|
Quite shocked..he seemed an amiable type, quite funny on comedy panel shows...
|
Found dead at home in Fort William, it seems. No suspicious circumstances.
He seemed a decent bloke.
|
No suspicious circumstances, whatever that means.
Can we wait until the guy's cold and the usual investigations have taken place before speculating?
|
>> No suspicious circumstances, whatever that means.
>>
>> Can we wait until the guy's cold and the usual investigations have taken place before
>> speculating?
No. Speculation is what a discussion forum is about,. You want days and days of blank pages?
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 07:55
|
>> No. Speculation is what a discussion forum is about,. You want days and days of
>> blank pages?
>>
Indeed. But in context of a man's sudden death?
|
>> >> No. Speculation is what a discussion forum is about,. You want days and days
>> of
>> >> blank pages?
>> >>
>>
>> Indeed. But in context of a man's sudden death?
Yes. Its sudden, its a surprise, its news worthy, its currently unexplained, none of us are related to him in any way, so its ideal speculation territory.
|
|
So it's sod decorum then?
|
>> So it's sod decorum then?
So its ignore all the valid points above then?
|
>> So it's sod decorum then?
>>
But you weren't arguing for decorum - you said the speculation should wait until the usual enquiries were complete.
"No suspicious circumstances, whatever that means" hardly shows decorum, does it?
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 09:18
|
>> But you weren't arguing for decorum - you said the speculation should wait until the
>> usual enquiries were complete.
Once the enquiries are complete the cause of death will be known. My point was simply that it was unseemly to speculate in a public forum when Mr Kennedy's body was barely cold.
If others think it's OK so be it.
|
>> Once the enquiries are complete the cause of death will be known. My point was
>> simply that it was unseemly to speculate in a public forum when Mr Kennedy's body
>> was barely cold.
The enquiries could in theory take many weeks... should we all be mute on the subject in the meantime?
He was in the public eye, by choice, a recognised senior politician... and it's what he would have expected anyway.
People of that ilk would probably be more 'p'd off if we didn't chatter about it.
|
>>
>> The enquiries could in theory take many weeks... should we all be mute on the
>> subject in the meantime?
>>
J F Kennedy dead. Let's hope the enquiries don't take too long, then we can start speculating.
|
>> If others think it's OK so be it.
>>
But you started it yourself.
If your relative had just died, would you make a remark like "No suspicious circumstances, whatever that means" ?
It's a clear invitation to speculation.
|
>> If your relative had just died, would you make a remark like "No suspicious circumstances,
>> whatever that means" ?
>> It's a clear invitation to speculation.
'No suspicious circumstances' is a piece of standard police/corner speak. It's used again today in context of body, presumed to be that of missing schoolgirl Amber Peat, being found.
Presumably it has a fairly specific meaning. My intention was simply to reflect that while being uncertain myself as to what exactly it ruled in or out.
|
>>Can we wait until the guy's cold and the usual investigations have taken place before speculating?
Why?
|
>> Why?
My point was addressed at Z and question 'did he top himself'. Personally I find that sort of speculation, before the body is cold, unseemly. If I'm in a minority of one on that then off you go.
|
|
Can't say I care one way or the other, but not liking/wanting speculation in a discussion forum seems futile.
|
>> Can't say I care one way or the other, but not liking/wanting speculation in a
>> discussion forum seems futile.
How difficult is it for you to understand that it's a very specific form of speculation I'm uncomfortable with?
|
What is the "specific form" that makes you uncomfortable?
Discussion of causes of death generally? Because that doesn't seem very specific.
|
"What is the "specific form" that makes you uncomfortable?
Discussion of causes of death generally? Because that doesn't seem very specific."
Find it hard to believe someone of your intellectual calibre needs to ask.
Z wondered if Kennedy had committed suicide.
FWIW: news sources say "natural causes". Whether Kennedy's known long-standing alcohol problem played a part I have no idea; I am shocked and saddened in a general kind of way, but don't see speculation of the kind in this thread as a problem. Initially I too did wonder if he'd killed himself.
He was a public figure, though possibly on the way out of the public eye after losing his seat.
Last edited by: Observer on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 10:51
|
>>Find it hard to believe someone of your intellectual calibre needs to ask.
So kind.
But I was being semi-serious actually.
- Somebody dies. Cause unknown. May be suicide, maybe not.
Which is the sensitive issue? Is it who? Or cause unknown? Or speculating about cause of death whatever? I can understand how it could get offensive, but the mere discussion of it doesn't seem to be.
|
|
I'd hazard a guess that speculating 'did he commit suicide' rather than 'did he top himself' is less likely to cause offence.
|
>>Personally I find that sort of speculation, before the body is cold, unseemly.
How do you know 'the body' is still warm?
|
>> How do you know 'the body' is still warm?
Figure of speech innit?
|
|
I wonder if HaMossad leModiʿin uleTafkidim Meyuḥadim could possibly have had a hand in it somewhere.
|
While agreeing from my advanced age (79) that 55, mas o menos, is too soon to pop one's clogs and that appropriate sympathies are due to his family, I cannot understand the panegyrics being heaped upon the man.
Too much fawning by those who in life, loathed all that for which he stood
He was right about one thing - Blair's Iraq adventure - but apart from that he was a professional Liberal Democrat politician, for nearly all of his working life, whose real achievements were minimal.
(I accept that I, apart from descendants, have no achievements whatsoever and I'm OK with that!).
|
>> While agreeing from my advanced age (79) that 55, mas o menos, is too soon
>> to pop one's clogs and that appropriate sympathies are due to his family, I cannot
>> understand the panegyrics being heaped upon the man.
It won't surprise you that I disagree. He does seem to be one of those politicians (and there are actually many) who was held in genuine affection. Interviews with people in his constituency are perhaps the most telling. He was a local man, born in the shadow of Ben Nevis and educated at Lochaber High School, not some placeman parachuted in by Central Office. Standing at the age of 23 against a well dug in opponent and winning was tribute to that.
|
All I have been able to find out, so far, is
The ex-MP's death was not believed to be suspicious and the cause has yet to be confirmed.
So given that
- he had recently lost his seat
- he was an alcoholic
- he was youngish
- his death was unexpected
Its not unreasonable to speculate he was mentally screwed up and suicide is a possibility. Now given he was a public figure, who lived his live in the public eye, its not unreasonable to speculate about him publicly now is it.
And yes the remarks from all around who made jokes about him at the expense of his condition, the lack of support he got from those people, and the fact that his closest colleagues stabbed him in the back, brands them as slimy hypocrites.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 12:22
|
To wrench this tread back on track:
The family have made a statement that '...the post-mortem found that he suffered a "major haemorrhage".'
I assume that means a cerebral haemorrhage.
So the drink killed him in the end.
|
>>I assume that means a cerebral haemorrhage.
>>So the drink killed him in the end.
My father died from a cerebral haemorrhage at the grand old age of 54 but, he didn't hammer the bottle like Charlie did so, it wasn't necessarily the sherbet that killed mister Kennedy.
|
I should have quoted more extensively. It's clear it WAS the drink.
"Former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy died of a major haemorrhage linked to alcoholism, his family have said." (www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33025795)
|
|
If alcohol linked it could be result of liver damage. Blood pressure builds up due cirrhosis congesting vessels in liver with result that others swell and may burst.
|
|
Not seen word cerebral in any news coverage. That may or may not be significant.
|
Most likely a gastrointestinal haemorrhage as per Bromp.
Either a burst peptic ulcer, or a varicose vein in the gullet due to cirrhosis of the liver.
|
|
I actually crossed paths with him some years ago when he was party leader. He struck me as the sort of politician all parties could do with these days - but his political adversaries pounced, didn't they? Pathetic.
|
An engaging benevolent figure he always seemed to me, touchingly admitted after it became obvious that he had a so-called 'drink problem'. Herself took against him for sacking a Liberal who had espoused the Palestinian cause too publicly, but that didn't seem especially villainous to me. His arm was quite likely being twisted by ideologues in the party or financial sponsors anyway.
That sort of likeable demeanour is valuable to a politician. Knee-jerk voter response is something like: shouldn't do too much harm if all goes well...
|
So-called drink problem? If it emerges that this unfortunate, early death is related to the drink, will you be inclined to re-think that statement, AC?
RIP Mr Kennedy, shame the bleating masses in this country continue to vote Labour and Tory when such a tremendous alternative was on offer.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 13:52
|
|
Sad to hear about his death this morning.Always came across as a decent intelligent bloke to me.R.I.P.
|
>> So-called drink problem? If it emerges that this unfortunate, early death is related to the drink, will you be inclined to re-think that statement, AC?
Strike out so-called if you like. Just seems genteel to call being a kamikaze drunkard having a 'drink problem'.
Of course alcohol must have been a major factor in Mr Kennedy's early death, which certainly is sad. Talk of suicide seems a bit gratuitous to me, although it seems possible. It may just have been alcohol poisoning. People's livers are very variable in their resistance to pickling, and sometimes people just die.
|
Didn't look the type who was suicidal but what do I know.
Might have drowned his sorrow's how can anyone look into what goes on in peoples mind?
He was the type of politician I could listen to and did.To much phoniness and hypocrites in politics by many politicians.
|
Very sad. I know zilch about politics but he seemed a decent enough bloke. Losing his parliamentary seat, and the Lib Dems taking a pounding, and losing his father recently must have seemed a lot to cope with.
I too have struggled when stuff has gone wrong. I really hope he didn't take his own life.
|
>> RIP Mr Kennedy, shame the bleating masses in this country continue to vote Labour and
>> Tory when such a tremendous alternative was on offer.
>>
While I had tremendous respect for Charles Kennedy as a politician of principle and definitely one of the good guys despite his personal issues, I, like many others, disagreed with too many of his political beliefs to consider him a "tremendous alternative".
Apart from living about 1000 miles from where he was standing as an MP.
|
>> Apart from living about 1000 miles from where he was standing as an MP.
>>
The Ross, Skye, and Cromarty constituency is not 1000 miles from Fort William.
|
>> >> Apart from living about 1000 miles from where he was standing as an MP.
>>
>> The Ross, Skye, and Cromarty constituency is not 1000 miles from Fort William.
Was commerdriver referring to his own location?
|
>> >> Apart from living about 1000 miles from where he was standing as an MP.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> The Ross, Skye, and Cromarty constituency is not 1000 miles from Fort William.
>>
No but it's about 1000 miles from me which is one reason for me to vote for someone else as my MP
I have a little idea of Scotland's geography thanks
Last edited by: commerdriver on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 15:47
|
|
Fair enough, Portree to Dover is less than 700 miles are you based on the continent?
|
>> Fair enough, Portree to Dover is less than 700 miles are you based on the
>> continent?
>>
OK it was a slight exaggeration but by road rather than crow I am actually 596 miles from there, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa
maybe I meant them new fangled metric things kilo somethings I think they are called
Last edited by: commerdriver on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 15:57
|
|
Less of the culpa. You should have told him you were just using orders of magnitude. Saves me working a lot of things out exactly.
|
|
That is shoddy and lazy, a genuine error is understandable
|
>> That is shoddy and lazy, a genuine error is understandable
Who are you calling shoddy and lazy?!
It makes no difference to the point at issue whether it is 500 miles or 1,000 miles. We aren't trying to hit it with a Trident missile:)
|
|
You don't need to be too accurate with a Trident missile, close will ruin your whole day. :-)
|
Thanks for that reminder ON.
Long may the balance of terror remain in, er, balance sort of thing!
Cheers. It's below the yardarm.
|
>> Cheers. It's below the yardarm.
Cheers to you too AC. I've discovered a local shop with a supply of Spanish market San Miguel.
A tad higher in alcohol than the UK version brewed in town and much tastier.
|
55!
Within the last two weeks two friends of mine have passed away both suddenly but due to health reasons.
One was 52 and the other was 49!
It is quite sobering really.
|
>> 55!
>>
>> Within the last two weeks two friends of mine have passed away both suddenly but
>> due to health reasons.
>>
>> One was 52 and the other was 49!
>>
>> It is quite sobering really.
I have managed to live longer than my great grandfather*, I have beaten my fathers score by a considerable margin, and I only have three years to score the hat trick over my grandfather.
* I had a little help from the Bosch on that score
|
"I had a little help from the Bosch on that score"
Badly wired washing machine was it? You've got to be careful with electrics.
|
>> "I had a little help from the Bosch on that score"
>>
>> Badly wired washing machine was it? You've got to be careful with electrics.
The filthy hun will get you any way he can.
|
>> The filthy hun will get you any way he can.
>>
And even worse it is a she these days. :-)
We (the USA) may have won WW2 but I don't think we are winning the aftermath.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 19:00
|
|
And no prior indication if from Bavaria Mr Zeddo
|
>> And no prior indication if from Bavaria Mr Zeddo
Indeed! Damn the HUN!
|
>> I have managed to live longer than my great grandfather*, I have beaten my fathers
>> score by a considerable margin, and I only have three years to score the hat
>> trick over my grandfather.
>>
My father died at 56 so I have passed that but if he was still alive it would his 120th birthday.
No idea about grandparents.
|
Passed both my Grandfathers but as one died of blood poisoning aged barely 40 in 1936 and the other of hypertension in 1952 that's not really an achievement.
Uncles also died young, one in his thirties but with a congenital kidney defect, the other of smoking related(?) heat disease at 60.
My Mother OTOH is 89 and still going strong - needs a frame to walk but still sharp as a tack.
|
One g'father died just short of 90 from prostate cancer, the other dropped dead at 76 pushing his bike up a hill in Australia after a day fishing.
Cue cycling jokes...
|
>> Cue cycling jokes...
One of my grandfathers died at 48 from alcohol-exacerbated 'angina', the other was a pillar of his nonconformist chapel and didn't drink, although he allowed sherry in the house.
My mother died very young of lung cancer, my father when he was a year or so younger than I am now from a burst or leaking peripheral heart artery. So I've outlived both my parents, slightly worryingly, a spike in the graph. No good can come of it.
|
55 isn't young. People have been going down like ninepins all around me for years.
Some people look after themselves, some don't. Some people's essential organs are much more durable than other people's. It's the luck of the draw whose innards you inherit, and whether your liver and kidneys and heart can stand up to certain levels of alcohol or tobacco intake. But I think a medic would say one should stick around recommended levels without getting anxious about it.
That would be no tobacco at all and damn little booze I think.
Time for another.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 18:46
|
|
One of life's pleasures is a good smoke, particularly with some real ale to hand. I will never give those up. I've had a good innings, if I were to croak tomorrow.
|
A tad higher in alcohol than the UK version brewed in town and much tastier.
Just about all the beer brewed in more than one country is only nice when brewed in the country of origin. I remember hearing a brewery exec say 'we adjust the recipe for the English palate' which of course translates as 'made cheaper as the majority of tasteless oiks in this country would not know better'.
I remember when Castlemain first appeared. The Aussie original is quite nice (for a keg beer), but the UK brewed version is just another yellow coloured alcoholic fizz.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 20:04
|
>> I remember when Castlemain first appeared. The Aussie original is quite nice (for a keg
>> beer), but the UK brewed version is just another yellow coloured alcoholic fizz.
I have a similar memory of jumbo size cans of some sort of premium Fosters bought around Earls Court c1982/3.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 20:07
|
|
Decent bloke maybe (or even definitely) but "tremendous alternative"? I don't think so.
|
I get "RIP Fatigue" whenever a public figure gets the call from The Grim Reaper. Politicians were always great statesmen, the best leader/prime minister/ we never had, liked by friend and foe, kind to animals and children etc. They can't all be like that, but no one who ever died is described as an incompetent clot who'd have been more suited to cleaning toilets than government, and there are plenty of them at Westminster.
Not a personal observation on the late CK of course, just a general one. After a fortnight he'll be forgotten about and rarely mentioned again.
|
|
I was in the audience of Any Questions on Radio 4 back in 2003 when he was in the panel. It was fascinating to see the interaction between the panellists in terms of expressions, signals and nods and winks that can't be picked up on radio and they would never risk on TV. Charles Kennedy was the unofficlal ring master and you couldn't help but warm to him. Mo Mowlam was also on the panel and I reckon she was another who was genuinely liked across the political divide. The programme that went out on air was the usual formal affair but the added human dimension that came across in the hall is something I have long remembered and Kennedy was the driver of that.
|
Have seen a few video and heard some audio clips of him today, seemed to be a very reasonable guy and from what he was saying, I would think that I would have been inclined to vote for him.
However the current lib-dems weren't appearing to stand for the same social justice, left of centre, that he was speaking of.
Did the coalition really kill the lib dems off? Their previous voters, who did they vote for last month instead and why?
|
|
Of the people interviewed in Fort William, who all said what a nice chap he was, wouldn't it be nice to think that they all voted for him
|
|
Just because you like a person doesn't mean you agree with their politics.
|
|
Too true. One of my recently deceased friends was a dyed in the wool communist, who in his later years faded to a far left Labour supporter. For several years we spent a few nights each week, early doors, discussing everything under the sun.
|
>> Of the people interviewed in Fort William, who all said what a nice chap he
>> was, wouldn't it be nice to think that they all voted for him
Anecdotally there was an element of all of them thinking they could register a protest vote for SNP but that enough others would vote LD for Kennedy to still be elected.
|
According to press reports Kennedy was in line to be made a peer and to have a new job lined up as a prominent voice in the EU referendum YES campaign.
The political class sure looks after its own.
|
>> According to press reports Kennedy was in line to be made a peer and to
>> have a new job lined up as a prominent voice in the EU referendum YES
>> campaign.
>> The political class sure looks after its own.
Too right. My main thought was 'poor chap, unemployed' and so my thoughts went on to his having commited suicide. And then, like you, I read that.
|
Prominent parliamentarian and ex leader of his party was a shoo in for offer of a seat in the Lords. If he didn't get one then assumption would be thast like Blair, Major etc it was offered but declined.
Given that we have an upper house appointed for their experience then having a cohort of 'elder statesmen' within it seems reasonable enough.
|
>> Prominent parliamentarian and ex leader of his party was a shoo in for offer of
>> a seat in the Lords. If he didn't get one then assumption would be thast
>> like Blair, Major etc it was offered but declined.
>>
>> Given that we have an upper house appointed for their experience then having a cohort
>> of 'elder statesmen' within it seems reasonable enough.
>>
Cable, Hughes, and probably other LibDems have refused Lords seats due to their unelected, undemocratic nature. Good on them. We need more of these people, not fewer.
|
Peerages are just gongs like all the others. High-up gongs, but gongs all the same. Some are hereditary.
People can curry favour by renouncing them or turning the offer down, or they can win in a different way by accepting them and being known as Lord Thing after that. Seems harmless to me to enjoy the fruits of a working life and a clean nose, as many life peers secretly do.
|
>> Peerages are just gongs like all the others. High-up gongs, but gongs all the same.
>> Some are hereditary.
>>
And very lucrative jobs for the cronies.
|
>> And very lucrative jobs for the cronies.
They need the money for fripperies ON. It isn't cheap suddenly becoming Deputy Second Gentleman of the Bedchamber after a life of comfortable hoggish crime in the city or on an estate. The robes alone cost a fortune, all that gold braid, even to hire at Moss Bros.
The French, or some of them, are lost in admiration for the British ability to combine monarchy with meritocratic political democracy. Seems like a conjuring trick to them.
As it is of course in a way. So far so good.
|
>> The French, or some of them, are lost in admiration for the British ability to
>> combine monarchy with meritocratic political democracy. Seems like a conjuring trick to them.
>>
>> As it is of course in a way. So far so good.
>>
Enter King Charles III, or whatever he will 'style' himself as. *rubs grubby proletarian republican hands with glee*
|
>> Enter King Charles III, or whatever he will 'style' himself as. *rubs grubby proletarian
>> republican hands with glee*
>>
In your dreams, A. The monarchy in the UK will disappear if and when they are no longer in demand, look at the number of engagements the main ones perform, not because they have a team of agents offering them at competitive rates, but because people and organisations want to have them there.
What other set up would give you, say half a dozen people to be places, do speeches & openings etc etc etc.
What other set up would draw crowds in the hundreds of thousands for major events (weddings etc).
In short no individual or group, whether political or otherwise can make this country republican. The only way for it to happen is for people no longer to care whether they are there or not, and that is a long way away for most people.
In case you are wondering, my feeling is that it works, most people seem to like it, and I cannot see any reason to change.
|
>> In case you are wondering, my feeling is that it works, most people seem to
>> like it, and I cannot see any reason to change.
>>
I accept that is the majority view, most likely, but I believe opinions are moving away from there and KCIII will accelerate that process. The only reason for change I'll ever need is the hereditary principle having no right to a place in public life.
|
>> The only reason for change I'll
>> ever need is the hereditary principle having no right to a place in public life.
>>
an understandable view, while I agree it has no place in government power, I cannot see any problem with it as it stands, with only ceremonial and titular links to government. It symbolises, for me, much of what id great about Great Britain.
|
>> It symbolises, for me, much of what id great about Great Britain.
>>
For me it stands in stark contradiction to all that is great about Britain. How does it symbolise our greatness when it stands as almost the last remaining vestige of feudalism and oppression?
What is great about Britain is that we have managed to throw off the worst aspects of history without recourse to mass bloodshed (English civil war excepted of course).
Interested to hear how you think it symbolises what is great about us.
Last edited by: Alanović on Thu 4 Jun 15 at 11:41
|
>> when it stands as almost the last remaining vestige of feudalism and oppression?
How exactly are you oppressed by our Royal Family ?
>>
>> What is great about Britain is that we have managed to throw off the worst
>> aspects of history without recourse to mass bloodshed (English civil war excepted of course).
Exactly we kept the monarchy as a symbolic figurehead not wielding any sort of real power
>> Interested to hear how you think it symbolises what is great about us.
>>
we have not ever found the need to go for wholesale execution of the entire family of the head of state and have never needed to try to elect someone to do the symbolic ceremonial bits.
We need elections for government etc, we need people with a sense of duty and independence from party politics to represent the country at home and abroad.
And, as I said earlier my personal beliefs on it matter little, look at the workrate of all of the main players at an age when most people have long since retired and given up.
The fact that they remain as popular as they are in our media driven society which is quick to vilify and condemn any well known figure at the slightest excuse says a lot too.
You are entitled to your beliefs but i cannot understand or agree with your view on this one.
|
>>You are entitled to your beliefs
He wouldn't be if I was King............
Off with the head.
|
|
Hence the problem with Kings, NF.
|
>> Hence the problem with Kings, NF.
>>
who have not had the power to do anything violent or nasty for a couple of centuries :-)
And I wouldn't worry about Mark, like the rest of us he's probably at least 20 to 30 millionth in line for the throne anyway
|
>>Hence the problem with Kings, NF.
Not if I am one.
1) Bring back serious kow-towing
2) .....
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 4 Jun 15 at 17:02
|
>>
>> How exactly are you oppressed by our Royal Family ?
>> look at the
>> workrate of all of the main players at an age when most people have long
>> since retired and given up.
>>
There so rarely is a middle way.
I don't believe that most members of the Royal Family work very hard.
Take yesterday for example. There are 17 members of The Royal Family listed on The Royal Family website. According to The Daily Telegraph 8 members carried out a function.
They were The Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Andrew, Princess Ann, The Gloucesters, Duke of Kent and Sophie Wessex.
What were all the others doing? Don't forget that when we are told that a member of The Royal family carried out n engagements yesterday, they were picked up at their front door in a chauffeur driven car, dropped at the front door of the place they were visiting and so on. Not exactly difficult, is it?
However, I would hate to have an American system. Perhaps the Germans have got it right.
I hate the thought of Charles coming to the throne. A person for whom I have absolutely no respect.
|
I'm not a Royalist, but I'm pro royal. They save us from yet another elected busybody poking his or her nose in where it isn't wanted and taxing something that isn't taxed already to raise yet more money to P up against the wall.
They are almost certainly cheaper to run too, I doubt many tourists come here to see David Cameron. They and the pomp and history they represent is also one of the things that give Britain a standing in the world out of all proportion to it's geographical size.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Thu 4 Jun 15 at 16:49
|
I did say the "main" members
also remember The Queen and D of E are way past "working age" at 89 and 93, duke of kent and Gloucesters must be not far off that Princess Anne is over 65.
No idea who counts as "working Royals" but they don't do too bad really.
However they travel they then have time doing things while they are there.
I have no feelings at all about Charles, never having met or seen him in action, but cannot see a reason to respect or not respect, you may have met him, I dont know. IMHO might be best to wait and see what kind of monarch he makes
I do have huge respect for the Queen and D of E having seen them inspecting about 150 scouts, including my son in 2007 when they were both in their 80s at Windsor castle, they walked round every scout on parade speaking to many at an age when most people of their age then would not have been able to
As I said before they do not set up any of the things they do, they are requested, and if the last time I looked was anything, over time they are way oversubscribed. No political appointee I can think of would have anything like the same appeal.
As with Alanovic, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, you may be right, but I wouldn't expect you to be in a majority of the UK population any time soon.
|
>>A person for whom I have absolutely no respect.
I quite like him. Is this about his marriage with Diana or do you have another perspective?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 4 Jun 15 at 17:26
|
>> I hate the thought of Charles coming to the throne. A person for whom I have absolutely no respect.
>>
Why do I say that?
On a number of levels.
1. He has acquired the position that he has by an accident of birth. No more, no less. He didn't do anything difficult or demanding. He should bear that in mind.
I think he should behave more like his mother, rather than pressing his opinions on various politicians and public figures.
2. I disapprove of his behaviour with Camilla when they were both married to other people. He was in breach of the code which says that you don't have an affair with a fellow officers wife.
Last edited by: Duncan on Fri 5 Jun 15 at 07:36
|
"I hate the thought of Charles coming to the throne."
Yeah - let's get rid of the monarchy and have an election ............ cue John Prescott et al.
|
>> Yeah - let's get rid of the monarchy and have an election ............ cue John
>> Prescott et al.
Our politicians would fix it so that only they could vote, so a top job for one of their own who has fallen on hard times, as in sacked.
|
>> "I hate the thought of Charles coming to the throne."
>>
>> Yeah - let's get rid of the monarchy and have an election ............ cue John
>> Prescott et al.
>>
Exactly. I'd rather we kept the system we have, we elect the government and have inherited the Royals.
Could you imagine President Blair and his awful wife?
At least our Royals have a sense of duty and 'the country comes first attitude', whereas a politician would have his/her party's angle first in the queue... no thank you.
|
Sigh. The President Blair argument. Still as irrelevant as ever.
An elected HoS would be exactly that. Elected. Maybe HRH Prince Charles/William could stand. I might even vote for one of them.
Don't be so narrow minded.
|
>> Sigh. The President Blair argument. Still as irrelevant as ever.
>>
>> An elected HoS would be exactly that. Elected. Maybe HRH Prince Charles/William could stand. I
>> might even vote for one of them.
>>
>> Don't be so narrow minded.
And do you acknowledge any merit at all in the current system? Very few things are entirely bad.
I credit Westpig with not literally meaning that Blair would be the only option, but one might reasonably suppose that he and people like him would have been candidates and he certainly seemed to put a lot of effort into looking Presidential.
The point surely is not whether it might have been Tony Blair, Jeffrey Archer, Boris Johnson*, Helen Mirren, or Bradley Wiggins; but whether you want one of a list of greasy pole experts and television personalities at all, elected in a point-in-time popularity contest.
*BoJo could probably win it easily if he put his mind to it. Think on that.
|
>> And do you acknowledge any merit at all in the current system?
No. It's wrong, full stop. any perceived merit is negated by the incorrect principle from the outset.
>> *BoJo could probably win it easily if he put his mind to it. Think on
>> that.
>>
So? No problem with that idea really. Elected anyone = better than appointed by God. I'd prefer President Clegg (Kennedy would have been better) though (there, that should increase a few %s on the ubble life expectancy thread, might be enough to kill a few off ;-).
|
>> >> And do you acknowledge any merit at all in the current system?
>>
>> No. It's wrong, full stop. any perceived merit is negated by the incorrect principle from
>> the outset.
That seems to me to be narrow minded, no offence intended.
On BoJo, what I meant to say was not that nobody would like him but that such a result would inevitably be divisive. An arbitrary HoS seems ideal in that respect.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 5 Jun 15 at 11:17
|
>> An arbitrary HoS seems ideal in that
>> respect.
>>
Apart from the fact that it's also divisive, and in perpetuity, as we can see due to their being a vocal Republican movement against such a thing?
Of course, all election results are divisive, but at least we've had a say and a majority solution is reached. This is always better than an arbitrary arrangement which is still divisive and no-one has had a say.
|
The choice if HoS is not divisive since neither of us has a choice. You can't blame me for the monarchy and I have nothing to blame you for. The Republicans can moan but the only aspect that is doing them any harm is the fact that they wind themselves up.
Sure, elections are divisive too - but at least they come round at most every five years. To me, a HoS should have more continuity not to mention the expense and frankly pointless distraction of having elections for a ceremonial position.
There really is no great disadvantage to the present arrangement other than the "principle".
God Save the Queen! Er...thank God I'm an atheist.
|
>> At least our Royals have a sense of duty and 'the country comes first attitude',
Based on the Diana debacle I think you will find that in royal circles, the royal circle comes first.
|
>>
>> At least our Royals have a sense of duty and 'the country comes first attitude',
>>
Why then, did the Queen refuse to pay the duty that was due on her mother's estate?
|
I wasn't aware of this Duncan but a bit of Googling showed that no duty was payable as a result of an agreement between the Royals and the John Major government in 1993, long before her death in 2002 - were you aware of that? (Updated version at www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/208633/mou_royal_taxation.pdf)
The article which I found, admittedly from the Torygraph, goes on to say
"In return for giving up their rights to the Crown Estates (formerly the Crown Lands), they are accorded a Civil List by parliament. Last year the Crown Estates, which comprises large amounts of property in Regent Street, Regent's Park and St James's as well as marine assets and 120,000 hectares of agricultural land, made a post-tax profit of £147.7 million. Meanwhile, the Queen's Civil List came to a mere £6.6 million."
It strikes me that, although the Royals may enjoy some tax advantages, there is at least transparency over it, unlike so many of the other tax avoidance/evasion stories which have required discovery via investigative journalism.
|
>>Enter King Charles III, or whatever he will 'style' himself as. *rubs grubby proletarian republican hands with glee*
The boss was at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday for the WI Centenary Garden Party. The Duchess of Cornwall, Countess of Wessex, and Princess Alexandra were on duty. The Yeomen of the Guard added to the spectacle. There were 8,000 guests. The WI allocated the tickets by ballot of those who applied.
Depending on your point of view, you might say this is the same bread and circuses game that the Romans played, but I don't think so.
All sorts of people are invited to these things, often as a recognition of some sort of community contribution. They aren't generally motivated by money or more material rewards. I'm sure they put far more value on it than they would a picnic with some sidekicks of a greasy pole climbing type of President, or free tickets for Alton Towers (especially Alton Towers). I see the Countess of Wessex is on parade again today at a blind veterans garden party.
The hereditary principle is probably beyond rational explanation and would not be invented now. But it serves a variety of purposes quite well. The Royals are trained and obligated to it, the same could not be achieved by appointing random citizens, political appointees, and especially by election. Who wants a careerist monarch?
I have no problem with being called a subject, or showing respect for the institution. They are welcome to their duties as far as I am concerned.
The boss rather enjoyed it. I can assure you that she defers to no one.
I had a Republican (or more accurately, anti-monarchy) phase myself - it lasted from when I stopped getting my opinions from my parents and teachers until about 35 I think. By then, even having benefitted from it, I could see the flaws in "meritocracy" depending as it does on so many different definitions of merit.
I shall raise a glass to Charlie if he takes it on.
The Parish Council, on the other hand, winds me up something shocking:)
Wrong thread. Sorry. And a great pity about Charles Kennedy. I would have liked to have seen him overcome his problems.
|
>> Excellent post Manatee.
Thank you.
Reminds me that the boss was also at the WI AGM 15 years ago when Tony Blair got a mauling. He was a late addition to the agenda, having asked a week earlier if he could give a speech. They were quite happy to see him until he turned it into a party political broadcast. When he transparently tried to redeem himself by saying he supported the WI campaign to save rural post offices the ball was over the wall and the game over.
|
Many assumptions, Manatee. My parents and wider family are (or were) all royalist flag wavers to a man/woman, and I was schooled in Windsor of all places where none of my teachers were of the sort you imply. I've come to my conclusions on my own thanks very much and I'm well past 35. As a nipper I was a keen foreluck tugger in the streets of Windsor, I've got the 1977 street party pictures to prove it. As I've matured my view has changed. As it seems your parents and teachers were/are republican then we have both managed to form our own opinions independently.
What do you mean by "if Charles takes it on"? Did you not say they were trained and obliged to do so and by dint of that this made them the most suitable people to rise to Head of State? Where is this choice you imply on Charles's part?
I've been in invited to the Palace to attend the award of an MBE to a close relative, but declined regretfully on principle. The rest of my family attended. I offered my congratulations to the person in question in my own manner and apologised for any offence my stand may take, explaining it was nothing personal, and this was accepted gracefully.
I do have a problem with being called a subject and have no respect for an institution which shows little for the rest of us.
EDIT, sorry I see I've got my wires crossed about your republican views and their demise. Am I right in saying your path is thus: childhood=monarchist, young adult=republican, post-35=monarchist again? Either way, I certainly don't share my parents'/teachers' views as you may have been implying.
Last edited by: Alanović on Thu 4 Jun 15 at 12:03
|
Al, I didn't intend to assume or imply anything about your views or those of your parents - or mine for that matter. I don't think my parents had strong views either way but they weren't forelock tuggers. I don't think I had any particular view as a child, but there comes a time for all of us when we start to think about this sort of thing and the simple illogic and apparent unfairness of the hereditary business probably caused me to dislike it.
Over time I suppose I formed the view that it did me no harm, and subsequently that it has some merit (if merit is the right word).
As to Charles's choice - I have no reason to suppose he wants to shirk it, or that he would make such a decision from pure self interest. He might be quite old himself when the time comes.
I have no expectation or wish to recruit you, either. You'd probably turn out to be a double agent.
I think I would have gone to the MBE ceremony regardless. I can't enjoy fitbal for more than about 15 minutes, but I still went to a World Cup match a few years ago.
|
>Given that we have an upper house appointed for their experience then having a cohort of
>'elder statesmen' within it seems reasonable enough.
And an incoherent drunk? For a party with no MPs? (Sorry, enough to fit in two black cabs, with space for the Greens and UKIP too.) And with 101 peers www.libdems.org.uk/peers already? On that basis the Greens and UKIP should have 12 each.
A bunch of unelected political has-beens who think they should control the country; truly outrageous. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dem-and-labour-peers-could-work-together-to-push-for-a-constitutional-convention-10289602.html
At least the hereditary peers had an interest in the country as significant landowners.
Anyway, it was more the "prominent role" in the 'in' campaign that grated rather than the peerage, which would at least be 'normal' if ridiculous. I bet you won't be arguing that Nigel Farage as a prominent parliamentarian and former leader of his party was entitled to this representation.
|
|
I just wonder why we actually NEED a head of state.
|
>> I just wonder why we actually NEED a head of state.
>>
Not often you and I agree but that is indeed a reasonable question.
|
|
Like Dave - someone to blame.
|
>> Like Dave - someone to blame.
>>
But that doesn't apply to HM the Q? She's blameless, apparently.
|
>> I just wonder why we actually NEED a head of state.
What has need got to do with it? All you need to know is that we've got one.
Seems to me you need to be very up yourself, and not all that bright, to yawp away about your sodding principles and airily propose monkeying around with the machinery of the state. Yip yip yip... it's utterly pathetic, nursery noise.
|
|
Tolerant sardonic stare smiley.
|
Anyway, isn't yipping more redolent of the kennel than the nursery?
;-)
|
>> Anyway, isn't yipping more redolent of the kennel than the nursery?
They often sound much the same.
The views of individuals on the soundness or otherwise of the hereditary principle for choosing a head of state are really neither here nor there. A lot of people gripe foolishly about everything, it's a white-noise background to major events.
The point about the machinery of the state (in all its absurdity) is that it has taken shape and been updated and modified over the centuries by serious highly-placed individuals who were then going to have to operate that machinery. Tom Dick and Harry know absolutely nothing about any aspect of that.
Don't worry your little heads about it darlings. It's going to happen anyway. Think about something more practical and interesting. Get a hobby, knitting, model aircraft, something like that. You'll be much happier in the end.
|
>> A bunch of unelected political has-beens who think they should control the country; truly outrageous.
>> www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dem-and-labour-peers-could-work-together-to-push-for-a-constitutional-convention-10289602.html
Try looking down the telescope's eyepiece...
|
>> Anecdotally there was an element of all of them thinking they could register a protest
>> vote for SNP but that enough others would vote LD for Kennedy to still be
>> elected.
Hmm.
You don't know that. A bit of inspired guesswork on your part?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 3 Jun 15 at 10:23
|
>> Hmm.
>>
>> You don't know that. A bit of inspired guesswork on your part?
Jeez, do you guys have to niggle at everything?
It was being reported in the media yesterday, based on anecdotes from conversations on the streets of Fort William.
|
|
What Charlie forgot and apparently the media still do is that the constituency extends well beyond Fort William / Lochaber. As a former constituent he showed little interest in the wider area and no appetite for constituency work, preferring the bright lights and hospitality of the London media circus. Deference and local pride may have maintained support in his home town but did not a good constituency MP make.
|
>> Did the coalition really kill the lib dems off? Their previous voters, who did they vote for last month instead and why?
My missus and I have sometimes voted Libdem but on this last occasion we voted Tory:
1. With the Polls predicting a hung parliament, the prospect of Milliband doing some kind of deal with the SNP was horrific.
2. No point voting Libdem since they would never form a government on their own.
3. UKIP and Greens - nutcases in different ways, political dustbins into which you throw an unwanted vote.
4. Could never vote Labour, the party of envy and incompetence.
So left with Tory, the least worst option. If we could have voted for a continuation of the LibCon coalition then that would have got our votes.
|
Similar to a work colleague I used to work with twenty years ago and croaked at mid 40's. If you read the obituary in the local rag then you would think it was a different person. Comments such as 'hard-working' and 'dedicated', 'everyone respected him' and 'never phased by pressure'.
Complete cobblers, he was a lazy incompetent, several times I had to pick up and rescue his failing projects but management liked him because he always towed the party line and he was a brown noser. Promoted several times just to get him away from messing up the proper work. He would get seriously stressed in meetings, often shouting and swearing, and excellent and coming up with excuses why something had not been done on time.
|
>> Decent bloke maybe (or even definitely) but "tremendous alternative"? I don't think so.
>>
It's all relative with politicians though. Tremendous in comparison with the alternatives at the time - Blair, Brown, Hague, Howard etc.
|
>> Found dead at home in Fort William, it seems. No suspicious circumstances.
His family have not disclosed the cause of his death, and simply said he was a fine man, an excellent politician, and a loving father...
But a crap electrician.
|
>> Poignant note to today's Steve Bell cartoon
Bell at his best, sentimental, mystical and of today.
Today's Matt is good too, a couple of suits walking down the street, one saying: 'Football has ruined money.'
I don't buy the way everyone goes on about a chap called Blatter. My impression is that he's a top mover and shaker in a corrupt game everyone knows to be corrupt. The fans are eager to shovel their knowledge of their own corrupt attitudes and the corrupt nature of the game onto some pantomime villain fed to them by the media.
Looks a nice chap in the mugshots. Nice smile. Wheedling. Pleading almost.
|
"My impression is that he's a top mover and shaker in a corrupt game everyone knows to be corrupt. "
Quite. That's why I restrict my footballing interests to the Ryman or, to give it its correct name, the Isthmian League. It's tolerably less corrupt.
|
I don't buy football shorts (wouldn't be seen dead in one), don't go to Football matches (you can't drink during the match) and am a member of no supporters clubs.
I do, however, love watching the Premier League on the television.
|
|
Only those who support a team and go to see them can understand the incredible buzz you can get at a game. Nothing like it, but you need to experience it to understand.
|
>>Only those who support a team and go to see them can understand the incredible buzz you can get at a game.
I deliberately do not support a single team. I find that if I care who wins it spoils it as a relaxing exercise for me.
That said I went to the Millenium a few years ago twice in the same month. One was to see the Barbarians play [bars open, happy people, pubs full afterwards with supporters from both sides] and a week or so later it was some Football Cup final [no booze, police everywhere, war zone, all pubs closed].
I reckon that must have been around 2005.
Shortly later I went to the Madejski Stadium in Reading, in my cousin's box to see the London Irish (loads of fun, barracking, booze and normal Rugby people).
About two weeks later I went back to see Reading play someone or other at football (no booze, loads of police, supporters hating each other etc. etc.).
I think that must have been 2007 or so.
Around 2000 and again in 2009 I attended matches at Maracanã in Rio and Estadio de Morumbi in Sao Paulo. War zones, both places, both times.
That was enough, I feel no need to attend another football match. Although No. 1 wants to go.
All a long way from when I used to walk to Elm Park with my Father and sister on a Saturday afternoon.
|
Football is a gentleman's game played by hooligans. Rugby is a hooligans game played by gentlemen.
No idea who said it, but there is some truth in it.
|
365.worldrugbyshop.com/rugby-quotes/
Rugby Quotes
“Rugby is a beastly game played by gentlemen; soccer is a gentleman’s game played by beasts; football is a beastly game played by beasts.†– Henry Blaha
“I prefer rugby to soccer. I enjoy the violence in rugby, except when they start biting each other’s ears off.†– Elizabeth Taylor (1972)
“Rugby is a good occasion for keeping thirty bullies far from the center of the city.†– Oscar Wilde
“Rugby is played by men with odd shaped balls.†– Car bumper sticker
“Rugby is a hooligans game played by gentlemen.†Winston Churchill
“Beer and Rugby are more or less synonymous.†– Chris Laidlaw
“The pub is as much a part of rugby as is the playing field.†– John Dickenson
To sum up?
Cricket is a game for gentlemen played by gentlemen,
Football is a game for gentlemen played by hooligans,
Rugby Union is a game for hooligans played by gentlemen,
And Rugby League is a game for hooligans played by hooligans.
“I thought I would have a quiet pint … and about 17 noisy ones.†– Gareth Chilcott on playing his last game of rugby for Bath (1993)
|
>> Football is a gentleman's game played by hooligans. Rugby is a hooligans game played by
>> gentlemen.
>>
>> No idea who said it, but there is some truth in it.
Not a grain of truth in it. Rugby of all codes is played by hooligans and cheats. Just like football.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 3 Jun 15 at 20:32
|
but you need to experience
>> it to understand.
>>
I think it's the other way around.
|
>> but you need to experience
>> >> it to understand.
>> >>
>>
>> I think it's the other way around.
>>
The way I heard it; in soccer the hooligans are in the stand, in rugby they're on the pitch.
|
I've never really supported any particular football team, but I have been down the Den a few times, an experience I shall never forget. I also went to see the animals play away at Luton once. When the game was over, they let all the Luton fans leave but locked us all in owing to a load of fans hooligans running riot, breaking all the plastic seats, and generally causing mayhem.
|
>> Only those who support a team and go to see them can understand the incredible
>> buzz you can get at a game.
Sister's family are Villa supporters, and as season ticket holders got to see the FA Cap final last week. Bit afraid to ask how much of a buzz they got out if it... :)
|
>> >> Only those who support a team and go to see them can understand the
>> incredible
>> >> buzz you can get at a game.
>>
>> Sister's family are Villa supporters, and as season ticket holders got to see the FA
>> Cap final last week. Bit afraid to ask how much of a buzz they got
>> out if it... :)
>>
Horrible when you lose, but standing among thirty or forty thousand people when the roof lifts off the stadium after a goal is scored by your team is something you can never explain to someone who hasn't been part of it.
As for rugby, it's the only sport I know where a payer has stuck his finger up an opponents rectum in the scrum (Australia, I believe). It always looks like an excuse for overweight yobs with no teeth to fondle other men.
|
I find soccer tedious.
Rugby (Union) I enjoy - perhaps because I played it at school and was a 1st. XV player (but not quite good enough to get my colours)
|
Rugby was mandatory for first three years at senior school. Being neither big nor fleet of foot I'd no role on the field and hated it.
I cannot boot a football straight either nor stop one in goal but could at least enjoy a kick about as a young man.
|
I had no particular talent for football nor did my school permit it, and regrettably I was too "enthusiastic" for school rugby - they stopped letting me play.
In fact I didn't have much time for sports at all until I discovered the water - Surfing, windsurfing, kite-surfing, sailing etc. etc. Then later the snow.
I am too competitive for playing with or against human beings so me against the elements works just fine.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 3 Jun 15 at 22:38
|
Variety was the name of the game at school when it came to sports. We played lots of rugby* and football gaelic football which i quite enjoyed playing. Then as the weather got better it was cricket. Plenty of indoors stuff such as badminton 5 a side, basketball etc.
Only thing we never played was union. I always found it uninteresting to watch, always reminded me of its nickname, kick and clap.
* Quite a few made it to international standard and even more made a living from it from the school i went to.
|
I played Union as a youngster...we lived next door to Broughton Park and me stepdad was groundsman and barman. I never really understood it, though.
Is it mandatory to fling yourself horizontally through the air to touch down even if there's no one on your tail ? They all seem to do it.....a gentle placing of the ball by hand would seem to be quite adequate.
We didn't have rugby at school, just soccer and cricket and one other option, which I opted for. Cross country running. We ran against other local schools on Saturdays......both home and away. Sports day was Wednesday afternoon and the running club were allowed off the ground to train. A big mistake, one of the lads had a shotgun which he hid in his ex US army jeep and we ran as far as the River Mersey and took turns at shooting rats, running back later exhausted and sweaty. Happy daze !
|
>>I am too competitive for playing with or against human beings so me against the elements works just fine.
I have no interest in competing physically against human beings. Probably because I wouldn't be guaranteed to win. The elements suit me just fine; one always wins, I think.
I went to a football match once (Premier League); I thought it very exciting from an anthropological point of view. The Romans sending Christians to the lions must have been like that. Indeed, bull fighting in Spain is very similarly exciting. Absolutely no need, though, to support one side or the other. I don't get it.
|
>> I find soccer tedious.
>> Rugby (Union) I enjoy - perhaps because I played it at school and was a 1st. XV player
I had to play it at school too Rastaman, but I wasn't a tough guy and my heart wasn't really in it. I could sort of play, a bit. One went through it uncomplainingly at the time because everyone else had to, but I can't say I often enjoyed it and was a well-known skiver. No doubt good for one's health apart from the risk of serious injury to spine, neck or head and the gruelling boredom of the rugger field.
I have to say that to me a good soccer game is infinitely more entertaining to watch than the muddy behemoth thing.
|
Mine was a rugby playing school. Being so short sighted, it was to me a dismally cold, wet and muddy experience hanging about at one end of a field, waiting for a brown bouncy blur to whizz past before being hurled to the ground and sat upon by large blue and white blurs who delighted in inflicting as much physical pain on you as they could whilst remaining just this side of trouble from authority.
It may or may not have contributed to my life long complete avoidance of any sort of sport, either watching or participating, unless you count the odd frame of snooker, which to my mind is a game, not a sport.
I simply have no interest in it.
|
>> Mine was a rugby playing school.
Three of my eight schools were, including the last. I ended up as right prop in the third XV in a small public school, and we were a right shower, everything from wimpish intellectuals to French hooligan aristos, Neanderthals from the 'Remove' and assorted colonial exotica. Needless to say we were also hopeless at rugger compared to the third and even fourth or fifth teams of bigger and tougher schools.
Harassed, wet and cold days they were.
|
|
We used to play rugby and football, I was reasonable at both, often chosen for one of the teams. I preferred football, rugby always seemed a bit violent and too much gonad grabbing on occasions.
|
|
Are you the dude in the striped rugger shirt, Dodger?
|
>> Are you the dude in the striped rugger shirt, Dodger?
>>
They are hoops!
|
|
Back row - third from left!
|
You look like a used car salesman from Catford.
:}
|
>> You look like a used car salesman from Catford.
>>
>> :}
>
Oy -- new cars as well!
|
|
Wozzit a Lada dealership guvnor?
|
>> Wozzit a Lada dealership guvnor?
>>
Nope - the Austin distributors (by Royal Warrant, too) for London - The Car Mart Sales.
Showroom I worked at, from 1964 to 1966, at was at 163, Bromley Road, Catford, SE6.
Right opposite us was the Morris distributor for London, at the time, Stewart & Ardern.
|
>> Nope - the Austin distributors
Ah yes, I remember you saying now. Interesting place, Catford. T'was so called due to the wild cats (where's Lud!) that used to cross the ford.
Tis true I tell thee.!
|
.......also home, or close to, of Mr Smith's Club.
Went there once. Ooo-er!
Went to Catford Greyhound Stadium, too - now that IS boring.
|
Charles Kennedy dead. - Duncan
