Skip to main content

A different age

In my programme of scanning in old photos I have come across my first ever school photo.


Taken probably in 1960 it might as well be in the dark ages, it looks so ancient. I have no idea what happened to the others who were at Smithy Bridge Infant School in that photo - I am not in contact with any of them. Probably the usual mix of hopes fulfilled and dreams shattered.

I love that we've got several ties and a couple of sets of braces amongst the boys. And that the poses are anything but formal. That's the firm but fair Mrs Fielding in charge. And if you're interested, I'm the one with the seriously curly hair on the right hand end of the middle row.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous16 October 2015 at 10:53

    I recognize some of the faces, Brian. Colin Rothwell is in the back row, wearing a tie. Robert Ashton is 4th from left in the front row. I'm in the middle row, (3rd from left) between Colin and Robert. Carol Newton is in the middle row, fourth from right.

    Man of Mystery

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian Clegg16 October 2015 at 11:49

      Thanks, Mr Mystery. I know the names of about 4 others, but many remain as mysterious as you!

      Delete
  2. Anonymous27 April 2016 at 10:20

    Brian, Somebody tells me that Man of Mystery is aka David Mitchell. I enjoy reading your articles in New Scientist, and I think you sometimes contribute to Physics World. Clegg Hall, which from memory was near the Smithy Bridge Primary School (bottom school) is another topic of interest to me. I recall visiting the place with Robert Ashton, hoping to glimpse one of the ghosts supposedly inhabiting the site. Alas, nothing eventuated .... maybe it was a hoax.

    Man of Mystery

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more