Lancaster Crew – interesting post

Not the right way to go

I dont think the media is the right way to go guys. Would it not be more appropriate to sit down with the farmer and go over in detail what his concerns are and why he is asking such a large amount for recovery? I can understand him wanting his field left as it was found but would it not be beneficial to have the plane and remains recovered for both parties as mentioned? Families get closure and the farmer has no more wreck hunters trespassing?
Look forward to updates on this..

Hi Graham.

Not trying to shoot any one down.

Your hearts in the right place I just feel very very strongly about this subject as we all do I think.

It does help if you read all the posts and then think about what you have read for a few minutes.

It in turn does help if you had read my post properly then. The fact that the paper report might have got it wrong is not an issue with me as you will notice from my first and second post I said that I wouldn’t comment on the farmer but only the report.

first post :-I wonder if this is being reported correctly and wont comment on the farmer only the reported statements.
Second post:-I wont comment on the farmer because as you put it the papers quite often fail to get it right.

I don’t think I could have been any clearer on that point.

At the end of the day I can’t afford to chuck money around but instead of bleating on about what a travisty this is why don’t we all put our hands in our pockets and try and make something positve happen.

The point I am trying to make is that with any kind of dig the terms of the agreement in this country is that you return the land to what it was like before you did the dig which is standard and other than a bottle or something similar the farmer or land owner generally gets nothing but the thanks of the team and his own personal satisfaction of having done something nice for the families. No money has ever changed hands with our team and landowners apart from plant hire if we have used the farmer’s plant.

If the report is true WHY should this guy get any money from the team doing the dig unless his land is made unworkable due to toxic waste or the like.

And as for bleating on if we all had your attitude we would have to pay for every single thing that we do in life.
I thought we did anyway one way or another LOL
Simply put if the families comments are being reported right then they don’t want to pay for the dig as they don’t think its right either. Perhaps they wouldn’t like money put up for the dig as it would be against their principles.

Firstly, is there any kind of legal imperative regarding the recovery of the remains of Service Personnel who were killed on active service? I have personally never heard of money exchanging hands in order for bodies to be recovered, has anyone else?

Hi Kev. On your first point I have no idea how it works in foreign countries but I think that in this country if you can prove that the remains are still with the aircraft then the family can insist they be recovered. I might be totally wrong on that but I am pretty sure I had seen it somewhere.

And as for money changing hands for body recovery then I definitely haven’t heard of this before.

Peter mentions that the crew did not ‘choose’ to die in a field, by the same token I suspect that the land owner’s family didn’t ‘choose’ to have the aircraft crash there either.

Swings both ways on this I am afraid but I don’t know what the MOD policy is if the farmer decides he is totally fed up with the whole thing and demands the RAF come and remove their aircraft. I think he may be entitled to do that by law but again don’t quote me.

I’m sure that there must be ways in which agencies of the Governments involved could work together to resolve the problem swiftly, satisfactorily and as painlessly to the families and the land owner as possible.

On this point Kev one would like to think that this would be the case but I am sure that its not unless the government got one huge kick up the backside about this. We all know politics just aint like that.

OK point taken, not trying to offend anyone, just thought it would be a nice gesture for this forum to offer the family some finacial assistance surely I cannot be shot down for that :confused: Clearly none of us know the full facts and as i have opened my big mouth on the subject I’ll try and contact the Telagraph tomorrow and see if it’s possible to contact the family.
To my mind the government should have a recovery policy in regard to unrecoverd aircrew and a budget. I do not believe they will lift a finger without a very hard push. With an election comming imagine a headline.”Aviation group funds recovery and buriel of war Hero’s” with a line about the British governments total lack of interest in the subject. They were pressured into letting that VC winner in recently. Sounds like a story one of the nationals might get hold of and maybe get a result for all the other aircrew still burried with their aircraft in Europe? Just a thought.

It does help if you read all the posts and then think about what you have read for a few minutes.

It in turn does help if you had read my post properly then. The fact that the paper report might have got it wrong is not an issue with me as you will notice from my first and second post I said that I wouldn’t comment on the farmer but only the report.

first post :-I wonder if this is being reported correctly and wont comment on the farmer only the reported statements.
Second post:-I wont comment on the farmer because as you put it the papers quite often fail to get it right.

I don’t think I could have been any clearer on that point.

At the end of the day I can’t afford to chuck money around but instead of bleating on about what a travisty this is why don’t we all put our hands in our pockets and try and make something positve happen.

The point I am trying to make is that with any kind of dig the terms of the agreement in this country is that you return the land to what it was like before you did the dig which is standard and other than a bottle or something similar the farmer or land owner generally gets nothing but the thanks of the team and his own personal satisfaction of having done something nice for the families. No money has ever changed hands with our team and landowners apart from plant hire if we have used the farmer’s plant.

If the report is true WHY should this guy get any money from the team doing the dig unless his land is made unworkable due to toxic waste or the like.

And as for bleating on if we all had your attitude we would have to pay for every single thing that we do in life.

Simply put if the families comments are being reported right then they don’t want to pay for the dig as they don’t think its right either. Perhaps they wouldn’t like money put up for the dig as it would be against their principles.

Firstly, is there any kind of legal imperative regarding the recovery of the remains of Service Personnel who were killed on active service? I have personally never heard of money exchanging hands in order for bodies to be recovered, has anyone else?

Hi Kev. On your first point I have no idea how it works in foreign countries but I think that in this country if you can prove that the remains are still with the aircraft then the family can insist they be recovered. I might be totally wrong on that but I am pretty sure I had seen it somewhere.

And as for money changing hands for body recovery then I definitely haven’t heard of this before.

Peter mentions that the crew did not ‘choose’ to die in a field, by the same token I suspect that the land owner’s family didn’t ‘choose’ to have the aircraft crash there either.

Swings both ways on this I am afraid but I don’t know what the MOD policy is if the farmer decides he is totally fed up with the whole thing and demands the RAF come and remove their aircraft. I think he may be entitled to do that by law but again don’t quote me.

I’m sure that there must be ways in which agencies of the Governments involved could work together to resolve the problem swiftly, satisfactorily and as painlessly to the families and the land owner as possible.

On this point Kev one would like to think that this would be the case but I am sure that its not unless the government got one huge kick up the backside about this. We all know politics just aint like that.

I’m sure that Tangmere, and many others that are actively involved in A/C digs ,will know, there is a very short period of time between the harvest of this years crops, and the sowing of next years, and they will also know that “dirt” isn’t the same all the way down to the bottom, the last thing any farmer wants is all the top soil ending up back in the bottom hole, with all the clay on top; unfortunately unless the dig is conducted in a methodical way this wil be the result, and time isn’t on your side because of the short period between harvest and sowing (sometimes less than 24 hrs).

If the report is true, the man in question is clearly taking the p155, but the other side of the coin is that, farmers of any nationality, are protective of their land (“git orf my land”) etc, and a certain amount of recompense is needed. (Not however £5K, more like £500-)

Having had a field that was dug (twice), I can confirm that the area is never the same; in short what ever you take out of the hole, an equal volume must go back in, otherwise the result will be (at worst ) a pond.

A valid point was made earlier ,that if he was being pestered by souvenir hunters, he should think about allowing a responsible digs team, to remove everything possible (in a high profile way), then theres nothing left for anyone else to come back for, and more to the point, they know it.

I was going to keep out of this one but I’ve changed my mind.

Firstly, is there any kind of legal imperative regarding the recovery of the remains of Service Personnel who were killed on active service? I have personally never heard of money exchanging hands in order for bodies to be recovered, has anyone else?

Peter mentions that the crew did not ‘choose’ to die in a field, by the same token I suspect that the land owner’s family didn’t ‘choose’ to have the aircraft crash there either.

it seems to me that the newspaper article is trying to encourage people to believe that the land owner is being mercenary in his request for money to ensure the site is returned to a satisfactory condition. It doesn’t indicate whether ANYONE has actually approached the farmer to say they will guarantee to cover any damages does it? It’s the man’s livelihood after all, he should be entitled to either compensation if he has to carry out any remedial work himself or to expect that the work is carried out at no cost to himself.

I don’t know whether 7000 Euro’s is excessive for the work required or not. Perhaps someone like Tangmere could offer some opinion there?

According to the newspaper report, the land owner states “Everyone wants to come on my land and dig, but no one has offered any money to cover the damages, I have nothing against giving my permission, but the costs have got to be covered.” It would be interesting to know exactly who ‘EVERYONE’ is wouldn’t it? Are we talking about a group able and qualified to carry out a proper and sensitive recovery of the remains and the aircraft or are we talking about people who put human remains in jam jars Merlin?

Graham Adlam’s sentiments are laudable, but I don’t believe this is the way forward in this case. While the British Government does not have a policy of relocating its war dead, I’m certain that pressure could be brought to ensure a quick resolution.

The point is the families would like the remains recovered and the land owner would like it done with as little as possible damage to his land and livelihood. I’m sure that there must be ways in which agencies of the Governments involved could work together to resolve the problem swiftly, satisfactorily and as painlessly to the families and the land owner as possible.

Regards,

kev35

“I would be happy to pledge £500”

You are missing the entire point. Why should anyone have to pay to dig over a piece of land that probably needs dug over anyway. Let alone have to pay to get a family member back.

If I had the money I would pay the £5000 today but that would not be the point of the thing.

I wont comment on the farmer because as you put it the papers quite often fail to get it right.

It does help if you read all the posts and then think about what you have read for a few minutes. Quite simply I take Tangmere’s point that the story in the paper might not be entirely accurate and that the farmer may not be seeking to profit from recovery of bodies but rather be seeking to repair the damage caused. The ammount he seems to be seeking is excessive but that may be an exageration on part of the paper? At the end of the day I can’t afford to chuck money around but instead of bleating on about what a travisty this is why don’t we all put our hands in our pockets and try and make something positve happen.:confused:

“I would be happy to pledge £500”

You are missing the entire point. Why should anyone have to pay to dig over a piece of land that probably needs dug over anyway. Let alone have to pay to get a family member back.

If I had the money I would pay the £5000 today but that would not be the point of the thing.

I wont comment on the farmer because as you put it the papers quite often fail to get it right.

If the story is as reported then his actions certainly are reprehensible. However, being devil’s advocate here, it could well be that the farmer just wants some compensation for the inconvenience, potential damage etc. It could also involve land drainage or loss of crops. As a student I worked on an asparagus farm in the Darmstadt area and I know that the agricultural value of the land and crop could be high. We simply dont know all the facts of this case. In the end, the “German farmer demands money to recover RAF crew” angle is an emotive storyline and the press know that. Maybe there is another side of the coin? It has not been unknown for a journalist/newspaper not to allow the facts get in the way of a good story – or to get it just plain wrong. Look at the Guardian a week or so ago who reported, incorrectly, that Flt Sgt Williams and his Hurricane had been recovered when they hadn’t! Dont get me wrong, I am not supporting this farmer IF he is profiteering from the families or holding them to ransom. On the other hand, if he wants a reasonable disturbance fee then this should be met by respective governements. To me, £5,000 or £7,500 for a government to have to pay to recover men who died in its service seems inconsequential. Lets not demonise the German farmer without knowing, fully, the story on this one.

Good point, it would be an exception for the press to actually get it right, its probably a fabrication like most of the cr**p they print. Whats a few grand to our Government surely our national hero’s deserve a few grand for a decent burial? Perhaps someone should point out to Brown that they are now a minority group as that seems to be the only groups they will do anything for anyone in the UK.
I would be happy to pledge £500 if someone can put me in touch with the family, PM me. Perhaps if we all made a contribution the matter could be resolved?

emotional issue

Sounds to me like the only recourse would be if the british MOD and the canadian DND get involved along with the CWGC to try and get this resolved.
I feel for the lost crew members and their families very much. These chaps didnt chose to be buried in a field and for the farmer to requesta great money for the recovery is heinous in my books. What would his thoughts be if it was the other way round and he was trying to get the remains of his son recovered?:mad:

I wonder if this is being reported correctly and wont comment on the farmer only the reported statements.

Quote from report.

“Everyone wants to come on my land and dig, but no one has offered any money to cover the damages,” he said. “I have nothing against giving my permission, but the costs have got to be covered. I can’t say how much it would cost without making a thorough estimate, but it will not be less than €7,500.”

The statement made about offering money is insensative to say the least. Why should anyone have to pay to get their family members remains back.
That would be like our group demanding money because we had found remains on one of our digs.Our group have in the past been donated money by the families to help with the cost being covered which was used for exactly that and to get the farmer a complimentary bottle of whiskey which would have been paid by ourselves anyway to say thank you.
I cant see any way that the estimate to cover land recovery would be as high as this and in a lot of cases the groups have personal and public liability insurance so should anything go wrong they would be covered. I would hope this would include any land problems that would occur such as contamination by oils or fuels but I am unsure about that.

Mr Bender said that grave robbers had been on the land looking for souvenirs from the aircraft and he was “fed up” with people trespassing.

If this statment is true then doesnt he realise that if the team clean the site up and raise a memorial detailing the dig then he wouldnt get as many people going to do this type of activity as there would be virtually nothing left near the surface to find.

Strange world we live in I would say.

I would have thought that if AN Other dug up a farmers field to remove an aircraft and any remains, they would wait until a time that the farmer would not have to worry about crops being ruined and that the diggers would then make sure the field was replaced as to how they found it to make sure that any damage was kept to a minimum. Perhaps the article is written in way to provoke adverse thoughts? Bex

Surely if the excavators put the field back into the same order as it was in before the excavation then that should be enough.
I can see both sides of the argument just as long as the farmer DOES’NT profit from it or lose.
Surely the MOD should cover the cost and have the equipment to refill the holes.

If the story is as reported then his actions certainly are reprehensible. However, being devil’s advocate here, it could well be that the farmer just wants some compensation for the inconvenience, potential damage etc. It could also involve land drainage or loss of crops. As a student I worked on an asparagus farm in the Darmstadt area and I know that the agricultural value of the land and crop could be high. We simply dont know all the facts of this case. In the end, the “German farmer demands money to recover RAF crew” angle is an emotive storyline and the press know that. Maybe there is another side of the coin? It has not been unknown for a journalist/newspaper not to allow the facts get in the way of a good story – or to get it just plain wrong. Look at the Guardian a week or so ago who reported, incorrectly, that Flt Sgt Williams and his Hurricane had been recovered when they hadn’t! Dont get me wrong, I am not supporting this farmer IF he is profiteering from the families or holding them to ransom. On the other hand, if he wants a reasonable disturbance fee then this should be met by respective governements. To me, £5,000 or £7,500 for a government to have to pay to recover men who died in its service seems inconsequential. Lets not demonise the German farmer without knowing, fully, the story on this one.

I wonder what this farmers reaction would be if the shoe was on the other foot and it was him wanting to bury a family member? Hmmm I’ll stop here so I dont put my foot in it, as normal. 😡 Bex

Just spotted this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/12/nbomber112.xml

£5000 to fill in a hole, Bender by name and bender by nature:mad: