Dear Sir or Madam, I refer to my request on this website of 6
August 2008 to the DCMS.A reply was received from Tariq Saira of
the DCMS dated 18 August 2008.This concerned a first issue Goetz
Lusitania Medallion in iron in the possession of a PA:THE IMPERIAL
WAR MUSEUM.I believe that this medallion is the property of my late
father, Milton Wright. I sent correspondence to the Prime Ministers
Office dated 6 February 2008 and 7 April 2008 concerning this
issue.These letters were acknowledged by the DCU at No 10 on 12
February (M.Davies) and 24 April 2008 (G.Edwards). The DCMS's reply
of 18 August 2008 states : With regard to copies of letters from
the DCU at No 10. Downing Street about the transfer of your
correspondence to this Department,I am afraid that we are unable to
find any record or evidence that your letter was received here. In
view of the fact that my correspondence to the Prime Minister's
Office of 6 February 2008 contained an enclosure,an 87 page
document, I find the misplacement of important evidence
unnerving.This 87 page document entitled:REPLY by R.G.Wright and
M.G.Wright,contained evidence from files and photographic plates
that showed the IWM's statements were peppered with errors.These
mistakes were not just from the staff at the IWM and it's Director
General,Sir Robert Crawford but also from two of it's Trustees,Sir
Miles Irving and Sir Francis Richards. Under the F o I Act 2000
could the DCMS indicate what correspondence/enclosures they
received from the DCU at No.10 with regard to this case in February
2008 and April 2008.

Yours faithfully.

R.G.Wright (Dr)

Dear Sir or Madam, At the onset of this case, two photographs,
still currently displayed on the IWM London Online Exhibitions
website were seen and recognised by a member of my family. The
photographic images, numbered HU 74866 / 7 are of medallion number
MED 937,the IWM’s 1st issue Goetz Lusitania medallion in iron.
These photographs are of a medallion that was gifted by my
grandfather James Wright ,to his eldest son, my father Milton
Wright of Cannock, Staffs, in 1964. It is clear from the two IWM
images that this medallion is marked, damaged and defaced. The
markings and condition of the artefact confirm this to be the
medallion that was the property of my father . It is a cherished
object of great importance to myself and my family. Expectations in
early 2004,were for the IWM to comply with our requests, as the
object had been retained without our father’s permission. Since
that time it has been conspicuously obvious that IWM staff and the
Director General, Sir Robert Crawford have been involved in a
conspiracy to conceal the location of this medallion. The IWM have
given three separate provenances for medallion MED 937 since
October 2003. IWM Board members, Sir Miles Irving (MI) and Sir
Francis Richards (FR) at the request of Board Chairman ,Sir Peter
Squire conducted an investigation into our case. This document ,the
REVIEW (November 2007) by MI/FR omitted crucial correspondence and
testimonials. It is seriously flawed since a number of F o I
disclosures have been misrepresented and withheld by the IWM. A
document ,the REPLY compiled by R. G. Wright and M. G. Wright
(January 2008) presented photographic evidence and archived files
that refuted the MI/FR REVIEW document. The REPLY document running
to 87 pages was copied to the Prime Ministers Office, in February
2008. A copy was also forwarded to IWM Director General Sir Robert
Crawford. The Prime Minister appoints Trustees to the IWM Board.
The DCMS, sponsors of the IWM were delegated by the Prime Ministers
Office to investigate the evidence presented by us in the REPLY
document. The DCMS have remained silent on this evidence since
February 2008. The implications of this case is whether the DCMS’ s
role is to secure the integrity of the Museum or assist members of
the public in ascertaining the true facts. I would ask for
disclosure from the DCMS with respect to my earlier F o I request.

Yours sincerely,

Robert G.Wright.

Dear Sir or Madam, Further to my request regarding the document
forwarded to the Prime Minister on 6 February 2008.My request for
disclosure under the Act centred on whether or not the Department
delegated responsibility for this case (DCMS) had received the
document:REPLY (January 2008)by R.G.Wright and M.G.Wright (sons of
the late Milton Wright). No disclosure has been forthcoming from
the DCMS. Another copy of the REPLY can be forwarded to the
appropriate Department if the DCMS can please supply disclosure to
the request. On page 85 and 86 of the REPLY in Appendix 7 is a
letter from the DCMS of 30 March 2007.This correspondence from the
Museums Sponsorship Unit attempts to explain the Imperial War
Museums position by a series of facts.The letter supplied to us by
Ms Elizabeth Foxell (DCMS) consists of 7 paragraphs.The REPLY
document supplied to the Prime Minister (and the IWM's Director
General) provides evidence that conclusively proves that the IWM
statements conveyed to us by Ms Foxell were erroneous.It is
difficult,in view of the evidence in the REPLY to find a single
correct fact supplied by the IWM,in this letter of 30 March 2007.
In the final paragraph of her letter Ms Foxell advocates viewing
the IWM medallions,as a means of resolving this issue.In August
2008 this was undertaken by M.G.Wright.In a statement to the Prime
Minister and the IWM Director General Sir Robert Crawford,dated 11
August 2008, Mr M.G.Wright's solicitor states: Our client has
viewed the Museum's medallions and was able to positively identify
his father's medallion as the Gaselee Medallion MED 937. Since this
medallion, MED 937 has had 3 different provenances since October
2003 ,it is indicative of the IWM's predicament. I urgently request
that unlike the IWM,the DCMS critically examine the evidence in the
REPLY.I would therefore request disclosure by the DCMS on the
request.

Yours sincerely,

Robert G.Wright.

Dear Mr. Wright

I'm writing in response to your Freedom of Information request of 22nd October 2008. Please find our letter attached below.

Kind regards

Saira

Saira Tariq
Freedom of Information Officer
Freedom of Information Team
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH
Telephone: 020 7211 6192

show quoted sections

Dear TARIQ SAIRA, Thank your for your letter of 16 October 2008. My
initial enquiry to the Imperial War Museum regarding their
Lusitania medallion collection was dated 11 October 2003. Since
that date the IWM have retrospectively changed almost all the facts
that they issued for this medallion (number MED 937 ). The IWM have
also issued 3 different provenances for the medallion MED 937 : the
iron 1st issue Goetz Lusitania medallion. Such alterations for a
rare 1st issue are unprecedented. Furthermore, this is the only
iron 1st issue that is marked ,damaged and defaced (website images
HU 74866/7).It is the condition of this medallion that suggests to
me that it is my father’s medallion. Two “independent” IWM Trustees
appointed to produce a REVIEW (November 2007) of this case, appear
to have been extremely negligent. They omitted crucial evidence
including family testimonials from their REVIEW. They also failed
to include a letter from IWM Director General, Sir Robert Crawford,
dated 10 June 2004.This letter clearly indicated the level of IWM
complicity. Sir Robert Crawford gave assurances that all Lusitania
medallions had been disclosed in supplied data bases; none were
withheld because of restrictions. On 30 March 2007,Ms E. Foxell of
the DCMS Sponsorship Unit, disclosed that at least one Lusitania
medallion in the collection had been concealed by the IWM for over
3 years. It was stated that the donor had requested anonymity. It
is of great interest that the two “independent” IWM Trustees had
not included the DG ’s letter in their REVIEW document. As a
consequence of the REVIEW by the two “independent” IWM Trustees, my
brother and I compiled a REPLY document (R.G.Wright and M.G.Wright,
sons of the late Milton Wright;January 2008).This included the IWM’
s own photographic images of MED 937. Enlargements of areas of MED
937 provide conclusive proof that this medallion is not pristine
but marked, damaged and defaced. Copies of this REPLY (January
2008) were forwarded to the IWM and to the Prime Minister’s Office
in order to verify our case. I am now informed by you that the
Prime Minister’s copy has been lost. This is an 87 page bound
document containing photographic plates and has a deep blue A4
title page. In August 2008,on the recommendation of the DCMS
Sponsorship Unit, my brother examined the medallions at the IWM. My
brother was familiar with my father’s medallion. In a statement to
the IWM and copied to Number 10 my brother’s solicitor states : “
--During his visit ,our client closely inspected the medallions
currently held by the museum and was able to positively identify
his father’s medallion. The medallion in question is described in
the museums records as the Gaselee medallion (MED 937). Sir, in
view of the loss by Number 10 of the REPLY document and the
inability to loan a copy from the IWM ,I have instructed a further
copy to be despatched for your detailed examination. This has been
forwarded to Ms E. Foxell at the DCMS Sponsorship Unit who has
previously been responsible for this case. Under the Act could you
please acknowledge on this website when the DCMS receive the
replacement copy of the REPLY (January 2008) document.

Yours sincerely,

Robert G.Wright.

I'm out of the office until November the 3rd. Please hold any non-urgent queries till I return.

If you need assistance with an FOI case please contact the FOI Central Team by e mail [email address]

show quoted sections