Inside the rare Cold War bunker on the market for £20,000 - and it has a VERY creepy surprise inside
A very rare Cold War bunker hidden in the Norfolk countryside has gone on the market for just £20,000 - with a very creepy surprise inside.
Dersingham's Cold War-era Royal Observer Corps (ROC) post was once part of a huge network of observation posts up and down the country.
It was built in 1957 as part of an early warning system to detect impending nuclear attack and calculate its fallout.
The remarkable remnant of history is set to be auctioned for a guide price of £20,000 on May 8 and is located on the edge of the royal Sandringham Estate.
Pictures of the spooky bunker show a metal ladder going down 15 feet into the ground.
Inside, there are merely two rooms in total - with the smaller containing the toilet, while the larger room was used for observation and sleeping.
But next to the rickety beads and threadbare walls, a bizarre naked mannequin can be seen in the photographs of the listing - making for a very strange sight.
With nothing on, and only having a blonde wig and fake eyelashes, the chipped and dented figure adds an eerie feel to the photos of the historic shelter, having clearly been neglected for many years.
While in use, the shelter would have been kitted out with standardised furniture in the form of canvas chairs, a folding table, shelf, cupboard and a pair of metal-framed bunk beds.
It's clearly of its time - as on the wall there also hangs an asbestos fire blanket.
On the shelves, there are old tin cans, while there's an old fire extinguisher in the corner.
The Dersingham post was manned by trained uniformed volunteers from the 1950s through to 1991, when the last posts were closed and either demolished or sold off.
Most remaining posts are in a derelict condition, which marks this particular one as a rare find.
Hidden in the middle of the countryside, its listing makes for an unexpected treat.
Three vital pieces of equipment would also have been housed here: the Fixed Survey Meter, the Bomb Power Indicator and the Ground Zero Indicator.
The post features two key constructions with a concrete Class A Orlitt hut above ground, and a hidden underground bunker.
Both structures were completed due to the heightened threat of nuclear war.
The Orlitt hut first emerged in key locations around the country to allow the ROC to monitor and assess possible attacks by aircraft.
Each hut was designed to house three observers, with each volunteer tasked with specific duties.
Mark Upston, of East Anglian Auction House, said: 'This is truly a special opportunity for those who are drawn to properties with historical significance.
'This post was once a vital part of our defences and will be a treasured asset to a buyer keen on preserving our past.'
In recent months, following growing threats of World War Three, Brits have been scrambling to get their hands on such shelters.
Hollow shells ready to be dug into a fearful resident's garden are being flogged on eBay for nearly £10,000.
Royal Observer Posts, designed to protect observers 15ft below the surface, are being snapped up for well over their asking price.
Specialist companies are even offering to build fully-fitted prefabricated structures - saying they have seen a huge increase in inquiries following the outbreak of war in Ukraine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- The Herald Scotland
Yes we should stand firm, but let's not make Russia our implacable foe
It is always dangerous to confuse leaders with countries since all of the former are mortal. Trump is not America. Netanyahu is not Israel. Putin is not Russia. In every case, the channels have to be kept open to a different future, rather than entrenched in assumptions of mutual assured hostility. Indeed, Russia offers the best possible example of that. Somehow, out of the Cold War madness, it produced Mikhail Gorbachev who saw that the system he presided over was unsustainable. That opened the way to co-existence and I feel fortunate to have lived through that interlude in history. At the moment, such reconciliation seems a pious hope. The objectives of the strategic defence review, with talk of 'immediate and pressing danger' are pretty Russia-specific. The threat may no longer be of Soviet hordes appearing with snow on their boots, but the message is much the same. Read more by Brian Wilson It is difficult to dissent from the premises on which this rhetoric is based. Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine are deplorable with no guarantee that he will stop there. Cyber attacks and destruction of energy infrastructure are among the new weapons of war in which Russia is prominent. On these grounds alone, it seems prudent to enhance our defensive capacity, which quickly translates into more money. Three per cent of our national wealth does not sound unreasonable, so long as it is spent on the right priorities. If the rest of Europe is doing it, then so should we. There is a difference, however, between sensible preparedness and an entrenched state of mind which refuses to recognise the perspective of the assumed enemy or prioritise diplomacy over polarisation. If nobody in government is recognising mistakes of the past, then they are missing a large part of this story. One of my Russian memories was created on a very specific date: August 17, 1998. As Trade Minister, I was in St Petersburg to open what was billed as the largest-ever UK trade show in Russia. Unfortunately, nobody came, apart from schoolchildren to pick up the freebies at the deserted exhibition stands. For it was also the day that the rouble collapsed. At that moment, the Russian economy was apparently in a state of terminal crisis. Under the Yeltsin regime, corruption had been rampant, state assets were stolen wholesale and vast sums were finding their way into western banks while Russia's coffers ran dry and the poor paid the price. Far from being treated as the criminals they undoubtedly were, the newly-minted Russian oligarchs and their ostentatious wealth were welcomed with open arms in the West. On the basis that it took a thief to catch many thieves, Vladimir Putin stepped into that void and, in what seemed a miraculously short time, restored economic order. In short, the West treated the break-up of the Soviet Union as an opportunity to be exploited rather than a very fragile new reality to be nurtured with care and respect. That was also the approach taken on foreign policy with an immediate push to extend the boundaries of the EU, and more significantly, Nato, as close as possible to the borders of Russia when it might have been prudent to apply a little more circumspection. This is an impossibly complex subject to be definitive on. The rights of former Soviet republics to seek collective security had to be balanced against Russia's fears of encirclement. As Putin's reign in the Kremlin continued, it became increasingly likely that he would exploit the latter whenever the occasion demanded. I saw some of this behaviour in negotiations over routes for pipelines which would carry oil and gas out of the former Soviet republics to the West. Short of having CIA stamped on their foreheads, it could not have been more obvious that some of those involved certainly did not have Russia's interests at heart – or indeed have any regard for them at all. There was far too much interference in what Russia still regarded as its own rightful sphere of influence. The more that perspective was disregarded, the more likely it became that nationalist sentiments would come into play, under a leader who knew exactly how to exploit them. Ukraine was always likely to be in that front line. In 1954, when dissent was not encouraged, Crimea was transferred from one Soviet republic (Russia) to another (Ukraine), which flew in the face of prior history. Once the Gorbachev genie was out of the bottle, Russian hostility to this arrangement soon emerged. Diplomacy might have forestalled the potential for trouble. Mikhail Gorbachev (Image: PA) In an upheaval as traumatic as the break-up of the Soviet Union, it was inevitable that not all the borders of new states which emerged would be clear-cut. Continuous international support for resolving these incipient conflicts peacefully, without becoming partisans in them, might have saved a lot of subsequent trouble and without a war based on what Kruschev and the Supreme Soviet decided for whatever reason in 1954. None of this in any way excuses the war that Putin has prosecuted in Ukraine though it might imply that negotiation is the only route to a solution. Neither does it call into question the need to defend our own population against the ambitions of any potential foe. The danger is that, around that objective, narratives are created from which it then becomes difficult to escape. We should be sure they are being written with due regard to past history and also future potential for peaceful co-existence. Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003.
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
This is not warmongering. This is facing up to reality
As for the UK's defence budget: 2% of GDP may meet Nato's floor, but it is woefully inadequate for the threats we face – especially for a nation that aspires to global relevance. Critics rightly bemoan overstretched armed forces and dependency on US equipment, yet scoff at increased spending. One cannot demand sovereignty without footing the bill. If we genuinely sought an independent defence, we would need to spend not 2%, but upwards of 7% of GDP, as France did in the Cold War. Within Nato, a more realistic and responsible figure is 3.5%. The age of cheap defence is over. Even if Europe wants security with American support, it must pay for it. Deterrence isn't warmongering – it's realism. Those who refuse to face that truth risk leaving us dangerously unprepared in a world that is getting less safe, not more –especially with the scramble to secure rare earth materials essential for so-called 'green' energy. Ian Lakin, Aberdeen. • Forget independence: the only political issue that matters right now is the severe risk of war with Russia. Nato's Article 5 requires members to assist any ally attacked, but the degree is not specified. Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron continue to bait the Russian bear in the naive belief that should retribution ensue, Uncle Sam will come steaming in. Yet Donald Trump rightly regards the war as Joe Biden's, and is unlikely to send much weaponry. The UK is at particular risk through escalation, since even if mutual bombardment is sub-nuclear, Russia is 70 times larger, with far more space for bunkers. George Morton, Rosyth. Read more letters Let's get free of US control The Government's Strategic Defence Review sets out 62 recommendations, which, we are told, the Government is expected to accept in full. Let us hope we have learned the lessons from the way the US has treated Ukraine and, indeed, the UK itself. We must take this golden opportunity to free ourselves from US control over every aspect of our defence. We must not buy any more F35 fighter aircraft, we must develop our own. Nobody, but nobody, must have control over when and against whom we use our weapons. Keir Starmer's shameless, grovelling give-away of our fishing grounds to the EU and our bioethanol industry to Donald Trump does not bode well for our autonomy as a nation. Doug Clark, Currie. Focus on welfare, not warfare Across the length and breadth of the UK the NHS and other public services are in desperate need of additional funding. In England alone the predicted funding gap for local councils in 2025/26 is £3.4 billion, a figure expected to rise to £6.9bn by 2026/27 according to research by Unison. In the third quarter of 2024/25 there were 106,000 workforce vacancies in NHS England with 27,000 nursing positions needing filled. One of the consequences of persistent understaffing has been widespread staff burnout. This has led to a mental health crisis amongst healthcare workers. Bearing all this in mind it is difficult to comprehend why Sir Keir Starmer is evidently determined to spend billions more on defence. If the UK, US, Russia, China and others keep upping the ante by spending more and more on increasingly sophisticated weapons the only beneficiaries will be arms companies and their shareholders. The inevitable outcome of continued escalation of tensions will be nuclear war and mutually assured destruction. It is surely time for our government to focus on welfare not warfare. Alan Woodcock, Dundee. Approaching a watershed I note excellent articles without undue slant this morning (June 3) from Kevin McKenna ("Out-of-touch Holyrood has sparked the rise of Reform") and Kathleen Nutt ("Is Farage's rise a threat to the Union? Probably not") on the realisation of the change happening in UK politics and also our wee corner of it. Whilst the mainstream parties resort to reverse-ferret policies and petty name-calling, Reform just seems to be getting on with the job. And it appears to be working. At last year's General Election many Scots lent their votes to Labour in Scotland, not to oust the Tories but to remove the SNP. It worked well. However it has backfired with the apparent resultant betrayal of the UK working class by this Labour Party. At the time many felt that the Scottish elections 2026 would be a shoo-in for Anas Sarwar. This is now nowhere near the case. As with the UK Labour leader, he has flip-flopped on so many issues and it's anyone's guess what his actual thoughts and policies are. This Thursday could be a watershed moment for Mr Sarwar and Scottish Labour. It is the most interesting by-election for years anywhere in the UK, certainly not for the quality of the candidates, but merely to give us a snapshot of what the Scottish public really think. Kenny Watson, Renfrew. • I enjoyed Kevin McKenna's reference to 'the great Holyrood toilet debate". Given the modern trend for suffixing scandals with 'gate', may I suggest 'Cludgiegate' as a suitable moniker? Mike Flinn, West Kilbride. Wake-up call to Scotland The by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse should be a wake-up call not just to the intending voters but the whole of Scotland. It would be correct to say that politics north of the Border is in a very sorry state, but the voters on Thursday have the opportunity to show that this particular electorate, and Scotland in general, does not want to to be fodder for a party that is insignificant in UK politics, and is only interested in furthering the personal interests of the leadership of Reform UK. If "reform" is the "in word", then it it should be used to reform, internally, our current national politics. We have the knowledge, expertise and personalities to do it ourselves. Mike Dooley, Ayr. Mind the language I agree, as I usually do, with Kevin McKenna's analysis and commentary on the gap between the "political elite" and working-class, minority communities in Scotland ("Scotland's political establishment must shoulder the blame for the rise of Reform", The Herald, June 2). As ever, Kevin uses strong and clear language to present his arguments. However, using language such as "evoking cheers and foot-stamping from the Bearsden Bolsheviks" and "troughers and frauds of the Scottish elite" simply adds to the range of invective and insulting behaviour that characterises the very tenor of debate of which he complains. Bob MacKinnon, Inverness. Nigel Farage (Image: Newsquest) Welding snub makes no sense News that Scottish Enterprise has refused to provide any support to an £11 million investment by Rolls-Royce in a state-of-the-art welding centre on Clydeside take one's breath away ("SNP in munitions ban hypocrisy row over Ferguson Marine", heraldscotland, June 3). This facility, developed in conjunction with the University of Strathclyde, would provide skilled jobs and apprenticeships, with the potential to attract further inward investment, to an area of Scotland that desperately needs all these. The decision seems to be based on the mantra that the Scottish Government doesn't believe in support for "munition manufacture". This approach demonstrates a total lack of common sense, whether seen from a defence or an economic perspective. Scots used to be known for their good sense. This decision, sadly part of a pattern under this administration, shows a total lack of it. John Jarvie, Solihull, West Midlands. Investigate these contracts Your story about South Lanarkshire's financial problems ("Building contracts to cost taxpayers £165m", The Herald, May 31) is really applicable to every council which adopted this hire purchase type of privately financed building project after its introduction by John Major and enlargement by Tony Blair. Supposedly legally binding contracts have resulted in substantial repayments for periods beyond 30 years. These contracts require investigation and auditing immediately. Are they equitable over long periods with varying bank rates? Who is benefiting from them at present times? Feuhold and leasehold terms have been revised despite having been historic legally binding contracts as it was recognised that – apart from administration charges – the fees were unearned income. Is it now the case that PPI and PPP are similar and excessive? The Establishment and governments tend to favour investors without checking their financial effects on the public purse. Until last week Thames Water dividends were a good example of this policy. If an in-depth study of these existing PPI and PPP contracts reveals excessive profits, then they should be revised or made subject to windfall tax repayable to the councils involved. JB Drummond, Kilmarnock.
Reuters
2 days ago
- Reuters
Moscow poses no threat to Britain, says Russia's UK embassy
LONDON, June 3 (Reuters) - Russia's embassy in London said on Tuesday that Moscow had no intention of attacking Britain, rejecting accusations by the British government of growing aggression and daily cyberattacks. Britain said on Monday it would radically change its approach to defence to address new threats, including from Russia, after endorsing the findings of an independently-produced Strategic Defence Review. After unveiling the defence overhaul on Monday, Healey said Europe was facing war, growing Russian aggression, new nuclear risks and daily cyberattacks. Russia's embassy issued a statement on Tuesday criticising what it described as "a fresh salvo of anti-Russian rhetoric". "Russia poses no threat to the United Kingdom and its people," the statement said. "We harbour no aggressive intentions and have no plans to attack Britain. We are not interested in doing so, nor do we need to." Relations between Russia and Britain are at their lowest level since the Cold War. They deteriorated further after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and Britain and other NATO members have provided large amounts of military aid and other support to Kyiv. China's embassy in London also criticised Britain's defence review, saying in a statement on Tuesday that the document deliberately misrepresented Beijing's defence policy to justify British military expansion. The review had described China as "a sophisticated and persistent challenge", citing its rapid military modernisation, including an expanded nuclear arsenal, and saying Beijing was likely using espionage and cyberattacks, and stealing intellectual property.
