Hmmm

Yes I overeacted a bit still sounded ghoulish a little in his description though

Creaking Door, I cannot help but agree with you! Before I looked (which was only after your post above) I had assumed it was some grisly-gory relic torn from an unfortunate casualty and was more than a little surprised to see something that, well, really is not that shocking in the context of what is being sold. My son bought back some Army kit he had been wearing. It too was bloodstained. He hadn’t been wounded, or in a fight, or even injured. He had a nose-bleed!

Ok Ok, you are all right, Perhaps i over reacted with it, It was just the guys wording ,almost like “COOL YEH BLOODSTAINS AN ALL”:cool: , I didnt see any bullet entry etc, so yeh you could be right, Perhaps he tripped over a Pebble and cut his thumb, and wiped it on his jacket, to be honest i was joining in with the “OH My God “Brigade, 😀

Its only some sand jockeys anyway, I overreacted,Sorry :diablo:

Creaking Door, I cannot help but agree with you! Before I looked (which was only after your post above) I had assumed it was some grisly-gory relic torn from an unfortunate casualty and was more than a little surprised to see something that, well, really is not that shocking in the context of what is being sold. My son bought back some Army kit he had been wearing. It too was bloodstained. He hadn’t been wounded, or in a fight, or even injured. He had a nose-bleed!

Is this jacket actually that shocking?

It doesn’t interest me, no ‘personal’ kit does, but what is actually being sold here? The statement that “there are some old bloodstains” doesn’t mean anybody died (or killed) wearing it, it doesn’t even mean that it came into contact with somebody who was wounded (though that may be intentionally implied).

For all we know the guy who was wearing it fell over in a bar and cut himself on a broken beer-bottle!

War relic

Just looked at that angola war rereic and that is just sick! It reminds me of the battledress item that Kev mentioned.. Ebay needs to crack down on this sort of thing!!:mad:

One thing concerns me above all others though in your reply ‘the thread on this forum had to be removed’. What does Caroline have on you guys?

All the best,

Steve.

Bradleygolding.. From what was said it was something to do with the aircrafts Sponsors rather than the aircraft owner. Let’s leave it at that ok??

The actual statement at the beginning of the Act reads thus:

An Act to secure the protection from unauthorised interference of military aircraft and vessels that have crashed, sunk or been stranded and of associated human remains; and for connected purposes.

Another popular misconception is that the words “Military Remains” refer to human remains. Not so!

I stand corrected.

Kev is right. Another popular misconception is that the words “Military Remains” refer to human remains. Not so!

The way this thread has gone is quite interesting, morally speaking, depending on your point of view of course.
10 years ago we took our Scout group up to the Peak District for a week.
My brother and I organised a hiking trip around the Black Peak, specifically to investigate crash sites. We started off with a crash site of a Dakota, then ended up at the B-29 wreck at Shelf Stones.
So what did the kids do, they took bits, some of them very large.
We actually set up a bit of a shrine in the scout hut, which is still there, other bits were knicked by a local enthusiast and as far as I know are treasured in a museum that I won’t mention.
The items in the scout hut are displayed at the moment with all the relevant background information, how long this will last before some future scoutmaster wants to make money on E-Bay is anyones guess, this was all done at the time in good faith, I’ll never do it again,

Creaking Door.

I would have thought that too. But with my limited understanding following a brief read of the Act last night, I’m sure it refers to the remains of the aircraft or ship irrespective of whether or not any human remains are located or believed to be located in the wreckage. The actual statement at the beginning of the Act reads thus:

An Act to secure the protection from unauthorised interference of military aircraft and vessels that have crashed, sunk or been stranded and of associated human remains; and for connected purposes.

So my understanding is that the Act covers both the Aircraft or vessel and human remains where present. Interesting little line in there retaining the right to charge whatever fee they want for the granting of a license. Are licenses chargeable? What’s the fee if one is levied?

And Andy is right. There is no mention about who then owns the remains you may have had to pay for the privelege of recovering.

I’m learning. And maybe my views will change because of the simple fact that people are explaining the what/why and wherefore of the practice of recovery.

Regards,

kev35

I’ve just had a quick look through the Protection of Military Remains Act and surprisingly there is no mention of what happens to any remains recovered.

Surely the ‘remains’ referred to in the title of this act are human remains.

The act, quite rightly, seems to have been designed to protect any war graves that may have been disturbed as a result of salvage operations so I don’t suppose any thought was given to ‘wrecks’ that didn’t contain any human remains.

The Act was originally conceived as a Private Members Bill, promulgated by Michael Mates MP. It was originally intended for the protection of wrecks at sea, eg HMS Royal Oak at Scapa etc etc. However, the opportunity was then seen to extend this to cover aircraft that had been lost whilst in military service and the 1986 Act encompassed that aspect. Hope that answers the question?

Sick

we all know about some of the Sick things we see on ebay as “War relics”

now i know its Not WW2 or Aviation related, But in My mind this is sick

the guy who is selling it actively glorifies the “Blood stains” on this Tunic from the Angola wars of the 70s ,

this is the sort of thing I personally dont like, But he is not breaking any laws,
with someones sons blood on it , it just seems VERY MORALLY WRONG,:(:mad:

heres the Link, Judge for youselves !

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/rare-belgian-congo-paratroop-smock-angola-war-souvenir_W0QQitemZ150268532481QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item150268532481&_trksid=p3911.m14.l1318

1986 Act, confusion ??

there is something I am Unsure of regarding this act,

Was this Act Actually brought in to protect wrecks at sea, IE wrecks like the HMS Royal Oak, or Prince of Wales/Repulse etc, to stop divers pilfering lost Ships and to protect the wargraves of the many lost seaman on these ships,

I know in other countrys that war ships have been stripped, I even heard that the “HMS Prince of Wales” was targetted a few years back for her Bronze Screws being Very hefty in wieght they were quite desirable in Weight to a organisation /indiiduals who wanted to recover them for sale of the precious metals, I hate to think How Much those Battle ship Screws where worth on the scrap market , I hated the Idea becuase my Uncle was on that ship when the Japs Bombed her,

But I understand that this Bill /Act whatever they want to call it was really for ships a aircraft “Lost at Sea” and then they used the bill as a excuse as a Blanket for ALL wrecks on land and sea, and as such, “WHAT” constitutes as a wreck, to my mind a wreck is a aircraft on the surface or under the sea, which can be seen as a wreck, but at what level Does “WRECKAGE” constitute as a wreck ?? what i mean by this is wreckage is just that, it is not a wreck , only sporadic bits on the surface, I follow the act to the letter , But it has allways worried me, say if i find a crashsite and the farmer takes me to the field, and say he has Just ploughed the field, on the surface for say a acre spread are tiny fragments that remain from a incident.if i pick up some of these fragments ,does that constitute breaking the law, or is that reasonable to accept that it is Not against the law, because walkers etc anyone can pic up some of these tiny fragments maybe a data plate if your lucky, because as any archaeologist knows to find the site you need a small metal detector to locate the site ,you rarely can see anything on the surface unless you are on top of it to locate it,so in a prelimanary search you need to find the crash site thats really the only way,then when you are sure you have found a site ,then use the Magnetometer to asetain if there is anything there (strong signals) that warrants sending for a licence as i belive Most sites dont have much left either because of prevoius digs or the nature of the incident, Do the MOD take a Dim view of this, and also do they realise that you need to do a preliminary search to find a crashsite???

as I cant see how you can constitute a few pieces of surface skinning and a say a bit of perspex and a couple of say 303 cartridges as a “Wreck”,

Perhaps you could answer this one Tangmere, or anyone, it is such a GREY area, :confused:;)

Merkle.

Wasn’t getting at you specifically, just using your prospective dig to illustrate a point.

I’ve just had a quick look through the Protection of Military Remains Act and surprisingly there is no mention of what happens to any remains recovered. Is that covered separately by each individual license?

Regards,

kev35

Kev

The 1986 Act is entirely silent on the issue of “ownership” or “title” of material at crash sites. The original Private Members Bill was equally silent, and there was no mention of it whatsoever in Parliament during the debates, a fact confirmed by Hansard. The Act just deals with licensing work on crash sites and the protection thereof. The MOD later made ownership a detail of the conditions under which a license might be granted. It is a complete myth, that many seem to believe, that the Act itself deals with the issue of title although it is not unreasonable to assume it might cover this aspect!

Andy

Bradleygolding.
The Grace spitfire “Incident” was mentioned on a couple of different forums, this one included. however the thread on this forum had to be removed on behalf of the owner.

Morning Peter,

Well it’s a lovely sunny day here in Oz. I am fully aware of the thread, and the thread about the missing thread both here and on WIX that were subsequently removed. This is the first time that I have seen a response from the ‘Management’ of this site as to why this happened. WIX had the courtesy to explain to its members within the hour of the removal.

One thing concerns me above all others though in your reply ‘the thread on this forum had to be removed’. What does Caroline have on you guys?:):):):):)

All the best,

Steve.

Hi Kev,

as far as I am aware from my copy the system works like this,

1, once site is found (the hardest part) you must fill out a form for the MOD which states all the perticulars of the incident, IE serial No, Sqn, Date , Pilot and if a fatal casualty where he is buried, although I try to send the MOD everything I have on a incident, Newspaper reports , eye witness statements etc, and any photographs, if I have them, oh and the all important Grid referance

2, the Land owner MUST sign a concent form, naming the party interested,and that he is the land owner,

3, forms from step 1 and 2 are sent to the MOD PMA for inspection,
this is then checked with the Air historical branch, they need to check before issueing a 1 years licence that the site is 1 ,not a war grave,and 2 no Ordnance was left on the aircraft, and 3, cross ref your info you send to see it is correct, also that the landowner has given consent.

4, if the Licencee is lucky to to be permitted a licence ,then a date is set for a dig. and I was asked by the PMA to give information to the “county archaeologist” (council) who may or may not have a interest in this dig.

5,after the dig is done and all the items collated, you need to fill out another form in quite some depth (a finds form) which you list all the finds you have found at that site on that dig, in quite some detail.

6, the form goes off to the PMA for evaluation, in the very rare cases, they would insist if a rare part is found that the MOD keep ownership of a certain Item ,

7, When the MOD are satisfied with the findings ,they normally will “GIFT” those Items to the Individual, or group who worked , to locate and dig those parts,

I imagine after that the records are kept on file Indefinately.

I hope this helps , in a Laymans terms anyway,
Chris C:)

Oh and i forgot to mention “a Licence covers 1 aircraft only ” 1 individual incident , they dont give blanket licences ,

Merkle.

Wasn’t getting at you specifically, just using your prospective dig to illustrate a point.

I’ve just had a quick look through the Protection of Military Remains Act and surprisingly there is no mention of what happens to any remains recovered. Is that covered separately by each individual license?

Regards,

kev35

Fully agree, Tangmere, I dont think theres anything left to say, 😀
this Debate has I think come to a conclusion, with all the cards on the table,

I think those that Agree, And those who disagree, SHOULD Agree to Differ !

we all have our opinions, I just hope this thread has proved Informative all be it a little on the subject at hand, from all sides :D:);)

This argument has been done to death, but there is no difference between selling on a wrecked Spitfire that quite recently killed two people and then restoring it to fly again (but “disguised” as an Irish Air Corps example for the sake of sensitivity) or the onward sale of unwanted material from, say, a wartime crash. Where is the difference? A noted aviation magazine finds the former acceptable and laudable, I believe, but has sometimes condemned the latter I believe.

As to the Whitling, if a recovery group has the licence, funded the recovery and often hours and hours and hours of work before having the wreckage formally “handed over” to them by the MOD why should they just “give” the items to a rebuild project – however worthy? They may chose to do so, that is up to them. However, unless protected by, say, a Trust Co and Trustees what is to prevent said Whitling project from, themselves, later selling it on? Its happened! Very often these “projects”, worthy that many are, are one-man-bands and by default the project leader becomes the “owner” of the Whitling – or whatever. However you look at this, and however much some do not like it, wreck recovered items – whether dug far, mountain high or river deep ALL have a value. A case in point are the Spitfire and Hurricanes recovered from French and Belgian beaches. Along the way they have changed hands, money and swaps, and those who invested much in the initial recovery have benefited. Thats just the way of things.