A Charitable Trust To Support The Cwgc

[Racing Teapots]

Just over 6 months ago at the Imperial War Museum, and some forum members were present, I floated the idea of creating a charitable trust – to be called Friends of Commonwealth War Graves Commission (FoCWGC). The charity would be run, much like the Friends of War Memorials (who support English Heritage).

I set out a draft as to how I thought that the FoCWGC might assist the CWGC, primarily through fund-raising and education. A slightly stripped down copy of the proposal is below (coloured blue). This proposal was shown to the CWGC who were divided as to how such a charity might aid (or be in conflict with) their work.

What I would like to know is if the general public would support such an idea.

As the CWGC has announced its plans to update the website and is looking for feedback, I thought that now might be the ideal opportunity for this forum (and the Great War forum) to show what changes can/should be made, and this can go much further than the website.

Obviously the CWGC has certain obligations, set out in its Royal Charter, but there are (in my very humble opinion) lots of ways that improvements can be made that should prove beneficial to both the Commission and the public. Some of these ideas have been discussed on previous threads, but I thought it might be good (even at the risk of repeating earlier threads) to centralise everything in one place.

So please would as many people as possible vote on the poll, and make suggestions as to how we can help aid/improve the worthy work of the CWGC.

This is an International forum, and any changes would require the support of commissioners in all the (present and former) Commonwealth countries. So please make your views heard.

[Racing Teapots]

Proposal for Friends of Commonwealth War Graves Commission (FCWGC)
FCWGC could – with volunteers – provide an initial port-of-call for members of the public who are seeking information about a person who is (or should be) recorded by the CWGC. The volunteers could provide a basic service, over much longer working hours than is currently provided by the CWGC.

If a volunteer is unable to assist a member of the public for whatever reason, a query can then be passed direct to the CWGC.

I believe that volunteers, with very little training, should be able to cope with the vast majority of queries. In order for this to be achieved, the volunteers would need only a telephone, access to the internet (for email enquiries), and a printer and small quantities of stationery.

There would, of course, still be the need (and option) for FCWGC to provide a contact number/address (of the CWGC) should a member of the public feel that they have not received sufficient help/information – or wish to deal directly with the CWGC. This is bound to happen from time to time, but I believe the ‘Friends’ will help cut down on the CWGC’s workload. In addition, the Friends should also be able to offer the public more advice on furthering their knowledge (if the caller has the desire) than is probably being offered at present. There is also the opportunity to direct members of the public to the (WW1 and WW2) internet forums which exist.

FCWGC could also represent the CWGC by attending many ‘low level’ events that are not attended by the commission at present. Of course, the CWGC can still maintain its current presence at high profile events – such as the Chelsea Flower Show. The ‘Friends’ will be able to raise awareness of the CWGC with very little equipment; a fold-away table, a laptop computer (with CWGC register on CD Rom) and a few other small props. The ‘Friends’ have many contacts up and down the country (and abroad) where invitation to an event will be granted free of charge.

Talks can be given by the FCWGC at schools and ‘normal’ venues (such as the WFA and local museums) about the role of the CWGC. As you know, education is a necessary requirement of any charitable organisation. This could, with the help of the CWGC, also be used as a method of maintaining the upkeep of the headstones (particularly in the UK), by reporting damage/neglect etc.

The ‘Friends’ will also be able to raise revenue for the CWGC. This can be through sponsorship (fun-run, swimming etc), selling donated items, raffle prizes, the sale of books and gifts, CWGC data, etc.

Anyone (who is a taxpayer and) that makes a donation to the FCWGC, will only need to sign a basic form which allows to the FCWGC to claim the tax on the amount – i.e. the government will increase the amount donated, by the standard rate of tax. So more revenue is passed to the CWGC.

Although there is the potential for the FCWGC to gain donations, sponsorship, or advertising revenue etc from commercial companies, this needs to be handled sensitively. So it is essential that a high-ranking employee of the CWGC is also a trustee of the FCWGC – which I’m sure the commission would insist on anyway – to ensure that any/all partnerships have approval and do not conflict with the interest of the CWGC, its charter and present funding.

All profits from revenue raised by the ‘Friends’ will of course be donated only to the CWGC. As with any charity, records will be kept (and open to inspection) showing the amount paid to the CWGC.

The Friends also have the ability to add content to the present CWGC records. Photographs, taken by ‘Friends,’ can be kept by FCWGC (and/or CWGC should it desire). In no way would the FCWGC be in competition with existing groups such as The Maple Leaf Trust. Instead the FCWGC should work with such groups, providing a framework for the future (and necessary in my opinion) upgrading of the CWGC site.

There is no reason why (in the future), subject to approval, there can’t be a link from (as an example) Pte John Smith’s official information on the CWGC site – to the FCWGC website, where additional information is held.

I do not believe that, at the formation of FCWGC, any full time staff will be required. Costs can be kept down by the use of volunteers, while costs for professional services (book-keeping and legal services) can be kept down through the prudent use of contacts. It is fairly easy, and not too expensive, to divert telephone numbers and emails to various locations. So I don’t believe that premises are required by the FCWGC – though this may, of course, change in the future.

Revenue Ideas

I have a number of ideas that would, I believe, raise more revenue for the FCWGC. These include:

· Organising trips to Battlefields and Cemeteries (using existing companies).
· Printing Commemorative Scrolls (clearly marked FCWGC on quality paper) – similar to those on offer on the SDGW CD-Rom, and SDWW2 disc, but using a hand-written font (for the name and regiment).
· Commemorative items/gifts.
· Newsletter/Magazine
· Selling maps showing the location of CWGC sites.
· Promoting approved military researchers in return for an agreed commission.
· Selling existing books/magazines/CDs/videos on related subjects.
· Providing a service where a cross/wreath etc is laid on a grave, with photo taken by a FCWGC volunteer. Not too difficult in the UK, and also possible in other countries.
· Compiling CWGC data on CD-Rom for a particular person, date, regiment etc.
· Organising discounted ferry tickets to enable members to travel, as a group, to the continent for memorial services and group visits.
· FCWGC Christmas Cards.
· Birthday telegrams delivered by re-enactors (living history groups etc).
· FCWGC regalia.
· Medal framing Service.
· Selling copies of photographs (as seen in IWM shop) related to the work of IWGC and CWGC (including its staff)
· Printing and publishing the epitaphs found on headstones (subject to approval)
· Reproducing regimental badges/crests (CWGC specification) on various materials; stone, wood, ceramic etc


It is also standard practice for volunteers to receive expenses, though these can be kept down (and managed), and to get discounts off various items that are offered for sale by the FCWGC. I am sure though, that working for such a worthwhile organisation as the intended FCWGC – and what this represents – is a suitable enough reward for most people.

Peter Wood
March 2004

[angie999]

I voted no and I will explain why.

FoCWGC would be a good idea regarding education and covering anything outside of current mainstream CWGC funding, but with WWI getting on for a century ago and WWII 60 years ago, I could forsee the day when such a charity could be asked increasingly to take over responsibility for cemetery maintenance.

Last week, I visited Terlincthun cemetery in Boulogne, which was in the original priority programme for establishing permanent cemeteries in the 1920s. It contains WWI and WWII graves and is in fact still "open" for new burials of bodies recovered from the battlefields.

Of course it was immaculately maintained, as are all the CWGC cemeteries, and a gardener was just leaving as we arrived, but quite a number of headstones are showing considerable wear and a number had been removed for renovation, obviously a large ongoing expense.

We had a discussion about how long the British and French governments would be prepared to go on supporting the vast numbers of war graves and concluded, sadly, that although they will continue to do so for a good while yet, the day will come when there are no immediate living relatives left and the pressure to withdraw funding will build.

After all, there may be known burial pits from the Napoleonic era and earier wars, but there are no war cemeteries as such and there certainly is not the degree of emotional attachment there is to 20th century war dead.

Therefore, while I am not totally opposed to the idea, the registered aims of such a charity would need to ensure that it could never become an excuse for the government to turn off the funding.

I also voted no, the reason is simply one that you have already stated the CWGC as saying. I think it would conflict with what they do and could potentially lead to problems.


Much of what your proposing is key to what the CWGC already do, so what would be substantially different that would want people to take notice of this new venture?

I think efforts are best used to have our voices heard and push more to working with them in what they do and as a result have more of an influence on them.

[Racing Teapots]

Your concerns are shared by myself (and many others). The CWGC is naturally scared of anything which might cut its (almost) sole source of funding.

Unlike many (similar?) organisations - and here, I will use English Heritage as an example - the CWGC can't raise revenue. Although there is nothing in the charter which precludes raising much needed funds, you are (I believe) correct in assuming that, if the CWGC was to raise funds by its own initiative, the UK government (and those of other countries) would find a way of cutting money.

That is why the FoCWGC charity needs to be formed. It would have the financial capability, and independence, of raising funds, without affecting the government income so vital to the CWGC. The FoCWGC would, in effect, be the entrepeneurial arm of the CWGC.

In no way should the charity, if it is ever formed, EVER be put into some sort of competition with the CWGC to maintain the graves and memorials of the two world wars. It would simply try to alleviate the burden on the CWGC (in terms of the huge amount of queries received), highlight the CWGC's work, and be a way of raising ADDITIONAL revenue for the Commission.

In a nutshell, the CWGC can receive gifts and donations - but it can't earn. A trust that works in conjunction with the CWGC could overcome (or work within) this restrictive agreement that is, as you have noted, gradually pushing the CWGC towards bankruptcy.

[Paul Reed]

While I have my concerns to some degree, I voted yes as a 'friends' group might well present a very strong and vocal protest to any changes that might affect future CWGC funding.

However, personally, I do not think CWGC would ever - in its current guise - consent to the formation of such a group.

But a nice idea, Peter - with many good angles.

[Racing Teapots]

Here is the link to the same poll on the Great War forum so you can see what concerns/ideas are being written there http://1914-1918.org/forum/index.php...ic=20947&st=0&

Like Angie 999, it might prove helpful if the few people who have voted that they are undecided, or against the formation of such a trust, could please give their reasons.

Ideas, suggestions, alternatives and improvements (!) would also be welcomed.

[Simon Bull]

I voted no because, like previous posters, I fear that the input of charitable funds would merely be used by the government as an excuse to stop or reduce funding to the CWGC. I have seen this happen in many other areas. Governments today know that tax cuts bribe the electorate and will use any excuse they can to reduce funding of any public body.

I suppose it might be possible to set up the Trust in such a way that it only gave money to the CWGC provided that government continued to fund the Commission at the current rate plus inflation each year, and that if that did not happen the charity diverted its funds to some other worthy cause.

[Racing Teapots]

The reason I put the FoCWG Trust idea forward was to assist the CWGC in as many ways as possible.

I have been in regular correspondence with leading members of the media to launch a national (hopefully leading to an International) campaign.

Part of my agreement was that I would approach a "group of likely supporters for a trust, to support the CWGC," and to gauge the response.

I chose the Great War Forum and The WW2 forum.

Sadly the response had not been fantastic.

Non forum members, or those who have not voted, will be unable (I think) to see the results. As they stand just 9 people have voted, and one of those votes was mine.

Those in favour of a trust equals 50 %

Those against, or undecided equals 50 %

I had agreement with the media that if the support fell to 50 % or less, that I would drop out of the campaign and they would not have to cover the 'story'.

All the time and energy in starting this trust has been at the expense of my friends, family, and business - who I thank - and so it seems a pointless exercise to continue, when the results are not favourable.

If the forum members can't get behind such a trust, what chance of the general public?

My thanks to all who have voted and contributed. I hope that the CWGC gets to see, and act on, your comments and wishes for improvements.

[Paul Reed]

Originally posted by Racing Teapots@Oct 14 2004, 07:50 AM
All the time and energy in starting this trust has been at the expense of my friends, family, and business - who I thank - and so it seems a pointless exercise to continue, when the results are not favourable.

If the forum members can't get behind such a trust, what chance of the general public?

Quoted post

Peter - in my opinion, the views of this and the WW1 forum only represent a tiny percentage of any more general view of the CWGC and its purpose, and I don't think you should guage interest in such a project from it. If this is something you are determined to do, and to some extent the CWGC agree or consent to it (which I would see as essential to its success?) then I would indeed take it further if you have already put a lot of work in.

Personally I would love to form a WW2 society along the lines of the WFA; while I am sure many people on this site would join, if I posted a poll to ask opinions on the idea, only a fraction of people would reply. Yet I know if I launched this, I would probably be overwhelmed! One reason why I haven't done it yet... plus of course there are only 24 hours in a day!

If you wanted to have a further chat on this one, feel free to give me a call sometime.