Pte 66720 Harold Wolstencroft Royal Welsh Fusils

[8055Bell]

Harold Wolstencroft enlisted on 01/03/1916 and evidently served at home until his discharge on 05/11/1917.  He received a pension for TB of lung Aggravated by service.  Harold died on 12/01/1921, aged 26.  He is buried at Hollinwood Cemetery.  The son of Mary Ann Wolstencroft of 727 Oldham Road, Bardsley, Ashton U Lyne.

In my experience, most discharges with TB of lung have the same cause of death.  @Hywyn ?

Edited 5 January , 2023 by 8055Bell
Correcting No. TY M

[Matlock1418]

Small typo [66729] - WFA/Fold3 pension records have number as 66720, RWF

33 minutes ago, 8055Bell said:

In my experience, most discharges with TB of lung have the same cause of death. 

Agreed, but that doesn't make them any easier to get commemorated without a good military paper trail too.

Ex-service TB victims certainly are a great challenge. [Even with a DC, which would be essential if a case was ever to be submitted]

40 minutes ago, 8055Bell said:

The son of Mary Ann Wolstencroft of 727 Oldham Road, Bardsley, Ashton U Lyne.

She received a dependant's pension under the Royal Warrant, Art 21, 18/- pw from19/1/21 - suggesting service had helped contribute to her son's death

Again hard to use MoP alone, or with a DC, unless supported by military paperwork.

The MoP seemed to be much more accepting back then [likely with more paperwork to hand] than CWGC/JCCC these days [with such sparse documents] - puzzles me why CWGC/JCCC now seem to think the MoP got it all so wrong as guardians/dispensers of public monies 100 years ago. ???

M

[8055Bell]

Thanks M,

We have recently seen cases accepted based on the WFA Card notation of agg / attrid / comm - so long as there are no contradictions in other records.  I accept that the DC is needed to establish cause of death.  Hopefully a MGC expert with take an interest.

Number updated.  Eyes of fat fingers fail me...

Tim

[Matlock1418]

2 hours ago, 8055Bell said:

We have recently seen cases accepted based on the WFA Card notation of agg / attrid / comm - so long as there are no contradictions in other records.  I accept that the DC is needed to establish cause of death. 

I accept there certainly needs to be no contradiction = but would suggest CWGC/JCCC now seem to require actual positive confirmation from other/military paperwork - so in the absence of other/military paperwork or in absence of positive confirmation from other/military records then MoP and DC [even together] will not seem to suffice,

=  ??? 

M

[8055Bell]

Hi M,

Take a look at Sgt 1785 Albert Edward Hall of the Manchesters.  The case was approved from the WFA Card that states the TB was Agg.  No service or pension record.  We had another case sent back where the pension record allegedly didn't substantiate the cause of death - where the Pension Award was very feint and I believe states Pul Tuberculosis, the same as the WFA Card.

If Harold was a Manchesters case, I'd be ordering the DC.

Tim

Edited 5 January , 2023 by 8055Bell

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, 8055Bell said:

Take a look at Sgt 1785 Albert Edward Hall of the Manchesters.  The case was approved from the WFA Card that states the TB was Agg.  No service of pension record. 

Don't know when you achieved this but I'd be very surprised if had only been from a pension index card & pension ledger and a DC - never the less I'm pleased he is commemorated  

Edit: I note from GWF - he seems to have been commemorated 29.10.22 and another IFCP success. 

1 hour ago, 8055Bell said:

If Harold was a Manchesters case, I'd be ordering the DC.

Based on my own recent case experiences and replies from CWGC [to subsequent my challenges of CWGC/JCCC decisions] I probably would not be ordering if only a MoP ledger/cards to support/prompt a DC application.

Of course - Different folks, different strokes [and I too have rules from above to be obeyed  and don't have the spare cash either!]

M

Edited 5 January , 2023 by Matlock1418
edit

[8055Bell]

I saw a recent approval (to remain nameless & not IFCP) where a man died from TB and the pension record said that the TB sputum test was negative before discharge.  Evidently there was a susccesful argument that the sputum test must have been iinacurate.  I wouidn't have taken the case forward on a number of counts.

Tim

Edited 5 January , 2023 by 8055Bell

[Matlock1418]

Just now, 8055Bell said:

I saw a recent approval (to remain nameless) where a man died from TB and the pension record said that the TB sputum test was negative before discharge.  Evidently there was a susccesful argument that the sputum test must have been iinacurate. 

In this particular case there must have been other evidence to hand to support [one would hope!] - unfortunately without being privy to the application and evaluation at CWGC/JCCC it is hard for me/others to evaluate.

Wish CWGC/JCCC would be more publically-transparent so that subsequent enquirers can better understand their decision-making - both as a recent past/current general process and for individual cases.

Or because of the above, perhaps it rather suggests there is possibly a degree of 'lottery' on how these cases are viewed at CWGC/JCCC ???

Hey ho!

M

[PaulC78]

1 hour ago, Matlock1418 said:

Based on my own recent case experiences and replies from CWGC [to subsequent my challenges of CWGC/JCCC decisions] I probably would not be ordering if only a MoP ledger/cards to support/prompt a DC application.

There was some concern last year that cases relying on pension cards may be problematic, but the recent wave of new commemorations has largely shown that this is not the case. Of course, decisions will always depend on the particulars of an indivdual case, and perhaps also on the person reviewing it.

23 hours ago, 8055Bell said:

In my experience, most discharges with TB of lung have the same cause of death.

That's been my experience too, although emphasis on the "most" - I've certainly had my fingers burned a few times!

[Matlock1418]

18 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

There was some concern last year that cases relying on pension cards may be problematic, but the recent wave of new commemorations has largely shown that this is not the case. Of course, decisions will always depend on the particulars of an indivdual case, and perhaps also on the person reviewing it.

Hmm. 

That sounds possibly a hopeful/helpful development - but unfortunately CWGC/JCCC don't seem to publicise an Appeals process, nor do they seem to encourage a renewed look at/re-evaluation of existing/previously-provided evidence, seeming to always want more/new evidence = they seem to wish to thwart a reconsideration and/or want to start the clock again anew.

I have been lead to believe by CWGC that decisions are made by a panel - but I have no evidence either way as to the veracity of that suggestion.  And have no idea on how such a panel might work/agree a decison, unanimously or by majority?

And unfortunately no decent feedback on how any negative/unsuccessful decision was arrived at, by individual members and/or collectively = hardly helps us in understanding their process and the evaluation of our evidence provided and our case presentations.

= ???

M