Neil_York Posted 10 October , 2006 Share Posted 10 October , 2006 Here are eight non-commemorations in urgent need of attention. Each one is included on the GRO Overseas Death Index and there is no question about their eligibility for commemoration. 2nd Lieut. George ADAM. Attached 16/Royal Scots. KinA 22.10.17. AFAIK the CWGC are unaware. 31906 Pte. Sykes DOBSON. North Staffs Rgt. DofW 1918. CWGC aware for 3+ years. No apparent progress. CZ-2632 Frederick GRAHAM. A.B. Howe Bn. RNVR. KinA 21.7.15. Claim that paperwork was lost in post so no progress. PLY-16793 Pte. Thomas LACEY. Plymouth Bn. RMLI. KinA 9.6.15. Claim that paperwork was lost in post so no progress. CZ-767 John LAURIE. A.B. Hood Bn. RNVR. KinA 13.11.16. Claim that paperwork was lost in post so no progress. 10060 Pte. John LINEHAN 1/Connaught Rangers. KinA 21.1.16. CWGC aware for 3+ years. No apparent progress. Captain Robert Evans MOREHEAD. 5/RMunFus attd. Gold Coast Rgt. Died 23.11.19. CWGC aware for 3+ years. No apparent progress. 2nd Lieut. John Christie SMITH. 6/Notts & Derby KinA 21.3.18. CWGC aware for 3+ years. No apparent progress. Neil York Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisharley9 Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 Neil I will put my hand in my pocket for one of them if this is what it needs Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 I am away overseas at the moment but wıll check these when I get back next week. CWGC ıs aware of ADAM as I submıtted hım a few weeks ago. DOBSON has been accepted but appears to be stuck ın the admın procedure between acceptance and addıtıon to the lıst. I am currently chasıng thıs one. He ıs due to go on the Cologne Memorıal. I have no knowledge of the others but I am sure we can get somethıng sorted between us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 that there remains a small number of forum members who can be bothered. Neil can you elaborate on that statement please. mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 Mick I'm happy to respond from my own point of view seeing as Neil refers to a thread of mine. That thread noted that the Campaign for War Graves Commemorations was stopping its work. In particular, I floated the suggestion that there was scope for members of this Forum to consider doing "something practical " to carry on the work. My thoughts being that we have many hundreds of active members who could undertake practical work about non-commemorations or, even, just lobby their own MPs for changes in the procedures at the MoD to make the process easier. A number of members were quick to condemn the Campaign for its methods but as to anyone taking up my idea that we get off our backsides and actually do some proactive research - nowt, nothing, zip, zilch, nada. Chris has introduced this new section at Terry's request and it's a useful step forward allowing members to get advice and, also, allowing cases to be submitted to CWGC/MoD via the Forum. I think there's a lot more we could do (and Terry's having a think about it). John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisharley9 Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 John I personally am looking in to 1 non com & have managed to get several corrections done to CWGC headstones & the data base. I'm more that willing to assist in any case of non com that may come on the understanding that I have limited resources at the moment chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem49 Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 Some of us do our own as and when we find them. We do not need a 'committee' to help us. Suppose it depends how you approach the CWGC and MoD as to results. I would rather submit via me thank you. There is no doubt a lot more could be done but 'voluntary' means just that. Lots of people have other lives as well. having a go at people just gets their backs up and defeats the object. stevem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 Stevem I'll take that as a "no", then. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem49 Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 Stevem I'll take that as a "no", then. John Didn't realise you had asked a question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyspiller Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 John As one of those refered to in post 6, I feel that I must respond. Firstly, I have no wish whatsoever to start flaming anything or anybody, so please do not take it any other way than trying to add to a considered debate. It seems to me that any discussion about CforWGC immediately polarises the forum. I am not sure why this would be? Anyone who has seen some of my others posts on commemoration should deduce that I strongly beleive in remembering those who died so that we can still speak in our mother-tongues today. My father and my uncles fought in WW2 for exactly the same reasons. However, to me, rememberence is a personal thing and all my research/activity is family based, I would never presume to take up a case of someone that I could not find personal connection. I do what I do because I want to and am upset (not angry) that you say "A number of members were quick to condemn the Campaign for its methods but as to anyone taking up my idea that we get off our backsides and actually do some proactive research - nowt, nothing, zip, zilch, nada." As stated in another thread, I have done my bit to get CWGC data corrected. Finally, and most importantly, it is very unfortunate that Mr Denham is away this week. I would dearly love to understand what he is "considering" - because if he can't do anything then no-one can. Sincerely Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 I would dearly love to understand what he is "considering" - because if he can't do anything then no-one can. Andy My original thread actually had nowt to do with the rights or wrongs of how the Campaign went about their affairs, nor have I any wish to discuss it now (not least, because I don't have a view on it). The thoughts I'd had pre-dated the Campaign's announcement and I had raised them privately with Terry D. In essence, they were a number of ideas about how we could come together to use the "strength of numbers" of many of the active members of the Forum and the many research skills that they have. It was about how, as a semi-organised group, we could lobby for change in procedures about how the MoD deals with this matter. It was about how we could proactively "find" non-commemorations. Terry is considering if the ideas are feasible or not. I'm not going to go into the specifics - not least because if he reckons they are not feasible then I've no wish to appear a bigger prat than I usually do. However, the key issue for me here is that the points you and Steve make, re-inforce the lack of response to my original thread. It basically confirms that my ideas are non-starters, even without putting them in the public domain, as there clearly isnt going to be any interest in taking them forward. Better I know that now than wasting more time on it. But doesnt it make a right joke of all the congratulations that are posted whenever Terry starts a new "In from cold" thread. Pinch of salt, eh? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 No. Simply because I do not intend getting into an argument over who is and who isn't bothered. As has been proved in the past, argument only serves to draw focus away from the issue. Neil Neil I would suggest that if you do not want to get into an argument that you do not make inflammatory posts. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyspiller Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 John Many thanks for your reply. I can understand (I think) where you are coming from, as it took me a year to get some details corrected for one of my g-uncles (again, eventually) with the help of Terry D. However, it only took me 24 hours to get a DOB corrected for someone on the AWM (overage to underage). I would be very happy to help in some kind of campaign to get the CWGC into the same kind of situation that the Aussies find themselves in, but I think that it is more down to the MOD than the CWGC itself. I also do not think that you are wasting your time, commitment such as yours is to be highly commended, but as stated in my previous post, is not something that I would want to be actively involved in with regards to other men. O.K. SteveM and I appear to to agree, but I don't think that you should dump your ideas, maybe a further airing may produce different results. Maybe, CforGWC is just a little bit too harsh for me. At the end of the day, you comment upon lack of response, but at least I DID respond . Rgds Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 11 October , 2006 Share Posted 11 October , 2006 I too feel rather aggrieved at some of the cheap shots on this thread. But passing over that, if the paperwork of a number of men has been 'lost' [1st post in this thread] why can it not simply be submitted again. I can't imagine that it would have been sent without copies being retained. I have never found that original documents have been asked for, and copies of death certificates, service records etc., have always been accepted. Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil_York Posted 12 October , 2006 Author Share Posted 12 October , 2006 The attached MSWord file contains extra detail for three of the men mentioned in my opening message along with other cases presented to the CWGC. Neil CWGC_Notified.doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morcombe Posted 12 October , 2006 Share Posted 12 October , 2006 The service number for Miller RMLI, Deal Battn. should be PO/17608. Can you fix that please Neil? Well done for taking the time to show all the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Robertson Posted 12 October , 2006 Share Posted 12 October , 2006 Chaps, We're all here viewing or posting in this section for one reason - to try and get official commemoration for those previously overlooked. Please, lets not loose sight of what we're trying to do here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 12 October , 2006 Share Posted 12 October , 2006 Well, I don't see Andy's input as "flaming" but I do think the argument here is unnecessary. If some people wish to research men/women who remain uncommemorated - fantastic. If they find the Forum a good medium for doing so collaboratively - even more fantastic. But they should not assume that because they do not publicly or enthusiastically join in, others are not just as interested or active - or indeed in some way "against" those that do. There are many members who have taken action to bring to CWGC attention someone who was not yet commemorated or recorded inaccurately, many with conspicuous success. To say that we all "can't be bothered" does many a disservice. I don't believe anyone is saying this sort of thing should not be done; we are all on the same side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyspiller Posted 12 October , 2006 Share Posted 12 October , 2006 Terry, Chris I have deleted my last post. Just would like some sort of response.....to my previous points. Rgds Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 12 October , 2006 Share Posted 12 October , 2006 To say that we all "can't be bothered" does many a disservice. I certainly wasnt trying to suggest that we all "can't be bothered". I was, without doubt and without apology to anyone, trying to suggest that I was disappointed at the stony silence to the concept that we "could do more". John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyspiller Posted 12 October , 2006 Share Posted 12 October , 2006 John Funny how you could/would not have responded to my comments, but as soon as Chris/Terry responded you have posted again. Am I not worth talking to, or is that how I come across? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 12 October , 2006 Share Posted 12 October , 2006 Andy I don't understand your last post. Am I missing something? You posted in #11. I responded in #13. And, in #15, you thanked me for the reply. I am at a loss to know what you now expect of me or why you feel aggrieved. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom A McCluskey Posted 13 October , 2006 Share Posted 13 October , 2006 Neil, I am currently trying to get Patrick Crossan commemorated, however, I will also take on the following: Surname ADAM Firstname George Service Number Date Death 22/10/1917 Decoration Place of birth Other (att.16th Bn.). SNWM roll THE ROYAL SCOTS (LOTHIAN REGIMENT) Rank 2nd Lt Theatre of death Unknown By chance, I am currently reading McRae's Battalion, by Jack Alexander. Hopefully it lightens the load a bit Yours Aye Tom McC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyspiller Posted 13 October , 2006 Share Posted 13 October , 2006 Morning John There were/are several points that I raised in my previous posts that have not been answered, but the edit of post #4 has largely put my mind to rest. Also I strongly concur with Chris Baker's post. However, I would still like to know how I can help? Finally, I would appreciate your comments on the statement that I cannot be bothered, given that I actually bothered to respond? Rgds Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil_York Posted 13 October , 2006 Author Share Posted 13 October , 2006 Neil, .............I will also take on the following: Surname ADAM Firstname George <snip> Yours Aye Tom McC Tom Thanks for your offer of help. However, Terry Denham indicated in post #3 that he recently submitted Lieut. Adam to the Commission. Regards Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now