RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted November 19, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 19, 2020 20 minutes ago, drmditch said: Language? According to Lindsey Davis in her Falco series, Latin was richer in obscenities than the Celtic languages. I presume this was a consequence of having a very large standing army. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 Or simply an empire spreading across multiple languages and cultures, all of which could contribute filth. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted November 19, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 19, 2020 On 17/11/2020 at 21:34, Compound2632 said: But it seems to me that the Roman influence on Britain was much like the British influence on India, merely substitute railways for roads. I thought I should come back and unpick this a bit before we get distracted by the transfer of the wealth of the subcontinent into the pockets of the shareholders of Beyer, Peacock & Co., etc. What I had in mind was prompted by James' comment: On 17/11/2020 at 21:26, Edwardian said: The more I read the less convinced I am that there was significant Romanisation of the Brits. We fondly imagine that there was a 'Romano-British' culture, but I wonder. Up here they didn't seem to let the natives into the vici and they took scant notice of the Brittunculi We may have been kidding ourselves that the Romans civilised us. They seem largely to have ignored us for four centuries and then gone home. For 'Romano-British' substitute 'Anglo-Indian'; a culture hardly enduring for more than a generation after the departure of the Imperial presence. As far as the mass of the population was concerned, just a different set of unsympathetic tax-collectors, though in some urban areas Christianity gained a foothold. Perhaps the real and enduring difference of which we (i.e. the modern inhabitants of Britain) can be proud is the reciprocal influence of India on Britain. I don't think there were many British restaurants in 5th century Italy. 2 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted November 19, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 19, 2020 53 minutes ago, drmditch said: Language? I think the presence of Latin-derived words in modern English is mainly a result of the use of Latin in court and legal documents and discourse. This resulted from the dominance of the Roman Church from the early 7th century, with its near-monopoly on the supply of people literate in Latin, a language in common use by rulers, lawyers, etc. across much of Europe. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold teaky Posted November 19, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 19, 2020 4 hours ago, Nearholmer said: It might depend how far in the future our imagined archaeologists are. In, say, 5000 years time, all of our paper libraries might be dust, and our e-libraries might have entropised (if there is such a word) to nothing, so the diggers might only have really durable stuff to go on. Trump might be well-advised to commission himself a few vast and trunkless legs of stone, otherwise there only be collapsed motorways (votive processional avenues, suggesting pilgrimages of immense length by vast groups of people), and that firm favourite graves, to extrapolate from. So just some hair and some orange skin then? 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm 0-6-0 Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 Speaking of the toddler in the White House, it isn't a good look when your lawyer's hair dye starts to run in a news conference ..... 1 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKPR Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 9 hours ago, Nearholmer said: Or simply an empire spreading across multiple languages and cultures, all of which could contribute filth. One way for the non-Roman legionaries and auxiliaries to insult their Roman officers without the latter noticing ? 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm 0-6-0 Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 4 hours ago, CKPR said: One way for the non-Roman legionaries and auxiliaries to insult their Roman officers without the latter noticing ? Is that an ordure Sir? ....... 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 11 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said: Speaking of the toddler in the White House, it isn't a good look when your lawyer's hair dye starts to run in a news conference ..... It's an allegorical moment; Fakery melts under the glare of Truth 3 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm 0-6-0 Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 8 minutes ago, Edwardian said: It's an allegorical moment; Fakery melts under the glare of Truth I'm glad you posted the pic - I refrained as I thought it might upset those parishioners with sensitive feelings ......... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm 0-6-0 Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 Perhaps Donald Trump has removed this from his list of favourite songs ...... 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 I see he's bringing some of the state legislators into the White House 'to make sure they are safe'.! Jim 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 (edited) Have your supporters create mayhem where justification for action is required, then send the tanks into "incompetently governed states" to "maintain order and protect public safety", that's the next move. Does the USA have a State Broadcaster? If so, the HQ of that probably needs a ring of impressive AFVs and Elite Troops around it, to make sure that "dissident elements cannot disrupt the service to the public". A revised oath of loyalty, to the sitting President, rather than the State, for all military personnel would probably be useful too. There's still time for that. Edited November 20, 2020 by Nearholmer 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 (edited) A little while ago I listed the numerous constitutional improprieties that I felt had been committed by the current administration, improprieties that previous governments, absolutely regardless of their political hue, would rightly have shrunk from. Today the headlines have been taken up with another such departure from the norm. It seems that the popularity of both the Home Secretary and the PM within their own party will effectively insulate her against calls for her resignation and allow the PM's decision to 'consider the matter closed' to stand. We do not, I think, have a flavour of quite how unpleasant the Home Secretary's behaviour was towards her civil servants. Her non-traditional background has been prayed in aid. All we do know is that the independent review has concluded that there was bullying and harassment and that the conduct breached the Ministerial Code. We are told that it is unprecedented for a minister not to resign where the Ministerial Code has been breached. So, it is a convention, and one that safeguards us from certain levels of conduct by ministers of the Crown, that you resign if you breach these rules. The point of concern for me is that, however sympathetic or unsympathetic anyone might find the Home Secretary's case to be, for her to fail to resign and for the PM to keep her in place is a breach of yet another constitutional convention. Like the willingness to breach international law "in a specific and limited way", the message is that the rules are there to be disregarded for expediency or just whenever we feel we can get away with it. If the rules are too prescriptive, for instance, if you think that non-patrician office-holders should be allowed to swear and shout at their staff, then change the rules, but I think it important that the rules that obtain from time to time should be adhered to. The rules in question here are those contained in the version of the Ministerial Code introduced in 2019 .... by Boris Johnson. My concern is where the cumulative erosion of rules and standards will leave us in the long-term. Trump may refuse to play by the rules in a spectacularly oafish way, but the present government is having a similarly corrosive effect on rules and standards that are supposed to provide important constitutional safeguards. I leave you with a message from our Prime Minster: "there must be no bullying and no harassment" (from Boris Johnson's forward to the current edition of the Ministerial Code). Clearly that statement means different things for different people. Edited November 20, 2020 by Edwardian spelling! 3 9 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium nick_bastable Posted November 20, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 20, 2020 probably the most accurate report on the subject https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/i-didnt-realise-slamming-a-civil-servants-nuts-in-a-drawer-was-considered-bullying-says-priti-patel-20201120202717 Nick B 1 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sem34090 Posted November 20, 2020 Author Share Posted November 20, 2020 Putting my neck out there, but if she were male and white I do wonder whether she'd still be in office. Oh yes, of course she would; White Male Privilege... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 8 minutes ago, sem34090 said: Putting my neck out there, but if she were male and white I do wonder whether she'd still be in office. Oh yes, of course she would; White Male Privilege... You know what, I like the fact that one of the three great offices of state is held by an Asian woman. I'd like it even more if that were not an issue worth mentioning or requiring comment, because that would suggest we'd finally grown up and learnt how decent human beings should behave (we haven't, and the shameful social media reaction to the Sainsbury's Christmas ad is all the evidence I need to support that conclusion). I'd like it even, even more if we had a Home Secretary, of any background, who was less authoritarian in their views. But, you can't have everything. By some strange quirk that has scrambled my irony meter, it is the very anti-imigrationary "swivel-eyed loons"* of the Conservative party faithful whose support for the Home Secretary is likely to secure her future. * the definition of the party faithful coined by the Secretary of State for Transport , the Right Honourable Grant Shaps MP** ** You can't make this stuff up. 7 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 (edited) I'm sure that "swivel-eyed loons" isn't a newly minted phrase. its been used to describe the especially bonkers members of the Tory Party before, I'm sure. Anyway, a bully, is a bully. Gender and ethnicity don't come into it. Which, is what you are saying, but I still felt the need to type it. Edited November 20, 2020 by Nearholmer 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam88 Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 Until very recently you knew that anyone in choppy waters who had been given the 'full backing' of the PM would soon be reseated on the back benches. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Nearholmer said: I'm sure that "swivel-eyed loons" isn't a newly minted phrase. its been used to describe the especially bonkers members of the Tory Party before, I'm sure. Indeed Though, actually, I may have unwittingly spread fake news. I have a very strong recollection that the BBC reported Shapps as the culprit (circa 2013), but the internet reveals that allegations centred around Shapps's co-chairman of the party, Lord Feldman. 1 hour ago, Adam88 said: Until very recently you knew that anyone in choppy waters who had been given the 'full backing' of the PM would soon be reseated on the back benches. Yes, rather disappointingly, of late the phrase 'has my full backing' seems to have lost its deliciously and ruthlessly hypocritical edge! 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm 0-6-0 Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 3 hours ago, Adam88 said: Until very recently you knew that anyone in choppy waters who had been given the 'full backing' of the PM would soon be reseated on the back benches. Which reminds me of a very funny recaptioned pic that did the circuit in Australia when Barnaby Joyce, our Deputy Prime Minister (the gentleman on the left) was forced to resign after a well publicised and productive (offspring wise) affair with one of his staff. The chap on the right is our former Prime Minister Tony Abbott who was deposed in a Liberal Party coup lead by Malcolm Turnbull (himself now gone). Both gentlemen moved to the back bench and got to sit next to each other. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Wow, so the guy on the left has managed to persuade at least two women to sleep with him? Power must, indeed, be a powerful aphrodisiac. See David Mellor 4 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm 0-6-0 Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, Edwardian said: Wow, so the guy on the left has managed to persuade at least two women to sleep with him? He also lead the charge for "traditional family values" when we had the same sex marriage plebiscite ........... 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 31 minutes ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said: He also lead the charge for "traditional family values" when we had the same sex marriage plebiscite ........... Of course he did! Why am I not surprised? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm 0-6-0 Posted November 21, 2020 Share Posted November 21, 2020 In the various Twitter feeds there are, besides the virulent posts, some really genuinely funny ones - 1 14 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now