MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Questions Of The Day (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 174, 175, 176  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But the one I am referring to was used to carry Gladstone's body from the tube station (prolly the first time he went on the underground) to Parliament.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

No you're wright. - No reference to this older passage anywhere on the net it seems.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Then would you mind launching a conspiracy theory. Usual terms apply. [Wright = Peter Wright...a good start.]
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

........so the Whitechapel murders were a cover-up for Gladstone.s indiscretions.

Sorted!
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Even in Victorian times London traffic caused congestion and a subway had been suggested as a sensible means for MPs to reach the House.

New Scotland Yard bought the Norman Shaw premises (Shaw was personally chosen to be the Met's architect), originally intended to be the national opera house. The site of the incomplete opera house had been bought ten years earlier by the government, in 1880, and its foundations, including passageways and entrance to the District Line, were retained. The whole area must be riddled with passages in view of its proximity to the river.

The building (previously called Scotland House) had to be enlarged as it wouldn't accommodate the growing force; great opportunity for undercover surveillance...

An interesting point is that an entrance (not now used) was provided to the east end of the eastbound platform of the District Railway station to enable the police to move men to any point without the need to bring them into the streets. This was probably a relic of the subterranean works of the Opera House.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

No you're wright..........

Where did that bloody "w" come from? - I don't remember putting it in there.

(I never like to admit I spelt something rong).
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Poor old America! Because they make the 'President' swear the oath in public they have to actually be ruled by him. We do these things in secret -- the 'Prime Minister' allegedly kisses hands with 'the Queen' in Buck House. Hence we can continue to be ruled by the Bilderberg Group and sleep soundly in our beds.
Send private message
Duncan71


In: Calgary
View user's profile
Reply with quote

(I never like to admit I spelt something rong).

S'alright Chad. Just pretend you're living in Chaucer's day.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

We have arrived at an interesting moment in fashion. Walking down the Portobello Road on a bitterly cold Saturday afternoon, I noticed that every woman (from countless different countries) had individually decided that it would be quite improper to 'show any leg' by electing to wear black or otherwise opaque tights. But had also decided they wished to 'show a leg' by wearing shortish skirts and making sure the opaque material was completely sheer (and hence perfectly useless at keeping the cold out).

So the world has arrived at a saddle point -- legs must be shown, legs must be hidden -- which can only be resolved by a paradigmatic crash one way or the other. We are also apparently at the onset of a Great Depression and reams of ink have been spilt trying to demonstrate there is a link between hemline heights and growth rates.

Of course we here know that this is not possible because both economics and womens' fashions are chaotic systems ie inherently non-predictable. Remember that whenever somebody authoritative pops up on telly to say what's going to happen. As they are presently at the rate of a dozen-a-day.

PS Did anyone spot I had myself made a fashion prediction? That's right, I predicted a paradigm crash. No doubt women will decide to keep to the present fashion for the forseeable future instead. This has its counterpoint in economics. Economists believe that economics is predictable and came up with The Theory of the Trade Cycle ie a crash is always just around the corner.

However, chaotic systems are capable of delivering long runs of prosperity so towards the end of this last one (the longest on record) various economists were moving over to the view that crashes had finally been beaten (by economists, natch!).

Just in time for chaos to deliver a crash. How we laughed. How we cried.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick, you are looking down (why?) when you should be looking up higher.

Politics, economics, trade cycles, and class are all instantly recognisable, even to the "imbecile", if you study haircuts and facial hair. For example, the British Empire, can only really be understood, once you have fully grasped the significance of the moustache. (surely you of all people should have grasped this by now).

If you are still struggling with this concept, just consider the various people who post on AE, and their choice of Avatar.

As the Clinton camp famously observed "it's the haircut and facial hair, stupid".
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan is clean-shaven, is he the only one who can be trusted? In films moustaches are worn by the villains or the stupid generals. Male hair never used to be an issue, hidden by wigs or hats but men with hats (or wigs) nowadays are a rare and suspect breed.

Mick's point about a paradigm crash over whether legs should be hidden or not could only have been written by a man; the more leg that's shown, the less sheer the covering. It's also an unwritten fashion rule that the more you show below, the less you reveal above except when going down to the pub on a Friday night. As for shoes...the Japanese who are generally shorter than westerners seem to be leading the way now in creative shoe wear.

Is there a historical correlation between a nation's economic health and the inventiveness of its fashion? [Russian women are apparently parading around in garish colours, understandable after the era of enforced commie dreariness; maybe we'll be expected to show solidarity by wearing drab colours this season].
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Only a woman could believe she can lecture us (not men but Applied Epistemologists) about women's fashion. This is like supposing a cancer cell can lecture us about cancer. Here's what I mean

the more leg that's shown, the less sheer the covering

Duh! It's entirely a matter of the material chosen. Social workers in the sixties used to wear woolly tights as a statement of their political views ie it removed the legs from the fray entirely. The current fashion -- exactly as I point out -- is that the harsher the commandment to hide the leg, the sheerer the material (there's this very shiny black stuff, I see) that is required. In other words, the more the leg is hidden the more it becomes an item of sexual display.

Perhaps the paradigm crash will be like the Chinese binding women's feet to show that they have no function except as sex objects, and women will elect to go everywhere in wheelchairs with a rug over their knees.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, Dan is the only one, who can always be trusted... (good point!)

Let's think it through, see if I can prove my thesis.

Roman conquest of Gaul and Britain (sort of hair cut dispute... baldy Roman general commits genocide on long haired natives)

War of the three Kingdoms. (definitely about hair cuts)

American Civil War (hair cuts ?)

British Empire (moustache)

1980's Miners Strike (baldy union leader, with a secret desire for "mullett", leads doomed strike, against short haired forces of law and order )

All in all, pretty persuasive...
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick said.
Duh! It's entirely a matter of the material chosen. Social workers in the sixties used to wear woolly tights as a statement of their political views


Mick, your logic is beautiful and flawless. It is just the content that is so distasteful. Surely you could outline your Weltanschauung without recourse to such "disturbing" images.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The a-sexuality of the British left and intelligentsia since the advent of feminism is well known to anyone who has to live amongst them.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 174, 175, 176  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 176

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group