Went in to B & Q today looking for some shelves. The sets I saw were 1,500 miles high, 900 miles wide and 300 miles deep, according to the packaging, which is too big for my study.

But amidst the sea of metric measurements, this huge poster greeted me as I entered the shop (the company had clearly sponsored British heroine Ellen MacArthur on her epic voyage):

"WELCOME HOME ELLEN - WE HELPED YOU EVERY INCH OF THE WAY"


Additional note: Under proposals by Lord Howe and others in: 'A Very British Mess', the above poster would become illegal. Don't anyone here say they weren't warned!

Hi Tony

You might notice that I have been saying (for weeks) that you make up false quotations! Still no comment?????

<<<WELCOME HOME ELLEN - WE HELPED YOU EVERY INCH OF THE WAY"

Additional note: Under proposals by Lord Howe and others in: 'A Very British Mess', the above poster would become illegal. >>>

Another blatant lie from the man from the party of truth

Andy,

Before you and Beranger suffer from apoplexy through over-hasty and over-the-top accusations of 'lying', you might like to refresh your memory by:

(a) remembering that the government is to ban, with the use of criminal penalties, the display of Imperial units under the 2002 Units of Measurement Regulations, which come into force the moment Brits celebrate the arrival of the 2010 New Year (the first stroke of Big Ben will in fact send out the audible signal that will no doubt be music to the ears of Trading Standards Offiziers), and

(b) looking at the following statements, every single one of them a direct quotation from 'A Very British Mess':

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The only solution is to complete the changeover to metric - and as swiftly and cleanly as possible" - Lord Howe, Foreword

“We need to carry through a necessary reform in a decisive and co-ordinated manner” - page 8

“We must standardise on one single system as soon as possible” - page 8

“The metric changeover can be swiftly and painlessly completed…” - page 9

“We must declare unequivocally that all Imperial measures will be phased out for official use, require public agencies to be fully metric, phase out Imperial units in property transactions, weather reports, the National Health Service and clothing sizes, set targets and timetables, and enact and enforce any necessary legislation…given full and rapid commitment by the Government, this programme could be achieved within three to five years” - page 9

“We must implement the full adoption of the international metric system from all official, trade, legal, contractual and other purposes as soon as practicable by taking the necessary action to resolve the current unacceptable situation” - page 11

“The voluntary approach has failed” - page 23

“We must resolve the situation, standardise on one single system and cease using the other system, complete the changeover to the metric system and discontinue the use of Imperial units” - page 29

"Weights and Measures law - like all laws - should be enforced, even if, regrettably, this entails prosecuting unfortunate market traders who have naively allow themselves to be used for a political stunt” - page 34

“It is not in the national interest that irresponsible opposition should continue to obstruct a necessary reform” - page 37

“We must declare unequivocally that all Imperial measures will be phased out for official use, empower a cross-departmental authority to help manage the change, require all publicly-funded agencies, including charities, to work towards becoming exclusively metric, set timetables and target dates for completion, introduce any necessary legislation and ensure that it is enforced" - page 38

"...the government is seriously committed to completing the metric changeover, then it must itself set a good example and require (not simply advise) all its Civil Service Departments, Agencies and contractors and all bodies to whom it makes grants or loans to work exclusively in metric units" - page 44

“The existing law on price marking and weighing/measuring loose goods at the point of sale should be enforced. Following the final rejection by the European Court of Human Rights of the appeal by the so-called “metric martyrs”, there is no longer any excuse for local authorities and traders to defer enforcement or compliance action” - page 44

“We must bring advertising explicitly within the scope of the Price Marking Order. It should be illegal to advertise goods for sale giving prices, weights, quantities or other measures exclusively in Imperial units…‘supplementary indications’ should be phased out and then metric units should be the only units permitted in advertisements…” - page 46

“UKMA therefore calls upon the UK Government without further delay to announce the date when the UK’s road signage will be converted to metric…Early 2007 would be a reasonable and achievable target…” - page 47

“The changeover programme will also need to include legislation to revise speed limits, revise various Regulations, including the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions [447 pages of Regulations which stipulate that Imperial units should be used on roads] and the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations to require legible km/h on speedometers…” - page 48

"UKMA believes that the Government should take the lead and make it mandatory for public bodies to use exclusively metric units in weather reports and forecasts, including in their press releases. Wind speed should be shown in kilometres per hour…” - page 49

Tony

Firstly, I didn't accuse you of misquoting from the UKMA proposals. In addition, I would point out that I have constantly stated that I don't support their aims.

I accused you of falsifying quotations in your CMS report.

The quotes in question are

"8.17 Finally in this Section, we deal with what may lie behind the European agitation for Britain to metricate. In 1997, BWMA corresponded with Martin Bangemann, a European Commissioner, and his Head of Metrology. The Metrology boss insisted: “Your Imperial weights and measures give you an unfair competitive advantage in your trade with the U.S. That’s why we must abolish them in your country"

and

"8.18 When BWMA met Department of Trade and Investment officials two years later to protest against prosecutions of traders for selling in pounds, they said: “They’re right. It gives us an unfair competitive advantage and we must strive to eliminate that"

I reproduce my allegations and questions below

"Re: Ivory Tower - Home of UKMA January 25 2005, 9:00 PM


Tony

There are 3 separate versions of the quote allegedly made by Herr Bangemann written out in full in my previous post. One is very different from the other 2.

You state that Vivien has the original quote in writing. May I ask: -

1) Why then is your version so different from his?

2) Has the "quote" used in the CMS report been embellished in any way by you?

3) If "No" to question 2) above, why has Vivien waited 8 years to release the bombshell that the words "abolish them in your country" were used in a written reply from an EC official in relation to imperial weights?

Your report also contains alleged quotes by DTI officials. May I ask: -

1) Why do you refer me to Herr Bangemann for clarification - was he also at the meeting?

2) Can you provide any evidence that your actual "quote" was ever made by a DTI official?

3) How does your so called "quote" relate to trade with the USA, if BWMA and the DTI were discussing sales of loose goods in the UK?"

Secondly, I would point out that

a) UKMA are not the government. UKMA don't pass legislation. Their wish-list is purely that - a wish list.

b) As I have pointed out before, The Units of Measurement Regs are dated 2001, not 2002. I have also asked you to produce some justification for your assertion that it will be an offence to print an unauthorised supplementary indication beside the metric indication. If your assertion was true, a package marked "473ml 1 US pint" would currently be illegal. Can you provide details of any cases that support your assertion?

Tony

You stated that displaying the following banner would become illegal under the UKMA proposals

"WELCOME HOME ELLEN - WE HELPED YOU EVERY INCH OF THE WAY"

It quite clearly would not. So you lied.

Stick to the facts. No-one on here is going to be fooled by ludicrous claims that certain words would be banned.

I did not see anything about figures of speech in the extracts of the UKMA document that Tony published.

I think we'd be fools not to think that the UKMA would like to remove imperial from all walks of life, whether it be in true form or colloquially.

<<<I think we'd be fools not to think that the UKMA would like to remove imperial from all walks of life, whether it be in true form or colloquially.>>>

I thought that you would take a more realistic viewpoint.

Do you think they would advocate changing the name of what we have on the end of our legs?

And obviously there would have to be a ban on people naming their son 'Miles'

re (Andy): "And obviously there would have to be a ban on people naming their son 'Miles'..."


REPLY: Am I not right in thinking that in Germany - and one other country somewhere - you can only choose your child's name from a list of approved names?

P.S. The most popular child's name in Holland these days is 'Mohammed'

Whatever...

I still can't see any reason to suspect that UKMA propose the banning of certain words.

Why can you respect the argument of the opposition and not continuously twist the truth about what they are proposing?

By the way, it would be interesting to have someone from UKMA on these boards - maybe someone could send an invite?

Martin's already here - and welcome.

BTW - I *have* read cases where groups like UKMA and USMA have said that things like "give him a meter and he'll take a kilometre" should be encouraged.

They've even advocated stuff considering dropping measurements from sayings altogether (inc metric) in an attempt to remove it from vocabulary.

Tony

I note with interest that you are posting again. I also note that BWMA state that it is legitimate for me to question your sources, as long as I moderate my language.

I ask again, for the last time, if will you please produce some justification or corroboration regarding the quotations I refer to above in your CMS report. If not, do you wish to accept that my questions about the authenticity of your quotes (IMHO) undermine the credibility of the organisation?

I would like to also ask BWMA if (in the event that Tony cannot provide any justification or corroboration, or decides to ignore this post) that I can attack the credibility of the report at any future time that he tells us about "quotations" from it.

<<<Martin's already here - and welcome.>>>

Didn't realise Martin was a member of UKMA.

Martin, maybe you could clarify what UKMA proposes regarding the above sign.

Would it be illegal under UKMA's proposals, as Tony says?

<<<BTW - I *have* read cases where groups like UKMA and USMA have said that things like "give him a meter and he'll take a kilometre" should be encouraged.>>>

There is a big difference between encouraged and enforced.

<<<They've even advocated stuff considering dropping measurements from sayings altogether (inc metric) in an attempt to remove it from vocabulary.>>>

How can you "drop measurements from sayings" ? You cannot control what people say.

Why not visit http://www.ukma.org.uk/why/myths.htm

How about asking UKMA if they would support the following statement:

"Advertisers should be free to use either Imperial or metric in their advertisements".

It's called 'free choice'

"Advertisers should be free to use either Imperial or metric in their advertisements".

Tony, you must surely be able to see the difference between requiring goods to be priced and advertised in metric, and banning the use of certain words, as in the Ellen MacArthur banner?

As far as I know UKMA proposes the former, not the latter.

The following is taken from the UKMA site mentioned earlier

<<
If shopkeepers are free to choose their units for pricing goods, price transparency is lost. How can anyone know whether a shop selling bananas at 45p/lb is more expensive than another selling at 92p/kg without using a calculator? Equally, if shopkeepers were able to choose any system with which to measure their goods, you would start seeing bushels, pecks and hogsheads.
>>

I think that this answers Tony's question.

Having just looked at the UKMA site, I will add the following for Tony.

"It is nonsense to suggest that figures of speech have to change."

Andy - If yo go to the BNP site they probably say that they're not racist.

Well blow me! They get my vote now!

From today's Scotsman Diary....

A COPY of an e-mail received by B&Q customer services: "Dear Sir/Madam, My congratulations to you on getting a yacht to leave the UK on 28th November 2004, sail 27,354 miles around the world and arrive back 72 days later. Could you please let me know when the kitchen I ordered 96 days ago will be arriving from your warehouse 13 miles away?"

re (Martin): "How can you compare one shopkeeper selling an item at 45p./lb with another shopkeeper selling the same item at 92p./kilo?".

REPLY: Precisely. How the dickens can anyone - bearing in mind we're all Europeans now - compare the value of Kronenbourg lager in Nuremburg in Germany at 3.75 euros a halb-liter with the value of Spitfire at £2.11 a pint in Runnymede in England? Something must be done!

Before metrication was begun in the 60s, martin, did we have to take calculators with us? No. The introduction of compulsory metrication has caused the confusion. Make metrication voluntary again and watch the problems and confusion disappear

TOny wrote

<<
REPLY: Precisely. How the dickens can anyone - bearing in mind we're all Europeans now - compare the value of Kronenbourg lager in Nuremburg in Germany at 3.75 euros a halb-liter with the value of Spitfire at £2.11 a pint in Runnymede in England? Something must be done!
>>

Tony - surely you are aware that the taxes in Nuremburg and in Runnymede are different andf that this will affect the price of beer in the two countries. If you aren't aware of this, I will tell you a little secret - if you go over to Calais, you find that French tax on alcohol is significantly lower than UK tax - about £1 per bottle of wine. Moreover, you can bring back as much alcohol as you car can legally carry provided that it is for person al consumption - honset.

<<<REPLY: Precisely. How the dickens can anyone - bearing in mind we're all Europeans now - compare the value of Kronenbourg lager in Nuremburg in Germany at 3.75 euros a halb-liter with the value of Spitfire at £2.11 a pint in Runnymede in England? Something must be done!>>>

Who said anything about different products in different countries? We were talking about 2 otherwise identical market stalls next to each other.

re (Andy): "we were not talking about different countries..."

REPLY: Andy, wake up and smell the coffee. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, said this on the radio this week:

"Britain and all the other E.U. states will close their embassies around the world, as they are replaced by a single European foreign service. We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from
each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service. There will be a Europe with a single European voice on security matters and a single European voice within NATO".

Unlike Tony Blair, he was telling the truth!

We're *already* one country. Looked at your passport recently?

Berenger: "From today's Scotsman Diary.... etc"


LOL!!!!! ROTFL!!!

Nice one.

<<<REPLY: Andy, wake up and smell the coffee. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, said this on the radio this week:

"Britain and all the other E.U. states will close their embassies around the world, as they are replaced by a single European foreign service. We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from
each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service. There will be a Europe with a single European voice on security matters and a single European voice within NATO".>>>

Er, you seem to be going off on a slight tangent here. I think your problem is that your hatred of the EU is such that you oppose anything remotely connected with it. You've just jumped from standardising weights and measures on market stalls to having a single European embassy as if its all part of some big plot!

<<<We're *already* one country.>>>

You seem to overlook the huge cultural differences that exist between different european countries. Just because certain things are standardised across the EU doesn't make us all the same.

<<<Looked at your passport recently? >>>

I can't honestly say I feel any less British because my passport is the same design as a French one.

Something that saddens me greatly about England is that we are lacking in cultural identity. For example the Irish don't care about adopting the euro or metricating road signs because their culture goes far deeper than such things. I would like to think theres more to being English than our currency, using an ancient system of measurements and the design of our passport.

<<
I would like to think theres more to being English than our currency, using an ancient system of measurements and the design of our passport.
>>

Andy, the passport, currency and measurements do not constitute English culture, they symbolise it. If you remove the symbols of the culture, the culture will eventually disappear because it will have no basis on which to support itself.

Bud wrote

<<
Andy, the passport, currency and measurements do not constitute English culture
>>

Bud, you are lucky that SteveH is Welsh. If he were Scots, he might require you to do something like eating a live haggis while a piper played "Scotland the Brave" from a distance not exceeding one metre (or if he was feeling really vindictive, one yard).

Martin, I really have no idea what you're talking about. Would you care to clarify?

From Tony Bennett:
"Andy,
Before you and Beranger suffer from apoplexy through over-hasty and over-the-top accusations of 'lying', you might like to refresh your memory by: ..."

Stan: For the benefit of everyone here let me make it quite plain.

None of the extracts presented in the above posting By Tony Bennett from the UKMA report should lead any reasonable person to conclude that the content of that B&Q poster will become illegal or of the slightest interest to Trading Standards, Government departments, Local authorities or EU officials, even if the UKMA recommendations are implemented in full.

If anyone doubts this then I suggest you read the report for yourself in full with a clear and open mind as to exactly what the UKMA are saying and what they are actually calling for.

By all means read Tony's report in the same spirit and judge for yourselves whether he is actually barking up the right tree in his attempts to condemn it.

Bud wrote

<<
Martin, I really have no idea what you're talking about. Would you care to clarify?
>>

Bud, like many Americans you confuse England, Britain and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland consists of four countries. The three that are in Britain are England, Scotland and Wales. The Welsh and the Scots usually take exception to being called "English". (They don't mind being called "British").

"countries" or "nations"?

Hmmmm.....

SteveH wrote

<<
"countries" or "nations"?
>>

When I applied for my E111 form last week, the form definitely said "country". I double checked thiuking that maybe I misread it and it said "county", but there is was, a form prepared by Her Majesty's Government that said "country"

So the UK isn't a country or a nation. It can't be called a commonwealth, and it's hardly a kingdom. It isn't an international organisation, because that's the EU. So then what is it?

Martin said

"The Welsh and the Scots usually take exception to being called "English". (They don't mind being called "British")."

As I have posted on this site before, varous polls exist on Scots identity. An example would be "only 9% of Scots residents describe themselves exclusively as British; 3% as more British than Scottish; 27% as equally British and Scottish; but 28% as more Scottish than British; and 32% as Scottish not British."

Approximately 1/3 of Scots consider themselves "Not British" in all polls of this type. As far as I am aware, 100% of Scots currently contributing to this board dislike being referred to as "British"

Similar opinions exist in Wales, but at lower levels of support for "Not British" (Again, as far as I am aware, 100% of the Welsh on the board do not mind being called British)

I would be interested to see a poll which contrasted Scots/British/European (replace Scots with Eng/Wales/NI as appropriate) where respondents could give an approximation of their own feelings....

ie Beranger (Scots/British/European) 95%/0%/5%.....

Any other takers?

Bud said

"So the UK isn't a country or a nation. It can't be called a commonwealth, and it's hardly a kingdom. It isn't an international organisation, because that's the EU. So then what is it?"

REPLY

Your question is answered in Section 8.10 of the CMS report - available at 1 shilling and 4 old pennies per page from 666 Christianfield, Harlot, Essex*

"8.10 Britain has an unbroken tradition of political independence and unity since 876 A.D. when King Alfred unified England"

SNIPPED


So as you can see, the country of "Britain" has existed since 876AD. Tony's authoritative report says so!

I'll keep this short - he is really talking nonsense in this section!
Countries that are currently not even part of the EC ruled bits of the "UK" in 876AD!!!!





*(address to write to to recieve publication is meant to be a humourous parody, with no offence intended!)

Bud wrote

<<
and it's hardly a kingdom
>>

A "kingdom" is an area that is ruled over by a "king" (or more correctly a monarch). When I last looked checked, the Head of State of the area where I live was Queen Elizabeth II.

Andy - English 100%

I am also British and European of course, but this takes nothing away from my Englishness.

re (Customary Measures Society): "Para 8.10: Britain has an unbroken tradition of political independence and unity since 876 A.D. when King Alfred unified England"

re (Beranger): "So as you can see, the country of "Britain" has existed since 876AD. Tony's authoritative report says so!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY: Britain became 'Britain' after Bryttys (Welsh spelling) or Brutus (Roman spelling) arrived here in 1104 BC, an event commemorated at a monument in Totnes, Devon, where he arrived after sailing from western Greece. Hence giving his name to these islands.

His arrival here was the probable origin of the oak tree in Britain, by the way, as Bryttys brought his priests with him, the 'oke-priests', better known now as Druids. They brought sprigs of oak and acorns with them.

As Beranger may be aware, Britain lost its political independence when the Romans took over in 43 A.D.

Again, as he may be aware from his history lessons, after 410 A.D. the Roman occupation of Britain ended and there was then a 400-year period during which Angles, Saxons and Jutes vied for control of the British Isles with the British, with the Picts joining in a bit from time to time, although they were eventually pushed north and some of them sailed off to America where they became Red Indians. There was no political unity during this period, with the Brits struggling to control their territory and rival Anglian and Saxon Kingdoms vying for control. The Vikings, Norsemen and Danes tried to get a slice of the action as well.

Anyway, back to our tradition of political independence, if you go to Winchester High Street, Hampshire, you'll see an impressive raised statue of King Alfred the Great dominating the street. At its foot, there is a simple plaque with a short inscription: "The Founder of the English Nation". I hope Beranger doesn't know any better!

Bit by bit, the nation of England morphed - to an extent anyway, and by hook or by crook - into the British nation of today.


Q.E.D. (Latin's in vogue these days, and that's the truth)

Yes Bud, as already stated, the UK is most definitely a kingdom.

The thing I like most about being British is being Welsh.

The thing I like most about being Welsh is being British.



==


Funny - Berenger - the number of times I've heard a Scot sportsperson, politician, famous celeb etc referring to themselves as being British.

Like "Such and such a <enter scottish town> is the least populated in Britain"

And many more examples

Tony

Yeesss? But how does your reply reinforce your original point? I read your original point as saying 2 things:-

1) Britain has had political independence since 876AD

But didn't Norway rule some parts of Britain until 1472AD? Or don't they teach that in the Anglocentric version of history you learned? Or is Oslo rule more palatable than Brussels in your mind?

2)Britain has been united since 876AD

Don't make me laugh! Geographically, it has been united (apart from the islands) for a lot longer. Politically, it has been fully united for under 300 years.

Either you have a very different reading of what your original point meant, or you made the usual lazy mistake of "England = Britain"
....................................................................................................................................................

Bryan/Bud

I believe that the UK is defined as a "Constitutional Monarchy" (as opposed to an "absolute monarchy" in most reference books.
....................................................................................................................................................

Steve

Be fair.

I could say that <<insert Scots town>> has the tastiest fish in the Universe, the Solar System, the World, the Northern Hemisphere, Europe, UK, Britain, Scotland, <<insert Scots county>>, or the "fishing" port up the road. (you have to understand local bias to get that one!)

Are you suggesting that me saying "best fish in the universe" means that I primarily consider myself as a citizen of the universe?

Missed the bracket after ("Absolute monarchy") in post above - was not suggesting that constitutional = absolute!

If this report says that Britain is a country, then what is England? Is it a country within a country?

And, once again, what is the UK? Constitutional monarchy refers to the type of government, like democracy, etc.



<<
A "kingdom" is an area that is ruled over by a "king" (or more correctly a monarch). When I last looked checked, the Head of State of the area where I live was Queen Elizabeth II.
>>
But Queen Elizabeth II also rules over Canada, Australia, etc. So all of these countries together would comprise the kingdom, not just the UK.

The United Kingdom has a single parliament. Australia and Canada are soverign independent countries who have their own parliaments and who just happen to have the same head of state as the United Kingdom. If they chose to have a different rule of succession (or to become republics) they can do that without reference to the United Kingdom. Australia in fact had just such a referendum in 1999.

re (martin): "The United Kingdom has a single parliament..."


REPLY: Martin, have you checked this with Beranger and about 4 million fellow Scots? Also, someone has told me about something called the 'European Parliament' which, they tell me, has some sort of decision-making power over the United Kingdom.

P.S. They tell me that the Parliament meets in Brussels some of the time, and in Strasbourg for part of the time, because the Belgians and French couldn't agree where it should be located. Is this true?

I also understand it generates good business for lorry-drivers carting down lorry-loads of paper from one Parliament to another, and raises a healthy few euros in motorway tolls - plus of course contributing to global warming, what with all the petrol used up. Can anyone confirm?

OK, I will reword that

The United Kingdom has its own parliament which has jurisdiction over England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but there is no parliament or any similar body that has jurisdiction over the United Kingdom AND Canada AND Australia.

Bud - The UK is a constitutional monarchic government.

Berenger - What's that big chip doing on your shoulder? And yes, that was a bad example of mine - but you know what I mean.

Beranger,

I researched on the Internet your point about Norway ruling parts of Britain until 1472, and before finding a reference to it I found this, which I pass on for your enjoyment:

'SCOTLAND'


"The term [viz. Scotland] as at present used includes the whole northern portion of the Island of Great Britain, which is divided from England by the Cheviot Hills, the River Tweed, and certain smaller streams. Its total area is about 20,000,000 acres, or something over 30,000 square miles; its greatest length is 292 miles, and greatest breadth, 155 miles. The chief physical feature of the country is its mountainous character, there being no extensive areas of level ground, as in England; and only about a quarter of the total acreage is cultivated. The principal chain of mountains is the Grampian range, and the highest individual hill Ben Nevis (4406 feet)..."

Beranger,

Thank you for directing me to the infomation below about the year in which the British Isles finally rid themselves of the Norwegian oppressors:


"Orkney and Shetland were ruled by Norway until 1472. As well as settling on Shetland, the Norsemen colonised Caithness and Sutherland in what is today's Scotland. We see the evidence in the place names. From the Shetlands and Orkeys, the Norsemen travelled on to the Hebrides and from from there to the Isle of Man, Cumbria, Wales and, particularly, to Ireland. The Norsemen traded with Ireland and established several towns including Dublin and Cork. Among the commodities traded were slaves.

Norsemen also settled on the Isle of Man imparting much of their culture to the island. For example, the the annual open-air Manx parliament, Tynwald, is a Norse meeting and still survives to this day. Fifteen per cent of the male population of the Isle of Man carry the Norwegian genetic legacy, recent studies reveal.

Not all the Norse sea-raiders turned south into the Hebrides. Some of them sailed on out into the Atlantic and from this stemmed the colonisation of Iceland, Greenland and eventually, landings on North America long before Columbus (1492).

Norsemen left archaeological evidence in other places too..."


SNIPPED

re (Beranger): "But didn't Norway rule some parts of Britain until 1472AD?"

REPLY: Something I didn't know until tonight, always happy to learn from a Scot

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re (Beranger):

Or don't they teach that in the Anglocentric version of history you learned?

REPLY: Oooooooh! Gracious me. Next thing we know, German history will be 'Germanocentric', African history will be 'Afrocenttic', Yoruba history will be 'Yorubocentric' and, worst of all, Saudi Arabian and Yemeni history teaching might even be discovered to be 'Islamocentric'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re (Beranger): "Or is Oslo rule more palatable than Brussels in your mind?"

REPLY: Yes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re (Beranger): "RE: 'Britain has been united since 876AD' - Don't make me laugh! Geographically, it has been united (apart from the islands) for a lot longer. Politically, it has been fully united for under 300 years. Either you have a very different reading of what your original point meant, or you made the usual lazy mistake of 'England = Britain'"

REPLY: You misquoted me, I trust that occurred accidentally. I referred to Britain having a tradition of political independence since 876 A.D.

I stand by that. In broad terms, British independence grew osmotically from the union of the Anglo-Saxon peoples in 876 A.D. onwards - despite the Battle of Hastings, Bannockburn, Owain Glyndwr, the Jacobites etc.

Try not to misquote me in future, that will reduce the likelihood of your making accusations of people equating England with Scotland.

The Scots prospered as never before once they began the process of union with England, on the accession of King James VI of Scotland to the English throne. Further progress came once the English had expelled the hated Catholic King James II and placed the Protestant King William on the throne.

By the way, the last time a British Sovereign ever vetoed a Parliamentary Bill - i.e. refused the Royal Assent - was over the Scottish Militia Bill in 1713.

Queen Anne wisely wanted to make sure the Scots never again allied themselves with the French against the English. Britain's union with the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973, however, may have started the process of unravelling Queen Anne's good work

"and the highest individual hill Ben Nevis (4406 feet)..."

Surely a mountain?

I believe a hill becomes a mounting when its 1000 ft or above.

(is that above sea level or its height?)

<<
The United Kingdom has its own parliament which has jurisdiction over England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but there is no parliament or any similar body that has jurisdiction over the United Kingdom AND Canada AND Australia.
>>

But the queen does (in theory) have jurisdiction over all of them, does she not? The various governors general are simply her representatives.

NOTE: Done Cairngorm and Schiehallion, so far, so still 275 to go

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 1:

Mountains, Munros and Marilyns

There's not much doubt that Britain is not a particularly mountainous country. Although the Hackenthorpe Book of Lies maintains that the highest point in the world is only eight feet, most sources of information agree that Mount Everest is over 29000 feet high, with Ben Nevis only 4400 feet. By global standards Britain's mountains are quite insignificant. Many other countries not only have higher mountains, they also have roads, railways, hotels, restaurants, towns and even capital cities that are far higher than any mountain in Britain.

Height isn't everything though. British hills and mountains have many other qualities, which is one reason why there is a long tradition of writing about them and making lists of the highest ones. These lists have been based on the assumption that hills must be a certain height above sea level - usually at least 2000 feet.

This book takes a different approach. It concentrates on hills that are relatively high, compared to the surrounding area, rather than compared to sea level. The main feature of the book is a comprehensive list of every hill in Britain that is at least 500 feet (roughly 150 metres) higher than the land around it. In practice this means at least 500 feet above sea level, as none of these hills start below sea level. Five hundred feet is a completely arbitrary figure of course, just as arbitrary as 2000 or 3000 feet, but I will make some attempt to justify it. To do this requires a brief summary of the existing literature.

In the beginning there was Sir Hugh Munro. He saw that there were lots of mountains in Scotland over 3000 feet high, he saw that they were good, and he set about compiling a list of them. No-one seems to know why he chose 3000 feet, but no-one questions his choice. Most hill walkers are well aware of the result - a book of Munro's Tables that has evolved through several editions. This has led to the increasingly popular sport of Munro-bagging, which involves attempting to climb all the 277 separate mountains over 3000 feet that are listed in Munro's Tables, and are commonly known as 'Munros'. This can be a highly addictive pursuit.

Many of us who enjoy hill walking for its own sake find that the enjoyment of walking is enhanced by having a list to help guide where we go and a long-term target to achieve. There are however a number of reasons why Munro's tables are not satisfactory as a list of British hills:

Munro ignored England and Wales.

Munro did not define what criteria he used for including a hill in his list. He divided the summits into two categories - separate mountains and mere 'tops' - but did not define either.

Munro's tables have been revised several times since they were first published. Some revisions have simply reflected more accurate and up-to-date maps, but some appear to be arbitrary modifications to the original list.

There are many fine hills in Scotland, England and Wales that are less than 3000 feet high.

Next on the scene was J. Rooke Corbett (the fourth person to complete the ascent of all the Munros), who took some of these points into account by compiling a list of all the Scottish mountains between 2500 and 3000 feet high that have a drop of at least 500 feet on all sides. This list is a lot less fun than Munro's, as it leaves no scope for arguments about which summits should be promoted to separate mountain status or relegated to being only 'tops'. Corbett's list was passed on to the editors of Munro's Tables after his death, and there is no record of why he chose 500 feet as the amount required to separate one hill from another. Like Munro, Corbett was concerned only with Scotland.

There are very few summits over 3000 feet high in England and Wales (none at all in Southern Scotland), and relatively few over 2500 feet, and so the subsequent list compilers had to include hills as low as 2000 feet in order to produce worthwhile lists. There have been various efforts published in recent years:

Percy Donald compiled a list of all the hills over 2000 feet in Southern Scotland that have a drop of 100 feet on all sides, together with several further tops that have a drop of between 50 and 100 feet. This list is also published in the book of Munro's Tables.

George Bridge published a book listing all the summits in England and Wales over 2000 feet high, using a formula based on a combination of height difference and distance apart to decide which summits to include. This list was published in 1973, based on one-inch-to-the-mile maps. Recent maps show that it is now well out of date.

More recently John and Anne Nuttall have produced the comprehensive two-volume Mountains of England and Wales (Vol 1: Wales, Vol 2: England). These books list summits over 2000 feet (610m) that have a drop of fifty feet (fifteen metres) on all sides, with walking routes to cover them all.

Terry Marsh has produced guides to the mountains of Wales, the Lake District and the Pennines that are over 600 metres high (about 1968 feet). These are useful as guidebooks, but the lists of summits are not very satisfactory as they are not strictly defined - most of them have at least 30 metres (100 feet) drop on all sides, but Marsh includes numerous other summits of 'topographical merit', which is an arbitrary and subjective concept.

A small booklet published by Chris Buxton and Gwyn Lewis in 1986 lists all the summits in England and Wales over 2000 feet high with a minimum of only ten metres drop all round. This list is accurate, up-to-date and consistent, but includes a large number of insignificant summits of little intrinsic interest.

Writers of guidebooks such as the renowned Alfred Wainwright and Walter Poucher have included lists of prominent and well-known summits, based on no particular criteria. These are excellent and worthwhile guidebooks, but are not intended to be definitive references. A separate booklet listing all the summits named in Wainwright's books was published by John Turner, but this is intended as an index and does not attempt to rationalise any of the details.

In 1989 Eric Yeaman produced a handbook listing all the Scottish hills that have a drop of 100 or more metres on all sides, together with others qualifying by distance instead of relative height. This is an interesting and up-to-date publication, though in my opinion it is awful to look at and appears complicated to use. It has several odd features, such as the listing of hills in reverse order (lowest first), the use of four-figure grid references, and the duplication of hills that happen to appear on more than one map. However, I can not be too critical of it as it comes closest to this book in its concept and content. Apart from its poor presentation its main drawback is that, like all the other lists, it does not cover the whole country, as it ignores hills outside Scotland.

Why then do we need yet another list of British hills? Perhaps the honest answer is that no-one actually needs a new list, but a lot of walkers would probably like one. It is sometimes claimed that an attraction to lists is a sign of arrested personal development. If this is the case then I will try to cover up my own psychological deficiencies by suggesting a list(!) of reasons why publishing this new list of hills is eminently desirable:

None of the existing publications are fully satisfactory or comprehensive. They use different definitions for hills and do not cover the whole of Britain.

There has been a major change in recent years to the maps used by most walkers. In 1988 the Ordnance Survey completed publication of the Second Series of 1:50000 scale maps. Although publication of these maps began in the early 1970s, the changeover to metric contours at ten-metre intervals only occurred with the Second Series. The contouring on the new maps is much more detailed than on the older ones, and shows that much of the data in previous lists of hills is in need of revision.

The encouragement of walkers to explore a wider range of hills in different regions of the country might relieve the pressure of feet on well-known summits in the popular areas. This may not prevent any erosion, but it might distribute it more evenly.

The lower hills can provide more attractive walks in poor weather, especially when the higher summits are obscured by clouds. A low-level walk with views is usually more enjoyable than a high-level one in mist. The smaller hills are also ideal for filling in an odd hour or half day, or for exploring during busy holiday periods when the bigger hills and popular routes tend to get somewhat crowded.

In mountainous areas the lesser hills often make excellent viewpoints for higher ones. For example, some walkers reckon that the finest view of the Cuillin Hills on Skye is from the top of Sgurr na Stri, which is a mere 1630 feet high.

The listing of some hills in Southern England gives hill walkers unfortunate enough to live in that part of the country some constructive walking to do when they're not away in the northern hills. At the same time the list convincingly demonstrates how few hills there are in England and Wales compared to Scotland.

The new list gives those fanatics who have completed all the Munros, Corbetts, Bridges, etc a renewed purpose in life. It also provides a good alternative, if used selectively, for those walkers getting too old to think of completing the Munros.

These are all good reasons for publishing a new list, yet there is another consideration that is possibly more important than any of them. It arises from the uncomfortable feeling that a lot of the minor summits which have appeared in previous lists are really a bit on the boring side. The more distinct hills usually provide enjoyable walks and good viewpoints, and it is very satisfying to plan and follow a long continuous route taking in as many tops as possible. But after walking an extra two or three miles just to stand on top of a flattish rounded hump that happens to be a few metres higher than the surrounding bog, then even the most obsessive of summit baggers begin to ask questions.

I think it was in the Lake District that I first became aware of these nagging doubts, as a natural traverse over Skiddaw from Ullock Pike to Lonscale Fell was interrupted by a lengthy trudge to take in Sale How, which is a prime example of the sort of featureless summit that occurs in lists of the 2000-foot hills of England and Wales. In fact, most of the summits in the Lake District are well worth a visit - it is the Pennines and parts of Wales that contain most of the really tedious tops. I have spent a full day in both the Berwyn Hills and the Northern Pennines driving round to different spots and doing three or four different 'walks' to bag relatively accessible but thoroughly unmemorable summits, usually via thigh-deep heather or shin-deep sludge.

Even the Munros, and particularly some of the Munro Tops, are not exempt from this problem. Carn Sgulain, for example, in the Monadh Liath Hills, is a Munro almost entirely lacking in distinctive features. It rises only 60 metres from the col separating it from Carn Dearg, and although it is a few miles away, the distance and re-ascent fail to give it any character or appearance of being a separate mountain. Some other summits have even less to offer. Irvine Butterfield, in his book The High Mountains of Britain and Ireland, describes the Munro Top called Tom Dubh, which is near Braeriach in the Cairngorms, as being:

one for the real enthusiast, the most meaningless 3000 foot 'top' in all Britain, for here lies the ultimate in desolate wilderness, a landscape so featureless that it almost defies man's ability to use map and compass. Devoid of landmarks, in mist only the oozy drains of the plateau's few streams offer guides of any consequence.
The ascent of Tom Dubh involves a considerable detour from any reasonable route, and its remote austerity has made it into a prized collector's piece.

It seems that only Corbett's list offers a guarantee of satisfaction. All of the Corbetts are summits of some significance, and of course this is because they all have a relative height of at least 500 feet. In his book Climbing the Corbetts, Hamish Brown agrees that 'by definition Corbetts are much more solitary and individualistic' than the Munros, and claims that 'there are fewer "dull" Corbetts than there are "dull" Munros'.

In the Andes or Himalaya most summits with a drop of only 500 feet would hardly warrant a second glance. In Britain 500 feet is significant, and seems a good measure of what makes a separate hill or mountain - it feels right. Well, almost right. Now that Ordnance Survey maps have metric contours, it is impossible to work in feet.

Five hundred feet is equal to 152.4 metres, so to make matters easier the metric measure of 150 metres (492 feet actually) has been used to compile the new list [ALL FURTHER REFERENCES TO M____S BELOW DELETED - T.B.].

Having settled on the type of hills to be included in the new list, it is of course vitally necessary to find a name for them. A flippant item in a recent Scottish Mountaineering Club Journal suggested using the term 'Mungo' for all the millions of hills over 300 feet high. I have decided to use the more distinguished and appropriate term 'Marilyn', and I therefore officially define a Marilyn as any hill that has a drop of at least [492 feet 1 inch] on all sides, regardless of distance, absolute height or topographical merit. At the last count there were 1542 of them, and they are all listed in Chapters 3 and 4.

In essence Marilyns are similar to Corbetts, but whereas Corbetts are only between 2500 and 3000 feet high and are only found in Scotland, Marilyns may be from 500 to 4500 feet high and are found throughout Scotland, England and Wales. It must be admitted that not every single one of the Marilyns is terrifically interesting, but a high proportion of them are significant summits or local landmarks, whereas the list excludes many of the more tedious summits that have been included in other lists.

A good example of the measure of 150 metres is found between the highest two peaks in England. The drop in height from the top of Scafell Pike to the col which separates it from Scafell is just about [492 feet and 1 inch], though it looks much greater from some vantage points. The re-ascent to the summit of Scafell is slightly less, but Scafell has been included in the list of Marilyns because most walkers traversing the two summits will descend well over [492 feet and 1 inch] in order to avoid the direct route over Broad Stand. This route is more of a rock climb than a walk and is usually treated as such. Scafell is the only summit to receive this preferential treatment - elsewhere the 150-metre rule has been rigorously applied. Examples of prominent small hills which just exceed a relative height of 150 metres are Whitbarrow and Hutton Roof Crags, which may not be well-known names but are familiar sights as they rise up on either side of the M6 motorway near Milnthorpe in Southern Cumbria. Many other distinctive small hills, such as Glastonbury Tor and Arnside Knott, just fail to make the grade. This is hardly likely to lessen their popularity as viewpoints and tourist attractions. Fortunately, major sea stacks such as the Old Man of Hoy and the Great Stack of Handa are also under [492 feet and 1 inch]. Unfortunately there are two sea stacks in the St Kilda group of islands that do make the grade, and these are likely to test the commitment of even the most dedicated summit bagger.

The existence of a number of Marilyns in an area may be seen as a measure of the peakedness or undulating nature of the land, as opposed to its altitude. Statisticians have a word for this notion of peakedness - they call it kurtosis. So we can say that although the Cape Wrath peninsula reaches no great height, it clearly has positive kurtosis as it contains eight Marilyns. By contrast, large areas of land that are well above sea level can be fairly flat; some of the major uplands of England such as Dartmoor and the Peak District have very few Marilyns.

The concept of relative height seems to make more sense the more you think about it, yet some walkers may feel that it would be preferable to use the 500-foot limit in order to identify the most important hills over a certain height, such as 2000 feet. For those who feel this way the solution is simple - ignore the lower hills. The existence of the list does not compel anyone to use it. But I am sure that if I had drawn the line at 2000 feet, then sooner or later someone else would have extended this down to 1500 feet, then 1000 feet, so we may as well get it all over with now. The lower hills will always be there for anyone who wishes to finish the 2000-footers first!


______

ENDS. P.S. What is a '2000-footer' in metric?

Tony said (in relation to me)

"REPLY: You misquoted me, I trust that occurred accidentally. I referred to Britain having a tradition of political independence since 876 A.D."

Firstly, lets look at the CMS quotation

"8.10 Britain has an unbroken tradition of political independence and unity since 876 A.D. when King Alfred unified England"

Then lets look at my comments on it

"I read your original point as saying 2 things:-

1)Britain has had political independence since 876AD
2)Britain has been united since 876AD"
(slightly abridged - I've left out the points I made under those 2 headings)

My thoughts on what you are trying to say are not quotations. Note that I practically always put quotation marks around direct quotations. If you look at my post above, you will find no quotation marks around these words.

You may consider that I have misinterpreted your meaning. If you do, please explain how I have misinterpreted the quote. I have not misquoted you, however, and shall look forward to your apology.

Tony also said

"Try not to misquote me in future, that will reduce the likelihood of your making accusations of people equating England with Scotland."

As I explain above, I have not misquoted you. You have, however, misquoted me. Please point out where I accuse anyone of "equating England with Scotland"

I specifically accused you of making the usual lazy mistake of "England = Britain"

Tony also said

"The Scots prospered as never before once they began the process of union with England"

This process began in 1603 (Union of the Crowns) and continued in 1707 (Union of the Parliaments)

Politically, therefore, Scotland & England have only been united since 1707.

I ask again - how does Tony's quotation ("political independence and unity since 876 A.D.")make any sense whatsoever when applied to Britain?

Let's get the quotation right: "Britain has an unbroken tradition of political independence and unity since 876 A.D. when King Alfred unified England..."


The quotation suggests that the *traditions* of political independence and unity *began* in 876 A.D. It doesn't say they were completed then, nor does it exclude the fact that there have been some serious internal disputes over the years between the peoples of the British Isles.

Look down the centuries and eventually you come to the unity of the nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland as 'British' (not English) - though as we know about 3/4 of the Irish do not regard themselves as 'British'.

Name me another association of nations anywhere in the world, throughout the entire sweep of world history, which has held together in a united state without breaking up in acrimony

Tony

The population of Eire is around 4 million. These people have successfully demonstrated that they wished to leave the UK, and do not wish to be called "British". If you can find any reports that suggest that they wish to rejoin, please post.

Northern Ireland has around 1.5 million inhabitants. May I suggest (I've not researched this) that at least 0.5 million would like to leave the UK and have a united Ireland?

Therefore, a rough calculation would suggest that 80% of Irish have no desire to be British, and that 72% are not "British" at all.

I certainally don't believe that the UK has held together as a united state. Now that you have brought Ireland into the equation, I can refer to the Irish breakaway (Had you left it as "Britain" rather than the "4 countries", I couldn't use the Irish example!)

Parts of the UK have already left, significant numbers of Scots & Welsh want to leave, and (most interestingly) some support is starting to develop in England for "going it alone", and losing the "Celtic Fringe"

You asked

"Name me another association of nations anywhere in the world, throughout the entire sweep of world history, which has held together in a united state without breaking up in acrimony"

2 points
1) Ireland - no acrimony at all. Remind me how many innocents died (on both sides)?
2) In the approx. 80 years since the last split from the UK, how many nations have not split up?

Answer - Most of them!!!!

re (Beranger): "Therefore, a rough calculation would suggest that 80% of Irish have no desire to be British, and that 72% are not 'British' at all"

REPLY: And I said that 75% of the population of the island of Ireland did not regard themselves as British, so what is your point?

And next week on the Tony and Berenger show....


Actually I want to try to answer a few points:

<<The population of Eire is around 4 million. These people have successfully demonstrated that they wished to leave the UK, and do not wish to be called "British". If you can find any reports that suggest that they wish to rejoin, please post.>>

If were weren't so stupid and heavy handed Ireland might still be part of the UK now. There was no real desire to go it alone "back then" but the events that we supidly carried out (black and tans, executing rebels) would force the mildest of people to react.
We were also stupid in our governance of the USA.
If Britain had played those two roles differently imagine what the UK would have been today (not so much the Irish one!).
But that was "back then", don't forget.

<<Northern Ireland has around 1.5 million inhabitants. May I suggest (I've not researched this) that at least 0.5 million would like to leave the UK and have a united Ireland?>>

one third of Catholics would vote to stay part of the UK, if there were ever a referendum.

BTW - saw a great "panorama" about Celtic vs Rangers on Sunday night. Sort of answered all my questions that I'd be too scared to ask a scotsman.

What I found bizzare was what they deemed as offensive songs.

Celtic - A song about loving the IRA (a song about a group of murderers that are getting increasingly hated by catholics in n ireland)
Ranger - Rule Britannia (a song about Britains naval prowess).

Blimey - how offensive is that second one! :-O

*makes usual unionist comment about rabidness of Scots/Irish/Catholicy nationalist types*

*Berenger confiscates my scales and busts some stats about the percentage of Britons who wish not to be Britons*

*Me tells him to eat his jocky jockstrap*

*Steve recites the great Bardic Poem by Owyn Dwmfellw, called "Yve got smthyngw n my throat: pllease hellp" to increese da peese*


Did I miss anything?

Tony

"though as we know about 3/4 of the Irish do not regard themselves as 'British'"

The point that I was trying to make involved citizens of Eire (4.0m - who are not British) and "Irish" (who currently number around 5.5 million people)

I was just confused by your (usual) inexactitude.

You appear to have ignored the deaths caused by the "troubles" and by different Christian religions practiced in the UK, so I assume that you insist that we are all one happy nation united in an "unbroken tradition of political independence and unity since 876 AD"

Well, you've nearly persuaded me. I might even vote for a proper "British Unity" party at the next election! Especially if they write letters to decent Scottish charities asking them to refuse desperately needed money. (You may sense that I am not being serious - but the latest Christian Voice actions (in which I believe you may be involved) are despicable!)

Please post if you wish to dispute this point, but I would urge all readers of this board to consider a contribution to "Maggie's Centre" - a charity that has refused funding after threats, intimidation & bullying from Christian Voice.






(does this sound like anything that Tony has said elsewhere?)

Is this something to do with that "Jerry Springer Opera" trash?

Steve

Yeah. The whole sad story is at

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/34218.html

I haven't seen JS - the Opera, but I would defend their right to free speech.

Some extracts from the Glasgow Herald report

"Maggie's Centres stood to gain about £3000 from the donation; money which would have been used to alleviate the suffering of terminally ill cancer patients. If ever there was a good cause, then this was it."

"Granted, the cash was coming from a controversial source. The people behind the highly-criticised Jerry Springer – The Opera were giving the charity £10-a-ticket from a performance at the Cambridge Theatre in Covent Garden, London."

"Within a few hours, the donation was history, a casualty of the religious war which Mr Green and his pressure group, Christian Voice, are waging against Jerry Springer – The Opera."

"The Scottish charity put a brave face on it. "To risk causing offence to anyone seemed unnecessary," said a spokesman. But, behind that remark, lies a story of moral blackmail which deprived a decent, well-meaning charity of much-needed funds"

"Following the approach from Christian Voice, they only had two or three hours to make the decision and, during that short period of time, they had to think very hard about what we do as a cancer charity – which is obviously a positive and moral role – and what you do to fight bullies which, of course, is a positive and moral role as well."

"As an individual, I would say 'Good heavens, no. I am not giving in to this. This is outrageous and un-Christian. However much you may dislike Jerry Springer – The Opera, you can't use strong-arm tactics on me, thank you very much, go to hell.'"

"But it wasn't an individual, it was a charity and we just can't afford to divert our resources and our time into fighting bullies."

"the charity's centres – based in Dundee, Glasgow and Edinburgh – would be picketed if they accepted the donation."

"The Rev Jim Cowie, head of the Church of Scotland's Board of Social Responsibility, said: "Most of the mainstream churches – and that includes us – disagree with the tactics that are being used by this group."

"they are manipulating publicity. Intimidation, threatening . . . they have no place in the Christian scheme of things."

Since the subject has been raised, folks here might be interested to read what Mr Stephen Green from Christian Voice had to say in response to the suggestion that his organisation should stump up the £3000 cash.

Sorry it's so long but he does make some interesting points (though I'm not saying I entirely agree):

-------------------
Thank you for your email. I am grateful to you for taking the trouble.
I was glad to play a part in alerting Maggie's Centres to a possible public
relations disaster last week. I was able to explain to them how they would
alienate potential donors if they went ahead associating with Jerry Springer
the Opera. It was something they had not considered before, and although
they should have done, they took the matter seriously as soon as I raised
it. The subsequent decision to pull out was theirs alone and all credit to
them.
Jerry Springer the Opera portrays Jesus as a sexual deviant who says he is
'a little bit gay' and is insulted by His blessed mother and it casts
Almighty God as an impotent old fool. It was the subject of 50,000
complaints to the BBC before broadcast, an unprecedented number of
complaints to Ofcom since, and will be the subject of a court action for
blasphemy.
You need to understand that this show is highly offensive to Christian
believers who know something of the holiness of Almighty God. It is not a
matter of 'use the off button.' It being staged, let alone screened, in
the United Kingdom demeans and degrades us all by the principle of
collective responsibility. More important, it is offensive to the holy God
who, in answer to prayer, brought this nation victorious through two world
wars.
You need to understand also that the reputation of a charity is highly
important. To have been known forevermore as the charity which profited
from the filth and blasphemy of Jerry Springer the Opera would have been a
millstone around the necks of Maggie's Centres, especially in their Scottish
heartland and as they raise funds to open a centre in London. Indeed,
whoever had the idea of making money for charity by poking fun at the Lord
Jesus Christ should think long and hard about their next career move.
For some people today, raising money for charity has become a kind of new
religion. Celebrities go out of their way to be seen to 'support charity.'
Good as charitable giving is, and who can forget Band-Aid, or for that
matter the Good Samaritan, it is not the ultimate good. Any generosity in
our spirit springs from the the fact that God is generous and has given us
something of His character. But He is alos righteous, and we need to get
our priorities right. Giving to charity does not blot out our sins.
Maggie's Centres themselves recognise that there are limits to what you can
and should do to raise money for charity. That is why they decided to
distance themselves from the 'Springer' show. Their spokesman was quoted in
the Scotsman as saying: "It is important to us that we raise money
ethically and in ways that don't cause offence."
It is to the credit of Maggie's Centres that as soon as they became aware of
the offence they would cause to the Christian community by benefiting from
the gala performance of Jerry Springer the Opera, they distanced themselves
from this production, from the torrent of filth it contains, and from its
blasphemous humiliation and ridicule of God, Jesus Christ and Mary. They
decided they would rather be known as a charity which respects deeply-held
religious beliefs and cares for the whole community.
In practical terms, Maggie's Centres were down to get £10 from each £20
ticket sold for what was billed as a 'gala performance' of Jerry Springer
the Opera last Friday afternoon. The Cambridge Theatre, in London 's Covent
Garden, seats 1,222, but only 200 to 300 people turned up for the event.
The musical closed on Saturday. It was not the case that 'here was some
loose money and the nasty Christians stopped them accepting it.' Until
Maggie's pulled out, they were in full partnership with the disgusting
event, so any idea that I or Christian Voice should give them the same
amount of money so they still profit from filth and blasphemy lacks sense.
So Maggie's Centres declined a possible £3,000, but they should gain that
money many times over. They have had the kind of positive publicity it is
impossible to buy. If their hearts are right, their efforts to raise funds
for their new London centre will be blessed by God and when they look at
their receipts for February and March, they will be astounded by how much
has come in.
In the end, Maggie's Centres set an example of ethical behaviour which is
rare in Britain today. They put their claims to be caring into action and
stood by their many Christian supporters, staff and cancer sufferers. The
latter are especially important. A lot of people who would not see
themselves as religious turn to God at times of distress or danger. They
have the assurance of eternal salvation and know their sins are forgiven
through the precious blood Jesus shed on the cross. To know that money
paying for their care had come from ridiculing their Saviour would have been
a slap in the face for those people. But now, for those terminal patients
who draw great comfort from their Christian faith, knowing that those who
care for them respect the source of that faith will be an inspiration.
Maggie's Centres deserve respect for what was a landmark decision in today's
politically-correct world. In future, I pray that they and all charities
will raise their cash righteously. You obviously think that giving to
charity is important, and giving to this particular one more important than
most. In that case I hope you have already given Maggie's your financial
support. If not, you can make your donation simply by going to:
http://www.maggiescentres.org and clicking on the online donation box.

Thank you again for writing.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Green, M.A.
National Director, Christian Voice
Wernlwyd, Pen-y-bont,
Carmarthen, SA33 6QN
stephen@christianvoice.org.uk
Website: www.christianvoice.org.uk

Let it be noted that it was not me, but Beranger, who introduced the subject of the Christian faith on this thread. That said, I would like to deal with his suspicion that I was 'involved' in the Christian Voice protest about the intention of Maggie's Centres to accept money from Jerry Springer the Opera.

These points briefly.

I am a member of Christian Voice.

I wasn't in any way involved in the protest.

I support their drawing the charity's attention to the fact that the proposed donation was from a tainted, indeed disreputable source, namely the performance of a truly vile mocking of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith, that took vulgarity and swearing to new depths - or as the BBC almost triumphantly put it: 'tested and pushed back the boundaries of taste' (no doubt looking for the next opportunity to lower them still further - and they will).

I do not support Christian Voice's reported threat to mount a demonstration outside the charity. If correctly reported, that threat went too far.

I did however support (though I did not attend) their protest outside the BBC in January, on the evening the BBC showed a performance of Jerry Springer the Opera, and I was one of the 50,000-plus who e-mailed complaints to the BBC about the broadcast which, sad to say, were gleefully rejected by them (the BBC of course did not bother to reply to my complaint nor to anyone else's).

I visited the BBCi website last week when there was all the fuss about the Christian Voice protest and took down these two contributions from their comments page:

"It is a harsh fact, but a fact nonetheless: charities have no right to donations, so alienating a section of their donor base is madness. The decision of the trustees showed vision. The disclosure of the source of the donation is no different to cases such as Bernie Ecclestone's Labour Party donation - the calibre of an organisation is determined by its organisational and individual donors. I would have wanted nothing to do with an organisation that shows contempt for my faith"

"My wife is currently suffering from cancer, but as a devout Christian I'd rather the money used for research to help her was clean rather than from this despicable garbage!"

It is more than likely that Maggie's Centres will gain a great deal from the publicity - well over the £3,000 they 'lost'. I believe they do very good work and so good luck to them.

Finally let us consider a few other points.

To the Christian, Christ is alive and a living Saviour, one who has rescued us from the error of our ways. We don't like to see Him and His name being abused, especially in the gross and appalling way that occurred in 'Springer'.

If you believed someone else had suffered and died for you, would you not also be upset, even aggrieved when that person is mocked? But then the majority also mocked Him in His lifetime, even while He was suffering on the cross. And what had He done to deserve being crucified in place of a murderer?

Now pause - and compare for a moment the level of Christian protest when Christ's nane is abused (and I repeat here that Christian Voice went too far on this occasion) to that which occurs when one speaks a word against the Prophet Mohammed - and ask yourself why the huge contrast


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Scriptum: Jerry Springer the Opera closed last week after audiences slumped over the past three months, and the 'charity' performamce that the cast put on for Maggie's Centres attracted an audience of just 250 out of a capacity of 1,200

Tony

Fair enough.

I accept that you are a committed Christian, and, having researched further, accept that there was no letter sent to Maggie's Centre - the threats (I wish I could phrase that in a less aggressive way!) were made in a telephone call by Mr Green.

As I state above, I have not seen the show (have you?). I would suspect, however, that should it contain actual blasphemy, that the police would have taken action?

I quote directly from the Glasgow Herald article, and would have liked to be able to cut and paste directly from the full-page articles in both Scotland on Sunday & the Sunday Herald - both of which were very critical of Christian Voice.

I have donated to Maggie's Centre in the past & will in the future. I hope you will too.

However, I do believe in free speech. People of all (or no) religions should be able to ask searching questions about other religions. Occasionally, these questions will be asked in a mocking way, or by way of parody, or in terms that may be found abusive by some. As you obviously believe that your faith is the true faith, can you not rise above these abuses?

I am not mocking your faith, and would not attempt to do that to any poster of any religion that posted here.

If I have offended you in any way in this matter, I sincerely apologise.

As Dave Allen used to say, "May your God go with you"

re (Beranger): "If I have offended you in any way in this matter, I sincerely apologise"


REPLY: No offence was taken by your comments, I don't think you created any offence to anyone, so there was no need to apologise, nevertheless I appreciated your comments.

On the point about blasphemy, you will find that this is a common law criminal offence (it is not on the statute book) and the Police never bring proceedings now, nor bother to investigate.

The last 'blasphemy' case in this country was when 'Gay News' in the late 1970s produced a pretty disgusting article (with obscene drawings) portraying Jesus Christ as a rampant homosexual; the case went to trial and the Editor of Gay News, a man by the name of Lemon if memory serves, received a mild punishment after a jury found him guilty of 'blasphemous libel'.

I can assure you I believe firmly in the principle of free speech - though I do not extend that to, for example, gratuitous and serious violence and pornography on TV and in films etc. - and although you may not appreciate it, it was essentially the Protestant Reformation in this country that brought about the development of the principle of freedom of speech and belief etc. we have today (cf. the achievements of the Covenanters in your country).

Let us remember that it was the Roman Catholic Church which insisted on the passing of the Heretics Act 1401 in this country, that made it a capital offence to speak against the Catholic religion. Let us also remember that last month was the 450th anniversary of the first of the 300 or so burnings at the stake of Protestant believers in the reign of Bloody Queen Mary (1555-8).

The records show plainly that men and women, young people and old alike were tortured and then burnt at the stake because they refused to accept key Roman Catholic doctrines, which persist today, mainly their claim that their priests have the supernatural power to change the communion wine into the *actual* blood of Christ. The Protestant view is that the Bible makes the communion service just an act of memorial ("Do this in remembrance of me").

No Christian fears honest debate about his faith and will be prepared to justify and defend it. The blasphemy laws did not prosecute those who engaged in robust debate and controversy.

What is unwise and in certain circumstances illegal is to deliberately provoke, antagonise and mock the religious views of others, which is no doubt the purpose of the proposed controversial new law on 'incitement to religious hatred'.

Back to weights and measures? Here's a quote from my treasured Authorised King James word-for-word translation of the Bible (in this case of the koine Greek): "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain"

I can't quote chapter and verse here (I'll dig it up if I'm asked) but the bible does apparently support the principle of fair trade and that a single system of measures should be used for that end.

The metric system didn't exist in biblical times so we can't expect any direct commenton that as such, but Christians should be aware that advocating so called choice in the market place is going against the spirit of their faith.

<<
I can't quote chapter and verse here (I'll dig it up if I'm asked) but the bible does apparently support the principle of fair trade
>>
I accept that

<<
and that a single system of measures should be used for that end.
>>
but I'm not sure where that came from. I am not familiar with the Bible, but I would appreciate if you could tell me where it says that.

Stan, I think you're operating under the assumption that the only way of accomplishing fair trade is to have one set of units.

Deuteronomy 25:13 - 16

"Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.

Thou shalt not have in thine house divine measures, a great and a small.

But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure
shalt thou have that thy days might be lengthened in the land which the
Lord thy god giveth thee.

For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an
abomination unto the Lord thy god."

I'm not well read on the bible either and will admit that someone else showed me this. The reference to great and small, I'm told, is effectively saying that a single set of measures should be used.

I cannot see how encouraging an unnecessary proliferation of incompatible measures (e.g. lb on one hand, kg on the other), especially when different sized units co-exist with the same name (US v UK fl oz etc), can be justfied as creating an environment for fair trade.

<<
Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
>>

I'm no authority on the Bible, but the way I read this, it is saying that you shall not use one weight to buy and another to sell. You shall be consistent. The pound you sell and the pound you buy must be the same pound.

Let me put it this way. The United States currently uses two systems of measurement side-by-side. Can anyone give a concrete example of unfairness in trade that has resulted from this?

Bud,

Does 500g constitute a "pound"? - would having 500g weights and pound weights in one's bag be a contravention of this rule?

Tony wrote

<<
Back to weights and measures? Here's a quote from my treasured Authorised King James word-for-word translation of the Bible (in this case of the koine Greek): "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain"
>>

I have doen a little research and on visiting
http://www.gospelchapel.com/sermons/Archives/Mount/30_89.htm
I found the following explanation

<<
To understand what Jesus is talking about, we have to understand the history of the times and place where the Lord Jesus spoke in context of the time He spoke the words. Jesus spoke of a Persian custom adopted by the Roman soldiers when traveling. They compelled a person to serve as a baggage-carrier or as a guide to direct the traveler. It was the custom of the time to compel a person to do this for one mile.
>>

In short, there is nothing theological about the use of the "mile" in this context - Jesus was merely quoting something that happened everyday in that environment.

May I suggest another Biblical text to Tony

<<
Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto God that which is God's.
>>
In my understanding, the formaultion and regulation of weights and measures is in "Ceasar's" domain, but the honest use of those measures is in God's domain. I would note in passing that just as teh coin that Jesus examined prior to making this statement bore Ceasar's image, weights that have been certified by the Trading Standards Office bear the TSO marking (in the name of the Queen, not of God).

re (Stan): "I cannot see how encouraging an unnecessary proliferation of incompatible measures (e.g. lb on one hand, kg on the other)..."

REPLY: Shame, then, Stan, that you weren't around in 1965 to have a word in Prime Minister Harold Wilson's ear when he announced: "Britain will go metric". Suppose you had done, and he'd listened to you and taken your wise advice. Now, 40 years later, you would probably have an an O.B.E., with the citation:

"For the man who saved the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from an unnecessary proliferation of incompatible measures"

<<
Does 500g constitute a "pound"? - would having 500g weights and pound weights in one's bag be a contravention of this rule?
>>

If you called both of them a pound, then yes, you would be violating this passage in the Bible and probably some law or another.
No retailer can use two different pounds. Unless specified otherwise, one can assume that a retailer referring to "pounds" means the standard pound, as defined by law, science, tradition, or whatever.