In cases like the tuberculosis ones above it should even be possible I would have thought for the JCCC to give the CWGC a template set of criteria to weed out the no-brainer cases to accept, speeding up the process even more. And don't even get me started on crowd-sourcing, even if in the first instance they only looked at a pre-submission vetting process involving individuals here and elsewhere with both a high submission rate and a high acceptance rate.

There is a internal business case here begging to be written, showing how the commission can deliver more for less.

So on the basis of speaking truth unto power, is this something perhaps the IFCP could take up? How close are your ties organisationally to the CWGC?

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 7 October , 2022 by PRC
Typos

[jaykayu]

3 hours ago, dickaren said:

Another annoying thing (for me) about CWGC is they do not regularly update the list of ID and mis ID cases, the last time being June 2021.

Richard

Indeed Richard.

I asked Commemorations at CWGC in August this year and was told 'that their website was undergoing a review and so it will be sometime before the page is updated'

[Matlock1418]

@PRC a good post. 

21 minutes ago, jaykayu said:

was told 'that their website was undergoing a review and so it will be sometime before the page is updated'

 Communication without effective communication!

I've had similar - but I'm none the wiser.  

M

Edited 7 October , 2022 by Matlock1418