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