Deer, close up and personal

I'm not a great one for wildlife. Yes, creatures of all sorts can be fascinating and wonderful to see, and some are beautiful, but they are not my life's obsession. I simply respect them, and would do nothing to directly harm them. Even so, this detachment rather falls by the wayside when a chance arises to meet an animal close up. Then you apprehend something more. 

But I rarely place myself in a position to experience such an encounter, even for a series of photos. Truth to tell, I'm wary of animals and their potential to injure me. Even the cutest-looking can bite. Mind you, I don't blame any animal for being alarmed or fearful if a human comes near. We are a threat. From their point of view, we are intruders, disturbers, controllers and oppressors, likely to inflict pain, loss and death. No wonder they might gear up to defend themselves if flight is impossible. 

Even the most familiar of them - farm animals like sheep, pigs and cows - are very un-human and alien. They have heads, bodies and legs, but not like ours. They peer at us with eyes that are not the same. And who knows what they are thinking, if they think. They are other life-forms. I don't consider them lesser life-forms, just different: easily tricked and herded and slaughtered, but possibly dangerous if maddened by pain or terror. No grown beast with teeth, horns or hooves, or great weight, is a creature one should take for granted. They might eagerly accept the food we offer, but it is the acceptance of the prisoner who is penned in and and has no other option.

And yet there is magic in a personal encounter. I had such a moment in April, when in Cornwall. It was at Prideaux Place, the manor house on the hill above Padstow. 

I'd explored the town yet again after a good lunch. I do this most years. This time I walked further than usual, and approached Prideaux Place, which had a deer park opposite. 

I began chatting with a local woman who was there to see the deer being fed by the present landowner. It generally happened around two o'clock in the afternoon. That time was very soon, so I decided to hang around with her, to see what happened. 

There were a lot of deer out in the park, and (as if they had glanced at their watches) several of the young males began to move towards the section of fence from which they were fed.  

On the dot, the landowner emerged from a gateway on a small tractor, hauling a trailer, and drew that to the fence. On the trailer were root vegetables, some sliced up in readiness. 

Quite a feast (if you were a deer)! A nice change from grass.

Curiously, it was still only the males that had come to get their treat. The rest of the herd were hanging back: presumably there was a strict order of precedence.

The lady I had been talking with knew the landowner and stayed close by as he began to feed the deer. I soon joined them.

The deer were clearly comfortable in the landowner's company. But (he explained) they were not pets. They were still wild animals, and it had taken a long while to build their trust up. He began to give them slices of whatever it was - turnip? - and demonstrated how to offer the morsel. 

The woman had a go. Then I did, rather gingerly, but the deer took the slice from my fingers with the utmost gentleness. That's my hand in the picture. Interestingly, I saw that the deer had eyes like a goat's. I wondered why.

Now the landowner put a slice between his own teeth and got one of the deer to take from him. It was a rather intimate scene, curiously touching. The deer didn't seem to mind getting so close, and wanted more.

I felt lucky to have been there at the right time. It was so intriguing. And I wondered whether deer are colour-blind, because while they trusted the landowner in his green country attire, I was a vision of scarlet, quite different, and possibly signalling danger. Maybe deer like red even more than green?

Feeding the deer had been one of the highlights of my day though!

Paddington Bear

Most children have possessed a teddy bear, as I have (my lifelong companion Teddy Tinkoes). But what about bears in children's fiction? Well, they seem to loom large. 

There's Rupert Bear, whose adventures with his chums and well-meaning grown-ups in and around pleasant Nutwood - a fictional village with a 1930s look, set in a rural paradise and completely safe for little bears to wander about in - appeared in the Daily Express for decades, with an Annual at Christmastime that was always eagerly anticipated. I was a Rupert Bear fan, and love him still. 

Then there were two others. Winnie the Pooh was the earlier, a bumbling brainless creature with toylike pals straight out of the Toy Story movies, associated with leafy Ashdown Forest and daft games like Poohsticks. I was unaware of him in childhood, and became aware only when Disney made a blockbuster cartoon about him. Even then I wasn't a fan. I can see that he might be lovable to some, but I found him too late to be a convert to his mystique.

Then there is a more modern creation, super-polite Paddington Bear from Darkest Peru, who lands up in Paddington Station, is adopted by a human family, and lives a London life with variable success, although the outcome of his actions always ends happily. I might add that Paddington's debut was roughly contemporary with the indigenous Wombles of Wimbledon Common, who of course were not bears (what were they?).

All three of these bears are likeable characters, full of honesty, curiosity and good intentions, respectful of the old and wise, and appreciative of good behaviour. Much as you would like any child to be, but rather different from real children. Or real bears, come to that, as they can all speak English and think things out as a human would. Rupert is the least 'bearlike': he could easily be a small boy with an animal head, as could be his friends. Pooh exults in his particular kind of intellectually-challenged happy-go-lucky bearness, but is not 'human' in the way Rupert is. He seems the least relatable to me. Paddington, despite his humanoid abilities, remains a proper bear in many ways. And one with an unhappy past, as he is an orphan. It's lucky that he did quickly attach himself to a nice family and found a home. He might easily have ended up destitute and drugged-up in the bear equivalent of Cardboard City, under some dank road bridge in Darkest London.

Who is currently the best known? I'd say Paddington, especially as we have not only the original books, but a film, and now a musical. 

And if you happen to be in Paddington station or the vicinity, as I was last week, you can't avoid bumping into him. I had two encounters without trying; there must be more to experience if you search about assiduously.

The first encounter was under the Westway next to Paddington canal basin. This wasn't the half-drab bohemian quarter I'd imagined. It was bright and modern and artistic, on the edge of a modern development. There he was, a rhapsody in blue: 

I liked the all-blue interpretation. I was pleased to share a photo with him, and admired the rainbow-coloured backdrop (without which the underpass would have been a touch drab).

I've no idea why that table-tennis table was there. Was it also an artwork? Or was it a real table, for people to play on if the fit took them?

Close by was a different and more serious artwork, instantly recognisable as the work of sculptor Sean Henry, whose statues I've encountered in such places as Glyndebourne, Salisbury, Ely and Newbiggin-by-the-Sea. Apparently one man looking at another - the same person at different stages of life?

On to Paddington station itself, and on Platform 1 there were two Paddington Bear objects: a plaque with a painted seat beneath it and, nearby, a bronze statue of the Bear himself, sitting on a suitcase, complete with his hat and 'Please look after this bear' label. I was hard-pressed to get my shots, as adults and children alike were crowding around.

So: is my curiosity piqued sufficiently to at least read the first Paddington book and get to know this bear as his creator intended? Maybe, if I see a second-hand copy somewhere. Or rather, if I do see a second-hand copy, I will take that as a directive from the gods, which I would ignore at my peril, to read and learn. So be it. I don't want to be struck down by a thunderbolt. 

Big guns and birds of prey

Last week I made one of my infrequent visits to London. The place isn't far away really, and I only need to get to a station on the Brighton to London main line - simple to do in mid-Sussex. Even so, I don't often make the journey. I last went in September 2024. 

Why not oftener? Well, although London is an impressive and fascinating place, full of iconic sights and events, I am not in love with it. I lived there for eleven years (from 1978 to 1989) and worked there for twenty-seven years (from 1978 to 2005), for most of my working life in fact. I got very tired of the endless urban landscape, even though London has plenty of excellent parks and green spaces. I escaped to rural Sussex in 1989, and from then onwards wild horses wouldn't have been able to drag me back, had a residential return to The Smoke ever been in question. (London's old nickname is completely inappropriate now, of course: you can see for miles, and never choke on smog) Once retired (in 2005) I went there strictly as a tourist, always on day trips, and from 2014 always using my Senior Railcard to keep the travel cost down. Nowadays it's strictly a photographic destination, though a good one - wherever you go, there are an overwhelming number of things to shoot, and passing people to take pictures of, and the vibe of London beats into you all the time, relentlessly. 

Brighton may be London-by-Sea; but the converse is not true. London is not Brighton-on-the-Thames. It is far grander, in a quite different league, with stunning modern architecture as well as all the old-time sights. But life there is lived at a pace and level that I find physically and mentally exhausting, and after three or four hours I have had enough. So when going there I choose my objectives carefully, and stick to that plan: it's impossible to do justice to more than two or three things on one visit of only a few hours. London is just too vast.

By the way, when I say 'London' I am speaking primarily of Central London. The suburbs are full of interesting things too, but they are beyond the scope of a short day trip by rail. So if I wanted a nostalgic trip to Wimbledon, or Stanmore, both away from the centre, I'd probably drive there and hope that the gods who provide parking spaces for Sussex folk are on the job. 

This was last week's plan: a train ride into London Victoria station; then a walk through Belgravia to Hyde Park Corner; then into Hyde Park beyond; then I'd follow the Serpentine into Kensington Gardens, emerging at the Italian Gardens, and make my way to the canal basin at Paddington. After that, a look at London Paddington station, then a return to Victoria and home before the rush hour - or hours - began. If feeling up to it, I'd walk back from Paddington. If too footsore, or running out of time to catch my train home, then I'd ride the Circle Line on the Underground from Paddington to Victoria. (I did run out of time, so I had the bonus experience of the Underground)

This visit would therefore treat me to the elegance of Belgravia, the wide, well-tended paths of Hyde Park, the hotel quarter of Paddington and (I hoped) bohemian Little Venice, plus Brunel's iconic Paddington station (not seen since 1980). I expected to see some changes (and, my goodness, I was right!) and perhaps there would be some unexpected experiences (right there too!). 

The first shock came in Hyde Park. I'd caught the clatter of horse hooves on the South Carriage Drive, a road that runs along the south edge of Hyde Park, and I hurried over to watch brown-uniformed riders pass by in well-disciplined formation.

Well, this was an unexpected sight. Where were they off to, and for what purpose? It was ten minutes to noon. 

I walked on towards the east end of the Serpentine, Hyde Park's long lake. Suddenly I jumped out of my skin as a gun went off with a huge crack. It wasn't a rifle or a handgun. It was a piece of field artillery. It was precisely noon, and a forty-one gun salute had commenced. The police (and army) had cordoned off a big area in the north-east of the park. The gunnery was coming from a dip in that fenced-off area. Nothing was in sight. But you could see the puff of smoke as the gun or guns went off at precise intervals, followed by the actual sound shortly afterwards. 

I learned soon afterwards that it was the third anniversary of King Charles' Coronation, hence the massive forty-one gun salute. I hadn't known beforehand that this was the very day. I asked a group of four women if they knew what it was all about. They didn't either, so I wasn't the only ignorant one. We speculated, of course. The salute went on and on. It was a relief to one's ears when it was over. I would have loved to have seen it close up, but it was surprising how loud the gunfire was, even from half a mile or so, and I wondered whether the participants were wearing hearing-protectors. A real war zone must be a very noisy place indeed!

Soon after, I reached the Serpentine, a long, wide artificial lake that I first saw in 1964, when on a school trip to the annual Motor Show at Earl's Court. Being me, I'd taken myself off to see a few other sights while I had the chance. I was only eleven, but as eager to explore as I am now. Indeed it was my first visit to London, a place known to me only from an old pictorial map that my Uncle Des (Mum's bother) had left behind when emigrating to Australia in 1948. Riding the tube trains, and indeed sampling the London Underground as a wonderful exotic experience, was the prime objective in my mind that time. Cars were interesting - of course they were; I was already dreaming of when I could get behind the steering wheel - but I always intended to do my own thing on this school trip. I was aware of the dangers I might encounter while wandering about, although I thought in terms of getting knocked down by a bus, or being robbed in the street. Darker dangers didn't occur to me. In any case, I was tall for my age and therefore confident. Besides, I was already an accomplished map reader: I had no fear whatever of getting lost.

The name 'Serpentine' fascinated me, and I had to see it. So I ended up on the side of it, next to a café. And, as you will have guessed, a man came up to me and asked me whether I would like a cup of coffee. In my innocence, I politely declined and walked on, thinking what an odd thing he had done, as we didn't know each other. Fortunately, he didn't follow me. It was only much, much later that it occurred to me what he might have been after. And looking back on it now, I'm pretty certain that, without realising it at the time, I had deftly dodged a bullet. Back in 1964, child molesters or groomers were not in the news. They were simply regarded as a class of men that included 'flashers', who exposed themselves for some kind of abnormal, unfathomable gratification. They were sad figures to snigger at, or make jokes about. They might end up in a magistrates court and fined, but were otherwise considered harmless wierdos. I dare say the man who approached me was nobody to be afraid of, but nevertheless I somehow felt embarrassed, and I mentioned the episode to no-one, nor have I ever spoken of it until now. I just knew that I was right to walk away. 

That 1964 incident went through my mind as I contemplated the Serpentine and took my pictures. I felt it was one of those peripheral experiences that you don't take harm from, but store away as you develop the awareness and savvy needed to travel safely through life. 

I walked on. It was peaceful and very pleasant. Why hadn't I returned to Hyde Park before? 

Co-operative wading birds posed for me.

I was getting peckish. The first waterside eatery I'd seen was too restaurant-like for a simple lunch. But there would be others, and as I walked along the south bank of the Serpentine, the Lido Café came into view. You could sit outside in the mild sunshine, and by the water.

Those were the four women I'd spoken to earlier, about the guns going off. We'd kept pace with each other, but this is where we parted company. I didn't see them again. Inside, I got myself a ham and cheese sandwich and a bottle of orange juice. I chose a waterside table. 

Ah, this was the life! It seemed such a relaxing midday pitstop. 

But then I had unexpected and uninvited visitors.

How cheeky! Four starlings: one guarding their rear; two in a more forward position, backing-up the boldest, their leader, who was going to nab my sandwich if he could. He stalked a little closer. 'Oi! Buzz off!' I said, loud enough for the girl in the green top on the next table to look up from her laptop. The protest had no effect: the starlings ignored me and edged closer. I brushed an arm towards them, and they scattered.

But they immediately returned, clearly undeterred and not to be thwarted. They eyed me truculently.

Then one of them flew at my face, brushing it with his wings. Hey! I snatched my sandwich just in time. 

Then another flew at my face. I was being mobbed. They were shooing me away from the food they wanted. 

This was aggressive behaviour. It was impossible to finish my lunch in peace. I got up, and shifted to a table just outside the Café entrance, underneath its colonnade, taking my sandwich with me. It was annoying to be pestered away from a pleasant waterside table, but moving did the trick. They didn't follow me. It seemed that they were keeping strictly to their own 'territory' - probably to defend it from other birds, as well as to plunder whatever was left on tables or could be snatched from the hands of lunchgoers like me. 

I'm not sentimental about wild birds or any wild thing. I don't think them cuddly. They can bite, peck and sting, and are all potentially a source of injury or infection. Nature has equipped them to thrive in their niche, so long as they beat off rivals and are ruthless with their prey. 

I do say they deserve to live unmolested within the ecosystem they inhabit, and require our respect. Literally: if ever civilisation vanished, and you or I were one of the few survivors of that catastrophe, our day to day life would be a battle on equal terms with wild animals, who must feed to stay alive. And they are indifferent to what they consume. Wild animals have no scruples and show no mercy: they see a meal and do what they have to, without any feelings in the matter. 

We would be the hunted. It would be an existence with a lethal weapon constantly at hand, just in case some old or lame animal, now too old or too slow to catch their normal prey, realised that an apparently weak human being made a good meal. This would soon enough apply to domesticated animals too, such as dogs: they'd turn feral and become dangerous. 

Birds too would become bolder, and might make movement out of doors hazardous. If you have ever seen Alfred Hitchcock's film The Birds, or read the even more disturbing original story by Daphne du Maurier, then you'll know what I mean.

This wasn't the entire story of my trip to London. Next post.