< Previous10 Sightline Spring 2021and ‘huge opportunities to upskill as a result of working online’. The process of technical upskilling involved taking online tutorials on how to use the Zoom platform, a lot of ‘playing around’ with the software, as well as experiments in and between rehearsals to work out the platform’s compatibility with other types of software that could amplify Zoom’s affordances, work around its constraints, and adapt it for performance. With the shift in the Stage Manager’s role came a tongue-in-cheek re-naming of Sinéad Owens’ credit for the Zoorn Tempest, which identified her as ‘Zoom Wizard’.Much of the work of the Stage Manager on Zoom involves live vision mixing, using the platform’s ‘spotlighting’ function to select which screen to show to the audience. When all performers are designated ‘co-hosts’ for the Zoom call, they are automatically presented at the top of the list of call participants, making it easier for the Stage Manager to find and spotlight them on cue. A function that was available in April/May 2020 but which has since been disabled by the platform was the ability of the Zoom host to mute and unmute the audience; by July 2020, the ability to unmute had been disabled as a safeguarding measure to prevent eavesdropping on participants without their consent. For The Tempest’s moments of audience interaction that involved the collective creation of sound effects by all participants (e.g. the rain of the opening tempest, or the cry of the birds pursuing the shipwrecked courtiers), the Stage Manager was responsible for unmuting and muting audience microphones and spotlighting and thus integrating in the production members of the audience who were participating with particular enthusiasm. The Stage Manager was also responsible for operating the sound effects for the show. Because Zoom is designed as a videoconferencing platform, it privileges the sound of the human voice over other sounds, which presents challenges for the use of music and other sound effects. The platform is also designed to automatically spotlight whoever is speaking, so that unmuted performers could, by making a noise before starting to speak their next line, have their screen spotlit without the Stage Manager’s input, making it possible for the Stage Manager to work on other cues in the background. The Stage Manager furthermore was in charge of spotlighting whoever was not speaking but was either listening to the speaker and responding in interesting way or doing something else to which the audience needed to pay attention. The additional requirements regarding sound and vision mixing were effected by using pieces of software that were compatible with Zoom. Vision mixing was done by using ManyCam, which Zoom recognises as one of the camera options and which allows the Stage Manager and performers to switch between the different cameras of individual performers (where applicable). For sound, the company settled on QLab, which was operated as QLab Remote via the Stage Manager’s smartphone. This was connected to Zoom on her laptop through the use of a shared IP address, allowing the Stage Manager to spotlight a performer on the Zoom screen while also cueing sound via QLab Remote. For sound editing, Owens used Adobe audition, which allowed her to feed in sound effects even during rehearsals. Throughout, the Stage Manager maintained her normal role of people management within the creative team, looking after the performers’ welfare and acting as a go-between between the actors and the company. This was more challenging without face-to-face conversations and opportunities, in the margins of rehearsals, to catch up with individual performers. What has been learnt about the process as a whole can be summarised as follows:Digital Theatre Transformation• Digital transformation of creative work was facilitated by Creation Theatre’s prior experience of site-specific immersive modes of working and the adaptability of the creative team• Digital theatre is related to live film and live gaming, with a palette of genres it can draw on and combine, involving various levels of audience participationRhodri Lewis, in The Time MachineSightline Spring 2021 11 • Digital theatre is much faster to produce than physical theatre and requires fewer core members of backstage creative staffChanges to Roles and Skills sets• The roles that have been most affected by the digital transformation are those of the production manager and stage manager, with lesser but still significant changes for the director, designer and the performers.• All members of the creative team have developed new digital skills sets and required trainingEquipment Requirements• All members of the creative team have needed additional computing hardware, software and applications, and performers have needed additional studio equipment (lights, green screen)Performing on Zoom• Performers had to adapt their performance style to Zoom and learn to work with cameras, microphones, and do virtual blocking to establish eyelines and exchanges of props.• Performing for Zoom puts a high cognitive burden on performers who have to operate their own technical cues and be ready to improvise to cover up connectivity glitchesDesigning for Zoom• For backgrounds: using chroma key and green screens for virtual backgrounds which may be static or moving, establishing spatial depth through virtual background design/ props/positioning within the frame, guiding performers through the physical transformation of their home studios using accessoriesCostumes and props that are complementary to the green screens• Lighting individual studio sets, which involves separate diffuse lighting of green screens and diagonal lighting on actors• Sound design, including use of underscoring music, microphones, and volume controlDirecting for Zoom• Recognising the hybridity and specific affordances of the platform as a performance medium• Establishing a dramaturgy that affects running time and script editing, audience participation, pre-recorded video content, storytelling, and creating a strong sense of liveness and community, with a focus on the curtain callChallenges of the Zoom platform• Its design as a videoconferencing platform• Tiny lags that make synchronisation of sound and movement impossible in live performance• Compatibility with software and hardware• ConnectivityOpportunities from performing on Zoom• Reduction in overheads (no venue, rehearsal room, theatre lighting, physical set design, travel, accommodation, physical adaptation for accessibility)• Inclusivity in terms of audiences – accessible for neurodiverse, people with disabilities, but also no geographical limits to where audiences can originate• Environmental gains including 99% reduction in carbon cost from audiences not travelling to a venueChloe Lemonius, in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz12 Sightline Spring 2021Adaptable Theatres The third biennial congress of the Association internationale des techniciens de theatreWhen it opened in June 1961, the Association Internationale des techniciens de Theatre (AITT) ‘Adaptable Theatres’ Colloquium, London, was the first international conference in Britain dedicated to the subject of modern theatre technology, design, and innovation. As host, the colloquium heralded the emergence of the Association of British Theatre Technicians (ABTT) on both a national and international stage, providing a forum for architects, designers, and technicians to debate the technical requirements of modern theatre. Described as an opportunity to counter the lack of informed representation from the UK, which was so noticeable to those in attendance of the first AITT conference in Paris (1958), and the second in Berlin (1960), the 1961 colloquium was designed to highlight British technical expertise. Previous colloquia had given rise to a trans-national consciousness within British technical theatre, particularly manifest through the importing of continental techniques, styles and on-stage innovations, each of which influenced a growing specialisation of backstage labour. A desire amongst British experts grew for international recognition, to provide validation of advances made in post-war technical theatre that had emerged as a consequence of new technology, an increase in skilled professionals, and a growing collective knowledge of stage techniques. However, technical theatre lacked representation or a means of representing itself, with the absence of a professional body denying British specialists the opportunity to present ideas on design, practice and modernisation to contemporaries. This sense of collective failure was the backdrop to the formation of the ABTT, which, as a consequence, went on to shift individual action to a collective, yet disjointed, force majeure.The subject chosen for the conference was the planning of adaptable theatres, with Paul Robertsparticular reference to civic projects and theatres seating up to 1,000 spectators. The recently formed ABTT chose the conference topic – relating to the civic orientation of the association – sponsored the congress and published a report of the proceedings. The report, edited by Stephen Joseph, provided a list of key speakers, a review of the papers delivered, and a summary of the discussions that followed. Delegates came from all over the world, and although the subject of the congress had a special relevance to those from the UK, the conference provided ‘a rare opportunity and an invaluable experience’ for those in attendance to discuss the condition of technical theatre, particularly in a British context (Stephen Joseph: Adaptable Theatres p.3).Themes included the construction of new auditoria, technical requirements for stage, the rise of specialisms within backstage labour, the failings of current architecture, and the role of health, safety and regulations in modern theatre. With twenty-three speakers, fifteen of whom being ABTT members, Adaptable Theatres opened with an introductory address from Peter Hall, at the time Artistic Director and creator of the Royal Shakespeare Company, who quickly established the need for such an organisation to bring a modernisation to technical thinking and machinery.I would like to welcome delegates from overseas. We in the English theatre often feel rather left out of things: I know that the delegates will bring us some much-needed stimulation.Our new English Association of theatre technicians is manly aimed at breaking down our isolation. Our technical life in the theatre is very disorganised, and it will clearly be the duty of the ABTT to pull us together […]. The ABTT is the first sign of a new cohesion (Stephen Joseph: Adaptable Theatres p.8). Hall described a British technical sector that was chaotic, lacking in structure and governance, for which he saw the formation of the ABTT as an opportunity to develop guidance, collaboration and improved standards. Importantly, he asserted a national need for a new kind of theatre – one that was adaptable at a technical level thus offering greater opportunities for creative experimentation. Hall believed the ABTT should be concerned with a new architectural style, one which removed divisions between auditorium and stage and improved both backstage facilities and the front of house experience. For the audience, now well-accustomed to the technical marvels Sightline Spring 2021 13 of Technicolor cinema, theatre’s simple effects were no-longer enough, and needed an alternate offer. Hall placed an emphasis on newly developing technical specialisms such as stage lighting, arguing that storms and lightning must be realistic on stage, and that is why ‘the age of the technical expert is here’ (Stephen Joseph: Adaptable Theatres p.8). In concluding his talk, Hall advocated for the greater awareness of an emerging division of specialist labour in the production of theatre but placed clearly within a wider matrix of hierarchical production, at the zenith of which he saw both Director and Actor (thus affirming a strict dichotomy between technical and creative theatre): We are at war in the theatre. The writer writes his play, and the director promptly cuts it. The scene designer is horrified at what he is expected to design; the lighting designer doesn’t like the set he has to light. The poor director is in the midst of it all. I can understand why Directors would dearly love to do everything – write, design, light, act. It is perhaps fortunate that this is not possible. But in this age of the necessary expert, we must all work together towards the same end. I believe our purpose is to make the actor function in the best possible way, so that he can get the full meaning of the play over to the audience. That is what the ABTT should be for (Stephen Joseph: Adaptable Theatres p.8).Hall’s use of the word ‘expert’ is important, as is the idea of a group of experts with different skills and specialisms ‘working together’ to produce the ‘same end’. Implicit in Hall’s statement and the development of the ABTT is the emerging sense - not just of the fact of new divisions in labour in theatrical production – but that of a hierarchisation of work, wedded to the assumption that technical theatre is not creative, but supports the creative process – a proletarianisation of technical theatre differentiating it from the creative labour of the actor and director. Richard Pilbrow, leading protagonist in the formation of the ABTT and eventual colleague of Hall at the National Theatre, spoke on the possibilities of stage lighting, not just as a specialist amongst backstage roles, but positioned ‘ambivalently between artist and engineer, yet subservient to the play’s author’ (Stephen Joseph: Adaptable Theatres p.51). Sean Kenny, provocative in his paper on Stage Design, volunteered, ‘too often today [theatre] is just a box of tricks filled with directors, actors, producers, designers, and stage-hands, which stand between the man who writes the story and the man who listens’ (Stephen Joseph: Adaptable Theatres p.49). Frederick Bentham, pioneer of modern entertainment lighting, argued the need to redesign stages to incorporate new technology and avoid scenarios of ‘lighting versus architecture’ (Stephen Joseph: Adaptable Theatres p.55). Richard Southern, who the ITI had initially looked to for support in hosting an event, as lecturer of theatre architecture at the University of Bristol, provided an outline on how new design could shape theatres of the future. Architect, Peter Moro, discussed new civic builds in Britain and his project in Nottingham, The Playhouse. The roll call of speakers at the conference was impressive. Of the many papers given, twenty-three in total, all were firmly based in acting upon and influencing, advanced forms of theatre design, labour, and stage technology. This range of topics provides evidence suggestive of the compartmentalising of duties, roles and responsibilities in the period of the ABTT’s emergence, with a division in labour forming across technical theatre, and, later, within the association. Greater London Council theatre safety specialist, Eric Jordan, aware of his intervention into the conference with statutory frameworks and punitive authority, opened his paper on fire regulations with diffidence and trepidation saying, ‘up until 14 Sightline Spring 2021now I have been one of you, now I appear in my true colours. I represent that dreadful body of authority whose sole objective appears to be to frustrate your beautiful ideas’ (Stephen Joseph: Adaptable Theatres p.61). Jordan, embodying state power, is an example of the growing dialogue that quickly formed between the ABTT and more legislative bodies – providing a non-statutory but nonetheless important voice (as an association of experts) within the overall governance of theatre from the 1960’s onwards. The conference themes are representative of the need from which the ABTT formed, developing as an advisory body to the sector, which proved essential to the professionalisation of technical theatre in the emergence of a codification of specialisms, areas of expertise, and before long, the training and qualifications required in order to practice professionally. Following the success of Adaptable Theatres, the ABTT quickly grew and established itself as one of British theatre’s preeminent consultative organisations; advising on the professionalisation of technical theatre in the UK; supporting the expansion of training through the introduction of specialist programmes (light, stage and sound); advising on civic and subsidised theatre planning; supporting the development of administration and standardisation of backstage labour, practice and design.It is during this period, then, the 1960s, as the British theatre of the post-war years is transformed into a civic institution, that we see a more formal splintering of labour, a desire for international and governmental recognition, and which consolidated, with the formation of united, but not union representation, through organisations such as the ABTT. The conference report was distributed to over forty regional council and civic institutions across the UK – during a period of increased public subsidy for the arts – supporting a paradigm shift in theatre building and stage design. Adaptable Theatres provided the platform for a technical narrative to progress beyond its previous individual sequestration: now it was a collective voice, louder, and with a common purpose. During the next three decades more than sixty major new projects were constructed across Britain with ABTT support, many through public subsidies, representing a new kind of theatre based on civic pride, urbanity, and community. The ABTT promptly became an advisory body, providing expertise, knowledge and support to an evolving entertainment industry. In 1975, the ABTT formalised its mission to focus on the advancement of public education in the technical subjects associated with theatre and theatrical presentation, and the promotion for the benefit of the public, of excellence in theatre design and technical presentation of theatrical work. Although not a governing authority, it has no statutory power, the ABTT has become the principal locus for the development of a technical profession, arising from a chaotic post-war industry through standardisation and specialisation. Today, an association made up of over 2043 members, the ABTT continues to advise across all areas of backstage labour, working alongside a range of institutions to help regulate, and thus support governance to, technical standards in theatre and live performance. Just as was first proclaimed, on the stage of the National Film Theatre some sixty years earlier, this remains the concern of the ABTT. Sixty years on, the Adaptable Theatres conference should be celebrated far beyond the technical realm, recognised for its influence and importance upon a radically changing Britain, celebrated for the transformative role it played in theatre design, culture, and practice.References taken from Adaptable Theatres: a report of the proceedings at the third biennial congress of the Association internationale des techniciens de theatre. Joseph, Stephen (ed) (Scarborough: Pindar, 1962).Paul Roberts Staging Professionalism: The role of the ABTT in the development of post-war British technical theatre PhD Candidate Central School of Speech and Drama www.blurredaroundtheedges.co.uk All photos from TABs, Volume 19, Issue 2 (1961) courtesy of the Backstage Heritage Collection https://www.theatrecrafts.com/archive/bookreader/tc.php?id=103&page=4&type=j Sightline Spring 2021 15 For more information visit:www.routledge.com/9781138484382 www.moderntheatres.org20% discount available with this advert – enter the code FLY21 at checkout** Offer cannot be used in conjunction with any other offer or discount and only applies to books purchased directly via our website.16 Sightline Spring 2021David Adams – a life in theatreDavid Adams’ life in theatre was intertwined with the ABTT – he played a key role in its early years, was behind its most notable publication, and remained a stalwart of its committees and events throughout. He was a very early member of the ABTT, joining on 23 March 1962, and was made a Fellow in 2001 in recognition of his services to the Association. His contributions reduced in recent years due to declining health. He died on 12 December 2020. At his funeral service in January a host of friends and colleagues paid tribute to his remarkable career. This article draws very heavily on their contributions and on subsequent contributions and research.David Adams was born on 27 Feb 1938 to Walter Leonard Adams and Elsie Henrietta Adams who lived in Surbiton.He attended Surbiton County Grammar School, where he was not only academically gifted, but also much involved in theatre. He was a lighting designer for school productions, a drama critic and assistant editor of the school magazine. He built a new lighting switchboard and is mentioned in the school magazine as knocking a hole in the library wall, perhaps to provide a lighting control position. David won an open scholarship to Cambridge and went up to Kings College in October 1957 initially to read History. Finding that history and him were incompatible, David switched to read Architecture and Fine Art, completing his B.A. in 1962. His art studies took him to Italy which kindled a love of the country which he re-visited many times in later years. David threw himself into Cambridge life. In 1958 he exercised a scholars right to play marbles on the steps of the Senate House, something recorded in the Varsity newspaper. Both players used pseudonyms, probably to avoid identification by the Proctors (university police). Theatre lighting played an important part in David’s university life where he was a member of the Amateur Dramatic Club, home of The Footlights. There his path crossed with Peter Angier, a fellow undergraduate and now an ABTT Fellow and theatre consultant. In May 1960 David led a strike threat by ADC technicians in which he was joined by another ABTT name, Martin Moore (ADC scenic director). They were aggrieved that their efforts to make the theatre more efficient were being thwarted. The ADC President said that David was a dissident unsupported agitator.Peter Angier remembers: An extra year or two of seniority makes a lot of difference at that age but we were also impressed by David’s knowledge of West End theatre practice, his keen, often caustic, wit and determination to achieve professional standards in the amateur student work we did … David was always able to attract loyalty and respect. His devotion to the theatre and the highest possible standards was never in doubt and he did light some Photo courtesy of Mark WhiteVarsity Newspaper www.varsity.co.ukSightline Spring 2021 17 notable productions. In particular I remember Blood Wedding and Bartholomew Fayre in the ADC, Oedipus in the Guildhall with Miriam Margolyes and John Shrapnel and As You Like It directed by Trevor Nunn which we took to the Oxford Playhouse.Peter remembers also that David’s commitment to professionalism was demonstrated in the creation of STAGEWORK which he formed with one or two others to provide scenic and lighting design services to anybody who wanted to put on a show. Members had to be given programme credit as ‘xxx is a member of Stagework’. The intention was to bridge the gap between amateur enthusiasts and paid professionals.Stagework was active on shows taken from Cambridge for the Edinburgh Festival and worked on setting up a cabaret bar near the castle in James Court called The Sphinx which quickly evolved into the first home of the Traverse Theatre.However, Stagework never developed into an organisation which could provide a living, and those of us who wanted to work in the professional theatre had to find our own different ways.David came down from Cambridge and found work in the West End, including as a dayman electrician working for the RSC at the Aldwych Theatre. David used to say quite proudly that he had been sacked by Peter Hall, something impossible to verify. He joined Bernard Miles’ company at the Mermaid Theatre around 1963 and by 1965 his name appears in the Mermaid programmes as Chief Electrician / Lighting designer / Chief Engineer.In 1971 David moved to the Greenwich Theatre initially as the Production Manager and then as General Manager – he served until 1998, working with artistic directors including Ewan Hooper, Alan Strachan and Matthew Francis. He continued to work as a freelance lighting and set designer in the West End, including Caught in the Act at the Garrick, and Come When You Like at the Shaw Theatre.It was while he was at Greenwich that he met Fiona MacLean who had joined as the Assistant Administrator in 1973. He commenced a ‘usually harmonious’ relationship with her in 1975 which lasted 45 years until his death in 2020. However, in his new-found role of General Manager he had to make Fiona redundant in 1976, something for which she never really forgave him.There were challenges, as Allan MacCarthy, former Chairman of the Greenwich Board, recollects:The board in those earliest days was cumbersome. Its issues always, it seemed, were dominated by not having enough money. The former eventually changed, the latter never did! As a producing house the theatre had a wonderful artistic vision. That was the climate in which David worked as its General Manager. I came to know David gradually and thought of him as a good friend. I always had great respect for his many skills, all of which were very important, vital even, to the theatre. He had so much valuable experience in so many departments.And he was a man of ideas.An example: when lottery awards were new, large sums were being given to the arts for bold and exciting projects. So David developed one and made a bid. We could buy the pub next door, very closely connected anyway, and create a small studio theatre as well as the main house. We could support these with additional income from a restaurant built on the flat roof. We reached RIBA Stage 3 before the loss of the London Arts Board grant in 1997 scuppered everything.Greenwich Theatre had a huge crisis after that grant was lost, but with David’s help and considerable knowledge, for some weeks bills and so on were very carefully, and legally managed. We kept going. No one sought to close us …Eventually the theatre’s lease was sold back to Greenwich Council, who subsequently closed the theatre, making all staff, including David, redundant. David then concentrated essentially on full time but often unpaid work in various pivotal roles at the ABTT, where he was Chairman of the Safety Committee for many years, Company Secretary, and latterly Deputy Company Secretary. He led the move of the ABTT offices three times: into Great Pulteney Street, to The Stage Offices, and to Farringdon Road. On each occasion he took responsibility for design and construction work. Former Chairman Richard York recalls:The Association had always squatted in other people’s premises and the staff – those memorable stalwarts Ethel Langstreth and Ken Smalley, had been based in the offices of the British Drama League, while meetings, committees and training events took place 18 Sightline Spring 2021wherever premises could be borrowed. It was agreed that the Association needed a home of its own and it was David who found Great Pulteney Street – one floor of a former clothing factory just north of the Piccadilly Theatre with enough room for offices, a committee room and a meeting room big enough to house events. David also negotiated the lease, the permissions to alter the building and took a major role in the conversion work, which was carried out and financed by a large cross-section of individual and corporate members. It was a significant triumph and changed the dynamics of the organisation for the better, particularly by enabling the expansion of the training programme. The ending though was not a happy one, since a year or two later the Arts Council published the ‘Glory of the Garden’, reversing its policy of funding organisations which supported the theatre. It cut off the ABTT’s revenue funding and its training grant which made the premises financially unviable. It was David who negotiated with the landlord for consent to sublet the meeting room and found a tenant for it.Over the years David became an essential part of the organisational backbone of the Association. If a subsidiary company was needed to manage a commercial activity, then David was your man. If advice was needed from a lawyer then David not only knew the perfect one for the task, but he also had a happy knack of getting the advice either on very reasonable terms or better still, pro bono. If the charitable objectives needed to be adjusted or a contract read through, then David was the one who put his glasses on and stayed up late. Administration is often underestimated but it is an essential support of all activity and David combined his mastery of it with a keen regard for good governance.David had important input into the launch in 1976 of the Technician of the Year Award and in 1978, The ABTT Trade Show.Roger Fox recalls:Together we created The ABTT Technician of the Year Award in 1976. It took place at the Strand Lecture Theatre in Covent Garden with David responsible for the lighting design. At the time he was working with Max Wall who he invited to be the Guest of Honour. Max agreed, but on the night there was a problem. Max only consumed Guinness and we only had wine. Consequently David made quite a lot of trips ferrying pints of the black stuff from a nearby pub. It was a successful debut for an event which continues to this day.Around the same time the ABTT first looked at the idea of a trade exhibition to showcase the growing number of suppliers in the technical side of the theatre industry. After unsuccessful enquiries to find a commercial organiser, an opportunity arose to use the Donmar Rehearsal Room for just such an exhibition. It was agreed that we would stage the event ourselves and at very short notice in March 1978 David, myself, Richard York, Joe Aveline and others agreed to organise what was imaginatively titled “The ABTT Trade Show”. David was responsible for the sourcing and construction of the stands. He had great knowledge of materials and used thick flame retardant cardboard “Triwall” for the job. It proved to be a very successful choice and David went on to use it for the office partitions when the ABTT moved to offices in Great Pulteney Street. David’s principal and lasting legacy in his work for ABTT is the documentation that formed the basis of the ABTT Code of Practice, most particularly Technical Standards for Places of Entertainment (The Yellow Book), which he was Editor of from its first edition in 2001 until 2015. He was Photo courtesy of Roger Fox, September 2019Sightline Spring 2021 19 also the author/compiler/editor of around 20 ABTT Guidance notes and numerous other advice papers. Mark White, who worked closely with him on publications, remembers: I don’t know how many thousands of hours David spent on compiling, researching, editing, laying out pages, but it must have been many. But the Yellow Book was not the only publication that David produced. He was the author/compiler/editor of around 20 ABTT Guidance notes with their distinctive dark blue covers. Not that David did it all by himself, he managed a veritable platoon of seriously knowledgeable people like Ray Carter, Chris Higgs, Michael Anderson, Bob Anderson, Roger Fox, Peter Angier, Rob Weaver, Geoff Weaver, David Spink, Ron Brooks, Mike Timlin, Vaughn Melsom, Frank Wenzel and so many others.David spent many hours as a due and diligent member of various British Standards Committees and could always be relied upon for plucking obscure pieces of legislation apparently out of thin air. Now these were really obscure rules, none of your pub quiz questions about which year it was that the legislation banning the throwing of dead dogs into the Thames was repealed, ah no, David was in a much higher league than that. I had the benefit of being mentored by him in the art of editing and compiling technical publications. I thought I was pedantic, but David opened up a whole new world of pedantry to which I could only aspire.And finally, a few more memories of David:Laurie Blackmore, former ABTT Treasurer:Bumping into David – and Fiona – became one of the nice things in life that didn’t happen all that often but was lovely when it did. These bumpings could happen anywhere from Charing Cross Road where I live, to, on one occasion in Railway Street – I have no idea what I was doing there but it was close to the mooring – and there was David, who had just popped out for a paper. I was on my bike and was greeted with “I suppose you know this is a one way street and you’re going the wrong way” Always concerned with safety. Latterly I somehow managed to go to ABTT trade shows on the same day as David and Fiona and at some time during the visit we would come face to face, go through all the greetings and pleasantries, catch up with events and part having had the pleasure of renewing an old acquaintance.Roger Fox:Smoking was the norm at meetings and two of our number, Ethel Langstreth and David, were world leaders in smoke production. David was addicted to menthol cigarettes, which to me they were quite a rarity. Indeed I think that he is the only person who I have known to smoke them. Later, he decided to cure his addiction, but to those around him his attempts seemed worse than the smoking as he chewed peppermints endlessly. Ultimately his determination succeeded but the profits of Trebor Mints must have plunged when he succeeded.Richard York, former ABTT Chairman:David and Fiona have been canal enthusiasts for many years and lived on an historic narrowboat at King’s Cross. We also shared this enthusiasm for the canal system and, while Joy and I never boated with them we did meet once on the Grand Union. They, in company with Caroline and Roger Fox, bobbed out of a lock in their two boats on their way north while Joy and I were heading south on ours to Stoke Bruerne. Many individuals have made significant contributions to the ABTT during its 60-year history, but none has given more than David. It was a privilege to work with him and it is another to remember him.Many thanks to:Peter AngierLaurie BlackmoreRoger FoxAllan MacCarthyMark WhiteRichard YorkNext >