Sapper Keith Hays - 13th Field Company Australian Engineers

[dickaren]

I agree with Jay about all points and am willing to join a group or as an individual. I think the single rededication figure for this year despite the enormous backlog of cases would appeal to the press!! 

Richard

[andrew pugh]

Hi 

From what i understand there is only one person working on all these cases at the NAM. So there is a bottleneck there. This thread seems to have made me realise just how many folks feel the same. I wonder if any of our Commonwealth folks from Canada ,Australia, New Zealand have the same issues when trying to present cases to the C W G C?

Kind Regards

Andy

[Simon Birch]

This is not the final draft - but some text that Andy Pugh and I have put together for sending to Ben Wallace MP. We would appreciate any thoughts etc.

 

Dear Mr Wallace,

We seek your assistance within your capacity as a Commissioner within the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, into a consistently troubling and increasingly frustrating aspect of their responsibilities.

As you are aware many of the fallen during both World Wars could not be identified at the time of their burial, and so their grave stones commemorate them using an inscription such as ‘A British soldier – known unto God.’ There exists in this country a small number of historians and private researchers who use modern resources in an attempt to give a name to those unknown serviceman. This work is unpaid, long in hours, and more likely than not it will fail, as sufficient evidence cannot be harvested from the available resources.

However, sometimes a formal case can be written up and presented to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, who would issue a case number. They will review it and decide if enough evidence exists to warrant putting the serviceman’s name on a new headstone. Eventually the case would end up with the reviewing authority and finally the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre.

Many cases started with the Commission sharing an excel sheet detailing information such as where the soldier was initially found before burial, and what, if anything, was found with him that could be used to identify him. Small but important clues. Unfortunately the Commission refuses to share those sheets any more, which is such a shame because they were so often the foundations used to build a case.

While this has never been a quick process in the last five years the wait for an answer has become ridiculous. A few days ago the case of Sapper Keith Hays was approved, almost seven years after it was presented. A wait of five years is the norm. Once presented the original researcher loses sight of the case. It has proved impossible to trace where a case is within the system. In 2021 the Commission published an excel sheet detailing all the cases it had received and their current status. While the sheet was published to try and avoid a duplication, it was handy to be able to see exactly where a case currently sat within the system. The sheet has never publicly been updated since, so no researchers outside the Commission have any idea where their cases currently sit.

It has increasing become difficult to find a contact within the Commission who could update us on the status of our cases. Even getting a case number is problematic. A single, knowledgeable, point of contact would be so helpful, yet it remains elusive.

As researchers we are more than happy to spend our time, effort and often money to do these cases, even though for every ten you investigate only one may get to completion. We do not seek a medal or even thanks, because the end result of giving a man his name back is important to us; however, we do think that the organisation charged with the commemoration of our war dead is increasingly failing it its duty of care to the countries fallen. Small changes, spending little time or money, would make all of the difference and further encourage, rather than the current discourage our efforts to give a man his name back.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

[Matlock1418]

19 hours ago, Simon Birch said:

This is not the final draft - but some text that Andy Pugh and I have put together for sending to Ben Wallace MP. We would appreciate any thoughts etc.

ATTENTION all members: If you are, or have been, a staff officer and/or have Defence Writing under your belt I think you could be valuable in helping draft a template here please

Not criticising the above in any way [as of course each to their own style] - just making observations and suggestions.

1] I think you/we need to put your/our objectives and the benefits right up front [To immediately hook the reader]

2] I also think there needs to be early reference to newly-identified/previously non-commemorated cases and not just newly-identified unknown/'Known unto God' casualties.

The military [so likely to include RSA and JCCC, possibly CWGC] and I think the likes of Mr. Wallace, and other CWGC Commissioner MPs perhaps, will like a BLUF [Bottom Line Up Front] approach - with requirements at the start and the explanations afterwards.

Not how many civvies would do this.  We can often be quite sequential from background and leading to our conclusion & requirements - but this does not seem to wash well with the miltary and I would suggest nor with top business & organisational leaders and busy politicians.  They want to cut to the chase and apparently nowadays it frequently seems they can't read the traditional 'bottom line'!

The military also like all paragraphs to be numbered and sub-ranked etc., though I am not neccessarily suggesting that here, but I do think objectives etc. should be itemised by number so as to aid response and implementation.

I am not good at so formulating [but see what I did up front] though I think the object requirements need to be clearly specified from the outset.  Get your/our requirement(s) right in their faces [and they can then read the rest should they be so-minded and/or to pass onto other to respond and implement, we hope]

E.g.

Dear Mx Xxxxxxxxxxx,

I/We trust, [or believe/hope/or something similar] in your capacity as a CWGC Commissioner,  you can assist me/us and others achieve positve change at/improvement of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission [CWGC] [I don't use "write to you" or "approach you" because if you have sent a letter or e-mail then that is self evident.  I use "trust" and similarly "positve change/improvement" as potentially more motivating than just hoping - I'm trusting they won't want to be seen as incapable of making a positive difference and/or anything static or negative and so they might actually get on with positively pursuing things]

I/We trust [or believe/hope/or something similar] that there can and should [or must/ought to be/or something similar] quickly, not eventually sometime, be established/implemented by the CWGC, relevant service authorities [RSA] and the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre [JCCC] for publicly-presented newly identified Unknown/'Known unto God' casualty cases and for new/previously non-commemorated casualty cases:

1. a direct and ongoing updated communication system with case presenters from CWGC - from the outset starting with a swift case reference number by e-mail from CWGC, then progression updates to/from RSA and then JCCC and then return to CWGC and back to case presenter
2. a dedicated CWGC telephone and/or e-mail address for case presenters to follow their case(s) and/or to offer further evidence should it have been discovered since original submission(s) etc. [I suppose we might even explain it/they might also be an appropriate way to withdraw a case and/or to offer up linkage between related submissions]
3. I/We believe [or know if you can cost accurately] these will be cost-effective measures that would increase efficiency and benefit CWGC, RSA & JCCC and would gain them positive public support and further useful engagement.
4. Etc ...

Because at present ... ... ...

Plenty of positive 'buzz words' in there.  Keep your language/terms consistent 

Clearly more objectives and details can be added.

I think I have, above, tried to get the important part at the start of each point [lest their interest wanes and they skip to the next point]

Try to keep on the front foot and pressing positively forward [i.e. don't appear wish-washy, weak, negative in your position and/or easily deflected].

Only comment negatively on CWGC performance when we can see/offer an improving solution - we are not just whingers, but part of the solution to challenges.

As we are - We want to help CWGC to find solutions & to make progress and to support their raison d'etre.

And as my last point - I wouldn't make any 'threats' in an opening approach [e.g. about adverse media or public exposure] - but perhaps for later if things don't move forward positively or expeditiously ?? Likely enhancement of public opinion should be enough of a mention at this stage.

Just some of my, now expanded, thoughts. I hope no offence caused to anyone.

M

Edit:  Apologies: Before my tweak I previously only referred to the National Army Museum [due to my interests and feeling that they are the most challenged relevant service authority] - Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Air Historical branches too as relevant service authorities and such relevant service authorities from other nations should have been mentioned too. 

Edited 24 August , 2023 by Matlock1418
Tweak & Edit and of course the habitual typo

[Simon Birch]

Interesting points; am going to mull it over tonight and chat with Andy tomorrow.

l appreciate your thoughts though!

Simon

[jaykayu]

Really encouraging to see all the above contributions.

My suggestions for inclusion in the letter are;  

It should mention all the authorities, not just CWGC.

No single authority - CWGC, MOD/JCCC or their sub contractors such as the National Army Museum etc is likely to be solely responsible for all the lack of communication and delay. 

My understanding is that CWGC are administrators and the point of contact for a submitted case, plus facilitators of the rededication ceremony and amending the headstone & records to show the newly identified grave.  (As such they are clearly bad at administration and communication!)

MOD/JCCC are responsible for approving/rejecting the submitted evidence, but have been sub contracting this for Army cases to The National Army Museum, where just one person was reviewing the evidence.  If this person is still at NAM it appears more resource is needed. if no one is now in this role why not?.  Clearly the situation is so bad there has to be collective responsibility for all these authorities in allowing this situation to deteriorate so much. Including all the authorities will show our knowledge of the process, and such accuracy throughout the letter will not invite any criticism or pushback.

Include examples of other cases that took over 5 years which had rededication services during 2022/23, Illustrating that this is now the norm and not just a blip. (I have examples, plus detail of three cases in progress where the CWGC confirmed - when they did communicate - that they still hadn't looked at them 2 years and 4 months after receiving them, and these  then had to go to JCCC/NAM for thorough review)

Lack of resources is likely to be an excuse used by the Authorities in their response .  Answer this when it comes by suggesting more use of volunteers, either individuals, or organisation such as museums (the MOD will use museums for research) or the WFA etc. 

I believe that one letter to the MPs carrying as many names (contact details) as possible of researchers/ interested parties will be the most efficient and carry the most weight.  

Jay

[Andrew P]

On 23/08/2023 at 17:12, andrew pugh said:

Hi 

From what i understand there is only one person working on all these cases at the NAM. So there is a bottleneck there. This thread seems to have made me realise just how many folks feel the same. I wonder if any of our Commonwealth folks from Canada ,Australia, New Zealand have the same issues when trying to present cases to the C W G C?

Kind Regards

Andy

Andy

When we first started putting cases in Australia around 2014 we went through the Office of Australian War Graves who then dealt with CWGC, though we still had email access with Dave Avery, Nik and others at CWGC who were deciding on the cases. From about 2017, the process slightly changed and the Australian cases went through the Unrecovered War Casualties section of the Australian Army, who 'should' be the final decision maker on Australian cases as they have the historic and battle knowledge. But it means that our submissions ARE going through two separate different checks by UWC and the CWGC. So cases are five or six years old by the time they get approved or rejected. That time period seems to be the norm for British cases also. At the current rate of approval, can see this time period stretching out quite a bit.

In 2015 our submissions were being decided upon quickly. I think the fastest one was two weeks and even the longer ones were only a couple of months. Unfortunately over the last few years I don't think we have had a case decided upon within five years of submitting it.

I only know of three Australian cases approved this year.

CWGC Case No.532 Private Hayes (info at beginning of thread)

CWGC Case No.587 Sapper Hook - Vignacourt Cemetery

CWGC Case No.684 Pte Thoroughgood - Heath Cemetery

Cheers

Edited 25 August , 2023 by Andrew P

[Matlock1418]

I think matters at CWGC are getting steadily worse.

In the past when you sent in an e-mail they would regularly send an acknowledgement reply:

Thank you for contacting the Enquiries Team at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Our commitment in responding to your enquiry in full is 20 working days, however due to the complexity of some requests the response times may be longer.

Earlier today, for a simple e-mail sent to correct an online commemoration name based on their own Grave Register record [supported by a GRO birth registration reference - maybe that was my mistake ??], I got the above reply ... and then second e-mail with the following:

Many thanks for contacting the Customer Services team at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

I have forwarded your enquiry to our Commemorations team, but I would like to inform you that we have received a considerable increase in the number of cases submitted to us. I would however like to assure you that the Commemorations team are looking into your enquiry and will contact you in due course.

Thank you for your patience and your shared commitment to ensuring the correct and fitting commemoration of those who served.

Of course there was no named person on either of the e-mails [as would be general good business practice] so a challenge to reapproach - and it would appear to fudge the accountability for this second e-mail and this approach.  I now wait with interest as to how long it will take them to further reply.

If they are doubling up and refering for simple requests no wonder they take so long with more detailed reidentification and non-comm cases. 

M

Edit: Perhaps the CWGC customer service/enquiries team alway previously sent such e-mails to Commemorations [and didn't tell us] and now they are entering a new phase/period of better 'stepped' communications with such case presenters ???  Shame the SLA seems to have gone all fuzzy.

Edited 26 August , 2023 by Matlock1418
edit

[Matlock1418]

On the matter of who to write to I know it has been mentioned that CWGC Commissioner MPs would be a good bet, and I agree - See: https://www.cwgc.org/who-we-are/our-commissioners - However why not individually target all the CWGC Commissioners? {Individually addressed e-mails]

Don't forget this includes:

• HRH The DUKE OF KENT KG GCMG GCVO ADC (P), President of the CWGC Commission

Probably using an early heading/mention of "For the personal attention of XXXXXXXXX as President/Chairman/Commissioner" [as appropriate] at the CWGC's own contact e-mail address = enquiries@cwgc.org

[Of course these might get intercepted/diverted by any potential CWGC filtering]

As for the current MP Commissioners, here are their parliamentary e-mails:

• The Rt Hon BEN WALLACE MP, Chairman of the CWGC Commission = wallaceb@parliament.uk
• The Rt Hon DAME DIANA JOHNSON, MP DBE, CWGC Commissioner =  johnsond@parliament.uk 
• The Rt Hon PHILIP DUNNE MP, CWGC Commissioner = philip.dunne.mp@parliament.uk

[Won't get intercepted/diverted by any potential CWGC filtering!]

M

Edited 26 August , 2023 by Matlock1418

[dickaren]

Just checking the date in your draft is correct regarding Keith Hays. Case number 544 submission dated 14/11/16, I submitted case 514 in December 2018?.

Happy for my name to be added - Richard Lambert

[LDT006]

Looks very good and addresses most of my issues with CWGC. Will sign it.

41 minutes ago, jaykayu said:

it currently takes CWGC over two years to look at

That can be changed to +4 years, have emails to confirm if needed.

But there are some errors:

43 minutes ago, jaykayu said:

Lieutenant Harold Rymer Smith.

The case is accepted and ceremony took place last year.

44 minutes ago, jaykayu said:

William Wallace Hutton

This is one of my cases and the ceremony was earlier this year.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/remains-of-world-war-1-airman-finally-identified

Luc.

 

[jaykayu]

1 hour ago, dickaren said:

Just checking the date in your draft is correct regarding Keith Hays. Case number 544 submission dated 14/11/16, I submitted case 514 in December 2018?.

Happy for my name to be added - Richard Lambert

Many thanks Richard.

Andrew P at the start of this thread says that the the case for Keith Hays was submitted in November 2016. I wondered about the number too. I don't know if because Hays was Australian and the case was sent to Australian War Graves first that this caused it to have a later CWGC number out of sequence ?  

Jay

[jaykayu]

2 hours ago, LDT006 said:

Looks very good and addresses most of my issues with CWGC. Will sign it.

That can be changed to +4 years, have emails to confirm if needed.

But there are some errors:

The case is accepted and ceremony took place last year.

This is one of my cases and the ceremony was earlier this year.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/remains-of-world-war-1-airman-finally-identified

Luc.

 

Hi Luc.

Thanks for your agreement and feedback.

I included your Hutton case as it is a great example of a case taking a long time - 6 years & 5 months..  I noted you posting about it here  and included that it was submitted in December 2016,  

I will check Harold Rymer Smith

Jay

[thetrenchrat22]

On the CWGC case list is 450 

which relates too 

Captain Frederick Arthur J. Robertson Brooke, this was accepted by the JCCC back in February 2023

the case before that is 449 Private George Galloway is apparently is still with the National Army Museum 

I submitted the case of George Galloway back in early 2018.  
 

the only reason why I know, it’s still sitting with the NAM, is that I’m in private message with David Tattersfield who is a member of this forum and asked him to make an general enquiry about cases around his case.  
 

alan 

[thetrenchrat22]

On the CWGC case list is 450 

which relates too 

Captain Frederick Arthur J. Robertson Brooke, this was accepted by the JCCC back in February 2023

the case before that is 449 Private George Galloway is apparently is still with the National Army Museum 

I submitted the case of George Galloway back in early 2018.  
 

the only reason why I know, it’s still sitting with the NAM, is that I’m in private message with David Tattersfield who is a member of this forum and asked him to make an general enquiry about cases around his case.  
 

the message from David is as follows 

David

No problem, Mr Gregson is one of our frequent researchers.

 

Those two cases are currently sat with NAM but we are hoping that they may be completed next year. Whilst we do try and do ID cases in number order there are several reasons why sometimes cases move ahead of the running order. If they are Second World War cases there may be close family alive. We also look for groups by regiment so that we can complete several with the same regiment in one week. The Army especially is very stretched at the moment with the situation in Ukraine, so efficiency with their time is very important.

 

To some degree we are still in the recovery from Covid process. 2022 was focussed on completing ID cases delayed due to Covid, this year we are finally getting results from DNA testing, which was also delayed due to Covid, so we are focussed on burials. In the case of Captain Brooke, as you know, we were intending to tie the service in with the burial of Private Malcolm RAMC in May, that is why ID 450 has moved slightly ahead.

 

Regards,

 

Rosie Barron

 

alan 

[LDT006]

8 hours ago, jaykayu said:

I included your Hutton case as it is a great example of a case taking a long time - 6 years & 5 months..  I noted you posting about it here  and included that it was submitted in December 2016,  

I will check Harold Rymer Smith

The ceremony for Hutton was planned in June 2022 but postponed because the family couldn't attend. So it's "only" 5 years and 7 months.
My memory seems to fail more often, the date for HR Smith is correct.

There is another issue that you might add: The documents relating to unknowns are no longer online. This happened several years ago when the open cases list was introduced (if I remember correctly).

Luc.

[Andrew P]

10 hours ago, jaykayu said:

Many thanks Richard.

Andrew P at the start of this thread says that the the case for Keith Hays was submitted in November 2016. I wondered about the number too. I don't know if because Hays was Australian and the case was sent to Australian War Graves first that this caused it to have a later CWGC number out of sequence ?  

Jay

Hi Jay and all

There were probably delays with the Australian cases being assigned case numbers back then as when the Hays case was initially submitted, Office of Australian War Graves would look through it to see if it was worthy to be submitted to CWGC however at this time in 2017 Unrecovered War Casualties of the Australian Army became the agency, the Australian cases would go through. The sapper Hays case was re-sent by us to UWC in 2017 as no case number had been received for Hays after it was submitted to OAWG in 2016 so it appeared it was never sent on to CWGC. Once it was resubmitted through Unrecovered War Casualties, we received the case number for it.

Cheers

[jaykayu]

15 hours ago, thetrenchrat22 said:

On the CWGC case list is 450 

which relates too 

Captain Frederick Arthur J. Robertson Brooke, this was accepted by the JCCC back in February 2023

the case before that is 449 Private George Galloway is apparently is still with the National Army Museum 

I submitted the case of George Galloway back in early 2018.  
 

the only reason why I know, it’s still sitting with the NAM, is that I’m in private message with David Tattersfield who is a member of this forum and asked him to make an general enquiry about cases around his case.  
 

the message from David is as follows 

David

No problem, Mr Gregson is one of our frequent researchers.

 

Those two cases are currently sat with NAM but we are hoping that they may be completed next year. Whilst we do try and do ID cases in number order there are several reasons why sometimes cases move ahead of the running order. If they are Second World War cases there may be close family alive. We also look for groups by regiment so that we can complete several with the same regiment in one week. The Army especially is very stretched at the moment with the situation in Ukraine, so efficiency with their time is very important.

 

To some degree we are still in the recovery from Covid process. 2022 was focussed on completing ID cases delayed due to Covid, this year we are finally getting results from DNA testing, which was also delayed due to Covid, so we are focussed on burials. In the case of Captain Brooke, as you know, we were intending to tie the service in with the burial of Private Malcolm RAMC in May, that is why ID 450 has moved slightly ahead.

 

Hi Alan

Thanks very much for sharing the info about the two cases, and also the response from the JCCC which gives some great insight.  

Can you confirm that the JCCC comment where they hope that  'they (=cases) may be completed next year',  the next year refers to 2024 please?   If so it means that your George Galloway case (No. 449) which you submitted early 2018 will have a duration of 6 years 4 months (assuming submission in February 2018 and a rededication service in April 2024). 

Interesting details about why cases 'jump ahead' of the numerical order, and why the focus is on burials this year rather than rededication services.

Overall this confirms what we know already - average case durations will continue to increase from the current 5 years & 5 months!  Plus the reasons given above for the long case durations are what was expected and doesn't change that the process could be more efficient and quicker.

Thanks again

Jay

[jaykayu]

14 hours ago, LDT006 said:

The ceremony for Hutton was planned in June 2022 but postponed because the family couldn't attend. So it's "only" 5 years and 7 months.
My memory seems to fail more often, the date for HR Smith is correct.

There is another issue that you might add: The documents relating to unknowns are no longer online. This happened several years ago when the open cases list was introduced (if I remember correctly).

Luc.

Thanks again for the info Luc.

Do you or anyone else have an example of 'The documents relating to unknowns'.  It's not something I am aware of and so would be good to understand.

Cheers

Jay

14 hours ago, Andrew P said:

Hi Jay and all

There were probably delays with the Australian cases being assigned case numbers back then as when the Hays case was initially submitted, Office of Australian War Graves would look through it to see if it was worthy to be submitted to CWGC however at this time in 2017 Unrecovered War Casualties of the Australian Army became the agency, the Australian cases would go through. The sapper Hays case was re-sent by us to UWC in 2017 as no case number had been received for Hays after it was submitted to OAWG in 2016 so it appeared it was never sent on to CWGC. Once it was resubmitted through Unrecovered War Casualties, we received the case number for it.

Cheers

Hi Andrew,  Thanks for the explanation.

[LDT006]

Jay,

attached is a PDF with some examples. It has the link to the document and date of download.
All GRRF and Burial Return documents were available, now the pages with only UBS soldiers are gone. I am 100% sure of this because I used to mark the concentrated rows on the cemetery plan and then verified that I had all burial return sheets.
I am not sure that all Special Exhumation Reports were online but there were a lot relating to unknowns, now all these are gone.

It was possible to get a copy of these missing docs from CWGC but they said that it didn't exist for my request of a week ago.

Luc.

Missing docs at CWGC.pdf

[jaykayu]

7 hours ago, LDT006 said:

Jay,

attached is a PDF with some examples. It has the link to the document and date of download.
All GRRF and Burial Return documents were available, now the pages with only UBS soldiers are gone. I am 100% sure of this because I used to mark the concentrated rows on the cemetery plan and then verified that I had all burial return sheets.
I am not sure that all Special Exhumation Reports were online but there were a lot relating to unknowns, now all these are gone.

It was possible to get a copy of these missing docs from CWGC but they said that it didn't exist for my request of a week ago.

Luc.

Missing docs at CWGC.pdf 2.82 MB · 2 downloads

Thanks Luc.

I have downloaded your pdf and will take a look.

Jay

[jaykayu]

On 05/09/2023 at 22:31, jaykayu said:

Thanks Luc.

I have downloaded your pdf and will take a look.

Jay

 

Hi Luc

You are right that the grave documents for Unknowns are currently only available on the CWGC website if an identified casualty is also on the document. As you point out this can mean that no documents are available online for Unknowns in parts of a cemetery. 

Last year I asked CWGC Archives for copies of grave documents not available online for Unknown Soldiers  and was happy with what they sent me, which included some Exhumation Reports . I hope this is still the case and your experience last week was an exception - I wonder if any other researchers on here have recently received similar documents???
If so this would show that if they are available  

However, you are right that it would be much easier if we could view and download what is available ourselves, as was previously possible before the CWGC website was updated in July 2020.  - An improvement to add to the list.
 

Jay

Edited 9 September , 2023 by jaykayu
clarification

[Simon Birch]

Jay - which commisioner are you going to send your letter to?

Simon

[jaykayu]

6 hours ago, Simon Birch said:

Jay - which commisioner are you going to send your letter to?

Simon

Hi Simon

I haven't been able to make much progress on the letter over the last few days due to a family wedding this Monday, but it will be my full focus again from Wednesday 13th onwards. 

My initial thoughts are that all the commissioners should be concerned about CWGC issues, and so they should all receive a copy of the letter. Getting direct contact details for those that are not  MP’s may need some work - tools like Rocket Reach etc. may help.  As @Matlock1418 mentioned I would avoid using a generic email such as enquiries@cwgc as this may be prone to interception/filtering/delay (delay=irony as this is one of the big issues!)

What are your thoughts?

Thanks

Jay
 

[Simon Birch]

I need to talk this over with Andy, which I will do tomorrow but perhaps Philip Dunne. I don't think we will be 'targeting' more than one commssioner because if we sent multiple letters each of the recipients may think its someone else's job to reply - if that makes sense. It we don't get any sense from Mr Dunne then we can always try another.

We will be sending an old fashion letter though.

Simon