Oh come on Andy, I (we?) don’t know that the remains of this weren’t gifted by the MOD do we?

Perhaps this is an indication that the field of recovery isn’t regulated well enough after all? If I understood the protection of Military Remains Act clearly enough, is it not entirely possible that they could lay claim to such an aircraft as the one discussed here? And if they were to decide to do so, it would appear that money was the driving force behind those who brought about and enforce the Act. A theory clearly evidenced by the fact that the MOD refuse to recover human remains of crews who died in their Service even when individual historians/recoverers can give an exact location of the remains and even the ability to recover said human human remains with an appropriate level of dignity.

If I’ve learned anything from all these various discussions it’s this. The Protection of Military Remains Act is woolly in the extreme and perhaps now is the time for it to be re-written in an attempt to encourage the Military to take responsibility for their own and to give those interested in recovery far clearer guidelines into what is acceptable and address the issue of ownership of recovered remains and onward disposal of such remains. One other thing I’ve learned is that just because I have found something personally distasteful does not necessarily mean that it is wrong and that there are significant benefits to the preservation movement/industry of such an activity. I suppose at the end of the day is that what I’m trying to say is I still don’t necessarily believe my opinion to be wrong. And because of the fact that a number of correspondents on the various threads regarding these issues have taken the time and patience to respond and explain, I can no longer think that they’re necessarily in the wrong either. It’s a murky business.

regards,

kev35