User talk:TheCreteFleet

April 2023

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page.

Cullen328 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, you are happy with the completely unresearched, bunkum, fake news history that exists on Wikipedia about the concrete barges at Rainham Marshes. It’s fine. It only acts to make Wikipedia a completely unreliable source. I used my non commercial website as a reference point because it represents many years of academic research. You clearly prefer to reference sites that have done NO research and worse still, use a form of words to make a statement that has no absolutely no historical basis in fact. Frankly, I don’t care. Let Wikipedia be a source of fiction and leave me to try to establish the facts 2001:BB6:4BFF:E800:803A:5275:F300:FD92 (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually know how you have the audacity to block me when you are allowing 'circular citations' or completely fictional statements about the concrete barges at Rainham and acting to discredit Wikipedia as a source. What exactly do you know about these barges. Here's the truth :-

The Concrete Barges of Rainham Marshes, and does their history really matter ?

The very top hit on Google for ‘Concrete Barges Rainham Marshes’ takes you here :-

https://www.londonriversidebid.co.uk/news-and-events/local-history-concrete-barges-and-the-diver

The purpose of this Blog is to review the material presented their and to ‘Fact Check’ what has been stated :-

London Riverside Bid

This is what is written :-

“Disputed Facts”

"There is still some discussion about the origin and use of these barges and no account seems to be accepted as definitive. Research suggests these may have been constructed as part of the preparations for D-Day, although evidence is scarce and disputed. Apparently, the UK and US Governments ordered the construction of these barges made of reinforced concrete because steel was in short supply.

They were towed across the channel as part of the immense project to create artificial harbours for the Normandy landings, helping to move men and equipment to the shore and to transport fuel to other ships engaged in the invasion".

Fact Check : No, this is completely incorrect. The Petrol Barges never went to Normandy, they were not part of the Mulberry Harbours and they couldn’t move men or equipment. The Open Barges were not used to transport men or equipment to Normandy either, they were designed and utilised primarily for lighterage on inland waterways (such as the Manchester Ship Canal, River Mersey etc) and docks (such as Liverpool and Bristol)

"200 were commissioned in 1940, initially to serve as petrol carrying barges (the so-called PB200s). They were engineered by Mouchel, and constructed by Wates. These same companies, along with others, performed similar roles for the Mulberry harbours, hence the connection with D-Day.

The barges weigh 160 tons and were constructed on the London dockside before being craned into the water by the giant PLA Goliath crane".

Fact Check : No. it was 1943. The PLA crane was called ‘Mammoth’. It was a floating crane. The crane named ‘Goliath’ was at Harland & Wolff at Belfast, along with ‘Samson’ and they are gantry cranes.

It’s interesting to note (later) just how many times the PLA crane is called Goliath in other articles about the barges.

“But why are they here in Rainham today?”

"So it goes that in 1953 they came to the rescue a second time when they were used to shore up the flood defences of the estuary, which were damaged by a huge storm and surge tide. They were towed back here to Coldharbour Point and sunk to protect against the worst flooding the Thames had seen in years, remaining here ever since".

Fact Check : Absolute fantasy. ”So it goes” almost introduces the idea that you are about to hear a myth ! They were never in Normandy and there is definitive photographic proof that they were on the banks of the Thames on February 3rd 1953. They were being stored on the Thames itself, and at Ham Pits near Richmond.

In essence, this article by London Riverside Bid, describing the Rainham Marshes barges, propagates the Urban Myth by virtue of being the top hit on a Google search.

I have written to them twice offering them the opportunity to correct their article, but they simply ignore me. I am not saying that it discredits the entirety of the London Riverside Bid, just the article in question.

The Google site ‘Concrete Barges’, also a first page hit, sadly references https://www.londonriversidebid.co.uk/news-and-events/local-history-concrete-barges-and-the-diver so this doubles down on the Urban Myth.

The London Riverside Bid article cite their information sources to be :

1. Londonist https://londonist.com/london/history/visit-these-concrete-ships-from-wwii

I have written to them because right now, this is what they state :-

“The barges played a key, if poorly documented, role in the Normandy invasion of June 1944. They were used to transport fuel to other ships engaged in the invasion, and may have formed parts of the Mulberry harbours and pontoon bridges that helped move men and equipment to the shore.

Most of the concrete ships are long lost in the English Channel. These particular hulks were reportedly given a new lease of life in 1953, when they were towed back to the Thames and sunk, to shore up damaged flood barriers”.

Fact Check : I’m afraid this is largely incorrect other than the statement that the role of the barges was ‘poorly documented’. The barges were not lost in the English Channel, the majority are still amongst us 80 years later

I say ‘was’ because following intensive historical research, along with definitive corroborating photographic and documentary evidence, the history of the World War II barges is no longer poorly documented.

2. Concrete Barge.co.uk

The ‘reportedly’ link in the Londonist takes you to www.concretebarge.co.uk, another London Riverside Bid source, which states :-

From "Abandoned relics of war":

"During the Second World War, steel was in short supply. Governments in the UK and the US ordered the construction of barges made of reinforced concrete. The barges now abandoned on the Thames mud at Rainham were towed across the channel as part of the immense project to create artificial harbours for the Normandy landings on D-Day. They formed part of one of the Mulberry harbours. Then in 1953 they came to the rescue a second time when they were used to shore up the flood defences of the estuary which were damaged by a huge storm and surge tide. Towns along the river estuary were inundated and devastated by the worst Thames floods in living memory."

Fact Check : Sadly, I cannot find an internet source for ‘Abandoned Relics of War’ itself.. I see the information in this paragraph quoted many times, but not the source document itself. Even assuming the source can be found, it is utterly fictiona,l as I have proved with solid, referenced, historical evidence

The London Riverside Bid article uses essentially the same form of words.

Now, I just wish to say ‘Chapeau’ to David Bullock who created www.concretebarge.co.uk around two decades ago, primarily as a protest against the demolition of the Canvey Island Petrol Barge by the Canvey Island Yacht Club.

This website, no longer updated, was, for me, an amazing source of background information and clues. The ‘digital resources’ and archives available to me in today are far more expansive than anything available to Dave Bullock 20 years ago, and the creator himself stated to me that he hadn’t done anything on the site for years. Importantly, he stated :-

“Our' FCB would have been a fuel barge and we have no evidence it went to Normandy, it was just local legend”.

The links below are essentially the pages relevant to this subject. I wish to state that without the efforts of individuals to try to document the history of these concrete barges – without the prior art and research – my research task would have been infinitely more difficult.

http://www.concretebarge.co.uk/02-canveybarge/3-history/02-history.htm

http://www.concretebarge.co.uk/02-canveybarge/3-history/03-history.htm

What Dave Bullock did was present such evidence as he could find without making any statement that the barges went to Normandy. Indeed, his coverage of the matter is very ‘tongue in cheek’ in parts, and he is appealing for information and for proof.

3. Beyond the Point

The next source quoted is :

http://www.beyondthepoint.co.uk/property/rainham-marsh-concrete-barges/

Creators of many interesting articles, they actually quote verbatim the write up by David Kemp http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1022440, but also add a bit of fiction for good measure :-

“Barges of these type were particularly important during the D-Day Normandy landings, where they were used as part of the Mulberry harbour defenses, with uses such as fuel and munitions transportation, blockships, and as floating pontoons”.

Now, this precise form of words comes from Wikipedia. If there is a predominant source of 'Fake News' about Concrete Barges and Ships, it is Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_ship is the Wikipedia page that I attempted to correct and ended up indefinitely blocked, simply because I was actually citing a website that I created to share information, freely, that has been intensively, and indeed expensively, researched over the past years!

Just consider the information sources that the Wikipedia article cites :-

Citation (13) : https://web.archive.org/web/20180928035838/http://www.usmm.org/concrete.html makes absolutely no reference to concrete barges but rather to recollections of ‘D-Day 1944’

Citation (14) : You guessed it, https://www.londonriversidebid.co.uk/news-and-events/local-history-concrete-barges-and-the-diver !

Citation (15) https://www.canveyisland.org/history-2/memories/the-1950s-and-beyond/canveys-concrete-barge-2. Robert Hallman on 20th October 2010 makes no assertion that the Canvey Island barge went to Normandy, indeed he, refers to his own book and to the words of the Commodore of the Canvey Island Yacht Club who stated ‘Hundreds of these oil/water barges remain dotted around the Thames Estuary’s rivers and creeks, in use or otherwise.’

So, not only is the Wikipedia article utterly fictional, the citations do not actually prove the assertions in the article. They can’t of course, because they are factually incorrect, indeed fictional.

4. Geograph

I wrote to the author of https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1022440, one of the sources used by this article, to tell him that the name of the crane was wrong, he did his research and corrected his own article so that it stated PLA crane ‘Mammoth’. Let’s look at what he actually says about the “Ferro-concrete barges, Rainham waterfront “: -

“These barges are made largely of concrete set in a steel framework. Contrary to what the Havering Council notice says nearby, I have found no evidence that they were used in connection with the D-Day landings or the construction of Mulberry harbours.

What we do know is that 200 were commissioned in 1940 to serve as petrol carrying barges (the so-called PB200s). They were engineered by Mouchel, and constructed by Wates (using pre-cast panels built by Marley). These same companies, along with others, performed similar roles for the Mulberry harbours. The barges weigh 160 tons and were constructed on the London dockside before being craned into the water by the giant PLA Mammoth crane.

For some years after the War such barges were used for supplying fresh water to naval ships.

There is still some discussion about the origin and use of these barges and no account seems to be accepted as definitive. Were they, for example, ever actually used or weren't they? For more about these concrete barges and others visit Link."

(The Link is www.concretebarge.co.uk)

Fact Check : Balanced, accurate, acknowledges a lack of evidence and so doesn’t repeat the fake news

5. Hidden London

The final source put forward by London Riverside Bid is http://hidden-london.com/gazetteer/coldharbour-havering/which simply states :-

“These are concrete barges stranded on the mud here. These were used as part of a Mulberry harbour during the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944. The barges were utilised to shore up flood defences in 1953 but are now abandoned”

Fact Check : The assertion is fanciful & factually incorrect. If one follows the Mulberry Harbour link, it takes you to Wikipedia, a thoroughly discredited source of information, but anyway makes no reference to the subject matter of concrete barges.

The rest of the first page positions are largely made up of Flickr Photos, You Tube Videos & Tweets and this from Inspiral London : https://www.inspirallondon.com/event/rainham-marshes-rainham-barges/

“Rainham Concrete Barges were constructed during the Second WW. Their hulls formed from ferroconcrete — concrete reinforced with iron. They were used as oil barges or as floating structures to support temporary docks for D-Day Landings or for other wartime improvised engineering. 16 remaining Barges were given a new lease of life after the storm floods in 1953. Towed back to the Thames, then sunk, to shore up damaged flood barriers against future tidal surges”.

Fact Check : Nonsense

It's easy to see how fake news spreads and how circular these references truly are.

My objective is not to place blame, but rather to get the published history of the Concrete Barges at Rainham corrected by those that command the first page search space. I have tried ! This blog is me trying again.

I entitled this Blog “The Concrete Barges of Rainham Marshes, and does their history really matter ?” and my answer remains YES, it does matter. Not so many people survive today that had first hand experience of World War II, and, sadly but inevitably, that number will continue to reduce. I personally feel a duty to chronicle history accurately and this requires a huge amount of research, research that is aided and enhanced by the digital resources now available to us (all).

There’s some good news - accurate news, researched news, the real news !

Page 2, search result 16 for ‘Concrete Barges Rainham Marshes’ (at the time of writing) , is none other than www.thecretefleet.com.The site seems to be moving up the rankings quite quickly, and all that I can hope, beyond having the existing top positioned articles corrected by their authors, is that it makes the first page and people read it and use it as a source. My website presents the evidence, I make no assertions of anything that I cannot prove with documentary evidence.

I don’t know the exact date that the Rainham Marshes concrete barges were placed in position, but it was factually before 3rd February 1953. I know that they are there now, over 70 years later.If, as is generally accepted to be the case, that they were a rapid response to coastal flooding after the Great Flood of 31st January 1953, then the probability is that they were moved there between 1st February 1953 and 3rd February 1953.

A later photograph from 8th October 1953 shows 26 concrete barges at Rainham Marshes and I know for sure that, from Torbay Express and South Devon Echo on 11th February 1953, :-

The War Office stated to-day that an urgent call was received from the Essex River Board for the sea-wall to be reinforced last night between Purfleet and Rainham where it was considered that the temporary wall might collapse in the event of a high tide’.

This may explain why the addition 10 barges that appeared between 3rd February 1953 and 8th October 1953. The additional barges were of course, subsequently removed and hence there are 16 at Rainham Marshes today that are unlikely to ever go anywhere ! 2001:BB6:4BFF:E800:AC7A:13A5:1907:6147 (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]