CWGC Guidlines to Naval Historical Branch

[Neil Clark]

These official documents have just come into my possession and I thought it would be appropriate to now place them in the public domain for all forum members to see and comment upon (if so inclined). In the past I have requested this information using the Freedom of Information Act only to be told by the Commission that the FOI Act doesn't apply to them and that the required information was nothing to do with me personally. They even refused to provide me with the contact details of the people who make the decisions within the MoD. I circumvented the Commission completely and obtained the required data from another (public domain) source. Of course I pointed out that this assertion was totally against the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act and that they should be ashamed of themselves bearing in mind that the UK taxpayer defrays 75% of their costs. I was left feeling as though these matters were somehow covered by the Official Secrets Act! How bloody ridiculous!

The attached documents were provided by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to the Naval Historical Branch in 2005 when one of the N.H.B historian's pointed out that they had no training in this specialist area and that it would be appropriate for the CWGC to supply them with detailed guidelines in respect to non-commemoration cases. They are still used and no further guidelines have ever been produced. I know that the NHB historians are very unhappy being given this work to do. In my opinion the work could be done much quicker by the service itself. The British Army non-coms are handled by serving army officers and I have noticed they tend to use a higher degree of common sense compared to the N.H.B. I have found that the army often gives the man the benefit of any doubt whereas the Naval Historical Branch always goes by the book. Whoever does this work (whether it's foisted on them or not) should ensure they deal with cases with a fair degree of flexibility. I have had borderline sailors rejected who I am satisfied would have been approved if the amy had taken the decision. I'm not asking for favours to be done, I only seek a fair system where ALL cases (RN,Army,RAF) are decided using common sense, continuity and merit. The only people who come out well from all this is the MoD (army) Department. It's not rocket science is it?

Bearing in mind the complexity and importance of the subject (to us at least), I was absolutely dumbfounded to see the content & severely limited extent of these guidelines consisting 2 pieces of A4 paper!!!! I honestly think that my 13 year old son could do better! I would say that the person charged with producing these guidelines knew next to NOTHING about the subject. Why didn't they get in touch with this forum or my good friend John Morecombe (the true pioneer of this type of specialist work)? Between us all I'm sure we could have produced very detailed guidelines... But then again we are merely amateurs aren't we, better leave it to the professionals.. What a joke!

No wonder there are problems with naval non coms. The Naval Historical Branch is staffed by historians who patently do not possess the skills (or interest) to do the work properly. I appealed against 2 naval rejections two years ago (HOSKINS and PAGE). I was told that the cases would undergo a complete review - I am still waiting for the courtesy of a reply to 8 letters all of which were sent asking politely why nothing had been done. It appears that the Naval Historical Branch is acting with total impunity and is staffed by people who think they are above being questioned by the people they are supposed to serve and who pay for their wages and gilt edged pensions.

It is completely appropriate in the circumstances for me to make these observations and to place them here for all interested parties to see and debate... I have purposely not referred to any particular person as I feel the problem lies with the organisation(s) as a whole.

Feeling pretty happy today - 2 more new war grave headstones erected in Ashford Cemetery (ROSSITER E and MACHIN A.S.H)! Makes it all worthwhile.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER...

[horatio2]

Sadly, my experience bears out what Neil reports. I have had several 'cast-iron' post-discharge cases rejected by NHB, only to be reversed on appeal. They have even rejected men who died while serving - clear demonstration that they do not understand the rules. Re-submitted (appealed) cases have taken an average of ten months to resolve. This pales into insignificance against the three and half years taken to deal with most cases. I still have two submissions outstanding since February 2004. The most polite letters of enquiry are met with a wall of silence - not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement of receipt.

Those considering pursuing naval cases of non-commemoration should be aware of the total lack of interest shown in these matters by NHB and should check that they have the patience and adequate life-expectancy to see them through. The only consolation is the RAF have an even worse reputation, I believe.

[John_Hartley]

The most polite letters of enquiry are met with a wall of silence - not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement of receipt.

It was at a similar point with a soldier that I turned to my Member of Parliament, who wrote to the Secretary of State. Two weeks later, chap as accepted.

John

[Terry Denham]

I may (stress 'may') have something to report on this shortly.

[Neil Clark]

To be perfectly honest I thought this thread might have gone down like a lead balloon (it took 24 hours for it's first reply)! I am relieved to see that others involved in this line of work (not that many I fear) have the courage too to raise their heads "above the parapit". I thought the time was right to release this extra-ordinary document. I simply couldn't think of a better place to do it than this excellent platform (thank you Chris).

I look forward to Terry's response with trepidation!!

Before anyone has a go at me personally, I have taken this action with the sole aim of encouraging healthy debate on the subject. After all, nothing is ever likely to change for the better unless WE all start talking about it. There is nothing wrong with raising controversial subjects. Finally I feel I am entitled to pass judgement because of my own work in this area. I take great interest in the content of this forum particularly threads concerning non coms. I'm afraid I am no diplomat and that my "way" sometimes rubs up people the wrong way, however, I always mean well and I am fiercely loyal to those who support what I do. I pay tribute to Terry Denham and John Morecombe for their valued help, advice and guidance in these matters. I suspect Chris Harley will also agree with these sentiments...

I might take John Hartley's course of action next, perhaps that might prove more effective. It infuriates me that these institutions are being run by people with no passion or interest in what they do.

[Chris_Baker]

Glad to be of service. Gee, if commemorating these lads isn't what the Forum is about, I don't know what is.

[chrisharley9]

Nice to see that this is going to be of service to us all - thanks very much

Chris

[chrisharley9]

I have noticed that those of us doing the non commemorated are a very select band of brothers

Chris

[John_Hartley]

I have noticed that those of us doing the non commemorated are a very select band of brothers

Chris

I've no idea about numbers, but I'd have thought most Forum members who are memorial researchers will be alert to the non-comm issue as & when it might arise.

The issue about that is, almost certainly, that most other memorial research is going on without the researchers tapping into a wider "community" such as ourselves. As such, they may not have the knowledge or interest to take up the matter with CWGC and are, simply, happy to have done the basic ID work for their village booklet or whatever.

Terry and I have long discussed ideas about how our "band of brothers" might be much more proactive in this field. If ever a workable project could be designed, I suspect it might be relatively easy to interest a few politicians in pushing it to the MoD.

John

[Neil Clark]

I wonder where John Morecombe is? He might be in a position to provide a "real time" update on the N.H.B? He's probably waiting for his beloved late night Poker on Ch4!!!!!

I agree with John above, our skills (and passion) could be put to good use but instead we are too often treated as interfering idiots... Perhaps they have a point on the idiot bit - after all, we do pay for this work ourselves don't we!

[John Morcombe]

I have no info on NHB, other than to confirm what is already known: slow, uninterested, incompetent etc.

Poker not on til 1.30am Sat'de neet.

[Guest geoff501]

Interesting thread. Lets hope we can all do our best for these lads and move things forward.

[chrisharley9]

John

frankly Im open too any suggestion that gets these poor lads the recognition they deserve

Chris

[Neil Clark]

Interesting thread. Lets hope we can all do our best for these lads and move things forward.

Geoff,

We might require some "techie" back up with this project! I use that smashing search engine of yours every day!!!!

Notwithstanding the above brief post, It's a bit unusual that Terry is so quiet on this subject isn't it. Perhaps he's busy trying to get to the bottom of all this controversey, who knows?

All the best

Neil

[Procat]

Geoff,

It's a bit unusual that Terry is so quiet on this subject isn't it. Perhaps he's busy trying to get to the bottom of all this controversey, who knows?

All the best

Neil

Um, see post 4.

Doug

[Neil Clark]

Just wanted to bump this thread... Make sure you can't fall off your seat before you read it!

I have full size copies if anyone wants them?

[Peter Woodger]

I question whether the information held by CWGC is immune from the Freedom of Information Act (FIA).

It may be true that any information that they own would be immune but it is not possible for an organisation covered by the act to hide information by lending it to an immune organisation.

Since the CWGC cannot change the basic information without the consent of the MoD then CWGC are the custodians but not the owner of the information. The owner, MoD, should therefore disclose the information.

Has anyone tried asking MoD for the information they seek?

Peter

[horatio2]

Asking MOD!!! I wrote a letter to a named NHB official five years ago and am still waiting for a reply (despite chasing).

[Peter Woodger]

Horatio

If I may advise, you should not write to a named person in MoD. You write to the Director of the Branch concerned addressing him or her by their post title. The Director will seek a brief from his staff and then reply. A named member of staff may be prepared to ignore a member of the public for 5 years but he will not ignore his Director. I speak as a now retired Director in the MoD.

Peter

[NeilEvans]

Very interesting thread, thanks for bringing this to my attention Neil.

Neil

[Neil Clark]

Peter,

I agree but you get them to admit that... I'm no legal expert but I do have an old crappy O.U Law Degree. I think you are right in your advice re going straight to the service authority and cut out the CWGC (Who it must be said think they are above the law in this respect). It sort of annoyed me because even if the law didn't apply, you'd have thought that bearing in mind they obtain 70% of their funds from the UK taxpayer (via the MoD) they would abide by the spirit of the law. Goes to show how insincere the person was who dealt with the matter on the commission's behalf. At one point I was expecting a knock on the door from my former colleagues in the MoD Police for daring to break the Official Secrets Acts (OSA)! FREEDOM, LIBERTY & DEMOCRACY UK STYLE 2008 (Thanks Mr Blair).

Horatio2 - It wasn't by any chance an idiot with the surname of McAloon was it? I'm still waiting after 5 years! Even Chris Page is in the same habit these days and he runs the place!

[chrisharley9]

Time I strongly believe for the process to be Joint Service with the decisions being made by servicemen (most probably army)

Chris

[Neil Clark]

Agreed - a Joint MoD Task Force with trained (and motivated) ex-service personnel drawn from all quarters. A standardised set of operating instructions (SOP). Perhaps also a former police officer and a solicitor to provide guidance on investigative techniques, evidence gathering and legal practices.

Also a Director to oversee work being done and to ensure adjudications are made fairly, consistantly and ALL evidence taken into account using the civil courts legal test - "ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY" (Not "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" the criminal test which some idiots in the NHB still seem to use).

Nearly forget - A true medical expert (preferably a epidemiology specialist like DOC2) to provide medical consultation and guidance for investigating personnel.

And dare I say it, formal input from the GWF (co-ord by T.D) and all it's non-com specialists? Not forgetting there are probably a few loners working independant from our forum who deserve representation too. Perhaps a get together once a year paid for by the MoD to discuss issues and moans. (free drinks of course)!

[chrisharley9]

I will be the first to apply for a job

Chris

[Neil Clark]

If it was my decision Chris You'd be the flippin Director!