Terry_Reeves Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Its a matter of trying to be responsible,. Whatever others do is a matter for them. Terry Reeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marina 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 And that paper will look cute if it turns out they've got the wrong relatives. Marina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Terry- I would suggest you take a bit of time to reflect on the abrasive tone of your posts which ill befit your position as a moderator. I do not accept the ridiculously negative spin that you put on Paul's post - "cocking a snook", "request blatantly ignored" etc . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan1 Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 I have been following the news with interest over the the past couple of days. I have just read this thread and am totally confused- what is the argument about? What did the discoverers do that was incorrect- my understanding is the bodies of three guys were discovered. One guy had ID the other two did not. Can someone please fill me in on the other details in this argument? Regards Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrtle Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 I was sitting reading the provided newspapers over lunch today at a well known department store in Sloane Square when my husband pushed an opened Telegraph towards me and said, "You will be interested in this". There on page 11, a very noticeable illustration and an article taking up a third of the page, describing with sensitivity the finding of the three "British Comrades". The piece finished with, "The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which has an office in Flanders, has been contacted, and will liaise with the Ministry of Defence to try to locate surviving relatives." There was also a link to an Editorial Comment on page 27 which ended with a comment which I will not repeat regarding its political content ! Why the argument on this forum ? Paul's link is of interest to the people who read this forum and as the MOD (edited following post by Terry Denham) is also looking for relatives to ensure that this is a correct identification why shouldn't the subject be discussed within this specialist area, especially when the story has already been released so widely. Myrtle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Myrtle CWGC does not look for relatives. That is the responsibility of MoD. Do not believe everything you read in newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Ian You should consider your postion, and reflect on your posts. The forum was asked not to speculate on identities, yet despite polite requests by myself and the site owner, and the fact that the thread was resurrected given certain conditions and on several occassions the reason why, you still seem to be determined to argue,. The rudeness rests with you, not with me. I will reiterate, whatever others choose to do elsewhere is a matter for them. Ill- informed gossip on here does not help anyone. Terry Reeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Gentlemen. Time to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrtle Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Terry As you probably realise I was quoting what was written in the paper and to be exact it did not say that the CWGC was going to be looking for relatives; it said that it was liaising with the MOD to try and find surviving relatives, which may be understood as the MOD are going to search for surviving relatives. As for "do not believe everything you read in papers"; that was the subject of the first lecture I received when I commenced my degree course many years ago. I hope you do not think I would have forgotten Myrtle (not a gentleman) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Myrtle Gentleman? I would never be so rude as to make that mistake where a lady is concerned I believe that one always remembers one's first lecture. I do. It was from my dad and my ears still smart! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 Gentlemen This issue is obviously generating a lot of heat. Might I respectfully suggest that, if this trail is to contiue, it would be best if it were moved Upstairs at Skindles Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 If someone told me that a recently-discovered body might be my great-uncle, I would be very interested, but not especially upset or disappointed if the identification subsequently turned out to be mistaken. He sleeps as peacefully in some farmer’s field or Frenchman’s garden as he ever would in a CWGC cemetery. There is a very slim chance that the man provisionally identified has a surviving son and/or daughter - they would be at least 91 years old. If they exist, it would be wicked to tantalise and then disappoint them. But, people of that age might die any day, and it would be equally cruel to deny them news of an identification that seems as good as any that would have been accepted 90+ years ago. I think that the Forum is being too ‘precious’ about this issue. It is very immediate to those of us who study and ‘live in’ this period, but it’s ancient history to the general public. We wouldn’t be agonising over the ethics of identifying a Peninsular War body that turned up with an inscribed snuffbox in its pocket. regards Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 CWGC does not look for relatives. That is the responsibility of MoD. Terry I've no wish to possibly cross further lines but might the following be a reasonable scenario about the process the MoD would undertake. Firstly, it would need to establish, to its satisfaction, that a body had been identified. I recall from a recentish TV programme that one casualty was identifed by being in the right place at the right time (i.e. their battalion was in action over the ground where the body was found) and, also, by a personal possession found on the body (I think it was a ring or similar). Speaking completely hypothetically, it may be that the MoD would consider the discovery of a dog tag to be an even better form of ID. Secondly, might it enlist the assistance of the Regimental Museum and the Regimental Association to see if they hold any records as to descendents. In the current case this would seem to be the Lancashire Fusiliers Museum which is actively commenting in the press. Presumably a similar exercise might take place to see if service records still exist at the NA. If there was any positive result, it would be likely to take the search on by one generation (i.e. the casualty's children). Thirdly (and perhaps in conjunction with the second stage) might the MoD enlist the assistance of the press to try and find descendents. Again taking a hypothetical case... say the MoD was trying to find descendents of the Benjamin Hartley in my signature. They would know he originated from the Stockport area so enlisting the support of the town's weekly paper and the regional daily evening paper with an article asking for any descendents to come forward might work. Other than this sort of public appeal, I'm not sure how else the MoD might track down likely modern day Hartleys. Surely they have to start from the known facts which would be the casualty's home area. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Munson Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 I was surprised that the ID was reported as it was - and more surprised when the Grimsby Telegraph ID'd the soldier with a what I'm sure is a different name, in a brief report on Friday ....... but I couldn't find the post to check..... thought I was having a senior moment!! Cheers: Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frans Posted 15 April , 2006 Share Posted 15 April , 2006 I am afraid that every body is getting overexcited. Because somebody blew the trumpet to early about a soldiers ID somebody over in Belgium read this on the net and they new of nothing. So a few questions were asked and the usuall panic followed. The team who did the dig are of good repute, but were caught on the hop because of the reaction that followed. The Belgian Civil servant who looks after our affairs has spent the last two day's working with his French speaking colleagues to make sure that the evidence found and remains were documented properly so that it al could be used. We know this man very well because he looks after all our affairs as well and is very experienced. The Great War Forum and other forums were asked for there help and I must say I have great respect for the moderators and Chris Baker for taking a good ribbing. Why was time needed. He had to make sure that the evidence and all the other materials were documented properly so that the end result would be that the evidence would be accepted by the English authorities. He told me this afternoon while visiting our dig that the three remains of the soldiers are safely in the Houthulst Barracks with the neccessary documentation. The CWGC will be informed officially by him on tuesday morning, while the procedure with the Belgian Defence Dept to contact the British authorities will take another ten days befor the MOD can make a start on there job. Regarding the early release of the ID I still have no good words, but in the end it is the responsability of the group who did this dig. Frans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 16 April , 2006 Share Posted 16 April , 2006 Thanks to Frans for his comments on the situation in Belgium. The official wheels do grind slowly and the time elapsing and danger of further deterioration might suggest that the decision to immediately try to establish the ID from the dog-tag was a correct one. Interesting to get some more views on the forensic science involved. Some Forum members believe that an ID for a recently found Royal Welch Fusulier might have been achieved had the forensic works been undertaken immediately. I continue to think that the ID in question was released prematurely. However, in many press and media reports the ID is stated to be "provisional". Having said that I tend to agree with the broad thrust of SiegeGunner in post 37. My Great Uncle's remains may well be in the soil of the Salient and whilst I would be disappointed to be told that his remains had been found and then find that a mistake had been made, I and my family would not be too distressed due to the distance in time. I would also be happy that a member of his unit had been found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevew Posted 16 April , 2006 Share Posted 16 April , 2006 I can't see what the problem is when the info is already in the public domain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6th Shropshires Posted 16 April , 2006 Share Posted 16 April , 2006 I am not to worried about the ID being released in this case but I would have taken a few days first to make sure there was no-one else with a simular number, in this case it would not have been a long job to do because there was Regiment ID as well as the markings on the dog tag. In another case a while back someone jumped the gun by saying an officer had been found and he was killed in 1917 but a battalion of his regiment had fort very near to the spot where body was found in 1915. Also it was not 100% that he was officer, if my memory is correct it was suggested he was an officer because of his watch . I do not know how this case ended. Annette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernardmcilwaine Posted 16 April , 2006 Share Posted 16 April , 2006 Its a matter of trying to be responsible,. Whatever others do is a matter for them. Terry Reeves i agree,we dont have to stick our hand in the fire just because others do,bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frans Posted 16 April , 2006 Share Posted 16 April , 2006 I am not to worried about the ID being released in this case but I would have taken a few days first to make sure there was no-one else with a simular number, in this case it would not have been a long job to do because there was Regiment ID as well as the markings on the dog tag. In another case a while back someone jumped the gun by saying an officer had been found and he was killed in 1917 but a battalion of his regiment had fort very near to the spot where body was found in 1915. Also it was not 100% that he was officer, if my memory is correct it was suggested he was an officer because of his watch . I do not know how this case ended. Annette Annette, I would be worried because when you decide to announce the ID yourself and not the MOD who is the authority, you can expect a thorough investigation. They decided to clean and preserve the ID material which was a brave dicision but then make sure that the evidence you gathered is watertight. Then you hand over the evidence to the proper authority who is the one you have to convince, not the public. It would be very sad that because some of the members over excitement the whole process would have been spoiled. It is like a Police investigation if the evidence has not been gathered correctly it could all be thrown out. In the case of the lancashire Fuselier the invesgation must still be going on, to give you an example the Gordon Highlander John Robert Thomson who was found in 1998 it took the MOD 6 years to get the whole process completed. He was burried ocktober 2004, with two members of his discendants present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frans Posted 16 April , 2006 Share Posted 16 April , 2006 I can't see what the problem is when the info is already in the public domain The problem is it should have not been there in the first place. But if you stand and talk to the world press then expect to get the reaction that you get and don't start to blame everybody else. Frans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Anderson Posted 16 April , 2006 Share Posted 16 April , 2006 As someone who has a family member whose remains may still be lost on the Loos battlefield I am in agreement with Siege Gunner (post 37) and Ianw (post 41) on this one. Donny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevew Posted 16 April , 2006 Share Posted 16 April , 2006 The problem is it should have not been there in the first place. But if you stand and talk to the world press then expect to get the reaction that you get and don't start to blame everybody else. Frans Frans, I agree, but it is there and as such I don't see a problem discussing it. If it wasn't in the public domain, and someone came on this forum (or any other for that matter) and started mentioning names, regiemnts , etc then that is a different matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frans Posted 16 April , 2006 Share Posted 16 April , 2006 Frans, I agree, but it is there and as such I don't see a problem discussing it. If it wasn't in the public domain, and someone came on this forum (or any other for that matter) and started mentioning names, regiemnts , etc then that is a different matter I agree with you that a healthy discussion is no problem. It might in fact be a very good idea that people understand what has to be done to make an ID stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auimfo Posted 16 April , 2006 Share Posted 16 April , 2006 I would have to agree that perhaps it would've been best if the info was kept quiet until any evidence was proven. That said, this didn't occur and for whatever reasons the info was made public very quickly. Now that just about everyone knows what difference does it make if we discuss it? Surely we are able to discuss the FACTS of the discovery i.e. three bodies located and the various artifacts found with them - of this there can be no dispute nor conjecture. I would also agree with some of the others that the passage of time has now rendered the possibility of 'upsetting' relatives extremely unlikely. And where's the difference - weren't we discussing the body of another British soldier recently dioscovered and conjecturing on his possible ID? Tim L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.JPG.9e1c939b5b6ca376243dbc2333d21bf2.JPG)
Recommended Posts