Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 [Archive]

Mike Rowley

20-10-2006, 21:26

Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 (Designations of Vessels and Controlled Sites) Order 2006

The Ministry of Defence has issued a Statutory Instrument (SI) 2006 No. 2616 under the above Act of Parliament which becomes effective from 1st November 2006. The purpose of this SI is to modify the number of wrecks protected by this act with a second tranche of wrecks.

Under this SI which replaces the original SIs of 2002 and 2003 the number of Designated Controlled sites are 12. The number of Protected Places increases from the original 16 to 36.

This is probably a good point to remind people of the difference between Controlled Sites and Protected Places as defined by the Act.

Designated Protected Places are places (wrecks) that may be dived but divers commit a criminal offence if they touch, enter, remove any item or in any way interfere with the wreck. Put simply, you can swim around them but that is all.
Interestingly, some of these wrecks are outside British territorial waters. In these cases should a UK national contravene this regulation they would be guilty of an offence. However, a national of any other country would not! For instance, a US citizen could quite legally enter such a wreck and or remove artefacts as he or she chooses.

Designated Controlled Sites are sites which are identified by either position or name and have an exclusion zone around that position. This exclusion zone applies only to divers or salvers. Anglers, fishermen and vessels navigating over them are not affected by this SI.
Divers commit a criminal offence by entering the water whilst wearing SCUBA equipment within the specified exclusion zone without a licence.
To date the Ministry of Defence has refused all applications for a licence to dive on any Designated Controlled Site.

Within these figures the protection of at least one wreck (HMS Warwick off North Cornwall) has been downgraded from Controlled Site to Protected Place. However, one regularly dived wreck (UB81 off the Isle of Wight) has been included as a Controlled site. I understand the reason for this is that the pressure hull of the submarine is rapidly deteriorating and the MOD considers divers may be able to view human remains as the wreck deteriorates further.

This tends to suggest that further wrecks will be upgraded and included as Controlled Sites over time and as they deteriorate. In view of this one could be forgiven for thinking it’s probably not a good idea for the diving community to report deterioration of wrecks to anyone.

Some of the new ones designated as Protected Places are wrecks that are regularly dived such as HMS M2 and HMS Boadicea (off Portland). Fourteen of the newly designated wrecks were sunk during the Battle of Jutland in May 1916.

The recent court case involving the SS Storraa has far reaching implications under this legislation. The MOD lost its appeal in the High Court on October 11th and has been ordered to treat merchant vessels sunk with loss of life in a similar manner to military vessels under the PMRA 1986. The Merchant Seaman’s Association, some marine archaeologists, survivors associations and other pressure groups can now be expected to lobby hard for all merchant ships sunk with loss of life during the two world wars and possibly within 200 years to be designated. Some 10,000 wrecks could be designated in the worst case scenario. It is unlikely they will be designated as Controlled Sites but the implications will go a long way to making criminals by reputation of us all.

The only positive parts of this are that there are currently only a few wrecks designated and the MOD desperately wants to avoid the bureaucratic nightmare and cost of designating and policing so many more wrecks. It will probably only consider wrecks for designation on application from interested parties and the number of active survivors associations for merchant vessels are believed to be relatively small. Realistically, the MOD is unable to police the currently designated wrecks. However, this legislation provides a powerful tool for the more fanatical marine archaeologists.

In the past, most of us have exchanged information on wrecks with various governmental bodies. However, in view of this and likely future legislation divers and skippers might like to consider whether it is wise to notify any official bodies such as the Hydrographic Office, the MOD or English Heritage if they locate any wrecks which may have any military connections. English Heritage has now been given responsibility for all UK underwater heritage by the government.

The value of magazine and internet publicity on wrecks becomes a double edged sword now as people wishing to expand the scope of this legislation will scour such media to gather evidence to support their cause.

I have listed the Protected Places and Controlled Sites below for your information.

Mike

Designated controlled Sites

Name of Ship Latitude Longitude Exclusion zone radius (metres)
HMS Bulwark 51.25.392N 00.39.172E 100
HMS Natal 57.41.244N 04.05.310W 100
HMS A7 50.18.518N 04.17.984W 200
HMS Dasher 55.37.747N 05.00.953W 200
HMS Royal Oak 58.55.848N 02.59.001W 200
HMS Vanguard 58.51.400N 03.06.405W 200
UB – 81 50.29.442N 00.58.351W 250
HMS H5 53.05.483N 04.41.975W 300
HMS Hampshire 59.07.065N 03.23.843W 300
HMS Affray 49.50.023N 02.34.533W 400
HMS Formidable 50.13.179N 03.04.071W 400
HMS Exmouth 58.18.467N 02.28.938W 750

Designated Protected Places

Name of Ship Date sunk
HMS Acheron 17.12.1940
HMS Ardent 31.05.1916
HMS Black Prince 31,05.1916
HMS Blackwood 15.06.1944
HMS Boadicea 13.06.1944
HMS Bullen 06.12.1944
HMS Defence 31.05.1916
HMS Exmore 25.02.1941
HMS Fortune 31.05.1916
HMS Gloucester 22.05.1941
HMS Hood 24.05.1941
HMS Indefatigable 31.05.1916
HMS Invincible 31.05.1916
HMS K4 31.01.1918
HMS K17 31.01.1918
HMS M1 12.11.1925
HMS M2 26.01.1932
HMS Nestor 31.05.1916
HMS Nomad 31.05.1916
HMS Prince of Wales 10.12.1941
HMS Queen Mary 31.05.1916
HMS Repulse 10.12.1941
HMS Shark 31.05.1916
HMS Sheffield 09.05.1982
RFA Sir Galahad 25.06.1982
HMS Sparrowhawk 31.05.1916
HMS Swordfish 07.11.1940
HMS Tipperary 31.05.1916
HMS Turbulent 31.05.1916
HMS Umpire 19.07.1941
HMS Vandal 24.02.1943
HMS Vortigern 15.03.1942
HMS Warrior 31.05.1916
HMS Warwick 20.02.1944
U – 12 05.10.1939
UB – 65 14.07.1918

Andy Wade

21-10-2006, 12:00

Odin

21-10-2006, 12:04

Thanks for that Mike.
Certainly something we need to be very aware of.
As you say the future could have us labelled as criminals!

Mike Rowley

21-10-2006, 14:04

The last line is a matter of great concern as this is indeed what has been happening with HMS Repulse. :mad:
Watch Hansard on 8th November 2006 for a question regarding action against foreign nationals.
I was going to add a link to a website showing pictures of human remains inside HMS Repulse and divers coming up on the shot line holding 'items'. but I see that particular bit has very recently been removed from their website. I wonder why? They must be pretty stupid indeed if they think it will make any difference now.
:(

Andy

I have some doubts about the authenticity of the pictures and claims made on that DIR website. On the occasion when those dives and the penetration of the HMS Repulse engine room was alleged to happen there were two dive boats on the site. A member of my family was on one boat with a UK based group, the other boat had the US DIR lot. The bottom times that the DIR lot were observed to be doing were so short as to pretty well preclude a penetration into the engine room, even if such was possible.

I am not saying it didn't happen, just that I have doubts. Some people will go to extraordinary lenghts to achieve their "15 minutes of fame". Unfortunately, we all suffer for their stupid egos.:(

The Repulse is becoming very fragile and penetration is becoming less of an option as she collapses down internally.

Mike

Andy Wade

21-10-2006, 15:15

Andy

I have some doubts about the authenticity of the pictures and claims made on that DIR website. On the occasion when those dives and the penetration of the HMS Repulse engine room was alleged to happen there were two dive boats on the site. A member of my family was on one boat with a UK based group, the other boat had the US DIR lot. The bottom times that the DIR lot were observed to be doing were so short as to pretty well preclude a penetration into the engine room, even if such was possible.

I am not saying it didn't happen, just that I have doubts. Some people will go to extraordinary lenghts to achieve their "15 minutes of fame". Unfortunately, we all suffer for their stupid egos.:(

The Repulse is becoming very fragile and penetration is becoming less of an option as she collapses down internally.

Mike

Hi Mike,
We may be talking about different website. I think I know the one you mean.
The one I was specifically referring to was here:

http://www.whitemanta.com/gallery/main.php

But the offending pictures have been removed, in fact the whole gallery of a trip carried out in 2004 has been taken offline.
I have that part of their website copied - long before it was taken down.
Here are two of their pictures:

Divers with plate (http://www.diveinstruct.org.uk/repulse/01.jpg) Divers coming up the shot line from HMS Repulse having stolen a plate.

Human remains (http://www.diveinstruct.org.uk/repulse/02.jpg) - Please don't look if you might be upset by this image, it's not pleasant, but it needs to be shown to demonstrate what's happening. Basically it is a set of bones with a skull inside HMS Repulse. I still get upset when I see it, and many others they took.

I agree about the ego's of the US divers. Whether or not they reached the engine room is I suppose, a moot point.
They did penetrate HMS Repulse and took pictures and video of human remains, and an edited version of this video is still for sale on Ebay as I write. That they are probably foreign nationals and whether or not this is OK under the act is a point that will be debated for a long time to come.
Either way, IMO they have not done the sport of diving any favours. It's exactly this sort of thing that is changing the wreck legislation against diving. And UK divers are the first to be affected by the new legislation.
And France has already got very stiff penalties for any wreck disturbance. You're probably one of the most informed people on these forums regarding that.
As I've alluded to in my earlier post, questions about this are soon to be asked in the House. The outcome of that is still uncertain. But it won't go away overnight, and it doesn't look good for diving anyway IMO.
Historically, as you'll probably be aware, the reason that no wrecks were ever designated before 2001 is that they simply did not envisage scuba divers being able to visit them or even find them. (Ignoring the salvage companies of course).
Times have changed, and technology now makes all but the deepest of wrecks out of reach of the average 'techie' diver.
I don't have a simple answer for the problem, as it has many facets. But I do think the answer should involve divers and require them and the diving organisations to support it, or we'll find that all wrecks may be off limits one day.
Some divers are the problem. But all divers hold part of the solution.

Matt-75

21-10-2006, 15:56

Mike Rowley

21-10-2006, 16:02

Hi Mike,
We may be talking about different website. I think I know the one you mean.
The one I was specifically referring to was here:

http://www.whitemanta.com/gallery/main.php

But the offending pictures have been removed, in fact the whole gallery of a trip carried out in 2004 has been taken offline.
I have that part of their website copied - long before it was taken down.
Here are two of their pictures:

Divers with plate (http://www.diveinstruct.org.uk/repulse/01.jpg) Divers coming up the shot line from HMS Repulse having stolen a plate.

Human remains (http://www.diveinstruct.org.uk/repulse/02.jpg) - Please don't look if you might be upset by this image, it's not pleasant, but it needs to be shown to demonstrate what's happening. Basically it is a set of bones with a skull inside HMS Repulse. I still get upset when I see it, and many others they took.

I agree about the ego's of the US divers. Whether or not they reached the engine room is I suppose, a moot point.
They did penetrate HMS Repulse and took pictures and video of human remains, and an edited version of this video is still for sale on Ebay as I write. That they are probably foreign nationals and whether or not this is OK under the act is a point that will be debated for a long time to come.
Either way, IMO they have not done the sport of diving any favours. It's exactly this sort of thing that is changing the wreck legislation against diving. And UK divers are the first to be affected by the new legislation.
And France has already got very stiff penalties for any wreck disturbance. You're probably one of the most informed people on these forums regarding that.
As I've alluded to in my earlier post, questions about this are soon to be asked in the House. The outcome of that is still uncertain. But it won't go away overnight, and it doesn't look good for diving anyway IMO.
Historically, as you'll probably be aware, the reason that no wrecks were ever designated before 2001 is that they simply did not envisage scuba divers being able to visit them or even find them. (Ignoring the salvage companies of course).
Times have changed, and technology now makes all but the deepest of wrecks out of reach of the average 'techie' diver.
I don't have a simple answer for the problem, as it has many facets. But I do think the answer should involve divers and require them and the diving organisations to support it, or we'll find that all wrecks may be off limits one day.
Some divers are the problem. But all divers hold part of the solution.

Hi Andy

Your right that wasn't the website I initially thought you meant.

The picture is sickening. I have no conception of why anyone should wish to take such a picture outside of scientific study. But you are right in that such stupidity will damage us all. I can fully understand any survivor or relative being shocked and outraged.

It is a sad fact that those with least responsibility or sensibility are often the very same people who seek the most attention.

Its depressing

Mike

Adrian Kelland

21-10-2006, 16:51

As an amateur archaeologist, it is just something that you would occasionally come across in that line of work.
Matt,

This was not done in the name of science, just as tourists.

Adrian

Andy Wade

21-10-2006, 17:23

Are these laws actually enforceable?

As i see it, to enforce them you would need someone pretty much stationed at those dive sites every day of the week, and with the current state of affairs with resources and cutbacks i cant honestly see any agency being able to do that.

As for the images of skulls and such, they dont disturb me. As an amateur archaeologist, it is just something that you would occasionally come across in that line of work. I do think something needs to be done to preserve the dive sites, but i dont see any workable solutions. Simply adding a new law is useless, because unless the navy has divers on those wrecks all day every day, they arent going to be able to police them, and the latter is improbable at best, the resources just dont exist to do it for one wreck, let alone 10+.

So i think this is just another useless amendment to the current laws, that isnt enforcable. If they want to keep people off the wrecks they may as well just mine them, its about the only way i can see to keep people off them.

Oh for goodness sake, don't be so naive. Whether these images disturb you personally or not is hardly relevant, they do however disturb the relatives of the men who died, and they have a very powerful lobby with the House of Lords, many of whom served in the war, and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission who also have huge clout. Do you think the CWGC is only interested in cemeteries?

Matt, it might be the only way you can see, but since you're probably not an expert in these matters, I respectfully suggest you research things a bit more. Look at the history of recent years. The lobby in 2000 and 2001 resulted in the present restrictions, despite the best efforts of the BSAC/PADI/SAA. they can do it again through the Highest courts in this land.

OK, Here goes with a likely scenario.
The press gets hold of this again (and believe me, they probably will), we get huge headlines and people protesting as they did in 2001 and we get more restrictions placed on wrecks. There is extensive radar in place around our coasts and if they wanted to make an example of some divers going too close to a controlled site, I reckon they will do so just to satisfy the press and public opinion. Remember the handgun laws introduced after Dunblane? Now there was a huge knee jerk reaction to one nutter going off the rails.

Are you willing to take that risk with our industry? Given that the end result will be some probably innocent divers getting their gear confiscated because they entered an exclusion area around a controlled site?
The French do it, so could our authorities. This is not a game, and the consequences for the diving industry are frightening.
And yes, I know that HMS Repulse in not even in our home waters, but the effects of a press campaign and people writing to their MP's will affect us here in the UK for a start.
They don't actually need to station a warship over a wreck site, just place a warning marker buoy to stay away (like with HMS Royal Oak), and watch on the radar. In fact they probably don't need to watch on the radar as I bet they could set the system up to set off an alarm as soon as a vessel starts to go near. The MOD will cover it's back just as anyone else would in this matter.
They could push to revoke licences to operate offending dive vessels out of our ports, or confiscate dive boats and diving equipment. Putting a skipper out of business. They would only have to do this once and splash it all over the papers to send the message that they mean business.
The situation in foreign ports and other countries is being examined right now at the highest level to see if they can call on agreements with other countries to enforce the protection of our war graves. I do know this because I've seen a lot of the correspondence.
And as far as HMS Repulse is concerned? Don't forget that the Singapore people hold special remembrance services even now because they do remember that the men who died, did so in an attempt to protect their country. They are eternally grateful for what these men did for them. Actually they unveiled a new memorial over there just last year. I have pictures of it.

Matt, I know this might seem a long way off, and of course any laws laid down will almost always be largely unworkable, but IMO they only have to catch one dive boat.
And look at the record of this current Government...
Don't they just love making new laws to create new criminal offences? Do you really doubt that divers will remain immune?

Matt-75

21-10-2006, 21:18

Matt,

This was not done in the name of science, just as tourists.

Adrian

I know this, ive read other threads elsewhere on DIR divers doing wreck pen on graveyard sites. But as mentioned this only stops us doing it, the tourists arent going to stop.

Andy on your point, im not being naive, i dont even properly attempt to understand it, but then i dont dive these wrecks. If we all got banned from diving them, then well thats life move on and find something else to dive, which is probably not what you want to hear, but its what pretty much everyone would do.

As for skippers on boats, if a boat is on a banned list then you just dont take people out there, to avoid breaking the law. Those who do will lose their licenses, and tbh if they hadnt taken people their in the first place then they wouldnt have a problem. Thats logical?

The only people who should be able to go in those are archaeologists/historians with prior permission anyway. Not tourists from america and other countries. Its not like these people would be happy or tolerate it if someone went and dug their relatives corpses up from a graveyard, so they should be reminded that it isnt acceptable here on ships.

The law should have forbidden everyone, not just us.

Janos

21-10-2006, 23:06

Andy Wade

22-10-2006, 12:48

I know this, ive read other threads elsewhere on DIR divers doing wreck pen on graveyard sites. But as mentioned this only stops us doing it, the tourists arent going to stop.

Andy on your point, im not being naive, i dont even properly attempt to understand it, but then i dont dive these wrecks. If we all got banned from diving them, then well thats life move on and find something else to dive, which is probably not what you want to hear, but its what pretty much everyone would do.

As for skippers on boats, if a boat is on a banned list then you just dont take people out there, to avoid breaking the law. Those who do will lose their licenses, and tbh if they hadnt taken people their in the first place then they wouldnt have a problem. Thats logical?

The only people who should be able to go in those are archaeologists/historians with prior permission anyway. Not tourists from america and other countries. Its not like these people would be happy or tolerate it if someone went and dug their relatives corpses up from a graveyard, so they should be reminded that it isnt acceptable here on
ships.

The law should have forbidden everyone, not just us.

OK then, a little more reading might help you to understand a bit better, so here's my take on things as they stand.
It's not just about banning diving, things are not as straightforward as that. There is a very good case for visiting wrecks from a historical and educational point of view, rather than just to rob items from them. We divers are in a unique position to see things that don't exist in the world above water, there are no Royal Navy capital ships left as none were preserved. To my knowledge there are 5 Royal Navy Post Dreadnought capital ships left in the world, and all are sunken wrecks:
HMS Barham (http://www.hmsbarham.com/) - Somewhere pretty deep in the Mediterranean Sea.
HMS Hood (http://www.hmshood.com) - Very deep in the Atlantic.
HMS Royal Oak (http://www.hmsroyaloak.co.uk/) - In Scapa Flow - but diving is not permitted - and this is very strictly enforced.
HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse (http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/) - Off Malaysia and reasonably accessible to divers with the correct training and enough money. These are the only two ships that can be seen by divers. So they are of huge importance and should be treated with great respect on that point alone. They are designated under PoMRA 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Military_Remains_Act) but this only applies to British divers. Divers from other nations may do as they wish at the moment, and they are doing exactly that.

Regarding the banning of diving on some vessels:

As far as diving is concerned on HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse. I can state quite clearly that the Survivors Association is perfectly happy for diving to take place on these ship wrecks. They have never stated a desire to ban diving on the ships. They wish to keep the story of these ships alive, and they recognise that visits to them will help to do this.
Apart from the historical aspect of people wishing to see the remains of the only available Royal Navy Post-Dreadnought capital ships left to be dived in the world, the story of how the ships were sunk, and how and why the men who died during this event will remain in people's minds.
However.
The Survivors Association requests that diving be carried out on the ship wrecks with respect. That's all. This request, plus the PoMRA should demonstrate to anyone that penetration should not be carried out.
The ships were designated as Protected Places rather than Controlled Sites because they lie in international waters. Had they been in British waters then it's quite likely that the MOD would have made them into Controlled sites. Then there would have been no diving at all. This would not have been the doing of the Survivors Association.

Regarding penetration... Can we be clear on this point please?

Any diver who enters a confined space, no matter how 'accomplished' they think they are, will inevitably cause some disturbance to that confined space. Mike has mentioned the disintegration of HMS Repulse to a point where soon enough it will not be possible to enter her anyway. I'd suggest that the acceleration of her disintegration can be put down to the introduction of large amounts of air into the ship by dint of divers bubbles (OK, that lets off the CCR chaps) creation of water currents inside and the disturbance of silts, fin kicks and hand offs (even by accident) snagging issues and opening of doors (although there's probably not very much of the last two points, it all adds to it). All this, plus the significant action of the seawater, will see them decay down to a pile of dust more quickly than if they were never penetrated. The tenet "take only pictures, leave only bubbles", whilst being a good thing to follow has a slightly different meaning when looked at in this way. One dive inside a wreck may not make a great deal of difference, but hundreds will.

Regarding the disturbance of human remains:

The remains of the men are present in the ships. It is a grave, a tomb. A fact which may have been in some small doubt in 2001, but not any more. There is significant evidence to prove this and in some way the divers who took the images have supported the argument that remains do still exist even after all these years.
What the relatives and survivors don't wish to see is divers penetrating the wrecks and disturbing the remains of their friends and relations. Not an unreasonable request.
But we hear about divers who couldn't care less about the wishes of others, or that there are designations applied to these shipwrecks. Thay say it doesn't apply to them because they're not British citizens. They follow their own selfish ends and justify it by saying they are 'documenting' the decay of the wrecks. We've even heard the insults of people who describe the human remains as 'organic detritus' Well, scientifically that may be correct, but this kind of talk only serves to alienate their point of view to people who might have been 'sitting on the fence', so to speak. They do no-one any favours by making these kind of statements. And as for the posting of video and still pictures of the human remains, well this is completely unforgiveable behaviour and does no-one any good (Yes, I am aware of the irony in myself posting one of them).
What do these divers think will happen as a result of them carrying out these actions? Do they think other divers will look at their 'exploits' and say, "Oh what wonderful and clever divers you are, you must be super divers, have a 'superdiver' badge to show this" The whole thing is frankly pathetic.
What will result from this is the outrage of the press and public opinion, and British divers will get some of the blame. Even though they might not have done anything wrong, mud sticks.

What can be done about this?

IMO the whole diving industry of divers, agencies and diving companies need to clearly recognise the threat to diving that is on the way.
Every now and then there will be another incident and more complaints and more restrictions, until there's nothing left to dive. Even for the divers who don't cause any disturbance by staying outside the wrecks. The future is not looking very rosy, and I don't think that it's that far away either.
I've stated before on forums that I think we should outlaw divers who break the rules, because IMO they represent the greatest threat to diving that has ever existed (that and the diminishing global supplies of helium). If we want to do something about this problem, we should embrace it and start to act as our own police, or it will be thrust upon us and we'll eventually have no say in it. At the end of the day, they don't care about other divers and the threat to diving, so why should we care about them?
I think everyone should write to the operators of the dive vessels that take divers to these ships and protest that they allow penetration dives to take place, these are our ships and our countrymen that lie inside them. We don't go inside their war graves and disturb the remains of their countrymen, so why should they be allowed to do it to us?
When you really get down to it, it's all about making money for a few dive operators. That and the selfish ends of a few divers who couldn't care less about anyone else.
It has been mentioned that there would need to be a ship stationed above the wrecks to enforce any restriction. Well, there are vessels stationed above the wrecks when diving is taking place. The skippers of these dive vessels should look carefully at what they are allowing to go on, and they should make sure that divers act in a responsible manner to protect what is for the skipper a good source of income. They are actually contributing to it's destruction and also to more restrictions being placed on diving as a whole.

And lets not forget one final point:

There will be a question raised in Parliament on the 8th of November about foreign national divers penetrating HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse.
Note the timing.
Three days later it will be Armistice day, with Remembrance Sunday the day after on the 12th of November. I don't think that this is accidental, although I do recognise that I could be wrong about this.

Mike Rowley

25-10-2006, 12:12

I Have received clarification on one significant point from the MOD this morning. The Designations apply to anyone who "engages in marine activity" and specifically "prohibits any intrusive activity".

This means that commercial fishing and angling is also prohibited within the exclusion zone of a Controlled Site and any activity that is likely to interfere with or damage a Protected place is also prohibited.

So contrary to my original post all intrusive activity is prohibited whether it be entry or removal of items by diving or interference by fishing.

Sorry to have given a false impression.

Mike:o

Andy Wade

07-11-2006, 09:41

Tomorrow (Wednesday 8th Nov) there will be a question raised in the House of Lords by The Lord Faulkner of Worcester regarding the following:

"To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect the wrecks of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse from the activities of foreign nationals undertaking penetration dives and disturbing the human remains which lie there".

Here's the link for the relevant Hansard page. Scroll down to Wednesday's order of questions:

House of Lords - order of questions (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldordpap.htm#order)

Mike Rowley

07-11-2006, 12:00

PeteM

14-11-2006, 14:27

Andy Wade

14-11-2006, 18:31

Does anyone know how this went?

Yes, sorry. I was going to post this a couple of days ago.
Basically the question didn't get asked because the Lords finished their business so late on Tuesday evening, so the question could not be asked.
It wasn't known about until Wednesday morning that questions for that day were closed.
Apparently Lord Faulkner will table this question again for sometime during the week beginning 20th November.

I'll keep you posted as soon as I hear something.
Promise. :)

Andy Wade

21-11-2006, 18:41

Yes, sorry. I was going to post this a couple of days ago.
Basically the question didn't get asked because the Lords finished their business so late on Tuesday evening, so the question could not be asked.
It wasn't known about until Wednesday morning that questions for that day were closed.
Apparently Lord Faulkner will table this question again for sometime during the week beginning 20th November.

I'll keep you posted as soon as I hear something.
Promise. :)

This keeps getting postponed as did a lot of other business recently, hopefully now that Parliament is in session again it will settle down.
Here's the story so far:

Wednesday 6 December at 3.00pm
Lord Faulkner of Worcester to ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect the wrecks of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse from the activities of foreign nationals undertaking penetration dives and disturbing the human remains which lie there.

This is an oral question which is limited to 30 minutes only.

Monster

21-11-2006, 21:47

All,

Its not hard to put All wrecks out of bounds, as i see it ( GOD FORBID THAT EVER HAPPENS!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: ) however here is a scenariou that could possibly happen... all Dive Charters and Clubs that wish to dive in UK waters (weather Foreign or not) will have to fill out a form and hand it to the nearest HM Coast gaurd or Harbour master of where thay plan to dive and what...before that boast departs the port ...any violation of of this will mean an imediate revocation (Is that the right word?) of that Club/Operators Licesnse to operate in that paticular area/Country!.

A bad vision for all as far as i can see.. i personnaly dont mind enetering a wreck Partially ...but i hate getting deep inside ...Claustrphobia pherhaps ....but i do like partial PENETRATION! ( Sorry ladies ... i stand 2 feet away and still get PARTIAL penetration :D ) but as we all know if Divers of any nation do not abide by the rules of that paticular nations wreck/Remains, will as it is proposed, put ALL wrecks out of boounds, to that end ALL divers of ANY national needs to be reminded fo the Respect they need to abide by of any Wreck, and further abide by the UNWRITTEN rule of LOOK DONT TOUCH!

Sorry for going on ... and for the grammer and spelling! :p

Regards,

A Concerned diver! :confused: :confused:

Nick Argue

21-11-2006, 23:13

This keeps getting postponed as did a lot of other business recently, hopefully now that Parliament is in session again it will settle down.
Here's the story so far:

Wednesday 6 December at 3.00pm
Lord Faulkner of Worcester to ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect the wrecks of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse from the activities of foreign nationals undertaking penetration dives and disturbing the human remains which lie there.

This is an oral question which is limited to 30 minutes only.

At least the question stresses "foreign nationals" and not "Divers" in general

Andy Wade

21-11-2006, 23:51

At least the question stresses "foreign nationals" and not "Divers" in general

There's a good reason for that.
It is being raised because there's very strong evidence that foreign nationals are entering the wrecks of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse.
UK divers are already prevented under the PoMRA 1986 from entering or disturbing these ships.
Under existing law, should a UK national get caught doing this they can be prosecuted under the PoMRA 1986.
I understand that Lord Faulkner will be pressing for very specific changes (or existing clauses to be invoked) under another existing international maritime law to prevent 'foreign national' divers entering either HMS Prince of Wales or HMS Repulse.
If it goes ahead, this would allow the UK Government to prosecute (foreign national) individuals in local courts anywhere in the world.
This was a loophole that was known about when the PoMRA was invoked on these two shipwrecks in 2000/2001. It did not apply to non UK nationals. But as foreign nationals are clearly entering the wrecks (and some are taking items from them too), the UK Government can either choose to ignore this, or take action.
When the question is raised in Parliament the media will get hold of it and the UK Government may have no choice, (even assuming they wanted to stall with it for now).
It will of course be subject to each foreign country (In this case Singapore) agreeing to allow local prosecutions of offending divers and maybe boat skippers too. The international maritime agreement I mentioned above is one that is already in place in most countries.
Since the Singapore government has never forgotten what the crews of these ships died for, IMO it's likely that they will agree to it as they have already signed to that law, if this section of it's implementation has never been used.
It may even be that the UK Government will be able to prosecute divers in their home countries too, which means they will have nowhere to hide. And a foreign diver who disturbs or steal from HMS Repulse may find themselves being prosecuted in their local court.

All this is just my understanding of the issue as I see it. Of course it may not happen.
We'll see.

Andy Wade

07-12-2006, 09:08

Text taken direct from this page (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/01.htm#hddr_2):

House of Lords

Wednesday, 6 December 2006.
The House met at three o’clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford): the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Shipping: Naval Wrecks

Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What steps they are taking to protect the wrecks of HMS “Prince of Wales” and HMS “Repulse” from the activities of foreign nationals undertaking penetration dives and disturbing the human remains which lie there.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the wrecks of HMS “Prince of Wales” and HMS “Repulse”, which lie in international waters off the coast of Malaysia, are designated as protected places under the United Kingdom’s Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. However, the Act applies only to British citizens and British flagged vessels. Her Majesty’s Government therefore continue to work closely with regional Governments, diving groups and others to prevent inappropriate activity on the wreck sites by foreign nationals.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. These two ships were sunk 65 years ago this week and the wrecks are the final resting place of 840 officers and men. Is my noble friend aware of the activities of foreign-owned diving companies, such as Rec ‘N’ Tec and White Manta, which have promoted themselves by placing pictures of human remains on their websites and, in one case, producing for sale a DVD of a full penetration dive on HMS “Repulse” carried out by a US citizen? Does my noble friend agree that the survivors and the relatives of the deceased deserve rather better than that?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, I agree absolutely. I have seen stills from the DVD and they are extremely distressing and must be extremely painful for the families and the survivors. The British Government, via the British High Commission in Malaysia, have asked the company to remove the video from its website. It has done so and apologised for the distress caused. The Ministry has also made its concerns known to a number of Malaysian government agencies and to the navies of the region, and of course the Royal Navy itself makes several trips to the site.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome anything that the Government can do to protect these war grave sites. Those tragic sinkings taught us the importance of air cover. In the light of that, can the noble Baroness confirm that there will be no further delays to the new carriers?
Baroness Crawley: A good try, my Lords, but it is slightly outwith the brief in front of me. I will, with all due respect to the noble Lord, write to him on his question.
Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, what plans do the Government have for more proactive management of historic wreck sites so that they are physically assessed by people with relevant expertise and management plans are drawn up which would be sensitive to them both as war graves, if that is what they are, and as archaeological sites?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are signatories to several international conventions, most notably the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and have therefore signed up to the responsibilities under them. We have also begun to designate sites. I was astonished to learn in my brief that there are 15,000 naval and merchant wrecks from the two world wars. Not all of those will be designated, but the most significant wrecks are being designated as protected sites or controlled sites, with all the management that that involves.
Lord Addington: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that international bodies such as the Commonwealth will be made aware of the situation? An international approach is probably what is required; indeed, that is what the Minister has suggested in her earlier answers.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there is good communication between those responsible in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and those responsible for the shipwrecks which have become maritime graves.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not referred to the interests of the New Zealand Government in the “Prince of Wales” and the “Repulse”. There is a very active interest in New Zealand in the fates of the ships and of the bodies of those who were drowned. Are the Government, as I trust they are, in close contact with the Government of New Zealand and listening sympathetically to their interests?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords. I will write to the noble Lord about the detail of our contact, but, as I understand it, we are in contact with the regional Governments, the Australian Navy and the New Zealand agencies.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, will the Minister consider contacting the various dive centres which operate in that area? Most SCUBA divers—recreational divers, of which I am one—would operate from such sites.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. The diving companies in the region are contacted and we are in close co-operation with them. But in the end, however many international or national laws we sign up to, we need to educate the diving companies and the individual divers. We are therefore in constant contact with them.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain why if the American Government can protect their wrecks, we cannot?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I would say that we do protect our wrecks with the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. Although it has limitations in applying only to British nationals and to British vessels, we certainly use it as fully as we can.
Lord Roper: My Lords, have the Government made a formal approach to the Malaysian and Singaporean Governments to ask them to co-operate informally in restricting activities from their ports?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords; we are in constant contact with the Governments through the High Commissions. However, after our short debate today, I will certainly ensure that we once again underline our concerns with both Governments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in addition to the dreadful personal tragedies referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, this is a site of particular historical significance? It proved once and for all that capital ships—as my noble friend Lord Astor made clear in his “outwith” question—could no longer operate without adequate air defences. As such, it is the place where the course of naval warfare changed for ever.
Baroness Crawley: Absolutely, my Lords; that was a very significant event on 10 December 1941. Naval historians consider it a turning point in history.

badder

18-12-2006, 02:43

There's a good reason for that.
It is being raised because there's very strong evidence that foreign nationals are entering the wrecks of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse. Its been penetrated for deecades. As far as I recall the first people to dive the Repulse was over 20 years ago (they took up the stepping plate that they (finally) presented to the Navy rep in Singapore last year IIRC. It will of course be subject to each foreign country (In this case Singapore) no the wreck is off Malaysia not Singapore.

Since the Singapore government has never forgotten what the crews of these ships died for, IMO it's likely that they will agree to it as they have already signed to that law, if this section of it's implementation has never been used. I think you need to re read the history books. Singaporeans feel the British forces deserted them during the war (they did) I even saw it illustrated in a childs school book once in a book shop. We turned our back on Singapore and pulled out our troops (historical fact) leaving them to the Japanese. Very very Singaporeans have ever heard of these wrecks...or care much...as for Malaysians - they care even less
.[/QUOTE]

badder

18-12-2006, 02:49

Hi Andy

Your right that wasn't the website I initially thought you meant.

The picture is sickening. I have no conception of why anyone should wish to take such a picture outside of scientific study. But you are right in that such stupidity will damage us all. I can fully understand any survivor or relative being shocked and outraged.

But this is ok? http://www.dithpran.org/killingfields.htm

what about this http://www.akhet.co.uk/clikmumm.htm surely thats far more sickening???

Its a difficult and emotional subject. We loot graves every day under the banner of archeology.

When is it ok, when itsnt it. I dont have the answer.

badder

18-12-2006, 02:53

Matt,

This was not done in the name of science, just as tourists.

Adrian

thousands of tourists trammpel over the killing fields every day in Cambodia. They have pics taken with skulls. They even make walls out of the skulls and have pics taken next to them.

there is nothing unusual or necessarily disrespectful about tourists going to see remains.

badder

18-12-2006, 02:57

Mike Rowley

18-12-2006, 12:28

The door was found by a Swedish diver and yes the DIR boys did go in.

JJ was doing 25-35min BT which is long enough to get in and out the ER

The Repulse is not fragile of collapsing

25 - 35 minutes on a wreck that is only 35m deep at the shallowest point and 55m to the bottom and in water 29-30 degrees C? It is hardly worth the effort of travelling there for such a pathetic bottom time. To suggest that a full engine room penetration was achieved in such a short time is stretching credulity a bit far even for US DIR celebreties.

Either way, the morality of what was claimed to have been done speaks louder to the values and decency of these individuals than all of their attention seeking web videos. I think I can safely say I am not alone in having nothing but contempt not only for what they claimed to have done but also for attempting to gain kudos by publishing a sick video. These thoughtless, arrogant, vain and sick individuals obviously had no consideration for the relatives of those who gave their lives so that stupid and insensitive prats could have the freedom to insult their memory and sacrifice.

I have dived the Repulse and the Prince of Wales a number of times during 2003, 2004 and 2005. In that time it has noticeably rolled over slightly more as it collapses and it is becoming visibly quite fragile as one would expect of a ship that is over 90 years old. The port side props are now well clear of the seabed where they were apparantly burried in the sand when the starboard props were salvaged.

HMS Repulse was one of Ist Sea Lord "Jackie Fisher's" battle cruisers. The concept was to have a ship with the size and fire power of a battleship but the speed and agility of a cruiser. The way the speed was achieved was to reduce weight by reduction of armour belt and lighter build.The concept was designed for surface raiding and became obsolescent due to the submarine and air attack. These ships were never designed for fleet actions and the destruction of HMS Hood showed their vulnerability. It is to be expected that a ship of this age and build will become fragile. To suggest it is not suggests you either haven't dived it or have little knowledge of ships and shipwrecks.

Mike Rowley

Giles

18-12-2006, 13:12

I think you need to re read the history books. Singaporeans feel the British forces deserted them during the war (they did) I even saw it illustrated in a childs school book once in a book shop. We turned our back on Singapore and pulled out our troops (historical fact) leaving them to the Japanese. Very very Singaporeans have ever heard of these wrecks...or care much...as for Malaysians - they care even less
.

I totally disagree, Singaporeans DO NOT think that at all, at least not the ones that I have met on the numerous times I've been there. In fact as has been said to me on many occasions by Singaporeans they have great thanks for the British for NOT forgetting them. Go & see some of the museums in Singapore & this becomes obvious.

Mike Rowley

18-12-2006, 16:03

What utter rot, history is clearly not your subject! Force Z was actually sent by Churchill to Singapore with the prime purpose of protecting British colonies in South East Asia, of which Singapore was one of the most important.

The British garrison in Singapore fought for several weeks to defend the colony, finally surrendering to the Japanese forces to avoid more bloodshed. They did not pull out as you incorrectly state. Many of the soldiers and civilians involved in the defence of Singapore ended up dying horribly in Japanese prison camps and on the notorious Burma railway. You assertion that we pulled out belittles their sacrifice.

You can make a case that the defence of Singapore by the British was inept, badly thought through, poorly supported with equipment and focused on a seaborn invasion when the Japanese came by land. The Japanese force was considerably smaller than the British defending force and this was undoubtedly one of the most ignominious defeats of the British army.

You could also say that in hindsight the commander may as well have fought to the death considering how few subsequently survived the hideous treatment they received at the hands of the Japanese.

You cannot say that the British pulled out and left the people of Singapore to their fate simply because it is patently not true, they surrendered. I suggest you learn your history before making wildly inaccurate statements.

In my experience, I have been there 3 times, the people of Singapore are very friendly and well disposed towards British, Australian and New Zealand people. I have recieved nothing but friendly welcome on the occasions I have visited and I have never experienced any antipathy of any sort and yes, I have met and socialised with locals.

I can just about understand you trying to defend you "DIR heroes" dispicable behaviour but do at the very least make sure of the historical facts.

Mike Rowley

Andy Wade

18-12-2006, 18:37

thousands of tourists trammpel over the killing fields every day in Cambodia. They have pics taken with skulls. They even make walls out of the skulls and have pics taken next to them.

there is nothing unusual or necessarily disrespectful about tourists going to see remains.

Well, now you see that's where we're going to differ.
I see the line drawn right here Badders.
By all means visit a cemetery, but don't dig up the graves or enter the mausoleum where the coffins are laying.
Vistit a designated maritime war grave, but have the decency to leave the human remains alone.
To enter the tomb is bad enough but publishing images online is as low as it gets.
From your sudden and frantic posting on this matter I take it that you've read yesterday's Sunday Express article (page 10).
Oh, and for the record, what they've been doing in Cambodia makes my flesh creep too.

Andy Wade

18-12-2006, 18:52

Its been penetrated for deecades. As far as I recall the first people to dive the Repulse was over 20 years ago (they took up the stepping plate that they (finally) presented to the Navy rep in Singapore last year IIRC. no the wreck is off Malaysia not Singapore.

I'm fully aware that it has been dived for years. The point is that it has been designated since 2001 as a maritime war grave.
I do know where the wreck is. But the dive vessels mostly operate out of Singapore do they not? So Singapore is relevant.

I think you need to re read the history books. Singaporeans feel the British forces deserted them during the war (they did) I even saw it illustrated in a childs school book once in a book shop. We turned our back on Singapore and pulled out our troops (historical fact) leaving them to the Japanese. Very very Singaporeans have ever heard of these wrecks...or care much...as for Malaysians - they care even less
.

Well I've heard some cr4p but this takes the biscuit. You really are showing your ignorance here.
Only last week I had the pleasure of chatting to 80 odd year old Royal Marine John Garner who was on the ship you speak of with such ignorance. As a Plymouth Argyll he fought alongside men who died horribly in the defence of Singapore and then he survived 3, 1/2 years of unbelievable cruelty under the Japanese.
I'd respectfully suggest that you take a look at the history books before you try to bandy words with me about something you clearly know little about.
We didn't 'pull out' our trops so much as flee with our lives on every available boat. In fact troops were still entering Singapore a matter of weeks before the Japanese advance down the Malaysian peninsular.
The problem was that Singapore was very poorly equiped to defend itself against an enemy that knew all our troop deployments and everything else about our weak points because of a catastrophic error with SS Automedon.

The men who were left were ordered to surrender. This doomed them to their horrendous fate in the next few years because of the way 'Bushido' viewed men who surrendered.

Oh, and that country you speak of that has such little regard for the sacrifice of the men who died? They held a presentation and unveiled a new memorial to these men at the old Singapore naval base at Sembawang last year. My friend Ted Matthews of HMS Repulse unveiled it himself.

Andy Wade

18-12-2006, 19:06

But this is ok? http://www.dithpran.org/killingfields.htm

what about this http://www.akhet.co.uk/clikmumm.htm surely thats far more sickening???

Its a difficult and emotional subject. We loot graves every day under the banner of archeology.

When is it ok, when itsnt it. I dont have the answer.

Well we agree there, I really don't think you do have the answer.

Do you think that because we care enough to protest about one thing means we don't care about something else? These matters are not mutually exclusive.

You guys have been pushing this angle because you haven't got a good enough reason for entering and disturbing war graves.
To justify a disgusting action by saying that somebody else does something similar is very weak.

If you want a line to be drawn I'll suggest one for you.
When someone who's brother died on a shipwreck asks you not to dive and enter the grave of his brother, that's a good guide to where the line should be drawn.
When a woman who's husband died on HMS Prince of Wales cries when she hears about what the DIR 'boys' are doing then the line is self evident.

And before you bring the next subject up?
No I haven't dived the Thistlegorm, nor would I want to.

The ships were finally designated after many years of trying. On the day of the designation the penetration dives should have stopped.

Gareth

18-12-2006, 19:57

Badder

I cannot believe, that as American Nationals, they would behave in such a manner on the wrecks of the USS Arizona or the USS Missouri.

So why would it be acceptable to behave in this way on these wrecks, is it because they are British not American?

Which ever way you look at, the country in whose navy they served & died, have designated these sites as war graves, which gives them a certain status & requires a particular level of respect. This status is well known.

The status allows divers to visit & pay their respect to those that served & died so bravely. The restrictions are well known, in short you should not enter or disturb the wreck.

The survivors association is regularly updated by the British Diving Community as to the condition of the wrecks. A new Ensign is placed on the wrecks annually as a mark of respect. The level of trust & understanding that has developed has taken a lot of effort, both from the diving community & more so from the survivors & their association. Such acts of disrespect damage the credibility of the diving community as a whole & threated to damage the trust forged between the Diving Community, survivors associations, survivors & the MOD.

Such behaviour is unacceptable. There is no justification.

If a scientific or historical study is to be made of these wrecks, then it should only be made with the full aggrement of the MOD. The MOD would consult with the survivors associations, & define the parameters of any & all diving on the wrecks to ensure that proper respect is given to those that perished, & to ensure that the wishes of the families & survivors are respected.

Gareth

Mike Halligan

18-12-2006, 23:01

thousands of tourists trammpel over the killing fields every day in Cambodia. They have pics taken with skulls. They even make walls out of the skulls and have pics taken next to them.

That it may happen does not make it right. Thousands visit the killing fields of France and Belgium, the cemeteries of the Netherlands, Italy and N Africa, but they don't mess around with human remains. In all these cases, the locals over whose land the battles were fought will intervene to prevent desecration.

Much the same applies to the Menin Gate, Tombs of Unknown Soldiers, war memorials in all our communities, even former concentration camps, where huge crowds gather to pay their respects.

there is nothing unusual or necessarily disrespectful about tourists going to see remains.

Now there you've gone too far. Visiting the memorials and contemplating their meaning is respectful and normal. Gawping at and handling human remains at such places, knowing their origin is in my opinion crude, hollow, intrusive and obscene.

Mike

badder

19-12-2006, 10:16

That it may happen does not make it right. didnt say it was right - or wrong - just showing the hypocracy of it.

Thousands visit the killing fields of France and Belgium, the cemeteries of the Netherlands, Italy and N Africa, but they don't mess around with human remains. In all these cases, the locals over whose land the battles were fought will intervene to prevent desecration.

Much the same applies to the Menin Gate, Tombs of Unknown Soldiers, war memorials in all our communities, even former concentration camps, where huge crowds gather to pay their respects.

Why do you conclude that divers who enter these wrecks will 'Mess around with human remains'? Do you have any proof of this? Have you witnesed it, seen pictures of it? Spoken to people that have done this? No.

I dont see why you think visiting a war grave underwater as apose to onland would change peoples behavior or the way they think. Nobody is messing with human remains and its kinda weird that anyone would make that assumption. I fail to see why you would assume penetration = messing with remains or that these divers feel any differenty about the meaning of the wreck than those divers who only swim around the outside.

Now there you've gone too far. Visiting the memorials and contemplating their meaning is respectful and normal. Gawping at and handling human remains at such places, knowing their origin is in my opinion crude, hollow, intrusive and obscene.

Mike

There you go again. Who says anyone is handling remains? When does visiting = gawping? Is a diver who is outsidfe the wreck 'visiting' and a diver who is inside the wreck 'gawping' Who says divers are not visiting these wrecks as memorials and contemplating their meaning is respectful fashion? I do - as does everyine I know.

Many people have a distorted image of what these wrecks look like inside. The remains are scattered and buried under tons of silt fallen debri. The majority o0 the remains are in tight restricted areas divers are unable to go because this is where they were trapped and unable to escape from when the ship sank. There are not remains everywhere. It is not so common to see anything. People are not climbing over bodies! The 'remains' were scattered by sea creatures and currents and buried under the silt decaded ago. There is nothing 'body like' or even recognisable as remains. The only thing that sticks out is the occasional skull or leg bone - nothing else is ever seen or recognised. It is very common to do a dive and never see anything like remains. If you do all you ever see is a skull here and there and divers I talk to all tell me they find it disturbing when they do. If you spend 40 mins inside you may only see one skull here or there if that and only if you are in certain parts of the wreck. There is a reason why all the pics on the internet on different sites by different divers are all of the same skull.
Divers never say 'lets gop inside the wreck to look (gawp as you put it) remains. The remains are there and can be found if you go searching but thats not why people are going inside. If they see something they swim past.
Some might take a picture. Why is it ok to walk past a wall of skulls in cambodia and take a picture but not to swim past a single skull in a wreck and take a picture? why is the diver called names and the tourist not? why isnt the diver a tourist?

badder

19-12-2006, 10:28

Well, now you see that's where we're going to differ.
I see the line drawn right here Badders.
By all means visit a cemetery, but don't dig up the graves or enter the mausoleum where the coffins are laying.
who is digging up graves? entering a wreck is not = digging up a grave. Emotional language and imagery is incorrect

Visit a designated maritime war grave, but have the decency to leave the human remains alone. again - who is messing with remains? taking a picture = messing? I took a picture of a mummy in a museum is that messing? I dont see it as messing (unless the reamins are positioned) I see it as recording something important that reminds people who see it that something very traggici happened here.

To enter the tomb is bad enough but publishing images online is as low as it gets. Its not a tomb. A tomb is a tomb, a battle cruiser is a battle cruiser. A tomb is small, built to hold a body and has no other purpose. A battele cruiser is a war ship. Visit a tomb and you will expect to see remains and given its small size its avoidable. Visit a massive battle cruiser and you may never see anything of human remains (because the cruiser is huge remains long since disbursed and buried under silt and debris)

From your sudden and frantic posting on this matter I take it that you've read yesterday's Sunday Express article (page 10).
Oh, and for the record, what they've been doing in Cambodia makes my flesh creep too.

no to the first part,

me too for the 2nd part! ever seen those wax real human body exhibitions....yuck!

IMO divers who swim around the inside of these wrecks are showing more respect than those that visit the killing fields or those wax things..yuck

Michelle Haywood

19-12-2006, 10:30

Dear all

I am one of those tourists that you are talking about. My cousin was working in Cambodia and so I took a couple of weeks to visit her.

I travelled around the country, and as part of that I went to Teoul Sleng, the genocide museum. This building had been a school before Pol Pots regime, when it became a detention and torture centre. It is unknown exactly how many people went through the gates, but only 12 inmates were alive when the prison was finally liberated.

After spending a distressing morning there I went to the Killing Fields. The Cambodians and international forces excavated the site in the aftermath of Pot's regime and the skulls of the victims are stored in a huge glass case. However, as you walk around the site it is impossible to avoid the teeth, bit of bone, shirt sleeves, buttons and other items that are in the ground.

Why did I go? To bear witness to what had happened. I travelled with Cambodian friends who wanted the world to know what had happened to their relatives, though I'm sure no sane person will ever truly understand the insanity of Pot's regime.

I travelled with my 18 month old son, and whilst the adults discussed and comtemplated the true horror of the killing fields, he played tag with the local children. And it was watching the children play that finally reduced the adults to tears on what had been a harrowing day for all of us.

In my opinion it is both right and proper to bear witness to such awful events, and that includes visiting the locations. The locals protect the site although it is impossible for any visitor to avoid any contact with human remains. But the Cambodians do want people to visit, to understand and to help ensure that such events can never be allowed to happen again.

Nothing justifies the actions of any tourist (above or below water) willfully interfering with human remains.

Michelle

badder

19-12-2006, 10:34

I totally disagree, Singaporeans DO NOT think that at all, at least not the ones that I have met on the numerous times I've been there. In fact as has been said to me on many occasions by Singaporeans they have great thanks for the British for NOT forgetting them. Go & see some of the museums in Singapore & this becomes obvious.

I lived in Singapore for 15 years, married to a Singaporean and now live in Malaysia so I think I know a little about how they feel on this subject.

I have visited the fort museum on sentosa about 12 times so I think I know what the exhibition says.

I am right.

The fact is the Britsish did bugger off and did desert them. and the fact is the average singaporean knows bugger all about the war (other than the occupation which they blame the british for allowing) and couldnt give a crap about these wrecks

badder

19-12-2006, 10:38

Nothing justifies the actions of any tourist (above or below water) willfully interfering with human remains.

Michelle

Of course you are correct. My point is some see swimming past (as appose to walking past) as interfering and then go further and describe it as 'messing about with human remains' I dont see the corelation

badder

19-12-2006, 10:41

badder

19-12-2006, 10:50

I'm fully aware that it has been dived for years. The point is that it has been designated since 2001 as a maritime war grave.
I do know where the wreck is. But the dive vessels mostly operate out of Singapore do they not? So Singapore is relevant.

no. more dive boats go there, and go there more frequently, from Malaysia.

Well I've heard some cr4p but this takes the biscuit. You really are showing your ignorance here.
Only last week I had the pleasure of chatting to 80 odd year old Royal Marine John Garner who was on the ship you speak of with such ignorance. As a Plymouth Argyll he fought alongside men who died horribly in the defence of Singapore and then he survived 3, 1/2 years of unbelievable cruelty under the Japanese.
I'd respectfully suggest that you take a look at the history books before you try to bandy words with me about something you clearly know little about.
We didn't 'pull out' our trops so much as flee with our lives on every available boat. In fact troops were still entering Singapore a matter of weeks before the Japanese advance down the Malaysian peninsular.
The problem was that Singapore was very poorly equiped to defend itself against an enemy that knew all our troop deployments and everything else about our weak points because of a catastrophic error with SS Automedon.

The men who were left were ordered to surrender. This doomed them to their horrendous fate in the next few years because of the way 'Bushido' viewed men who surrendered.

Oh, and that country you speak of that has such little regard for the sacrifice of the men who died? They held a presentation and unveiled a new memorial to these men at the old Singapore naval base at Sembawang last year. My friend Ted Matthews of HMS Repulse unveiled it himself.

Ok firstly you need to calm down a bit. If you read what I wrote we are talking largely about peoples perception. It is a fact that singaporeans feel (actually its promoted) that the british deserted them (there are some very good books written on this subject) The fact is the british pulled out the majority of their forces well ahead of the invasion. I am not making this stuff up its a matter of record.

Are you talking about the stepping plate? ripped off the wreck about 20 years ago by a bunch of brits and handed over last year? If so you are preaching to the choir!

Ben Panter

19-12-2006, 10:50

I see the line drawn right here Badders.
Just as a note to try and clear up confusion: as far as I can tell, "badder" is not the same as the "Badders" who used to post here.

Cheers,

Ben

Giles

19-12-2006, 12:49

I lived in Singapore for 15 years, married to a Singaporean and now live in Malaysia so I think I know a little about how they feel on this subject.

I have visited the fort museum on sentosa about 12 times so I think I know what the exhibition says.

I am right.

The fact is the Britsish did bugger off and did desert them. and the fact is the average singaporean knows bugger all about the war (other than the occupation which they blame the british for allowing) and couldnt give a crap about these wrecks

It appears that the people you talk to have a different opinion to the people I've met & have talked to in Singapore on the subject, as they say the opposite. But I suppose I've been talking to the wrong people :rolleyes:

remember we are talking about peoples (singaporean) perception of what happened here.

ahhh, ok, so 'some' people see things differently to what is documented. Well, there are people in Germany that say the Holocaust never happened, although the evidence suggests otherwise.

no. more dive boats go there, and go there more frequently, from Malaysia.

Just playing the cynic for a minute, but as you say you live in Malaysia & have so far been arguing in favour of divers penetrating these wrecks, I am wondering if you run dive trips to these wrecks & are trying to protect your 'business' interest?

BTW, It's usually polite to introduce yourself before making your first post ;)

MattS

19-12-2006, 14:54

Let's get another couple confusions out the way before things degenerate too far. This post is confined to facts and I will not take kindly to any inferrence being made as to how I may feel about the issue of diving War graves.

The USS Arizona is a National monument (http://www.nps.gov/usar/) and regarded as a tomb. She is managed by the US Parks Department who do not allow their divers to enter but some internal mapping (http://www.hnn.navy.mil/archives/031121/park_031121.htm)has been completed using ROVs.

The Japanese invasion of Malaya began 8th December 1941, the day after the Pearl attack. Force Z was sunk on the 10th December. One interpretation of the War in the Far East is that the allies abandoned (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a1122391.shtml?sectionId=3&articleId=1122391) Malaya by way of under-resourcing the defence force.

The USS Missouri (http://www.ussmissouri.com/) is far from being a war grave. She entered service in 1944 some three years after the attacks on Pearl Harbour. General MacArthur accepted the Japanese surrender on her deck in September 1945. She is now situated at Pearl as a floating museum.

badder

19-12-2006, 15:06

It appears that the people you talk to have a different opinion to the people I've met & have talked to in Singapore on the subject, as they say the opposite. But I suppose I've been talking to the wrong people :rolleyes:

I lived there for 15 years, speach Chinese, taught in a school there - Im quite sure I have a far better undertsanding of what they percieve happened than someone (like you) who has just visited a few times :rolleyes:

ahhh, ok, so 'some' people see things differently to what is documented. Well, there are people in Germany that say the Holocaust never happened, although the evidence suggests otherwise. The majority of people I spoken to about the war in Singapore feel this way. School history books there paint that picture - you can talk all you want and put 'some' in brackets all you want - but Im the one on the ground - for 15 years.

Just playing the cynic for a minute, but as you say you live in Malaysia & have so far been arguing in favour of divers penetrating these wrecks, I am wondering if you run dive trips to these wrecks & are trying to protect your 'business' interest?
No I dont run dive trips and have no vested commercial interest...but nice try :rolleyes:

I dont know why your trying to make this 'about me' instead of the issue....oh well.

BTW, It's usually polite to introduce yourself before making your first post ;)

see what I mean

Giles

19-12-2006, 16:37

I lived there for 15 years, speach Chinese, taught in a school there - Im quite sure I have a far better undertsanding of what they percieve happened than someone (like you) who has just visited a few times :rolleyes:

The majority of people I spoken to about the war in Singapore feel this way. School history books there paint that picture - you can talk all you want and put 'some' in brackets all you want - but Im the one on the ground - for 15 years.

Fine, you may have a knowledge of certain local facts & perceptions etc different to those that I have read & been told, but is there really any need to become abusive?

No I dont run dive trips and have no vested commercial interest...but nice try :rolleyes:

I was just asking a question, hence the "Just playing the cynic for a minute" comment.

I dont know why your trying to make this 'about me' instead of the issue....oh well.

It's nothing to do with 'you' personally at all, if you post on a forum making statements then you should expect to be questioned.
If, as you say, the British forces deserted Singapore & left Singaporeans to the Japanese then you need to provide some evidence to back up your statement.

see what I mean

No, not really :confused: I was merely pointing out, in a friendly way (note the smiley?), that it is usually polite to introduce oneself before posting. Besides, a little info as to who & where you are would have added some weight to your claims/statements, rather than an apparent anonymous person posting to try to make a point about 2 controversial wrecks.

Mike Rowley

19-12-2006, 18:25

The Japanese invasion of Malaya began 8th December 1941, the day after the Pearl attack. Force Z was sunk on the 10th December. One interpretation of the War in the Far East is that the allies abandoned (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a1122391.shtml?sectionId=3&articleId=1122391) Malaya by way of under-resourcing the defence force.

This is pretty much as I understand the facts. The only thing I would question is the stretching of the word "abandoned" to cover this event. Ineptitude, under resourcing due to committments in Europe and North Africa and plain incompetent leadership undoubtedly. There is no doubt that the priority for Britain was the war in Europe and we had relied on the USA to defend our territories in SE Asia. I seem to recall there had been an agreement to this effect.

There are similarities with Dunkirk except that over 300,000 men were rescued from Dunkirk. The troops in Singapore were ordered to surrender to a much smaller but battle hardened attacking force.

Mike

Andy Wade

19-12-2006, 20:00

no. more dive boats go there, and go there more frequently, from Malaysia.
Ok firstly you need to calm down a bit. If you read what I wrote we are talking largely about peoples perception. It is a fact that singaporeans feel (actually its promoted) that the british deserted them (there are some very good books written on this subject) The fact is the british pulled out the majority of their forces well ahead of the invasion. I am not making this stuff up its a matter of record.

Well I'm sure the men who suffered for 3,1/2 years under Japanese incarceration would disagree.
I don't deny that the British pulled out, but did they really have a choice? You speak as if it was planned.
There's a world of difference between the British Government 'pulling out' of Singapore and the men who died defending it, and dying horribly in the years that followed.
Why is it the fault of the British because of what Japan did? They were the agressors here. They just beat the British in this battle, but that doesn't make it the fault of the British. The Japanese were still the agressors here. They carried out all the murdering, torturing and raping of the local population in the years that followed the fall. Does the average Singaporean or Malaysian think that the Japanese were not at fault? Or was it all the fault of Britain? When you look at the larger picture things become a bit clearer.
The men who died did not pull out, neither did the Plymouth Argylls or the 15,000 Australian troops who spent the next few years suffering in Changi Gaol. Perhaps there's a need for better teaching of history in Malaysia and Singapore.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think your argument justifies divers entering the ships.
It's the same with the talk about walls of skulls at Cambodia. Non of it is relevant to your argument. Your wreck with a few human remains inside ready to be explored is still a tomb to the relatives of the men who died aboard them. They have no other grave, and they are not named on the Kranji Memorial either. But that is not their fault.
I'd really like to see you justify this argument of yours to Ted Matthews or John Garner or Ian McIvor who were there at the time and saw their shipmates die in front of them whilst their worlds fell apart. You have no argument for these men. They don't ask for medals, just that we remember what their shipmates gave for our freedom and have a bit of respect for their final resting place.
No argument you can ever dream up will convince them that penetration dives are justified. Please feel free to try though. There's a reunion in Scarborough in May.

Were these wrecks actually US ships, then no-one would be diving them. One of the few relevant facts here is that the British Government has not felt it necessary to protect them properly.

There is a designation of 'Protected Place' applied to these wrecks, This is by the British Government who are the owners. That it does not technically apply to foreign nationals is not that relevant. The fact that they are designated as war graves should be enough for anyone with an ounce of morality to stay out.

Are you talking about the stepping plate? ripped off the wreck about 20 years ago by a bunch of brits and handed over last year? If so you are preaching to the choir!

No I'm talking about a Memorial to Force Z (http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/news/singaporemem2005.html) at Sembawang naval base that was unveiled last year.

Andy Wade

19-12-2006, 21:40

The USS Arizona is a National monument (http://www.nps.gov/usar/) and regarded as a tomb. She is managed by the US Parks Department who do not allow their divers to enter but some internal mapping (http://www.hnn.navy.mil/archives/031121/park_031121.htm)has been completed using ROVs.

Hi Matt,
Yes, wasn't it Robert Ballard leading this survey? My understanding is that it was principally to examine leaking fuel tanks... similar to the way that RN divers are monitoring the leaking Royal Oak in Scapa Flow.

The Japanese invasion of Malaya began 8th December 1941, the day after the Pearl attack. Force Z was sunk on the 10th December. One interpretation of the War in the Far East is that the allies abandoned (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a1122391.shtml?sectionId=3&articleId=1122391) Malaya by way of under-resourcing the defence force.

Yes, the conclusion is a matter of opinion as are others I guess. The British made many mistakes with Singapore (the main one being that they vastly underestimated the Japanese - after all who would have thought that a whole army could use bicycles and jungle tracks to advance down the Malay penuinsular in such numbers?) They were fighting a war on two fronts and Tirpitz was still a threat requiring the Home Fleet to remain in home waters. A report by the Admiralty some years earlier stated a need for a minimum of eight capital ships to provide a fleet sufficient for that regions defence, but only two were available at that time, and the damage to HMS Indomitable further reduced their capacity. Winston hoped to convince the Americans that Britain was committed to forming a substantial fleet in the area, and with American help this might even have been possible, were it not for the events three days before the sinking of Force Z.

The USS Missouri (http://www.ussmissouri.com/) is far from being a war grave. She entered service in 1944 some three years after the attacks on Pearl Harbour. General MacArthur accepted the Japanese surrender on her deck in September 1945. She is now situated at Pearl as a floating museum.

Indeed.
Thanks for that link Matt.
Interesting quote from Winston Churchil on the front page... :)

MattS

19-12-2006, 23:13

I would question is the stretching of the word "abandoned" to cover this event. Ineptitude, under resourcing due to committments in Europe and North Africa and plain incompetent leadership undoubtedly."Abandoned" is the word used in the BBC account I linked to. I have seen it used many times in relation to these events. The question as to whether it is an obvious conclusion or a stretch of imagination will very much depend on the perspective from which the question is considered IMVHO.

There is no doubt that the priority for Britain was the war in Europe and we had relied on the USA to defend our territories in SE Asia. I seem to recall there had been an agreement to this effect.Churchill's priority was for America to enter the war. Attempting to destroy the American Pacific fleet was an audascious gamble by the Japanese. The motivation for taking the risk was (most likely) the opportunity created in South East Asia and the prize it offerred. Coincidence perhaps? Tactical incompetance or strategic brilliance - take your pick! Pearl Harbour produced the result Churchill wanted which is undeniable.

Andy Wade

19-12-2006, 23:51

"Abandoned" is the word used in the BBC account I linked to. I have seen it used many times in relation to these events. The question as to whether it is an obvious conclusion or a stretch of imagination will very much depend on the perspective from which the question is considered IMVHO.

Churchill's priority was for America to enter the war. Attempting to destroy the American Pacific fleet was an audascious gamble by the Japanese. The motivation for taking the risk was (most likely) the opportunity created in South East Asia and the prize it offerred. Coincidence perhaps? Tactical incompetance or strategic brilliance - take your pick! Pearl Harbour produced the result Churchill wanted which is undeniable.

Maybe even the result (at least long term) the Americans wanted... Their oil embargo on Japan ensured that something had to give eventually. And the expansion of the Japanese fleet seriously threatened the US. The Pearl Harbour atrocity enabled them to do what they wanted with the complete and unquestioned backing of their country.
After the war they had become the most powerful nation in the world, and still are. War allows you to build your power base without political restraint and with the most resource rich country to establish the power base on, the future is pretty sure.
But that couldn't be true could it? That's a very cynical view amongst all the others.
Dare I say?... funny how history repeats itself.

badder

20-12-2006, 07:22

Well I'm sure the men who suffered for 3,1/2 years under Japanese incarceration would disagree. disagree with what?

I don't deny that the British pulled out, but did they really have a choice? You speak as if it was planned. I never said they did or didnt have a choice.

There's a world of difference between the British Government 'pulling out' of Singapore and the men who died defending it, and dying horribly in the years that followed. huh? I dont understand what your trying to say. The british loaded ships (with british civilians and non essentials) and legged it. This is what the locals saw. After the surrender the Brits came back - thats the perception largely

Why is it the fault of the British because of what Japan did? Its largely perceived there that the Mighty colonial masters let them down. Im just educating you as to the PERCEPTION...perhaps a dictionary would be useful. They were the agressors here. They just beat the British in this battle, but that doesn't make it the fault of the British. The Japanese were still the agressors here. They carried out all the murdering, torturing and raping of the local population in the years that followed the fall. Does the average Singaporean or Malaysian think that the Japanese were not at fault? No they dont - but blaming one doesnt mean they cant blame the other too. Or was it all the fault of Britain? When you look at the larger picture things become a bit clearer. huh?
The men who died did not pull out, neither did the Plymouth Argylls or the 15,000 Australian troops who spent the next few years suffering in Changi Gaol. Perhaps there's a need for better teaching of history in Malaysia and Singapore. sigh...clearly you dont understand anything about singapore (or Malaysia) and the way the peoples perception is managed. Its called 'creating a sense of national identity' an essential thing to do when you are managing a small island

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think your argument justifies divers entering the ships.
It's the same with the talk about walls of skulls at Cambodia. Non of it is relevant to your argument. Your wreck with a few human remains inside ready to be explored is still a tomb to the relatives of the men who died aboard them. They have no other grave, and they are not named on the Kranji Memorial either. But that is not their fault.
I'd really like to see you justify this argument of yours to Ted Matthews or John Garner or Ian McIvor who were there at the time and saw their shipmates die in front of them whilst their worlds fell apart. You have no argument for these men. They don't ask for medals, just that we remember what their shipmates gave for our freedom and have a bit of respect for their final resting place. and I truly believe that the best way to do that is to be diving these wrecks. Without diving nobody would be talking about them now would they?

No argument you can ever dream up will convince them that penetration dives are justified. Please feel free to try though. There's a reunion in Scarborough in May. I dont have to convince anyone. Im just correcting some untruths that have been reported here (such as how the singaporeans feel about thesae ships) and making the point that swimming past the occassional remain inside a wreck doesnt equal 'messing with or gawping at human remains' it doesnt make someone 'imoral' in the same way as visting the killing fields doesnt

Were these wrecks actually US ships, then no-one would be diving them. One of the few relevant facts here is that the British Government has not felt it necessary to protect them properly. thats nonsense. I can take you to dozens of US warships that are dived and penetrated all the time.

There is a designation of 'Protected Place' applied to these wrecks, This is by the British Government who are the owners. That it does not technically apply to foreign nationals is not that relevant. The fact that they are designated as war graves should be enough for anyone with an ounce of morality to stay out.

Penetrating a wreck that contains human remains = Imoral ?

Damn.

Theres an awful lot of imoral divers around then.

So just so I understand, is it only imoral if the remains are british navy people?

All the visitors who go to dive the Japanese wrecks every year in Truk lagoon - are they imoral? -are they 'messing' with remains?? Or is it Ok if its Japanese reamins?

What about merchant ships? Marus?

What about non WW wrecks where a few people died during sinking - are divers diving them also imoral?

The divers who dived into the Britiannic?

I can tell you one thing. If I was trapped in a sinking warship I would hope my government would have the decency to retrieve my body instead of leaving it overseas 12,000 miles from home to rot in teh dark silty confines of the ship I was trying to escape from.

If retrieval wasnt possible (for techical of financial reasons) I should think it would be jolly nice to have some visitors every now and then to bring some light into my dark silty lonely resting place

I would like to think those visitors would help to keep my story alive to educate new generations and tell them what I did and why I died.

If the price of keeping my memory and sacrifice alive ad eductaing new generations was a few pictures on the internet - then so be it. Rather that than to be forgotten forever.

And make no mistake the main reason these days that people are reading learning and discussing these wrecks (and understanding what happened) is because they are being dived.

No I'm talking about a Memorial to Force Z (http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/news/singaporemem2005.html) at Sembawang naval base that was unveiled last year.

Do you know how many people attended that?
It was hardly even reported in Singapore.

Im not saying thats right - Im just telling you how it is for the locals - they have NO IDEA of the sacrifice of the Allies. They too suffered huge losses, and they suffered more during occupation but their view is inwards.

badder

20-12-2006, 07:38

Fine, you may have a knowledge of certain local facts & perceptions etc different to those that I have read & been told, but is there really any need to become abusive?

I was just asking a question, hence the "Just playing the cynic for a minute" comment.

It's nothing to do with 'you' personally at all, if you post on a forum making statements then you should expect to be questioned.
If, as you say, the British forces deserted Singapore & left Singaporeans to the Japanese then you need to provide some evidence to back up your statement.

No, not really :confused: I was merely pointing out, in a friendly way (note the smiley?), that it is usually polite to introduce oneself before posting. Besides, a little info as to who & where you are would have added some weight to your claims/statements, rather than an apparent anonymous person posting to try to make a point about 2 controversial wrecks.

yeh yeh yeh - sure you were

badder

20-12-2006, 07:47

Well we agree there, I really don't think you do have the answer.

Do you think that because we care enough to protest about one thing means we don't care about something else? no I dont

You guys have been pushing this angle because you haven't got a good enough reason for entering and disturbing war graves.

No - I have a very good reason why divers are entering these wrecks - for the same reason divers enjoy enter other wrecks - because its fun!
Thats it.

To justify a disgusting action by saying that somebody else does something similar is very weak. see there you go again. Divers who enter wrecks with remains are not necessarily Disgusting or doing anything imoral. Thats an emotionaly charged name calling that has no basis in what is actually happening.

If you want a line to be drawn I'll suggest one for you.
When someone who's brother died on a shipwreck asks you not to dive and enter the grave of his brother, that's a good guide to where the line should be drawn.
When a woman who's husband died on HMS Prince of Wales cries when she hears about what the DIR 'boys' are doing then the line is self evident. would it shock you to know one of teh divers I know had been asked by a widow a few years back to retrieve something from inside the wreck? You likely wont believe that - but its true.She even asked for pictures to be taken of certain parts of the ship where her husband would have been stationed.

The ships were finally designated after many years of trying. On the day of the designation the penetration dives should have stopped.

Its been understood for decades that these ships are restricted in some way - but nobody cared and nobody will care now. I can tell you that Asians make up probably 70% of those that go into them and the rest largely British.

Heck I know many ex british navy boys that go inside her.
Are they also imoral? or do they just have a clearer more educated understanding of what going into this wreck really means?

badder

20-12-2006, 08:03

25 - 35 minutes on a wreck that is only 35m deep at the shallowest point and 55m to the bottom and in water 29-30 degrees C? It is hardly worth the effort of travelling there for such a pathetic bottom time. To suggest that a full engine room penetration was achieved in such a short time is stretching credulity a bit far even for US DIR celebreties.
So you are calling me a liar? Thats not very nice is it. You clearly havent dived the wreck so have no understanding as to what is possible. The entry to the engine room is easy access. Sure the BT the DIR guys did was short - but that doesnt mean anything.

Either way, the morality of what was claimed to have been done speaks louder to the values and decency of these individuals than all of their attention seeking web videos. I think I can safely say I am not alone in having nothing but contempt not only for what they claimed to have done but also for attempting to gain kudos by publishing a sick video. These thoughtless, arrogant, vain and sick individuals obviously had no consideration for the relatives of those who gave their lives so that stupid and insensitive prats could have the freedom to insult their memory and sacrifice. I agree publishing the images of the remains was not right for them to do. But why single GUE out when there are pics all over the net (and has been for decades) of remains inside? Again why is taking a pic of remains in a wreck make someone disgusting, sick, vain, imoral, yet taking pics on land in cambodia is ok?? Are you saying if they had longer BT it would have been ok?:confused:

I have dived the Repulse and the Prince of Wales a number of times during 2003, 2004 and 2005. In that time it has noticeably rolled over slightly more as it collapses and it is becoming visibly quite fragile as one would expect of a ship that is over 90 years old. The port side props are now well clear of the seabed where they were apparantly burried in the sand when the starboard props were salvaged.
Im sorry but thats all absolute raving nonsense. Ive been diving her for 15 years!

Do YOU know what happened to the prop? Who salvaged it and when? Do YOU know where the other bell is? (yes theres more than one) Do YOU know who the first non navy divers to find and salvage this wreck were and when?

I can tell you would be amazed at what BSAC members would have a red face if the truth was known:D Talk about hypocritical!

HMS Repulse was one of Ist Sea Lord "Jackie Fisher's" battle cruisers. The concept was to have a ship with the size and fire power of a battleship but the speed and agility of a cruiser. The way the speed was achieved was to reduce weight by reduction of armour belt and lighter build.The concept was designed for surface raiding and became obsolescent due to the submarine and air attack. These ships were never designed for fleet actions and the destruction of HMS Hood showed their vulnerability. It is to be expected that a ship of this age and build will become fragile. To suggest it is not suggests you either haven't dived it or have little knowledge of ships and shipwrecks.

If you say so :rolleyes:

I dont keep a logbook but I reckon I have well over 100 dives on the Repulse

jeez why do you guys always try to make things personal? My history has bugger all to do with this- but I guess if you have no ammunition you throw what you can.

Adrian Kelland

20-12-2006, 09:09

jeez why do you guys always try to make things personal? My history has bugger all to do with this- but I guess if you have no ammunition you throw what you can.
It is certainly a very personal issue to those families and friends of those who lost their lives on the Force Z ships.

Would you really expect otherwise? Of course it is emotional. Thats what happens when people die.

Adrian

Giles

20-12-2006, 11:01

yeh yeh yeh - sure you were

I'm not that bothered whether you believe me or not, but as you appear to be reluctanct to offer any evidence to support your statements/claims & the tone of your posts (either to myself or other members of this thread) become more abusive then I see little point in continuing this debate.

manxdiver

20-12-2006, 11:10

Mike Rowley

20-12-2006, 13:57

So you are calling me a liar? Thats not very nice is it. You clearly havent dived the wreck so have no understanding as to what is possible.

Looking at my logbooks I have only spent a total of 18 hours and 22 minutes on the Repulse during the springs of 2003/4 & 2005. Your probably right, not nearly long enough to gain an understanding of her condition. Of course, if I were an engineer I might have some understanding of deterioration of structures. Oh, silly me! I am forgetting, I am an engineer.:rolleyes:

Are you saying if they had longer BT it would have been ok?:confused:

Not at all, I am merely casting doubt on how much penetration can be achieved in such a short time, particularly when filming. Now, if you tell me that this is what they did and that you personally witnessed it I must accept your word for it. However, if this is the case it does tend to suggest you are complicit in their actions and if you are a UK national you have committed a criminal offence by your own addmission.:(

Do YOU know what happened to the prop? Who salvaged it and when? Do YOU know where the other bell is? (yes theres more than one) Do YOU know who the first non navy divers to find and salvage this wreck were and when?

I have been led to understand that the starboard side props were salvaged in the 1950s by a commercial salvage company and with the permission of the MOD. The information I was given is that they were subsequently sold to the New Zealand Navy, reworked and fitted to a warship. I have no evidence that this is factual. Other than this I have no knowledge of who were the first non-navy divers to locate and dive the wreck.

The HMS Edinburgh was salvaged for its gold and the UK government was one of the beneficiaries, that doesn't make it right and the MOD are certainly embarrassed by this blatent hypocracy that flies in the face of their cuurent policy. I don't know anyone over the age of 25 who still believes politicians are upright, honest and decent people.

Yes I do know who raised the small bell, a member of my family was on an adjacent boat when it was brought up. I understand that after some considerable pressure was exerted from various quarters the bell was subsequently handed to the British Embassy in Singapore to be handed to the survivors association.

I can tell you would be amazed at what BSAC members would have a red face if the truth was known:D Talk about hypocritical!

I am aware that a group of UK divers visited the wreck in the early 2000s and subsequently published an article and video that involved penetrations. This of course is what brought this issue to relatives attention and led to the current extentions of the PMRA 1986. The activities of the DIR group and their published video inflamed an already volatile debate.

jeez why do you guys always try to make things personal? My history has bugger all to do with this- but I guess if you have no ammunition you throw what you can.

It is personal to those who survived and those who had close relatives who did not. It is sufficiently recent for there to be personal and painfull memories. There are people alive today whose fathers did not return, there are still a few who did return but whose comrades didn't. Their views are deserving of our respect regardless of an indiviuals logic.

The plain truth is that regardless of where we stand on the morality of this issue if we, the diving community do not respect and allow for the sensibilities of the people closely involved they will continue to campaign for greater restrictions. As we now live in a global community these restrictions will become world wide, the mechanisms in the form of international agreements are already in place to facilitate this. Politicians understand the cheap and easy popularity of proposing a total ban on " desecration" of war graves. To them its a no-brainer!

Some in our community take the view, similar to survivors associations that any war grave in sacrasant and should not be visited, touched or entered. Others take a more liberal view that it is reasonable to visit, some take the broader view that is is reasonable to visit and enter but not to interfere. A very small minority take the view that it is ok to remove artifacts and even take and publish photographs that are guarenteed to be offensive to survivors and relatives. It is clear that the vast majority of divers deplore this latter category and it would be better for the future of wreck diving world wide if they were roundly and universally condemned for their self publicised activities. The rest of us could then quietly get on with doing what we love to do.

On that note I wish you all a very happy Christmas and lots of amazing diving in 2007. Even Bladder!:)

Mike

Andy Wade

20-12-2006, 20:29

It is personal....my grandfather was on Repulse the day she sank, he lost many good friends, both on Repulse and Prince of Wales!

Hi Steve,
Would that be CJX260934 OS Walter M. Cowley? I have him listed as also serving on HMS Exeter. A detail that I'd like to confirm if possible. Any chance you could provide me with some information?

I have spoken at length with the survivors that live near me, none of them have a problem with divers visiting the wreck, however, they are not at all happy about divers entering the wreck and disturbing the remains of their friends!

Put another way, how would you feel if some Tw@t entered a wreck and started playing with the skull of your great uncle?

Steve

Indeed.
This is a very personal issue for a lot of people.
The real problem here for divers is that it is also a very emotive issue for politicians, as Mike has said. The press have already started on the subject with rumours of Sir Galahad in the Falklands being penetrated by divers - as seen in the Sunday Express a few days ago.
The diving industry here is facing more restrictions on it that I can ever remember and I've been blobbing around for a lot of years in this game.
Now that the PoMRA has been invoked and with the possibilty that merchant vessels will be added to the ever growing list we here in the UK are facing the brunt of any restrictions. The problem is that there are few survivors associations that object to actual diving taking place on the ships, but they strongly object to penetration being carried out, and with good reason.

The MOD will prevent diving on vessels in our home waters if they can, which may be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut as we won't even be able to go near, much less dive some of these wrecks.

Badders doesn't see it, but then he's in Malaysia and this is not affecting him - yet. I can understand why he doesn't see the problem. But I don't agree with his view.
His lack of respect for anyone but his own interests is plain to see.

Now I've heard that at least one dive operator has been threatened by PADI with regard to their franchise, and his actions going against the wreck diving code that PADI is a signatory to. It's a development that I hadn't expected, but I have said before on at least one occasion that I think the diving industry and divers as a whole need to stand up for themselves against these penetration divers, or face more and more restrictions until every wreck is restricted.

There's a further development in that Midshipman Robert Ian Davies R.A.N. died on HMS Repulse and the Aussies are starting to take an interest in the actions of divers from their country. And we all know how much Australia cares about their war heroes re: Gallipolli and ANZAC's in general. Should Australia and the British Governments make representations to the Malaysian Government then Badder may find he's not in such a restriction free position as he thinks. Yes, it is possible that this may not happen, but they said that the PoMRA would never be used and yet here we are with more wrecks being added to the list.
We shall see.

badder

21-12-2006, 02:23

It is personal to those who survived and those who had close relatives who did not. It is sufficiently recent for there to be personal and painfull memories. There are people alive today whose fathers did not return, there are still a few who did return but whose comrades didn't. Their views are deserving of our respect regardless of an indiviuals logic.

The plain truth is that regardless of where we stand on the morality of this issue if we, the diving community do not respect and allow for the sensibilities of the people closely involved they will continue to campaign for greater restrictions. As we now live in a global community these restrictions will become world wide, the mechanisms in the form of international agreements are already in place to facilitate this. Politicians understand the cheap and easy popularity of proposing a total ban on " desecration" of war graves. To them its a no-brainer!

Its not cheap and its not easy - if it was it would have been done a long time ago. If you were close to the MOD you would know that in reality they do NOT want to have to deal with the cost and pain of this. Its just impossible for them to police this on sites overseas

Some in our community take the view, similar to survivors associations that any war grave in sacrasant and should not be visited, touched or entered. Others take a more liberal view that it is reasonable to visit, some take the broader view that is is reasonable to visit and enter but not to interfere. A very small minority take the view that it is ok to remove artifacts and even take and publish photographs that are guarenteed to be offensive to survivors and relatives. It is clear that the vast majority of divers deplore this latter category and it would be better for the future of wreck diving world wide if they were roundly and universally condemned for their self publicised activities. The rest of us could then quietly get on with doing what we love to do.

PS Im an engineer - guess what kind :D

PPS I can (and have) done more than 18 hours on the Repulse during just any one of the dozens and dozens of week long visits there. The hours add up over 15 years...:rolleyes:

badder

21-12-2006, 02:31

I'm not that bothered whether you believe me or not, but as you appear to be reluctanct to offer any evidence to support your statements/claims & the tone of your posts (either to myself or other members of this thread) become more abusive then I see little point in continuing this debate.

I have

I wasnt

You were

Goodnight and god bless

badder

21-12-2006, 02:40

It is personal....my grandfather was on Repulse the day she sank, he lost many good friends, both on Repulse and Prince of Wales!

I have spoken at length with the survivors that live near me, none of them have a problem with divers visiting the wreck, however, they are not at all happy about divers entering the wreck and disturbing the remains of their friends!

Put another way, how would you feel if some Tw@t entered a wreck and started playing with the skull of your great uncle?

Steve

Sigh

Why is it people cant get it into their skulls that just because a diver enters the wreck hes not automatically disturbing remains.

Why should their be a correlation?

To suggest (and make noise) that their is only creates emotion and upset that hurts everyone

badder

21-12-2006, 02:42

Has the use of English really that bad in the UK now?

My 'personal' was reffering to some posters only wanting to talk about 'me' as in making it about 'me' and not the issue.....get it?

Maybe I should have said it in French?

badder

21-12-2006, 02:52

Yes I do know who raised the small bell, a member of my family was on an adjacent boat when it was brought up. I understand that after some considerable pressure was exerted from various quarters the bell was subsequently handed to the British Embassy in Singapore to be handed to the survivors association.

This is not true. Despite the BS in the press, THAT bell was handed in voluntarily with no pressure being applied, but anyway- thats not the bell Im talking about....you do know there was more than one bell on the Repulse right?

It was salvaged maybe 15 years ago by a Chinese guy

I am aware that a group of UK divers visited the wreck in the early 2000s and subsequently published an article and video that involved penetrations. This of course is what brought this issue to relatives attention and led to the current extentions of the PMRA 1986.

BSAC members were the 1st ones to 're-discover' the location of the wreck around 20 years ago - they salvaged her removing amongst many things the stepping plate that was only handed back to the MOD last year. They had several ex UK navy boys in their team....

Andy Wade

21-12-2006, 10:01

Sigh

Why is it people cant get it into their skulls that just because a diver enters the wreck hes not automatically disturbing remains.

Why should their be a correlation?

To suggest (and make noise) that their is only creates emotion and upset that hurts everyone

Skulls... interesting choice of word.
Why can't you understand that some people think differently from you? It's a matter of respect.
It's not whether you disturb the remains or not. The wrecks were designated as a war grave and the majority of people on here agree that penetration is out of the question because of this. And we didn't need a law to tell us how to think.
And here in the UK we're seeing more wrecks being designated in this way so we have another point of view, it's real here in the UK. And the actions of divers over where you are isn't helping the situation one bit.
But you're OK aren't you? So that's fine. Cheers Pal.
The other problem is that some people can't show any bl00dy restraint at all and are removing items from the wrecks, which is actually theft. Some are even sold on eBay. Then some other divers post images on the web which really upsets some people who had relatives and shipmates on board. You may think this is also OK but I think it's a low trick. My opinion, and you should understand that most people here agree with that.
The PoMRA designation means that a British citizen must stay outside. It's not open to debate. Oh yeah you could enter and maybe no-one would be any the wiser. You could break any law in secret and no-one would be any wiser and a lot of people do this, some get caught. It doesn't mean that the law is wrong and it doesn't mean that everybody else should choose to ignore it just because its difficult to enforce.

Michael Purcell

21-12-2006, 12:30

Skulls... interesting choice of word.
Why can't you understand that some people think differently from you? It's a matter of respect.
It's not whether you disturb the remains or not. The wrecks were designated as a war grave and the majority of people on here agree that penetration is out of the question because of this. And we didn't need a law to tell us how to think.
And here in the UK we're seeing more wrecks being designated in this way so we have another point of view, it's real here in the UK. And the actions of divers over where you are isn't helping the situation one bit.
But you're OK aren't you? So that's fine. Cheers Pal.
The other problem is that some people can't show any bl00dy restraint at all and are removing items from the wrecks, which is actually theft. Some are even sold on eBay. Then some other divers post images on the web which really upsets some people who had relatives and shipmates on board. You may think this is also OK but I think it's a low trick. My opinion, and you should understand that most people here agree with that.
The PoMRA designation means that a British citizen must stay outside. It's not open to debate. Oh yeah you could enter and maybe no-one would be any the wiser. You could break any law in secret and no-one would be any wiser and a lot of people do this, some get caught. It doesn't mean that the law is wrong and it doesn't mean that everybody else should choose to ignore it just because its difficult to enforce.

To be quite honest even arguing from a weaker position Badders has to be given credit. He talks facts and doesn't need to imply that he is speaking for all of BSAC as some of the others attacking him have been.

Don't tell me about "British Citizens" being held to account..what does that have to do with the case of the DIR divers everyone likes to harp about.

And anyone that thinks that the majority of divers in general have a good record when it comes to the goodies on the bottom ...

MattS

21-12-2006, 12:33

Its not cheap and its not easy - if it was it would have been done a long time ago. If you were close to the MOD you would know that in reality they do NOT want to have to deal with the cost and pain of this. Its just impossible for them to police this on sites overseasThe fact is that the POW and Repulse are now designated and it is against the law for UK citizens (is that right) to enter them. The same legislation prevents me from visiting the A1 and has this year been used to prevent me from visiting UB81. Both are just a few miles from my doorstep. The military presidence has been taken up by relatives of lost merchant Navy sailors and the SS Stora is now out of bounds. Whether or not those pressing for legislation are right, wrong or ignorant (in your eyes), they currently have the ears of the legislators. Whether the MOD wish to deal with the costs and pain is neither here nor there, because they are being forced to deal with it.

Would you be so kind as to tell me what you are trying to achieve with this debate.

MattS

21-12-2006, 12:56

To be quite honest even arguing from a weaker position Badders has to be given credit.On this board? He is once more drawing attention to what is happening abroad. Despite there being little British divers can do to directly influence the situation, it may result in yet more restrictions on British divers in their home waters. I will not give him credit for that!

He talks facts and doesn't need to imply that he is speaking for all of BSAC as some of the others attacking him have been.Anecdote, oppinon and perspective. It may not all be wrong, but it is not all right either.

And anyone that thinks that the majority of divers in general have a good record when it comes to the goodies on the bottom ...Move on Michael, the majority of UK divers have. It is almost 2007, not 1987. Yes I am sure you know a few spidgers and flatty bashers. They are an ever shrinking minority. By drawing attention to them and dare I say supporting them, you are increasing the likelyhood of UK divers suffering yet more rules impinging on the majority to appease and deter the tiny minority.

Nick Argue

21-12-2006, 13:26

The SS Stora is now out of bounds.

Only for wreck penetration, you can still dive it.

Tony Dwyer

21-12-2006, 16:26

Has the use of English really that bad in the UK now?

Maybe I should have said it in French?

Er! What? Hoist with your own petard Sir!

Mai Non!

That's the joky bit, now the serious part.

A personal perspective.

Two of my uncles died at sea during World War 11, serving with the Royal Navy. My grandfather (James Dwyer - on my dad's side) fought in SEVEN fronts in WW1, he served from the begining in 1914 to 1918) and somehow made it through to 1971. My dad fought in WW11 (1939 to 1943) and was a POW until April 1945. They both saw many hundreds of comrades killed. Sadly he died in 1992. My mother served in an anti-aircraft battery in WW11.
I have been to Dachau and Auschswitz and the memory still leaves me cold.

Like countless others, I have immense respect for those who have served and most especially those who lost their lives.

War graves have a special place in my heart and in the hearts of many.
Leave them alone. There are plenty of other places to dive.

Andy Wade

21-12-2006, 23:04

To be quite honest even arguing from a weaker position Badders has to be given credit. He talks facts and doesn't need to imply that he is speaking for all of BSAC as some of the others attacking him have been.

Don't tell me about "British Citizens" being held to account..what does that have to do with the case of the DIR divers everyone likes to harp about.

And anyone that thinks that the majority of divers in general have a good record when it comes to the goodies on the bottom ...

Well he's being honest about what he's done, but the rest is hearsay and conjecture, as indeed is some of what I've said.
As far as people claiming to 'speak for BSAC', well I haven't actually said that in so many words, but I do believe people are getting very worried about these issues. This thread has had 2,653 views with 70 posts so far, way above anything else posted here as far as I can see, so either a few people are looking a lot, or a lot of people are interested enough to read this thread.
5 years ago there were no wrecks protected under the PoMRA and now there are 48 on the list (albeit worldwide) So IMVHO people have a reason to be worried about the future of wreck diving.

Are you worried Michael?
Or do you really believe that diving will not be affected by these issues?

Michael Purcell

22-12-2006, 00:23

Andy Wade

22-12-2006, 01:15

Actually since you are asking I honestly believe 60 some odd years is long enough. Of course people directly affected will still have issues and be emotional but wreckies are notorious for knowing the history of the wrecks they penetrate. This leads to a better understanding of historical events. For the involved the activities concerning the wrecks stops at the surface. For those of us exploring them we have a responsibility to not broadcast our indiscretions to the world but exploring them is still our right.

I can see where you're coming from but I'm not sure it does lead to a better understanding. Generally divers don't exactly publish papers regarding their explorations on any wrecks, never mind war graves. And when they do publish it's a very small arena that gets to hear about it.

A certain person has used the claim that he was 'documenting the decay of the wreck', but I've yet to see a book about it, or a serious paper published on the subject. So my conclusion is that it was for entirely selfish reasons.

It's a bit late now though, the cat's well and truly out of the bag and as you'll be able to see from the 'Sir Galahad post' (http://www.bsacforum.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=6559) I've just added to this forum, we here in the UK may now be facing even more restrictions as a result of divers actions elsewhere in the world. Or at the very least a hell of a lot of flak over it.
I'm interested to know where exactly would you draw the line here. Is 24 years for Sir Galahad long enough for penetration diving? Because it seems to me that precisely where the line is drawn in respect of the age of a wreck is the main issue.

If it is really a problem then spend the money and recover the remains for a "proper" resting place.

Well I've heard that one before. It a ridiculous statement.
It's easy to say but a lot harder to see the scale of the problem.
Go on then I'll bite.
How many wrecks and piles of bones are we talking about here? We lost many thousands of men at sea in the last war. Even to exhume the remains of the approximately 840 men on Prince of Wales and Repulse would be an impossible task.
Even putting aside the cost (which would be astronomic), you're assuming that it would get any support. How much of a disturbance to these remains would that cause? You're missing the point. When these wrecks were sunk, I doubt anyone ever expected at the time that 60 odd years later people would be diving on them for sport. So it was thought that they would be left to 'rest in peace'. And for generations the RN has always had a tradition of burying bodies at sea.

On a related but separate issue I particularly don't recognise the authority of a government who can leave their materials on the bottom of the ocean, know where they are but claim theft when someone chooses to recover what the owner has left strewn across the ocean...(Talking about materials not human remains)

Well they have always claimed ownership of these wrecks, and I understand that most other countries do the same. Although their reasons were primarily because of salvage issues. You could always take it up with the MOD or the relevant authorities in any other country for that matter.

I neglected to post on this thread as I understand the implecations for UK divers but as a non UK diver I didn't appreciate some people speaking on my behalf.

Good, it's about time people started to speak their minds about this subject IMO it has been swept under the carpet for too long.

Who exactly were you referring to as "speaking on your behalf"?