CWGC are flexible and will help

[Researchingreg]

This is a note in case your relations CWGC information is wrong

My relation Geoffrey King 115277 was a pilot flying a Halifax with 102 Sqn when he died along with his crew going on a raid to Stuttgart 22 November 1942. He is buried at Abbeville Cemetery Extension. I went to visit his grave this year and noticed that his age was missing on the headstone and his rank was shown as Pilot Officer. I contacted the CWGC and they gave me a form to fill in and asked for evidence of his rank and age which I supplied and now they are in process of altering his CWGC Record and his headstone. Here is their reply to me today:

Our Ref: 89639
Date: 21 November 2013

Dear Mr King,
Thank you for your emails of 14th November.
Having reviewed the evidence you sent through, in particularly the London Gazette entries and extracts from his Service Records, we will be able to alter 115277 Geoffrey Bernard Herbert King's commemorative record to note he was a 'FLYING OFFICER' aged '21' when he died.
Additionally, we will have the headstone marking his grave altered or replaced to note this information. Please note, we are currently working through a backlog of amendments and alterations and the process of replacing or altering a headstone can take several years to complete. The current average period of time is approximately 2 years.
I will forward these amendments on to our Records department who will action the change in due course and begin the process of having the headstone altered or replaced. Please note, the changes may not appear online immediately but will be updated in due course.
Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention it is much appreciated.
Yours sincerely,

James Fleming
Enquiries Administrator

[ian94avenge]

Hello Geoff,

This is fine particularly if a relative and you have a birth certificate and / or service record to hand, but for non-relatives the required proof is going to cost and in the case of a service record in most cases will not be available.

In recent months I have found irregularities within the online records but the proof offered (extracts from Flightglobal, local paper cuttings, FreeBMD) do not cut the mustard.

I do appreciate that authentic birth certificates offer concrete proof and also applaud the work of the CWGC staff and those like yourself who have gone to the trouble of correcting errors or omissions.

Best regards,

Ian

[Researchingreg]

Ian

They do ask for a birth cert always. But in my case I did not have it to supply and they accepted his RAF service record date of birth. Also they will accept London Gazette extracts as proof of promotions and rank, if you don't have a service record.

However on my Uncle Reg's RFC/RAF AIR 76 Record of service his date of birth was 2 years out, so I can understand why they want a birth cert.

If you have found irregularities you can always ask them and fill in the form and e-mail it. That will cost you nothing except your time.

[John Larder]

Your experience doesn't tally with mine. Hopgood's F/E from 617 Sq.still down as a Wop after sending copy of logbook obtained by the assistance of the RAF Museum. Followed that up with the loss card - no reply so far.

Dainty F.W. still down as 58 Squadron (actually 626 Sq.) after being contacted by Wickenby Register some time ago.

Evidence of wrong service number from London Gazette both of correct number and name of the man whose number they had wrongly used - not good enough.

Personally I have just about given up on CWGC who should stop bleating about accuracy being important and state that amendments will only be considered from those willing to spend upto £100.00 per amendment.

[Researchingreg]

John
I'm sorry to hear of your experience. I did not know of a charge of £100.00 per amendment, this seems very unfair. These amendments should not be a money making exercise as the men in the graves have paid enough. Perhaps I was lucky with the member of CWGC staff I was dealing with.

Should some senior people on this forum collectively ask the CWGC how we can assist them in their amendments by vetting them through this site for accuracy. There are some people using this forum that know a lot about RAF records. (Not me however)

Geoff

[dennis_burke]

he is not talking about a charge for the ammendment, he mens that one can end up spending pots of cash getting a casualties details ammended

30UKP for a service record, two sheet of A3! or a sheet of A4 transcribed in the last case I got and even then it didn't confirm what I wanted
A UK GRO cert is10 or 20 pounds now?, its a while since I bought one

the cost adds up quickly when to the uniniatated like myself when i point out something fairly clear to them, I can't see why they can't get on the blower to the RAF AHB and PMA and make some enquiries. Start a war of opinions now.

[Resmoroh]

"They" sometimes charge for services not to make money, but to dissuade people from using the service. Then "They" say 'Nobody is using the service so "We" will close it!". "They" can be quite devious!!
HTH
Peter Davies

[Ross_McNeill]

"They" sometimes charge for services not to make money, but to dissuade people from using the service. Then "They" say 'Nobody is using the service so "We" will close it!". "They" can be quite devious!!
HTH
Peter Davies

And your supporting proof for making this statement about the CWGC on this open forum is where Peter?


Ross

[ian94avenge]

Hello Geoff,

On each occasion that I found errors or could add other details (such as linking brothers) I did contact CWGC hence knowledge of required proof.

While they will not alter anything I hope they at least keep a record in their "pending" file, for my part I will keep sending them updates.

Best regards, Ian

[Resmoroh]

Ross (yr post #8), you are either pulling my leg, or you are being deliberately naïve.

I served for 42+ years in the Scientific Civil Service (regardless of what it was called, and/or did, by the time I retired.). In my early days the Scientific Civil Service was just that. It was paid at well (9-16%) below what the Treasury regarded as ‘the going rate’ for outside analogies from general taxation to be the Govt’s science repository. We answered queries from the General Public in addition to our normal tasks/duties. Then – at some stage – we were instructed by the Treasury to start charging for our services (even between Depts of the same Scientific Civil Service – lunacy!) and the phrase was “charge what the market will bear” – just another stealth tax (as it is now known). The fact that whatever information/advice had already been paid for via general taxation was conveniently forgotten!

I was also active, during my 42+ years, in staff association matters. From my colleagues (representing a wide range of scientific disciplines and govt depts) in the association I learned that they were all charging “what the market would bear”. Those depts who wanted to rid themselves of troublesome/time-consuming/expensive public enquiries charged more than the market would bear in order to make those enquiries prohibitively expensive. The subsequent Data Protection, Privacy, Health & Safety, etc, legislation has been a boon to those govt depts who wanted rid of ‘troublesome public enquiries’.

I had no intention of indicating that CWGC, in particular, were up to these poor practices – which your post seems to suggest? But if you want chapter, verse, line, then the 30GBP charged by RAF Disclosures for limited data is a case in point. That info is already public property, and we (researchers or rellies) should NOT be charged more for access to it. It has already been paid for – either in taxes or casualties! I simply refer you to the systems in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, where (the hoops you may have to jump through vary) the data is in The Public Domain and – apart from digitisation/copying/transmissions costs – is FREE.

Je reste ma valise.

Peter