Tiger moth finds new home at WW2 airfield museum
The biplane has been donated to the Bottisham Airfield Museum, near Cambridge, by the Imperial War Museum in Duxford.
Jason Webb, chair of the airfield's trustees, said he was delighted about the donation, adding Tiger Moths were "top of our wanted list of exhibits".
This type of aircraft was "the first to land at Bottisham in 1940 and the last to take off in 1946", he said. It will go on display at the museum for the first time on Sunday.
Mr Webb said: "We became aware about six months ago that the Imperial War Museum was disposing of it as part of its reorganisation and put a bid in for it - alongside other museums - and they kindly selected ourselves out of all the others."
The grass airfield at Bottisham was built in 1940 as a satellite for RAF Waterbeach and was initially used by Cambridge-based Tiger Moths from Marshalls (airfield) as a relief landing ground.
The aircraft remained a regular sight in the skies over RAF Bottisham until 1946, serving with the RAF, the USAAF and the RAF Belgian section.
Mr Webb said: "De Havilland Tiger Moths were elementary training aircraft, used to teach tens of thousands of pilots to fly, before they went on to fly Lancaster [bombers] or Spitfire [fighter aeroplanes].
"We want to put it on display to tell the story of pilots who flew them."
In particular, he said he wanted to focus on the Tiger Moth's little-known role in Operation Banquet Lights, where the aircrafts were fitted with bombs just in case the Germans invaded England in 1940.
"Luckily, this was not needed as it would have been a one-way trip for the pilots against modern German fighters," he added.
Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Anniversary flight for 99-year-old RAF veteran
Memorials planned for disused WW2 airfields
The untold story of the battle that helped end WW2 in Europe
WW2 plane's engine restored to honour RAF crew
World War Two veteran celebrates 105th birthday
Bottisham Airfield Museum
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 must-do passport checks for your holiday as Brits waste £110m on fast-track fees
Experts are warning travellers of three must-do checks before their holiday this summer to avoid costly fast-track passport application fees. Google searches for "express passport" have surged by a staggering 323%, revealing just how many people are scrambling to get holiday-ready at the last opportunity. According to a recent Post Office survey 25% of Brits admit they never check the validity of their passport when booking a trip. This oversight can lead to denied boarding, trip cancellations, or being turned away at border control, often at a significant personal cost. To avoid stress or disappointment, last-minute holiday provider Travel Republic has revealed three key checks every traveller should make before heading on a last-minute holiday this summer. More importantly, check it's less than 10 years before your departure date. Those travelling to any country in the EU, or Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland should ensure their passports were issued less than 10 years before their departure dates. For example, if you are flying on July 10 2025, your passport must have been issued after July 10 2015. This rule applies regardless of the passport's expiry date. 🌍 Did you know that some countries require your passport to be valid for several months after your scheduled return date? Check your passport expiry date today! Visit for more information #GetTravelReady — His Majesty's Passport Office (@HM_Passport) June 12, 2025 Your passport must also be valid for at least three months after your intended return date when travelling to Europe or the Schengen area. For example, if you return home on 1 August 2025, your passport must be valid until at least 1 November 2025. A passport must be in good physical condition to be accepted. Even minor damage, particularly if it means personal details page unreadable, can cause issues at check-in or border control. Gemma Brown, Head of Ground Product & Partnerships at Travel Republic, says: 'The likelihood is that travel insurance providers would not cover any costs associated with invalid or expired passports, as it's down to the traveller to triple-check their documentation is correct. Your passport is your most important travel document - it's worth taking your time to get right! Before submitting your application check: - your photo meets all requirements - all personal details are correct - supporting documents are ready - payment details are accurate — His Majesty's Passport Office (@HM_Passport) June 16, 2025 'Our advice would be to ensure that your passport is within the 10-year issue date and is valid for at least six months from the date of departure to ensure you will be accepted into most countries. "Regardless of passport rules, it's important for all travellers to research the country they plan to visit and ensure they know what travel documentation is required upon entering and leaving. You can find foreign travel advice on the government website to make sure you have everything covered.' Recommended reading: Easy phone mistakes on holiday could cost you hundreds Martin Lewis says 'don't pay to pay' on holiday Travel insurance warning about certain types of policy With thousands of UK travellers experiencing airport heartbreak over the last year due to non-compliant passports, checking your documents ahead of summer travel plans is essential. If your passport doesn't meet the updated rules and outlined conditions, renewing early could be the key to a seamless getaway instead of missing out on your long-awaited trip. Getting a deal on a last-minute holiday is all well and good, but so is making sure your passport is up-to-date. The average cost of a 1-week fast track and 1-day premium passport application is £194.25, and according to data from HM Passport Office, over half a million applications were made in 2023, which would total an £111 million spend.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
What's The Difference Between Gin And Vodka?
Classic Dry Martini with olives on black background At first glance, gin and vodka seem like siblings—clear, spirited, ready to mix into just about anything. But spend a little time with them, and you'll realize they're more like distant cousins: one's a wild aromatics enthusiast, the other's an expert in blending quietly into the background. If you've ever found yourself squinting at a cocktail menu wondering which one you're really in the mood for, here's a friendly, no-jargon breakdown of what actually separates gin and vodka (besides, you know, a few botanicals and a strong personality). The Basics: It All Starts the Same Alcohol drink (gin tonic cocktail) with lemon, rosemary and ice on rustic black stone table, copy ... More space, top view. Iced drink with lemon and herbs. Vodka and gin both begin with a neutral base—think grain, potatoes, grapes, or basically anything you can ferment and distill. After a few rounds through the still, you get a high-proof spirit so clean it barely has a flavor at all. Vodka typically stops right there. It's filtered, watered down to a manageable proof (usually around 40% ABV), and sent out into the world ready to star in everything from a Bloody Mary to a Moscow Mule. Gin, on the other hand, takes things a few steps further. It gets infused with botanicals—juniper being the legal must-have, but often including things like coriander, citrus peel, angelica root, and even fun extras like lavender or cucumber, depending on the brand. Think of vodka as your friend who shows up wearing black jeans and a T-shirt. Gin is the one who accessorizes with vintage jewelry and smells faintly of bergamot. Flavor: One Wants to Blend, One Wants to Shine Five exotic cocktails on ice in hands joined in celebratory toast Vodka's main goal is to be as neutral as possible. Good vodka tastes clean, maybe a little creamy or peppery depending on the ingredients, but overall it's designed to not get in the way. It's the ultimate team player in cocktails. Gin, meanwhile, is a flavor bomb—at least compared to vodka. The dominant note is always going to be juniper (that piney, woodsy note that either makes you say 'Mmm' or 'Hmm…'). But the supporting cast of botanicals can range from zesty citrus to earthy herbs to straight-up floral. If vodka is the blank canvas, gin is a Jackson Pollock painting—intentionally splattered with character. In Cocktails: Two Very Different Energies Classic cocktail glass on glass table in night club restaurant. Alcohol cocktail drink, close-up. ... More Modern alcoholic beverage When you order a Vodka Tonic, you're really drinking the tonic. Vodka just keeps things boozy without fussing too much with the flavor. Order a Gin and Tonic, though, and the gin absolutely shows up to the party. A classic London Dry gin will make it sharp and citrusy; a new-school, floral gin might make it taste like someone squeezed a garden into your glass. Fun test: Next time you're at a bar, order a Martini two ways—once with vodka, once with gin. So, Which One Should You Pick? Expert barman is making cocktail at night club. There's no wrong answer—it's just about what you're in the mood for. Vodka's the move when you want the cocktail ingredients to shine. Gin's your pick when you want the spirit itself to be the flavor. Or, you know, just get both. Life's short. Gin and vodka may share a lot of DNA, but when it comes to drinking them, they couldn't be more different. One likes to fly under the radar; the other demands to be noticed. Either way, they're both here to make your cocktail hour a whole lot more interesting. Just don't mix them up at a cocktail party—unless you're trying to start a lively debate. In which case: carry on.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Is it OK to cry at work?
From as early as 1500 BC, humans have been speculating about tears. The Old Testament describes them as a by-product of the heart, while Hippocrates believed they were triggered by the mind. In his 1872 book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, Charles Darwin declared them as 'purposeless'. One hundred and fifty three years later, Rachel Reeves would likely beg to differ. Whatever the reason for yesterday's tears at PMQs, it soon became apparent that on the matter of whether they should ever be shed in the workplace, as with so many other issues these days, Britain is divided. To cry, or not to cry? That is the question. Our writers drily battle it out. 'Everybody hurts sometimes,' sang REM in 1992. If everybody hurts sometimes, it stands to reason that everybody cries sometimes, too. Although if you are a woman, perhaps it's best not to do so in the office. This was certainly the message semaphored by my male peers. My first serious job, as a section editor of a broadsheet in the late 1990s, saw me occasionally being yelled at across the newsroom by my male boss, an equal opportunities shouter who lost his temper at female and male employees alike. My male colleagues wouldn't have dreamed of crying, so neither did I. I'd already discerned that female reporters were often viewed as 'soft' and 'emotional', as though these traits were weaknesses. I wanted to appear strong. And so I remained, commanding myself not to cry on several occasions over the following fifteen or so years, the most challenging of which was when I was hauled into a meeting, heavily pregnant, and lambasted by my (female) editor in front of four other senior members of staff who appeared to have been assembled solely to witness my humiliation. When it comes to staving off inconvenient tears, every woman has her own tricks. Some dig their fingernails covertly into their palm as a distraction. Others fix their gaze on a point in the room and regard it, unblinking, willing their eyes not to well up. Whether Rachel Reeves employed such tactics, we will never know. Had she lived in Ancient Greece, her wet eyes would have been commended. In Homer's Iliad, the warriors' tears were viewed as a sign of their forbearance. When Winston Churchill cried – a not infrequent occurrence – he was revered for his sensitivity. In 2025, 'soft' and 'emotional' have rightly come to be regarded as strengths, at least to some extent. It's a strange sort of logic where anger is acceptable in the workplace while tears are still frowned upon. Which is more toxic? Crying at work shouldn't be seen as a sign of weakness, but as a sign that you are human, and that you deeply care about the job in hand. When AI comes for our jobs, we'll miss these signs of humanity. I hope my daughters feel that their worth in the workplace isn't dependent on them acting like machines. More than this, I hope they aren't replaced by them. The lump in my throat was the first sign, followed by a flushing of my cheeks, and before I could stop it the tears flowed. Suddenly, whatever had caused them felt inconsequential – I was being told by my boss my writing wasn't up to scratch, I think, but my crime of crying in the workplace quickly eclipsed any professional misstep, rendering me weak and humiliated. Or so I thought at the time. Throughout my office-based professional life, I cried when criticised – so much so that I had to reassure editors it was okay to chastise me: I would take their comments on board as I wept. Which might not have won me employee of the month, but it didn't mean I wasn't putting in the effort. The opposite, in fact – I was crying precisely because I cared. Which is why I relate to Rachel Reeves' outburst in the Commons yesterday. Whatever your view of the Chancellor, she's hardly a slacker. Her tears reveal she's emotionally invested in the job, and shouldn't that be applauded? When fewer of us are bothering to show up to work at all, shouldn't those of us who do be granted grace for giving a damn about it? Surely, we have moved on from binary tropes of Office B------ and Cry Babies, especially as tears can be as instinctive and uncontrollable a physiological reaction as sneezing. We can have a crying habit and a core of steel – I wouldn't have survived in journalism were I to crumble at the slightest provocation. The older I get the better – and braver – I think it is to be honest about our emotions, be it with our boss or the British public. I'm more likely to warm to someone who shows their vulnerability – and suspicious of those who don't. Besides, there's something about the pressurised environment of an office and potential for humiliation in it that makes crying more likely. Working from home, away from scrutiny, I sob less but empathise with criers more – their critics revealing more about themselves than those who need the tissues. Stand me under a Lancaster bomber (my dad flew one in the war) and I'm sobbing with the thousands in The Mall; show me an appeal for a donkey sanctuary, or a picture of a dead whale tangled in fishing line and everything gets blurry. A child handing a bouquet to the Queen… Anyway you get the picture. I'm not a stiff upper-lipper but the only reason I would cry at work is if a colleague had collapsed and died – ideally, at my feet. Otherwise, being a crybaby at work is an absolute no-no. It shows a lack of resilience. So much better to take a deep breath and diffuse it with humour, maybe swivel around, shrugging 'Sorry. I'm having a bad chair day'. Mostly, people cry at work because they're being told off. Or to put it another way – bullied. Bullies want to make people cry, which is why work bullies often harangue junior employees in public. In fact, A-level bullying was almost a job requirement for senior editorial staff on Fleet Street 30 years ago. I remember one notorious tabloid bully jumping over three desks to scream in the face of a young reporter, who had compiled the TV listings. 'Lucy! Coronation Street is on Wednesday, not b----y Thursday!!' Ludicrous, but terrifying. If only she'd had the courage to laugh in his face, because laughter is the great diffuser. But he knew she hadn't. Many great songs make me cry. Last week, I had to fish out a Kleenex at a music concert when a soul singer launched into Sam Cooke's soaring, heartbreaking song of struggle A Change Is Gonna Come. Now, if Keir Starmer had launched into that song, at PMQs, I would understand if Rachel Reeves' mascara began running down her cheeks. But if she'd then jumped up, slapped a thigh and socked it to him with Aretha Franklin's Respect she would have brought tears… of joy… to my eyes. I've cried in many strange places over the years – in a Pret, at a dog show and at 30,000 feet after watching Erin Brockovich. But I'm proud to say I've never cried at work. Well, not in front of anyone, anyway. That's what the work toilets are for. We've all felt the tell-tale signs that we're about to start blubbing, but in my experience you can normally hold yourself together until you're away from your colleagues and save your dignity. Although scientists still don't understand exactly why we cry, it's normally when your brain is overwhelmed by an emotion – anger, frustration, surprise, happiness. I think crying in the office shows you're not in control of your emotions, it makes you appear unpredictable and volatile. Although I'm all for the catharsis of a well-timed weep occasionally, I don't think it should be in the boardroom or – as in the case of Rachel Reeves – at PMQs. It doesn't exactly scream professionalism to be snivelling and wiping away tears and snot when you expect people to take you seriously. I think I feel so strongly about not crying at work because I once had a boss who loved to have a good cry at her desk. I remember during my first few weeks, she turned up to work wailing uncontrollably. 'Are you OK?' I asked her, thinking perhaps a parent had died. 'I had this dream last night,' she spluttered between sobs. 'About my ex boyfriend.' No event was too minor to trigger full-blown waterworks – ripped tights, a bad edit, a missed email. It became so bad that I was scared to approach her with anything remotely negative in case I set her off. Although I know that her bosses had a word about keeping her emotions in check, she was clearly just one of life's very sensitive types. Which made the rest of us feel we were walking on eggshells. Of course there are times when life's events make you feel more prone to crying, but if you're going through something traumatic at home, then you shouldn't be at work. If you find yourself in tears in the office on a regular basis, then maybe you're in the wrong job. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
