VC families may have to go overseas to see ancestors' medals amid Imperial War Museum row
The families of Britain's bravest soldiers may have to travel overseas if they wish to see their ancestors' Victoria Cross medals after the Imperial War Museum shuts down the gallery that held a £70 million collection.
Representatives from two Commonwealth nations have suggested they are willing to host galleries displaying the collection of 230 VC and George Cross medals, The Telegraph understands.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka are possible contenders, according to sources. 'We are not talking about a minor member of the Commonwealth,' one said.
One of the overtures was made by a former foreign prime minister, it is understood.
It follows the controversial decision by the London museum to close the Lord Ashcroft Gallery, which had displayed the collection for the past 15 years, in June.
Lord Ashcroft, the billionaire businessman and former deputy chairman of the Conservative party, loaned the collection to the museum in 2010 and donated £5 million towards the gallery's opening.
He says a Commonwealth minister 'very far from the UK' suggested their country 'might be amenable to housing the collection and putting it on public display'.
Lord Ashcroft, 79, said: 'My disappointment at learning about the planned closure of the Lord Ashcroft Gallery at the Imperial War Museum has been tempered by the touching reaction to the imminent loss of my medal collection from public viewing.
'I have been so inundated by supportive comments from friends and strangers alike that I feel optimistic that, over the next three months, the number of people visiting the gallery could reach an all-time high.
'Not only have I been overwhelmed by public sentiment that the decision of the IWM trustees to close the gallery on June 1 is plain wrong, but I have also been surprised by the offers to show all or part of the collection at other venues.
'Perhaps the most striking offer came from a Commonwealth minister very far from the UK who suggested their country might be amenable to housing the collection and putting it on public display.
'As Sir Winston Churchill, our great wartime prime minister, once said: 'You never can tell whether bad luck may not after all turn out to be good luck.''
The VC is Britain's highest commendation for valour, and only 1,358 have been awarded since 1856.
Families of VC recipients have been left perplexed by the museum's decision, which they called 'ill thought out' and 'appalling'.
David Jackson – whose father Norman was awarded a VC by King George VI in 1945 after crawling on to the wing of a blazing Lancaster bomber at 22,000ft to try to put out an engine fire – has previously described the decision as a 'sacrilege' and 'senseless'.
Mr Jackson, commenting on the prospect of the collection being displayed abroad, said: 'From my point of view it is a decision for Lord Ashcroft to make. Personally, I think that would be wonderful, a lot better, in my view, than being locked indefinitely in a vault and never being seen by the public.'
The Imperial War Museum has said that the 15-year loan of Lord Ashcroft's medals was always intended to expire in 2025. It had formally made the decision to terminate the loan in July 2024 and had engaged with his representatives in 2023.
Its own, much smaller, collection of VC and GC medals will be 'displayed across our UK branches [and] integrated within galleries that tell the full story of the conflicts in which of these acts of bravery occurred'.
The museum added that no members of its staff had discussed the suggestion of the collection being put on display overseas nor had it arisen at any of the museum's board meetings.
A spokesman said: 'We are enormously grateful to Lord Ashcroft for enabling us to display his unique collection since the gallery opened. Any decisions about the future display of the collection are of course a matter for him.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
11 hours ago
- Telegraph
Why the wrong memorial will water down the Holocaust
On Wednesday, the Holocaust Memorial Bill returns to the House of Lords. What a waste of energy over seven and more years this project has been. The motives are good. Unfortunately, the idea is not. In the great battle against growing anti-Semitism in our society, precious weapons are being mistargeted. There are strong second-order objections to the memorial and its accompanying 'learning centre'. They include the vast cost, over £200 million; the lack of room in Victoria Tower Gardens and the loss of green space; the security risk at the heart of government and Parliament which the police and parliamentary authorities increasingly fail to control; and the fact that the gardens will soon be overcrowded by the overspill for the coming 30-year project to restore the fabric of the Houses of Parliament next door. There will be parliamentary amendments tomorrow to address these last two points. Most of the Bill's opponents, many of whom are Jewish, do want a memorial, but a much smaller and more beautiful one. The present design is a grandiose hand-me-down, by the somewhat discredited architect David Adjaye, already used elsewhere. Opponents also do not want the learning centre. Tristram Hunt, the distinguished director of the V&A, thinks it could be much better managed at the Imperial War Museum. The key objection relates to what is really being commemorated. If you track the history of Holocaust Memorial Day since it was instituted a quarter of a century ago, you will find increasing pressure to water down the concept. There have been several occasions – ITV's Good Morning Britain this year, for example – in which coverage has entirely failed to mention the Jews at all, let alone the fact that the Holocaust killed six million of them. People such as the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, unfailingly hostile to Israel and previously friendly to murderous Hamas, have thus found it possible to take part in Holocaust Memorial Day without having to confront the grim truth of history. Over time, the uniqueness of the Jewish experience thus slips away. A process begins in which the word 'Holocaust' is taken to stand for any persecution of any group by any other group. From there, it is a short step to suggesting, as pro-Gaza mobs always do, that Israel itself is committing genocide against Palestinians. This is not an isolated outbreak of a few fanatics, but a deliberate plan to strip the Jewish state – and all Jews – of their moral authority. The ultimate aim is to preach the equation 'Jews = Israel = Nazis'. This libel is so widespread as to have become one of the main tropes of anti-Semitism. The danger is that the wrong sort of commemoration will facilitate this. Delegations from anti-Israel countries and 'humanitarian' organisations emerging from Parliament will stroll into Victoria Tower Gardens, pose outside the Holocaust Memorial and deliver their piece to camera about alleged war crimes, starvation of children etc. You can just imagine the ineffable Greta Thunberg doing exactly that. Sad to say, both main political parties are putting on whips to get the memorial Bill through Parliament. This suggests an underlying uncertainty about the rightness of their cause. Traditionally, votes on matters of conscience are not whipped. Surely Holocaust commemoration is a classic conscience issue in which party considerations have no place. I fear that establishment politicians, frightened of being labelled anti-Semitic, have supported this great big project without thinking about it. Yet thought is exactly what is needed to correct the errors of Holocaust education today. By the way, there exists a splendid role model for commemoration in, of all places, Poland. The POLIN museum in Warsaw movingly and expertly relates its country's part of the full story we all need to know – how Jews lived there for a thousand years and how, in the end, and most horribly, they died. Weathering the storm Like many parishes, our village held its annual fete last Saturday. The problem, in advance, was the weather. Nowadays, weather forecasting is so much more accurate that if it says, two or three days before, that it will rain, it probably will. So event-planners must take it seriously. This avoids the occasional spectacular washouts of the past, after which everyone used to say, through gritted teeth, 'Rain failed to dampen the spirits'. Our organisers therefore did the prudent thing and announced that the fete would not be held in the public garden by the church but in the village's two interconnected halls. The trouble was that, on the day, there was virtually no rain during the fete's opening hours. We all felt slightly silly because we could have stuck with the original plan and saved ourselves a lot of trouble. Should we have followed the old way and just held the thing outdoors, rain or shine? I am not sure of the answer. But I do know that everyone enjoyed the make-do atmosphere among the crowded stalls and the noisy Punch-and-Judy show inside, finding community in adversity. Business was brisk. The splash headline in our local paper says, 'Post office to remain open'. My first reaction was to laugh at this non-news. After all, it is in the nature of shops to open. But I quickly realised I was wrong. It was indeed news. The unspoken policy of the modern Post Office is to close itself down. A decision in the opposite direction certainly deserves the front page.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Public ownership of England's water companies could cost close to zero, says thinktank
Ministers could bring water companies into public ownership for minimal cost through a process designed to safeguard vital public services when the companies running them are failing, a thinktank report has argued. According to the report by Common Wealth, ministers could use a process known as special administration to take over a company like Thames Water and, rather than transfer it to another private company, keep it under permanent public ownership. Writing for the thinktank, Ewan McGaughey, professor of law at King's College London, said that while a figure of £99bn was commonly cited as the cost of taking over the industry in England, this was based on an estimate from a thinktank paid for by water companies. According to McGaughey, the estimates use a metric known as regulatory capital value, designed by the industry regulator Ofwat for calculating maximum dividends. This takes the assumed value of companies in 1990 and adds on capital investment per year and inflation but, the report said, takes no account of real market values. The actual market value of water companies, the report argued, seems to be lower, with the US private equity company KKR offering a £4bn injection of equity to take over Thames Water, when its supposed regulatory capital value is nearer £20bn. It goes on to say that when debt levels of water companies are taken into account, for example Thames Water is about £20bn in debt, it would be possible for the government to argue that their appropriate value in law was notably less, even close to zero. This would be based not just on debt, but also on the amount of money needed for infrastructure repairs and the scale of dividends already paid to shareholders. While polling shows strong public support for the general idea of nationalised water suppliers, and the idea is liked by some Labour MPs, government officials say regulatory capital value is the standard measure for the companies' value, and that nationalisation would need the state to plug the gap left by billions more pounds of private investment that would vanish. But according to McGaughey, who specialises in corporate law and insolvency, the rules setting out special administration would allow this to be used to remove licences from any water company deemed to show serious poor performance, something he argues in the report could be justified with every English water company over the dumping of sewage into waterways alone. Once this was done, shareholders and secured creditors such as bondholders would be given 'appropriate value' for their stakes, with McGaughey saying this would, in effect, be nothing. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion While special administration is usually carried out to find a new private owner, McGaughey said there was 'nothing in the law to require that the new owner is private'. He added: 'On the contrary, the duty of the special administrator is to the public, and it's in the public interest to consider public ownership. There would be a case for judicial review if the secretary of state did not consider public ownership.' Such a move, McGaughey added, would be likely to see bondholders take legal action. However, he said, this happened in the past when Railtrack and Northern Rock were put into special administration without any compensation for investors, and the investors lost. 'The government just needs to stop being so timid,' he said. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: 'The government has no plans to nationalise water companies. It will cost billions of pounds and take years to unpick the current ownership model, during which time underinvestment in infrastructure and sewage pollution would only get worse.'
The Herald Scotland
3 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
Edinburgh is held back by can't do attitude. It should be like Glasgow
The despoilation of much of Victorian Glasgow in the 1960s illustrates how badly things can go if there is no restraint or respect for the past, and Edinburgh citizens should be forever grateful a halt was called before the Abercrombie plan to turn Princes Street into a two-deck super highway lined with brutal Stalinist blocks was executed. Potterrow and Bristo Square was just the beginning. Read more But at least Glasgow can summon a can-do attitude when necessary, and the India Street student skyscraper can't be as bad as the grim post-war government offices it will replace. Since Edinburgh University got away with the Appleton Tower in the 1960s, overlooking Bristo Square and the only half-wrecked George Square, tall buildings in Edinburgh are taboo. The last serious attempt was Tiger Developments' rejected 16- storey hotel at Haymarket, pitched as a 'gateway' to the city centre, stymied by fierce local opposition led by the late judge and West End resident, Lord McCluskey. Instead there is a black stump of offices in a half-built square flanked by the foundations for the International Conference Centre's hotel school, blocked by Edinburgh Council, its ranks of yellow-capped rusting metal rods from exposed reinforced concrete forlornly waiting for the first floor, a monument to the victory of personal animosity over vision. My overall impression from The Herald's magnifying glass on Edinburgh is the extent to which a 'can't do, unless…' attitude still dominates debate, in which nothing happens without a host of conditions and caveats, adding cost and time to the smallest project. Preserving the cityscape is well understood and accepted, but other adornments make Edinburgh a costly place to invest. New schools must be built to Scandinavian 'Passivhaus' standards of insulation, housing schemes must have district heating systems, car parking is limited but extensive bike storage is de rigueur, all for the sake of the unachievable goal of reaching net zero by 2030. Edinburgh's George Street looking west. Picture:Gordon Terris (Image: Gordon Terris) New policy means 35 per cent of homes in all but the smallest new developments must be 'affordable', which makes the rest more unaffordable. I remember sitting with astonishment on the Development Management (DM) sub-committee as my colleagues considered rejecting the redevelopment of the old Sick Kids hospital because there should be two more affordable three-bedroom flats, despite the housing charity involved insisting there was no market for them in that location. Speaking to a highly experienced development agent this week, he said that despite positive personnel changes on the DM sub-committee, building in Edinburgh was just getting harder. Policy-driven add-ons, like heat pumps and expensive insulation standards, mean obtaining planning permission is all very well, but getting companies to actually build is another when a diminishing number of construction contractors can prioritise simpler and more cost-effective schemes elsewhere. Too many councillors set policy on the basis of what they want the world to be, not as it is, usually underscored by pronouncements that as Edinburgh is a wealthy place individuals and businesses should be happy to stump up more for the privilege. In the city of Enlightenment, it's apparently incumbent on us all to set an example to mankind, and like penitents who should feel guilty about any comfort or indulgence accept the cost and inconvenience of councillors' whims. Concentrating so many arguments in the space of a week has, if anything, exposed the many contradictions which dog every argument about Edinburgh's future. We want it to be a good place to live and work, we want to attract more talent to boost the economy, but we'll make it harder to build the necessary homes and infrastructure. Of course we need more housing, especially with over 5,000 families currently in temporary accommodation, but we don't want tower blocks or urban sprawl. We want everyone to live and work in a '20 minute neighbourhood' where everything is within walking distance, but we're going to persuade businesses to move out to make way for housing. We love our bus company, but they shouldn't be driving down Princes Street. Read more Similarly with tourism. We want Edinburgh to be a welcoming and popular place for visitors, just not so many of them, and we don't want the city to be a Harry Potter or Braveheart theme park (as if it is…). We want tourists to spend money, but they shouldn't be sold junk. I marked my first trip to New York by buying a little yellow taxi, so I guess that makes me a tat-loving philistine. If they do come, they should be persuaded the Granton Gasholder is as worth seeing as the Castle and Holyroodhouse. We love the freedom and chaos of the Festival Fringe, but it needs to be brought under control. We need overseas students to sign up for expensive university courses because we can't afford places for all the qualified locals who must be funded by, guess who, the taxpayer. But we don't want to allow more places for them to stay. We want businesses to come and invest, but they have got to be the right kind of firms who must play their part in tackling poverty so that 'no one gets left behind'. As for high-tech skilled jobs at defence specialists like Lenovo, couldn't they make air fryers or bread makers instead? The good news is some in strong positions of influence get all this, but in a city which to outsiders must seem to have it all, the challenge is to persuade all those who make the rules that it can't. John McLellan is a former Edinburgh Evening News and Scotsman editor. He served as a City of Edinburgh councillor for five years. Brought up in Glasgow, McLellan has lived and worked in Edinburgh for 30 years.
