Memorial in Mundesley for crew killed in 1941 submarine collision
The HMS Umpire, which measured 197ft (60m) long, had a crew of 33 and was heading north to Scotland as part of a convoy because of the risk of attacks by German forces.However, the submarine suffered engine failure and an escort was detached to stay with it. "Not surprising, a brand new boat often had some difficulties and they began to fall behind the convoy," Cdr Herman said.As a southbound convoy approached, HMS Umpire became separated from its escort. While it tried to get out the way, its "fate was sealed" when the bow of an armed trawler, the Peter Hendricks, collided with the submarine. "She began to sink immediately. The four on the bridge, the captain, the navigator and two lookouts were thrown into the sea, and the rest of the boat sank very quickly in about 60ft (18m) of water," Cdr Herman added.
'Company from shipmates'
The body of Sub Lt Stephen Godden, who was 25 at the time of the incident, is buried in the graveyard of All Saints Church. Cdr Herman said: "The Norfolk branch of the Submariners Association felt that Godden, the navigator - who washed ashore at Mundesley and is buried there - should have some company from the rest of his shipmates."The wreck of HMS Umpire lies on the seabed, designated under the Protection of the Military Remains Act 1986, where it continues to be visited by divers.
Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Museums 'could close' over UK watchdog guidance on single sex spaces
Museums Galleries Scotland made the claim in light of guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission A publicly-funded body has claimed museums could shut over guidance about trans people and women's toilets. Museums Galleries Scotland said the 'time and resources' needed to implement new guidance by a watchdog could force closures. In a landmark decision in April, the Supreme Court ruled that "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) recently closed a consultation on proposed changes to statutory guidance in the wake of the ruling. An interim EHRC update said trans women should not be permitted to use women's facilities and trans men should not be allowed to use men's facilities. A response from MGS said the Commission's proposals may "risk leaving trans people with no facilities at all" if changes could not be made. It urged the UK-wide watchdog to understand the "impacts and needs of trans individuals and organisations committed to trans inclusion". A consultation response from MSG said: "We have concerns that the content and process of the EHRC Code of Practice does not uphold the spirit of inclusion. "There is no guidance on how to include trans people, there is only information on how to exclude them. This has not made sufficient effort to offer advice to organisations who wish to remain or become trans inclusive." The response added: "When there is a need to 'prove' your sex, what proof will be acceptable given gender recognition certificates are not, nor are altered birth certificates. It is likely this role would fall on front-of-house staff, which we believe puts undue pressure on them." It added: "To avoid discrimination, it would require every person using toilets to be checked, adding substantial workload and staff costs. "The guidance implies that to allow trans people to use toilets that fit their identity would put organisations at risk of legal consequences. Yet, to not check everyone could lead to individuals in museums taking decisions to exclude trans people based on subjective tests, related largely to appearance." It also warned that some museums may be forced to close "while they invest time and resources to ensure adequate facilities". The response said MSG was aware of the public "policing toilets at heritage sites by making assumptions based on stereotypes". They said this created an "environment of suspicion and policing of everyone's gender presentation'. The response concluded: "We strongly encourage the EHRC to review their processes around this guidance and take the necessary time to understand the impacts and needs of trans individuals and organisations committed to trans inclusion." However, a spokesperson for analysts MurrayBlackburnMackenzie said: 'It is deeply concerning that a major national institution signed off and submitted such an ill-informed response to the EHRC consultation. The response fails to consider the needs of women and instead repeats trans activist talking points.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Readers reply: Are there too many pets?
Are there too many pets? Pet ownership goes up and up, particularly dogs and cats. But how many is too many? Gene Leonard, London Send new questions to nq@ This needs to be qualified: 'There are too many pets … for people who dislike dogs so much they can't enjoy green spaces, cafes and other public areas.' rewilder As I get older, I find myself questioning pet ownership. A pet exists for the sole purpose of pleasing its owner, giving it comfort, pleasure and companionship but also putting it at risk of abuse, pain, displeasure and abandonment. They are bred (often conforming to a human-designed ideal) or captured in order to perform human-pleasing duties. So, yes, there are too many pets for their human masters. 02Dscythe This is probably true unless you live with a cat, in which case the roles are reversed. kiramango I think there are too many abandoned pets, too many pets in rescue, too many designer pets with health problems because of their breed standards and too many dogs tied up outside leading lonely, deprived lives. We have one rescued dog, who is adored. He is walked on a lead three times daily, enjoys off-lead time playing in the fully fenced back yard, is fed the best possible food and is treated like a member of the family in all ways. I love cats, but I also love birds; I wish people would keep their cats indoors to protect the birds. The worst problem in our world is too many irresponsible humans, not too many animals. MythKenner From an ecological point of view there are too many of everything associated with humans, so yes, there are definitely too many pets. I doubt there's an easy way to solve that, though. unclestinky There are certainly far too many people involved in the selling of mindless rubbish surrounding the keeping of animals at home. Cat and dog fashion, cosmetics, toys: too many containers of senseless junk being shipped around the world. There are way too many nonsense pet food brands as well: 'Delicious morsels lovingly selected and served with rosemary and green beans.' What? It's a pooch, or a moggy; it can't read, it doesn't understand infantile advertising slop and it's not Jay Rayner. Pets are for companionship, a haven from loneliness for many, also to assist in teaching children about caring, responsibility, kindness, life, death and how not to develop into cruel, selfish brutes who think only of themselves and the next fix of cheap entertainment. bricklayersoption How many is too many? Well, I did a house-sit with 17 cats and I can tell you, categorically: that's too many. (Now, I ask people to define 'a few cats'.) Leoned There are far too many dogs now. Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them. It's time to reintroduce the dog licence at a realistic (high) level and set some rules and expectations around dog ownership, as there are currently none. So, one dog a household. On leads in all public spaces except enclosed dog fields, which would be funded by the licence fee. Breeding banned. Tougher rules on dangerous dogs. Some basic hygiene requirements on cafe and pub owners who allow dogs. Ownership banned if you fail to pick up dog mess – no excuses. This'll do for starters. Dennis1970 'Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them'? They really aren't. And cafes and pubs already have to meet hygiene standards. And there are rules and expectations around dog ownership. You can argue they need strengthening, but saying there are none is just untrue. Oldhairynose Too many inconsiderate dog owners use those extending leads in public spaces and expect others to get out of the way or else trip over them, or let their dogs foul the public spaces they insist on using for their dog's toilet needs. Add to that letting poorly trained dogs off their leads and then saying: 'He won't hurt you, he just wants to play!' Sundaygal NYC has too many. The streets reek of dog urine and too many owners don't clean up faeces – especially in Brooklyn – so walking is a dangerous hopscotch around smears of festering mess. It can't be very friendly for the dogs, either, which are kept locked up most of the day, against their nature. 80xd35 Dogs are an environmental disaster, from the contamination of waterways from improperly disposed waste – and how long will it take for those plastic poo bags to degrade even if they're used properly? – to the harmful effects on wildlife. Dylan Dog ownership is shown to improve people's physical health, pet ownership improves mental health and many people socially benefit from pets. The frustration is those few who mistreat their pets, have too many pets, don't pick up after their pets, let their cats out to kill birds – and those who spend all their time moaning about other people's pets. But the majority, who own pets with kindness and with social benefit, shouldn't have to be judged by the minority. specklefreckle We need dogs. They take us out, even in the rain. They help us to relax. They are true friends. It would be a sad world without them. Anne Meile I'd welcome a ban on the 'exotic pet' trade. Murdomania
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Kirkleatham Church View children's home praised by Ofsted
A children's home has been praised by inspectors for its "outstanding leadership and strong support", an inspection has View Children's Home in Kirkleatham, near Redcar, was rated as "good" overall after Ofsted inspectors visited in May and June. The home, which is owned and managed by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, was judged good at building trust with children and keeping them secure and Laura Wedgewood, who was praised in the inspection, said the work was "stressful" but "so rewarding". She said: "When you feel you've made that difference to a young person, well, it's a wonderful feeling." The home provides residential care for up to six children with social, emotional or mental health difficulties and four were living there at the time of the described the overall experiences and progress of residents and the support and protection offered as "good", while the effectiveness of leadership and management as "outstanding."Ms Wedgewood was praised for her proactive and collaborative approach, with the report stating: "The manager has built highly effective working relationships with other professionals involved in the children's lives. "She ensures that all professionals are acting in the best interests of children and challenges appropriately when plans are not being progressed." Inspectors highlighted the strength of communication with families and professionals, as well as children benefitting from trusted relationships with staff who provide emotional support and a sense of belonging. The home's outreach work was also commended, with parents valuing the support provided and reporting improved relationships with their said children are helped to understand risks such as substance abuse, exploitation and extremism. When children go missing, "staff act swiftly and coordinate with relevant agencies to ensure their safe return", the report said. Councillor Bill Suthers, cabinet member for children and families, said: "One of the real positives of 'in-house' care by the council's own dedicated professionals within our borough is it can help maintain a child's relationship with their own communities and families when appropriate."That can have enormous benefits for a child." Follow BBC Tees on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
