• No ordinary field

    No ordinary field


    The great joy of being a photographer is the access to things and places you might not otherwise see. An associated pleasure comes from talking to people and listening to the little gems of information that they might pass on. I have to confess that I am not very good at listening – it is a skill I am constantly trying to improve, ever mindful of the old adage that we have two ears and one mouth, and we should use them in equal measure!

    Anyway, for the past few months I have been engaged in a commission, a side-effect of which is that I have discovered some fascinating things (largely as a result of chance conversations with people I have happened across) about the area in which my studio is based, including some places which I have passed on many occasions without a second glance. Which leads me nicely to this image here.

    Sir Hiram Maxim and powered flight bexley
    No ordinary field.
    Photo: ยฉ Michael Cockerham 2013

    We all know from our schooling that the first powered flight of a heavier than air vehicle took place at Kitty Hawk in North Carolina in December of 1903. Thanks to Orville and Wilbur Wright and their Flyer, aviation as we know it was born. Now consider this unremarkable cricket pitch at Baldwyn’s Park just outside Bexley in Greater London.

    On July 31st, 1894, Hiram Maxim with a crew of three, piloted an aircraft of his own invention down a 1,800 foot test track sited where this cricket pitch now basks in the spring sun. The aircraft weighted about 8,000 lbs and was powered by two 360 horse power steam engines (yes, steam engines!). About half way down the track it took off and flew for a distance of about 100 feet before crashing back down to the ground again. It was only meant to be a test, and didn’t fly very high –ย  some two or three feet up. But despite its instability it proved that very heavy machines could indeed get off the ground and stay up. All that was needed was to understand and develop the means of controlling such craft.

    Sadly Maxim did not really pursue his flying invention (although he did invent many other notable things, and is worthy of further investigation). Amercian born he became a naturalised British Subject in 1900, and was knighted by Queen Victoria in 1901. It is telling that he was asked towards the end of his life in 1916 about the lack of monument to his work at Baldwyns Park. His response was that the authorities had “demonstrated their appreciation by building the largest, finest and best-equipped lunatic asylum in the world there!”.

    So the next time you’re boarding an aircraft somewhere in the world, think about this bit of green in South East London where a little bit of history was made nearly ten years before the Wright Brothers.


  • Not very green at all, it would seem.


    It’s taken a couple of weeks, but I have finally had a reply from the Executive Assistant to the MD of Samsung UK. It reads:

    Dear Mr Cockerham,

    Thank you for your email addressed to our Managing Director, which you forwarded on to me.

    We have considered your communication and will not be commenting further.

    Well, I’m glad that’s sorted out then. Clearly any pretence that Samsung might make towards being ethically driven and environmentally conscious can be seen to be just that: a pretence.

    I have to be fair to Samsung, because contrary to what they might think I like to be balanced and objective. So in the interests of balance what are the possible reasons for them declining the invitation to comment?

    Firstly they might think I am not serious and therefore they wish to call my bluff. I’d porbably do the same. In the meantime they will be drawing up a formal response just in case the story/question actually does make it to the mainstream media. In effect, this is the keeping your powder dry approach, and by asking the question they are now forewarned. I hope this is the case.

    Second option is that they hadn’t thought of this problem of perception, they are crapping themselves that the story will break as they have no proper response and know that they will come in for a storm of damaging criticism to which they have no real reply.

    Third option: they are a huge company making products that well-off people and companies buy, and they don’t really care.

    My own feeling is that if there is a good reason for this practice they should have just come clean with it now, as that will be less damaging in the long term, but I suspect that it is driven by nothing more than greed.

    I wonder what else is not quite what they would like it to appear?


  1. I worked for them part time in 2000(July) until 2001(May) and it was a really nice team to be involved…

  2. Hello Michael, this was an enlightening article, thankyou for posting it. I was trying to find the original on the…

  3. A lovely photo Michael. A pair of old shoes can really convey so much character canโ€™t they. Probably why Van…