GUE's policy on wreck diving

[Andy Wade]

Does anybody know what GUE's official policy is on wreck diving?
I'd be very interested to know.
Apparently at least one of their high profile instructors has taken an expedition to HMS Repulse which is a War Grave designated as a 'Protected Place' by the British Government.

These divers have penetrated HMS Repulse and filmed the inside, and apparently it clearly shows human remains inside the wreck.
If this is true, (and so far it looks like it is) then I'd like to know what GUE are going to do about it, I'd like to see some statement of intent regarding war graves similar to the one given out by SSA PADI and BSAC.
I know personally several of the men who survived the sinkings and I bet I know what their reaction will be when hearing about it.
My thanks to a friend on this forum for letting me know about it.




.

[Steve L.]

Andy

There is an extensive thread on this on the Yorkshire Divers site (under Surface Interval I think). Also on Roedales www.scubadiving.com site and scubaboard. It`s worth having a look at if you are interested.
I received a reply to an e-mail from one of the expedition leaders justifying the penetration of HMS Repulse etc.

The bottom line is, don`t put these people in the same class as the likes of Robert Ballard, Innes McCartney, Kevin Gurr etc. They are a bunch of opportunist looking for some quick glory and recognition. They have received a lot of critism both from the UK and America, from where they originate. Treat them with the contemt they rightfully deserve

Steve

[John Williams]

The bottom line is, don`t put these people in the same class as the likes of Robert Ballard, Innes McCartney, Kevin Gurr etc. They are a bunch of opportunist looking for some quick glory and recognition. They have received a lot of critism both from the UK and America, from where they originate. Treat them with the contemt they rightfully deserve

Steve

Unfortunately that is not the bottom line.

The responsible divers amongst us, and the general community who are thankful to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of our freedom should try to do something to prevent this group from desecrating graves.

The sooner this group sees some real consequences of this apalling behaviour (like the confiscation of their kit, or the withdrawal of their passports) the sooner we can let these wartime heroes rest in peace.

Perhaps those who are outraged by the actions of this group could exert pressure to toughen the legal protection of war graves by writing to their MP, to their PM and to anyone else they can think of.

John

[Nigel Hewitt]

Perhaps those who are outraged by the actions of this group could exert pressure to toughen the legal protection of war graves by writing to their MP, to their PM and to anyone else they can think of.

For crying out loud NO.

We've been through this blunt instrument approach before and if you want to find wreck diving banned that's the way to start. We may not be very pleased but some shoddy bunch of yanks diving a wreck in international waters on the other side of the planet is no reason to stir up the political wing of British stupidity whose authority only extends through British Territorial Waters.

Are people's memories so short?

nigelH

[John Williams]

:=Perhaps those who are outraged by the actions of this group could exert pressure to toughen the legal protection of war graves by writing to their MP, to their PM and to anyone else they can think of.

For crying out loud NO.

We've been through this blunt instrument approach before and if you want to find wreck diving banned that's the way to start. We may not be very pleased but some shoddy bunch of yanks diving a wreck in international waters on the other side of the planet is no reason to stir up the political wing of British stupidity whose authority only extends through British Territorial Waters.

Are people's memories so short?

nigelH

Then one needs to sharpen one's instrument!

Include details of how almost every recreational diver has respect for these graves and wishes to preserve and honour them by visiting - but not violating.

Suggest that if there is evidence of tampering, entering that can be construed as proof then stern action needs taking - and that the Sports Diving fraternity should be seen as "Voluntary Wardens" who will patroll/visit/protect these sites from the likes of the GUE.

In this way we can be included in the solution rather than excluded from it.

John

[Nigel Hewitt]

Include details of how almost every recreational diver has respect for these graves and wishes to preserve and honour them by visiting - but not violating.

Suggest that if there is evidence of tampering, entering that can be construed as proof then stern action needs taking - and that the Sports Diving fraternity should be seen as "Voluntary Wardens" who will patroll/visit/protect these sites from the likes of the GUE.

In this way we can be included in the solution rather than excluded from it.

This still worries me. Politicians have a very short attention span forced on them by the shear bulk of the material that comes past them every day. They use simple 'good' and 'bad' labels to characterise things off their personal speciality and 'wreck diving = bad' was a popular sound bite last time this came up. A lot of people did a lot of work to try and swerve the at-a-stroke solutions and you are benefiting from that now. You can't stop people diving in international waters so the only legislation you will get is home waters stuff and we near missed a total ban on Military wrecks (including vessels on war transport duty) last time. Keep politicians out of diving.

nigelH

[james parrott]

Keep politicians out of diving.

nigelH

John Prescott, the Deputy prime minister, is a diver. He dived the Mary Rose in the early `80`s.

Keep the comments clean.

[Nigel Hewitt]

>> Keep politicians out of diving.

> John Prescott, the Deputy prime minister, is a diver. He dived the Mary Rose in the early `80`s.

Ah yes. I remember when he was dragged into a photo-opportunity in the Red Sea when they were doing "Global Warming kills Coral" as an issue and some journalist spotted him clearing his mask on the video and wrote it up as a life threatening moment. The poor guy probably regretted being dragged into that one.

I still think that if somebody writes to a politician saying "Divers are violating war graves" they will write back and say "Yes we must stop divers diving on war graves" just like last time.

nigelH

[iainmsmith]

:=
:=:=Perhaps those who are outraged by the actions of this group could exert pressure to toughen the legal protection of war graves by writing to their MP, to their PM and to anyone else they can think of.
:=
:=For crying out loud NO.
:=
:=We've been through this blunt instrument approach before and if you want to find wreck diving banned that's the way to start. We may not be very pleased but some shoddy bunch of yanks diving a wreck in international waters on the other side of the planet is no reason to stir up the political wing of British stupidity whose authority only extends through British Territorial Waters.
:=
:=Are people's memories so short?
:=
:=nigelH

Then one needs to sharpen one's instrument!

Include details of how almost every recreational diver has respect for these graves and wishes to preserve and honour them by visiting - but not violating.

Suggest that if there is evidence of tampering, entering that can be construed as proof then stern action needs taking - and that the Sports Diving fraternity should be seen as "Voluntary Wardens" who will patroll/visit/protect these sites from the likes of the GUE.

In this way we can be included in the solution rather than excluded from it.

I know that because I'm pro-DIR I'm going to be labelled as a GUE-apologist, but who cares?

1) To the best of my knowledge, this was not a GUE expedition, in the same way that the dives on these wrecks by the groups lead by Jack Ingle are not BSAC Expeditions. So let's leave the agencies out of it.

2) There is a suggestion that they were not the only group diving the wrecks at the time, and that the other group (allegedly inluding a senior figure within the BSAC) were also penetrating the wreck (see the YD thread for details of this suggestion).

3) I fail to see why there is any moral difference between this wreck and any other wartime wreck or, indeed, of any wreck on which people have died. They're all graves. What is the value of a human life? Is it one casualty, ten casualties, a hundred, several hundred? I defy any long-term wreck diver to swear that they have never penetrated a wreck on which people died. Why are these wrecks so different from the Britannic or the Thistlegorm?

The same is true of people walking all over Waterloo, the Somme, Arnhem, the Normandy beaches and countless battlefields all over the world. People died. Their bodies lie out there, having never been found. People died in numbers that dwarf the number of casualties on the Repulse. That doesn't make the sacrifice of those sailors any the less important, just as their sacrifice doesn't diminish that of the merchant seamen whose convoys kept this island alive, allowing us to support a Royal Navy. But how many divers a week penetrate the Salsette? Am I not right in thinking that the Lusitania has been penetrated on more than one occasion? HMS Pheasant? HMS Edinburgh? (the latter, of course, not being penetrated by careful recreational divers, but blown apart by Government-sponored commercial salvors)

Let's keen a sense of proportion about this, rather than the usual hysterical nonsense which gets whipped up.

"Take only photos, leave only bubbles" - in what way did the divers on this expedition do anything else?

If they were at fault, it was with an appauling choice of music to go with their video footage.

Iain

[alan matthews]

Dear All

I'm a member of the Prince of Wales & Repulse survivors assoc (my father- alive and well- served on the latter up to her sinking.

I've been aware of the recent actions of American divers re: filming human remains on Repulse, and have actually phone the U.S. in an attempt to discuss matters further with the leader of the most recent dive. He has failed to respond to my request on his answer machine.

None the less, I accept, with some reservations, points made by divers contributing to this thread. But I must add that most of you do not enjoy the close relationship that I do with survivors and relatives of those lost on the ships. Hence, you will be unaware of the pain and anguish this episode is causing.

I have no desire to embark on a campaign designed to outlaw wreck diving, but I still think it right and proper that we protect (to the best of our abilities) the final resting place of 513 men. Do we all recall the outcry from the U.S. when it became common knowledge that a French salvager was bringing up tanks from the D-Day beachheads!!!

This brings me to the only real criticism I can make regarding this thread: that being one person seems to be suggesting that it's best to let matters lie, lest bad publicity could be brought on the British diving fraternity. I would counter this by maintaining you are now in a position to show your abhorence on this matter by bringing the actions of U.S. divers to the publics attention.

Finally, I hear the dive leader claimed that some sort of mystery could be unravelled by his dive - this is hogwash - Repulse was destroyed by five torpedoes - no mystery here - she was blitzed by a new form of aerial warfare.


:=:=
:=:=:=Perhaps those who are outraged by the actions of this group could exert pressure to toughen the legal protection of war graves by writing to their MP, to their PM and to anyone else they can think of.
:=:=
:=:=For crying out loud NO.
:=:=
:=:=We've been through this blunt instrument approach before and if you want to find wreck diving banned that's the way to start. We may not be very pleased but some shoddy bunch of yanks diving a wreck in international waters on the other side of the planet is no reason to stir up the political wing of British stupidity whose authority only extends through British Territorial Waters.
:=:=
:=:=Are people's memories so short?
:=:=
:=:=nigelH
:=
:=Then one needs to sharpen one's instrument!
:=
:=Include details of how almost every recreational diver has respect for these graves and wishes to preserve and honour them by visiting - but not violating.
:=
:=Suggest that if there is evidence of tampering, entering that can be construed as proof then stern action needs taking - and that the Sports Diving fraternity should be seen as "Voluntary Wardens" who will patroll/visit/protect these sites from the likes of the GUE.
:=
:=In this way we can be included in the solution rather than excluded from it.

I know that because I'm pro-DIR I'm going to be labelled as a GUE-apologist, but who cares?

1) To the best of my knowledge, this was not a GUE expedition, in the same way that the dives on these wrecks by the groups lead by Jack Ingle are not BSAC Expeditions. So let's leave the agencies out of it.

2) There is a suggestion that they were not the only group diving the wrecks at the time, and that the other group (allegedly inluding a senior figure within the BSAC) were also penetrating the wreck (see the YD thread for details of this suggestion).

3) I fail to see why there is any moral difference between this wreck and any other wartime wreck or, indeed, of any wreck on which people have died. They're all graves. What is the value of a human life? Is it one casualty, ten casualties, a hundred, several hundred? I defy any long-term wreck diver to swear that they have never penetrated a wreck on which people died. Why are these wrecks so different from the Britannic or the Thistlegorm?

The same is true of people walking all over Waterloo, the Somme, Arnhem, the Normandy beaches and countless battlefields all over the world. People died. Their bodies lie out there, having never been found. People died in numbers that dwarf the number of casualties on the Repulse. That doesn't make the sacrifice of those sailors any the less important, just as their sacrifice doesn't diminish that of the merchant seamen whose convoys kept this island alive, allowing us to support a Royal Navy. But how many divers a week penetrate the Salsette? Am I not right in thinking that the Lusitania has been penetrated on more than one occasion? HMS Pheasant? HMS Edinburgh? (the latter, of course, not being penetrated by careful recreational divers, but blown apart by Government-sponored commercial salvors)

Let's keen a sense of proportion about this, rather than the usual hysterical nonsense which gets whipped up.

"Take only photos, leave only bubbles" - in what way did the divers on this expedition do anything else?

If they were at fault, it was with an appauling choice of music to go with their video footage.

Iain

[Nigel Hewitt]

> This brings me to the only real criticism I can make regarding this thread: that being one person seems to be suggesting that it's best to let matters lie, lest bad publicity could be brought on the British diving fraternity. I would counter this by maintaining you are now in a position to show your abhorence on this matter by bringing the actions of U.S. divers to the publics attention.

That's me I assume. My real concern is that adverse publicity is not going to land on specific divers just on divers. The fact that I don't like what some people do when it is legal means I can take it up with them or not. Me complaining to you and you agreeing with me may make us both feel morally justified but we are actually wasting our time.

What I don't want to happen is the politician style "While I naturally condem..." opening line and then have something happen that sounds like it is the same issue but isn't. BSAC and others had to put a lot of work into this issue some time ago and it is still very sensitive. These particular wrecks, because there were both a lot of dead and a lot of survivors, are an emotive issue to many. The views of the survivors associations have been made clear and the British Government, who naturally still own the ships, have supported them. These views should be respected.

nigelH

[alan matthews]

Nigel

Thanks for the response.

I don't need reminding of how politcian's make situations such as these into their peacemeal (normally for their own ends). I am not going down that road. However, I don't feel that moral justification is an issue in contention here: morally, ethically etc the U.S. divers are wrong. Why don't you state what's exactly on your mind - perhaps we can then enter into some useful dialogue.

Alan


:=> This brings me to the only real criticism I can make regarding this thread: that being one person seems to be suggesting that it's best to let matters lie, lest bad publicity could be brought on the British diving fraternity. I would counter this by maintaining you are now in a position to show your abhorence on this matter by bringing the actions of U.S. divers to the publics attention.

That's me I assume. My real concern is that adverse publicity is not going to land on specific divers just on divers. The fact that I don't like what some people do when it is legal means I can take it up with them or not. Me complaining to you and you agreeing with me may make us both feel morally justified but we are actually wasting our time.

What I don't want to happen is the politician style "While I naturally condem..." opening line and then have something happen that sounds like it is the same issue but isn't. BSAC and others had to put a lot of work into this issue some time ago and it is still very sensitive. These particular wrecks, because there were both a lot of dead and a lot of survivors, are an emotive issue to many. The views of the survivors associations have been made clear and the British Government, who naturally still own the ships, have supported them. These views should be respected.

nigelH

[Andy Wade]

Well, I've seen the whole video now and I think it's down to one thing, the human skull is sat on a step. Now as a diver of some years (actually a lot of years) I doubt very much that it is in it's original resting place, also I can't see any other bones about so I think it is out of context with it's surroundings.
I can only draw a couple of things from this.
Either the person who videoed it moved it there for effect, or someone else did and they just found it where it appears on the step.
Either way someone has been moving human remains about and this is what I find abhorrent, how could anyone do this?
Whether it is an official designated war grave, or just another shipwreck where someone died, this is a desecration.
They also claim to have 'permission' to dive the wreck, what a load of cobblers, permission isn't necessary.
They also claim that they have had letters of thanks from relatives of the crew members, now I'd really like to see these letters. I don't believe they exist.

They do admit to actually breaking into the 'virgin territory' engine room and that Greg Doyle the owner of the dive vessel MV Grace was offering a prize of a free trip to anyone who found a way into the engine room.
I wonder why.
All the stuff about the engine room is online to see at the link at the bottom of this posting.

I ask everyone who reads this, to email this Andrew Georgitsis on <a href="mailto:ag@5thd-x.com">ag@5thd-x.com</a> for a start and make sure he knows that we find this unacceptable, and email the MV Grace dive vessel which operates in the area that we find this unacceptable. You can email them on <a href="mailto:gravedesecrators@penetrationdivers.com">gravedesecrators@penetrationdivers.com</a>
Hmmmm.... penetrationdivers.com
Nice website domain name. It clearly shows their intent, in fact they claim 'There's nothing we can't get you into'.

These wrecks are designated as Protected Places.
'Divers may visit a Protected Place on a "look but don't touch" basis' What part this of do they not understand?

If anyone is going to point out that these divers aren't British subjects so it doesn't apply to them, don't bother as I've heard it.
Just because they can doesn't mean we should accept it.
They are still ruining the reputation of divers everywhere.

If we don't make a distinction about how to do wreck diving with respect, then someone else might make it for us.

Stop press:
The vidoes of the penetration of HMS Repulse have been removed from the website.
Hmmmm.... That speaks volumes.



.

[Nigel Hewitt]

&gt; Why don't you state what's exactly on your mind - perhaps we can then enter into some useful dialogue.

Long - sorry -

OK I am unhappy with the attitude to graves that some divers have but this is just an extreme case as people who ought to be considered have expressed and opinion and are being ignored. For many years I have been interested in archaeology. I know the protocols for dealing with human remains and I know the way a site supervisor winces when something is identified as possibly human but people are people and most care strongly what happens to their own body and to the bodies of their family.

However I am faced with the quandary that what I may consider morally wrong is not legally wrong. Just as I, as a Christian may restrict what I do on a Sunday but have no right to impose that on those outside my faith, so my feelings that it is wrong to go against the POMR act do not mean I can vilify those that are not subject to British Law for doing so.

This leaves me reading people suggesting that we write to our MP, who can do nothing relevant to this case, and stir them up to do something as dangerous. It is easy for Joe Public to have the image of a sunken warship sitting upright on the bottom, the flags now hanging limp and the bodies of the crew dead at their stations. Then the evil diver swims down and loots the watch from the fallen hero's wrist. Evil diver must be stopped is the cry and the legislation would not be hard.

But human remains are vanishingly rare on wrecks. The sea aggressively recycles biological material and after 50 years normally only the boots remain and beyond that buttons are the only clue. On most wrecks a diver is doing no more than walking through a country church-yard.

I view wreck diving as a commendable and pleasurable experience. There are designated wrecks that we should not enter and these have been chosen and that should be observed. Stirring up a hornet's nest of political action now will not improve matters. I don't carry tools or lift bags but I recognise that historically diving and salvage were synonymous and to some people they still are. It is legal so I don't complain if I share a boat with spidgers.

So I am left with strong feeling but no outlet. The only thing I can say is don't make matters worse. I'm pleased the video was removed. We can't undo what is done but at least it is not being inflammatory. I hope the report that an English team also entered the wreck is wrong but if not maybe the POMR Act needs an outing.

The wreck has been entered and the least-worst scenario now is that it doesn't happen again. Taking out your moral outrage on your MP will not help - anger should be cooled and then, if you feel you should, a reasoned complaint be raised with those that you consider the offenders.

I'm sorry it's long. I know many people will not agree with me but such is life. I have said enough on the subject now.

nigelH

[Andy Wade]

:=&gt; Why don't you state what's exactly on your mind - perhaps we can then enter into some useful dialogue.

Long - sorry -

OK I am unhappy with the attitude to graves that some divers have but this is just an extreme case as people who ought to be considered have expressed and opinion and are being ignored. For many years I have been interested in archaeology. I know the protocols for dealing with human remains and I know the way a site supervisor winces when something is identified as possibly human but people are people and most care strongly what happens to their own body and to the bodies of their family.

However I am faced with the quandary that what I may consider morally wrong is not legally wrong. Just as I, as a Christian may restrict what I do on a Sunday but have no right to impose that on those outside my faith, so my feelings that it is wrong to go against the POMR act do not mean I can vilify those that are not subject to British Law for doing so.

This leaves me reading people suggesting that we write to our MP, who can do nothing relevant to this case, and stir them up to do something as dangerous. It is easy for Joe Public to have the image of a sunken warship sitting upright on the bottom, the flags now hanging limp and the bodies of the crew dead at their stations. Then the evil diver swims down and loots the watch from the fallen hero's wrist. Evil diver must be stopped is the cry and the legislation would not be hard.

But human remains are vanishingly rare on wrecks. The sea aggressively recycles biological material and after 50 years normally only the boots remain and beyond that buttons are the only clue. On most wrecks a diver is doing no more than walking through a country church-yard.

I view wreck diving as a commendable and pleasurable experience. There are designated wrecks that we should not enter and these have been chosen and that should be observed. Stirring up a hornet's nest of political action now will not improve matters. I don't carry tools or lift bags but I recognise that historically diving and salvage were synonymous and to some people they still are. It is legal so I don't complain if I share a boat with spidgers.

So I am left with strong feeling but no outlet. The only thing I can say is don't make matters worse. I'm pleased the video was removed. We can't undo what is done but at least it is not being inflammatory. I hope the report that an English team also entered the wreck is wrong but if not maybe the POMR Act needs an outing.

The wreck has been entered and the least-worst scenario now is that it doesn't happen again. Taking out your moral outrage on your MP will not help - anger should be cooled and then, if you feel you should, a reasoned complaint be raised with those that you consider the offenders.

I'm sorry it's long. I know many people will not agree with me but such is life. I have said enough on the subject now.


This is not particularly aimed at you Nigel, It's just a good place to say it.
The only reason that these wrecks were made Protected Places (and diveable) instead of Controlled Sites (Diving banned) is that they are in international waters and the British Government cannot patrol these sites to ensure that they are left alone. (No point in making a rule that you can't police.
I don't like it, but I can see why they did it.)
The divers who enter them should remember that. Yes, I mean you too Mr BSAC diver, who shall remain nameless. Shame on you if you entered HMS Repulse. Private dive? Rubbish.
You only remain nameless because otherwise it would get removed from the forum. You know who you are.
Just because they are a 'Protected Place' doesn't in principle give them any less of a war grave status than 'Controlled Sites'.
I agree with Nigel in that I don't think that writing to MP's will solve anything, this desecration of HMS Repulse has happened before and we've complained about it with little or nothing being done.
I have no faith in MP's as they are really only after their own interests, like getting voted back into power.
What I'd like is for people who agree that the wrecks should be left undisturbed, should contact these divers and dive boat operators, and tell them exactly what they think about it.
Go straight to the culprits.
It might make them think twice next time.
Even if we feel that we can do little or nothing doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try this.

To you Nigel,
I know you've stated that you've said enough on the subject, but how about just one email to these guys and tell them that you don't like what they're doing?
If we all say nothing they might see it as a sanction to their deeds.
If we all say something, maybe....


.

[terryh]

Might be a small protest, but I am in the market for a new wing
and was seriously looking to buy a Halcyon. Not any more.

TerryH

[alan matthews]

Might be a small protest, but I am in the market for a new wing
and was seriously looking to buy a Halcyon. Not any more.

TerryH


I'd like to thank Nigel for offering a reasoned view on this matter.

But I should also like to make it clear that during the consultation process re; pre-PMRA on Repulse, I entered into a lot of useful dialogue with divers organisations - one bonus from this being I met up with Andy Wade who has now formed strong bonds with our assoc.

The point I'm labouring up to here is that if divers (and their assoc's) made efforts similar to Andy's I guarantee you would make greater efforts to protect the final resting place of the survivors fallen comrades.

Let's make no mistake Repulse is a war grave - it should be respected by all and sundry within this context - nothing should be disturbed or removed from the site - culprits acting in this way (of any nationality) should be exposed: bad publicity does no individual any good. Moreover, should the skippper of M.V. Empress wish to conduct dives in which one of Repulses bells is recovered!!!! then it may be that those British nationals hiring this vessel - but not contravening the terms of PMRA are nevertheless morally guilty by association by not reporting those who enter the vessel - would this not be a case of responsible divers drawing a line in the sand with their less responsible colleagues (is this not self-policing in action?).

On a more positive note I'm pleaaed to witness the way in which all participants on this thread have reacted to the video showing human remains. I have yet to inform our assoc secretary on this point. But rest-assured I shall also advise him of the moral support we are now receiving from the UK diving fraternity. However, should anyone wish to forward the name of the BSAC diver who entered Repulse please contact me via our website on: www.forcez-survivors.org.uk

Alan Matthews

[tony dwyer]

Nigel

a very clearly written and reasoned post, with which I agree totally.

There are many ships that were sunk during war and on which lives were lost that are visited by recreational divers as well as 'explorers', such as:

Thistlegorm - 9 British sailors died there
The wrecks in Chuuk lagoon - 1000's of Japanese died

The first of these two is dived by 1000's every year, from many countries. How many consider the lives lost? I suspect very few indeed.

The second site is visited by many Europeans and Americans each year, the same question may be asked. I wonder how many view Chuuk as a site of importance with regard to the loss of life. I recall seeing film a while ago where human remains were proudly put on display underwater for a photo opportunity. I hope that such behaviour is not still occuuring.
How many of the divers that have sat in the cockpit of the Zero fighter that is visited by 100's every season, consider the young life lost when it crashed into the sea?

Does the wrecks location and financial attractiveness (for Diving Operators) affect the view that people take when the dive?
I treat every wreck that I dive as a place of rest. Some may not have had any fatalities, but many did. Unless I have specific knowledge to the contrary, I assume that lives were lost when the ship sank.

regards

Tony

[gridler]

One issue that I take exception to is the way that everyone is saying what a bunch of naughty boys and girls they are ,when yes they are diving on a protected wreck. If the issue was that they are diving on a war grave then I would suggest that nearly every UK diver is guilty of that. (Legally no such thing as a war grave) The issue that seems to be getting peoples back up is that it is DIR divers, pretty weak in my opioion because I know that this wreck was penertrated in the mid ninetys by UK divers. Lets respect theses wrecks and "LETS NOT FORGET THOSE THAT GROW NOT OLD".But if we as divers make a song and dance about the fact that someone has videoed somthing that has been going on for ten years and is not an offence. The MOD acting as the MOD do WILL ban diving on all MOD wrecks that includes all merchant shipping lost at time of war. This law would be enfoceable in theses waters, I am Ex Forces and lost freinds in Northern Ireland,Falklands and the Gulf I understand the emotive issues surrounding this. The real issue is the brass divers and wreckers that are ripping wrecks to bits. I dived the UC70 which though it sunk all hands on is not a war grave per se and noticed that someone has had a go at the bolts on the Anti aircraft gun. Yes I am sure that as garden displays go this would catch your eye, The fact that is you dont go down the local cenetry and chip the top of a marbel headstone but you do to the local cemetry. So lets dive these wrecks but remember what they are. The key word is Respect.

[John Williams]

I still think that if somebody writes to a politician saying "Divers are violating war graves" they will write back and say "Yes we must stop divers diving on war graves" just like last time.

nigelH

So let's write and say

"Responsible divers can help protect war graves!"

The sound bite is just as short...but puts across a VERY different message!

If you only point out the bad then all you'll get is a "block"

Point out the good and you'll get a "go ahead!"

Say you'll do it for nothing and you'll get a "when do you start?"


John

[John Williams]

Quote
I know that this wreck was penertrated in the mid ninetys by UK divers. Lets respect theses wrecks and "LETS NOT FORGET THOSE THAT GROW NOT OLD".But if we as divers make a song and dance about the fact that someone has videoed somthing that has been going on for ten years
Unquote

Just because someone has been doing something abhorent for the last 10 years does not make it right today!

For the past 10 years the responsible diving fraternity has tried the "education and not legislation" pathway - and people are now realising that they can get away with it...and have been doing for 10 years!

Perhaps it's time to try something more pro-active - somthing to show these people with no respect that there are consequences to their actions which offend so many of us. If the collective will of the people is such that we should prevent this desecration...then is that not what laws are supposed to reflect?

Don't give me guff about international waters ...every nation has respect for its dead - why can we not all respect the world's dead instead of only our own countrymen? It does not matter what side they were on when they died...they were fighting for what they beleived in and that is what deserves our respect (whether we agree with thier beleifs or not!)

I note that your post includes a call to respect these sites (and indeed this should be extended, as has been said, to any wreck were you are not sure that everyone survived the wrecking).

The best way to do this is to treat it as a graveyard - tread quietly, respectfully and not move anything (and CERTAINLY NOT REMOVE ANYTHING!).

War Graves are evocative - because the people who populate them were fighting for our freedom! Whilst I can understand the emotions I don't see any reason to downgrade the graves of those moving coal about in peacetime to keep our industry going and improve our standard of living in that way.

All graves should be afforded the respect they deserve.

The international community can/should provide a means to protect the memory those who died. In order to keep things in our memory we need to be able to visit and pay our respects (why else do we have graveyards and headstones?). However the
structure of the graves (the vessels that foundered) should be treated with the same respect as the graves in a churchyard and the church itself.

No-one would get away with stealing the head from an angel headstone and then displaying it for all to see in a public place...now why should a ship's bell be any different?

Taking something from a ship like the Repulse - that's like stealing the cross from the dome of St Paul's Cathedral.
Should people get away with that?


John

[alunharford]

1) To the best of my knowledge, this was not a GUE expedition, in the same way that the dives on these wrecks by the groups lead by Jack Ingle are not BSAC Expeditions. So let's leave the agencies out of it.

If any member of the National Diving Committee were to perform a similar dive, there would be a significant number of BSAC members calling for their head for bringing the sport into disrepute.
I've got to admit that I've not seen that from GUE.

[gridler]

I am not sure if you are having a go or not John but before we jump up and down about the Repulse dont you think we should get our own house in order, we still see divers armed with lump hammers and cold chisels. There are very few dive clubs that I have visted that do not display bells and portholes. I would be prepared to bet that these have been removed from wrecks that have gone down with the loss of life. To me this is the same as chipping the lump of marbel off the headstone. If you are saying that the divers entering the Repulse is adhorrant then what are you doing about the divers entering all the other wrecks or does that not matter because they are not protected. I dive wrecks that are for want of a better description graves and I penertrate them but that does not mean that I do not respect the dead. I am not defending the divers that have made this video which I have not viewed. I would say that removal of property from the repulse is theft as the property belogs to the MOD. If the MOD have to undertake a lenghty battle to enforce the restrictions then they will go for the easy option banned on all MOD wrecks. Then the option is for us the divers to enforce the code of conduct ourselves. Shells removed from wrecks are firearms under legistation and the MOD police will prosecuted offenders for simple possession. Let us police our sport and challenge the wreckers they are a dying breed lets stamp them out. Here endeth the lesson

[iainmsmith]

Quote
I know that this wreck was penertrated in the mid ninetys by UK divers. Lets respect theses wrecks and "LETS NOT FORGET THOSE THAT GROW NOT OLD".But if we as divers make a song and dance about the fact that someone has videoed somthing that has been going on for ten years
Unquote

Just because someone has been doing something abhorent for the last 10 years does not make it right today!

By "abhorent", one assumes you mean, "in your opinion". And what is abhorent? Diving the wreck, penetrating it, or stealing from it and/or disturbing human remains.

I'm with you as far as the last two go...but I'm not sure there's any evidence to suggest that either of those two activities took place on the expedition which gave rise to the start of this thread.



No-one would get away with stealing the head from an angel headstone and then displaying it for all to see in a public place...now why should a ship's bell be any different?

Taking something from a ship like the Repulse - that's like stealing the cross from the dome of St Paul's Cathedral.
Should people get away with that?

No...but you're getting off topic, unless you have evidence to suggest that the Fifth Dimension group were involved in the removal of items from these wrecks...in which case, please make it public and my voice will be as loud in condemnation as anyone elses.

Iain

[Andy Wade]

:=Quote
:=I know that this wreck was penertrated in the mid ninetys by UK divers. Lets respect theses wrecks and "LETS NOT FORGET THOSE THAT GROW NOT OLD".But if we as divers make a song and dance about the fact that someone has videoed somthing that has been going on for ten years
:=Unquote
:=
:=Just because someone has been doing something abhorent for the last 10 years does not make it right today!

By "abhorent", one assumes you mean, "in your opinion". And what is abhorent? Diving the wreck, penetrating it, or stealing from it and/or disturbing human remains.

I'm with you as far as the last two go...but I'm not sure there's any evidence to suggest that either of those two activities took place on the expedition which gave rise to the start of this thread.



:=No-one would get away with stealing the head from an angel headstone and then displaying it for all to see in a public place...now why should a ship's bell be any different?
:=
:=Taking something from a ship like the Repulse - that's like stealing the cross from the dome of St Paul's Cathedral.
:=Should people get away with that?

No...but you're getting off topic, unless you have evidence to suggest that the Fifth Dimension group were involved in the removal of items from these wrecks...in which case, please make it public and my voice will be as loud in condemnation as anyone elses.


They did break into the engine room, and IMO somebody moved that skull on to the step.
It might not have been them but funnily enough I don't feel like giving them the benefit of the doubt.
In some ways I don't blame the divers as much as I blame the skippers of the dive vessels, One particularly well known grave robber has had artifacts and personal crew items displayed on his dive vessel, and the MV Grace owner has offered a free trip to anyone who finds a way into the HMS Repulse engine room.
These divers have just bragged about finding it, and by bashing at a hatch lever in order to open it to gain access.
(See link)
In doing so they have opened the wreck up further for pillage by other divers, I'm sure that now there has been a way in found, the skipper of the MV Grace will use it as an incentive for people to use his dive boat, sort of a "Dive with us and we'll put you into the virgin territory of the HMS Repulse engine room, plenty of rich pickings in there."
Why else would he offer a free trip for the first person to find a way in?
Did these divers think that the skipper wanted to find a way in for any other reason?
IMO helping people who will take items is just the same as taking the items themselves.
Are they _that_ naive?

Let's not forget his website slogan.... 'There's nothing we can't get you into'

I just can't get the sight of that skull out of my head.



.

[alan matthews]

Just a quick update on my own investigations into this entire debacle (I use this term because it's certainly not helping the cause of divers vis-a-vis better relations with survivors groups).

I've spoken to various persons/officials within BSAC and am pleased by their response. However, I can in some ways understand Iain's comments, in that we need hard evidence on whether a British diver/s has entered Repulse - let alone removed items.

Can you imagine the furore if a British led dive had been able to enter USS Yorktown - shoot a short video - and handle (we believe) human remains. Within days you would have had the British press (fuelled by US public opinion) screaming for an international ban on wreck diving; no doubt our own politicians would have obliged in a very short time.

However, at this juncture it would appear that a wall of silence is enveloping any possible British involvement with 5th dimensions latest sortie. This should not be so. If a British diver has entered Repulse they have not only violated an act of Parliament, their selfishness could have major long-term ramifications for British divers in general.

Your associations have fought long and hard to ensure that you can still enjoy visiting the site of Repulse (and other protected places) you owe it to them to identify any person known to have violated PMRA.

It's now time to speak out - not harp on.

Cheers everyone

Alan Matthews
:=:=Quote
:=:=I know that this wreck was penertrated in the mid ninetys by UK divers. Lets respect theses wrecks and "LETS NOT FORGET THOSE THAT GROW NOT OLD".But if we as divers make a song and dance about the fact that someone has videoed somthing that has been going on for ten years
:=:=Unquote
:=:=
:=:=Just because someone has been doing something abhorent for the last 10 years does not make it right today!
:=
:=By "abhorent", one assumes you mean, "in your opinion". And what is abhorent? Diving the wreck, penetrating it, or stealing from it and/or disturbing human remains.
:=
:=I'm with you as far as the last two go...but I'm not sure there's any evidence to suggest that either of those two activities took place on the expedition which gave rise to the start of this thread.
:=
:=
:=
:=:=No-one would get away with stealing the head from an angel headstone and then displaying it for all to see in a public place...now why should a ship's bell be any different?
:=:=
:=:=Taking something from a ship like the Repulse - that's like stealing the cross from the dome of St Paul's Cathedral.
:=:=Should people get away with that?
:=
:=No...but you're getting off topic, unless you have evidence to suggest that the Fifth Dimension group were involved in the removal of items from these wrecks...in which case, please make it public and my voice will be as loud in condemnation as anyone elses.


They did break into the engine room, and IMO somebody moved that skull on to the step.
It might not have been them but funnily enough I don't feel like giving them the benefit of the doubt.
In some ways I don't blame the divers as much as I blame the skippers of the dive vessels, One particularly well known grave robber has had artifacts and personal crew items displayed on his dive vessel, and the MV Grace owner has offered a free trip to anyone who finds a way into the HMS Repulse engine room.
These divers have just bragged about finding it, and by bashing at a hatch lever in order to open it to gain access.
(See link)
In doing so they have opened the wreck up further for pillage by other divers, I'm sure that now there has been a way in found, the skipper of the MV Grace will use it as an incentive for people to use his dive boat, sort of a "Dive with us and we'll put you into the virgin territory of the HMS Repulse engine room, plenty of rich pickings in there."
Why else would he offer a free trip for the first person to find a way in?
Did these divers think that the skipper wanted to find a way in for any other reason?
IMO helping people who will take items is just the same as taking the items themselves.
Are they _that_ naive?

Let's not forget his website slogan.... 'There's nothing we can't get you into'

I just can't get the sight of that skull out of my head.



.

[Finless]

This is a very emotive subject to which there will doubtless be an almost infinit number of slightly differing opinions.

I don't have any concerns about people diving a wreck that is called a "war grave" provided nothing is taken or disturbed. People walk through cemeteries don't they!

Wreck penetration of a war grave - probably have to agree that doing that is a "no no". Although, peoples antipathy to this activity seems to weaken with time. Well, archaeologists go rooting through graves don't they! You only have to watch Time Team on Ch 4 - have any of you complained about that or doesn't it matter because "it happened so long ago"

Quite a large number of the wrecks I dive in the Channel involved fatalities at the time of their sinking. I recently dived the Caleb Sprague which will probably be known to a number of you. 25 people are reported to have died when it was sunk.

Do you think "the authorities" would hesitate to dive on a newly sunk vessel, regardless of the number lives lost, if there something of value on the wreck.

Perhaps the only way is to designate some kind of time line. War grave wreck :-

1. Nobody may dive it for ?? years from the date of sinking.
2. After this time diving around the wreck is OK but NO wreck penetration.
3. After ??? years - limited wreck penetration is permissible (possibly under licence).
4. No removal of artefacts is allowed at any time.

At some stage Point 4 will start to be ignored but hopefully it will so far in the future that there will be no one left alive to be offended. I could have phrased that last sentence better but I hope you will understand my meaning.

[terryh]

The passage of time is very subjective and should not be seen
as an immediate sancion to be able to penetrate wrecks and
indeed exam objects/remains.

My father was in 901 Flotilla Royal Marines, part of force W.
His memories of that time and the horrors of the conflict are
as real today as they were then. His deafness caused by being
in the RT room, underneath twin brownings are daily testament
to that. He has in turn tried hard not to speak of it, but at
times his feelings and those of some of his other Burma
Star/British Legion comrades are all to apparent.

I can NEVER begin to comprend the sacrifice, but can at least
acknowledge it. That's why when the last survivors are gone,
for at least two generations (maybe more)we will continue to
honour them.

The very least we can do is to endorse the widely accepted
principle that to forceably penetrate a war grave is (no matter
what the legality) morally wrong and extremly upsetting for
those invloved in the conflict either directly or indirectly.

TerryH

[gridler]

I think that we all have the same agenda here and we all agree that it is wrong to disturb graves. The best policy statement I have seen is look and dont touch, leave it there. The loss of life at sea be it at peace or war will always stir strong emotions. No one disputes the sacrifice but lets see theses wrecks before they are gone. Let us visit history just as we walk the somme and the other battlefields. There is no difference. Just because I dive war graves does not mean I do not ubderstand the situation. We all know someone who fought in the war. On a side issue I once spoke to a WW1 vet who told me that his father remembered his father telling him about fighting at Waterloo nothing to do with this I know but it puts time into perspective.

[John Williams]

I am not sure if you are having a go or not John but before we jump up and down about the Repulse dont you think we should get our own house in order, we still see divers armed with lump hammers and cold chisels. There are very few dive clubs that I have visted that do not display bells and portholes. I would be prepared to bet that these have been removed from wrecks that have gone down with the loss of life. To me this is the same as chipping the lump of marbel off the headstone.

Absolutely Agree. I have never taken anything off a wreck except things I was going to eat. I prefer scenic dives where I can enjoy the wildlife. I recognise that wreck diving meets the needs of the historians and it meets my needs by providing an artificial reef. We also need to recognise that the past is past. In the past it was seen as acceptable to remove things from wrecks and to restore them and display them. I can see how this has helped to keep the memory of those who perished alive in the minds of those who view the artifacts thus preserved. Times change - and so does public opinion!
I agree with the currently held majority view - the one that states leave it all alone. Go look see! Go pay your respects, do what you can to keep the memory alive! Dow what you can to identify final resting places for people! Once the wreck has been identified then no further penetration is appropriate. No-one should force their way into an engine room - this is the same as breaking into a family tomb against the wishes of the families of those that are interred within!

If you are saying that the divers entering the Repulse is adhorrant then what are you doing about the divers entering all the other wrecks or does that not matter because they are not protected. I dive wrecks that are for want of a better description graves and I penertrate them but that does not mean that I do not respect the dead.

Nor does my post imply that your actions show such a lack of respect. However the destruction of parts of the wreck to gain deeper access, or the removal of things from the site shows an apparent lack of respect.

I am not defending the divers that have made this video which I have not viewed. I would say that removal of property from the repulse is theft as the property belogs to the MOD. If the MOD have to undertake a lenghty battle to enforce the restrictions then they will go for the easy option banned on all MOD wrecks.

So we need to do something about the few that would force the MOD to this conclusion ourselves...or seek to support a view that allows respectful visiting - but clamps down extremely hard on anyone doing damage without explicit requests to do so from the MOD itself.

Then the option is for us the divers to enforce the code of conduct ourselves. Shells removed from wrecks are firearms under legistation and the MOD police will prosecuted offenders for simple possession. Let us police our sport and challenge the wreckers they are a dying breed lets stamp them out. Here endeth the lesson

I wish that it did "endeth" here. Whilst these people are still damaging wrecks (any wreck!) they are forcing the rest of us to risk an outright ban. This would not really bother me personally (since I choose not to dive wrecks much anyway!). However I do beleive that the right to visit wrecks should not be removed. I also beleive that visiting these wrecks to pay respects, and to keep them in the public mind "lest we forget" is something that should continue.

How do we ensure that the rights of respectful divers are maintained - but ensure that those who choose to desecrate graves are severely punished ... to the extent that the punishment acts as a deterrent from trespassing in the first place?


John

[John Williams]

...but I'm not sure there's any evidence to suggest that either of those two activities took place on the expedition which gave rise to the start of this thread.

...and for any action to be taken evidence MUST be present. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. However - at the moment there is no punishment (and therefore no deterrent) even if there is evidence.
There is in UK waters - you must report anything recovered to Receiver of Wreck and therefore must provide your own evidence. Failure to report is a crime in itself.
In international waters it would seem that "anything goes". That cannot be right...can it?



:=
:=Taking something from a ship like the Repulse - that's like stealing the cross from the dome of St Paul's Cathedral.
:=Should people get away with that?

No...but you're getting off topic, unless you have evidence to suggest that the Fifth Dimension group were involved in the removal of items from these wrecks...in which case, please make it public and my voice will be as loud in condemnation as anyone elses.

I was making a metaphor for any similar activity. I don't know enough about this particular case to bring evidence...but I feel that there should be some international legislation to clarify the position for all similar cases.


John

[John Williams]

I think that we all have the same agenda here and we all agree that it is wrong to disturb graves. The best policy statement I have seen is look and dont touch, leave it there. The loss of life at sea be it at peace or war will always stir strong emotions. No one disputes the sacrifice but lets see theses wrecks before they are gone. Let us visit history just as we walk the somme and the other battlefields. There is no difference. Just because I dive war graves does not mean I do not ubderstand the situation. We all know someone who fought in the war. On a side issue I once spoke to a WW1 vet who told me that his father remembered his father telling him about fighting at Waterloo nothing to do with this I know but it puts time into perspective.


No-one has said that we should not be allowed to visit these wrecks (war graves or just peacetime wrecks where life was lost).
We are all fighting to protect the right to visit these wrecks.

What causes problems with protecting that right is when the small minority abuse the right and go too far.
Forcible entry into any final resting place must be considered wong!
If we cannot prevent the few who go to far from damabging and defacing graves then the authorities will be forced to protect them by banning everyone from visiting them - in the hope that if no-one goes then the graves will be safe from violation.

Unfortunately this will also remove them from the public thoughts and reduce their function as a memorial. And remember we are trying to prevent ourselves forgetting the horrors of war and the sacrifice made by those who died protecting our freedom, or working to improve our standard of living in peacetime.

The authorities, and the families want us to keep diving these wrecks as much as we want to keep diving them.

The only conflict is when divers overstep the line and fail to show respect. It is only a very small minority who show this lack of respect - but their actions will affect us all unless we act to curtail their activities.

A voluntary code, without any punishment for breaking it has shown huge success... but not with an increasingly small minority. Unless we can sort this minority out amongst divers -the authorities will sort it out for us (by taking action against us all!)

How can we sort it out?


John

[Andy Wade]

:=I think that we all have the same agenda here and we all agree that it is wrong to disturb graves. The best policy statement I have seen is look and dont touch, leave it there. The loss of life at sea be it at peace or war will always stir strong emotions. No one disputes the sacrifice but lets see theses wrecks before they are gone. Let us visit history just as we walk the somme and the other battlefields. There is no difference. Just because I dive war graves does not mean I do not ubderstand the situation. We all know someone who fought in the war. On a side issue I once spoke to a WW1 vet who told me that his father remembered his father telling him about fighting at Waterloo nothing to do with this I know but it puts time into perspective.


No-one has said that we should not be allowed to visit these wrecks (war graves or just peacetime wrecks where life was lost).
We are all fighting to protect the right to visit these wrecks.

What causes problems with protecting that right is when the small minority abuse the right and go too far.
Forcible entry into any final resting place must be considered wong!
If we cannot prevent the few who go to far from damabging and defacing graves then the authorities will be forced to protect them by banning everyone from visiting them - in the hope that if no-one goes then the graves will be safe from violation.

Unfortunately this will also remove them from the public thoughts and reduce their function as a memorial. And remember we are trying to prevent ourselves forgetting the horrors of war and the sacrifice made by those who died protecting our freedom, or working to improve our standard of living in peacetime.

The authorities, and the families want us to keep diving these wrecks as much as we want to keep diving them.

The only conflict is when divers overstep the line and fail to show respect. It is only a very small minority who show this lack of respect - but their actions will affect us all unless we act to curtail their activities.

A voluntary code, without any punishment for breaking it has shown huge success... but not with an increasingly small minority. Unless we can sort this minority out amongst divers -the authorities will sort it out for us (by taking action against us all!)

How can we sort it out?


Email the divers who entered HMS Repulse engine room, and remind them that it has status as a 'Protected Place', and it's our ship, which holds the remains of our men who died in the service of their country. I know that as they're not British nationals it doesn't 'actually' apply to them, but remind them that we other divers are watching what they do, and we're unhappy about them violating the wreck's status.
They should respect the wreck of a ship that holds our war dead.
That's all, no insults, just a nudge to make them think about it.
To go a bit further, email the dive boat skippers that run trips out to her, and remind them of the same things, they ultimately control behaviour on the wreck, and if items get lifted, it's because they allow it to happen.

HMS Repulse fought in both world wars and defended our freedom.
It's time we defended her status.




.

[Dave]

In international waters it would seem that "anything goes". That cannot be right...can it?

Why not? The UK has no right to legislate extra territorially.

I was making a metaphor for any similar activity. I don't know enough about this particular case to bring evidence...but I feel that there should be some international legislation to clarify the position for all similar cases.

As far as I am aware there is no international treaties which cover diving in international waters. It would seem to me that these people have done nothing illegal, regardless of what some people think of what they have done.

Consider also, would you want treaties being imposed which would curtail diving in international waters?

Dave

[John Williams]

:=In international waters it would seem that "anything goes". That cannot be right...can it?

Why not? The UK has no right to legislate extra territorially.

What difference does that make. It is either right or wrong!
(I never said anything about the legality of these actions)


:=I was making a metaphor for any similar activity. I don't know enough about this particular case to bring evidence...but I feel that there should be some international legislation to clarify the position for all similar cases.

As far as I am aware there is no international treaties which cover diving in international waters. It would seem to me that these people have done nothing illegal, regardless of what some people think of what they have done.

So let's make it illegal!


Consider also, would you want treaties being imposed which would curtail diving in international waters?

Yes! - to stop anyone desecrating a grave!
Not to stop people diving wrecks, or to stop them diving designated sites...just to stop them being disrespectful to final resting places.

John

[Dave]

What difference does that make. It is either right or wrong!
(I never said anything about the legality of these actions)

It's the legality which makes it right or wrong


So let's make it illegal!

Hrmm... And how are you proposing to do this? The UK cannot make it illegal on its own

Yes! - to stop anyone desecrating a grave!
Not to stop people diving wrecks, or to stop them diving designated sites...just to stop them being disrespectful to final resting places.

And do you not think that if anything were to be done it would not be an overreaction of a treaty that could be a lot worse than someone doing something not that you dislike

Dave

[Andy Wade]

:=In international waters it would seem that "anything goes". That cannot be right...can it?

Why not? The UK has no right to legislate extra territorially.

:=I was making a metaphor for any similar activity. I don't know enough about this particular case to bring evidence...but I feel that there should be some international legislation to clarify the position for all similar cases.

As far as I am aware there is no international treaties which cover diving in international waters. It would seem to me that these people have done nothing illegal, regardless of what some people think of what they have done.

We're complaining about it on moral grounds anyway. We don't want people to stop diving the wrecks, just to leave them undisturbed.
IMO The distress caused to surviving crew mates and relatives of the men would justify this on moral grounds alone.
If evidence appears to prove that a certain un-named BSAC (let's call him 'Johnny English' for reference) diver did enter the wreck, then he may find that action is going to be taken against him as he is allegedly a British national. We'll see.
I can't comment further than that as I don't know any more myself.

Actually I'm not sure if there isn't a legal issue here?
The wreck does belong to the British government and taking items is technically theft, just because the British government doesn't pursue anyone who takes items (not yet anyway) doesn't mean they sanction the removal of items.
We have no evidence that these particular divers took items, but it has certainly happened in recent months.

Perhaps if they wished the British goverment could also put pressure on the Singapore government to 'lean' on the dive vessels operating out of their ports to run trips to HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales. The Singapore High Commission has certainly been involved with it in the past.
Considering that these men died defending Singapore, the British government would have a legitimate claim for some kind of an 'understanding' with Singapore. Let's not put it beyond the bounds of possibilty?

Consider also, would you want treaties being imposed which would curtail diving in international waters?

This may happen in the future.
IIRC, UNESCO want(ed)to introduce a world wide rule that all wrecks of less than 100 years were not allowed to be dived on. I'm not sure about the precise wording, but it's something along those lines. (can anyone remember the details?)

[PeteM]

2) There is a suggestion that they were not the only group diving the wrecks at the time, and that the other group (allegedly inluding a senior figure within the BSAC) were also penetrating the wreck (see the YD thread for details of this suggestion).

A mate of mine was on Jack's trip and he informs me no penetrations took place

[andycarroll]

Email the divers who entered HMS Repulse engine room, and remind them that it has status as a 'Protected Place', and it's our ship, which holds the remains of our men who died in the service of their country. I know that as they're not British nationals it doesn't 'actually' apply to them, but remind them that we other divers are watching what they do, and we're unhappy about them violating the wreck's status.
They should respect the wreck of a ship that holds our war dead.
That's all, no insults, just a nudge to make them think about it.
To go a bit further, email the dive boat skippers that run trips out to her, and remind them of the same things, they ultimately control behaviour on the wreck, and if items get lifted, it's because they allow it to happen.

HMS Repulse fought in both world wars and defended our freedom.
It's time we defended her status.

Yes, and at the same time email every diver who has dived the LST wrecks, the U Boats, and any of the other wrecks were people have died, or are you saying that their lives were not as valuable as those on the South China Seas. I am sure that their families will disagree, yet in this one sided attack, they are forgotten. War graves. What a ridiculous definition. They gave their lives to the sea and therefore the whole sea is one big 'grave' where people die daily. The label is used to discourage salvage, due to the technology onboard, and if it was a true definition, would include every wreck which had lives lost. It wasn't so long ago when Dive mag showed a Japanese fighter with the remains still in place, yet I didn't see any outcry then and that was distributed to every BSAC member.

You are all being ridiculous. The 'policy' of GUE on wreck diving is to look but don't touch. Only video and pictures were taken and I am absolutely sure that no diver would have moved remains just to get a picture, that too is a ridiculous and unfounded accusation. I know AndyG and he is a great diver and also respects the wrecks he dives. There is no more glory hunting than the Starfish Enterprise group who also dive deeper wrecks where people have died. Its called exploration.

That video may be used in educating people about the war and its devastating effects, and bring the story to life, much the same as recent programmes showing the Hood, Bismark and Titanic. Note the Titanic has had remains moved and trophies taken to show in a museum, rather than rotting on the seabed.

Visible projects like this should be encouraged, as it educates us all. I knew nothing about the wrecks until seeing the article and to read the stories brings back the respect for the sacrifices made by people all over the world, and reminds us why violence is so terrible.

Why treat one wreck different to another? Respect all wrecks or don't dive them at all, its that simple. The definition of respect will be different for us all, but for me I like the GUE policy. Take only pictures, leave only bubbles, waste only time.

Andy

[john williams]

You are all being ridiculous. The 'policy' of GUE on wreck diving is to look but don't touch. Only video and pictures were taken and I am absolutely sure that no diver would have moved remains just to get a picture, that too is a ridiculous and unfounded accusation.

So - the FISH moved it to the step then?
Somebody moved it...and if they were there then they were divers!
Somebody broke into the engine room - and therefore disturbed a grave.
If they were there - they were divers!


Why treat one wreck different to another? Respect all wrecks or don't dive them at all, its that simple. The definition of respect will be different for us all, but for me I like the GUE policy. Take only pictures, leave only bubbles, waste only time.

Now this I can agree with. There should be no real difference between any final restng place. War graves do raise additional emotions because of the peculiar nature of the sacrifice made by those that were lost - but it should not detract from the loss, or the protection, we give to any maritime (or any) grave.

However - you seem to make the point that diving a wreck infers a lack of respect. I cannot agree with this part (and apologise if I missed your meaning) since diving the wreck, and surveying the external features of a wreck may teach us more about how it sank. High profile expeditions SHOULD be mounted to keep these wrecks in the public eye "lest we forget". However that does not mean we should condone breaking and entering the final resting place of those that died in the original atrocity of war.

Those that do disturb these sites should be left in no doubt that their behaviour is unacceptable and will be punished.

John

[alan matthews]

:=Email the divers who entered HMS Repulse engine room, and remind them that it has status as a 'Protected Place', and it's our ship, which holds the remains of our men who died in the service of their country. I know that as they're not British nationals it doesn't 'actually' apply to them, but remind them that we other divers are watching what they do, and we're unhappy about them violating the wreck's status.
:=They should respect the wreck of a ship that holds our war dead.
:=That's all, no insults, just a nudge to make them think about it.
:=To go a bit further, email the dive boat skippers that run trips out to her, and remind them of the same things, they ultimately control behaviour on the wreck, and if items get lifted, it's because they allow it to happen.
:=
:=HMS Repulse fought in both world wars and defended our freedom.
:=It's time we defended her status.

Yes, and at the same time email every diver who has dived the LST wrecks, the U Boats, and any of the other wrecks were people have died, or are you saying that their lives were not as valuable as those on the South China Seas. I am sure that their families will disagree, yet in this one sided attack, they are forgotten. War graves. What a ridiculous definition. They gave their lives to the sea and therefore the whole sea is one big 'grave' where people die daily. The label is used to discourage salvage, due to the technology onboard, and if it was a true definition, would include every wreck which had lives lost. It wasn't so long ago when Dive mag showed a Japanese fighter with the remains still in place, yet I didn't see any outcry then and that was distributed to every BSAC member.

You are all being ridiculous. The 'policy' of GUE on wreck diving is to look but don't touch. Only video and pictures were taken and I am absolutely sure that no diver would have moved remains just to get a picture, that too is a ridiculous and unfounded accusation. I know AndyG and he is a great diver and also respects the wrecks he dives. There is no more glory hunting than the Starfish Enterprise group who also dive deeper wrecks where people have died. Its called exploration.

That video may be used in educating people about the war and its devastating effects, and bring the story to life, much the same as recent programmes showing the Hood, Bismark and Titanic. Note the Titanic has had remains moved and trophies taken to show in a museum, rather than rotting on the seabed.

Visible projects like this should be encouraged, as it educates us all. I knew nothing about the wrecks until seeing the article and to read the stories brings back the respect for the sacrifices made by people all over the world, and reminds us why violence is so terrible.

Why treat one wreck different to another? Respect all wrecks or don't dive them at all, its that simple. The definition of respect will be different for us all, but for me I like the GUE policy. Take only pictures, leave only bubbles, waste only time.

Andy

I'm at a loss to understand the savage nature of this reply to Andy Wades thread.

It would appear that the author is more intent on defending AG rather than discussing this matter rationally. He states that AG is a great guy. Maybe so, but I question AG's claim that many survivors welcomed the dive - if I'm wrong prove me wrong - I know the depth of feeling amongst survivors AG doesn't. The plain truth is that the ships are protected because they are war graves - in the exact same way as USS Arizona is. I don't see a group of US divers organising their own intrusive dives on this ship - reason being she's protected as a mark of respect to their nations war dead.

Moreover, I also note the usual angle of this dive being fundamental for future generations knowledge of the horrors of war - this is hogwash - if AG wants to learn of these great ships and men that served in them, get in touch with our association and meet the survivors. Indeed, a group of British divers did just that a couple of years ago and were rewarded with an invite to our annual reunion.

Finally, if AG respects the wrecks he dives so much (and one would assume those that served on the ships also) why didn't he get in touch with our association prior to the dive in order for him to lay a plaque on the keel (or something similar) on behalf of the association. The aforementioned British divers did this. I would argue that all AG and his buddy's were interested in was to be the first to reach the sanctum of Repulses engine room - the dive wasn't conducted for historic reasons - it was undertaken in order to pamper the ego's of a group of uncaring divers. If any person disagrees with my views (as I'm sure many will) in order to save dragging BSAC into all this, can they please respond on our forum at www.forcez-survivors.org.uk

Alan Matthews

[iainmsmith]

:=You are all being ridiculous. The 'policy' of GUE on wreck diving is to look but don't touch. Only video and pictures were taken and I am absolutely sure that no diver would have moved remains just to get a picture, that too is a ridiculous and unfounded accusation.

So - the FISH moved it to the step then?
Somebody moved it...and if they were there then they were divers!
Somebody broke into the engine room - and therefore disturbed a grave.
If they were there - they were divers!

I think Andy's point was clear. There is no evidence whatsoever that any diver from the 5th Dimension team moved the skull. It's entirely possible (and I would suggest, probable) that previous divers moved the skull and the 5thD team found it "as is" when they filmed the inside of the wreck. We all know that the Repulse has been penetrated repeatedly prior to this particular expedition. It's not a new phenomenon.

Some on this forum seem determined to attribute deliberate interference with human remains and theft from the wreck site to the divers of the 5thD group without offering any proof to support this. Let's be absolutely clear: removal of artefacts, interference with human remains and wreck penetration are three very different subjects. IMO, posters here should be very clear what actions they are attributing to which divers and should avoid accusations which they are not prepared to back up with hard evidence.

Opening a hatch is one thing. There is no question that the 5thD group did this. Some find it unacceptable. I respect that point of view. I'm not entirely comfortable with it myself, but not to the extent that I would condemn it in the terms that have been used by some here. Andy is clearly more comfortable with the idea of opening the hatch. He is entitled to his views, as I am to mine, as you are to yours. Moral judgements are, to a greater or lesser extent, like that - down to the individual. In some cases, one's resulting behaviour is limited by law. Such is the case for any British divers who consider that penetrating the Repulse is acceptable. That is not the case for divers unconstrained by UK law, eg the 5thD group.

Interfering with human remains is a whole different ball game and there is, to the best of my knowledge, not one shred of evidence to suggest that any member of the 5thD group did so.

:=Why treat one wreck different to another? Respect all wrecks or don't dive them at all, its that simple. The definition of respect will be different for us all, but for me I like the GUE policy. Take only pictures, leave only bubbles, waste only time.

Now this I can agree with. There should be no real difference between any final restng place. War graves do raise additional emotions because of the peculiar nature of the sacrifice made by those that were lost - but it should not detract from the loss, or the protection, we give to any maritime (or any) grave.

Even penetrated a wreck, John? If you want to treat all final resting places the same, then the vast majority of wrecks dived and penetrated in UK waters would immediately become off limits. See my earlier post for some examples. IMO, this is a nonsensical position to take.

However - you seem to make the point that diving a wreck infers a lack of respect. I cannot agree with this part (and apologise if I missed your meaning) since diving the wreck, and surveying the external features of a wreck may teach us more about how it sank.

As was pointed out by Alan Matthews - we know why Repulse sank. Something to do with five torpedo hits. Let's be honest with ourselves. While we, as _recreational_ divers, may dive war wrecks with respect, we dive them, like any other dive, first and foremost for our own enjoyment.

High profile expeditions SHOULD be mounted to keep these wrecks in the public eye "lest we forget".

However that does not mean we should condone breaking and entering the final resting place of those that died in the original atrocity of war.

"Breaking"? Last time I looked, hatches were a form of door, held in place by clips, ie something designed to be opened and closed. Clips were opened. A hatch was opened. What was "broken"?

Those that do disturb these sites should be left in no doubt that their behaviour is unacceptable and will be punished.

By whom and on what grounds? Even if your proposed international law was brought into force, you can't apply law retrospectively. (And, for reasons outlined by others, I hope that your suggested legislation never sees the printer's ink). Whatever you may think of the moral position, the divers on the 5thD expedition broke no law of the juristiction to which they belong.

Had British divers done the same then yes, there would have been a potential for prosecution, but to the best of my knowledge, the 5thD group included no Brits.

IMO, this thread would be far better off if all concerned could minimise the amount of deliberately emotive language being used. Getting worked up about issues does not help a rational discussion. Neither does casting mud in the hope that some sticks.

Regards,

Iain

[andycarroll]

Hi Alan

I've been reading this story in a few forums, and unfortunately the topic hasn't been about desecrating wrecks but simply knocking FifthD and their philosophy IMHO. This is no different and as a member I am free to voice my opinion. BSAC members dive wrecks. The club magazine invariably includes stories on wreck diving each issue, both the scenic tours and penetration dives. I question why one wreck is different to another, and that if divers choose to criticise then they themselves are being hypocritical. I research every wreck I dive and invariably lives were lost. Indeed BSAC led the way with the 'Respect our Wrecks' promotion encouaging divers to report findings to the receiver of wrecks.

I have no idea who Andy Wade is and don't care. Some of the posts on this thread make sweeping statements regarding the motivations of the divers without knowing them, yourself included and make accusations regarding moving peoples remains without any proof whatsoever, again starting a witchhunt. That is not right, and does not promote constructive debate, if that is indeed what you want. What I do not want is for a bunch of misinformed BSAC members to send a whole load of emails to divers, politicians, and the admiralty, slagging people off and creating a furore over an event they know very little about and will only curtail UK diving and that is what prompted my response. There needs to be a balance, and for people to view all sides of the debate.

I have also seen a recent report regarding the wrecks from a dive crew called penetrationdivers.com. Penetration is common, nay, virtually mandatory on these wrecks because of the currents and this is typical of every expedition on these wrecks. One of the divers spoke of requests from survivors groups for pictures/photos of the wrecks, whether this is true or not I don't know, and that is what annoys me about this topic. It is hearsay.

What one person defines as desecration is not the same as another. My own view is that wrecks are there to be explored, but I also believe that they should be left untouched for other divers to enjoy and explore. If films can be made of them then again, that should be encouraged, as a diver can take a 'trophy' without destroying the wreck, and I enjoy watching them, especially if accompanied by an informative narratory as per the programmes I have already mentioned. I will only comment on what I feel as I am an authority on that, and when I say that I learn a lot about the war from researching, diving and watching programmes on wrecks then I am being sincere, it is not 'hogwash' when I describe what effects me and I am one of the newer generation being aged 34 and never having been affected by the wars. I would not dare presume what others feelings and motivations are although the popularity of such documentaries and programmes like the Wreck Detectives show others obviously feel the same.

I have no idea whether anyone has dived the Arizona, I imagine it would be quite hazardous with it being upside down, but many divers have dived other american wrecks from all nationalities. The Arizona was not the only vessel in which american lives where lost. It has been dived and penetrated with ROV <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/06/USS.arizona/" >http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/06/USS.arizona/</a> It is today a site where millions of people visit and has a concrete memorial on the site.

I mean no disrespect to the survivor groups, but this group of divers did not attack the wreck with crowbars and hammers, they only took video which I am sure they would have been able to publish for the survivors association if they wanted it, and could tell the story of the wreck for historians, survivors and their families, and divers to enjoy. This type of thread has now probably removed that possibility and that is regrettable.

Andy

[alan matthews]

Hi Alan

I've been reading this story in a few forums, and unfortunately the topic hasn't been about desecrating wrecks but simply knocking FifthD and their philosophy IMHO. This is no different and as a member I am free to voice my opinion. BSAC members dive wrecks. The club magazine invariably includes stories on wreck diving each issue, both the scenic tours and penetration dives. I question why one wreck is different to another, and that if divers choose to criticise then they themselves are being hypocritical. I research every wreck I dive and invariably lives were lost. Indeed BSAC led the way with the 'Respect our Wrecks' promotion encouaging divers to report findings to the receiver of wrecks.

I have no idea who Andy Wade is and don't care. Some of the posts on this thread make sweeping statements regarding the motivations of the divers without knowing them, yourself included and make accusations regarding moving peoples remains without any proof whatsoever, again starting a witchhunt. That is not right, and does not promote constructive debate, if that is indeed what you want. What I do not want is for a bunch of misinformed BSAC members to send a whole load of emails to divers, politicians, and the admiralty, slagging people off and creating a furore over an event they know very little about and will only curtail UK diving and that is what prompted my response. There needs to be a balance, and for people to view all sides of the debate.

I have also seen a recent report regarding the wrecks from a dive crew called penetrationdivers.com. Penetration is common, nay, virtually mandatory on these wrecks because of the currents and this is typical of every expedition on these wrecks. One of the divers spoke of requests from survivors groups for pictures/photos of the wrecks, whether this is true or not I don't know, and that is what annoys me about this topic. It is hearsay.

What one person defines as desecration is not the same as another. My own view is that wrecks are there to be explored, but I also believe that they should be left untouched for other divers to enjoy and explore. If films can be made of them then again, that should be encouraged, as a diver can take a 'trophy' without destroying the wreck, and I enjoy watching them, especially if accompanied by an informative narratory as per the programmes I have already mentioned. I will only comment on what I feel as I am an authority on that, and when I say that I learn a lot about the war from researching, diving and watching programmes on wrecks then I am being sincere, it is not 'hogwash' when I describe what effects me and I am one of the newer generation being aged 34 and never having been affected by the wars. I would not dare presume what others feelings and motivations are although the popularity of such documentaries and programmes like the Wreck Detectives show others obviously feel the same.

I have no idea whether anyone has dived the Arizona, I imagine it would be quite hazardous with it being upside down, but many divers have dived other american wrecks from all nationalities. The Arizona was not the only vessel in which american lives where lost. I am sure, one day, it will be dived.

I mean no disrespect to the survivor groups, but this group of divers did not attack the wreck with crowbars and hammers, they only took video which I am sure they would have been able to publish for the survivors association if they wanted it, and could tell the story of the wreck for historians, survivors and their families, and divers to enjoy. This type of thread has now probably removed that possibility and that is regrettable.

Andy


Andy

Thanks for the response.

For the record Andy Wade is a diver who, more than any other person I've met, forged a link between divers and our survivors association. He has shown integrity, honesty and reason when many others, myself included, were getting hot under the collar during the year long consultation process that eventually led to implementation of PMRA on Repulse and Prince of Wales.

Moving on, you've omitted to broach the issue of 5D stated desire to get into Repulses engine room. Why was it so historically important to gain entry into this area? If they were so keen to learn of the innermost workings of the ship I could have introduced them to an 80 yr old stoker.They could also have met up with a family from Exeter who lost their father (a stoker) on Repulse. I don't have to tell you what their reaction would have been to the video shots of a skull in the engine room. It was for such reasons that I remain convinced that this intrusive dive was conducted for no other reason than that of self satisfaction; irrespective of the impact it could have on the lifes of those who lost their loved ones on the ship. It had nothing to do with retelling history.

I agree with your views on the need to keep things in proportion. However, I also felt that by discussing this matter within the relative confines of a specialist forum we have all had our say, without the need for the press and politicians to pursue their own agendas. As for my use of 'hogwash' if you had made your comment with specific reference to your own feelings I would not have used it, but to remind you your statement was that video footage etc from inside of warships such as Repulse 'should be encouraged' [because] 'it educates us all'. I prefer gaining my education by meeting men that served on the ships.

In conclusion, I have just spoken with a senior member of BSAC regarding AG's claim that one of their associations senior instructors penetrated Repulse whilst AG was over the site. I know of the diver - having corresponded with him during the consultation process in 2001. With this in mind I was surprised to learn of AG's allegation. Thankfully it would appear that this claim is as ill-founded as AG's mention of support from survivors in repsect of his dive. Reason being the BSAC diver refutes any suggestion that he entered Repulse. Perhaps, therefore, it would be beneficial if AG posted a similar accusation against the British diver on this site as he did on the Yorkshire divers forum in order for this individual and his colleagues to provide their own repsonses.

Alan Matthews

[andycarroll]

Hi Alan

I haven't accused anyone else of penetrating the Repulse, only that it is commonplace with the expeditions and has been for ten years, if you believe everything you read on the internet ;o) and I have no reason to disbelieve them. I find it hard to believe that english expeditions which have visited the wrecks year after year haven't penetrated the wreck, but I believe them if they say they haven't, and I would also understand if they had and denied it, as they would be creating their own noose. Sometimes honesty is not the best policy.

As far as I know, there was no 'historical importance' in getting to the engine room, the team were presented with a challenge from the boat operator and used that as an objective from then on, rightly or wrongly. Again, they are explorers and were probably motivated in visiting a place no one had visited since that fateful day, I know that is one reason why I visit wrecks. I thought the whole point of the trip was to dive with likeminded divers in unique and exotic places, not historic importance. As far as I am concerned, and this is repeated throughout the report, the divers were fully aware of the losses on that wreck and dived it accordingly, only taking video of the experience. I suspect it was a case of location first, wrecks second but I obviously am not party to their decisions.

I have dived wrecks to the accompaniment of the clangs of hammers and crowbars in attempts to obtain trophies with no regard for the wreck, the life on that wreck or the lives lost, which I find disgusting, but it is extremely common. Indeed, very rarely do I not hear someone talking about grabbing a porthole on any of the technical trips I attend that do not include many who dive the same way as I. That is why I suggest it should be encouraged to take video instead and that way protect the wrecks.

Reading the report they spent approximately 1 minute in the engine room, hardly enough time to replace the remains, even if they wanted to. I am not even sure that the remains were in the engine room but in another part of the ship. Further dives to the engine room were not possible due to timescale and currents.

As I said before, the only reason I responded was in reaction to the request to email everyone and anyone with complaints. It appears you also do not necessarily want that so in some ways we are in agreement. Other than that I cannot agree that penetrating any wreck is wrong if done with a reasonable level of respect, and in such a way that may raise the profile of the wreck being dived, whether it be for historical, exploration, or even investigative purposes. What we don't want is trophy hunters who only dive to put some brass on their mantlepiece.

Andy

[alan matthews]

Hi Alan

I haven't accused anyone else of penetrating the Repulse, only that it is commonplace with the expeditions and has been for ten years, if you believe everything you read on the internet ;o) and I have no reason to disbelieve them. I find it hard to believe that english expeditions which have visited the wrecks year after year haven't penetrated the wreck, but I believe them if they say they haven't, and I would also understand if they had and denied it, as they would be creating their own noose. Sometimes honesty is not the best policy.

As far as I know, there was no 'historical importance' in getting to the engine room, the team were presented with a challenge from the boat operator and used that as an objective from then on, rightly or wrongly. Again, they are explorers and were probably motivated in visiting a place no one had visited since that fateful day, I know that is one reason why I visit wrecks. I thought the whole point of the trip was to dive with likeminded divers in unique and exotic places, not historic importance. As far as I am concerned, and this is repeated throughout the report, the divers were fully aware of the losses on that wreck and dived it accordingly, only taking video of the experience. I suspect it was a case of location first, wrecks second but I obviously am not party to their decisions.

I have dived wrecks to the accompaniment of the clangs of hammers and crowbars in attempts to obtain trophies with no regard for the wreck, the life on that wreck or the lives lost, which I find disgusting, but it is extremely common. Indeed, very rarely do I not hear someone talking about grabbing a porthole on any of the technical trips I attend that do not include many who dive the same way as I. That is why I suggest it should be encouraged to take video instead and that way protect the wrecks.

Reading the report they spent approximately 1 minute in the engine room, hardly enough time to replace the remains, even if they wanted to. I am not even sure that the remains were in the engine room but in another part of the ship. Further dives to the engine room were not possible due to timescale and currents.

As I said before, the only reason I responded was in reaction to the request to email everyone and anyone with complaints. It appears you also do not necessarily want that so in some ways we are in agreement. Other than that I cannot agree that penetrating any wreck is wrong if done with a reasonable level of respect, and in such a way that may raise the profile of the wreck being dived, whether it be for historical, exploration, or even investigative purposes. What we don't want is trophy hunters who only dive to put some brass on their mantlepiece.

Andy

Andy

I've nothing more to say on this issue, saving for the fact that I find it hard to understand the motives of any individuals that enter the final resting place of many British sailors (Repulses engine room) in response to a challenge from the dive boat owner. What do we expect as his next challenge - the retrieval of the altar from Repulses chapel? Moreover, I'm convinced that part of AG's intentions in all of this has been that of gathering support for his actions within the UK diving community, which in my view is compromising the good work done by many within BSAC and other UK diving organisations.

Cheers

Alan

[Andy Wade]

:=Email the divers who entered HMS Repulse engine room, and remind them that it has status as a 'Protected Place', and it's our ship, which holds the remains of our men who died in the service of their country. I know that as they're not British nationals it doesn't 'actually' apply to them, but remind them that we other divers are watching what they do, and we're unhappy about them violating the wreck's status.
:=They should respect the wreck of a ship that holds our war dead.
:=That's all, no insults, just a nudge to make them think about it.
:=To go a bit further, email the dive boat skippers that run trips out to her, and remind them of the same things, they ultimately control behaviour on the wreck, and if items get lifted, it's because they allow it to happen.
:=
:=HMS Repulse fought in both world wars and defended our freedom.
:=It's time we defended her status.

Yes, and at the same time email every diver who has dived the LST wrecks, the U Boats, and any of the other wrecks were people have died, or are you saying that their lives were not as valuable as those on the South China Seas. I am sure that their families will disagree, yet in this one sided attack, they are forgotten. War graves. What a ridiculous definition. They gave their lives to the sea and therefore the whole sea is one big 'grave' where people die daily. The label is used to discourage salvage, due to the technology onboard, and if it was a true definition, would include every wreck which had lives lost. It wasn't so long ago when Dive mag showed a Japanese fighter with the remains still in place, yet I didn't see any outcry then and that was distributed to every BSAC member.

Well, I'm not distinguishing between any of these ships, The singling out of HMS Repulse is your interpretation of the thread. Why are you suggesting that I've forgotten about any other ships?
HMS Repulse has been designated and I'm defending her because a video has been published which clearly shows that a diver has disturbed her remains. I haven't specifically blamed AG for this, just pointed out that it is suspicious, If he's guilty of anything, it's naivety.
Are you suggesting that just because there are millions of 'graves' under the water, then we shouldn't complain about the disturbing of human remains where we see evidence of it?
I visit a lot of cemeteries with another project I work on, if see someone pushing over a headstone I'll say something about it. I have no problem with divers visiting wrecks that have remains on them, but when they start opening hatches to enter the wrecks then I'm suspicious of their intent. They certainly make it easier for other far less scrupulous divers and we both know that they will take advantage of the open hatch to pillage for trophies. Nice one AG, you really thought that one through.

You are all being ridiculous. The 'policy' of GUE on wreck diving is to look but don't touch. Only video and pictures were taken and I am absolutely sure that no diver would have moved remains just to get a picture, that too is a ridiculous and unfounded accusation. I know AndyG and he is a great diver and also respects the wrecks he dives. There is no more glory hunting than the Starfish Enterprise group who also dive deeper wrecks where people have died. Its called exploration.

Ridiculous? Only in your opinion.
I'm glad to hear about the GUE policy on wreck diving. Look but don't touch.Couldn't agree more, but what part of that did they forget when opening the hatch to the engine room?
I'm concerned that on a ship where the Survivors Association has specifically asked that she be left undisturbed, that some people think it's still OK to force a way in. In doing so they have opened her up for pillage by other less scrupulous divers. And lets be very clear on this, they are pillaging her.
What you describe as exploration, I call an intrusion.

That video may be used in educating people about the war and its devastating effects, and bring the story to life, much the same as recent programmes showing the Hood, Bismark and Titanic. Note the Titanic has had remains moved and trophies taken to show in a museum, rather than rotting on the seabed.

Visible projects like this should be encouraged, as it educates us all. I knew nothing about the wrecks until seeing the article and to read the stories brings back the respect for the sacrifices made by people all over the world, and reminds us why violence is so terrible.

Or they could visit the Force Z website at www.forcez-survivors.org.uk where they could learn a lot more about it before they started diving on the ships and opening hatches.

Why treat one wreck different to another? Respect all wrecks or don't dive them at all, its that simple. The definition of respect will be different for us all, but for me I like the GUE policy. Take only pictures, leave only bubbles, waste only time.

I'm not treating one wreck differently, I'm highlighting HMS Repulse because the survivors have asked that she be left alone.
My definition of respect is to listen to and hear what the Survivors Association have said, which is "Please leave HMS Repulse alone".
AG and his friends may not themselves have touched anything, but I don't think that they should be videoing the remains of one of the crew. Not when his surviving crewmates have asked that he be left in peace.

[Dave]

I'm not treating one wreck differently, I'm highlighting HMS Repulse because the survivors have asked that she be left alone.

Ummm, how is that not treating it differently.

My definition of respect is to listen to and hear what the Survivors Association have said, which is "Please leave HMS Repulse alone".
AG and his friends may not themselves have touched anything, but I don't think that they should be videoing the remains of one of the crew. Not when his surviving crewmates have asked that he be left in peace.

As far as I am concerned , if they did nothing illegal then they did nothing wrong. I do not agree with people trying to impose their views onto others whether I agree with it or not.

As it stands there is nothing to prove that they did move remains; the only thing that seems to be shown is that they went to the wreck, explored it and took a video.

Dave

[Andy Wade]

:=I'm not treating one wreck differently, I'm highlighting HMS Repulse because the survivors have asked that she be left alone.

Ummm, how is that not treating it differently.


OK Dave, I'll spell it all out for you.
I think that all wrecks should be treated with a certain amount of respect, they are a vast archive of information and I think they should be left alone, not bashed about, bits removed to be left in a corner of a garage slowly falling to bits, If people want to take bits, I'll not stop them if it's legal, but I'll not stand by and let them think I am happy about what they do, if they ask me why I don't take bits I'll tell them why.
As for wrecks where it is known that people lost their lives and are probably still aboard, I treat them differently again, I may not even dive them, and I certainly won't go rummaging about because I have some respect for the people who died, and I don't want to uncover remains as I'd find it pretty upsetting and I dive for fun.
HMS Repulse is different, our country has designated it as a Protected Place, now to me that means leave the bl**dy thing alone, I don't see it as an excuse for people of different countries to say, well the PMRA doesnt apply to us so we'll go right ahead and do what we want to it.
I find that to be a complete lack of respect for the wishes of our country via PMRA and the wishes of the people who survived the sinking and the feelings of the relatives of the men who died.
You quite obviously have a different view, that's your prerogative, and you can have any view you want, but don't tell me that my view is wrong because it differs from yours.
HMS Repulse is the ship that has been entered, so I'll raise the issue about it if I like, I'm a BSAC diver, proud of it, and this is _my_ forum.
I'm not singling out HMS Repulse, it just happens to be the main topic of discussion, others have tried to introduce 'all other wrecks' to the argument.
Fine, they can do that if they wish, but I'm not wavering from the argument about HMS Repulse because it fudges the issue IMO.
Frankly if someone had dived and entered the M2 and moved remains and published a video about it, then I'd be up in arms about that, but I wouldn't be dragging HMS Repulse into the argument because I don't think it's relevant to the argument, except in a peripheral way.
I happen to believe in standing up for what I find to be immoral, whether or not it's legal is not the issue for me. Just because it is technically legal doesn't mean I (or others) should accept it.

:=My definition of respect is to listen to and hear what the Survivors Association have said, which is "Please leave HMS Repulse alone".
:=AG and his friends may not themselves have touched anything, but I don't think that they should be videoing the remains of one of the crew. Not when his surviving crewmates have asked that he be left in peace.

As far as I am concerned , if they did nothing illegal then they did nothing wrong. I do not agree with people trying to impose their views onto others whether I agree with it or not.

If you take that to the extreme, then there are probably wrecks out there where people could take remains from them and put skulls on their mantlepieces, but it's OK because it's not _actually_ illegal in those particular waters.
You're entitled to your view, I don't agree with you Dave.
Maybe we should agree to differ on this point as IMO it's getting nowhere.

As it stands there is nothing to prove that they did move remains; the only thing that seems to be shown is that they went to the wreck, explored it and took a video.

The only good thing they did was show that some diver at some time moved a skull.
I suggested (note that I gave two possibilities) that it was either them or someone else, and in videoing it where it was, they opened themselves up to criticism.
I think it was out of it's original context and from that I think we can see the kind of respect HMS Repulse's dead crew are receiving.
Unless you think that the skull has been in that position for 63 years of course. I suppose you quite possibly do think that.

Maybe you'd like to look through our lists of HMS Repulse casualties and take a guess who the skull might belong to?
Hey, we may even have a photograph of the poor man on the website.

And rest.



.

[John Williams]

I've pointed a finger at no-one in particular.

I find entering graves to be unacceptable - but I'll respect others who do not have the same views, as long as they do so respectfully.

What I cannot accept is the thought of someone moving human remains about. As I said I point no fingers at individuals or specific groups. If someone does it (and in this case someone must have done!) then they should be aware that their action is not condoned by the vast majority of people and bear some unpleasant consequences.

On the very rare occasions that I have penetrated a wreck I never opened anything, I never used a tool and I tried to touch nothing when I was there and I certainly have never recovered anything (except one spent shell case from a munitions ship returning it to the factory for re-use - which I subsequently returned). I don't think anyone should!

I used the words "breaking and entering" together because they have been used by the dive tour operators offering a reward for those "breaking" a new way into designated war graves with a view to "entering" them. They may be emotive - but they are originally not my words.

John

[Dave]

:=:=I'm not treating one wreck differently, I'm highlighting HMS Repulse because the survivors have asked that she be left alone.

Which is treating it differently just becaause of some specific info that you have

:=
If people want to take bits, I'll not stop them if it's legal, but I'll not stand by and let them think I am happy about what they do, if they ask me why I don't take bits I'll tell them why.

If you went out for a drink and a person with a belief that drinking was wrong was there, how would you feel if that person made sure that they knew they were not happy that you were drinking?

As for wrecks where it is known that people lost their lives and are probably still aboard, I treat them differently again, I may not even dive them, and I certainly won't go rummaging about because I have some respect for the people who died, and I don't want to uncover remains as I'd find it pretty upsetting and I dive for fun.

That is a personal choice but would not be an excuse imo to try and make it illegal


HMS Repulse is different, our country has designated it as a Protected Place, now to me that means leave the bl**dy thing alone, I don't see it as an excuse for people of different countries to say, well the PMRA doesnt apply to us so we'll go right ahead and do what we want to it.

Wel, actually it does. It is not in UK waters so is open for all others


HMS Repulse is the ship that has been entered, so I'll raise the issue about it if I like, I'm a BSAC diver, proud of it, and this is _my_ forum.

And is it not also true that there are non UK members of BSAC ?

I'm not singling out HMS Repulse, it just happens to be the main topic of discussion, others have tried to introduce 'all other wrecks' to the argumentFine, they can do that if they wish, but I'm not wavering from the argument about HMS Repulse because it fudges the issue IMO.

I don't think it does. You are trying to treat it as a special case because of a vested concern.


I happen to believe in standing up for what I find to be immoral, whether or not it's legal is not the issue for me. Just because it is technically legal doesn't mean I (or others) should accept it.

And I don't feel it right for people to try and impose their moral views on others.


If you take that to the extreme, then there are probably wrecks out there where people could take remains from them and put skulls on their mantlepieces, but it's OK because it's not _actually_ illegal in those particular waters.

Cultural differences exist on a lot of things round the world. Should every culture pander to the views of others. I wouldn't go whale hunting, but I wouldn't condemn those that legitimately do.

Unless you think that the skull has been in that position for 63 years of course. I suppose you quite possibly do think that.

Ah, so now onto insults

Maybe you'd like to look through our lists of HMS Repulse casualties and take a guess who the skull might belong to?
Hey, we may even have a photograph of the poor man on the website.

I have little interest in it. My only interest is in the foaming of those that object to people undertaking legal activities just because they upset their moral prejudices

Dave

[Andy Wade]

:=:=:=I'm not treating one wreck differently, I'm highlighting HMS Repulse because the survivors have asked that she be left alone.

Which is treating it differently just becaause of some specific info that you have

No it isn't.

:=:=
:=If people want to take bits, I'll not stop them if it's legal, but I'll not stand by and let them think I am happy about what they do, if they ask me why I don't take bits I'll tell them why.

If you went out for a drink and a person with a belief that drinking was wrong was there, how would you feel if that person made sure that they knew they were not happy that you were drinking?

I wouldn't go out with them again, and I certainly wouldn't kiss them goodnight.

:=As for wrecks where it is known that people lost their lives and are probably still aboard, I treat them differently again, I may not even dive them, and I certainly won't go rummaging about because I have some respect for the people who died, and I don't want to uncover remains as I'd find it pretty upsetting and I dive for fun.

That is a personal choice but would not be an excuse imo to try and make it illegal

I disagree, moral issues are what shape our culture, people have been standing up for moral issues for centuries, it is also what shapes our legal system. Which appears to be the point at which you sit up and notice.

:=HMS Repulse is different, our country has designated it as a Protected Place, now to me that means leave the bl**dy thing alone, I don't see it as an excuse for people of different countries to say, well the PMRA doesnt apply to us so we'll go right ahead and do what we want to it.

Well, actually it does. It is not in UK waters so is open for all others

I know that, your point is?

:=HMS Repulse is the ship that has been entered, so I'll raise the issue about it if I like, I'm a BSAC diver, proud of it, and this is _my_ forum.

And is it not also true that there are non UK members of BSAC ?

Yes, and they are entitled to raise whatever issues they like on the forum. This at least is still a relatively free country.

:=I'm not singling out HMS Repulse, it just happens to be the main topic of discussion, others have tried to introduce 'all other wrecks' to the argumentFine, they can do that if they wish, but I'm not wavering from the argument about HMS Repulse because it fudges the issue IMO.

I don't think it does. You are trying to treat it as a special case because of a vested concern.

But I'm not ignoring other wrecks with loss of life.

:=I happen to believe in standing up for what I find to be immoral, whether or not it's legal is not the issue for me. Just because it is technically legal doesn't mean I (or others) should accept it.

And I don't feel it right for people to try and impose their moral views on others.

But Dave, it's _legal_ for me to take a moral stance. Why are you objecting?

:=If you take that to the extreme, then there are probably wrecks out there where people could take remains from them and put skulls on their mantlepieces, but it's OK because it's not _actually_ illegal in those particular waters.

Cultural differences exist on a lot of things round the world. Should every culture pander to the views of others. I wouldn't go whale hunting, but I wouldn't condemn those that legitimately do.

And eventually we'll have no whales left.

:=Unless you think that the skull has been in that position for 63 years of course. I suppose you quite possibly do think that.

Ah, so now onto insults

I never insult people on these forums or anywhere else for that matter.
Please note the caveats in my sentence. It was a bit tongue in cheek.
I raised it because I'm anticipating the possibility you'd say that because we can't actually prove it, there's no proof that it had been moved.

:=Maybe you'd like to look through our lists of HMS Repulse casualties and take a guess who the skull might belong to?
:=Hey, we may even have a photograph of the poor man on the website.

I have little interest in it. My only interest is in the foaming of those that object to people undertaking legal activities just because they upset their moral prejudices

Now you're chucking insults. Foaming? The only foam around my mouth was when I had a shave this morning.
I know you have little interest in it Dave. What's your point?
Your standpoint, saying that something is legal, so it's OK, doesn't wash with me.(I had a wash too this morning by the way)

Your other interest seems to be nitpicking the written arguments of people who can't quite phrase their sentences adequately enough for your grammar level.
Which means that people switch off from reading the thread. Maybe that's your intent? I shan't be arguing your pointless points any more because it's counter productive to my point.

Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.

Maybe we could use that as an epitaph for all the extinct whales?
That's a rhetorical question. No need to answer.




.

[Mike Rowley]

The UNESCO declaration was passed and is probably in force by now. It refered to "Underwater Cultural Heritage" and so covers a broader spectrum than just wrecks. It does not refer to war graves specifically but to Underwater Cultural Heritage from a cultural or archaeological perspective and was driven largely by marine archaeologists and a few states who are keen to maximise their take of any revenue that might be had. It is interesting that Poland was a prominent supporter and we all know that Poland has extensive maritime cultural heritage! It has to be said that some of the most eminent international archaeologists were not wholy in favour of it for a variety of reasons.

It does refer to underwater cultural heritage of 100 years old or more. It does not preclude disturbing of wargraves, only allows signatory states to licence or preclude activities as they see fit. In other words, its OK to disturb a grave as long as it is done in the name of science and licensed by a member state.

Great Britain and USA declined to be signatories so it does not bind either nationals. I have reason to believe that the value of the international trade in marine antiques was a significant factor here.

There is currently a UK government consultation paper out looking at designating or protecting further wrecks. It is proposing to dramatically extend the current scope of the Protection of Military Remains Act. I have heard 50 years mentioned as the cut off point. There is real danger to wreck diving in this, just imagine in an election year how popular a politician could become by making a big noise about divers desicrating war graves! I can see another hand gun ban looming on the horizon. However, it could only apply to wrecks in UK teritorial waters and UK nationals diving anywhere.

The sensible course of action would be a simple law of "Nothing to be removed". This would have to be agreed through UNESCO and/or IMO., this could take years or even decades.



IIRC, UNESCO want(ed)to introduce a world wide rule that all wrecks of less than 100 years were not allowed to be dived on. I'm not sure about the precise wording, but it's something along those lines. (can anyone remember the details?)

[alan matthews]

:=:=:=I'm not treating one wreck differently, I'm highlighting HMS Repulse because the survivors have asked that she be left alone.

Which is treating it differently just becaause of some specific info that you have

:=:=
:=If people want to take bits, I'll not stop them if it's legal, but I'll not stand by and let them think I am happy about what they do, if they ask me why I don't take bits I'll tell them why.

If you went out for a drink and a person with a belief that drinking was wrong was there, how would you feel if that person made sure that they knew they were not happy that you were drinking?

:=As for wrecks where it is known that people lost their lives and are probably still aboard, I treat them differently again, I may not even dive them, and I certainly won't go rummaging about because I have some respect for the people who died, and I don't want to uncover remains as I'd find it pretty upsetting and I dive for fun.

That is a personal choice but would not be an excuse imo to try and make it illegal


:=HMS Repulse is different, our country has designated it as a Protected Place, now to me that means leave the bl**dy thing alone, I don't see it as an excuse for people of different countries to say, well the PMRA doesnt apply to us so we'll go right ahead and do what we want to it.

Wel, actually it does. It is not in UK waters so is open for all others


:=HMS Repulse is the ship that has been entered, so I'll raise the issue about it if I like, I'm a BSAC diver, proud of it, and this is _my_ forum.

And is it not also true that there are non UK members of BSAC ?

:=I'm not singling out HMS Repulse, it just happens to be the main topic of discussion, others have tried to introduce 'all other wrecks' to the argumentFine, they can do that if they wish, but I'm not wavering from the argument about HMS Repulse because it fudges the issue IMO.

I don't think it does. You are trying to treat it as a special case because of a vested concern.


:=I happen to believe in standing up for what I find to be immoral, whether or not it's legal is not the issue for me. Just because it is technically legal doesn't mean I (or others) should accept it.

And I don't feel it right for people to try and impose their moral views on others.


:=If you take that to the extreme, then there are probably wrecks out there where people could take remains from them and put skulls on their mantlepieces, but it's OK because it's not _actually_ illegal in those particular waters.

Cultural differences exist on a lot of things round the world. Should every culture pander to the views of others. I wouldn't go whale hunting, but I wouldn't condemn those that legitimately do.

:=Unless you think that the skull has been in that position for 63 years of course. I suppose you quite possibly do think that.

Ah, so now onto insults

:=Maybe you'd like to look through our lists of HMS Repulse casualties and take a guess who the skull might belong to?
:=Hey, we may even have a photograph of the poor man on the website.

I have little interest in it. My only interest is in the foaming of those that object to people undertaking legal activities just because they upset their moral prejudices

Dave

Dear Dave

I'd intended to walk away from this issue (as best I can) but I can't help myself from raising a couple of points with you.

To begin with, in our democratic society an act of Parliament was passed in 1986 that allowed elected governments to make it unlawful (or if you prefer illegal) for UK citizens to dive (controlled site status)or enter but still dive (protected place status) any UK vessel irrespective of its location. I would suggest that if you have a problem with the application of this law it's perhaps fitting for you to take matters up with your local MP.

Moreover, (correct me if I am wrong) but do you condone the actions of non UK divers (because they are not breaking any of our laws) when entering a British warship that's protected under PMRA? Do you not think, especially with the so-called 'special relationship' that exists between Britain and the US, that it's fitting for US divers to refrain from challenges by their dive boat skipper to enter the engine room of Repulse and instead show due repsect to the laws of our land, and our war dead, by refraining from entering Repulse.

In my view many of the current woes in the world eminate from the US and their leaders apparent intent to impose their views and laws on the rest of the world. Hence, I would argue that it's about time certain of their nations inhabitants (AG, etc) took the moral stance of abiding by our laws by not desecrating one of our protected war graves.

Alan Matthews

[Dave]

To begin with, in our democratic society an act of Parliament was passed in 1986 that allowed elected governments to make it unlawful (or if you prefer illegal) for UK citizens to dive (controlled site status)or enter but still dive (protected place status) any UK vessel irrespective of its location. I would suggest that if you have a problem with the application of this law it's perhaps fitting for you to take matters up with your local MP.

That aspect doesn't bother me and just as relevently has zero impact on other who are not subject to this UK law. The UK may well be able to apply laws to its own citizens outside of its normal juridstiction but, from what I can tell, this does not apply to those involved.


Moreover, (correct me if I am wrong) but do you condone the actions of non UK divers (because they are not breaking any of our laws) when entering a British warship that's protected under PMRA?

I neither condone nor condemn those that act within the laws of the juridstictions under which they operate

Do you not think, especially with the so-called 'special relationship' that exists between Britain and the US, that it's fitting for US divers to refrain from challenges by their dive boat skipper to enter the engine room of Repulse and instead show due repsect to the laws of our land, and our war dead, by refraining from entering Repulse.

By special relationship , do you mean Tony Bleugh being Dubya's poodle? I would not even think to try and impose upon those of other countries

In my view many of the current woes in the world eminate from the US and their leaders apparent intent to impose their views and laws on the rest of the world. Hence, I would argue that it's about time certain of their nations inhabitants (AG, etc) took the moral stance of abiding by our laws by not desecrating one of our protected war graves.

Where does imposition stop? Should alcohol be banned in the UK because it is banned in some middle east countries?. Should beef be banned because it goes against certain religious beliefs? Should women be forced to wear full garb covering the whole body because it may be required in some other countries? Should UK HSE regulations be imposed on Australia? Should AU laws governing diving instruction be imposed on the UK?
The list could go on. I don't think that it is resonable for any country to try and impose its laws onto others. This issue is no different than any other in that respect.

Dave

[gridler]

The issue here is respect, by diving these wrecks this is not being disrepectful. The issue of the law is irrelevant because it is not enforceable anyway. The fact that a team from GUE has dived the repulse is also irrelevant because this wreck is dived all the time. However if human remains are being disturbed or abused then this is disrespectful. The ideal world would leave these ships at peace but we as divers are all searching for that virgin wreck just to say I was first. There is a exclusion zone around the Bonne Richard I know that divers have tried to dive the wreck site. Should we name and shame these people beacause if they are caught the implications for us as divers could be dire. I would like to see these peole named and shamed but I only have hearsay but it is true. I am not DIR or defending them but what I am saying to all thoses that have convicted them based on little or no evidence just step back and look at what is happening on our doorstep lets sort that out before we police the rest of the world. I hope that the Repulse will be left alone but suspect it will not. I support the organised trips, these groups that I am aware of show the up most respect for these ships and those that died on them.

[alan matthews]

:=To begin with, in our democratic society an act of Parliament was passed in 1986 that allowed elected governments to make it unlawful (or if you prefer illegal) for UK citizens to dive (controlled site status)or enter but still dive (protected place status) any UK vessel irrespective of its location. I would suggest that if you have a problem with the application of this law it's perhaps fitting for you to take matters up with your local MP.

That aspect doesn't bother me and just as relevently has zero impact on other who are not subject to this UK law. The UK may well be able to apply laws to its own citizens outside of its normal juridstiction but, from what I can tell, this does not apply to those involved.

:=
:=Moreover, (correct me if I am wrong) but do you condone the actions of non UK divers (because they are not breaking any of our laws) when entering a British warship that's protected under PMRA?

I neither condone nor condemn those that act within the laws of the juridstictions under which they operate

:=Do you not think, especially with the so-called 'special relationship' that exists between Britain and the US, that it's fitting for US divers to refrain from challenges by their dive boat skipper to enter the engine room of Repulse and instead show due repsect to the laws of our land, and our war dead, by refraining from entering Repulse.

By special relationship , do you mean Tony Bleugh being Dubya's poodle? I would not even think to try and impose upon those of other countries

:=In my view many of the current woes in the world eminate from the US and their leaders apparent intent to impose their views and laws on the rest of the world. Hence, I would argue that it's about time certain of their nations inhabitants (AG, etc) took the moral stance of abiding by our laws by not desecrating one of our protected war graves.

Where does imposition stop? Should alcohol be banned in the UK because it is banned in some middle east countries?. Should beef be banned because it goes against certain religious beliefs? Should women be forced to wear full garb covering the whole body because it may be required in some other countries? Should UK HSE regulations be imposed on Australia? Should AU laws governing diving instruction be imposed on the UK?
The list could go on. I don't think that it is resonable for any country to try and impose its laws onto others. This issue is no different than any other in that respect.

Dave

Dear Dave

I've been advised that you thrive on this kind of debate. Be that as it may, I feel you would make a good politician. Reason being you managed to avoid giving a direct answer - or indeed tackle - any of the real issues that have been raised of late.

None the less, if you feel that lack of legislation makes it OK for AG and his cohorts to do their own thing on/in Repulse (by the way you don't know whether items were removed) that's your right and opinion to say as much. I'm just glad that your views don't seem to represent those of the vast majority of UK divers.

Alan

[Andy Wade]

The issue here is respect, by diving these wrecks this is not being disrepectful. The issue of the law is irrelevant because it is not enforceable anyway. The fact that a team from GUE has dived the repulse is also irrelevant because this wreck is dived all the time. However if human remains are being disturbed or abused then this is disrespectful.

Indeed, the issue is one of respect, but IMO we need to remind people periodically that wrecks should be treated with respect.
Lets not forget why the PMRA was acted upon with the designation of several ships.
Because the Survivors Association found out that divers were entering and removing items from HMS repulse.
IMO we as divers narrowly escaped with just a few ships being designated, due to the efforts of a few people, and a long consultation processs, we now have some ships protected, but some cannot be dived at all, which serves no-one in the diving community.
Were _all_ divers able to show restraint then the PMRA would not have been brought into force and wrecks like HMS Hampshire would still be able to be dived, We have only ourselves to blame for that, as we're all responsible for ensuring that all divers dive with respect, from instructors teaching people from day one, to the most experienced divers at the top of the food chain who sometimes dive without respect, (and they do exist) They teach by example.
Had we not highlighted the video of HMS Repulse being entered and the shots of human remains having beeen moved, then most people would be none the wiser.
So who's to blame? I think we all are in some way, but the real blame lies with divers who dive without any respect and show others that is OK to dive without it, they remove the most trivial items from wrecks just for the sake of their egos and don't bother to declare them, or preserve them properly.
I've had a couple of emails from people who have been on trips to dive HMS Repulse and they have had to keep their mouths shut whilst on the dive boat as they found they were the only one not planning to remove items from her. They don't have any concrete proof that items were removed, so nothing has come of it.

The ideal world would leave these ships at peace but we as divers are all searching for that virgin wreck just to say I was first. There is a exclusion zone around the Bonne Richard I know that divers have tried to dive the wreck site. Should we name and shame these people beacause if they are caught the implications for us as divers could be dire. I would like to see these peole named and shamed but I only have hearsay but it is true.

That's a difficult one as you have no direct evidence, I don't know what to suggest, If you had proof then I'd say name and shame, or more properly, get in touch with the MCA. You could inform them anyway, they may have some information you don't know about.

I am not DIR or defending them but what I am saying to all thoses that have convicted them based on little or no evidence just step back and look at what is happening on our doorstep lets sort that out before we police the rest of the world.

I haven't convicted them on little or no evidence, just highlighted what they have done, with their own video to prove it, and their website which describes in detail their exploits.
All I originally asked was that anyone who felt strongly about it should email them and say that they were unhappy about it.
If these and other divers saw the strength of feeling of what I believe to be the average diver, then they might just think.
Some people have said that we shouldn't email them, Fine that's their prerogative, but to say nothing to people is to condone it IMO.
I didn't suggest that they should scream and shout at them over the ether, just to point it out. A nudge, that's all.

From private emails, I've been informed that GUE's policy is to look but not touch, These divers _did_ touch, they opened up a hatch, so I think they did go against the ethos of their organisation. Some think they didn't, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
We as divers must get our act together or we might find even more wrecks being designated, and court cases might even arise if evidence comes to light.
Policing the rest of the world?
Well, information is key here, we should get the message across, either directly by telling people, or by introducing it into the training and all diving agencies should push the message across or there will be nothing left to dive for future generations to dive.

I hope that the Repulse will be left alone but suspect it will not. I support the organised trips, these groups that I am aware of show the up most respect for these ships and those that died on them.

Well we now know for a fact that desecration of HMS Repulse is still happening, it was what started the whole PMRA issue and an awful lot of trouble was caused by a selfish few. Pretty much all divers have been affected in some way by it.
We also know that remains have been moved, this is the hardest thing to take for me, I just can't imagine why anyone would stoop this low.
For those who aren't aware, during the consultation process in 2001 the Survivors Association clearly stated that they wanted people to dive the ships, they want the story to stay alive, and for people to see the ships as they are now, they'd just like their crewmates and the ships to be left alone.
It's a small thing to ask for these old men's wishes to be respected.
People can still dive all wrecks with respect, all it takes is a simple choice.
In some respects I blame dive boat owners/skippers because they are allowing their own tourist resources to be depleted, I don't understand why they would choose to either allow or encourage it.

[Dave]

I've been advised that you thrive on this kind of debate. Be that as it may, I feel you would make a good politician. Reason being you managed to avoid giving a direct answer - or indeed tackle - any of the real issues that have been raised of late.

Whether I have personal views on whether I think going to the wreck is irrelevant. Personally I wouldn't steal from wrecks at all and I disagree with clubs that have wreck tropihies proudly displayed where these have been stolen. Also, I would not disturb remains of a body. What is relevant is whether personal views should be attempted to be forced onto other people of other cultures. This I do not agree with. if someone is acting within the laws of appropriate countries, then I accept what they are doing.



None the less, if you feel that lack of legislation makes it OK for AG and his cohorts to do their own thing on/in Repulse (by the way you don't know whether items were removed) that's your right and opinion to say as much. I'm just glad that your views don't seem to represent those of the vast majority of UK divers.

My personal view on what they did is irrelevant to the issue of the attacks on them. Nothing that they have done has been shown to be illegal. I respect their rights to perform legal acts.

Dave

[gridler]

Andy
This reply from you says it all. No one can argue about any of the points you raise. In relation to the Bomme Richard the info came from the MCA and these grave robbers because thats they are will get their just rewards. My worry is that these divers that give us all a bad name will cause the authourities to have a knee jerk reaction and the rest of us will suffer. Once again thanks for your reply I think the passage about what the survivours want is quite moving.

[Dave]

There is a exclusion zone around the Bonne Richard I know that divers have tried to dive the wreck site. Should we name and shame these people beacause if they are caught the implications for us as divers could be dire.

No you shouldn't unless you want to risk a libel suit. If you have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a criminal offence then you should contact the appropriate authorities and let them investigate it.

Dave

[alan matthews]

:=
:=I've been advised that you thrive on this kind of debate. Be that as it may, I feel you would make a good politician. Reason being you managed to avoid giving a direct answer - or indeed tackle - any of the real issues that have been raised of late.

Whether I have personal views on whether I think going to the wreck is irrelevant. Personally I wouldn't steal from wrecks at all and I disagree with clubs that have wreck tropihies proudly displayed where these have been stolen. Also, I would not disturb remains of a body. What is relevant is whether personal views should be attempted to be forced onto other people of other cultures. This I do not agree with. if someone is acting within the laws of appropriate countries, then I accept what they are doing.


:=
If you feel that lack of legislation makes it OK for AG and his cohorts to do their own thing on/in Repulse (by the way you don't know whether items were removed) that's your right and opinion to say as much. I'm just glad that your views don't seem to represent those of the vast majority of UK divers.

Dave
I thought the whole purpose of your response was intended to offer a personal view. It would appear that I am wrong.

My personal view on what they did is irrelevant to the issue of the attacks on them. Nothing that they have done has been shown to be illegal. I respect their rights to perform legal acts.

I have not attacked anyone. I have, however, drawn a moral comparison between AG's dive (and subsequent film) which depicts the remains of our countrymen, and what may have unfolded within the US (diving fraternity amd public) had British divers acted in a similar way towards a US underwater war grave.

None the less, the primary thread (and gist) of subsequent discussions leads me to contend that the vast majority of British divers would not act in a similar way. Pray tell Dave are you keen to dive any US warship that, though protected against such dives by their nationals, is not protected from intrusion from non US citizens?

Alan

Dave