Castle Aching

[Annie]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

... and while we're making these important distinctions, is that not an electric scooter?

No it's not.  It's an 'Autoped'.   https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/11/08/autoped/

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Annie said:

No it's not.  It's an 'Autoped'.   https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/11/08/autoped/

 

Or here for those who don't want to tick the boxes.

[corneliuslundie]

I have to agree that the winners write history. This became evident to me after I left school and compared what we had been told there about Welsh history with the "authorised" English version.

And it is not always the freedom fighters/terrorists who start the violence - viz the Chartists in Llanidloes and other incidents on South Wales. It then gets much more difficult to decide whether violence is justified.

And of course you are a terrorist if you are on the losing side, a freedom fighter is you are on the winning side - again a very difficult decision to make rationally in many cases.

This is not meant to justify violence by either side.

The above may be coloured by my knowing someone whose family and friends in the village were lined up and executed by the army simply because they belonged to the majority ethnic group which did not run the country.

Jonathan

Edited September 16, 2019 by corneliuslundie
Last sentence added

[brack]

Norah Elam sounds like an amalgam of all the candidates for an infamous political party (or limited company) of our times. Militant, fantasist, xenophobic, anti vaccine, anti league of nations, anti vivisection, anti medical treatment, fascist, anti semitic, nazi sympathiser....

[drmditch]

This thread does travel to interesting places, but none more challenging than the above posts with regard to effectiveness or otherwise of violence in society.

 

I am extremely concerned about the current social and political situation in England (and I state the nation deliberately). I deeply dislike the apparent reduction in tolerance,  common sense, and common decency in the last five years. Edwardian's analyses are quite acute. However, we do have a society built on violence, both explicit and hidden.

 

I would invite you to consider the following selected examples:-

 

A system of representational parliamentary government established after a civil war which killed a large proportion of the male population of Britain and Ireland. What happened to many women was savagely brutal.

 

The 'improvement' of agriculture by the many privately sponsored enclosure acts, regardless of what happened to the people whose livelihood it removed.

 

The defence of the nation and it's commercial and political interests by a naval workforce partially recruited by explicit violence.

(Although this is a complex subject and nowhere as simple as popular myth makes it.)

 

The construction of a prototype inter-city railway to convey the slave-grown products of one oppressive society, to be further manufactured in a factory system whose workers were treated in a way which many of us would now find equally objectionable, although we now wear clothing manufactured in conditions not much better.

 

The passage of the 'Great Reform Act' amidst the actuality of large scale public disorder and the threat of more.

 

The forced removal of 'slum' populations to enable the construction of great railway termini.

 

A legal system in which a Lord Chief Justice in the 1970's ( sorry Edwardian to trespass into your field) could state that what went on between a man and a woman in the 'privacy' of their home 'was not the province of the law'.

 

A Prime Minister describing in the House of Commons a young woman abused from childhood as 'a light woman of loose moral's.'

 

I have not even touched on the terrible thousand year history of the English in Ireland.

(I could use stronger words but might get myself banned!)

 

Yes, we have corrected much and I for one am grateful for the legal protection of the Gender Act of 2004 and the Equality Act of 2010.

But, where there is radical in-equality, oppression, and 'injustice' - depending on how justice is perceived - then there is the potential and perhaps even the necessity for violence. 

 

(Discussion of perceptions of the nature and ownership of justice omitted!)

 

It is too easy to regard our apparently settled state prior to 2016 as normal and natural. Perhaps this was not so.

 

Please excuse this long post. I am away from home and away from the consoling delights of my railway.

Home tomorrow. Opaque lavatory windows. Fastening couplings. Lubricating bearings. Lineside fences. Wiring Matrices. Control Panels. Re-starting a locomotive project. Sanity!

 

Caroline.

[sem34090]

That is what I, myself, have just been thinking. As you say, I think it is all too easy for us, now, here, to forget that perhaps being the winners for so long has clouded the English perception of what is barbaric and what is justifiable. I say the English perception for reasons explained clearly above - the same cannot be said for the other constituents of the United Kingdom!

 

With regards the issue of suffrage, I still find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with James.

 

One other thing...

Quote

the Equality Act of 2010

I have mixed feelings towards this act, but Sections 158 and 159 (referring to 'positive action'*) of it don't sit easily with me as they seem to suggest that there is some amount of legality in promoting one group over another. And I cannot help but feel that the list of 'protected characteristics' in section 4 has been grossly misinterpreted by the majority of the population as being exclusive of majority groups, when in fact they are theoretically inclusive of all groups. Taking the protected characteristic of 'sex' (I generally use the term 'gender' myself, but the Act refers to 'sex') as an example, it would appear that many interpret this as 'not male'. The Act, simplified, is essentially saying:

"It is not permissible to discriminate against someone on grounds of sex."

But increasingly, and quite possibly this is just me, I am finding that to be interpreted as:

"It is not permissible to discriminate against those who are not male."

I hope that this is just me, and fear that perhaps the label of 'misogynist' that is sometimes flung at me might not be so unjustified if it is just me who thinks this.

 

I should add that I agree with the principles of the act in its theoretical outlawing of all discrimination on the grounds of the listed protected characteristics.

 

*I have yet to discover the difference between 'positive action' and 'positive discrimination' other than that the former is legal and the latter is said to be illegal.

Edited September 16, 2019 by sem34090

[Edwardian]

Well, as Tom Lehrer once sagely observed ....

 

There are people who do not love their fellow Man. And I hate people like that!

 

Listen to his 1960s song National Brotherhood Week and get that plus ça change feeling!

[sem34090]

Alternatively, for those of a feminist persuasion (taken from here - https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/the-top-50-most-empowering-feminist-quotes-of-all-time-women-suffragette-feminism-angelina-jolie-emma-watson/61548 ):

 

“There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."

Madeline Albright

 

What a lovely quote... Apologies for the offence I am no doubt causing, I think I've had rather enough of this ranting for one day! On paper I have nothing to complain about, so I guess I had best stop complaining and start trying to just go along with modern opinions and ideals. Who knows, I may even be politically correct some day - then all who know me will breathe a sigh of relief.  

[Regularity]

9 minutes ago, sem34090 said:

“There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."

Madeline Albright

Twaddle. That just reinforces identity politics.

Much better to point out that patriarchal sexism simply means excluding ~50% of the resources available when it comes to brain power.

We should be forward looking, treating individual people as individuals with untapped potential to be brilliant, not navel-gazing at “righting wrongs”.

[nick_bastable]

26 minutes ago, sem34090 said:

 

 

“There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."

Madeline Albright

 

 

surely this should apply to all Humans regardless of gender or sexuality

 

to clarify There is a special place in hell for Humans  who don't help other Humans 

 

Nick

Edited September 16, 2019 by nick_bastable
c;arification

[sem34090]

Indeed. I suppose there is an element of truth in a notable quote from one of the Pankhursts (Emmeline) "we need to free half of the human race, the women, so that they can help to free the other half". 

 

Also, can't help thinking of this when you say that, Simon!

 

On a mildly related note, I do wonder if there's a small connection between my outspoken approach to gender politics and the fact that practically all young women of my acquaintance seem to dislike me to varying degrees!  

 

Maybe it's because I'm a railway enthusiast... Or that I spend my weekends marching around in uniform with a whistle and a red tie...  

Edited September 16, 2019 by sem34090

[Compound2632]

One of the sets of four 8-wheel radial carriages built at Wolverton in 1884. The centre two vehicles are, left, Ladies' Saloon, right, Gentlemen's Saloon. Further photographs reproduced in Jenkinson's LNWR Carriages shew the interiors. The ladies' carriage has a family carriage-like saloon together with a coupe compartment and a full compartment off a side corridor. The gentlemen's carriage has a larger, 3-bay saloon - arranged like a dining carriage - and what I suspect is a smoking compartment off a side corridor leading to a further ordinary compartment. All for the privileged few, of course. As far as I'm aware, this was the most through-going attempt at gender segregation by any British railway. Since ladies and gentlemen were conveyed at the same sedate 40 mph for the same fare, it is difficult to say to what extent it was discriminatory. 

[nick_bastable]

Point  order can we get back to serious things 

 

Will CA have a through service to Luxembourg ?

Mr Mayor  how is the track laying progressing  will there be trains before Christmas ?

 

Nick

 

 

[sem34090]

It's not so long ago that the idea was being re-floated - 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41020179

 

Arguably a backward step, albeit with different motivations? It would most likely reduce the number of sexual offences committed on trains, but wouldn't actually remove the source of the problem, thereby limiting its impact in many ways. As mentioned in the article, it could also have the negative side-effect of normalising abhorrent behaviours.

[wagonman]

Notwithstanding much of what has been said against the use of violence to further a cause, it's worth remembering that the State/Establishment/Ruling Class (delete according to taste) has always arrogated to itself the right to use violence to preserve its cosy status quo. And it has not been shy about it – remember Peterloo, the massacre of the Chartists in Newport, Tonypandy, and many other incidents. The Ruling Class doesn't give up any of its power willingly. Without the war women would have waited a lot longer for the vote. Without the Troubles (and the war) the Irish would have waited a lot longer for Home Rule. Without the threat of further violence the six counties would have been included in the Free State. I don't condone violence but I do understand the forces that can lead to it.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by wagonman

[brack]

For what it's worth, when we end up in discussions regarding past wrongs, discrimination or empire I feel it necessary to point out that those on the bottom rungs of the ladder who were native born and male hardly appear to have any degree of privilege from those circumstances, and that the conditions of many of the poor in these isles were only a hair's breadth away from what we call horrific oppression and effective enslavement of minority (or majority) groups in our overseas colonies. For all her lack of voting rights I suspect Mrs Pankhurst and many of her well to do supporters in practice, if not on paper, had far more rights, privileges and opportunities than many of their contemporary males. Consider the workforce which provided the labour for our railway construction in the middle years of the 19th century. Would it be conscionable for such folk to exist and be so treated now in any remotely civilised country (and yet it still occurs)? Like many things, the past is separated from us by but a few lifetimes, yet the distance is so vast we cannot accurately translate our experience to it or apply our current judgements or thought patterns to those who lived then.

 

Anyway, has anybody despoiled a Hornby wagon lately, or scribed some styrene? I've been detailing up a ruston diesel in CAD (by request, rather than for myself) but it isn't real modelling!

 

I did buy this last week though: 

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, nick_bastable said:

Will CA have a through service to Luxembourg ?

 

 

Sir Edward is your man for that:

 

 

[sem34090]

4 minutes ago, brack said:

For what it's worth, when we end up in discussions regarding past wrongs, discrimination or empire I feel it necessary to point out that those on the bottom rungs of the ladder who were native born and male hardly appear to have any degree of privilege from those circumstances, and that the conditions of many of the poor in these isles were only a hair's breadth away from what we call horrific oppression and effective enslavement of minority (or majority) groups in our overseas colonies. For all her lack of voting rights I suspect Mrs Pankhurst and many of her well to do supporters in practice, if not on paper, had far more rights, privileges and opportunities than many of their contemporary males. Consider the workforce which provided the labour for our railway construction in the middle years of the 19th century. Would it be conscionable for such folk to exist and be so treated now in any remotely civilised country (and yet it still occurs)? Like many things, the past is separated from us by but a few lifetimes, yet the distance is so vast we cannot accurately translate our experience to it or apply our current judgements or thought patterns to those who lived then.

Precisely. And it must be borne in mind how many white, British, men were not permitted suffrage until comparatively recently - 1918. There were still men over the age of the 21 who were not permitted that right until then. And, it must be remembered that 1918 only saw a certain number of women gain the vote, and that their minimum voting age was 30, not falling in line with male voting rights for another ten years. 1969 saw the voting age as a whole reduced to 18. Prior to the Great Reform Act (1832), Men had to own property over a certain value in order to vote. The 1832 Act merely brought in the caveat that men renting property above a certain value would have the right to vote, this gradually being reduced until 1918. From then, virtually all men were permitted the vote, but the property restrictions remained in force for the women over 30 who had gained the vote. An estimated 8.5 million women were given the vote in 1918.

 

The 1918 Act is heralded as the great year - the end of the war, with women gaining the vote immediately for their services. But in truth, the real triumph was in 1928 when the Equal Franchise Act equalised voting for men and women, removing the property restrictions entirely. But this seems to be forgotten, because the 'victors', it would seem, were well-off women of a certain age and thus the 1918 date is the one which is remembered in the public imagination. Of course, it is also notable by the fact that up until then women had not, generally, had the vote. Prior to the passing of the 1832 Act, Women had not been explicitly forbidden from voting and I gather that in the unlikely event of a woman meeting the property restriction (which also applied to men) she had equal voting rights. Even then, from 1869 a few women were able to vote in local elections and it is reported that over 1 million women had some voting rights by 1900 (https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP13-14#fullreport).

 

So all is not perhaps as clear-cut as it seems. The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of women were not permitted voting rights until 1928, but that is not to say that no (British) woman had ever had voting rights prior to 1918. Indeed it seems that it was only between 1835 and 1869 -34 years- that it was explicitly stated that only men were permitted suffrage.

4 minutes ago, brack said:

Anyway, has anybody despoiled a Hornby wagon lately, or scribed some styrene? I've been detailing up a ruston diesel in CAD (by request, rather than for myself) but it isn't real modelling!

I have done precious little modelling, but have been planning a model railway exhibit...

4 minutes ago, brack said:

I did buy this last week though: 

That's rather sweet - please do tell more!

[runs as required]

30 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

One of the sets of four 8-wheel radial carriages built at Wolverton in 1884. The centre two vehicles are, left, Ladies' Saloon, right, Gentlemen's Saloon. Further photographs reproduced in Jenkinson's LNWR Carriages shew the interiors. The ladies' carriage has a family carriage-like saloon together with a coupe compartment and a full compartment off a side corridor. The gentlemen's carriage has a larger, 3-bay saloon - arranged like a dining carriage - and what I suspect is a smoking compartment off a side corridor leading to a further ordinary compartment. All for the privileged few, of course. As far as I'm aware, this was the most through-going attempt at gender segregation by any British railway. Since ladies and gentlemen were conveyed at the same sedate 40 mph for the same fare, it is difficult to say to what extent it was discriminatory. 

Never mind gender separation (presently something that appears increasingly difficult to define)  - I couldn't get my head around a Wolverton built set of four  8-wheel radial carriages  until I googled this (study the underframe drawing on Penlan's post of December 5 2011)

Simples ?

dh

[Donw]

In response to James's rejection of the creed 'The Ends justify the Means'  usually credited to the Jesuits I think what is missing from that statement is the fact that the means will influence the ends. In a just cause resort to violence will often create other injustices and be used by others to justify violence in less just causes. I am not saying that all violence is unjustified merely that its use will have an impact probably unforseen.

As for the 2016 referendum, it was only intended to  shut up those voices in Parliament and UKIP wanting to leave. I am certain the majority of MPs voting to hold the referendum never for one moment considered the possibility the public might vote the 'wrong' way.

 

Don

[Nearholmer]

Old Kev's Grumpy Philosophy on Everything Discussed by The Parish Council Today:

 

1. People are naturally selfish, looking after number one and number one's immediate family, and seeking to secure as much resource to themselves as possible.

 

2. This selfishness leads directly to hierarchies, within which the dominant party subjugates the rest in order to hog resources.

 

3. It also leads directly to all sorts of individual deviousness and craven behaviour towards dominant parties, because they can be effective strategies for securing resource, either by supplanting the dominant or getting crumbs from the table.

 

4. We will only act collectively where we can see some benefit in it for ourselves that can't be achieved by acting individually, whether that be avoiding being victimised by the dominant party in an hierarchy, or wresting from the dominant party something that ourselves and our immediate family require or desire, or where the securing of our needs or wants is only physically possible by cooperating with others who share the same needs or wants. 

 

5. Dominant parties will only loosen their grip on resources if the alternative put in front of them is more painful to them than the loss of resource at stake.

 

By "resource", I mean anything the possession of which makes life more comfortable, and freer from risks, e.g. food, shelter, land from which to produce food, anything that promotes status within the hierarchy, potential good-quality mates, weapons, freedom to act without restriction, comfy armchairs etc etc.

 

In my grumpy view, the above explains:

 

- why men have historically subjugated women, a key resource at stake in the relationship between genders being freedom to act without restriction, and why things had to get quite nasty before anything even approaching equality has been achieved.

 

-  why any person that isn't well-placed to play the hierarchy game (too old, too sick, disabled etc) is likely to get trampled underfoot, and why anyone who is "other", by religion, race, sexual orientation etc is likely to have a hard time, in that they are perceived to represent a direct threat to resources, a threat to the established order (=heirarchy), or a threat to the continuation of the immediate family.

 

- why the B-thing is happening, in that too few people could perceive personal benefit in the collectivity of Europe, and those at the top of the hierarchy were quite astonishingly out of touch with the perceptions and natural tendencies of much of the population, so didn't realise that they needed to work really hard and smart at illustrating the benefits.

 

I hope that cheers everyone up!

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, nick_bastable said:

Point  order can we get back to serious things 

 

If we must!

 

1 hour ago, nick_bastable said:

Will CA have a through service to Luxembourg ?

 

 

Would that be a Parliamentary Train?

 

If so, I think that service has been cancelled. 

 

In any case, I think we just sent a hot air balloon over, but it was too much of a light-weight to carry anything of substance, and I think it was punctured soon after arrival.  

 

1 hour ago, nick_bastable said:

Mr Mayor  how is the track laying progressing  will there be trains before Christmas ?

 

 

Ask Don W (!)

[nick_bastable]

 

27 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Ask Don W (!)

Your Honor the Mayor I suggest  that alas you are accountable for progress on the track ( well unless your the Hulk )

 

as to through trains this should be on time

 

 

Nick

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

14 hours ago, webbcompound said:

Mrs Pankhurst standing next to Colonel Maria Bochkareva in front of her regiment, the Tsarist Army's Womens Battalion of Death.

 

 

Well it certainly has a more martial tone than the Tsarist Army's Womens Battalion of Tea Ladies. 

[sem34090]

I don't know why that comment reminds me of this -