British soldiers remains near Ypres

[Auimfo]

Oh and I also thought Terry Reeves was a bit harsh on Paul. He simply provided a link to an external site for those who may be interested.

It's not like by deleting the link that the article will disappear.

And I didn't think it was a moderators job to judge the validity of an external article or it's source - surely that's our purview for discussion.

Just because a moderator doesn't like the source it's not his right to censor it from the rest of the forum.

Tim L.

[Marty]

We should also look at the larger impact of such a story, the renewed interest in the general public that possible identification is a reality even after so many years. This will probably increase the overall interest in future incidents such as this and thereby express itself in greater official interest by the different governments and organizations that are involved in these matters when they see how much interest there is.

I seem to remember a thread about a German discovered by a group called No Man's Land and the subsequent increase in interest by the family and the public as well.

It might give people with missing relatives the feeling that perhaps one day their grandfather, uncle, etc. might be discovered and given a burial.

In my opinion the news reports, given that the identity was tentative, could only serve to publicize the issue of identifying remains after 90 years (+/-)

and to increase awareness and interest overall in the war in a positive manner.

Marty

[willy]

Why should this issue be placed in skindles? there are some of us who have not yet "earned" the right to see skindles, keep it here for all to see not just those who feel they are superior.

[ianw]

No Tim, Terry was not a "bit harsh on Paul". Any reasonable person reading the totality of the thread will come to the conclusion that it was rather worse than that.

To put this in context, Paul Reed is a noted writer and broadcaster on Great War topics. He was a prime mover in saving the Medal Index Cards from destruction where his obvious integrity gave credibility to the whole process. He has forgotten more about the Great War than most of us will ever know. He was the victim of some ridiculous accusations within the recent thread on building works at La Boiselle and now is on the receiving end of things again.

In my opinion, his only error was to try to assist the informed debate of this unfortunately controversial topic. Fine reward he got for his efforts.

[Auimfo]

I was only trying to put it nicely

[John_Hartley]

It might in fact be a very good idea that people understand what has to be done to make an ID stick.

I agree, Frans. But surely in this case, we have the situation of the discovery of an ID disc. This is a "find" that would have been used 90 years ago to identify the body and I have no personal doubt that it will be used by the MoD today.

Can any of us really envisage a situation where the MoD is NOT going to accept this as proof positive?

And, in that situation, can the subsequent press coverage do anything other than good? If the newspaper report brings forward, say, a great nephew, what will the MoD do? Will it refuse to talk to the relative until it has carried out whatever its normal procedures are? No, of course not. What it will do is say to the relative - "can you prove you are a relative?". And, if they can, the MoD is going to be so pleased that it has managed to sort things out quickly.

And one more man from my region will be properly in from the cold.

John

[Simon R]

Media reports are all very well, but is there going to be any chance of any of us getting hold of an archaeological report on the excavation of this site?

I suspect probably very little. It's this publishing black hole and long term lack of information that generates more heat than light.

[ianw]

John - The problem is that I can indeed envisage the MOD not confirming the ID. They could decide that procedurally they cannot validate it. I fear that there are persons who would do this out of a fit of pique ie it would stick in their throat to acknowledge the success of the "amateurs" who achieved the ID, but arguably did not "go through proper channels". I sincerely hope that this will not happen, of course.

[frans]

John - The problem is that I can indeed envisage the MOD not confirming the ID. They could decide that procedurally they cannot validate it. I fear that there are persons who would do this out of a fit of pique ie it would stick in their throat to acknowledge the success of the "amateurs" who achieved the ID, but arguably did not "go through proper channels". I sincerely hope that this will not happen, of course.

Ian you hit the nail on his head.

It is after all somebody who is not actually present at the excavation who has to decide that the evidence presented is conclusive. I don't beleave that the MOD make a differrence wheather amateur or proffessional, just the proper evidence laid in front of him. This person has a duty of care as well.

[Terry_Reeves]

Ian

What utter rubbish. Let's not have the old injured innocence please. Polite requests were made, and they were deliberately ignored, and I need hardly remind you that both you and Paul Reed agreed, without any pressure, not to indulge in speculation. And may I also remind you, that there are many people on here who have an equally substantial knowledge of the First World War, it's just that they don't choose to promote themselves.

Terry Reeves

[ChrisC]

No Tim, Terry was not a "bit harsh on Paul". Any reasonable person reading the totality of the thread will come to the conclusion that it was rather worse than that.

To put this in context, Paul Reed is a noted writer and broadcaster on Great War topics. He was a prime mover in saving the Medal Index Cards from destruction where his obvious integrity gave credibility to the whole process. He has forgotten more about the Great War than most of us will ever know. He was the victim of some ridiculous accusations within the recent thread on building works at La Boiselle and now is on the receiving end of things again.

In my opinion, his only error was to try to assist the informed debate of this unfortunately controversial topic. Fine reward he got for his efforts.

Quite right. I read the thread from the start and cannot see where Chris's "health warning " was ignored or dismissed. The info IS in the public domain it cannot be uninvented.

The censorious and dismissive tone used by the Moderator towards Paul and others has no place amongst "Pals".

Chris C

[Terry_Reeves]

And I will remind you once again, this started with a number of very polite requests which were ignored. If there is any dismissiveness, you need to look elsewhere.

Terry Reeves

[ChrisC]

Ian

What utter rubbish. Let's not have the old injured innocence please. Polite requests were made, and they were deliberately ignored, and I need hardly remind you that both you and Paul Reed agreed, without any pressure, not to indulge in speculation. And may I also remind you, that there are many people on here who have an equally substantial knowledge of the First World War, it's just that they don't choose to promote themselves.

Terry Reeves

"If there is any dismissiveness, you need to look elsewhere. "

Sorry Terry, I don't think I do need to look elsewhere. Re - read your posts and reflect on their tone and content. You may gain insight into how you come across, you may not. Either way it won't worry me.

Chris C

[Jim Clay]

Now then gentlemen and ladies:

1. Let's follow Terry Denham's advice in post no. 33 - and move on.

2. If we can't do that, then can we please think: do we really want this forum to be a source of Easter Sunday fun for that 'other' place (see this thread) (although I note that even that purist place is not totally free from a little heat).

3. Mind you, it appears to me that Chris was not particularly peeved when Paul posted the now-removed link - see Chris's post no. 12 in response to Malcolm's post no. 11 in response to the now-removed etc. So why the - as an outsider might see it - rather harsh criticism of Paul and Ian?

4. Cards on table - I'm not a WW1 expert (well, who'd have thought it?) - but do have a personal interest in this topic (a Gt-Uncle KIA in 1914 with no known grave and commemorated at Ploegsteert) and feel that Mick/Seige_Gunner at post no. 37 and Ian at post no. 41 sum up my feelings should Gt-Uncle Jim Webley's remains be found and - sort-of - identified.

Not wanting to prolong what has, for whatever reason, become a rather less than edifying exchange, but feeling that something needed saying. My two pennorth, I'll now get me coat.

Jim

[Michael]

Blimey Terry. You and Paul are both way up there in the respect scale from me for both the depth of knowledge you have and the way you conduct yourselves on this forum.

I don't know what happened in the previous thread but as someone who has only just seen this one it wouldn't surprise me if someone has hijacked your username because this looks completely out of character for you.

Mick

[burlington]

Sorry folks but I am getting bored by all of this. Not because of the general subject but because of the tone of some of the postings.

It is surely time to move on.

Martin

[Terry Denham]

The time has come.

This thread has run its course and everyone has had a chance to say what they think.

It is all too personal now.

I am closing the thread to give people time to reflect and enjoy what's left of the Easter holiday.

No doubt we shall all hear of developments on this subject in weeks to come.