# Underwater Ballroom : Update Dec 22/2012



## Mars Lander (Dec 22, 2012)

Hi everyone, I have been contacted by the owner , he is very distressed , after apologising, I told him that I would spread the word as best as I can, that people shouldn't go and aren't welcome which is fair enough.

I suppose when one purchases such wonder, the fact that legions of splorers may start to arrive is not an initial consideration but none the less, a sympton that most people would find disturbing if thet actually live there and the folley is too close to home

One could argue that something this good should be open to the public and shared as I have done, but ultimately it's this guys private property and it is up to him what he chooses to do with it and we must respect that. I for one thought the place to be in an unoccupied area but this isn't the case.

Don't thnk the coverage in the Daily Mail helped too much either.

Also if people do continue to visit , there is a possiblilty that the ballroom itself maybe destroyed to prevent further visits and again I ask that people do not try and visit this.

All the very best to you all , have a happy Christmas and beyond.


----------



## MD (Dec 22, 2012)

perhaps if you had just visited and not put pictures on public forums 
it might have stayed open a little longer 
i dont want to open a can or worms saying stuff should be seen / stuff should be hidden 
just saying


----------



## krela (Dec 22, 2012)

Some places shouldn't even be visited.


----------



## Derelict-UK (Dec 22, 2012)

The majority of the pictures to this place has always been in non-public due to this very reason, It's not a mega secret, nor is there anything to steal, however no-one wants to see it trashed or damaged.

I didn't realise that the DM had run a piece on it, that certainly won't help things!


----------



## UrbanX (Dec 22, 2012)

Fair play. Could see this coming TBH!


----------



## UEP-Wales (Dec 22, 2012)

Does any building owner like us going in them without them knowing?


----------



## UrbanX (Dec 22, 2012)

If they live on site, then it's a different ball game...


----------



## cogito (Dec 22, 2012)

Same old story of rinse and repeat that's been going on for god knows how long now.

It's gone through various phases of being clusterf*cked only to be cut off for a while then rediscovered by whole new legions of new explorers every couple of years. All through various stages of flooding and drying out.

Given the amount of attention it's been receiving again lately it was only a matter of time.


----------



## sweet pea (Dec 22, 2012)

is there a report on this place on here??


----------



## mookster (Dec 22, 2012)

It didn't help that a group went and got caught on the lake in the middle of the day....


----------



## Mars Lander (Dec 22, 2012)

sweet pea said:


> is there a report on this place on here??



There was by me, Krela was asked to take it down at the request of the owner and I was also asked to remove it where applicable, as I posted it in the first place I felt duty bound and morally obliged to address it and apologise for any disturbance caused on my part

Am pleased to say have had further email contact with the owner and he seems a thoroughly nice chap indeed and glad my heartfelt apologies have gone some way to make things better between us


----------



## Ninja Kitten (Dec 22, 2012)

Thankyou for the info Alt..and all very understandable too..the Daily mail opened this place to the public in 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-Whitaker-Wright-Britains-bizarre-folly.html

its nothing new as before then she was also open on occasions..a quick scout on the web will show us that..it is said by some that some places should be kept non public..i think we all know that non public is most definatly not a sacred place. if you think that take off the rose tinted glasses..and also that if some places should not be visited then we better get a list going of what can and what cant be then hay...as at the end of the day in theory we shouldnt visit any where at all should we..? so this post as with any other post on any forum is no different at all, the same rules apply from a little derp in a field to a multi million pound palace,..they dont belong to us and are dear to the owners in some respect..so to say some places just shouldnt be visited is a huge contradiction to any forum..so this place is extremly unique i agree in some peoples eyes., and others its not so fasinating at all...so personally to try and distinguish what should and shouldnt be kept off a forum is personal choice as we are all different....i am neither happy nor sad that this place has been shut down so to speak, the is nothing remotly of any value to remove, the issue is with the owners intrusion of his property and privicy rights, and rightly so..and this issue of intrusion onto anothers belongings is what we are all guilty of in many respects..although a magnificent place to visit seeped in history and we all thoroughly enjoyed researching and learning about the folly,,and we had an incredible time exploring anothers belongings this place will be replaced by another facinating place before the week is out..what i take from this is a reminder that what we do can at times cause discomfort to owners and i shall as always fully respect them for kicking us all into touch a bit...


----------



## mookster (Dec 22, 2012)

krela said:


> Some places shouldn't even be visited.



Technically we shouldn't be visiting any of these places posted on the forum!


----------



## krela (Dec 22, 2012)

Ninja Kitten said:


> and also that if some places should not be visited then we better get a list going of what can and what cant be then hay...as at the end of the day in theory we shouldnt visit any where at all should we..? so this post as with any other post on any forum is no different at all, the same rules apply from a little derp in a field to a multi million pound palace,..they dont belong to us and are dear to the owners in some respect..so to say some places just shouldnt be visited is a huge contradiction to any forum..



I don't agree at all. There is a big difference in ethical considerations between invading someone's active and private space as is the case in some of the big manors and other buildings that have appear on the internet over the past year, and pottering round an empty commercial building or piece of land. Just because something is not inhabited or perfectly maintained does not make it abandoned or fair game. In some cases you are causing personal distress and making peoples peaceful private lives difficult. It is NOT the same thing as a cat and mouse game with paid security over the derelict asset of a faceless investment company.



> I am the owner of Witley Park. Somehow it is implied that the Underwater Ballroom in our park is derelict or abandoned and therefore 'fair game'. It is neither. We live here, it is our home. We do our best to look after the follies. Could you please remove the entries about Witley Park which is only encouraging more to come, some of whom do not have the best of intentions.



As is the case here it is plain it is causing personal distress, and to ignore that to me is disrespectful and incredibly selfish. So no, I don't believe this site should be 'explored'.


----------



## sweet pea (Dec 22, 2012)

thanks for that link ninja kitten thet place looks amazing i understand why he doesent want people in there


----------



## sweet pea (Dec 22, 2012)

not that im a veteran member on here (so i gues my opinion is rather invalid) this is one of those ones that shouldent be done it is crossing that moral line as cool as it would be to have a look its highly valued by the owner and not just left to rot and fall into decay like everything else on this site the underwater ball room is owned and cared for as cool as it is its clearly not derelict or abandoned i for one wouldent cross that moral line as cool as the place looks its intrusive and distressing to the owners


----------



## Ninja Kitten (Dec 22, 2012)

krela said:


> I don't agree at all. There is a big difference in ethical considerations between invading someone's active and private space as is the case in some of the big manors and other buildings that have appear on the internet over the past year, and pottering round an empty commercial building or piece of land. Just because something is not inhabited or perfectly maintained does not make it abandoned or fair game. In some cases you are causing personal distress and making peoples peaceful private lives difficult. It is NOT the same thing as a cat and mouse game with paid security over the derelict asset of a faceless investment company.
> 
> 
> 
> As is the case here it is plain it is causing personal distress, and to ignore that is disrepectful and incredibly selfish. So no, I don't believe this site should be 'explored'.



I stand by what i have said Krela, it is my personal view and im entitled to it as you are..at the end of the day non of these places are ours..and NOW it has been bought to our attention i am certain many myself included will respect the owners views,. as if we dont know then we cant act.
i do however find it quite offensive that you would presume i would ignore if an owner was distressed and that i would act in a disrespectful selfish way....any person that has explored with me knows that i am none of them..if any different..heres your chance..


----------



## mookster (Dec 22, 2012)

While I can see where Krela is coming from and it is clear this particular place in question is now a no-go, it's wrong to say it shouldn't be explored...you've just got to try not to get caught which has led to this happening in the first place - as we all know what the urbex tour bus is like, there are certain places that nobody wants the tour bus to roll up at because then it becomes clear what is going on...

Also Krela, when I posted up a similar 'this place is now a no-go' thread a few days back you had this to say "We generally don't do public service announcements. If people want to do daft things and get arrested that's up to them to figure out. There are lots of listed buildings with CCTV, security and alarms posted on internet websites." So why the change of heart? I don't see any difference between an active, alarmed business premises and a lived in building. You can't have it both ways either both have got to be doable or neither. This is not me looking for an argument, I'm just interested.

Also let's not forget GT Manor is partially occupied as well and that is a private residence....


----------



## krela (Dec 22, 2012)

Ninja Kitten said:


> I stand by what i have said Krela, it is my personal view and im entitled to it as you are..at the end of the day non of these places are ours..and NOW it has been bought to our attention i am certain many myself included will respect the owners views,. as if we dont know then we cant act.
> i do however find it quite offensive that you would presume i would ignore if an owner was distressed and that i would act in a disrespectful selfish way....any person that has explored with me knows that i am none of them..if any different..heres your chance..



NK I was stating why I believe that this site is no longer a valid 'target', I made no statement about your morals, intentions or anything else about you personally. Sorry if it appeared so.

Mookster it is not wrong for me to say anything, it is my opinion which is equally as valid as yours. I am not telling people what to do I am expressing a belief. I am allowed opinions, and I will express them in the same way everyone else does. 

I have always tried to keep a reasonably hands off approach to this forum as far as censorship goes, removing things only when they don't fit the rules/location guide, if the original poster asks me to, if a land owner approaches me personally with a reasonable request, or if the law requires me to do so. 

In this case the reports have been removed at the request of the land owner, who is distressed at the number of people visiting his private land. It would be amiss of me not to highlight this to other people. How you all respond to it is entirely up to you.


----------



## Ninja Kitten (Dec 22, 2012)

sweet pea said:


> not that im a veteran member on here (so i gues my opinion is rather invalid) this is one of those ones that shouldent be done it is crossing that moral line as cool as it would be to have a look its highly valued by the owner and not just left to rot and fall into decay like everything else on this site the underwater ball room is owned and cared for as cool as it is its clearly not derelict or abandoned i for one wouldent cross that moral line as cool as the place looks its intrusive and distressing to the owners



your opinion is very valid sweetpea and we are entitled to them...as said before i stand by my guns on what i say...Alot of places we visit are highly valued to their owners for reasons we never know...so to try and work out what one thinks should be left and shouldnt is personal choice....i for example visited a little derp in a field tumbling down to the ground...the owner after seeing me wandering back stopped and spoke with me...we stood and chatted and i told him i had been looking around the cottage,. i could see that he was deeply upset by this...not only had i intruded his property but i had also invaded his personal space which he found very distressing..after talking about the place for a while i began to realise just why he felt so strongly and objected so much as to what i had done...and i felt awful...
so for me and what i love doing i continually try to weigh up the ethical impact i may have on an owner of every place i visit..sometimes i get it right other times i get it wrong...but i always take on board and act respectfully to what i learn..and constantly get surprised as to what is very special, treasured, and conserved in what ever state by the owners.


----------



## UE-OMJ (Dec 22, 2012)

It's for this exact reason I wont visit Bull Manor - the owner lives/works on-site and doesnt want any of us there. So I respect that. As much as I would dearly love to see it, I wont.

Initially I hadnt realised this Ballroom was on an occupied site...

I dont think we can generalise with sites, but judge each one as it is discovered.


----------



## krela (Dec 22, 2012)

mookster said:


> Also Krela, when I posted up a similar 'this place is now a no-go' thread a few days back you had this to say "We generally don't do public service announcements. If people want to do daft things and get arrested that's up to them to figure out. There are lots of listed buildings with CCTV, security and alarms posted on internet websites." So why the change of heart? I don't see any difference between an active, alarmed business premises and a lived in building. You can't have it both ways either both have got to be doable or neither. This is not me looking for an argument, I'm just interested.
> 
> Also let's not forget GT Manor is partially occupied as well and that is a private residence....



Because that request came from the police, not a person in distress making a personal request.

For the rest of your question see my last post.

Also I am aware of Bull Manor and GT Manor and made my feelings on them both very plain at the time the issues came up.


----------



## Ninja Kitten (Dec 22, 2012)

UE-OMJ said:


> It's for this exact reason I wont visit Bull Manor - the owner lives/works on-site and doesnt want any of us there. So I respect that. As much as I would dearly love to see it, I wont.
> 
> Initially I hadnt realised this Ballroom was on an occupied site...
> 
> I dont think we can generalise with sites, but judge each one as it is discovered.



A large majority of the places we do have people livng aside it or in the vacinity , along a track, behind it, security, live in seccu....cctv...ect ect...the later at the owners request.. or with in eyes view...how we deal with it is up to us..

If we take anything from this it is to learn and always respect the owners wishes once bought to our attention..which after all...this is what this post is all about.


----------



## UE-OMJ (Dec 22, 2012)

...of course, the other side to this, we all enjoyed the original post, and we all got to see such a stunning place via your eyes & lenses, and we almost explored it with you as you told your story in the report. Personally I still thank you for that otherwise I'd have never have see it.

As NK says, once the owner knows and makes a request to stop, we should all listen and do as we're asked.


----------



## UEP-Wales (Dec 22, 2012)

A quick search online shows that its an occupied site, similar to Furhouse, GT, SOE Manor, Taliban School and a few others and let's face it, no owner likes the thought of somebody walking around their place and then telling others to go there. 

Before the thread turns into everybody posting their views on exploring these sorts of sites, I'm going to close it.


----------

