Remembered With Honour?
At Brookwood Military Cemetery stands a memorial to those Army personnel “..whom the fortune of war denied a known and honoured grave.” On the monument is the inscription “Their Name Liveth For Evermore”. Well, not exactly in all cases, perhaps.
This memorial has the names of eighteen convicted and executed murderers (including one double child killer) and the name of one executed spy who may well have been responsible for very many British deaths. They have “no known or honoured grave” because they are buried in British prisons and the Army seemingly forgot or failed to give them a dishonourable discharge the day before execution as was the way with RAF or RN murderers. Thus, Gnr Ernest Kemp, RA, is perhaps one of the very first Army casualties of D-Day. He died on the gallows at Wandsworth at dawn on 6 June 1944 for the brutal murder of WAAF Miriam Deeley.
The MOD refuse to have the names removed. One of their arguments is that: “this would cause distress to the families of the executed felons.” Oh, really? So it doesn’t matter about the feelings of the families of the victims, then?
I have pending an HM Government e-petition to campaign to have these names struck off, but this comes against the background of an announcement that another Army murderer who was executed is having his name ADDED because it had been left off in error. To me, that is somehow worse than a failure to remove the other names.
In this, the CWGC are blameless and beyond reproach. It is MOD policy, not the policy of the CWGC.
I hope there will be interest here in signing an e-petition if is approved. I believe that one of the first signatories is likely to be a family member of WAAF Miriam Deeley.
By: tornado64 - 9th December 2011 at 10:58
it is intrigueing that there is the feeling to jump on them as murderers but we have little evidence of each case !!
lets not forget it was wartime ( now i’m not saying this was the case ) but bear with me as my father gave me many cases where the outcome could have been so difrent !!
there were many cases were guys were serving and leading an exemplary service career abroad , these same guys came back to find thier girls had been playing away ( sometimes pregnant ) they weren’t as innocent times as is often portrayed
you first have to know the full story of each individual case not just one sides
before making a decision !!
and not forgetting that just sometimes it has to be looked into very carefully as it is not unkown for the law to get the wrong person
a more thourough look into is required before a delete them all attitude is braught forth
By: Arabella-Cox - 9th December 2011 at 10:33
The only reason it “hasn’t been a problem for 66 years” or so with those “who were involved” is that those people had no idea of the significance of some of the names recorded there. Until now.
Can you imagine the furore if this had been known when the Queen unveiled the memorial in the 1950s?
Not only that, but I can tell you that the families of the victims of these murders take a distinctly different view to that which you are expressing, Tornado!
By: tornado64 - 9th December 2011 at 10:23
i don’t realy see the problem !! it hasn’t been one for 66yrs with the largest percentage of those that were involved
things like this are only seemingly becomming a problem with generations with no involvement through better communications
i lost both grandads at sea my father was ex RN and my mother served in the NAFFI
my personal feelings are , it was a long time ago now if previous more involved generations let it be why shouldn’t we
at the end of the day they paid thier price for thier wrong people are judging by thier wrong rather than what they may have done whilst serving
murders then as now have many other factors to them and often arn’t as clear cut as it would at first seem to be !!
not that i’m for or against just that they have been there for generations , why should we interfere now ??
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th December 2011 at 22:37
Its already all in hand – post Christmas, though.
We have already done a ten minute slot on BBC South – Inside Out.
By: PeeDee - 8th December 2011 at 22:30
The E-petition will take a while to get around.
You need the Daily Mail, The Sun etc. Get on the phone.
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th December 2011 at 18:49
I suspect that in 1947 nobody really made the link, Arthur. The CWGC (then IWGC) were simply supplied by the War Office with lists of Army deaths where the War Graves Registration Service had no trace of a grave. This was in order to include them at Brookwood, and, of course, these men were in that category. Not only that, but the CWGC remit is to commemmorate all of those who died “in service”…and “howsoever they died”. Of course, some service personnel died from anything other than war causes; eg accident, illness, suicide or even murder. But all were honoured equally. Whilst a conscious decision may have been taken to remember those in question it was a flawed decision and a wrong that should now be righted, in my view.
By: Arthur Pewtey - 8th December 2011 at 18:42
What surprises me about this is not the intransigence of the MOD (that goes without saying) but the fact it was a problem in the first place. The names should never have been added and as soon as it was noticed they should been removed immediately – without question. Please tell me that this hasn’t been going on for years.
By: John Green - 8th December 2011 at 18:03
Tangmere 1940
Your cause is just. These people did not deserve to be remembered in this way. Their names recorded as they are, dishonours and betrays all those who rightfully feature on countless memorials the length and breadth of this once great country.
John Green
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th December 2011 at 17:35
It should depend on whether their crimes had any relation to their duties IMO. If someone serves in the army, and then later is convicted of rape, then they still served right? But if someone is a spy or rapes someone while enlisted then it’s different.
The crimes (generally) had nothing to do with their duties, though some murdered other service personnel. One shot his girlfriend with a Bren gun. Another was August Sangret (The Wigwam Murderer) who murdered then buried his probably pregnant girlfriend. Another assaulted a WAAF and dumped her body on allotments. One murdered two children. Another was a spy who pretended to be an officer POW and extracted information from, amongst others, David Stirling.
All were “in uniform” when they committed their crimes. All were still officially serving when executed.
RAF and RN personnel who committed murder were given a dishonourable discharge, generally the day before execution, so they were not serving when hanged. Thus, they are not commemmorated.
By: Moggy C - 8th December 2011 at 17:01
Some information here
http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/ernest_kemp.htm
Moggy
By: kev35 - 8th December 2011 at 16:52
ppp.
Andy’s referring to serving personnel honoured at Brookwood Military Cemetery.
Regards,
kev35
By: ppp - 8th December 2011 at 16:49
It should depend on whether their crimes had any relation to their duties IMO. If someone serves in the army, and then later is convicted of rape, then they still served right? But if someone is a spy or rapes someone while enlisted then it’s different.
Sign In
December 8, 2011 at 2:26 pm