Jump to content

Womack Boatyard


andyg

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I'm sorry I don't have many photos. I must have been too busy, at that time!

This remark has turned out to be rather prophetic!  First, I would like to say sorry to andyg that his pleasant thread about memories of Broads holidays has been trampled on and since it seems that an apology from the right quarter is unlikely.

I should explain that when I decided that a small hire fleet was no longer viable I sold the yard and got a job with Rank in France.  As soon as I got there the purchaser decided to back out and it was left to my mother, in her retirement, to run the yard in my absence.  So I had to resign and come back to try and sort it out.  The only solution was to close the business, get permission and build houses on the site.  At least I had a freehold premises and the bank had no charge on the deeds.  So many others of my friends on small yards at that time were not in such a good position.  So they just had to go bust.  To do this took time and so in between getting the boats painted up for sale while the shed was still standing, I had to go and earn a living elsewhere.  In the two weeks when the bungalow was pulled down I was out in the North Sea off Humberside on a gas platform, as helicopter landing officer.  A useful skill I had learned in the Forces.  I was not there when the bungalow came down and to see a photo of it for the first time now (and taken from my own property) came as a bit of a slap in the kisser.

If the Ludham Archive want to tell the full story of history, perhaps we should start further back in time?

451106075_harrisonsyard.thumb.jpeg.c184bfa978d0394f239f5960a81a878f.jpeg

This photo appears in Wherries and Waterways, by Robert Malster and I have seen it in other publications.

I can't be certain but I have always thought this must be the same site as my boatyard.  Anyone local I have spoken to, including Stanley Hunter, Jimmy Gedge, Jack Cates and Clifford Allen, have all agreed with me.  Whether or not, I know that mine was an old wherry repair and possibly building yard.  The aerial photos show a wide, deep dyke to the left of the bungalow leading to a long, shallow angled slip where I know that wherries were pulled out.  At the top of the short dyke to the right is the wreck of a wherry, buried in the ground.  Some of its timbers stuck up through the lawn.  My good old friend Jimmy Gedge, himself a builder, told me that his family had built her, but he couldn't remember her name.  They used to own a lot of wherries.

The wherry Albion had my yard as her base and winter mooring for several years, on the quay right in front of the bungalow and as it happens, I was chairman of the Norfolk Wherry Trust at the time when I had to sell up.  So for me to have to close down a yard with all that tradition and put up houses on the river bank was a personal betrayal of what I stood for and had grown up with.  I know I had no choice but I still feel ashamed of it to this day.  So you can put that in your Ludham Archive - with my permission this time - if you insist that local history has to be told "warts and all".

Meantime, like it or not, the forum has now seen evidence of what it is really like to have to close down a small family business in times of a slump in Broads tourism.  You are likely to see more sights like this in the months to come, even though I hope this recession will not go on as long as the last one did.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly Vaughan, this was a very turbulent time in your life, and one which i guess you would not want to go back to. I can now quite understand your reaction to the images that were posted by Nigel. Please don't hold it against him. I'm sure had he been aware of the sensitivities, we would not have been as thoughtless with the post. Us non-boatyard owners (non-living in Norfolk people in fact), find the history of Broads yards fascinating, and thirst for more and more information, without registering that each boatyard closure is not just a business decision, it's often a personal tragedy in someone's life. Nigel's history of Ludham site, is really to just a means of satisfying that curiousity, but presented in an abstract way. In this case, egg shells were not just walked on, they were broken. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The slump that Vaughan writes of with such passion took down rafts of yards across Broadland. Some of us were more lucky than others in the manner in which we departed the industry. Today there are nowhere near the number of small yards that there were back then thus I don't see a repeat in yard closures but it might be a year or two before we see the reinvestment and growth of recent years being repeated. This time around I fear that we will lose pubs and cafes, small businesses that depend on the boats for their customers. This will inevitably impact the Broads as we know it. We lost riverside souvenir and provision shops both last time and since, remember the stores at Acle Bridge? Even as a local I stopped of at Reedham or Brundall for a poke around the riverside shops, buying things that I liked but often didn't really need, such was the tapestry of the Broads. I do fear for the remaining small businesses that depend on the boats. For so long much of the attraction of the Broads has been the small businesses along the banks. Which of these small businesses will be here next year?

 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All

Just to clarify all this, let me be clear that I had no idea that Vaughan would be offended by the photographs. If I had known, I would not have posted them.

So, Vaughan, I am very sorry that I offended you. It was not intentional.

You could ask the moderators to remove the photographs. I would be happy with this.

I think the best way forward is to say that if Forum members want pictures or other information from the Ludham Archive then send us an email to enquiries@ludhamarchive.org.uk and our helpful and prompt enquiry service will help you.

Nigel (Ludham)

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nigel, it was a one chance in many tens of thousands that you regretfully hit an understandably raw nerve.  PLEASE don't be deterred from posting Ludham's history online in the future. I will say that the depth of the research that you and your friends go to is nothing short of amazing. History is at its best when it is shared and for that I thank you.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Nigel, it was a one chance in many tens of thousands that you regretfully hit an understandably raw nerve.  PLEASE don't be deterred from posting Ludham's history online in the future. I will say that the depth of the research that you and your friends go to is nothing short of amazing. History is at its best when it is shared and for that I thank you.

Agreed. And any objections could be better expressed by a PM in the first instance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my standpoint as a long time member but irregular poster, I have enjoyed and learnt huge amounts from both Vaughan and Woodwose (Nigel) over the years and would urge them both to continue imparting their Broads knowledge to us.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Nigel, it was a one chance in many tens of thousands that you regretfully hit an understandably raw nerve.

Excuse me Peter but it wasn't.  That photo of the ruins of my home is abhorrent, distressing and actually sickening.  It has just cost me another night's sleep in addition to all those that I lost at the time and above all, it adds nothing positive whatsoever, in any way at all, to the history of the village of Ludham.  A moment's thought before posting  should surely have prevented this.  It wasn't even relevant to the question that had been asked by the OP of the thread.

 

2 hours ago, floydraser said:

Agreed. And any objections could be better expressed by a PM in the first instance.

Really.

In my time I have had many of my photos published in tourist brochures, for Blakes and other companies.  Photographers will always tell you how vital it is to get permission when photographing people or their property - or sometimes their boats - even when taken in a public place.  Otherwise you can easily get sued and many have been, for the slightest reason.

The PM that you suggest should have been to me from Nigel, to ask if he could post 3 photos on this forum, all taken of my property by someone standing on my property, on 3 different occasions and all without my knowledge or permission. I can say now that if I had been asked about the photo of the bungalow in ruins I would not have wanted it posted. After all, what has it achieved?

To Nigel, I thank you for your apology and I accept that in good grace.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Vaughan while this may well be very distressing for you facts are facts history is history as many would do well to realise now, Nigel has done nothing wrong and I am sure you would appreciate his post like so many other posts and photos have  been appreciated if it wasnt so close to home, I am sorry but you cannot  censure stuff just because it brings back memories.

Fred

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

I am sorry but you cannot  censure stuff just because it brings back memories.

I completely disagree. Vaughan has explained why the photos in question caused him distress. Nigel has apologised and stated he wouldn't have posted them if he'd realised they'd cause distress. May I respectfully request the moderators to remove the photos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Really.

In my time I have had many of my photos published in tourist brochures, for Blakes and other companies.  Photographers will always tell you how vital it is to get permission when photographing people or their property - or sometimes their boats - even when taken in a public place.  Otherwise you can easily get sued and many have been, for the slightest reason.

The PM that you suggest should have been to me from Nigel, to ask if he could post 3 photos on this forum, all taken of my property by someone standing on my property, on 3 different occasions and all without my knowledge or permission. I can say now that if I had been asked about the photo of the bungalow in ruins I would not have wanted it posted. After all, what has it achieved?

It's achievement was to add to the knowledge of the history of the Broads on this forum like countless other posts. I wasn't going to reply but you left a question mark and while I'm here:

The photos came from an archive. Where does the archive get it's photos? Are they given to the archive with publishing rights? Who supplied them to the archive and did they give permission for them to be reproduced? And who was the photographer? A carefully worded PM to Nigel may have got you some answers and some closure on the situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread raises complex issues about posting historical photographs on the Forum. This is a public forum and anyone can read it, so how can any of us be sure that we are not going to offend someone somewhere?

For example, the other day, Vaughan posted a thread asking for photographs of the Black Horse Pub and I provided some. However, the Black Horse is also a local business that failed and was demolished for housing. How do we know that it wasn't somebody's pride and joy? Maybe someone was equally upset to see these pictures.

Similarly, in an earlier post on this thread, Vaughan has posted a picture of Harrison's Boatyard. Now this was a boatyard that was demolished to make way for his own house. Maybe this has upset the Harrison Family? I could ask them.

You know, Ludham is a chocolate box village which looks timeless, but this is an illusion. It is constantly changing and evolving. This is why we take so many present day photographs. In a few years they look like ancient history. I don't think we can pretend that things are unchanging. Would it be better to hide photographs of people and places that are no longer with us?

The Ludham Archive is a digital collection. We do not keep physical things. Instead we scan them and return them to the donor. In return, they sign a form saying we can keep and publish. Photographs scanned in this way are protected from fading away and can be carried down the river of time for future generations to see and enjoy. We all enjoy looking at old photographs.

I have no idea how I can possibly separate photographs into those which might offend and those that will not. Who am I to say? I don't own these things. I am just the custodian for now.

In view of this, I don't see how I can post any more items from the Archive Collection on this Forum. If you have historical questions, our enquiries service will help you.

Nigel. Ludham Community Archive Group

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the poster of the photo that upset another member has stated that he would not object if it were removed and the particular image in question adds little to the thread may I respectfully ask if the mods would consider its removal .

I understand the importance of recording history and find before and after images fascinating I don’t however see the need to reproduce and publish the actual images of the destruction/demolition of someone’s home .

I do also hope that Woodwose , and Vaughan both continue with their insightful posts both by word and supporting images 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, woodwose said:

I think this thread raises complex issues about posting historical photographs on the Forum. This is a public forum and anyone can read it, so how can any of us be sure that we are not going to offend someone somewhere?

For example, the other day, Vaughan posted a thread asking for photographs of the Black Horse Pub and I provided some. However, the Black Horse is also a local business that failed and was demolished for housing. How do we know that it wasn't somebody's pride and joy? Maybe someone was equally upset to see these pictures.

Similarly, in an earlier post on this thread, Vaughan has posted a picture of Harrison's Boatyard. Now this was a boatyard that was demolished to make way for his own house. Maybe this has upset the Harrison Family? I could ask them.

You know, Ludham is a chocolate box village which looks timeless, but this is an illusion. It is constantly changing and evolving. This is why we take so many present day photographs. In a few years they look like ancient history. I don't think we can pretend that things are unchanging. Would it be better to hide photographs of people and places that are no longer with us?

The Ludham Archive is a digital collection. We do not keep physical things. Instead we scan them and return them to the donor. In return, they sign a form saying we can keep and publish. Photographs scanned in this way are protected from fading away and can be carried down the river of time for future generations to see and enjoy. We all enjoy looking at old photographs.

I have no idea how I can possibly separate photographs into those which might offend and those that will not. Who am I to say? I don't own these things. I am just the custodian for now.

In view of this, I don't see how I can post any more items from the Archive Collection on this Forum. If you have historical questions, our enquiries service will help you.

Nigel. Ludham Community Archive Group

Nigel, 

While I understand that being the gentleman you are you have taken this decision can I ask you to rethink it as your contributions are a valuable asset to both this forum and Norfolk in general.

Sadly someone somewhere is always going to be offended that is the way of the world be it on this forum or elsewhere in life, there are many things that I and I am sure others would find in their past that causes sadness but I have to accept that there will always be reminders and just have to deal with it so please continue to give us the benefit of your knowledge and library.

Fred  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been rather more 'flying off the handle' as a result of various contributions to this thread - contributions I might add which were made in all innocence by everyone.

No offence intended but clearly, offence taken.  Perhaps the 'pm' route would have been the most appropriate ?

Time to call 'stop' on this one now. It's souring the atmosphere here .

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly I have to agree with Nigel, as much as I have enjoyed the photos that he has posted over many years on this, and other fora there is no way that he can know if any particular image is going to cause upset or offence. 

It has certainly made me rethink how I share images online and will in future perhaps be much more circumspect and hesitant in doing so. 

People tend to relate certain things with times in their lives, for me it might be a song, a film, a place even. For others as in this case an image. Some rekindle good memories, others not so good memories of less happy times. There are to this day a couple of songs and a couple of movies I cannot bear to hear or watch and a certain place I cannot bring myself to visit. These were favourites of mine and my late fiance, and despite the fact that she died thirty years ago next week that nerve is as raw today as it was then. 

All I can say is that having known Nigel through these fora for close to twenty years, a person less likely to wish to cause offence is difficult to imagine.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're not careful we'll be too scared to post anything! It's called life!

Maybe we all need a yardstick for comparison: my own is someone who witnessed terrible things in the trenches of WW1, came home and raised a decent family without compensation or sympathy for mental health.  If he could cope with that I reckon I don't have a lot to bleat about.

And what about Lockerbie/Grenfel Tower etc etc. Imagine how the relatives feel when they are dragged back onto our screens for some seemingly justifiable reason, and without warning.

Ironic they warn you about upcoming football results though; well they wouldn't want to upset anyone would they?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could I please just say that I would never want to discourage anyone from posting historic photos and that very much includes Nigel and the Ludham Archive.  I am a great lover of Ludham.  I was a special constable there for 7 years and I was also a member of the church choir for several years.

I am quite happy to post photos of the old gunboat Morning Flight, although she is no longer there.  In fairness I think this incident is a glaring exception which could have been avoided but Nigel has apologised and that is fine by me.

I am also very glad to see his apparent confirmation that my yard was actually on the site of the old Harrisons yard.  If he is in contact with the family I would ask him to please convey to them how proud I was to be the keeper of a genuine Norfolk Broads wherry yard and also how devastated I was to be forced to put an end to hundreds of years of history and tradition.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On 08/07/2020 at 17:09, woodwose said:

Maybe this has upset the Harrison Family? I could ask them

I recently found out I am a descendant of the Harrison's. If you know them I would like to connect. Thomas Robert CoSsey apprenticed under Robert Moon Harrison. Thomas eventually married Robert's daughter Mary Elizabeth Harrison. They emigrated to Canada and built boats here for the Hudson's Bay company. Cosseys set up shop in Ontario, one of the Harrisons opened a boat yard in Toledo Ohio. Their brother in law William Lake settled in BC with a boat yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
On 09/07/2020 at 01:31, Vaughan said:

 If he is in contact with the family I would ask him to please convey to them how proud I was to be the keeper of a genuine Norfolk Broads wherry yard and also how devastated I was to be forced to put an end to hundreds of years of history and tradition.

Vaughan 

As a member of the Harrison family and part of it's boat building heritage I for one - and I am sure I can speak for the rest of the family - am very appreciative of your dedication and love you had for the property.

I can understand the feelings of loss having just gone through trying to save a historic tug, designed and built by my grandfather, restored and sailed by my father, only to have an uncaring and naive City Council cut her up for scrap.

I too am grateful to Nigel for his work in helping me discover my roots.

Thank you both for helping future generations understand this location and it's history.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Sponsors

    Norfolk Broads Network is run by volunteers - You can help us run it by making a donation

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.