PoW/Repulse Put To The Vote

[Lanny]

Looking at the marked differences of opinion in the "Hmm..." Thread, I thought it might be interesting to put this to the vote. Where do you stand, assuming you are subject to UK law and ignoring the fact that most are not trained to dive to the depths of these wrecks.

1. Would dive and penetrate PoW/Repulse, removing aretefacts if desired.

2. Would dive and penetrate PoW/Repulse, leaving the wrecks as found.

3. Would dive the wrecks in a respectful manner, not conducting penetration.

4. Would not dive these wrecks under any circumstances.


Having dived both these wrecks, I am firmly in the "3" camp. I would not penetrate the wrecks due to the current legislation, however do not have an intrinsic moral problem with penetration, as long as it done in a completely respectful manner. Any tampering with artefacts or remains, for whatever reason, is totally reprehensible. I was shocked by the neatly arranged skulls in Truk shown in Andy's previous post.

I do accept that lifting the ban on entering wrecks which are designated protected places would lead to desecration and believe that the current legislation has got it about right. You only have to look at the Thistlegorm and even the Scylla to realise that not all divers are responsible about leaving wrecks undisturbed.

On a final note, if anyone does get a chance to dive either wreck, they are both very moving dives with a fascinating historical significance.

[Tim Ingmire]

I'm a 3. I wouldn't wish to penetrate. I have the chance to do this with Jack Ingle next year - can't decide whether it's worth asking the wife if I can go.

[Juz]

I'm a 3, and am diving these in 3 weeks.


Juz

[Tim Ingmire]

And we expect a full report you lucky buggers.

[Mr T.]

Hey Lanny,

I've added a poll to this thread for those who want to vote, but might want to keep their reasons private. It also allows members to see a quick visual 'snap-shot' of how opinion is being returned in this thread.

I know there are a number of YD'ers out there who wanted to add to the other 'Hmmm' thread but have kept - for their own reasons - schtum. In addition, given the length and 'heat' of the other thread, folks might just want a 'quick kill' vote without making a personal post here as well.

I trust you don't mind. If you do, please let me know and I shall remove it.


PS: I voted Option 3.

[Finless]

3 - unless consent received from relatives/relevant association.

[aclivity]

Originally Posted by Finless

3 - unless consent received from relatives/relevant association.

Agree with Finless, but I think I would impose a personal minimum time limit of say 75 years post sinking (if bodies were not recovered) purely because I don't want to bump into human remains, thankyou very much.

[Simon TW]

I'm a 3 also, with a caveat that it was ok with any relitives group and not contentious.

[Juz]

Originally Posted by Timing

And we expect a full report you lucky buggers.

I'll get the secretary on it as soon as we get back!

Juz

[And]

Hi Lanny

Perhaps unsurprisingly, number 2, and this would apply to any wreck no matter how they were designated.

I do also think there is some merit in number 1 depending on the circumstances. After all, there were dives organised to raise the bell and present it to the survivors groups, creating an opportunity for survivors relatives and families to actually see something that signifies the ship and the spirit of its crew. That has to be a good thing surely?

Andy