Protection of Military Remains Act 1986

CeeBee · 24th October 2006, 14:25

Quote:

Before you dive you tend to study. Once you've studied you can't help but respect. Once you respect you wouldn't consider abusing the wrecks.

How true, but I wonder if these proposals have very little to do with either the protection of wrecks, respect for human remains, the conduct of the diving community or even the PC brigade.

In any walk of life it is a common tactic to attempt a whitewash by throwing in the occasional 'red herring'. It diverts attention away from the facts. You can probably think of plenty of examples, as can I.

Ready for the history lesson? The only reason we have the vestiges of a 'culture of remembrance' today was based on a rather half-hearted political decision to hold a two minutes silence 2 years after the end of hostilities in 1918. It was a political after-thought to honour the war dead. It acknowledged the great human loss, declared the dead as heroes, (here comes the red-herring bit), but also diverted attention away from how badly the surviving 'heroes' were being treated. It also steels the public to more readily accept human loss in battle for a 'just cause'. Particularly useful, politically.

It's probably just a coincidence that today some sectors of public opinion are turning against the involvement of troops on a number of battle-fronts....or is it just a government ploy to spoil your diving????

I need to get out more

Chrissy

**PhilSiswick** · 24th October 2006, 14:36

Quote: (Originally Posted by CeeBee)

How true, but I wonder if these proposals have very little to do with either the protection of wrecks, respect for human remains, the conduct of the diving community or even the PC brigade.

In any walk of life it is a common tactic to attempt a whitewash by throwing in the occasional 'red herring'. It diverts attention away from the facts. You can probably think of plenty of examples, as can I.

Ready for the history lesson? The only reason we have the vestiges of a 'culture of remembrance' today was based on a rather half-hearted political decision to hold a two minutes silence 2 years after the end of hostilities in 1918. It was a political after-thought to honour the war dead. It acknowledged the great human loss, declared the dead as heroes, (here comes the red-herring bit), but also diverted attention away from how badly the surviving 'heroes' were being treated. It also steels the public to more readily accept human loss in battle for a 'just cause'. Particularly useful, politically.

It's probably just a coincidence that today some sectors of public opinion are turning against the involvement of troops on a number of battle-fronts....or is it just a government ploy to spoil your diving????

I need to get out more

Chrissy

Interesting - fits with what I would expect. What's next - a debate on reintroduction of dog licensing? That's always a good one to get the chattering classes going ;-)

CeeBee · 24th October 2006, 14:45

Quote:

Phil What's next - a debate on reintroduction of dog licensing? That's always a good one to get the chattering classes going ;-)

Check the archives- it's been done

XChrissy

CeeBee · 24th October 2006, 21:26

Quote: (Originally Posted by CeeBee)

Quote:

The only reason we have the vestiges of a 'culture of remembrance' today was based on a rather half-hearted political decision

Sorry folks! I could have expressed this better. It reads like I'm down-playing the importance of memorials and the respect due at them, which was not my intention. What I clumsily tried to say was that due to public pressure, the government of the day reluctantly agreed to hold a national service of remembrance. It was only intended to be a one-off event. An unexpected bonus for the politicians after their grudging gesture was a renewed war effort. It was therefore seen as expedient to make it an annual national event. Better publicity than a series of small local services. In times of governmental need, similar gestures are wheeled out time and time again, with similar effects on Joe Public. Nothing much changes.

Over time the functions of these memorials change, from a place for the newly-bereaved to grieve in the absence of a grave side, to our present-day situation of remembering sacrifices made by previous generations. If you follow my drift, it's dangerous to forget to remember...

I don't know where I stand on this one...any wreck could be someone's last resting place and should be afforded the due respect and reverence. Never having seen one for real, I imagine they are peaceful and fitting memorials to those that died in the maritime tradition. So if diving keeps those who lost their lives at sea in the public memory....

Here endeth the lesson

xChrissy

Mdemon · 25th October 2006, 07:29

Nice post Chrissy.

**PhilSiswick** · 25th October 2006, 07:54

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mdemon)

Nice post Chrissy.

Seconded

Mike Rowley · 25th October 2006, 10:11

I Have received clarification on one significant point from the MOD this morning. The Designations apply to anyone who "engages in marine activity" and specifically "prohibits any intrusive activity".

This means that commercial fishing and angling is also prohibited within the exclusion zone of a Controlled Site and any activity that is likely to interfere with or damage a Protected place is also prohibited.

So contrary to my original post all intrusive activity is prohibited whether it be entry or removal of items by diving or interference by fishing.

Sorry to have given a false impression.

Mike

CeeBee · 25th October 2006, 10:21

Quote:

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mike Rowley)

I Have received clarification on one significant point from the MOD this morning

Hiya Mike,
They're really going for this one, aren't they?
How unlike the MOD to be clear on anything....

Think how many DECADES some famillies waited for to find out what happened to their loved ones.....not much clarity from the MOD in those instances. In fact I can think of instances where it was DIVERS not the MOD who eventually gave those family associations piece of mind.....

XChrissy

Mdemon · 25th October 2006, 10:51

Just a thought, but what happens when a diver dies in a wreck? Recovered or not?

Should that wreck now become "out of bounds"?

Or is one person's death less important than another?

CeeBee · 25th October 2006, 11:33

Quote:

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mdemon)

Just a thought, but what happens when a diver dies in a wreck? Recovered or not?

Should that wreck now become "out of bounds"?

Or is one person's death less important than another?

Exactly, in a nut shell, right on the button, Honey. Paying respect to one nameless individual has no vote-pulling power. The difference comes from the mass of emotion when large numbers of lives are lost in a single incident. Not trying to play down the awful circumstances those military and naval disasters; it's been one of my greatest privileges to work with some of the heroes who made it home. I've listened to first-hand accounts of men who flew in the Royal Flying Corps to survivors of the Burma railway. Some of those are still fighting the war today because of shell-shock, post-traumatic stress disorders, the list goes on. Lives are still ruined. What do they get...a pension worth peanuts and the chance of hypothermia in the next cold snap.
So I'm afraid I have a rather jaundiced view of this exercise...shame, such cynicism in one so young.....

MOD pay respect through lip-service to the relatives of these men and women. Lip-service is not enough, practical respect through looking after the survivors and their families would earn my vote. It's the possible hypocrisy of the motives behind this endeavour that irk. Can't deal with hypocrites.

I am genuinely perplexed at the trade-off; make these wrecks totally off-limits and we possibly forget...unlike a cenotaph, they are transient and temporary memorials that can't be protected from the effects of decay....their existence and state must be surveyed and recorded somehow by somebody...allow access and we risk the antics at Truk that were described earlier...if my grandfather's remains lay in one of these wreck memorials I would not want to risk that happening...

Rant over. God I REALLY DO need to get out more....

XChrissy

24th October 2006, 14:25	#21 (permalink)
CeeBee Found pills and ate them. Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Liverpool Posts: 1,019	Re: Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 Quote: Before you dive you tend to study. Once you've studied you can't help but respect. Once you respect you wouldn't consider abusing the wrecks. How true, but I wonder if these proposals have very little to do with either the protection of wrecks, respect for human remains, the conduct of the diving community or even the PC brigade. In any walk of life it is a common tactic to attempt a whitewash by throwing in the occasional 'red herring'. It diverts attention away from the facts. You can probably think of plenty of examples, as can I. Ready for the history lesson? The only reason we have the vestiges of a 'culture of remembrance' today was based on a rather half-hearted political decision to hold a two minutes silence 2 years after the end of hostilities in 1918. It was a political after-thought to honour the war dead. It acknowledged the great human loss, declared the dead as heroes, (here comes the red-herring bit), but also diverted attention away from how badly the surviving 'heroes' were being treated. It also steels the public to more readily accept human loss in battle for a 'just cause'. Particularly useful, politically. It's probably just a coincidence that today some sectors of public opinion are turning against the involvement of troops on a number of battle-fronts....or is it just a government ploy to spoil your diving???? I need to get out more Chrissy
(Offline)

24th October 2006, 14:36	#22 (permalink)
PhilSiswick Phil Siswick, Tango Current Rebreather/s: Evolution Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 996	Re: Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 Quote: (Originally Posted by CeeBee) How true, but I wonder if these proposals have very little to do with either the protection of wrecks, respect for human remains, the conduct of the diving community or even the PC brigade. In any walk of life it is a common tactic to attempt a whitewash by throwing in the occasional 'red herring'. It diverts attention away from the facts. You can probably think of plenty of examples, as can I. Ready for the history lesson? The only reason we have the vestiges of a 'culture of remembrance' today was based on a rather half-hearted political decision to hold a two minutes silence 2 years after the end of hostilities in 1918. It was a political after-thought to honour the war dead. It acknowledged the great human loss, declared the dead as heroes, (here comes the red-herring bit), but also diverted attention away from how badly the surviving 'heroes' were being treated. It also steels the public to more readily accept human loss in battle for a 'just cause'. Particularly useful, politically. It's probably just a coincidence that today some sectors of public opinion are turning against the involvement of troops on a number of battle-fronts....or is it just a government ploy to spoil your diving???? I need to get out more Chrissy Interesting - fits with what I would expect. What's next - a debate on reintroduction of dog licensing? That's always a good one to get the chattering classes going ;-) __________________ Phil (WSKD 0001) I have always felt that the dive I am on is not nearly important as the dives I plan to be on the rest of my life. Tom Rose, 2007 The person who gets the farthest is generally the one who is willing to do and dare. The sure thing boat never gets far from shore. Charles A. Lindbergh www.hugsac.org.uk
(Offline)

24th October 2006, 14:45	#23 (permalink)
CeeBee Found pills and ate them. Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Liverpool Posts: 1,019	Re: Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 Quote: Phil What's next - a debate on reintroduction of dog licensing? That's always a good one to get the chattering classes going ;-) Check the archives- it's been done XChrissy
(Offline)

24th October 2006, 21:26	#24 (permalink)
CeeBee Found pills and ate them. Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Liverpool Posts: 1,019	Re: Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 Quote: (Originally Posted by CeeBee) Quote: The only reason we have the vestiges of a 'culture of remembrance' today was based on a rather half-hearted political decision Sorry folks! I could have expressed this better. It reads like I'm down-playing the importance of memorials and the respect due at them, which was not my intention. What I clumsily tried to say was that due to public pressure, the government of the day reluctantly agreed to hold a national service of remembrance. It was only intended to be a one-off event. An unexpected bonus for the politicians after their grudging gesture was a renewed war effort. It was therefore seen as expedient to make it an annual national event. Better publicity than a series of small local services. In times of governmental need, similar gestures are wheeled out time and time again, with similar effects on Joe Public. Nothing much changes. Over time the functions of these memorials change, from a place for the newly-bereaved to grieve in the absence of a grave side, to our present-day situation of remembering sacrifices made by previous generations. If you follow my drift, it's dangerous to forget to remember... I don't know where I stand on this one...any wreck could be someone's last resting place and should be afforded the due respect and reverence. Never having seen one for real, I imagine they are peaceful and fitting memorials to those that died in the maritime tradition. So if diving keeps those who lost their lives at sea in the public memory.... Here endeth the lesson xChrissy
(Offline)

25th October 2006, 07:29	#25 (permalink)
Mdemon SiegeEngine II Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Home Build Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: SWUK Posts: 1,927	Re: Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 Nice post Chrissy. __________________ www.southwestmafia.com "small minds talk about people, Average Minds Talk About Events, GREAT MINDS TALK ABOUT IDEAS!" The WRONG Attitude will get you killed. "Once the agenda-monkeys and perfect-worlders have moved on, perhaps we can do some diving?"
(Offline)

25th October 2006, 07:54	#26 (permalink)
PhilSiswick Phil Siswick, Tango Current Rebreather/s: Evolution Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Vision Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 996	Re: Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 Quote: (Originally Posted by Mdemon) Nice post Chrissy. Seconded __________________ Phil (WSKD 0001) I have always felt that the dive I am on is not nearly important as the dives I plan to be on the rest of my life. Tom Rose, 2007 The person who gets the farthest is generally the one who is willing to do and dare. The sure thing boat never gets far from shore. Charles A. Lindbergh www.hugsac.org.uk
(Offline)

25th October 2006, 10:11	#27 (permalink)
Mike Rowley New Member Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Dolphin Other Rebreather/s: Dolphin Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: South Devon UK Posts: 11	Re: Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 I Have received clarification on one significant point from the MOD this morning. The Designations apply to anyone who "engages in marine activity" and specifically "prohibits any intrusive activity". This means that commercial fishing and angling is also prohibited within the exclusion zone of a Controlled Site and any activity that is likely to interfere with or damage a Protected place is also prohibited. So contrary to my original post all intrusive activity is prohibited whether it be entry or removal of items by diving or interference by fishing. Sorry to have given a false impression. Mike
(Offline)

25th October 2006, 10:21	#28 (permalink)
CeeBee Found pills and ate them. Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Liverpool Posts: 1,019	Re: Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 Quote: Quote: (Originally Posted by Mike Rowley) I Have received clarification on one significant point from the MOD this morning Hiya Mike, They're really going for this one, aren't they? How unlike the MOD to be clear on anything.... Think how many DECADES some famillies waited for to find out what happened to their loved ones.....not much clarity from the MOD in those instances. In fact I can think of instances where it was DIVERS not the MOD who eventually gave those family associations piece of mind..... XChrissy Last edited by CeeBee : 25th October 2006 at 10:24. Reason: Adding another dig at MOD
(Offline)

25th October 2006, 10:51	#29 (permalink)
Mdemon SiegeEngine II Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Home Build Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: SWUK Posts: 1,927	Re: Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 Just a thought, but what happens when a diver dies in a wreck? Recovered or not? Should that wreck now become "out of bounds"? Or is one person's death less important than another? __________________ www.southwestmafia.com "small minds talk about people, Average Minds Talk About Events, GREAT MINDS TALK ABOUT IDEAS!" The WRONG Attitude will get you killed. "Once the agenda-monkeys and perfect-worlders have moved on, perhaps we can do some diving?" Last edited by Mdemon : 25th October 2006 at 10:52. Reason: Yes, I know. But I'm making a point...
(Offline)

25th October 2006, 11:33	#30 (permalink)
CeeBee Found pills and ate them. Current Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other Rebreather/s: Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Liverpool Posts: 1,019	Re: Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 Quote: Quote: (Originally Posted by Mdemon) Just a thought, but what happens when a diver dies in a wreck? Recovered or not? Should that wreck now become "out of bounds"? Or is one person's death less important than another? Exactly, in a nut shell, right on the button, Honey. Paying respect to one nameless individual has no vote-pulling power. The difference comes from the mass of emotion when large numbers of lives are lost in a single incident. Not trying to play down the awful circumstances those military and naval disasters; it's been one of my greatest privileges to work with some of the heroes who made it home. I've listened to first-hand accounts of men who flew in the Royal Flying Corps to survivors of the Burma railway. Some of those are still fighting the war today because of shell-shock, post-traumatic stress disorders, the list goes on. Lives are still ruined. What do they get...a pension worth peanuts and the chance of hypothermia in the next cold snap. So I'm afraid I have a rather jaundiced view of this exercise...shame, such cynicism in one so young..... MOD pay respect through lip-service to the relatives of these men and women. Lip-service is not enough, practical respect through looking after the survivors and their families would earn my vote. It's the possible hypocrisy of the motives behind this endeavour that irk. Can't deal with hypocrites. I am genuinely perplexed at the trade-off; make these wrecks totally off-limits and we possibly forget...unlike a cenotaph, they are transient and temporary memorials that can't be protected from the effects of decay....their existence and state must be surveyed and recorded somehow by somebody...allow access and we risk the antics at Truk that were described earlier...if my grandfather's remains lay in one of these wreck memorials I would not want to risk that happening... Rant over. God I REALLY DO need to get out more.... XChrissy Last edited by CeeBee : 25th October 2006 at 12:33. Reason: couldn't resist one last dig....
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode