WIX Archives

Re: Who owns them anyway??

Posted by Elliott on Sat Jul 06, 2002 11:26:35 AM

In reply top Who owns them anyway?? posted by andy saunders on Sat Jul 06, 2002 03:49:24 AM

: It seems an interesting deabate has been opened up by comm
: ents arising out of my case. In a way, the issue of Crown/
: MOD ownership was central in the final analysis to the pro
: ceedings in my case. However, I will not comment further v
: ia this forum on the court case or its satisfactory outcom
: e - save to say that the RAF Press Officer Squadron Leader
: Elaine McLeod this week said that I had been "exonerated"
: . Coupled with Judge Rennie's praise of my actions isn't i
: t, surely, a case of 'nuff said on that point? Ownership t
: hough, now thats another matter!
: It is a fact that RAF aircraft wrecks, wherever they were
: in the world, were "Struck off Charge". Look at the releva
: nt Air Publications on that point and draw your own conclu
: sions. Moving on to 8th May 1972, the MOD said in writing
: that they had no further interest in these wrecks, that th
: ey had abandoned all claim to them and that they had been
: reduced into the possession of the landowner upon whos lan
: d they lay. By about 1975 the MOD were taking a different
: stance, saying they owned them after all. Despite being pr
: essed repeatedly on the matter they have never satisfactor
: ily explained the change of tack. Considering that they "a
: bandoned" them through the Struck off Charge process and c
: onfirmed the abandonment in 1972 I believe that MOD claim
: to title is tenuous in the extreme. Add to this the civil
: laws on abandonment and I fail to see they have any case a
: t all. If you or I left our property on private land for s
: ixty years or more I suspect our claim to ownership might
: be a little shaky. Ah, yes, I hear you all say, but what a
: bout the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986? Well, w
: hat about it? Can we dispel a myth here. The PMR Act does
: not confer ownership of wrecked aircraft on the MOD. It is
: entirely silent on the issue, and so were the debates on
: the matter in the Houses of Commons and Lords. The MOD wou
: ld like to have us believe that the Act does confer owners
: hip - but read it and see. It does not. All it does is req
: uire that within the UK one needs a licence to work on cra
: sh sites. As for RAF wrecks abroad, well the Act cannot ap
: ply outside the UK so only the sovereign laws of the land
: where the wrecks lie could be applicable. Of course, if as
: ked, then I am sure the MOD will claim wrecks as their own
: just in a rather opportunistic way in case they decide th
: ey want them. The Lancaster in Sweden is an interesting ca
: se.
: As for former USAAF aircraft, the written US Policy on the
: se (unlike USN airplanes) is total abandonment in exactly
: the same way as the MOD stance in May 1972. I have it in w
: riting, chapter and verse, from the US authorities. Meanwh
: ile, the MOD here untruthfully claim in writing that USAAF
: wrecks still belong to the US Government - but the US Gov
: ernment are saying opposite. Either the MOD are muddled in
: their stance over the whole ownership thing, or they are
: not playing with a straight bat.
: Sorry about the length of this, but I hope it opens up a d
: ebate. It is a serious issue. For example, what about RAF
: wrecks brought into the UK and restored? In theory, if it
: ever came to an export licence, the UK Govt could say "No"
: because Hurricane P1234 or whatever is still Crown Proper
: ty. Do I have a point? Andy Saunders.

I am not the biggest fan of the MoD by a long shot - I find them beurocratic - their representatives can be hostile and rude, but sometimes very helpful and supportive. I've had some heated telephone exchanges and get frustrated sometimes as I always take great care to jump through their petty beurocratic hoops - even though this often leaves me at a disadvantage at least I have the law on my side.

We dug a B-17 about 4 years ago (with a licence). The site was raided by some individuals from Surrey (who did not have a licence) the day before we were due to dig. They caused a lot of damage - the aircrafts wings were intact and buried just below the surface on some mudflats. Also intact were the engine nacelles, engines and props - at low tide the prop tips could be seen. We were able to find out a lot about the aircraft and it's crew and met up with the navigator and I was able to give him back his navigation computer, something he left behind in his sinking B-17 as a young fearless 19 year old. They got into the dinghy and were rescued without even getting their feet wet!

Our colleagues tore two engines from the bearers, trashed a beautiful pair of intact nacelles, ripped out two of the fuel tanks, left live ammo all over the beach (which caused all sorts of repercussions). They also dug up a pair a M2 Brownings and the MoD had a fit.

The MoD police did a great job in tracking them down and after a dawn raid managed to recover most of the stuff they 'stole'. They went to court and were successfully prosecuted - as far as I know, it was the first successful prosecution under the 1986 PMR Act. Anyway, the point is, these people were total arseholes and made what should have been a very productive dig - of a historically important combat aircraft (with major intcat sections in good condition) which we were able to research to a high level (with local expert help) - into a total shambles by destroying large sections of the aircraft just to get the bloody engines.

The live ammo on the beech issue was brought up in Parliament! If people follow rules and are regulated this sort of thing (hopefully) becomes a rarity. Maybe I am being a little niave - after all, common sence is not common - but it would be wrong to let people loose on the potentially hazardous remains of aircraft.

It has always seemed to me that the only reason the MoD regulate these activities is to prevent injury from live ordnance (although lets face it - you have to pretty unlucky - or very thick to get blown up on a dig) or the more serious issue of human remains.

I do feel that the MoD should have a more responsible attitude towards missing servicemen. If I had a missing relative and found out that the MoD had known their last resting place for the past 60 years and not informed me I would be furious.

We found the remains of 8 US soldiers in a common grave in Indonesia plus several aircraft with associated remains in various jungle locations. It took a couple of months after I got back, but the CILHI sent out a team to follow up our report. This would be very unlikely to happen in the UK. The Japanese, Canadian and Australian authorities also actively pursue missing servicemen once found.

The only case I am aware of outside the UK of missing servicemen being recovered was with the crew from Fairey Battle P2330 in Iceland.

I would like to know exactly what charges were brought against Andy and which ones stuck and which ones didn't. The law is always open to interpretation and it is a relief that honourable motives are rewarded in the eyes of the law.

Thank god!

I'm sorry this is such a long post - I'm not known for long posts, but it's very thought provoking and a subject that is very important to me. If anyone wants to email me then I'd be pleased to carry on the discussion privately.

Elliott

Follow Ups: