"SINK THE BISMARCK !"

K.M.S. BISMARCK, bows on escorted by seagulls.

"In May of 1941, the War had just begun" according to the American pop song     " Sink the Bismarck" (1960). Well, it was a pop song and not History.  

The Second World War began on 3rd September 1939. By May of 1941, it was already 21 months old. Through all those 21 Months the full panoply of British patriotic fervour and all its manifestations had been swiftly mobilised to win the War: "God Save the King", "Land of Hope and Glory" and especially "Rule Britannia!" swelled loyal chests.  The people did not really need to be reminded that:

 "It is upon the Navy

under the good Providence of God 

that the safety, honour and welfare 

of this realm do chiefly depend" 

( taken from the preamble to "Articles of War"

 of King Charles II (1630-1685). 

H.M.S.HOOD

Nothing better exemplified the inevitability of Victory in this struggle than that same Royal Navy. And the pride of the Fleet remained the 46,680 tons Battle Cruiser  H.M.S. HOOD with her awesome main armament of eight 15 inch guns and her impressive speed of 32 Knots, even though she had been commissioned in 1920. 

Unknown to the populace, she was overdue for a major refit when War broke out. Her steaming capacity was limited so much that she could only make 28 knots.  Despite this, HOOD was sent, in company with the new 43,786 tons Battleship H.M.S. PRINCE OF WALES to attack and destroy the new  50,300 tons German Battleship K.M.S. BISMARCK sailing in company with the new 19,050 tons Heavy Cruiser K.M.S. PRINZ EUGEN. 

K.M.S. BISMARCK

But the key to what happened was not only the nature of each ship but also the way it was being used.

HOOD was designed to avoid a battle with a superior ship such as BISMARCK, but she was used to seek out and attack BISMARCK. Of course, it could be argued that sailing in company with the Battleship PRINCE OF WALES - brand new and still suffering some operating problems, the pair were nominally far superior to BISMARCK and PRINZ EUGEN. 

K.M.S. PRINZ EUGEN

H.M.S. PRINCE OF WALES

PRINCE OF WALES had been commissioned four months earlier, on 19th January 1941. She had a displacement of 43,786 tons, a speed of 28.3 Knots and a main armament of 10 x 14-inch guns. But both before and throughout the brief, but disastrous encounter, she was suffering major equipment failures, the worst of which was the jamming of "Y" Turret (the final one toward the stern, the second of her two four- gun turrets).

Another intruding factor was that the Flag Officer Commanding the Squadron was in HOOD, the pride of the Royal Navy. It was unthinkable that he would leave the attack to his hierarchically subordinate companion vessel.

THE ACTION

The brief engagement on 24th May 1941 provided what were to be among the most devastating minutes of the War. The British Squadron first spotted the German ships at 05.37  and the action was broken off by PRINCE OF WALES at 06.05. Twenty-eight minutes had elapsed. But in three of those minutes,  HOOD had been hit by BISMARCK'S remarkably accurate gunnery. She blew up and sank with the loss of 1,418 men leaving only 3 survivors. It was a horrendous and awe-inspiring event which profoundly shocked those onlookers in the other ships, both German and British.

We know from eyewitness accounts, and from the wreck discovered in 2001, that the after magazine had exploded breaking the great ship's back and destroying her stern. The wreck also revealed that portion of the bow was missing - suggesting an explosion of the forward magazine either just before, or just after the ship sank below the surface.

Precisely what caused the catastrophe is keenly debated. The probable causes are either :

a direct hit by BISMARCK's 15" Shells penetrating to the HOOD's after magazine, or, 

that a massive fire known to have been caused by another of BISMARCK's 15-inch shells in the midships section caused the 4-inch ammunition lockers (which were not armoured) to explode, causing damage to the 15-inch magazines resulting in the fatal explosion, or, 

that a BISMARCK 15 inch shell fell short and travelled underwater striking the ship below its armour plating and exploding in or near the after magazine. 

There were also several theories suggesting that accidents within HOOD's own guns or the explosion of her own torpedoes might have been to blame. Both have been conclusively disproved. The ideas seem to have been intended to suggest that it was not the enemy that sank the HOOD - foolish disinformation.

The British had opened fire at 05.52 with HOOD firing on PRINZ EUGEN which was ahead of BISMARCK. Three minutes later the Germans returned fire, both their ships concentrating on HOOD.  An 8-inch shell from Prinz Eugen struck HOOD between the funnels starting a large fire amongst the ready use ammunition for the anti-aircraft guns. Just before 06.00 HOOD was hit directly by BISMARCK's fifth salvo at a range of 10.35 Miles. This resulted in the catastrophic explosion and within three minutes HOOD was gone along with all her crew save three, as we have said.

The first two salvos from PRINCE OF WALES had landed more than half a mile beyond BISMARCK. Her 6th, ninth and thirteenth salvos straddled BISMARCK. Two direct hits were made - one holed her bow and caused the loss of 1,000 tons of fuel oil. The second had fallen short and struck BISMARCK below the armour belt exploding in a boiler room. 

Tellingly, HOOD and PRINCE OF WALES in their eagerness to engage BISMARCK and PRINZ EUGEN had approached them at an angle of about 30 Degrees off the bow. The effect of this was to limit the British guns that could be brought to bear to the forward "A" and "B" turrets of each ship., whereas the German ships were able to bring all of their guns to bear. This was a serious tactical misjudgement. 

Nevertheless, it still left the British with 4 x 15-inch guns and 5 x 14-inch guns in action vs. the German ships with 8 x 15-inch guns and 8 x 8-inch guns in action. This meant that each firing of the British guns hurled 23,335lbs. of shells toward the Germans, and each time the Germans fired they hurled only 16,152 lbs in return. This is a result of the disparity in shell weights  :

HOOD                                 1,920lbs each x 8      Rate of Fire 2.0 per min. per gun

                                           

PRINCE OF WALES      1,595 lbs each x 5      Rate of Fire 1.3 per min. per gun

BISMARCK                       1,800 lbs each x 8      Rate of Fire 2.5 per  min.per gun

PRINZ EUGEN                    269  lbs each  x 8     Rate of Fire 4.0 per  min.per gun

The actual difference in weight of shells fired depends of course on the rate of fire actually achieved since the above rates of fire are design figures.  We know that the BISMARCK was firing its salvos at the rate of one per minute.

                               K.M.S. BISMARCK  bows on (note the "escort" of gulls.)

SUMMARY

The complexities of the contest are even greater than shown above, but the main outline has been given. The struggle was one of epic proportions and intensity.

The crushing loss of H.M.S. HOOD was a psychological blow to British confidence. It was the falling of one's champion in battle. Contrary to the anthem, it called into question the claim that "Britannia Rules the Waves." 

To British pride, this was intolerable, quite apart from being tragic. The old Lion Rampant himself, Winston Churchill gave the order: "SINK THE BISMARCK !  " and all hell broke loose at sea as the Royal Navy threw everything it could muster into that effort. 

On the 26th May, as BISMARCK made for the port of Brest for the repair of damage sustained, Torpedo Bombers from the Aircraft Carrier H.M.S. Victorious made hits on her stern, jamming her port rudder in a turning position. This condemned her to steaming around in a given area.  British destroyers kept watch on her position overnight. 

And finally on the 27th May the British Battleships KING GEORGE V and RODNEY came up into position , and with the aid of several Cruisers attacked the crippled BISMARCK and sank her with considerable loss of life , 111 survivors were rescued, but hundreds more were left in the water when U Boats were detected in the vicinity. These later saved some of those survivors after the British ships departed. The great ship was like a bear in a pit surrounded in an unequal fight.

HUBRIS

The headlong dash of H.M.S. HOOD and H.M.S. PRINCE OF WALES into the attack on K.M.S. BISMARCK and K.M.S. PRINZ EUGEN brings to mind the quote attributed to Admiral Lord Nelson :

 "Never mind manoeuvres go at them" 

Was this necessary, or advisable? The two German ships had been spotted the previous day by the British Heavy Cruisers H.M.S. SUFFOLK and H.M.S. NORFOLK. These two sister ships were substantial combatants in their own right each displacing 13,450Tons, carrying a main armament of 8  Eight Inch guns (as did K.M.S. Prinz Eugen). They also carried two quadruple mounts of 21" Torpedo Tubes and they each had a speed of 31.5 Knots.  They had not only sighted  BISMARCK and PRINZ EUGEN the day before the battle, but they had followed them continually, vectoring HOOD and PRINCE of WALES onto the German Squadron. They clearly had no trouble keeping up with the great ships of either side. Their involvement in the action would have had the advantage of enabling the British to achieve the maximum advantage by obtaining the best angle of attack, so that ALL their guns were brought to bear. This could be done using the Cruisers' torpedo tubes to fire on the German ships causing them to alter course to avoid the torpedoes. (This was done repeatedly during the war, often by mere Destroyers with great effect.) Even their main armament  - a combined 16  8- Inch guns could have been very useful as we see with PRINZ EUGEN and her 8- Inch guns scoring hits on the HOOD.

But the services of SUFFOLK and NORFOLK were NOT used. However, after HOOD had been sunk and BISMARCK damaged, they joined company with PRINCE OF WALES at last, and then, were brought in to assist KING GEORGE V and RODNEY to despatch the crippled BISMARCK.

It seems that the hubris induced by the "Britannia Rules the Waves" syndrome, the Nelsonian  "Never mind manoeuvres " exhortation,  and the myth of "the Mighty Hood" as she had long been known, had led to the decision not to use all available forces, and not to seek the optimum angle of approach. It is easy to be the armchair Admiral after the event of course. But the facts are the facts.

In December of the same year 1941, the British Battleship PRINCE OF WALES and the Battle Cruiser REPULSE were sunk when attacked by eighty-eight Japanese land-based Aircraft. The ships, with only 4 Destroyers and no air superiority cover, were despatched to reinforce Singapore. With its massive seaward pointing defense guns, Singapore had been "impregnable".  Until the Japanese attacked "through the back door" piercing through the"impenetrable" jungle. 

These two traumatic events, following so closely on the loss of HOOD, finally put "paid" to British hubris.

VULNERABILITY

For all the consideration given to Armour to protect the waterline and beneath it, to protect the main deck, the gun turrets, the barbettes on which the turrets were mounted ,adding thousands of tons of weight to the great ships, they all retained a point of vulnerability out of necessity : the stern beneath which there extended the propellers and their drive shafts and the rudders. Both propellers and rudders must, by the very nature of their operation, be exposed in order to have their influence on the seas.

                                 Fairey "Swordfish" Maximum Speed 134 MPH.

And it was at this point of vulnerability, that the ancient, obsolescent Fairey "Swordfish" bi-plane Torpedo Bombers from the carrier H.M.S. VICTORIOUS were successful in striking the BISMARCK, leading to her sinking. One of their torpedoes struck her stern and the explosion jammed BISMARCK's port rudder at an angle of 12 Degrees to Port. This caused the great ship to begin to circle and defied all efforts to regain control of her direction. 

The whole story is too long to recount here, but basically, the British had lost contact with BISMARCK earlier due to her clever maneuvering and the pursuing armada of battleships, battlecruisers, cruisers and destroyers had, in any case, desperate needs for fuel. Only King George V and Rodney were able to stay the course and were joined by Suffolk and Norfolk. Finally, a Catalina Flying Boat detected Bismarck and those ships moved in for the kill.

The great drama came to a close.

CONCLUSION

A matter of Hubris and Vulnerability - there are lessons here - not only Naval but for all of us in our lives, not to be led astray by inflated ideas of ourselves and to know ourselves well enough to consider our weakest points both moral and spiritual.

 

HUBRIS AND CATASTROPHE

78 Years ago today 0n 24th May 1941, almost a year after the seeming miracle of the Dunkirk evacuation, H.M.S.HOOD in company with the Battleship PRINCE OF WALES was in search of the German Battleship K.M.S. BISMARCK which was known to be at sea sailing in company with the Heavy Cruiser K.M.S. PRINZ EUGEN. There were to be no miracles on this occasion.

It is difficult today, to recover the sense of how large some things loomed in the public consciousness even 50 years ago. Today instant communications and a hysterical Public relations industry create "sensations" overnight and discard them just as readily.

But in the decades before 1941, the public mind was accustomed to long-lasting "bests and greatests". They gave the world a sense of order and an imagery that made it easier to comprehend.  High in the ranking of "greatests"  was the Battlecruiser H.M.S. HOOD. She was, and had been for over twenty years, the very embodiment and symbol of the might of the British Empire. She proved that "Britannia Rules the Waves!"

Commissioned in 1920, she had been laid down in 1916 and launched in 1918. For the twenty years after her commissioning, she was the largest and most powerful warship in the world. She had the nickname "The Mighty Hood". In fact, she became the ultimate symbol of the power of the British Empire.

Weighing 47,000 Tons and 860 Feet long with a Beam of 104 Feet, her 144,000 SHP engines could drive her along at 32 Knots.  The concept of the Battlecruiser had evolved as a ship with the armament of a Battleship but the light armour of a cruiser - so that she could catch anything she could outgun and evade anything whose armour she could not pierce. She did have light armour but nothing to match that of a Battleship. Her deck Armour was arranged on the Upper Deck and on the two decks below it. This was quite clever, the idea being that an enemy shell would be detonated on hitting the Upper Deck and the blast would be progressively absorbed by the two decks below.  However, in the twenty years since her commissioning, the invention of time delay shells had invalidated that theory because they would pierce probably two or even all three decks before detonating with immense effect in the bowels of such a ship. In addition, in those intervening years the Heavy Guns being mounted in Battleships were much more powerful than the 8 x 15" Guns of her main armament. The new 16" guns fired heavier shells over a greater range with increased accuracy. There were plans to improve many aspects of HOOD but the outbreak of war in 1939 prevented the work from being done.

K.M.S. PRINZ EUGEN

Just before dawn, at 5.37am   HOOD spotted the PRINZ EUGEN ahead of BISMARCK. At 5.52 am HOOD opened fire on PRINZ EUGEN. This was an act of inbred hubris. 

The angle of approach meant that HOOD could only engage the enemy with half her armament - the two turrets forward, AND she was engaging a force including a battleship -  BISMARCK -  which she was designed to avoid. True, she obviously hoped to dispose of the inferior PRINZ EUGEN in short order, and she was accompanied by the new battleship H.M.S. PRINCE OF WALES, but PRINCE OF WALES was experiencing operational teething troubles with some of her guns. Had the force commander in HOOD not been confident that the "Nelson spirit" would give the British the absolute advantage over the enemy, prudence would have required a less precipitate engagement. The German ships were able to bring all their guns to bear.

Three minutes later, at 5.55 am BISMARCK and PRINZ EUGEN opened fire on HOOD scoring a hit on the secondary armament ready-use ammunition on the boat deck between HOOD'S two funnels. A Massive fire ensued. Four minutes later, BISMARCK'S main armament scored a direct hit on HOOD at a range of 18,210 yards (10.35 Miles). HOOD was in the process of turning 20 degrees to Port to bring her after armament to bear.  A huge sheet of flame shot up from the area of the main mast followed by a mighty explosion of the after magazine which entirely destroyed the after part of the ship. HOOD's back was broken and her bow stood vertically before the whole of the ship disappeared beneath the sea. 

In 3 minutes she was gone, taking with her all but 3 of her crew of 1,416 men.

H.M.S. HOOD

Observers on PRINCE OF WALES, PRINZ EUGEN and BISMARCK were all likewise appalled at the horrendous character of the event.

PRINCE OF WALES made a few hits on BISMARCK before disengaging due to the failure of a number of her guns. BISMARCK had sustained a hit which contaminated part of her fuel supply and caused her to head for a French port under German control.

The loss of HOOD was a severe blow to British pride and confidence from Winston Churchill to the man in the street. Early efforts to explain what happened sought to correct the official version given above. Efforts were made to say that it had been the ship's torpedoes which had blown up in an accident, or the that the magazine had blown up in an accident. A second official Inquiry found the same as the first - enemy shells had done the deed - there was to be no denying the fact. In more recent times the wreck of HOOD has been located and examined confirming the official account.

The BISMARCK's fate is a story for another day.

THAT BOUQUET OF MOTHERS

MY MUM in later life. She was born in 1905 and died in 1971.

Here I am surrounded by a pictorial  bouquet of Mothers !( I think "bouquet" is a suitable collective noun for a group of Mothers!) Each one of them I have had the privilege and joy to share my life with, and each one has been a remarkable example of love and kindness in action, even in the gravest difficulty. The pictures are in no particular order. Obviously, the first Mother I knew was my very own dear Mum, who led a life of self- sacrifice, love, and loyalty in the most adverse circumstances. Her love was generous and kind, never in the least demanding.

She was the ideal example of her Father's philosophy that love and respect go hand in hand: if you have not got love you will show no respect, if you show no respect, you have no love. Grandad hit the nail on the head, and my dear Mum had absorbed the lesson and lived it out.

 

My Grandma Dixon -Elinor Margaret (Mag) Dixon

Born  1882       Died 1948

Next, I got to know my Grandma Dixon who lived on the next block one street behind us. Hers was also a tough life coping with a difficult husband and who gave herself to helping many human strays in the family orbit. She was very loving in her treatment of me and in early primary school days I used to walk home via Grandma's place, where she would always be seated on the verandah - waiting for me with a One Shilling piece( with its Merino Sheep Head image on it) clutched in her hand which she gave to me for treats. I can still recall its warmth from her hand, today.

My Grandma Beckmann. Born 1886  Died 1965.

My Mum's Mother, Grandma Beckmann, was a very special lady too. She was more self - confident and outgoing within the family group than my Mum or Grandma Dixon and her love was open-hearted and generous, her hugs big and strong. She was totally devoted to her husband "Ted" Edward Beckmann and in the family circle, she would refer to him as "Daddy"( they had 9 children!). When I knew him his health was failing, and though she would firmly proclaim that "Daddy and I are going to live on into the (Biblical) Millenium", looking back, I can see her anxiety that he was slipping away. She was a wonderful example of love and affection and that, constant and reliable. She had had a tough life with never a lot of money around, and when some windfall occurred an adverse development would sweep it away. She suffered a lot for marrying a "German" especially in World War I as did the older girls, reproached for being "Germans".I recall her unconditional love of me, and those strong, generous hugs today. And, as she lay close to death in Hospital, I can recall her calling out "Mummy" - my Grandmother, at the end of her 

life - calling out for Her Mother!

Robyn and the children in the Autumn leaves of Mount Wilson in 1979.

Then we come to the full-colour Mums. My dear wife Robyn and those three beautiful children, what fun we had that day in the bracing air and rich autumn tones of Mount Wilson! What fun we have had over all the years - and how much of that is due to Robyn, loving loyal, devoted wife and Mother. I guess we have had more good times than all the predecessor Mothers and their families combined and yet we have had a ton of tough times, but Robyn has been a constant source of love and loyalty through thick and thin, and even thinner! No - one could ask for a better Wife or, the children, a better Mother.

Our daughter Justine with 2 mths premature son Daniel (born 1st June 2009)

 now a charmer & picture of robust  good health

The latest Mother in the family bloodline is our dear daughter Justine, Mother to Emily, Christopher, and Daniel. Words nearly fail me (nearly! I always have a few left!) As parents we could not be prouder of this thoroughly modern Mother. She is an exemplary model of love and devotion in effective action, handling even the strain of tiny Daniel's birth, when this tiny literal handful of life seemed to us too fragile , she brought him to the fullness of healthy life with dedication and love, without skipping a beat in the care of Emily and Christopher and husband Paul. And like her paternal Grandmother, she is a stalwart strength for her parents.

So, Mothers of mine, I salute you and honour you, but most of all, I love you unfailingly.

ONE OF TWO FATHERS

Tomorrow is MothersDay. It takes two immediate Fathers to make a Mother. My own Mum's immediate Father had died thirty years earlier. My Dad, who made her a Mother with God's help, died twenty-seven years ago today.

HERE, IN 1927 DAD LOOKS LIKE THE TYPICAL YOUNG 
BANKER OR CIVIL SERVANT
WHICH HE WAS NOT, HE ALWAYS WORKED IN
 BLUE COLLAR OCCUPATIONS

Today, Saturday 11th May 2019 is the Twenty-seventh Anniversary of my Father's death just three weeks short of his 85th Birthday. He survived the death of my Mother by almost 21 years.

Sent to work at age 11 years in 1918, in a metal foundry, he had a pretty tough life. His life experience together with his local social network, made him a lifelong Labor Party voter. He persevered in this even after he said he was convinced that the Labor Party was riddled with Communists whom he despised. He just could not bring himself to desert the "working class party". And in fact, he did see the world and the nation in those Victorian-era Class terms, they coloured every aspect of his life and limited his ideas of what he could or should do, how he should dress, or where he should go. It is a mental prison that many people on the "Left" still inhabit.

My Dad was born a Catholic and educated in a Convent School which was sited on the other side of the back fence of his family home, but for long periods he did not practise his religion. Yet when his "kind eyes" won the heart of Miss Elsie Georgina Beckmann, a petite and beautiful, modest girl from a devout Evangelical Protestant family, he required that they be properly married in the Catholic Church. Miss Beckmann was instructed in the Faith and duly became a Catholic, and they were married in 1927.

To-day's cynicism might suggest that he was being hypocritical. But in those days people were honest about doing wrong  - he knew it was wrong not to practise his religion, but he also knew that there are absolutes of such importance that you don't abuse them: he would not betray his Religion, even if he did not practise it - that Truth was bound to him for life.

When I was born, Dad was 32 years old, he was never unkind to me, but not outgoing or physically demonstrative of his love. ( The Poet James Macauley writes powerfully of his own Father's inability to physically express any affection.) 

He lost his job with the onset of the Great Depression of 1929 and despite daily trampings from job site to job site, did not succeed in getting a job for several years. Living on the Dole as it was called - a Federal Government handout of food each week was soul-destroying. This was exaggerated by the fact that my Mum's process worker skills had enabled her to get a job on the weaving machines of Vickers Mills at North Parramatta, adding cash to the Dole.worked on the construction of the great Garden Island Graving Dock, for the Navy - the largest engineering project in Australia's History up to that time. Work on the necessary Coffer Dam started in 1940. This was a protected employment category, which prevented him from being sent in the labour battalions to Darwin when he received the call-up in the Second World War. He could not be in the regular forces because of faulty eyesight resulting from an accident at the Newlands Iron Foundry when he was about 13 yrs old.

Photo from around 1916.

My Dad John Joseph Dixon on the left (one sock needs pulling up!) his Mum Margaret "Mag" Dixon, his baby brother William (whom Dad always admired, though Dad's life was more admirably lived except that Bill, as he was known, got to serve in the Army in WW II) and Albert ("Abby" whose Surname I never knew , but who was one of several children Grandma informally "adopted "and raised.

As I grew up, all my interests were largely alien to my Dad except Politics, and even then we were on opposite sides of the fence! Only after many years did  I hear that Dad was very proud of my progress in Banking and in other areas and used to regale his regular drinking mates at the hotel in Lidcombe with my latest efforts. We almost never got to talk at any length on any subject, conversation being limited to brief exchanges of statements never pressed too far lest the heavy crunch of disagreement should wreck things.

In my twenties and thirties, I could perceive all my Father's faults with clinical efficiency. Of course, I made every allowance for any tendency to deficiency on my own part. As the years went by my Dad evolved, particularly after he came to see the devastating effect on my Mum's mental health, fragile following a Hysterectomy. He came to see in time, how cruel was the effect of his stubborn, sullen silences - sometimes lasting 3 days - over some exaggerated "offence", on someone so vulnerable. That was the result of his own inability to express himself. Happily he was transformed.

He also returned to the practice of the Faith which was very pleasing to see and he took great delight in his three grandchildren, Marianne, Justine and Matthew and never ceased urging me to look after my Wife!

But still, he could not freely and easily communicate either emotions or ideas. Whether or not this disability stemmed from the treatment he received from his brutish and drunkard Father, I cannot say for sure, but if I were a betting man......

Dad's later years were plagued by troubles with his heart - suffering from an "enlarged heart" which caused recurring build-ups of fluid around the heart, this required repeated hospitalisation to relieve them but there could be no cure.

In fact, he had just successfully completed one such routine and was about to be released from Hospital, when he suffered a heart attack and died. The Catholic Chaplain to the Auburn Hospital where Dad died was quickly on the spot to minister to his poor body and pray for his soul. His name was Father Stephen Swift and I was most impressed by the card he left endorsed with all that needed to be done to ensure a proper Catholic burial - for Father knew nothing of the family.

We were living in Brisbane at the time and I received a call from my Brother Pat telling me of Dad's death and saying that the Hospital wanted to perform an autopsy. I was on the first plane down the next morning and went straight to see the Doctor in Charge -  a young Asian gent. He was prompt to offer condolences and almost as prompt to proffer a form authorising an autopsy for signature. When I objected that they clearly knew the cause of death and that this was unnecessary, the form quickly disappeared into the pocket of his white coat. I informed him that after the long periods of my Dad's health problems, I did not want his body used for training purposes. This is a matter which I believe the Hospital handled very badly, to say the least.

My dear Mum and Dad.

Mum died in 1971

and Dad 1n 1992

Requiescant in Pace.

So John Joseph"Jack" Dixon I love you dearly and hope we have the opportunity to understand each other far better in Paradise. My prayers for the repose of your soul and of Mum's soul are daily made.

 Originally Posted 12th May 2012 by vexilla regis slightly revised