Today in history

No worries Nordic

26 th December 1980

Redelsham forest UFO incident :
Witnesses report the first of several sightings of unexplained lights near RAF Woodbridge, in Rendlesham Forest, Suffolk, England, United Kingdom, an incident called "Britain's Roswell.

Rendlesham Forest UFO: Are we any closer to the truth 42 years on?

Forty two years ago, a remote forest in Suffolk was the scene of one of the most famous purported UFO sightings in history. So just what did happen, and will we ever know for sure?

Vince Thurkettle was out chopping wood one morning in Rendlesham Forest in late December 1980 when a car drew up.

Out stepped two men, aged about 30, dressed in suits.

"Good morning. Do you mind if we ask you some questions?" asked one, in a well-spoken English accent.

Earlier, on 26 and 28 December, United States Air Force (USAF) security personnel stationed at nearby RAF Woodbridge had reported seeing strange lights in the surrounding forest.

Vince Thurkettle, now 64, was a forestry worker at the time of the incident
Forestry worker Mr Thurkettle's unannounced - and unidentified - visitors asked if he had been out the previous night. "I said: 'No,'" he recalls.

"They said 'Did you leave the house at all? Did you see anything?' I said: 'What?'

"They said: 'Oh, there's a report of some red lights in the forest... We're just checking.' And the two of them, very politely but firmly, asked me probably about 20 questions. I thought they were journalists.

"They suddenly said: 'Oh well, fair enough. There's probably nothing in it.' And left.

"So, I bought the papers every day for the next few days to find out what was going on and, of course, there was nothing."
,
Lt Col Charles Halt was one of the servicemen who claimed to have witnessed the UFO at Rendlesham Forest
Three years later, however, the sighting made a News of the World front page story. It proclaimed: "UFO LANDS IN SUFFOLK, And that's OFFICIAL"

The story was based on a memo from RAF Woodbridge deputy base commander Lt Col Charles Halt to the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

It was released by the US government and described an encounter with an apparent UFO in the forest.


Since then, the sighting has been the source of much debate and speculation among UFO enthusiasts and the subject of numerous books, articles and TV programmes.

In March 2020, a documentary concluded the sighting had achieved "legend" status, like Loch Ness or King Arthur.

The forest even has its own official UFO trail, complete with a life-size replica of a flying saucer.

The Forestry Commission has set up a UFO Trail in Rendlesham Forest, featuring a model based on what the USAF personnel claimed to have seen
Mr Thurkettle says the UK authorities have said they did not learn about the incident until Halt's memo.

But the memo was not written until two weeks after he received his visit, he says.

"So someone must have told them before," he says.

Only after the visit did Mr Thurkettle began to hear rumours of a UFO sighting in the forest.

Mr Thurkettle says he saw nothing unusual when he visited the scene of the supposed sighting
He begged his boss to show him the scene, but when he got there, "my heart absolutely plummeted", he says.

"It was nothing. It was an absolutely normal glade in the forest with three rabbit scrapes, and they're all carefully marked, that happened to be roughly in a triangle," he says.

"I mean, there was a ring of sticks around it, marking it. And I think, fair-do's to the Americans.

"If they'd been out at night and saw a light and came back in the daytime looking for something, I could totally understand why they... said: 'This must be it.'"


"It was a completely natural glade. And they've said things like: 'But there were broken branches.' Well, the forest is full of broken branches.

"They saw burn marks on the trees. They said: 'Obviously there was heat radiating out from the spacecraft and it burnt these trees.' But it wasn't. It was one of the rangers, Bill Briggs, with an axe."

Mr Thurkettle, now 64, was one of the first people to suggest an alternative theory to explain the sighting.

Could the beam from Orfordness Lighthouse explain the UFO sightings?
It took place, he says, in the only part of the forest where it was possible to see the since-dismantled Orfordness Lighthouse.

"It's weird because you've got a slightly sloping patch of Rendlesham Forest. Then, probably a couple of miles, then Gedgrave Hill. And there was a gap in the trees on Gedgrave Hill, then eight miles or whatever to Orfordness Lighthouse.

"UFO believers have talked to lighthouse keepers who said: 'It never beamed towards the land'. And I think: 'Rubbish'.

"I've stood in the beam of the lighthouse. I've looked at it and the forest."

But who were Mr Thurkettle's mysterious visitors? He isn't sure, but he gets annoyed when people assume he is claiming to have been visited by the fabled "Men in Black", who, it is said, interrogate and harass UFO eyewitnesses.

"I say: 'Oh, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm telling you that the chronology which is part of this story - it's wrong.'"

USAF security guard John Burroughs drew a sketch of what he says he saw on 26 December 1980
Journalist and academic Dr David Clarke, whose requests led to the MoD's file on the Rendlesham incident being released, says the most "logical explanation" was that Mr Thurkettle's visitors were local newspaper reporters, who had possibly learned of the incident from local police.

He says the original sighting by USAF security guards has not been fully explained.

"There is still an element of mystery. What happened to those three guys on the first night I still find baffling. Maybe they did see something that was inexplicable," he says.

One of those guards was John Burroughs. He went to investigate the sighting, and says he first saw a beacon in the distance in the forest with green, red, orange and white lights.

As he and his colleagues approached, Mr Burroughs says they saw a white light silently explode and then a red, oval, sun-like object in the clearing. It lifted up through the trees and shot back towards the coast.

Mr Burroughs, who served in the US armed forces for 27 years, says: "It's been a crazy 40 years [since the encounter]. Just when you think the story is over, another thing happens."

In 2020 he has published a new book - Weaponization of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon - in which he outlines research that, he says, shows the incident was caused by experiments in harnessing an energy field in the forest.

"They were studying the energy field for different applications to include military use," he says.

Mr Burroughs claims the lighthouse was "emitting EM (electromagnetic) frequencies towards Rendlesham Forest".

He stresses: "I never went on the record to say it was [a spaceship] because I didn't know."

What he saw was some sort of energy or "plasma which could be a form of intelligence", he says.

Rendlesham Forest has a UFO Trail for visitors to explore
Dr Clarke, writing in a blog, has interviewed Ministry of Defence (MoD) official Simon Weeden, who told him the Rendlesham claims were found to be of "no defence significance".

Mr Weeden, who left the MoD in 1988, was the first to investigate Lt Col Halt's memo.

"Nearly always the reports we got were from ordinary members of the public," he tells Dr Clarke. "This one was very unusual in that it came from a military source."

He circulated the memo but none of the radar stations checked reported anything unusual on their logs over the Christmas holidays.

"Once we had been through all the basic checks and found there was nothing seen on radar - no obvious explanation, no obvious threat to air defence - we decided no further action was needed," says Mr Weeden.


Brenda Butler , who was one of the first to investigate the case, regularly returns to the forest
Writer Brenda Butler, of Leiston, Suffolk, has been amused by some of the UFO tourism that has grown up around the forest.

"You realise we've got eight landing sites down here," she says.

"Everybody has got their own take on it. If you go down there with any of the witnesses, they'll take you to somewhere else."

Ms Butler, who co-wrote the 1986 book on the case, Sky Crash, believes the US may have recovered a Russian satellite.

"It has got to be something to do with the Americans or the Russians or the Cold War," she says.

"There are loads of files still to be released, but there has been such a big cover-up, nobody will ever know what happened.

"I'd like to get to the bottom of it all but I guess we never will."

27 th December 1836


  The Lewes avalanche :
                                  The worst ever avalanche in England occurs at Lewes, Sussex, killing eight people.



On this day in history : 27th December 1836 – The deadliest avalanche to be recorded in the United Kingdom occurs – not in Scotland or Wales, as would be expected – but in the South East of England….

   
Oil painting in the Anne of Cleves House Museum.

The West Sussex market town of Lewes is situated in a gap within the South Downs, on the River Ouse…. It is surrounded by hills – including to the east Cliffe Hill, rising to 164 metres above sea level….

At the foot of Cliffe Hill lies South Street….and at the time upon which lay ‘Boulder Row’ – a row of workers’ cottages – or ‘poor houses’, owned by South Malling Parish….

The winter of 1836-37 was very severe throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, with heavy snow and freezing temperatures, accompanied by gale force winds…. It had started snowing in the Southeast on Christmas Eve and was particularly heavy over the South Downs…. The snow persisted for the whole of the Christmas period – along with strong winds, which caused snowdrifts – some over 10ft high…. A huge snowdrift, reported as being over 20ft deep, formed on the top of Cliffe Hill, with an overhanging ledge – or ‘cornice’ – at the cliff edge….

Worried passers-by informed the inhabitants of Boulder Row and advised them to leave their homes…. But for reasons only known to them the residents chose to stay….most likely they had no other place to go in the sub-zero temperatures…. Even when on the 26th of December a large mass of snow fell from the cliff top on to a timber yard below – destroying it – they refused to leave….

The inevitable happened at 10.45 am on Tuesday the 27th of December…. The cornice collapsed – causing an avalanche of snow to crash towards Boulder Row beneath…. Witnesses reported that the cottages appeared to be struck at the base by the avalanche – which then broke above them like a huge white wave, completely burying them….

A rescue operation lasting several hours was mounted by the townsfolk…. Seven survivors were pulled from the snow and wreckage – and taken to the local workhouse for treatment…. Among them was a two-year-old child, Fanny Boakes; the white dress she wore that day can be seen in the Anne of Cleves House Museum, in Lewes…. A further eight people lost their lives, having died from suffocation or hypothermia….

The victims were buried in an unmarked, communal paupers grave in South Malling Parish Churchyard…. A fund was set up by the townsfolk to raise money for the families of those killed – and also for a memorial plaque – which is situated on the north wall of the church….

South Malling ChurchMemorial tablet:
     


Where the Boulder Row cottages once stood a public house can now be found…. Built in 1840 ‘The Snowdrop Inn’ was named in commemoration of the disaster….

     
The Snowdrop Inn, showing the cliff behind

28 th december 1879

The Tay bridge disaster :
Tay Bridge disaster: The central part of the Tay Rail Bridge in Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom collapses as a train passes over it, killing 75.


The Tay Bridge Disaster.

At approximately 7:15 p.m. on the stormy night of 28 December 1879, the central navigation spans of the Tay bridge collapsed into the Firth of Tay at Dundee, taking with them a train, 6 carriages and 75 souls to their fate.
At the time, a gale estimated at Beaufort force 10/11 was blowing down the Tay estuary at right angles to the bridge. The collapse of the bridge, only opened 19 months and passed safe by the Board of Trade, sent shock waves through the Victorian engineering profession and general public.

The disaster is one of the most famous bridge failures and to date it is still one of the worst structural engineering failures in the British Isles. Detailed accounts of the disaster are given by Prebble and Thomas. A fully revised new edition of David Swinfen's book on the disaster has just been published. The book, utilising recent research, addresses the questions: What caused the disaster and who was to blame. In addition, it examines the question of how many lives were lost.



The first Tay rail bridge was completed in February 1878 to the design of Thomas Bouch. Bouch was responsible for the design, construction and maintenance of the bridge. Most of his bridges were lattice girders supported on slender cast iron columns braced with wrought iron struts and ties, such as the Belah Viaduct. The building of the Tay bridge culminated in him being knighted.

The Tay bridge was nearly two miles long, consisting of 85 spans and at the time was the longest bridge in the world. The spans carried a single rail track; 72 of these were supported on spanning girders below the level of the track; the remaining 13 navigation spans were spanning girders above the level of the track (i.e. the train runs through a tunnel of girders).

These "high girders", as they were known, were 27 ft high with an 88 ft clearance above the high water mark. It was these spans which fell. Most of the girders below track level, all of which remained standing, were transferred to the present Tay rail bridge. At the time of the collapse Bouch was working on the design of the proposed Forth Bridge. In consequence, the design of the bridge was transferred to Benjamin Baker and Sir John Fowler.

A Court of Inquiry was set up to try and ascertain the reason for the collapse of the bridge. The Court of Inquiry report (8) concluded that, "The fall of the bridge was occasioned by the insufficiency of the cross bracing and its fastenings to sustain the force of the gale." The Court of Inquiry indicated that if the piers, and in particular the wind bracing, had been properly constructed and maintained, the bridge could have withstood the storm that night, albeit with a low factor of safety - 4 to 5 was the norm at the time.

Sir Thomas Bouch was held chiefly to blame for the collapse in not making adequate allowance for wind loading. He used a wind pressure of 10 lbsf/sq ft for the design of the Tay bridge. It is interesting to note that when working on the design of a proposed Forth bridge (1866) he used 30lbsf/sq ft(6). To this day, however, there is still speculation as to the fundamental cause and as to whether or not the designer, Thomas Bouch, was to blame. A very readable account of the transcripts of the public enquiry is by Gren(18)

Apart from the results of the original Court of Inquiry, various theories have been put proposed to explain the collapse. The picture shows the present Tay Rail bridge alongside the pier remains of Bouch's bridge. It is a very emotive site and provides a grim reminder of the disaster. The wrought iron girders which remained standing after the disaster were transferred onto the present bridge where they are still in use today.

29 th December 1170

Murder of Thomas Becket:
Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, is assassinated inside Canterbury Cathedral by followers of King Henry II; he subsequently becomes a saint and martyr in the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church.

Thomas A Becket murdered


Canterbury, Kent The 29th of December 1170 AD

Historians are divided on the nature of Thomas à Becket , or more properly it seems Thomas Becket, the ‘à’ being a later addition to his name. The church and some others argue he was the great martyr standing up for the clergy against a king seeking to reduce its power and empty its coffers. Another viewpoint has him as making a play for personal power, a self-centred man unable to deal diplomatically with the political pressures his office inevitably encountered. There are even concerns about his handling of the riches that went through his hands as Chancellor, his ostentation while travelling on his duties reflecting huge personal wealth.

Thomas was born in 1118 to a family of merchants of French origin. Though not aristocratic he was well connected, and it is likely his father was Sheriff of London at one time. Educated first at Merton Priory, then in Paris, Bologna and Auxerre, Thomas rose inexorably, first in the household of Richer de l’Aigle, then as the employee of Theobald the Archbishop of Canterbury for whom he undertook various sensitive commissions overseas. Thomas was made Archdeacon of Canterbury and Provost of Beverley by Theobald, though he was not ordained for several more years.

When the post of Lord Chancellor became open the young Henry II appointed the capable Becket, and his choice was well rewarded as the new appointee supervised tax collection from laity and clergy with great zeal. Thomas was highly thought of by Henry, who entrusted him with the care and upbringing of the heir to the throne.

Legend has it that when Theobald died in 1161 Thomas warned Henry not to appoint him in his stead, as the church rather than crown would be his new master. Henry ignored this, and lived to regret it. Thomas was hastily ordained and then made a bishop the following morning, and archbishop later the same day. Thomas resisted the crown’s attempts in 1163 to impose greater authority on the clergy by removing the right for clerics to be tried for their crimes before a church court.

Relations between King and Archbishop deteriorated to such an extent that Thomas fled into exile in France for six years, pressuring the Pope to excommunicate Henry and even the entirety of England. Several key church supporters of the king were indeed excommunicated.

With Pope Alexander about to expel Henry from the church a compromise was supposedly reached, and Thomas in November 1170 returned to Canterbury. But Becket’s refusal to remove the taint of excommunication from the Bishops of London and Salisbury led the King to anger against him once more.

There are a myriad variations on the words said to have been uttered to his courtiers by an exasperated Henry, but the best known version is: “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?” Whether this was a deliberate demand for action or merely a cry of frustration was debated afterwards, but four knights took it at face value and travelled from Henry’s base in France to Kent.

On the evening of 29th December 1170 the four assassins – Richard le Breton, Reginald Fitznurse, William de Tracey and Hugh de Moreville – cornered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral . There were several witnesses to the attack who related how Thomas faced his attackers with dignity, commending his soul to god. The knights hacked at the prelate until one sliced the top of his head open. They fled the bloody scene with their job done.

Henry lost prestige throughout Europe because of the attack, and faced a rebellion three years later with some of his people having lost faith in him. Thomas was made a saint in 1173, and Henry was forced by circumstances to do penance at his tomb in the summer of 1174, a tomb that became a shrine and place of pilgrimage for the English and even for those from other kingdoms.

30 th December 1460


war of the Roses :
Wars of the Roses: Lancastrians kill the 3rd Duke of York and win the Battle of Wakefield.





In October 1460, the exasperated Duke finally pressed his own claim to the throne and was recognised as heir-apparent – whereupon Henry’s resolute Queen, Margaret of Anjou, immediately called on Lancastrian loyalists to restore the succession to their son Edward, Prince of Wales. Her supporters duly harassed the Duke’s northern estates to draw him away from his power-base in London, and around 21 December, an opening skirmish was fought at Worksop between outriders of the armies converging on Yorkshire.

The Yorkists spent Christmas 1460 at Sandal Castle near Wakefield with an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 men, and the Lancastrians, with perhaps twice that number, nine miles away at Pontefract Castle. During a brief festive truce, the Duke granted a commission of array to one of his in-laws, John, Lord Neville, to recruit on his behalf; he may also have received a pledge of support from an erstwhile Yorkist ally Sir Andrew Trollope, a veteran commander in Calais.

Battle Commences

On Tuesday, 30 December 1460, the Lancastrians marched to Wakefield and deployed on a low hill just south of the city, separated from Sandal Castle by a mile of arable fields and rough common. York’s army, swelled by a substantial muster newly arrived with Lord Neville, sallied forth to meet them – but their confident expectations of victory were soon to prove misplaced.

Contemporary details of troop deployments and the course of battle are scarce, but the armies would typically have been arranged in three ‘wards’: the main (centre), van (right) and rear (left). The Yorkist wards may have been led by their three senior peers, the Duke himself, his second son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, and their ally Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury. Facing them were Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset; James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire; John, Lord Clifford of Craven; and numerous other magnates including Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, and Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter (York’s embittered son-in-law).

Hostilities may have begun when, on a pre-arranged signal, several hundred of Trollope’s men launched a surprise attack on their supposed allies. With panic and disorder sown in the Yorkist ranks, battle proper was joined. Then, with York’s army fully engaged, their enemies’ carefully-laid battle-plan was revealed: John Neville’s contingent entered the fray – on the Lancastrian side.


The Outcome

Within the moment of an hour (according to the Tudor historian’s account Three Books of Polydore Vergil’s English History, Sir H Ellis [ed.] Camden Society) it was over. Hopelessly outnumbered, Richard of York attempted a fighting retreat but was overcome and killed not far from Sandal Castle. Other desperate troops broke north for the shelter of the city, only to be cut down in the bottle-neck killing field enclosed by a loop of the River Calder, now known as Fall Ings. Among them was Edmund of Rutland, who was overtaken and slain by Lord Clifford near Wakefield Bridge. Up to 2,000 Yorkists died on the field for the loss of only 200 Lancastrians, while some prominent figures, including the Earl of Salisbury, were captured and beheaded at Pontefract the following day.

The Battlefield Today

The Chantry Chapel of St Mary the Virgin on the old Wakefield Bridge. (Photo: Helen Cox)
The battlefield survived largely unchanged until the 18th century, but is now almost completely obliterated by urban development. However, you can still visit several key sites where the action took place – among them Sandal Castle. From the castle’s keep you will see to the south a stretch of open fields, which in the 15th century contained 30 acres of stoutly-fenced deer-park where Yorkist troops may have hunted in the run-up to battle. Immediately to the north was probably an encampment for men who could not be accommodated within Sandal Castle’s relatively small confines. Looking north-west, you can trace the line of the Calder running towards Wakefield, and see the ‘island’ of Fall Ings just south of the city – on a clear day you may also spot the chantry chapel on the Medieval bridge. And half a mile north-east of the castle, a green field bounded by trees marks the site of York’s demise – of which you’ll get a better view on foot.

Leave Sandal Castle and follow Manygates Lane – the same route the Yorkists took to battle in 1460. In less than half a mile, you will reach the remnant of Wakefield Green, now called Castle Grove Park – a well-preserved field of Medieval ridgeand- furrow which would have seen fierce hand-to-hand combat as the Duke strove vainly to reach the safety of his fortress. His Victorian monument stands opposite, among school railings, moved from its original position closer to where he died (slightly further north by the junction of Manygates and Milnthorpe Lanes) when the site was built on.

Walking on towards Wakefield you pass the Portobello estate, where human bones and weapon fragments (all since lost) were unearthed in the 19th century. Turning left from Manygates Lane onto the A61 Barnsley Road takes you gently uphill to the Lancastrian opening position, corresponding with the present Bromley Mount. Just beyond is Fall Ings, the site of the main Yorkist rout, and, finally, ahead on the right, the bridge and Chantry Chapel of St Mary the Virgin, where Edmund of Rutland is popularly thought to have died. Others believe the Earl’s flight took him further north along Kirkgate into the city proper, and that he was killed near a building called the Six Chimneys. Unfortunately this collapsed in 1941, but its location and name are preserved in the modern building erected on the same site.

31 st December 1759


  The black stuff :
                         Arthur Guinness signs a 9,000-year lease at £45 per annum and starts brewing Guinness.

Arthur Guinness signed a 9000-year lease for an abandoned brewery in Dublin: Guinness is still brewed at St. James Gate

Arthur Guinness was born on September 28, 1725, to a family of brewers on the estate of Arthur Price, the Protestant Church of Ireland archbishop of Cashel. His father Richard, who was land steward to the archbishop of Cashel, Dr. Arthur Price, brewed beer for workers on the estate taught Arthur the craft of brewing.


As time passed young Arthur became a very good friend with Price and when the archbishop died in 1752 he left 100 pounds each to “his servant” Arthur and his father. This event marked the beginning of Guinness brewing company’s story. At that time 100 pounds was a large sum of money and it was the equivalent of four years wages.


He managed to perfect his skills as the brewer for an inn owned by his stepmother in the next few years and three years after archbishop’s death he managed to rent a small brewery in Leixlip, a town in north-east County Kildare, Ireland.

Business was going well for Arthur and when he was 34-years-old he moved from Leixlip to the capital city of Ireland in order to open a brewery there hoping to expand his business. He found an old dilapidated brewery, named St. James’s Gate Brewery, in the southwest of Dublin. The brewery covered four acres and consisted of a copper, a kieve, a mill, two malthouses, stabling for 12 horses and a loft to hold 200 tons of hay.

The owner of St. James’s Gate Brewery required 100 pounds as a down payment and 45 pounds per month for rent. On the last day of December 1759, Arthur somehow managed to get the owner to agree to a lease for up to 9,000 years on these terms. Guinness is still brewed at St. James Gate, and the company still pays 45 pounds in rent each month.

               
The 9,000-year lease on display

At that time whiskey, gin, and poteen were the alcoholic drinks most readily available in Ireland but Arthur Guinness was a visionary and brewed a beer relatively new to Ireland that contained roasted barley which gave it a characteristically dark color.

Arthur Guinness believed that liquor, especially gin, was destroying the lower classes in Ireland in the 1750s and he also believed that everyone should have access to a high-quality quality beer and a healthier form of alcohol. This is why he brewed the high-quality black porter, his legendary Guinness Stout.

Soon Arthur Guinness revolutionized the brewing industry and ousted all imports from the Irish market and Guinness’s porter was in demand not only in Dublin but increasingly in England as well.

It was 1761 when Arthur Guinness married Olivia Whitmore in St. Mary’s Church, Dublin. The couple had 21 children and 10 of them lived to adulthood.


He handed over control to his three sons and spent his last years at Beaumont, his country home in Drumcondra. Arthur Guinness died on 23 January 1803 at the age of 78.


But his story does not end there. As years passed by Guinness grew to be one of the largest and most respected breweries in the world. By 1838, Guinness’ St. James’s Gate Brewery was the largest in Ireland and by 1914, St. James’s Gate was the world’s largest brewery.

1 st January 1985

    Dawn of the mobile :
                                  The first British mobile phone call is made by Michael Harrison to his father Sir Ernest Harrison, chairman of Vodafone.


This week marks the 37th anniversary of the first ever (civilian) mobile phone call made in the UK. The call was made from London's St Katharine Docks on 1 January 1985, via the Vodafone network, by comedian Ernest Wise. The patronage of Little Ern may seem a little incongruous, but Wise had already done an ad for Atari with Eric Morecambe earlier that decade, and was already well-versed in hawking grey, clunky pieces of tech, for presumably a neat little pay packet.

A crowd gathered near to the Dickens Inn to witness Wise call up the Vodafone office in Newbury with a Transportable Vodafone VT1 (these beasts weighed around five kilos, and cost two grand — or £5,000 in today's money). We don't know what Wise's words were, but back then, Vodafone consisted of a handful of employees working above an Indian takeaway, so we're guessing he put in an order for a rogan josh, mushroom rice and a peshwari naan. Oddly, Wise performed the call in front of a 19th century mail coach, wearing full Dickensian coachman's garb. Although to be fair, Wise was in keeping with his galleried pub backdrop.

     
Here's Ernie making that call (you can make out the Dickens Inn, behind him


But there's a problem with this story. Because in fact the first mobile phone call in the UK had already been made some hours before. And that phone call involved another Ernest — Ernest Harrison, the first chairman of Vodafone. The story goes that Ernest's son, Michael Harrison, snuck out of his family’s New Year’s Eve party at their home in Surrey and drove to London to "surprise" his father, calling him from among a group of revellers in Parliament Square. Harrison Jnr recalls that the line was crystal clear — maybe because there weren't 20 million Vodafone users clogging up the network at the time.

     
Here's Michael Harrison making that Parliament Square call:


         
And here's Daddy on the other end of the line:

daddyJudging from these photos, it's hard not to think there wasn't so much of a surprise element to the whole stunt (what, for instance, if a waiter had answered the phone instead of Harrison?). Nonetheless, it was a landmark in technological advance, and a harbinger of the many thousands who would stand in front of Big Ben 30 years later, using their mobiles — ironically, mostly to take photographs of the landmark itself.

     
                               
Here's a picture of Michael Harrison reenacting that phone call in front of Big Ben recently.





A very happy new year to everyone at Wigan Peers.

2 nd January 1971

  Ibrox stadium disaster :
                                    The second Ibrox disaster kills 66 fans at a Rangers-Celtic association football  match .

                     
1971 Ibrox disaster

The 1971 Ibrox disaster was a crush among the crowd at an Old Firm football game, which led to 66 deaths and more than 200 injuries. It happened on 2 January 1971 in an exit stairway at Ibrox Park (now Ibrox Stadium) in Glasgow, Scotland. It was the worst British football disaster until the Hillsborough disaster in Sheffield, England, in 1989.

The stadium's owner, Rangers F.C., was later ruled to be at fault in a sheriff's judgement on one of the deaths. Rangers did not dispute this ruling, and was sued for damages in 60 other cases brought by relatives of the dead
Background
The first disaster at Ibrox occurred during a 1902 home international match between Scotland and England. The back of the wooden West Tribune Stand collapsed due to heavy rainfall the previous night, causing 25 deaths and more than 500 injuries.


During 1963, concerns were raised about the safety of the stairway adjacent to passageway 13, colloquially known as Stairway 13, the exit closest to Copland Road subway station. It was documented that the stairs provided very little freedom of movement due to crowd pressure; many were lifted off their feet by the crowd and had no choice in which lane they were going to use, or at what pace.

On 16 September 1961, two people were killed in a crush on the stairway.In 1967, eight spectators were injured when leaving the stadium. In 1969, 26 were injured in an accident on Stairway 13 during egress. No measures were taken to consult a professional firm to discuss the potential dangers from crowds on Stairway 13 following these events. Subsequent to the 1961 accident, Rangers had by then spent a total of £150,000 (equivalent to £2,600,000 in 2021) on improvements to Ibrox, a very significant sum of money for the time.

Events
The disaster occurred on Saturday, 2 January 1971, when 66 people were killed in a crush as supporters tried to leave the stadium. The match was an Old Firm game (Rangers v Celtic) and was attended by more than 80,000 fans. In the 90th minute, Celtic took a 1–0 lead through Jimmy Johnstone, but in the final moments of the match, Colin Stein scored an equaliser for Rangers. As thousands of spectators were leaving the ground by stairway 13, it appears that someone may have fallen, causing a massive chain-reaction pile-up of people.

Initially there was speculation that some fans left the ground slightly early when Celtic scored, but then turned back when they heard the crowd cheering when Stein scored the equaliser, colliding with fans leaving the ground when the match ended.[12] The official inquiry into the disaster indicated that there was no truth in this hypothesis, however, as all the spectators were heading in the same direction at the time of the collapse.

Most of the deaths were caused by compressive asphyxia, with bodies being stacked up to six feet deep in the area. More than 200 other fans were injured.

Kenny Dalglish, then a Celtic player, was in the stands when the tragedy occurred. Dalglish was also present at the Heysel and Hillsborough disasters, in 1985 and 1989 respectively, with Liverpool F.C.

3 rd January 1911

The siege of sidney Street :
A gun battle in the East End of London leaves two dead. It sparked a political row over the involvement of then-Home Secretary Winston Churchill.

The siege of Sidney Street of January 1911, also known as the Battle of Stepney, was a gunfight in the East End of London between a combined police and army force and two Latvian revolutionaries. The siege was the culmination of a series of events that began in December 1910, with an attempted jewellery robbery at Houndsditch in the City of London by a gang of Latvian immigrants which resulted in the murder of three policemen, the wounding of two others, and the death of George Gardstein, the leader of the Latvian gang.

An investigation by the Metropolitan and City of London Police forces identified Gardstein's accomplices, most of whom were arrested within two weeks. The police were informed that the last two members of the gang were hiding at 100 Sidney Street in Stepney. The police evacuated local residents, and on the morning of 3 January a firefight broke out. Armed with inferior weapons, the police sought assistance from the army. The siege lasted for about six hours. Towards the end of the stand-off, the building caught fire; no single cause has been identified. One of the agitators in the building was shot before the fire spread. While the London Fire Brigade were damping down the ruins—in which they found the two bodies—the building collapsed, killing a fireman.

The siege marked the first time the police had requested military assistance in London to deal with an armed stand-off. It was also the first siege in Britain to be caught on camera, as the events were filmed by Pathé News. Some of the footage included images of the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill. His presence caused a political row over the level of his operational involvement. At the trial in May 1911 of those arrested for the Houndsditch jewellery robbery, all but one of the accused were acquitted; the conviction was overturned on appeal. The events were fictionalised in film—in The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) and The Siege of Sidney Street (1960)—and novels. On the centenary of the events two tower blocks in Sidney Street were named after Peter the Painter, one of the minor members of the gang who was probably not present at either Houndsditch or Sidney Street. The murdered policemen and the fireman who died are commemorated with memorial plaques.

4 th January 1959

The race to the moon :
Luna 1 becomes the first spacecraft to reach the vicinity of the Moon.

Soviet spacecraft Luna 1 became the first man-made object to reach the vicinity of the moon after its launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome by a Luna 8K72 rocket on January 2, 1959.

The plan for Luna 1 had been to conduct in-flight scientific measurements then crash into the moon. It carried two metallic pennants with the Soviet coat of arms to mark its presence there, but a malfunction in the ground-based control system caused an error in the rocket’s burntime and the spacecraft missed the target and flew by the moon at a distance of 5995 km at the closest point.

It became first man-made object to reach heliocentric orbit. Its orbit lies between those of Earth and Mars. Meanwhile, its sister craft, Luna 2, would become the first man-made object to reach the moon in September of the same year.


Luna 1, first known as “First Cosmic Ship,” then known as “Mechta” (Russian for “dream”), traveled through the outer Van Allen radiation belt, allowing the spacecraft’s scintillator to make observations indicating that a small number of high energy particles exist in the outer belt.



Luna 1 also found the moon to have no detectable magnetic field, made the first ever direct observations and measurements of solar wind, and marked the first instance of radio communication at the half-million-kilometer distance.

On January 3, 1959, at a distance of 119,500 km from Earth, a large (1 kg) cloud of sodium gas was released by Luna 1, thus making this probe also the first artificial comet. Its glowing orange trail of gas was visible over the Indian Ocean with the brightness of a sixth-magnitude star for a few minutes.

Luna 1 passed within 5995 km of the moon’s surface on January 4, 1959, after 34 hours of flight.



luna 1

5 th January 1941

Mysterious disappearance of Amy Johnson :
Amy Johnson, a 37-year-old pilot and the first woman to fly solo from London to Australia, disappears after bailing out of her plane over the River Thames, and is presumed dead.


The Disappearance of Amy Johnson

Most people from Blackpool will be familiar with the name Amy Johnson, however for many simply via Amy Johnson Way, a road alongside the former Blackpool airport that is now home to a large commercial and shopping development (as well as the new Illuminations depot). The woman who gave her name to the road was one of the world’s pioneering female aviators, garnering significant fame for her exploits before disappearing in strange circumstances after a crash in 1941.


Born in Kingston upon Hull in 1903, Amy Johnson was the daughter of a successful fish merchant. After graduating from the University of Sheffield with a degree in economics, Johnson moved to London for a period, working as a solicitor’s secretary. It was during this time that she was introduced to flying and quickly developed a passion for it, securing her aviator’s certificate in January 1929. A few months later she gained her pilot’s A licence. She also became the first British woman to qualify for a ground engineer’s C licence.

Using funds provided by her father Johnson purchased her first aircraft, a second-hand de Havilland DH.60 Gipsy Moth. A two-seater biplane, the DH.60 was the mainstay of British aviation clubs. Just a year after obtaining her pilot’s licence, Johnson made headlines worldwide after becoming the first woman to fly solo from England to Australia. Departing from Croydon on 5th May 1930, she arrived safely in Darwin 19 days later, a journey of some 11,000 miles. Johnson was made a CBE in George V’s 1930 birthday honours in recognition of her achievement, as well as being awarded the Harmon Trophy for the world’s outstanding aviatrix.


On her return to the UK Johnson upgraded to a de Havilland DH.80 Puss Moth, a high-performance monoplane capable of exceeding 120 mph. In July 1931 she departed in her new aircraft alongside co-pilot Jack Humphreys, becoming the first pilot ever to fly between London and Moscow within a day. The pair continued on to Tokyo, setting a further record for fastest flight.

The following year she married fellow pilot Jim Mollison. That same year she broke the record for a solo flight between London and Cape Town, claiming the record previously held by her new husband. He accompanied her on her next flight, leaving Pendine Sands in South Wales en-route to Brooklyn. After running dangerously low on fuel they attempted to land in Connecticut, both being thrown from the aircraft in a crash landing at Bridgeport Municipal Airport. They survived with only minor injuries.


The couple set a record in 1934 for the fastest flight between Britain and India. Finally, in 1936 she reclaimed her London to Cape Town crown. Two years later she divorced Mollison.

Wartime Service

After the outbreak of the Second World War Johnson joined the war effort as a pilot with the Air Transport Auxiliary, moving Royal Air Force planes between airfields across the UK. By 1941 she had been promoted to First Officer.

On 5th January 1941 Johnson departed from Blackpool en-route to RAF Kidlington in Oxfordshire. Despite the freezing fog conditions that limited visibility it should have been a simple, 90-minute flight. Inexplicably, some four hours later she crashed into the Thames Estuary off Kent, some 100 miles past her objective. Johnson’s parachute was seen coming down by crew of HMS Haslemere, which set out to rescue her. While she was seen alive and shouting for help in the water she was unable to reach lines thrown to her and disappeared beneath the ship. The ship’s captain dived into the water in a rescue attempt but was unable to locate her. The extreme cold and heavy seas had rendered him unconscious by the time a lifeboat reached him. He died in hospital a few days later. Johnson’s body was never found.

A variety of explanations and conspiracy theories have been put forward to explain both her disappearance and why she was so badly off course. One crew member believed that she had been sucked into the ship’s propeller and killed. In 1999 a historian put forward the theory that she had been shot down by friendly fire after failing to provide the correct identification code when challenged over radio. Others have claimed that she was downed by a German aircraft or that she was so far off course as she was attempting to return her lover, either a German or English spy, to France. This particular rumour was further fueled after crew of HMS Haslemere stated that they had seen two bodies in the water, despite Johnson departing Blackpool alone. Another suggestion was that she was attempting to fake her own death. None of these theories have any real solid evidence and the likely cause was simply bad weather and a possibly cavalier approach to her own safety.

Whatever the circumstances of her death or disappearance, Amy Johnson was rightly celebrated as a fearless and pioneering aviatrix. She was posthumously awarded the Albert Medal in May 1941 and her name is included on the Air Forces Memorial in Runnymede.


Alongside the aforementioned Amy Johnson Way in Blackpool a number of institutions bear her name, including a department of the University of Sheffield, a primary school in Essex, a housing development in Hull and a museum at Derby Airfield. Dutch and Norwegian airliners were also named after her, as was Amy Johnson Avenue in Darwin, Australia and Amy’s Restaurant and Bar at both Gatwick and Stanstead airports. A statue of her was unveiled in her home city of Hull in 2016, the 75th anniversary of her death.

6 th January 1066

Harold is king :

1066 – Following the death of Edward the Confessor on the previous day, the Witan meets to confirm Harold Godwinson as the new King of England; Harold is crowned the same day, sparking a succession crisis that will eventually lead to the Norman conquest of England



Westminster, London The 6th of January 1066 AD

Edward the Confessor died on January 5 1066 , leaving no children as his heirs – indeed, it is doubted whether the saintly Edward ever consummated his marriage to Edith, eldest daughter of Earl Godwin.

The question of succession was complicated in the extreme, with no less than five claimants to the throne. Harold Godwinson cut through this complexity by persuading, or possibly coercing, the great council, the Witan, to declare him king. Harold acted with unseemly haste, knowing he faced opposition from several quarters, and was crowned the day after Edward died, on the very day the Confessor was buried.

Harold’s claim was based on the dying Edward supposedly having named him as heir. It was also backed very practically by Harold having been the de facto ruler of the country for some time before Edward died. Harold was a proven war leader, and the country one way or another faced a war in the coming months, so Harold was a logical choice given that certainty.

Harold was also attractive to the royal advisors because he was not Norman – there had been much conflict during Edward’s reign as the pro-Norman king favoured Norman advisors, and even appointed a Norman to the Archbishopric of Canterbury (displaced by Harold in favour of his own – Saxon – man).

The other claimants to the throne were Harald Hardrada, ruler of Norway, Tostig, Harold’s brother, Edgar the Atheling, and Duke William of Normandy .

Edgar had a good claim to the throne, as grandson of Ethelred the Unready , but was in his early teens. Had he been chosen by the council the country would have surely faced a civil war as well as invasion.

Duke William’s claim was, like Harold’s, based on his having been named as heir by Edward. It is likely that Edward had forced Harold to go to Normandy and swear allegiance to his future king, an oath said to have been taken over holy relics. Edward had been grateful to the Normans for succour during a period of exile there, and had assimilated Norman habits at that time.

Harald Hardrada’s claim was distinctly tenuous - via his dead nephew and a long dead Danish ruler of part of the country. Harald allied himself to Tostig Godwinson, who claimed Edward had promised him the crown – and it is possible this had been the case, for Tostig was the favourite brother of Edward’s wife Edith.

Harald and Tostig would invade the North in September 1066, taking York before being defeated by the surprise attack of King Harold II at Stamford Bridge on September 25 . The death of the two claimants in that battle cleared the field, for William as much as for Harold Godwinson. But the decisive action was to come three weeks later, near Hastings on the southern coast.

7 th January 2015

Charlie Hebdo shooting :
Two gunmen commit mass murder at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, shooting twelve people execution style, and wounding eleven others.

12 people die in shooting at "Charlie Hebdo" offices
Around midday on January 7, 2015, gunmen raid the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people. The attack, a response to the magazine's criticism of Islam and depiction of Muhammad, demonstrated the danger of homegrown terror in Europe as well as the deep conflicts within French society.

Charlie Hebdo had a history of antagonizing and drawing threats from Islamists. In 2006, the magazine re-printed a controversial cartoon depicting Muhammad from the Dutch newspaper Jyllands-Posten, earning its staff death threats. In 2011, the Charlie Hebdo office was firebombed in response to the "Sharia Hebdo" issue, which contained numerous depictions of the prophet. The magazine's director of publishing, cartoonist Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnie, was an outspoken critic of religion, particularly radical Islam, and was named to Al Qaeda's most wanted list in 2013. Like many in France, the staff of Charlie Hebdo believed in a strictly secular state and was critical of both radical Islam and the Catholic Church.

Two French brothers of Algerian descent, Saïd and Chérif Kouach, carried out the attack. They forced a cartoonist, Corinne "Coco" Rey, to open the door to the office, which was unmarked due to the previous firebombing incident. The gunmen shot and killed Charb and other members of the staff, including columnist Elsa Cayat, but spared the life of another female writer, telling her they did not kill women. After a manhunt that lasted two days, the gunmen were tracked to an industrial estate outside of Paris and killed in a gunfight with police. At roughly the same time, their acquaintance Amedy Coulibaly, who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, took hostages in a kosher supermarket in Paris. He killed four people, all of them Jewish, before he was killed by police.


In the wake of the attacks, tributes poured in from all over the world, many using the phrase "Je suis Charlie." The killings were perceived not only as acts of terrorism but also as an attack on free speech and the freedom of the press. "Republican marches" honoring the victims and the right to free speech were held across France on January 10th and 11th. As the phrase "Je suis Charlie" became a rallying cry the world over, some, including the surviving staff, criticized its use by those who disagreed with or were unaware of the publication's left-wing, atheist worldview. Others asked why the killings received so much more attention than others, such American drone strikes on civilians in the Middle East. Some radical Muslim clerics blamed Charlie Hebdo itself for the attack, while future U.S. President Donald Trump called the magazine "dishonest and nasty" and claimed that it was "broke."

Charlie Hebdo continued its normal publication schedule. Its first issue following the attack ran over 8 million copies, exponentially more than any previous issue. It featured works by those killed and depicted Muhammad on the cover, with a tear in his eye, holding a sign that read "Je suis Charlie."

8 th January 1989


 The Kegwoth ait disaster :
                                      Kegworth air disaster: British Midland Flight 92, a Boeing 737-400, crashes into the M1 motorway, killing 47 of the 126 people on board.



M1 PLANE CARNAGE What caused the Kegworth air disaster, when was the plane crash and who were the victims?
On the 34th anniversary of the Kegworth air disaster, we remember the horrifying events of the day


ON January 8, 1989, one of Britain's worst air disasters rocked the nation, killing 47 people.

A Boeing 737 carrying 126 people plummeted into the M1 in Leicestershire. Here we reflect on the disaster on its 34th anniversary.

The Kegworth air disaster was one of the worst plane crashes in British history.

When was the disaster and what caused it?
Disaster struck shortly after the British Midland Boeing 737 took off from Heathrow at 7.52pm, bound for Belfast International Airport.

After climbing to 28,300 feet, a blade detached from the fan of the left port and a pounding noise was suddenly heard, along with severe vibrations.

Smoke began pouring into the cabin of Flight BD 092 through the ventilation system.

The plane was diverted to nearby East Midlands Airport at the suggestion of British Midland Airways Operations.

   
The plane crashed on the side of the M1 in Kegworth, Leicestershire

Confusion about which engine had dropped out led to Captain Kevin Hunt and his co-pilot David McClelland shutting down the right engine, when the issue was in the left engine.

This left the plane gliding.

During the final approach to the airport, fuel was pumped into the damaged engine to maintain speed, which caused it to stop working and burst into flames.


Just before crossing the M1 motorway at 8.24pm, the plane's tail struck the ground and the aircraft bounced back into the air and over the motorway.

Knocking down trees and a lamp post, the plane then crashed on to the far embankment and broke into three pieces on the northbound carriageway of the M1.

Remarkably, there were no cars or lorries travelling on that section of the motorway at the moment of the crash.

Who were the victims of the crash?
Of the 118 passengers on board, 39 were killed outright in the crash and eight died later of their injuries, for a total of 47 fatalities.

All eight members of the crew survived, but of the total 79 survivors, 74 suffered serious injuries.

Five firefighters also suffered minor injuries during the rescue operation.

A former Royal Marine was driving nearby when the crash happened.

Graham Pearson helped passengers for over three hours.

He subsequently sued British Midland in 1998 and received £57,000 in damages (£95,000 today).

Anne Hazard, an air stewardess on the flight, suffered a broken arm and several fractures to her spine.
She also helped tend to the injured on the ground.

9 th January 1799

Income tax introduced "temporarily" :
British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger introduces an income tax of two shillings to the pound to raise funds for Great Britain's war effort in the Napoleonic Wars.


9 January 1799: income tax first introduced by William Pitt the Younger

With the nation embroiled in a costly war with France and Napoleon's forces seemingly intent on invading Britain at the earliest opportunity, William Pitt the Younger, the Prime Minster and Chancellor of the Exchequer, came up with innovative means of bolstering the country's depleted coffers. In his budget of December 1798, he introduced to an income tax to aid ‘the prosecution of the war'. This was to be ‘a temporary measure' and came into force on 9 January 1799.

Levied at 1 per cent on annual incomes of above £60 and 10 per pent on those earning over £200, it is estimated to have raised around £6 million for the exchequer. Widely denounced, it was repelled in 1802 by Pitt's successor, Henry Addington, after a peace treaty was signed with Napoleon. But a precedent had been set and when war broke out again with the French the following year, Addington brought an amended version of the tax back. This lingered on until after the Battle of Waterloo, and its abolition in 1816 was supposedly greeted ‘with a thundering peal of applause' in Parliament.



Lying dormant for the next twenty-six years, income tax was finally revived by the Conservative Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel in 1842 and has been with us in one form or another ever since.

10 th January 1863

  Begining of the underground :
                                            The Metropolitan Railway, the world's oldest underground railway, opens between Paddington and Farringdon, marking the beginning of the London Underground .

The Opening of the Metropolitan Railway – 10 January 1863
October 30, 2019In Headlines from History by Rose Staveley-Wadham
On 10 January 1863 the Metropolitan Railway was opened in London. An unprecedented feat of engineering, the Metropolitan Railway was the first underground railway in the world, forming the basis of the London underground and other global underground systems.

In this special blog, we take a look at the historic first three days of the Metropolitan Railway’s existence, from its grand opening on Friday 10 January 1863, to the teething problems it encountered when it opened to the public on the Saturday and Sunday, using reports found in the British Newspaper Archive.




The Penny Illustrated Paper gives its readers an insight into the new underground railway’s location:

The line commences at the terminus of the Great Western Railway, at Paddington… It proceeds under portion of the South-Wharf road and Praed-street, crosses under Edgware-road, and leaves Chapel-street almost intact; it then runs under Marylebone and Euston roads to King’s-cross, the whole of which distance is under ground. From King’s-cross a cutting has been made along Bagnigge-wells-road and Coppice-row, and its termination south is at Farringdon-street, where the principal station for the east end is situated.

Thus, the new line formed a west-east artery, allowing Londoners and visitors to the capital to cross from the west and into the city.

Friday 10th January 1863
The Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard on 17 January 1863 tells us of how the ‘formal opening of the Metropolitan Underground Railway took place on Friday last.’ A select group of 600 to 700 ladies and gentlemen, invited by the directors, arrived at Paddington and in two trains travelled along the new line to Farringdon.

A banquet was then held to mark the occasion at Farringdon Street Station, where MP Mr Lowe addressed the gathered guests, and highlighted the difficulties that the pioneering engineers faced:

They have had to make their way through gas-pipes, and water-pipes, and sewers, and that greatest of all obstacles, that modern dragon, Mr Fowler (the engineer of the line), the modern St George, has four times vanquished – the Fleet ditch (cheers)…The line has had to worm its way through a complicated and intricate labyrinth under difficulties almost insuperable.

The dragon that Mr Lowe mentions is the Fleet Ditch, the bursting of which on 16 June 1862 caused the opening of the line to be delayed by many months.


In the same speech, Mr Lowe highlights the need for an underground system, labelling London’s traffic ‘the opprobrium of the age.’ The Penny Illustrated Paper expands on the positive impact of the new Metropolitan Railway:

The difficult middle-passage, from the Great Western to the frontier of the city proper, is thus neutralised and rendered facile, and passengers arriving by the Great Western, the London and North-Western, and the Great Northern Railways, as well as that vast mass of active humanity that flows and reflows from east to west daily and almost hourly, will find a distance accomplished in from fifteen to twenty minutes which has hitherto occupied portions of time varying from three-quarters of an hour to an hour and a quarter.



And the newspapers of the day were swift to find other positives regarding the new underground line. The same publication lauds the ‘entire absence of damp’ in the tunnels, the ‘commodious’ carriages, and the ‘very well managed lighting,’ whilst the Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard comments how ‘the smoothness of the line and the comfort of the carriages were beyond all praise, while nothing could be more satisfactory than the simple and yet effective operation of the new railway signals.’

The Yorkshire Gazette, however, sounds a note of caution, for although the ‘travelling is smooth and easy…the tunnels are cold, and render warm clothing necessary.’

Saturday 11th January 1863
The following day, the ‘line was thrown open to the public,’ and as the Illustrated Times relates, ‘many thousands indulged their curiosity’ in this new method of transportation. The day started innocuously enough, with the so-called labourer’s train leaving Paddington at 6am, ‘to accommodate workman.’



But by 8am, the line was struggling to cope with demand, and an hour later ‘it became evident to authorities that neither the locomotive power nor the rolling stock at their disposal was at all in proportion to the requirements of the opening day.’

This resulted in all sorts of chaos, as stations ‘became crowded with anxious passengers,’ comparable ‘to the crush at the doors of a theatre on the first night of a pantomime.’ Indeed, first class passengers were ‘compelled’ to travel third class, and vice versa, as between 30,000 and 40,000 people attempted to travel on the railway that day.

Sunday 12th January 1863
On the Sunday, ‘the pressure was nearly as great.’ This led to engines and carriages which were not designed for underground travel to work on the line. These engines were steam powered, and created a build-up of steam and smoke in the tunnels.

According to the Illustrated Times:

On Sunday evening it was discovered that the ventilation of some parts of the line, particularly the station at Gower-street, was so imperfect that several of the company’s servants became affected with sickness, giddiness, and even insensibility; indeed, to such an extent did this occur that at one period all the officials at the station mentioned were incapacitated for duty.

One of the affected persons was James Napier, who had to be admitted to University College Hospital for his symptoms. Reynold’s Newspaper tells of how he was suffering from sickness and dizziness, a low pulse, and very cold hands and extremities. A local tavern proprietor, Mr J Tilley of the Green Man Tavern, helped others affected by the fumes by taking them into his house and bathing their heads and temples with vinegar.

The Case of Elizabeth Stainsby – 1867
Despite these incidents, the Grantham Journal, a month later, reports on the success of the new underground line, with share prices in the Metropolitan Railway ‘going up rapidly.’

But the new line was not freed from the spectre of ‘bad air,’ which had haunted it on its opening weekend.

Three years later, a young woman named Elizabeth Stainsby was travelling on the Metropolitan Railway, when she began to complain of a ‘slight pain at the chest.’ As the Greenock Telegraph and Clyde Shipping Gazette relates, she arrived at Bishop’s Road Station (Paddington), and remarked ‘It’s a nice station, but it feels very hot.’

Having departed the station, the train went into the tunnel and she remarked on the ‘dreadful smell.’ By King’s Cross, she had fainted, and was removed to the waiting room, ‘but it was found that she was quite dead.’

At the inquest, one Dr Popham gave his medical opinion that ‘a large quantity of sulphurous acid gas and carbonic acid gas,’ such as that found in the tunnels, ‘would hasten the death of a diseased person.’ The jury found that more investigations should be carried out on the noxious atmosphere of the underground, and two months later Professor Julian E D Rogers, a chemist and lecturer, gave his findings after having tested the air on the underground.

According to the Islington Gazette, ‘he did not think the carbonic acid or the sulphurous acid would have an injurious effect.’ Indeed, he put Elizabeth Stainsby’s death down to her diseased heart, her tightly-laced stays, and her previous consumption of a hearty meal.

Over time, the Metropolitan Railway expanded, as did the network it helped to found. As evidenced here, the British Newspaper Archive provides unparalleled real-time commentary of this historic event, and you can discover more by registering with us today.

11 th January 2020

First covid victim :
COVID-19 pandemic in Hubei: Municipal health officials in Wuhan announce the first recorded death from COVID-19.

January 11, 2020 Health authorities in the central Chinese city of Wuhan are reporting the first death from a new type of coronavirus. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission reported Saturday that seven other people are in critical condition.

Health authorities in a central Chinese city on Saturday reported the country’s first death from a new type of coronavirus, as the government braced for the Lunar New Year travel boom amid concerns over a possible outbreak similar to that of the SARS virus in the early 2000s.

The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission said seven other people were in critical condition among a total of 41 who were suffering from pneumonia caused by a “preliminarily determined new type of coronavirus” as of Friday. That was down from the earlier figure of 59. The others were in stable condition and at least two had been released from a hospital.


The patient who died was identified as a 61-year-old man who had been hospitalized after suffering shortness of breath and severe pneumonia. The commission said the man, who died Thursday, also suffered from abdominal tumors and chronic liver disease and had been a frequent customer at a food market on Wuhan’s outskirts linked to the majority of cases.

China says the cause of the Wuhan outbreak remains unknown, but has sought to quash speculation that it could be a reappearance of the SARS epidemic, which killed hundreds in 2002 and 2003.

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses, some of which cause the common cold. Others found in bats, camels and other animals have evolved into more severe illnesses.

Common symptoms include a runny nose, headache, cough and fever. Shortness of breath, chills and body aches are associated with more dangerous kinds of coronaviruses, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

China’s transport ministry says it plans additional measures to disinfect trains, planes and buses and prevent transmission of diseases during the 40-day travel rush centered on the Lunar New Year, also known as the Spring Festival, which falls this year on Jan. 25. The period began Friday and runs through Feb. 18.

“The emergence of the epidemic may cause panic among people, especially in areas where people are concentrated during the Spring Festival travel period,” the ministry’s chief engineer, Wang Yang, told reporters at a news conference Thursday.

“In order to further ensure the health of passengers, our ministry attaches great importance to the arrangements and deployment, and will focus on the disinfection monitoring and protection measures in areas with a large number of passenger travel volume, including transportation hubs, passenger stations and cargo hub plant stations,” Wang said.


Possible cases of the same illness have been reported in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan involving recent travelers to Wuhan. Health authorities elsewhere in China have yet to announce similar cases, despite the high population density around Wuhan and its role as a travel hub for central China.

University of Hong Kong disease expert Yuen Kwok-yung was quoted by the city’s official news agency as saying that the genetic makeup of the novel coronavirus was 80% similar to SARS as it had been found in bats, civet cats and humans.

Yuen said that it was unclear whether the virus could further change to become more lethal, as the SARS virus had, but that Hong Kong had a robust system for detecting more severe problems among patients.

“So we have to take every measure and closely monitor the situation,” Yuen said, according to Radio Television Hong Kong.

And the rest is .....history

12 th January 1918

   The Minnie pit disaster :                                      
                                      The Minnie Pit Disaster coal mining accident occurs in Halmer End, Staffordshire, in which 155 men and boys die .

                   Minnie Pit Explosion 1918


On Saturday January 12th, 1918 at 9.45 a.m. the Minnie Pit became the scene of Staffordshire’s worst mining disaster.
On that fateful Saturday, Mr. Smith, the Manager, in his office was informed that the haulage lads were at No.1 shaft bottom and wanted to come up the pit.
A sudden gust of wind against the normal air current and small pieces of coal, dirt and dust had been projected out bye.
They thought that something was wrong and were apprehensive and wanted to get out.
At the same time dust and smoke was issuing from the fan chimney of the up cast shaft.
This was being caused by the ventilation air current carrying the smoke and dust from the explosion point.
Disaster had struck with so much loss of lives; one hundred and fifty four men and boys that day and one rescue brigades-man two days later, whilst engaged in exploration work.

One hundred and forty four met their deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning, that’s a gas produced by the explosion, and eleven from the violence as well as carbon monoxide.
The cause of the deaths was an explosion of methane gas, propagated to the areas of the Bullhurst and Banbury seams by coal dust.
When an explosion takes place not connected with coal dust, there is a violent blast and flame, and this is confined to a certain area.
But, as was the case at the Minnie, the roof, sides and floor of the roadways were covered in coal dust.
So the blast preceded the flame, kicked up the dust and whilst suspended in the air, was ignited by the following flame.

Other parts of the mine that were wet or damp did not suffer the effects of the explosion, but where roads were dry and dusty the explosion traversed these areas.
The burning of coal dust uses up the oxygen in the atmosphere and incomplete combustion produces the deadly gas carbon monoxide, from which the vast majority of the miners died.

There was not sufficient evidence to show what caused the flame to ignite the methane gas in the first place, but the Inspector’s opinion was that it was either a defective safety lamp, or sparks produced by falling bull-dog stone in the goaf (the area where the coal has been extracted from.)

The enquiry and hearing of evidence was opened at Stoke Town Hall on December 3rd, 1919, nearly two years after the explosion.
The reasons for the delay were that ventilation doors had been blown down, air crossings destroyed and falls blocked the roadways; it was a gassy pit and liable to spontaneous combustion.
The mine owners did not wish to proceed with the exploration, they were of the opinion that it was dangerous to do so, and believed that there was a serious risk of a further explosion and loss of life.

The Miners’ Federation, and the North Staffordshire Miners’ Association, along with the Inspector of Mines, thought that it could be done safely and urged that the bodies remaining in the mine should be recovered and the cause of the explosion ascertained.

The owners eventually agreed to carry out the work.
By January 16th, 1918 the North Staffordshire Colliery Owner’s Association realised that the exploration of the workings devastated by the explosion was going to be a long and anxious matter and would need to be done by rescue brigades, wearing self-contained breathing apparatus.
A consultative committee was formed with the representatives of all interested parties, to plan the long and arduous recovery work.
The seam was opened up step by step until the last body was brought out on August 19th, 1919 about nineteen months after the explosion.

As with other accidents, lessons were learnt and further regulations were issued for the treatment of coal dust; the point was made that Government experts should look at ways of making coal dust inert.
Now a day’s systematic stone dusting is carried out, samples are taken and analysed to see that it is 75% stone dust, so as to prevent a coal dust explosion.

There are two cases of outstanding bravery recorded.
One was Frank Halfpenny who, when the explosion occurred, was five hundred yards from No. 1 shaft bottom.
He said there was a noise then a reversing of the air current, followed by dust and smoke.
He lay down till the air current resumed its natural course.
Then he travelled a distance of eight hundred yards surrounded in smoke to a telephone, to give a report to the surface of the state of affairs below ground.
On the way he lifted two unconscious lads from the gutter; one ultimately recovered.

The other case was James Machin, leader of the rescue brigade, for his work when Hugh Doorbar lost his life due to a combination of faults on two valves on his breathing apparatus whilst exploring in an irrespirable atmosphere.

The Miners’ Union met, expressing great regret at the sad disaster, and sincere sympathy with the widows and children and all sufferers in the lamentable explosion.
A fund was organized for the purpose of rendering weekly assistance to the widows, children and dependants of the miners who had been killed.
Each workman subscribed 10/- per head and boys 5/- at the rate of 6d and 3d per week respectively.
A committee composed of representatives of miners and public contributors administered this assistance fund.
Mr Sam Finney, the North Staffordshire Miners’ Secretary, also met the mayors of Newcastle and Stoke regarding the appeal for subscriptions to the fund.
The Manager of Stoke Hippodrome arranged collections from his patrons.
The North Staffordshire Choral Society held a concert, and Bycars’ munitions workers also gave assistance.

This money, of course, is very welcome in times of need, but all the money in the world can’t compensate for this tragedy with so much loss of life.

13 th January 2012


                   Costa Concordia disaster :
                                                         The passenger cruise ship Costa Concordia sinks off the coast of Italy due to the captain Francesco Schettino's negligence and irresponsibility. There are 32 confirmed deaths.


Many famous naval disasters happen far out at sea, but on January 13, 2012, the Costa Concordia wrecked just off the coast of an Italian island in relatively shallow water. The avoidable disaster killed 32 people and seriously injured many others, and left investigators wondering: Why was the luxury cruise ship sailing so close to the shore in the first place?

During the ensuing trial, prosecutors came up with a tabloid-ready explanation: The married ship captain had sailed it so close to the island to impress a much younger Moldovan dancer with whom he was having an affair.

Whether or not Captain Francesco Schettino was trying to impress his girlfriend is debatable. (Schettino insisted the ship sailed close to shore to salute other mariners and give passengers a good view.) But whatever the reason for getting too close, the Italian courts found the captain, four crew members and one official from the ship’s company, Costa Crociere (part of Carnival Corporation), to be at fault for causing the disaster and preventing a safe evacuation. The wreck was not the fault of unexpected weather or ship malfunction—it was a disaster caused entirely by a series of human errors.

“At any time when you have an incident similar to Concordia, there is never…a single causal factor,” says Brad Schoenwald, a senior marine inspector at the United States Coast Guard. “It is generally a sequence of events, things that line up in a bad way that ultimately create that incident.



The Concordia was supposed to take passengers on a seven-day Italian cruise from Civitavecchia to Savona. But when it deviated from its planned path to sail closer to the island of Giglio, the ship struck a reef known as the Scole Rocks. The impact damaged the ship, allowing water to seep in and putting the 4,229 people on board in danger.

Sailing close to shore to give passengers a nice view or salute other sailors is known as a “sail-by,” and it’s unclear how often cruise ships perform these maneuvers. Some consider them to be dangerous deviations from planned routes. In its investigative report on the 2012 disaster, Italy’s Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports found that the Concordia “was sailing too close to the coastline, in a poorly lit shore area…at an unsafe distance at night time and at high speed (15.5 kts).”

In his trial, Captain Schettino blamed the shipwreck on Helmsman Jacob Rusli Bin, who he claimed reacted incorrectly to his order; and argued that if the helmsman had reacted correctly and quickly, the ship wouldn’t have wrecked. However, an Italian naval admiral testified in court that even though the helmsman was late in executing the captain’s orders, “the crash would’ve happened anyway.” (The helmsman was one of the four crew members convicted in court for contributing to the disaster.)



A Questionable Evacuation
Former captain of the Costa Concordia Francesco Schettino spoke with reporters after being aboard the ship with the team of experts inspecting the wreck on February 27, 2014 in Isola del Giglio, Italy. The Italian captain went back onboard the wreck for the first time since the sinking of the cruise ship on January 13, 2012, as part of his trial for manslaughter and abandoning ship.



Evidence introduced in Schettino’s trial suggests that the safety of his passengers and crew wasn’t his number one priority as he assessed the damage to the Concordia. The impact and water leakage caused an electrical blackout on the ship, and a recorded phone call with Costa Crociere’s crisis coordinator, Roberto Ferrarini, shows he tried to downplay and cover up his actions by saying the blackout was what actually caused the accident.

“I have made a mess and practically the whole ship is flooding,” Schettino told Ferrarini while the ship was sinking. “What should I say to the media?… To the port authorities I have said that we had…a blackout.” (Ferrarini was later convicted for contributing to the disaster by delaying rescue operations.)

Schettino also didn’t immediately alert the Italian Search and Rescue Authority about the accident. The impact on the Scole Rocks occurred at about 9:45 p.m. local time, and the first person to contact rescue officials about the ship was someone on the shore, according to the investigative report. Search and Rescue contacted the ship a few minutes after 10:00 p.m., but Schettino didn’t tell them what had happened for about 20 more minutes.


A little more than an hour after impact, the crew began to evacuate the ship. But the report noted that some passengers testified that they didn’t hear the alarm to proceed to the lifeboats. Evacuation was made even more chaotic by the ship listing so far to starboard, making walking inside very difficult and lowering the lifeboats on one side, near to impossible. Making things worse, the crew had dropped the anchor incorrectly, causing the ship to flop over even more dramatically.

Through the confusion, the captain somehow made it into a lifeboat before everyone else had made it off. A coast guard member angrily told him on the phone to “Get back on board, damn it!”—a recorded sound bite that turned into a T-shirt slogan in Italy.

Schettino argued that he fell into a lifeboat because of how the ship was listing to one side, but this argument proved unconvincing. In 2015, a court found Schettino guilty of manslaughter, causing a shipwreck, abandoning ship before passengers and crew were evacuated and lying to authorities about the disaster. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison. In addition to Schettino, Ferrarini and Rusli Bin, the other people who received convictions for their role in the disaster were Cabin Service Director Manrico Giampedroni, First Officer Ciro Ambrosio and Third Officer Silvia Coronica.

14 th January 1967

The human be-in :
Counterculture of the 1960s: The Human Be-In takes place in San Francisco, California's Golden Gate Park, launching the Summer of Love.



A Brief History
On January 14, 1967, San Francisco saw the iconic counter-culture event “The Human Be-In.”


Digging Deeper
Digging deeper, we find the gathering, the brainchild of Michael Bowen, at Golden Gate Park.

An evolution of 1950’s “beat-niks,” “the hippies” and “flower children” of the 1960s were looking for something other than the answers main stream America gave them, and they flocked to San Francisco, the Mecca of counter-culture.

The Human Be-In became the inspiration for the musical play Hair, which of course celebrated the shift from men and boys having short hair to the (at the time) controversial long hair that became emblematic of that era.

This era was also the time and place Timothy Leary, an unofficial spokesman of the hippie movement, uttered his immortal words, “turn on, tune in, drop out,” which to the consternation of many parents of college students was taken quite literally.

If long hair and dropping out of college were not enough, the older generations, especially the parents of girls, were further driven to distraction by the concept of “free love,” sex with whomever, whenever and wherever you want! Another major difference of opinion (and the law) was the use of illegal drugs, especially marijuana and LSD.

Although other cities saw their young adults and teens celebrate the “Summer of Love,” the heart and soul of the movement was in San Francisco, started by the 30,000 attendees of the Human Be-in. Other important events also took place in 1967, such as the Monterey Pop Festival, memorialized by The Animals’ song “Monterey.”

Probably the most iconic and symbolic song of the Summer of Love was sung by Scott Mckenzie (“San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Flowers In Your Hair).”)

The Human Be-in kicked off a year in which so many lives would be forever changed; some did not continue their studies or pursue academic careers; others got a criminal record for drug use; and a few were left with venereal diseases such as herpes, the result of “free love.”

On the other hand, the anti-war sentiment helped end the war in Viet Nam sooner than it would have without the influence of “flower power,” and certainly many people were redirected to their true calling by the messages of peace, love and disregard for material wealth. Peace, brothers and sisters!

15 th January 1867

Regents park skating disaster :
Forty people die when ice covering the boating lake at Regent's Park, London, collapses.



The Regent's Park skating disaster occurred on 15 January 1867 when 40 people died after the ice broke on the lake in London's Regent's Park pitching about 200 people into icy water up to 12 ft deep. Most were rescued by bystanders but 40 people died either from hypothermia or by drowning. The incident was considered at the time to be the worst weather-related accident in Britain. One of the consequences of the incident was that the lake bottom was raised and the overall depth of the lake reduced to a maximum depth of 4 ft, to help prevent adult drownings in the future.

Background
January 1867 was an exceptionally cold month in Britain and many open water areas froze over. One of these was the boating lake in Regent's Park in London, England. Ice skating was a popular pastime in Britain at the time, and many hundreds of people went skating on the lake, taking advantage of the frozen waters. On 14 January 1867, the ice cracked: 21 people dropped into the water but all were pulled out alive.

Incident
Overnight, the ice refroze and the following day, about 500 people took to the ice with an estimated 2,000 more watching. At 3:30 pm the ice was heard to crack and almost half of the skaters fell into the water. As many could not swim and were wearing heavy clothing, they sank. Those watching attempted to rescue them by launching boats and pulling branches from trees to use as lifelines. Many were rescued unharmed, while survivors with hypothermia and recovered bodies were taken to the nearby Marylebone workhouse. Recovery of all the bodies took several days as the lake kept refreezing and several bodies had to be removed from the bottom of the lake by divers.

Inquest
An inquest was opened at the Marylebone workhouse on 16 January presided over by Edwin Lankester, the coroner for Central Middlesex, at which time 29 of the 34 bodies recovered had been identified. The inquest resumed on 19 January to identify the remaining bodies and on 21 January the formal taking of evidence began. Several witnesses were called and it emerged that, on the morning of the tragedy, workmen had been employed in breaking the ice around the islands on the lake to give wildfowl open water. Other evidence given concurred with this but it was also pointed out that there had been no breaking of the ice at the shoreline.

The jury returned their verdict in the afternoon of 21 January and, despite the evidence regarding intentional breaking of the ice, the verdicts were of accidental death in all 40 cases; 39 due to drowning and one due to hypothermia.

Aftermath
The inquest jury also made a recommendation that the depth of the lake ought to be reduced; Lord John Manners, the First Commissioner of Works was in agreement and in June 1868 it was reported that the lake had been drained, the bottom levelled and lined with concrete and that the depth would be such that a "person of adult stature—might not be drowned"

16 th January 1707

The act of union :
The Scottish Parliament ratifies the Act of Union, paving the way for the creation of Great Britain.


Although England and Scotland had shared a monarch since the Union of Crowns in 1603, they had remained separate states operating under the control of separate governments. Essentially, the monarch wore two crowns simultaneously, and the respective parliaments governed their own nations. In spite of three separate attempts to unify the countries in the years following the Union of Crowns, (1606, 1667, and 1689) it was not until the reign of Queen Anne in 1702 that a union came to fruition.

Shortly before his death in 1702, King William III had attempted to set the wheels in motion for unification discussions. After his death, however, the union talks fell apart. The Tories had taken power and they had little interest in unifying with Presbyterian Scotland. Further disagreement about the allocation of taxes and Scotland’s access to English trade routes served to completely undermine the talks.


The Duke of Queensberry served as the Lord High Commissioner, or, the Queen’s personal representative to Scottish Parliament. Queensberry attempted to find a middle ground between the new parliament and the Queen’s interests, but he failed in his attempts. By mid-1703, Scottish Parliament had proposed an Act of Security which, if enacted, would protect the Scottish institutions from the possibility of union. Furthermore, the act mandated that the Queen’s successor in Scotland would not be the same person who wore the English crown, unless Scotland was guaranteed virtually complete independence from England’s influence. Scotland’s parliamentary defiance of England passed easily.

With the lines of conflict drawn, the Queen set about preparing her response. In a show of power, England presented the Scottish Parliament with two options: (1) enter into fresh negotiations for a union on the conditions that there be full unification of the parliaments and full free trade; or, (2) have all staple exports to England banned in addition to losing all the legal rights of Englishman. Hard choice, right? Not really. After some foot dragging and protesting, the Scottish Parliament obtained enough support to agree to negotiate. Unsurprisingly, however, they could not agree about how to select the members for their negotiation commission. In a move that stunned many members of the Scottish Parliament, one of the chief opponents of unification backed down and allowed the Queen to choose which members from Scotland would negotiate. This surprising concession effectively allowed the Queen to hand-select the men who would negotiate.

In April 1706, the Scottish representatives were presented the proposal that:

“the two kingdoms of England and Scotland be forever united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain; that the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same parliament; and that the succession to the monarchy of Great Britain be vested in the House of Hanover.”

As would be expected, the new negotiations managed to reach agreement within three days. The English received confirmation that the Hanoverian line would succeed to the Scottish throne. The Scottish in turn received access to the English trade routes and colonial markets. Scotland’s focus on obtaining trade expansion received a fair amount of opposition from those who saw it as a simple exchange of political autonomy for potential economic growth, or, more realistically, freedom for money. By July 1706, however, the negotiations had concluded. They had established a date by which their new Articles of Union had to be ratified by both parliaments: 1 May 1707.

With the date set, the negotiation members returned to their respective parliament to begin debate. Scotland would be the first to consider whether to accept the Articles of Union. Over several months from October 1706 to January 1707 the Scottish Parliament debated the 25 proposed articles. At the outset, strong opposition to the articles came from those who believed the Scottish Kirk would be undermined if unification were to take place. Within days of the debate’s opening, however, the Kirk itself gave assent to the union treaty, a move that paved the way for successful passage. Another factor that helped sway the balance came in the form of bribes. The Queen’s representative at the debate was again Queensberry and he was quite liberal in his promises of appointment, honor, and money.

As the bribes and pressure began to take effect, the Scottish Parliament gradually ratified one article at a time. By the time they reached Article 22, it was apparent to the opposition that defeat was inevitable. Article 22, in their eyes, was a death-knell to the very independence for which Scotland had fought; it sealed the abolishment of Scottish Parliament and assented to their representation in the new British Parliament at a ratio of 10-to-1 in favor of the English members. The 25th and last article was approved on 14 January 1707. Before the formal ratification of the entire Union with England Act, Scotland ensured the independence of the Kirk by including an act guaranteeing a Presbyterian Kirk.

On 16 January 1707, Scottish Parliament voted on the Union with England Act. (Parliamentary Minutes, Thursday 16 January 1707) Effectively, the vote was a final approval of the terms of the Act of Union, as England would simply have to ratify the act before 1 May. Passage of the act was easily won by a margin of 110 to 67. As a signification of the Queen’s approval, Queensberry touched the ratified act with the royal sceptre. Scotland had assented to union with England and to the absorption of its parliament into England’s.

17 th January 1912

The race to the South Pole :
British polar explorer Captain Robert Falcon Scott reaches the South Pole, one month after Roald Amundsen.

Arriving at the South Pole in the middle of its year-long winter, Robert Falcon Scott and his four colleagues had another disappointment to contend with.
What was an expedition had turned to a race, and they had lost. The Norwegians, led by Roald Amundsen, meant that Earth’s southern most extremity was ‘conquered’ by the time Scott had arrived on the scene. It was an agonising irony: the south yielding to men from Norway, a land
whose bulk rests in the Arctic Circle. But coming second, and not having the satisfaction of stabbing a Union flag into the snow and ice, would pale into insignificance when assessed in the context of the Terra Nova expedition’s tragic, frigid fate.
It was Scott’s second visit to Antarctica. A Naval officer of some distinction, he was one of history’s men who, through the ages, became smitten with the glory of an adventure into the unknown. He led the Discovery expedition tantalisingly close to the South Pole in 1901. The Royal Geographic Society and the Royal Society sired the mission – officially known as the National Antarctic Expedition, the Dundee -built Discovery endured the icy expanse of Antarctica and made it back. That in itself a victory.
But for Scott, it was not enough. He needed the Pole. Lauded for his bravery at the time, current opinions of his leadership have been more critical; eschewing the help of Siberian huskies, it is said that Scott was perhaps naive in his pursuit of the South Pole. His relationship with his fellow explorers was also said to be strained: the competition for the glory a potential dynamic that soured relations between the crew.
For Terra Nova and Scott, morale must have plummeted lower than the local temperature after Amundsen’s success, and the future was even more bleak. The 800 mile journey back was fated by Scott to be “dreadfully tiring and monotonous” – he was wrong, it would be much worse.