Mother of Air India crash victim ‘heartbroken' after remains wrongly identified
Some 169 Indian passengers and 52 British nationals were killed, making it one of the deadliest plane crashes in terms of the number of British fatalities.
Among the British victims were Fiongal Greenlaw-Meek, 39, and his husband Jamie, 45, who had been returning to Britain after celebrating their wedding anniversary in India.
Mr Greenlaw-Meek's mother, Amanda Donaghey, told The Sunday Times she flew to India after the crash in order to find her son's remains, providing a DNA sample at Ahmedabad's Civil Hospital to assist the identification process.
Following a match on June 20 last year, she returned to the UK with Mr Greenlaw-Meek's coffin.
But on July 5, as Mr Greenlaw-Meek and his husband's families prepared to bury the married couple together, police told Ms Donaghey that DNA tests carried out in the UK showed Mr Greenlaw-Meek's remains were not in the coffin.
'We don't know what poor person is in that casket,' she told The Sunday Times.
'I had my doubts but to be told that was heartbreaking.
'This is an appalling thing to have happened,' she added.
'And we would now like the British Gvernment to do everything in its power to find out, and bring Fiongal home.'
It was revealed last week the coffin of another repatriated British victim, 71-year-old Shobhana Patel, contained remains of multiple people, The Sunday Times reported.
Mrs Patel was killed alongside her husband Ashok, 74, as they returned to the UK from a Hindu religious trip.
Their son Miten Patel told The Sunday Times: 'There may have been a mistake done.
'But for religious reasons we need to make sure my mother is my mother and not somebody else's remains.
'Knowing 100% that it is my mum is very important to us.'
Shobhana and Ashok Patel were laid to rest last week, The Sunday Times said.
International aviation lawyer James Healey-Pratt, whose firm Keystone Law is representing families of victims of the Air India crash, has told Times Radio the identification issues have raised concerns over the total number of victims whose identities may have been misattributed.
'We know that 12 caskets were repatriated from India to the UK,' he said.
'Of those 12, two had been mishandled, misidentified.
'And so if you extrapolate that sample, you're looking at 40 mishandled remains out of 240.
'So that's a very large number, but we simply don't know.
'And to date, the Indian authorities have not been transparent or helpful about that, which is why there was pressure put on by the families to the FCO and the Prime Minister's office.
'And this was actually mentioned in the meeting at Chequers between Keir Starmer and Prime Minister Modi on Thursday.
'So the families are waiting to hear, first thing next week, about what actions are really being done in India to provide some degree of assurance.'
It is understood no blame is being put on any UK agency for the blunders, Mr Healy-Pratt previously told the PA news agency.
The only surviving passenger on the plane was Briton Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, who previously told The Sun it was a 'miracle' he was alive but felt 'terrible' he could not save his brother Ajay.
A preliminary report into the incident from India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau found both of the plane's fuel switches moved to the 'cut-off' position 'immediately' after take-off, stopping fuel supply to the engine.
It has sparked questions over whether the crash was deliberate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
30 minutes ago
- Spectator
The state will do anything but fix the migrant crisis
Migrant hotel protests are erupting across the country, as 'tinderbox' Britain catches fire. What began with a series of protests in Epping, Essex, over the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by a recently arrived Ethiopian migrant, has now spread, as Brits air long-standing grievances about asylum seekers they have been forced to host in their own communities. A powerful tendency now exists in the British state towards displacement activity Demonstrations have so far been reported in Bournemouth, Southampton and Portsmouth, Norwich, Leeds and Wolverhampton, Sutton-in-Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, Altrincham and even at Canary Wharf in London. With years of unaddressed anger rapidly making themselves felt, the police, pulled in all directions, are struggling to keep up. 'Local commanders are once again being forced to choose between keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps', admits the head of the Police Federation. Still, it seems there is one thing the government is more than happy to devote resources to: trawling the internet for anti-migrant sentiment. The Telegraph reports that an elite team of police officers convened by the Home Office is set to monitor social media to flag up early signs of unrest. Working out of the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC) in Westminster the new National Internet Intelligence Investigations team will 'maximise social media intelligence' gathering in order to 'help local forces manage public safety threats and risks'. If this new division was just about intelligence-gathering that would be one thing. It's true that social media is in invaluable resource for following events on the ground at such gatherings, while local Facebook groups are often where grassroots protests are organised. Yet we know that when it comes to the British state and social media, censorship and punishment for online speech is never far behind. Ever since Sir Keir Starmer repeatedly linked the Southport unrest last year with social media, the idea has firmly taken root in Whitehall that the best way to stop unrest is to aggressively police the internet. Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, already takes this view, and the link has even been drawn in Department for Education guidance on how to talk to schoolchildren about the Southport disorder. In a recent report, the police inspectorate said that that forces must be 'better prepared and resourced to monitor, analyse, use and respond to online content', which it argues was a risk to public safety. This general zeal for social-media policing is why Big Brother Watch believes the new unit is very likely to infringe on free speech. The investigations team is 'Orwellian' and 'disturbing', says interim director Rebecca Vincent, creating the possibility that it 'will attempt to interfere with online content' as other government bodies are known to have done during Covid. As if there weren't enough threats to free speech already. This week age verification provisions in the latest stage of the Online Safety Act (OSA) kicked in, meaning that some footage of protests is now inaccessible on social media for many users. Not even parliamentary privilege is safe from the censorship regime. Katie Lam's searing April speech on the rape gangs, in which she quoted court transcripts and survivors, could not be watched on X without age verification. We are beginning to look like North Korea with rainbow flags: for the public's 'safety', footage exposing grievous failures of the British state now cannot be viewed in the UK. Little wonder, given the OSA explicitly earmarks content relating to 'child sexual abuse' and 'illegal immigration and people smuggling' as the 'kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from'. The Conservatives, who bequeathed us this blank cheque for digital authoritarianism, certainly need to take a long, hard look at themselves. The claims that the OSA is merely about restricting access to pornography has been exposed as a mere fig leaf. And still things could still get worse. As the Free Speech Union has noted, shortly after last year's riots, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a pro-censorship lobby group with ties to Morgan McSweeney, 'hosted a closed-door meeting under the Chatham House rule to discuss the role of social media in civil unrest'. In attendance were officials from the Home Office, the Department of Science, Information and Technology, Ofcom and other organisations. The CCDH proposals that emerged included amending the OSA to 'grant Ofcom additional 'emergency response' powers to fight 'misinformation' that poses a 'threat' to 'national security' and 'the health or safety of the public''. This would give Secretary of State Peter Kyle the ability to directly flag unapproved content to be taken down at a time of 'crisis'. Should the unrest continue this could well be coming down the track. What all this illustrates is just how ill-equipped the people in charge are to deal with Britain's problems, as The Spectator's Madeline Grant noted earlier this week. A powerful tendency now exists in the British state towards displacement activity. Spin doctors 'manage' the news. Police surveil social media. The government shuffles asylum seekers from hotel to hotel, or to HMOs, or even to privately rented accommodation (which it uses your own taxes to outbid you for). For his part, the prime minister has been tweeting about the women's football. As the unrest grows, leading politicians continue doggedly insist that Britain remains a 'a successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith country'. In reality, there are answers to the asylum hotels crisis, it's just that the government simply lacks the will to act. Large numbers of illegal migrants need to be deported, while those that are here should be placed in a secure holding facility somewhere remote. What is surely obvious by now where they should not be: in hotels, in an Essex market town 500 yards from a school; on the Bournemouth beachfront; in the London's financial district; in a Leeds suburb right next to a shopping centre. As it is, however, it seems the regime will try anything and everything before addressing people's real concerns.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
The ballad of broken Britain
In my corner of Bristol, alongside drug dealers, shoplifters and street drinkers, we now have our very own pyromaniac. They started small – an abandoned office chair, a clothing bank and an old telephone box – before moving on to bigger things. Half a dozen cars have been torched over the past few months, including two on my road, and, most recently, a derelict pub. The other Saturday, hearing a commotion outside, my wife jumped out of bed and flung open the curtains. The scene that greeted us was apocalyptic. In daylight, on a narrow suburban street, the arsonist had set fire to three motorbikes parked in a row, which in turn had set alight a car and a hedge. It was pandemonium. People were wandering around in their nightclothes, some barefoot, having been advised by the police to leave their homes. The bikes and car were engulfed in flames, and thick clouds of black smoke billowed over the houses. The fire brigade arrived quickly and soon had things under control, but the resulting carnage was like West Belfast circa the 1970s after a mortar attack. Setting vehicles alight is a serious criminal offence, not to mention incredibly dangerous, yet the police response was sluggish. For weeks, charred motorbike frames and the blackened shells of cars sat on melted tarmac. Wandering the area felt like disaster tourism. Eventually, after mounting complaints, a meeting was called with councillors and police in attendance. However, what was meant to be a discussion about the fires quickly turned into a free-for-all on rising crime. It was a comically British affair – lots of blustering and cries of: 'Do speak up, we can't hear you at the back!' There also seemed to be a few budding local sleuths who'd uncovered some quite extraordinary goings-on that the police were unaware of. Notwithstanding our resident Miss Marples, if we'd gone looking for reassurance, we didn't get any. Although we were told we could report incidents online and expect a response within 72 hours. Amazing. You'd hope the issue would be resolved by then. Still, there were tea and biscuits – so that was all right. In effect, the mostly middle-class crowd came away with the impression that it was down to them to manage the situation: 'You can apply for a council grant to install CCTV at your house, or buy one of those camera doorbell thingies.' The police, it seems, don't have the time or resources. One thing we were promised was increased patrols, but our local 'cop shop' is only open a few hours a week, and I don't think I've seen a policeman on foot in the 20-odd years I've been here. You do see the occasional PCSO, but they engender about as much confidence as a Boy Scout left in charge of an anti-aircraft battery. Thankfully, I recently escaped to Menorca for a week. There's very little crime, no graffiti, no litter, and the sea – a major draw – is crystal clear. The overall impression is of a laid-back, prosperous, well-run place that the inhabitants are proud of. Coming back to the UK was a kick in the Balearics due to the stark contrast. It felt like returning home to find the front door bashed in, the house ransacked and someone cooking crystal meth on the stove. Within hours, we'd seen drug deals, masked youths speeding about on electric motorbikes and drunks stumbling in the road. The usual dope smoke, graffiti tagging and filthy streets completed the picture. If we lived in a more affluent part of Bristol, or some rural idyll, perhaps the return wouldn't have hit quite so hard. But I still wouldn't have been able to escape the headlines: water company bosses pocketing millions while pumping effluent into rivers and seas; polls suggesting almost half of the public think Britain is becoming lawless; a justice system in crisis; dire public finances; a government desperate to avoid another summer of rioting. The sense – to borrow one of the Prime Minister's favourite phrases – is of a country in managed decline. Except the decline isn't being managed very well. Yes, Menorca is small and sparsely populated – easier to keep pristine. And yes, coming home from holiday is always a downer. However, the overwhelming impression was of returning to a country that had lost its way. A 16-year-old boy was recently arrested in connection with the pub fire. Dozens of cars have since had their tyres slashed, and someone took a machete to a row of saplings – so, irrespective of whether or not he's the arsonist, we're not out of the woods yet. Although, thanks to the idiot with the machete, there won't now be a wood – or even a copse. In Richard II, John of Gaunt laments: 'That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.' Hasn't it just? And, as Abraham Lincoln observed: 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' So, while tea and biscuits may long have been a social lubricant in Britain, there are times when cohesion is so frayed, we need more than that – and I'm afraid this is one of them. To be honest, though, you'd probably get bored with Menorca after a while. All that sand – it's a bastard to get out of your shoes.
Times
4 hours ago
- Times
Financial Ombudsman Service boss paid £230,000 after ousting
The ousted head of the Financial Ombudsman Service received a pay-off of almost £230,000, it has been disclosed in the annual report. Abby Thomas, who left abruptly on 6 February, was paid £229,869 in severance payments on top of her normal salary. The payoff included £100,000 for loss of office, £107,692 in lieu of notice and £22,177 for a period of gardening leave that began on the day she left, the FOS said. MPs on the Treasury select committee have hit out at the manner of her departure and criticised the FOS chairwoman Baroness Manzoor for refusing to answer questions on why Thomas left and whether she was forced out. The FOS, which rules on complaints by consumers about financial services firms and can set compensation orders, is under pressure to reform. Rachel Reeves has pledged to curb its powers so it no longer acts like a regulator after complaints from the industry that it has increased the cost of 'mass redress events'. It has been dealing with a significant rise in claims, mainly related to car finance loans, but also because of concerns about other consumer loans and more people complaining about banks' handling of frauds. Dame Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Treasury committee, said this month: 'The handling of this situation by the senior leadership has been deeply disappointing.' Thomas, a former Virgin Media executive, served for less than three years. She has been replaced by James Dipple-Johnstone as chief ombudsman and Jenny Simmonds as interim chief executive. Manzoor is due to retire on August 1. The FOS received 450,000 new inquiries in the year to March, up from 330,000. The motor finance industry is braced for a judgment from the Supreme Court this Friday that could determine the scale of compensation payments for failing to disclose commissions paid to dealers.
