76 replies to this topic

[Auimfo]

Tom,

I'm sorry but just because there are supporters of the ID procedure doesn't deem them to be 'braying' (unless it seems that it disgarees with your ideas).

No one has ever suggested the wholesale exhumation of those unknowns already buried in CWGC cemeteries but that doesn't automatically imply double standards as you apparantly seem to think.   If you're looking for a reason why not, then here's mine:

As we recover remains we should apply all current knowledge in an effort to ID them.   Back in the 1920's they applied what they knew, in the 2000's we apply what we know and in 2100, they will apply what they know then.   Thus each recovered body is given the same chance at identity by the 'generation' who discover them - as much as is humanly possible and can be scientifically applied at that time.   Although it's absolutely wonderful to be able to identify these men, remembrance isn't necessarily about the success - it's about our determination to do as much as we possibly can each time.

Now, might I suggest you try to make your point based on what has 'actually' been said or suggested rather than trying to make an argument based on things that haven't been.

Cheers,
Tim L.

[ianw]

Auimfo, on 26 February 2011 - 11:20 PM, said:

Thus each recovered body is given the same chance at identity by the 'generation' who discover them - as much as is humanly possible and can be scientifically applied at that time.  
Tim L.

Absolutely.

[Blackblue]

Tom Tulloch-Marshall, on 26 February 2011 - 11:19 PM, said:

so the cheap personal insult is the last refuge of someone who has nothing weighty to say, and no coherent argument.

Tom

Very well said Tom....I agree entirely!!



Rgds

Tim

[Auimfo]

Tom T-M,

Perhaps the saying should be,
"..so the feigned victimisation is the last refuge of someone who has nothing weighty to say, and no coherent argument."  

Can we now get back on topic and stop trying to force an argument by debating things that no one has ever suggested??

Cheers,
Tim L.

[Alan Curragh]

Once again, this subject seems to have generated a needlessly aggressive atmosphere. As before, can I please ask that members consider before they post

Thanks

Alan

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Auimfo, on 26 February 2011 - 11:20 PM, said:

........ Back in the 1920's they applied what they knew, in the 2000's we apply what we know and in 2100, they will apply what they know then. ..

We regularly hear of criminal prosecutions resulting from the application of current DNA techniques being applied to samples retained or recovered from investigations which took place many years ago, and which were not resolved at the time. I don’t see any logic in the argument that backwards application of the technology shouldn’t similarly be applied in the circumstances which are being discussed here.

The questions which I raised in post # 18 have not been adequately addressed by any subsequent post, and I’d again have to suggest that VC Corner, for example, is a case where a very strong case for exhumation and testing could be made, on the basis of the pro-testing postings which have been made in this topic and elsewhere.

Tom

[ianw]

Tom Tulloch-Marshall, on 27 February 2011 - 02:54 PM, said:

The questions which I raised in post # 18 have not been adequately addressed by any subsequent post ....

Tom

Do you actually read any of the posts that other people take the trouble to make?

I took pains to honestly answer your question as far as it applies to me in my post 19 - if my answer is inadequate in your opinion so be it. I would also commend Tim's comment below to you :-

Thus each recovered body is given the same chance at identity by the 'generation' who discover them - as much as is humanly possible and can be scientifically applied at that time.
Tim L.

I also accurately predicted your likely response in the face of posters answering your question.

You take it upon yourself to accuse those generally favouring the use of DNA ID techniques of double standards because we are NOT calling for the mass exhumation of the VC Corner burials!  What nonsense.

By the way , I was pleased to note that the Fromelles Joint ID Board has sat again to consider more possible IDs. Of course, the successful Fromelles IDs so far have established beyond doubt what happened to 68 of the men whose names are recorded at VC Corner (plus 6 commemorated at Villers Bretonneux) - and all this without the need to disturb the rest of the others buried there. What a great result for DNA ID.

[ph0ebus]

Tom Tulloch-Marshall, on 27 February 2011 - 02:54 PM, said:

We regularly hear of criminal prosecutions resulting from the application of current DNA techniques being applied to samples retained or recovered from investigations which took place many years ago, and which were not resolved at the time. I don’t see any logic in the argument that backwards application of the technology shouldn’t similarly be applied in the circumstances which are being discussed here.

The questions which I raised in post # 18 have not been adequately addressed by any subsequent post, and I’d again have to suggest that VC Corner, for example, is a case where a very strong case for exhumation and testing could be made, on the basis of the pro-testing postings which have been made in this topic and elsewhere.

Tom

I am pretty sure the DNA samples we are talking about are not taken from criminal investigations.

Tom, if you have an instance (or more than one instance) of DNA voluntarily contributed solely for the purposes of identifying found remains being then used in an unrelated criminal trial, please cite it here.  If you have evidence that someone has even attempted to actually do this in a court proceeding, please cite it here.  In the meantime, I suggest reading up on what is called in law the "chain of custody".

In terms of your suggestion re: digging up unknown burials to ID them, if the government decides they want to do that, that is their perogative, unless, of course, there is a public outcry, which I suspect they would get in spades.

As a general aside, I am hoping to hear back from JPAC this week...here's hoping that is the case.

-Daniel

[ianw]

Daniel,

I think that, perhaps not unsurprisngly, you have have not quite got Tom's drift on this one.

Regards Ian

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

ph0ebus, on 27 February 2011 - 08:15 PM, said:

I am pretty sure the DNA samples we are talking about are not taken from criminal investigations.

Tom, if you have an instance (or more than one instance) of DNA voluntarily contributed solely for the purposes of identifying found remains being then used in an unrelated criminal trial, please cite it here.  ..

What on earth are you talking about ???

[centurion]

I think a sense of proportion is needed here. DNA is but another tool and as the OP says to be used where appropriate. But the question is when is appropriate. When a man is interred in a marked grave we are providing a place where his kin folk can pay their respects (along with others) and we are honouring his memory. there will still be many for whom this is not possible. I am not one who holds the belief that a soul cannot rest without a a proper grave, if this were the case the battlefields of the world be forever haunted by the tormented. Nor do I believe that a man is any the less honoured because there are no mortal remains to put in a grave with an engraved head stone. To think otherwise would be to give dis honour to all those with no known grave - which would be ridiculous. We must also think about the living as well as the dead. If resources are scarce would you rather use  DNA testing to track a inheritable disease and maybe save a child's life or to identify a 95year old body?

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

centurion, on 27 February 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

..... We must also think about the living as well as the dead. If resources are scarce would you rather use  DNA testing to track a inheritable disease and maybe save a child's life or to identify a 95year old body?

I entirely agree; assuming you mean the child.

Tom

[ianw]

Tom Tulloch-Marshall, on 27 February 2011 - 10:45 PM, said:

I entirely agree; assuming you mean the child.

Tom

I note your dramatic conversion into the Mother Theresa of the Forum from the "red in tooth and claw" TTM who said in the "And Who Will Pay" thread :-

"... and people like me who would prefer that any available money was spent on ensuring that our troops were properly equipped and supported would also be happy."

But of course you actually contrive to make the obvious point that we need sensible and appropriate levels of Defence spending, Health spending,Transport spending and all other spending in a balanced economy to produce the economic environment that good old Adam Smith knew was needed for the "Progress of Opulence" - the process that created the wealth to develop DNA testing and all the body-scanners and other kit to treat all those sick children.  Anyway enough of the "dismal science" as we will lurch towards matters that are banned on this Forum -and I would not want to do that.

In the pursuit of balance, I would point out that other economists are available whose opinions can be plundered to support contrary views.

I like good old Keynes who was not admiring of Smith and said :-

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”

He might have been thinking of the drug companies and their £40k a year miracle cures. All in all, a complex subject that maybe might not suit one-line comments on the GWF.

[Blackblue]

Tom Tulloch-Marshall, on 27 February 2011 - 02:54 PM, said:

We regularly hear of criminal prosecutions resulting from the application of current DNA techniques being applied to samples retained or recovered from investigations which took place many years ago, and which were not resolved at the time. I don’t see any logic in the argument that backwards application of the technology shouldn’t similarly be applied in the circumstances which are being discussed here.

The questions which I raised in post # 18 have not been adequately addressed by any subsequent post, and I’d again have to suggest that VC Corner, for example, is a case where a very strong case for exhumation and testing could be made, on the basis of the pro-testing postings which have been made in this topic and elsewhere.

Tom

DNA should be used to the fullest possible extent in the right circumstances. Where there is almost unequivocal or very strong evidence that a particular individual/individuals is buried in a particular plot in a particular cemetery somewhere then the case should be examined on its merits and DNA testing considered.

How often would this happen? Very rarely.

Perhaps you can explain your rationale regarding VC Corner further and why you are suggesting they should all be dug up and tested?

[Piorun]

Alan: of the ten posts following your request, four of them (by two Members) make what appear to be derogatory or sarcastic comments about one other Member's posts. When can we call a halt to this? I am deeply interested in the subject but am dismayed and disheartened by the rhetoric. Antony

[ph0ebus]

ianw, on 27 February 2011 - 09:13 PM, said:

Daniel,

I think that, perhaps not unsurprisngly, you have have not quite got Tom's drift on this one.

Regards Ian

Ian,

You are quite right.  This is the peril of trying to read the GWF while at the same time trying to accomplish home renovations and also keep tabs on a four year old.  Not an excuse so much as an explanation.  Tom: mea culpa, my apologies.

Daniel

EDIT: I found the original post that I inadvertantly confused with Tom's: I was actually thinking of Connor's post (Posted 20 February 2011) in the recently closed thread (And Who Will Pay) when I wrote the reply regarding chain of custody, use of previously volunteered DNA in criminal proceedings, etc.

[Blackblue]

Tom Tulloch-Marshall, on 27 February 2011 - 10:45 PM, said:

I entirely agree; assuming you mean the child.

Tom

The identification of war dead is not currently detracting from finding cures to inheritable disease. Lets be realistic here. If this in fact becomes a reality (which I am sure it never ever would) I would also agree...as I am sure we all would.

Tim D

[Auimfo]

Tom T-M,

To try and make an argument that attempting to identify a yearly handful of recovered bodies from the WW1 battlefields has in any way a detrimental effect on medicinal advances for children really does appear a little desperate and nonsensical.   I'm interested to know if you can support your statement with any evidence of a direct correlation between the two?

Similarly, trying to liken specific DNA testing to solve a small number of more recent criminal investigations for the purpose of prosecution is hardly comparable to exhuming thousands and thousands of historical graves on the off chance of identifying some of them.

Quite simply, most DNA advocates accept that it should only be employed on a case by case basis where solid supporting evidence determines that the chance of making an ID is good.   It may be 'illogical' to you that we don't then campaign to have all the thousands of unknown graves wantonly exhumed for DNA testing but that's an issue you need to deal with and not for me, as a 'realist', to solve for you.   I gave you my reasons earlier and they make perfect sense to me.  If they don't satisfy you, that's not my problem.

But there is one thing I am particularly interested in hearing.   Throughout these two threads, you have vigorously questioned other people's ideas and beliefs and even criticised them for things they hadn't even proposed!!   But as yet, I don't believe you have offered your own opinion on what you believe and the reasons why you hold it.   To echo a thought used elsewhere by....oh!, it was you..."put up or butt out"    (Don't stress Piorun...that comment was meant as a bit of cheeky fun with no malice intended)

Cheers,
Tim L.

[ianw]

Piorun, on 28 February 2011 - 01:38 AM, said:

Alan: of the ten posts following your request, four of them (by two Members) make what appear to be derogatory or sarcastic comments about one other Member's posts. When can we call a halt to this? I am deeply interested in the subject but am dismayed and disheartened by the rhetoric. Antony

Antony,

I share your interest in this subject and started this thread when another on the subject was shut down. Nothing would please me more than to see the subject the discussed sensibly. Under the greatest of pressure, I will admit to the use of a bit of sarcasm. I will try to forbear and cut it down - but this is an internet Forum ,albeit a superior one.

[Blackblue]

ianw, on 28 February 2011 - 07:02 AM, said:

Antony,
I share your interest in this subject and started this thread when another on the subject was shut down. Nothing would please me more than to see the subject the discussed sensibly. Under the greatest of pressure, I will admit to the use of a bit of sarcasm. I will try to forbear and cut it down - but this is an internet Forum ,albeit a superior one.

I guess the moral of the story is that 'sarcasm' begets 'sarcasm' Antony.

[Auimfo]

Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of willing debate and vigorous discussion as long as it doesn't resort to personal attacks, none of which I have really seen evidenced here at all.

We might question someone's point of view and even consider it's concept as nonsense or illogical but that doesn't mean we are making offensive remarks about that person.   Nor is it generally the case that when a number of people disagree with someone else's idea, it constitutes 'ganging up' or 'thuggery'.   It simply means that the majority on the thread are in consensus.

Let's not forget we are discussing and debating the Great War here which has any number of sensitive topics.   We're not always going to be holding hands walking into the sunset.

Cheers,
Tim L.

[centurion]

Auimfo, on 28 February 2011 - 04:49 AM, said:

Tom T-M,

To try and make an argument that attempting to identify a yearly handful of recovered bodies from the WW1 battlefields has in any way a detrimental effect on medicinal advances for children really does appear a little desperate and nonsensical.   I'm interested to know if you can support your statement with any evidence of a direct correlation between the two?

Money for any kind of DNA research is tight and budgets are being reduced all round. Spend more on a and you have less to spend on b Simples

[Blackblue]

A similar analogy to the one raised here would be to say that surgery on a curable about to expire cancer patient should take precedence over a surgical procedure in a post mortem examination...of course it should...but only if the two actually correlated in some way and came from the same resources and/or same bucket of money.

The simple answer in this day and age is that they don't....just as it is with the current use of DNA.

If anyone has some evidence of DNA testing of war dead actually taking precedence over equipping our armed forces or medical research to cure children with hereditary diseases then I would love to see it...and would 'bray' louder than any of you.

Rgds

Tim D

[ianw]

centurion, on 28 February 2011 - 09:57 AM, said:

Spend more on a and you have less to spend on b Simples

No it's not "Simples". Far from it.

As I said in my post post above, we need to create wealth in a balanced economy to afford all our areas of spending. Its not a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul - it's getting  both Peter and Paul to both work efficiently to create more wealth.

On the basis of a simple cost benefit analysis, we should forbid the NHS to spend say £50k on heart surgery for sick British children because such a sum of money could save the lives of 10,000 of the 8 million under 5's who die of easily curable disesases in the Third World every year.

But this is so far off topic that it will be the last word from me responding to "Simples" posts.

[Auimfo]

Centurion,

At the risk of entertaining your rather simplified view of economics, can you or Tom T-M explain why DNA testing would specifically impact the equipping of the armed forces or curing childhood diseases?   Why did you not suggest that it would have an impact on some ministers governmental junket trip or postphone the millions needed to change the letterhead of some obscure government department each time they change name?   Not looking for the sympathy vote were you?

Sorry, but as an economist, you'd make a great plumber.    (Yes Antony, that was meant as a light-hearted joke as well)

I'm more than happy to debate the pro's and con's of the DNA issue rationally with anyone but I think it's best we try and pull this thread back from the brink of fairyland, find a sense of reality and discuss the topic posed to begin with.  

Cheers,
Tim L.