BBC News: "Prince Phillip to see Cutty Sark restoration"

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#2
Thanks for posting that SgtP. She used to have a top class collection of figureheads below decks, I just hope they were removed before the fire.

I worry about the plan to hoist her up as it will put strains on the hull that it was never designed to take. Victory's problems seem to stem from her not being supported properly (although they have taken decades to become apparent and have been aggravayed by shoddy workmanship during repairs).

Getting the rigging right could be interesting. In the sixties a very-long-retired vice admiral who had trained in sail visited Portsmouth after Victory was re-rigged and gave the Admiral Superintendent a fine bollocking for the rigging being wrongly refitted. Errors were corrected on the vice admiral's advice!
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#3
...he used to have a top class collection of figureheads below decks, I just hope they were removed before the fire...


Apparently safe and sound, to be revealed when Cutty Sark is open to the public again next year:

Cutty Sark Museum said:
...The entire figurehead collection was removed to storage for the duration of The Cutty Sark Conservation Project. The figureheads will be re-displayed in the new exhibition area in the dry berth when the ship re-opens in 2012...
[Source]
 

pg55555

Lantern Swinger
#4
.

Strangely enough the news items I saw never seemed to mention the fact that there was some sort of cock-up with the fire insurance.

Cutty Sark was undergoing restoration and had a fire. Now normally the ship would have been insured (either by the owners or the restoration contractors) but somehow there was a sudden outcry that the ship was facing scrapping because repairing the fire damage would cost another £4 - £6 million. Despite this being an obvious problem for the owners or contractor, somehow a huge PR campaign got going which managed "somehow" to get the money found from the National Lottery heritage fund - so basically the public covered the incompetence of whoever was meant to insure the ship.

It thoroughly disgusts me that the heritage money got siphoned off to cover the incompetence of the people who should have insured the works, especially as this happened at the time that £1.5 million couldn't be found to rescue HMS Whimbrel.

It's "who you know" that matters - not the actual facts.

.
 

pg55555

Lantern Swinger
#7
.

sgtpepperband,

Do you think it "right" for the Hertigage Lottery Fund to be abused to cover up for the mistake of the people who should have had the Cutty Sark insured against fire ?

Would you expect the nation to pay for your house to be re-built if you didn't insure it ?

There is so much other outrage on this site (and elsewhere) at the official cock-ups that cost the nation unnecessary money, why should this one be ignored.

.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#8
pg55555: Outrage all you want, but perhaps you should "put up or shut up". Without little evidence other than your comments, and the absence of other members' supporting comments, I smell a kipper. Perhaps you are a local whose project was turned down by Heritage Lottery Fund in favour of the Cutty Sark restoration? Money raised by the Lottery Commission is not "national funds"; it is money donated by those that buy the tickets in the hope that they win prize money - the residual funds go towards funding this and other projects of interest. Perhaps no insurance company would underwrite the Cutty Sark due to its unique historic construction and status. Would the Nation pay for my house if it was burned down? No - it's neither wooden nor of historical significance.

Either way, stop gobbing off about it or substantiate your dribblings with some evidence... :roll:
 

pinkprincess

Lantern Swinger
#9
"...at the official cock-ups that cost the nation unnecessary money..."

I think that you are confusing wasted public money obtained through taxation with money accrued from people choosing to gamble. Two totally separate issues dear. I worked for the Third Sector for free for a long time writing project plans, doing business development, writing memorandum and articles of association and helping them to attain charitable/social enterprise/community interest company status and writing funding bids, the heritage fund 'does what it says on the tin'.

Trusts and foundations are very specific about the types of project they will fund and have particular beneficiaries in mind. The Cutty Sark is a part of our history and is being preserved for our benefit and the benefit of our children etc... It will have been proposed along with other projects and 'won' on its merits, it has naff all to do with a 'cover up'. People would not know that insurance hadn't been purchased (and the public liability will have cost them an absolute fortune and may not have left enough in the coffers for 'accidental damage' etc) if it was (or maybe you aren't bright enough to realise that).
 
#11
When I win mega millions on my lottery flutter (see how confident I am) I will immediately bung a wedge into the kitty for Cutty Sark insurance - least I could do!
 

pg55555

Lantern Swinger
#17
pg55555: Outrage all you want, but perhaps you should "put up or shut up". Without little evidence other than your comments, and the absence of other members' supporting comments, I smell a kipper. Perhaps you are a local whose project was turned down by Heritage Lottery Fund in favour of the Cutty Sark restoration? Money raised by the Lottery Commission is not "national funds"; it is money donated by those that buy the tickets in the hope that they win prize money - the residual funds go towards funding this and other projects of interest. Perhaps no insurance company would underwrite the Cutty Sark due to its unique historic construction and status. Would the Nation pay for my house if it was burned down? No - it's neither wooden nor of historical significance.

Either way, stop gobbing off about it or substantiate your dribblings with some evidence... :roll:
Oh dear, you seem incapable of not trolling. IF you had actually looked up the facts then you would be capable of making a reasoned reply instead of a knee-jerk waste of space.

The original costs were partly met by the lottery. At the time of the fire the Trust had still got a short-fall on the funds needed to complete the work (partly a failure of funding and partly an underestimate of the total work involved). They got some aditional donations to cover "most" of the previous underfunding, but they also got the heritage money to cover the fire damage.

The fire damage should have been covered by fire insurance (either by the contractors or the owners (the trust). It was the trust's responsibility to ensure that the work was insured. They failed - but the heritage fund ended up paying.

You somehow think that the nation should cover up for people's incompetence - why ?

As I asked before, if you fail to insure your house, do you expect the government to pay when it burns down during building works ?

This is amusing that someone will not look to people being made responsible for their incometencies, but instead posts silly responses.

Just think about what happened, it's easy really.

.

Then, part-way through the retoration there was a fire. At that stage there was a a two-fold need. First the
 

Similar threads

Top