New CWGC Commemoration 03.04.24

[Terry Denham]

Today, CWGC added the following casualty to the WW1 Roll of Honour.
He is temporarily commemorated in the United Kingdom Book of Remembrance.

HAYTER, Thomas
Private 277214
Essex Regiment
Died 25.03.18

NOT FORGOTTEN

[pudsey63]

I’d like to add to this.

I submitted Thomas Hayter’s details to IFCP twice in the past and was told there was no case to be made. I then submitted them to the CWWG only for it to be rejected. I then consulted a friend who knows much more than me about these things and it took him five minutes to establish that I had all the evidence to show it was a case of a ‘split card’ . 
I, like many people, spent months putting the evidence together and trusting that the ‘experts’ would join the dots and find the explanation, only to be rejected rather patronisingly each time.

Thomas Hayter is now recognised, but only because I had the confidence to keep pushing. How many more cases just get dropped for lack of a bit of common sense. 

I was delighted to get the email from CWGC this week to tell me he was finally getting long-overdue commemoration but I can state quite categorically that it wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Doing the donkey-work and hoping their ‘investigations’ will carry it over the line simply isn’t enough. I had wrongly thought that in both cases the investigations would be thorough and more expert than mine. 

[Neil Pudney]

Knowing how much work you have put into this I, personally, am chuffed that Thomas is finally recognised despite the numerous setbacks. Well done Pudsey, well done indeed!

[Swann RAnger]

Great work Pudsey

[pudsey63]

Thanks guys. It’s not easy being an enthusiastic amateur. 😘

[JimSmithson]

Interesting to see that even IFCP can get it wrong sometimes. Well done Pudsey for pushing against those who thought they knew better. 

[Terry Denham]

We often get it wrong at IFCP - in both directions. We have cases rejected as well which we believe should have passed!

It is all subjective in most cases and the value of any evidence supplied is always down to the judgement of the person viewing it. Everything is just an opinion based on experience and it is never a guarantee.

Well done to Pudsey for getting this one through. Congrats on the effort put in.

[Gareth Davies]

Have I got this right - despite @Terry Denham seemingly taking the credit, this wasn't down to IFTC (and in fact quite the opposite), this was all down to @pudsey63?

Well done Pudsey.

 

[Terry Denham]

Where do you see IFCP taking the credit?

It was not one of our cases and had not been claimed as such? Confused.

[Gareth Davies]

In the OP you didn't credit pudsey, which will lead readers to infer that it was an IFTC success. Not crediting is pretty uncool.

[Terry Denham]

I have been posting the new additions to the CWGC database for about twenty five years in the possibly misguided view that some people here would be interested.

When the names were IFCP cases, I have credited the finding volunteers as that is the only thanks they get. Where the names were not IFCP cases, no case ownership has ever been claimed. If you care to look at previous posts, you will see that accepted names from other originators have never been claimed (nor listed as we would never know them - and not all are members of this Forum).

Please explain to me how I am to know who originated any case with which IFCP was not involved. I am not clairvoyant. Until that person makes themselves known here as Pudsey did today, how is anyone to know who originated the case? I await your explanation with interest. 

regards

Terry

[Gareth Davies]

I think you should make it very clear that you are no more than a messenger and that you/IFCP have had nothing to do with solving the case. The way in which you phrased it certainly came across to me as you/IFCP claiming the credit. You could also have added that Thomas Hayter had been previously, twice, submitted to IFCP.

 

 

 

[Terry Denham]

You have not looked at previous postings where it is clearly stated that certain ones are non-IFCP cases. Only when there are no IFCP cases mentioned in the post is such a disclaimer not included. Nobody would see this as IFCP claiming the name - and I can't recall anyone contacting me in the past twenty-five years to say so.

I also didn't know until Pudsey said that he had originated the case. I am afraid I do not remember very name that comes across my desk. It averages about 70 or so a week and. at the age of 75, my memory is not always as good as it was. Lots of people put forward cases to CWGC (the more the merrier) but, when they have a name accepted, I do not rush around to see if they ever contacted us about it. If someone else succeeds, good luck to them and they deserve all the credit.

I appreciate that you have simply misread the situation so I don't think there is much point in continuing with this exchange. But again, I say, well done Pudsey.

[Gareth Davies]

Oh, I see. I have to look at previous postings (different threads) to understand how it works. I didn't know that. I thought a thread would stand alone - my experience over 13 years on the GWF certainly suggests that.

 

Yes, I have misread the situation because of your OP. You really should make things clearer. I also recommend that you don't assume that pudsey is a he. I have no idea if he or she is a he or a she but, and I realise this can be a shock to some people, there are female GWF posters/members as well as men.

[Terry Denham]

No problem, Gareth.

My assumption about Pudsey may be incorrect and, if so, I apologise. However, my assumption came from being confused by an image of Pudsey Bear in my brain who is certainly male - or at least according to the BBC who refer to him as 'he'!

 

[pudsey63]

Hi everyone. I’m just popping back to add a couple more comments.

Firstly, thank you to Terry for the acknowledgement. 

Also, to those who have been supportive and encouraging to an amateur researcher. 

I had originally logged on this morning to update my thread on Thomas Hayter and thank those members who had helped me with information along the way. So I was rather annoyed to see this OP given that Terry had twice written to say there was no case to be made. Obviously I appreciate the volume of requests that are made but it has been a long and frustrating process of banging my head against a brick wall, with some dismissive and frankly patronising responses. 
 

My response to this post was primarily to make the point to anyone else in the same position to have the courage of your convictions. You may not get the result you hope for, but don’t give up at the first rejection and keep digging. We’re all working towards the same ends but it doesn’t always feel that way. Every Man Remembered. 
 

Finally, Gareth makes a very good point. My pronouns are quite definitely she/her, and I do not identify as a large yellow bear, although we do both originate from the same small Yorkshire town. 
 

 

[PaulC78]

Terry has been announcing all new additions to CWGC on this forum for many years, not just those that have come via IFCP. If he didn't, then in the vast majority of cases we would be none the wiser. I know I find this useful and I expect others do as well.

Well done to Pudsey for her perseverance in seeing this one through and getting a positive result! Not all cases are straightforward and they can often rest on a crucial piece of evidence.

[Cheshire22]

8 hours ago, PaulC78 said:

Terry has been announcing all new additions to CWGC on this forum for many years, not just those that have come via IFCP. If he didn't, then in the vast majority of cases we would be none the wiser. I know I find this useful and I expect others do as well.

Well done to Pudsey for her perseverance in seeing this one through and getting a positive result! Not all cases are straightforward and they can often rest on a crucial piece of evidence.

That’s all way and good.  But Terry needs to show who did the research in their post.  As it does read that it is a case from IFCP. 
 

why doesn’t he post on cases, that involves the unknowns who are already buried in graves and the CWGC, NAM and JCCC have agreed, that particular unknown is who the researchers say it is.  the CWGC, NAM and JCCC all have to be truthful in who brought the case to thier attention in the first place and admit it to the public as in the War Detectives Facebook page, the JCCC don’t correct the public when they congratulate the JCCC on another case.
 
to be honest, why doesn’t the IfTC project, involves those who look at the unknowns buried in the many cemeteries across the world as part of the project.  

Furthermore, if a solider, sailor or airman has been accepted as dying as a result of wounds received during the Great War in the qualifying period.  Why is it, there grave is not announced at the same time, surely that must be known at the same time of the research 
 

 

[PaulC78]

On 03/04/2024 at 12:52, Terry Denham said:

Today, CWGC added the following casualty to the WW1 Roll of Honour.
He is temporarily commemorated in the United Kingdom Book of Remembrance.

Where does this read that it is a case from IFCP? It simply states that a name has been added to CWGC, nothing more, nothing less.

47 minutes ago, Cheshire22 said:

But Terry needs to show who did the research in their post.

Please read Terry's comments above. How can he reasonably know who researched a particular case?

53 minutes ago, Cheshire22 said:

to be honest, why doesn’t the IfTC project,..

This is nothing to do with IFCP, or with this topic.

53 minutes ago, Cheshire22 said:

Why is it, there grave is not announced at the same time, surely that must be known at the same time of the research

Not necessarily. The verification of graves is a separate process which CWGC does not undertake until after a casualty has been accepted.

[stevem49]

Much ado about nothing.

Terry works tirelessly on these cases. Without his input we would have very few cases at all.  The volunteers have been trawling through various records for years.

I believe the MoD have the final say on who gets commemorated and not IFCP or CWGC (although I could be mistaken)

Thanks Terry for the updates of non comms

Steve M

[PRC]

I for one look forward to Terry's updates and hope they long continue, whether it's a sideshoot of his IFCP role or just as a general service to the forum.

In every successful case I've put forward it's been the first intimation I've received. I normally do a gentle chase of the CWGC three months later as you can guarantee I won't have heard directly from them in the intervening period. What I'm more concerned with is the lack of progress reporting before it gets to this stage. If CWGC have designed or purchased an off the rack case tracking system then for decades now they have come with the facility to automate reporting and display it on a website. Even if it's only produced in the excel format that used to be updated for the identification of unknown burial cases that would be a start. And if it included the name of the case submitter, (subject to their agreement), then that would address some of the concerns raised here. It would reassure the likes of me that a case hasn't disappeared into admin limbo \ dropped down the cracks, without hassling CWGC for updates.

Do I take it that by posting the latest new commemoration list that IFCP is claiming credit for all of them - no. Can I accept that other interpretations of this public service act exist - of course. If individuals are not satisfied at how it's done then could they take on the role themselves - but that's for them to consider.

Relevant to this particular case - and I'm not familiar with the specifics - what are the lessons to be learned, (and not just by IFCP). Just in summary -

What was there in this case that meant that those used to dealing with this sort of thing rejected it?
What was the key bits of evidence that actually turned out to be decisive?

Like most of us considering putting cases forward there is an element of self-censoring going on. I've had potential cases that I've not put forward because I've believed I knew where the bar was in linking medical cause for discharge to cause of death.  If this case would give me and others cause to re-consider what we put forward then it would be good to share the information.

Cheers,
Peter

[pudsey63]

Me again. Firstly, apologies to Terry. Anyone who knows me will hopefully know that I would never intentionally instigate a row, never mind a pile-on. Of course Terry couldn’t know who had submitted the case; we don’t all put our real names on here. But it would be appreciated if it could be acknowledged when it isn’t an IFCP case, so that all those plugging away in isolation can feel encouraged to keep going. It counts for a lot to feel that small-scale, independent, anonymous research is recognised. 

As to evidence, it came down to the renumbering of the battalion around the same, inconvenient, time of his discharge. As I said above, until I was told about ‘split cards’ I didn’t know there was such a thing, but I am also told that it is a phenomenon well known to experienced researchers. It seemed the right thing to do to ask for help.

Having supplied the death certificate and pension record I hoped that the volunteers at IFCP could solve the puzzle, with their greater expertise and experience because it seemed so obvious to me. Having exhausted that route I submitted the case directly to CWCG.

The reason they gave for rejecting it was that they couldn’t say for sure that there weren’t two Thomas Hayters, who died on the same day, having been discharged on the same day, from the same address, with a wife of the same name, and a headstone giving details of where he served. They have now accepted that he was in fact one and the same man. 

Hopefully we can all learn something, and work together to get these people recognised.

Onwards and upwards. 

[PRC]

2 hours ago, pudsey63 said:

As I said above, until I was told about ‘split cards’ I didn’t know there was such a thing, but I am also told that it is a phenomenon well known to experienced researchers.

Well that's me classified as an inexperience researcher then . I can recognise the scenario's it possibly alludes to but not the term.

Thanks for sharing more details and with one of mine it took seven years to find the smoking gun that linked an "Army Pensioner" in a cemetery register who died in the town of his birth during the qualifying period, (but from which he moved when still a baby, and with which there was no remaining family connection that I could trace) with a discharged soldier of the Great War whose place of birth was shown as the town in another part of the country my candidate moved to and grew up and where he was discharged to.

In my head I'd been running through all those devils argument that the CWGC could put forward including that he could even have been a soldier discharged pre-Great War, with the same relatively common name, so held back from submitting it earlier. When the connection was made I was kicking myself - it was there all along and didn't require some newly released source to make the pieces fit.

The case continues to trundle through the machinery, which of itself is frustrating. Most of my submissions are so boilerplate that they could be batched up and passed through on the nod, freeing up time and "expertise" to deal with the more difficult cases. While it's nice to deal with things in the order they come through, you would think somewhere in the organisation the concept of "quick wins" would be known.

While expertise can be a big help, sometimes what it takes is perseverance. This case mattered to you and so you saw it through. For that you certainly deserve kudos!

Cheers,
Peter

[Cheshire22]

Clear and straight to the point 

 

 

But it would be appreciated if it could be acknowledged when it isn’t an IFCP case, so that all those plugging away in isolation can feel encouraged to keep going. It counts for a lot to feel that small-scale, independent, anonymous research is recognised. 
 

[Matlock1418]

On 03/04/2024 at 12:52, Terry Denham said:

Today, CWGC added the following casualty to the WW1 Roll of Honour.
He is temporarily commemorated in the United Kingdom Book of Remembrance.

HAYTER, Thomas
Private 277214
Essex Regiment
Died 25.03.18

NOT FORGOTTEN

I'm certainly not wanting too reignite a possibly smouldering fire here [I hope not/I hope it doesn't happen] - I can't see any suggestion of IFTCP

Terry fequently does us all a very geat service by publishing these new commemorations given CWGC can be slow/possibly non-existant in keeping those who submit cases updated on events - frequently [but not this time] he does indicate they are non-IFTCP cases.  I've been grateful for Terry's updates in the past given CWGC didn't inform me.

Thank you Terry, it's always good to get your bulletins  

On 05/04/2024 at 09:31, pudsey63 said:

I submitted Thomas Hayter’s details to IFCP twice in the past and was told there was no case to be made. I then submitted them to the CWWG only for it to be rejected. I then consulted a friend who knows much more than me about these things and it took him five minutes to establish that I had all the evidence to show it was a case of a ‘split card’ . 
I, like many people, spent months putting the evidence together and trusting that the ‘experts’ would join the dots and find the explanation, only to be rejected rather patronisingly each time.

Thomas Hayter is now recognised, but only because I had the confidence to keep pushing. How many more cases just get dropped for lack of a bit of common sense. 

I was delighted to get the email from CWGC this week to tell me he was finally getting long-overdue commemoration but I can state quite categorically that it wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Doing the donkey-work and hoping their ‘investigations’ will carry it over the line simply isn’t enough. I had wrongly thought that in both cases the investigations would be thorough and more expert than mine. 

Well done Pudsey.   Thank you.

Great job in persevering and succceeding [despite CWGC's initially disappointing reluctance - just goes to show we may need to grind them down rather than being let down and ground down by them]

Glad CWGC have finally stepped up to the plate and hope they will in future keep you informed as to any possible further commemoration event - possibly for a headstone or marker?? [Though I note from FaG he seems to have a private stone]

May he RIP 

M