Chris_Baker Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 This subject is open for discussion again. Having been advised that authorities in Belgium were considering the procedures that had been followed in this case, I remain of the opinion that the announcement of the identity of one of the three British soldiers found in the Ploegsteert area by the press and on the internet was premature. For your information, the authorities concerned are of the Henegouwen, not Ieper, as the remains were found in the area of their jurisdiction. The story now having been widely published, there is little point in keeping the forum from discussing it. However, I sincerely ask members to consider the position with regard to the unconfirmed identity of the soldiers and to avoid careless speculation on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Obviously this is a tricky subject. I am delighted if it proves that a solid ID from 1914 has been achieved. We await official confirmation of the provisional ID. The amateurs concerned made a bold decision to attempt to recover the ID. Some might call them over-enthusiastic, especially in respect of releasing the ID details so quickly . But we are told that fortune favours the brave. Would the ID have been achieved if more official channels had been used? Who knows. Assuming the initial works to obtain the ID have been sufficiently rigorous, I would hope that officialdom will confirm it. One thing is for sure, the ID announcement created massive media interest and it was good to see our Pal Iain in Ypres on BBC News. He confesses that it was a good job that it was a head and shoulders shot as his knees were knocking with nerves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Good to see the subject back "in the frame". I don't know whether the announcement of the likely name was or was not in accordance with "normal protocol". However, it seems as pretty good an ID as one is likely to get - finding someone's ID on them 90 years ago would have been good enough then. Surely it is good enough now. Having had email contact with Emmanuel and Iain, I know the reason for releasing the name is to try to increase the likelihood of descendents being found. That aim deserves our whole-hearted support. It certainly has mine. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Visited the site this pm and found the grave site with ease. To find it locate Harry Wilkinson's cross at the side of the Le Gheer - Prowse Point road and look towards Plugsteert Wood at an angle of 90°. It's about 30-35 metres into the field about 5 metres from the fence on the Plugsteert Wood side of the field. I took some photos which I shall now attempt to share with you. First a view taken from the road over the Wilkinson cross. The grave site is marked by a red and green umbrella - sorry, no disrespect intended, but it was all I could find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Right, we'll have another go ... No, I am having my usual problems uploading photos. I am being told that the files are too big, but they only 150k or so. Anyway the grave site is marked by a circle of excavated earth about 5 metres in diameter. The field is ploughed but the exhumation team has beaten a clear track over to the side from NW edge of the field. Ask the farmer's permission of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 We seem to have some succeess. Look for the red and green marker at the back of the field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 A closer view. The 5 meter circumference of the excavation circle is clear. Plugsteert Wood in the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 And another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Loosing a little definition, but here's another copy of the site from the Wilkinson cross. Again look for the red and green umbrella marking the spot. That's all for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Well done Chris and well said, I feel that announcing the id was also premature and through the wrong mediums, i look forward to the findings of the Belgian Authorities in due course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 A more balanced article than the ' They were all slaughtered in the trenches ' articles in the Scotsman and the Herald newspapers. Aye Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 15 April , 2006 Author Share Posted 15 April , 2006 ' They were all slaughtered in the trenches ' articles Wait until 1 July! There'll be no shortage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinglma Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Can anyone confirm if this is the story in today's "Times"? I don't want to mention the details of their article - I am very wary of the rush to publish names. Mike S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Now I am baffled - if this subject is open for discussion again, why has the post I made with a link to an article in the Lancashire Evening Post on this subject been deleted? We are either discussing this or we are not - I am happy either way, but the moderators need to make their mind up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 The terms of the discussion were made quite clear, and very politely, yet you posted a link that that speculated about identity. Let's be quite clear about this, the British press have not taken any trouble to investigate the story surrounding this. It could well be that the identification is completely wrong. Will you be prepared to make a public apology to relatives who think that the remains may be one of theirs, only to find out it isn't? We are trying to to act responsibly with regards this matter, even if others don't. Terry Reeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaymen Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Terry Fair point and I am sure it will be adhered to. But Paul only posted a link - he was not implying anything and it was a link to a newspaper article. Surely no problem for the forum. Anyway I read it before it was deleted Glyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Unfortunately it is a problem. Speculation is just that - however it appears, the inference is just the same. I would like to think we are above ill-informed press talk. The media in general are only interested in what appears to be a "good story". To completely misuse a well known politicians phrase it's " here today and gone tomorrow" - and hang the consequences.! Terry Reeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Unfortunately it is a problem for the forum. Speculation is just that, however it appears. The inference is just the same. Like Paul, I am also baffled. No doubt, moderators will wish to delete my post #3 above which clearly comments on a possible identity. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 There is nothing to be baffled about. Speculation is just that, in whatever form. All that is happening here is that people are trying to dodge the issue. Are you prepared to make a public apology if the identity turns out to be wrong? Terry Reeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest geoff501 Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Like Paul, I am also baffled. ditto, Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 You can ditto as much as you like, but the fact remains that this was a deliberate cocking a snook at a polite request from the site owner and has chosen to be ignored. Terry Reeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 With respect Terry you have moved from moderating to making a direct allegation of improper conduct, which I am very surprised at. Either we can discuss this subject or we cannot - all this sort of thing does, and comments like yours, is make this forum look stupid, and to be frank I have much better things to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Chris requested that we "avoid careless speculation". The thread then progressed without mention of the actual identification. Paul took the time to post a link that illustrated that the local press in the area concerned were already seeking relatives of the provisionally identified soldier. I think was legitimate information to assist the responsible discussion of this matter on this Forum. Personally, I do not think that Paul's posting in any way could be construed as amounting to the encouragement of careless speculation. Obviously Terry takes a different view. I share Paul's sense of injustice at the tone of Terry's comments on Paul's posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 You can share what injustice you like Ian, but the fact remains that not only was the request blatently ignored, but so was the spirit of the post. And what about the injustice to the relatives if this all turns out to be wrong? It's other people that count, not the egos of forumites. Terry Reeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaymen Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Noticed that the link is on another forum - one wonders if it will be deleted there. Who are we trying to protect as the article was actually asking for relatives of Pte ********* to come forward. Interesting Glyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.JPG.9e1c939b5b6ca376243dbc2333d21bf2.JPG)
Recommended Posts