BS: Are We Anti-English

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,Margaret at the window
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 05:49 AM

Some very interesting points in the above posts. I imagine many who are English by birth feel very proud.I would like to hear the viewpoints of the Europeans though. Having lived in Holland and Corfu I am sorry to relay their viewpoint seems to be one of football yobs, child killers and zero tolerance of other races.Not to mention such a small Island seeming to think they are a world superpower.Also as a European union member having been in front of the European Courts so many times and found guilty of offences. That was the picture given to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 05:56 AM

GUEST Margaret at the window says....."Not to mention such a small Island seeming to think they are a world superpower". Great Britain has proved this many times in the past...why should you doubt it now? What has changed? O.K so the Second World War was over 60 years ago but what about the Falklands?.....I for one "seem" to think that for such a small island we are a super power...not the power we were historically but still a formidable opponent.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,Old Glory
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 06:06 AM

Reply to above, regarding the Falklands, the Boy Scouts would have beaten the enemy on that Island. As to the World Wars, America won both of them.As to a formidable opponnent, what war of recent times have you fought alone with the backing of the States ??

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 06:51 AM

Zero tolerance of other races?
No country on Earth has been more welcoming to other races.
Over a million have come to live here in just the last ten years.
UN figures suggest that the current rate of entry is 150,000 per year, the majority from Indian subcontinent and Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 09:16 AM

I too lived in Corfu but came away with a different impression. Corfiots on the otherhand despise Athenians and Athenians despise 'islanders'. But that is also a sweeping generalisation. Yammas :)

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 10:09 AM

Old Glory
You wrote
As to the World Wars, America won both of them.

Did you know that WW1 started in 1914. We are grateful for the US contribution, but it did not arrive until 1918, a few months before the end, and was much smaller than that of Britain or France.

You played a bigger part in WW2 though we would have preferred you had not waited until war was declared on you. We stood alone in 1940, and defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. By the time your forces arrived we had halted Hitler's advances in the West and turned the tide in N.Africa.
In terms of German divisions engaged, the Soviets took on more than both of us combined.

We are not a superpower like you. We are the 4th economy of the world and about the same militarily.
Yes, we are a small island.
Which wars have you won on your own?

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:02 AM

WWI

Have we forgotten that we shipped substantial material aid? The reality was that had the US not gotten involved the Germans would not have surrendered. Their population was being depleted just as badly as the Brits and French, with one difference. The russian revolution occured and the Germans were then in a position to focus on one front. Without the US, I don't think the continent would have survived. Britain maybe depending on whether or not they would be able to continue their success at Jutland.


WWII

Again, had the US not shipped goods, the Brits would have starved. The Wolfpack had in fact nearly accomplished this. Also, being the 'arsenal of democracy', I doubt the Russians would have faired so well. Had it not been for the US, Britain would have been starving and the Russians would have been defeated IMHO. To give you an idea of how much US industry contributed, after the war the US accounted for 50% of world GDP.

If it were a battle of Russia vs. the Germans, the Germans would have won. Without the US there would not have been a second front.

When you ask which wars we have won by ourselves is kinda misleading as most conflicts (including British) had allies and/or mercenaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:12 AM

And the source of your information Guest Rarelamb is?

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Stu
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:14 AM

Yawn . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:20 AM

would you believe my education? O.k. I wouldnt believe it either. I have to step out but, I will post some links when I get back.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:43 AM

Yep Margaret, we stand before the European Courts accused of selling bananas by the pound instead of kilos, whilst our Spanish comrades are allowed to torture and slaughter bulls simply for public 'entertainment' without anyone turning a hair. Our workers are forced to follow a lengthy democratic procedure on pain of imprisonment should they wish to withhold their labour in furtherance of a dispute, whilst the French blockade the ports and burn sheep alive in their transporters and not a single prosecution follows. Words like 'double' and 'standards' spring to mind!

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,Old Gl;ory
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:47 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,Old Glory
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:52 AM

Yeah thats great news about you guys in Britain are the 4th economy of the world, well maybe them you can pay us back the loans you got to cover the two World Wars, have you forgotten this ? you do owe us, did you not know this ????? Come on guys sent us the Dollars.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,An Englishman Abroad
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:53 AM

What a good thred. Apart from the normal idiots looking for a fight rather then debate.

Rarelamb

There was no aid from America. If you check you will find out that it was all sales. Britain purchased all of the goods sent. The result was a massive deubt to the US that was not paid off untill I think it was the 70s. Not only did you sell the goods but at very inflated prices.

There is a very good book by Clive Pontin (he of Belgrano fame)that goes into more detail.

As an Englishman living in the USA I make my living as a speaker. One of the big selling points for me is my accent (would you beleive people want to listen to a Black Country lad)and the fact that Briton is looked up to also helps. I am asked with regularity. Whats the difference between the two countries. As far as ordinary people at the bottom of the heap are concerned. Virtualy nothing. Same worries, same problems.

It has been said before in the thred and it's true. There are wankers in every race.

All the best John

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:49 PM

Don(Wyziwyg)T - 06 Oct 05 - 05:01 AM

"You should remember Keith, that the fact that our ex colonies remain friends, and part of the commonwealth, says more about their tolerance, than about our popularity."

If the above were the case how does it explain the list of countries that have never had any historical tie to Great Britain applying to join the Commonwealth, which after the UN is the largest international organisation and forum in the world, no vetoes, what is democratically decided by the council of Prime Ministers of the member states.

England, then latterly the United Kingdom, had very few 'colonies', most of whom were turned over to Dominion status comparatively early in their histories. Not that many were vacated due to extended campaigns of armed resistence either.

Cyprus, definitiely not a British colony in any way shape or form, actually came into being when the UK threatened to walk out and hand the island back to Turkey, who had previously asked the British to administer it.

I rather liked Gurney's post of 05 Oct 05 - 06:14 PM. I think he puts it rather well.

Old Glory - 06 Oct 05 - 06:06 AM

Regarding the Falklands, the UK's response to Argentinian aggression, shook the world, it took everybody by surprise, especially the Americans. In trying to win friends in South America the CIA and Mrs Jean Fitzpatrick had given the Generals a wink-and-a-nod, intimating that in their assessment the UK would do nothing. Alexander Haig then had to do a great deal of back tracking to put the matter to rights vis-a-vis the US and UK. I also doubt very much whether or not the Boy Scouts could have transported 12,000 troops over 12,500 miles and launched an unsupported landing with your nearest base over 5000 miles away - The US could not even do that fully mobilised during the Second World War in the Pacific. The island hopping that was done was carried out over much shorter distances. In the Falklands, once ashore, the campaign was swift, it was also carried through with minimum loss of life to either side.

With regard to quality of opposition in the Falklands you had a conscript force up against professional, integrated armed forces. You on the other hand can tell us what a grim time the US Marine Corps had taking on the opposition in Grenada - now that really was a farce.

As to the World Wars, America won both of them - Not exactly true and anyone who has studied those conflicts would tell you the same. More accurate to state that the United States of America was instrumental in making an Allied Victory possible - That is not the same as saying that America won both of them.

You ask what formidable opponent the UK has taken on alone and defeated without the backing of the United States of America in recent times. Now taking recent as being post-WWII, the one that immediately springs to mind is "The War of the Running Dogs", Malaya 1947 to 1964. The UK is down in the history books as being the only country during the "Cold War" era to successfully take on and defeat a communist inspired and backed insurrection - The United States of America faced with exactly the same type of conflict in Vietnam failed completely.

GUEST,rarelamb - 06 Oct 05 - 11:02 AM, I enjoyed reading your post.

During WWI, yes it was true you did ship substantial material aid - to both sides and the American Corporations doing the trading made a handsome profit out of it. US involvement on the side of the British and the French had more propaganda value than military value - the expeditionary force sent over from the US lacked everything that was required to take the field, from heavy artillery down to steel helmets, these were all supplied by the British and the French. The reality was that the Germans would have surrendered because the country was collapsing from the inside, the US entry into the war countered the German/Austro-Hungarian victory on the Eastern Front, without even one US GI having to go to the Western Front. Their blockaded and starving population fully realised that the allies facing them on the Western Front would grind them down and that talk of any victory was clearly a myth after the last German spring offensive failed to break through in France.

One thing that does stand in Great Britain's favour and shows the metal and integrity of her ministers is that the British Foreign Secretary, Earl Grey, immediately before the start of the First WOrld War received an offer from Germany of all the French Colonies if Great Britain remained neutral. Without recourse to consultation he immediately refused the offer and coined that phrase about the lights going out all over Europe.


On WWII, initially the same story but to a lesser degree, yes America provided aid, which Britain paid for. When Britan couldn't the Lend-Lease Agreement was made which did save us, it kept us in the war. But by the time all that had happened, one thing that Churchill had predicted had happened. "Hitler knows he must defeat us on this island or lose the war" - Hitler failed to defeat Britain because he has lost his navy in Norway and failed to win the Battle of Britain.

Two times the 'Wolfpack' tactics nearly succeeded - but nearly is not good enough - The Battle of the Atlantic was fought primarily between the Royal and Commonwealth Navies and the Germans, direct US involvement was slight in comparison. The 'second happy time' for the German U-Boats came when they could attack merchant shipping off the eastern seaboard of America. Early in the war the US might have given the UK, 50 old destroyers, during the 'second happy time' the UK gave the US personnel experienced in hunting U-Boats and escort vessels equipped with ASDIC (British invention).

Yes America was the 'arsenal of democracy' and the assistance sent to Russia did help, the Russians have only in the last 15 years acknowledged this. As a reciprocal gesture maybe those in the US should publically acknowledge the sacrifices and effort the people of Russia made in defeating Nazi Germany.

I disagree with your assessment that had the battle been left to one of Russia vs. the Germans, that the Germans would have won. General Heinz Guderian made the mistake of telling Hitler what required to be done before the gates of Moscow in 1941. What he said was correct, but he was dismissed for his pains - he knew then, that from that point on, the Germans on the Eastern Front were always going to be out-manned, out-gunned and out-fought - there was only ever going to be one result.

In the aftermath of Dunkirk, the Germans once again tried to buy Britain off, at that time Great Britain and her Empire/Commonwealth stood completely alone, once again those overtures were rejected.

Both World Wars of the 20th Century cost Great Britain her finest generations and her Empire, which in reality was already on the wane. The debt wracked up during the Second World War the UK repaid to America in 1972, we were one of the few countries to do that - among friends we tend to pay our tab, no matter the currency.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:57 PM

My apologies the reference to Earl Grey should of course be Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary 1914.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 02:41 PM

I will concede WWI on this ground; my analysis is speculation based upon the conditions at the time. My hypothesis is that with the Russians out of the war that the Germans could have defeated the UK and France as they had been able to figh them to a stalemate while fighting on two fronts.

What the US did was to show the Germans that they would not have the 'last million men' and that they would be at a severe disadvantage in production. This is my speculation, but I think is accurate. I will concede the point reluctantly.

On the issue of WWII, I think that it was American production that 'won' the war. I further argue that the Brits would have been greatly diminished as a fighting force without the US feeding the population or suppling arms and munitions. So much so that the Germans would have been able to move enough divisions to defeat teh Russians.


http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/AMH-19.htm

"He also proclaimed American neutrality in the war, but at his urging Congress presently gave indirect support to the western democracies by ending the prohibition on munitions sales to nations at war embodied in the Neutrality Act of 1937. British and French orders for munitions in turn helped to prepare American industry for the large-scale war production that was to come. "

"On the eve of France's defeat in June 1940 President Roosevelt had directed the transfer or diversion of large stocks of Army World War I weapons, and of ammunition and aircraft, to both France and Great Britain, and after France fell these munitions helped to replace Britain's losses in the evacuation of its expeditionary force from Dunkerque. More aid to Britain was forthcoming in September when the United States agreed to exchange fifty over-age destroyers for offshore Atlantic bases, and the President announced that henceforth production of heavy bombers would be shared equally with the British. An open collaboration with Canada from August 1940 onward led to a strong support of the Canadian war effort, Canada having followed Great Britain into war in September 1939. The foreign aid program culminated in the Lend-Lease Act of March 1941, which swept away the pretense of American neutrality by openly avowing the intention of the United States to become an "arsenal of democracy" against aggression. Prewar foreign aid was nonetheless a measure of self defense; its fundamental purpose was to help contain the military might of the Axis powers until the United States could complete its own protective mobilization."

http://www.onwar.com/articles/f0302.htm

"This analysis shows that while by 1942 there was a substantial Allied economic advantage, measured in GDP, this did not exist at the beginning of the war in 1939. In fact for a period of time the Axis commanded greater GDP than the Allies. Suggesting that the Allies had a GDP superiority from the start is wrong and misses the dynamics of World War II. It is worth noting that from a lead of 1.25 in 1939, the Allies were reduced to a miserable 0.38 by 1941. There was nothing preordained about the recovery of GDP that followed. It is unreasonable to believe that Allied decision makers were particularly confident of economic dominance until well into 1942, regardless of their public pronouncements."

http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html

"Had these ships not been produced, the war would have been in all likelihood prolonged many months, if not years. Some argue the Allies would have lost as there would not have existed the means to carry the personnel, supplies, and equipment needed by the combined Allies to defeat the Axis powers. [It took 7 to 15 tons of supplies to support one soldier for one year.] The U.S. wartime merchant fleet. . . constituted one of the most significant contributions made by any nation to the eventual winning of the Second World War...."

http://www.usmm.org/quotes.html#anchor198704

"The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsAtlanticDev.htm
1939
Total Losses = 402 British, Allied and neutral ships of 1,303,000 tons (186,000 tons per month)
1940
Total Losses = 878 British, Allied and neutral ships of 3,441,000 tons (382,000 tons per month)
1941
Total Losses = 1,299 British, Allied and neutral ships of 4,329,000 tons ( 361,000 tons per month)

Note that these losses are losses of goods and material for the allied war effort.

http://uboat.net/allies/documents/lend-lease.htm
"When the war had ended the Lend-Lease programme had extended over $41 billion in aid to more than 40 nations (some sources say the aid was as high as $50 billion). Britiain got the biggest share or roughly $30 billion and the Soviets about $11 billion. China got $1 billion.

Less than $10 billion of that aid was ever repaid, making this appear more like the donation and support it really was."

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 02:42 PM

woops, the last one was mine :)

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,Old Glory
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 02:58 PM

You still owe us bucks, you guys in England. If your so wealthy why is your health, education and transpost systems crap, even your own people are crying out about it. Your government says it can't afford to bring it up to standard ! Looks like fur coat and no knickers to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 03:06 PM

My sincere apologies to Rarelamb and Old Glory you will have been repaid in full by the end of next year.

Source - Wikipedia on Lend Lease:
"REPAYMENT
According to Hansard, the record of note for the debates that take place in the UK the Houses of Parliament, the debate in the Commons on 28th February 2002 shows that the UK expected to complete its repayment of its monetary debt to the USA on 31st December 2006, over 61 years from the conclusion of World War II:

"Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]..."

"Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows."...

"Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual installments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.

As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend [sic] in 1945. "

Similarly, Hansard records from a debate that took place in the House of Lords on 8th July 2002 that:

"Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this payment part of the lend-lease scheme under which the United States supplied munitions, vehicles and many other requirements including food and other provisions that were needed badly by us in the last part of the war?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I referred to lend-lease in the context of the generosity of the United States throughout that period. However, the debt that we are talking about now is separate; it was negotiated in December 1945.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to exactly how much the loan was, and how much we have repaid since then in principal and interest?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan. It is a very advantageous loan for us. "

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 03:15 PM

Whew! Boy was I worried! It's a rounding error in a $12 trillion economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,Old Glory
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 03:54 PM

Hell don't worry guys. We will start the wars and just count on Tony Blair doing whats he's told. Strange what things you have to do when you owe money !

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 04:07 PM

Don't be a donkey gory.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 04:12 PM

This is a quote from yesterday's Independent Newspaper (5.10.2005). It comes from Mrs Mary Kemp, aged 82, of the Broadwater Farm Estate in Tottenham, North London: "We are pure English and do you know what that means? It means being tolerant of people, regardless of colour or creed. It means embracing people who are different from you."
A remarkable statement, really, when you consider that Broadwater Farm experienced a notorious race riot only 20 years ago. the rest of the article discusses how the estate has now become a model of racial harmony and now contains 39 different nationalities compared with around 3 in 1985.
All I can say is, " good on yer Mary!"

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,An Englishman Abroad
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 04:17 PM

Hey Glory

At least the UK has not got 40,000,000 without heath care. On top of that there are not people in the UK who can not change their jobs because they will lose their health care.

Education ?????? you buy degrees here.

Transport???? I live in a State (Ohio) where there are no passenger trains. Most cities if you have not got a car you can not get out. You have very little transport here apart from cars.

Got to go I have a gig. Got to walk the wife has the car. Pop into the StageCoach South Bloomfield Ohio and say hello. StageCoach.com

all the best John


all the best John

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 08:45 PM

Another thing about the bloody English is their rotten folk songs. All bloody yokels, pretty ploughboys, handsome cabin boys, aye up hecky thump didn't we sup some stuff, you could write them with a sodding computer - that is if IBM make a sexually abnormal, booze by the bucket, oh my soldier has gone for a johnny programme.

total crap from start to finish - then some turd in a bowler hat sends the morons who sing this dogshit on a cultural exchange to some place where they've actually got some culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 10:14 PM

And littleweedrummer you have written what exactly???

Trouble is to have a written record of folk songs, which is what this site is all about, sometime in the past you must have had a fair degree of literacy, now Wales had, England had, Scotland had, apart from the Book of Kells Ireland hadn't, which is why they are known for their tunes(i.e. musical tradition) as opposed to their vocal tradition.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 04:50 AM

Dear Weelittledrummer,

At my local folk club, earlier this year, the guests were Shepheard, Spiers & Watson, 3 superb singers and musicians from Aberdeenshire. Their presentation contained many Scots songs which I recognised as having English counterparts. Before we get into any infantile arguments about 'us' (the English) nicking 'their' (the Scots) songs my interpretaion of this phenomenon is that there was, at one time, a lot of cross-fertilisation was going on between two English-speaking traditions - and both traditions benefited.
The point is that both traditions have lots of songs about 'Pretty Ploughboys' etc.! Every musical form has its common tropes and images - these are what makes that particular form distinctive! The Blues, for example, has lots of stuff about 'my baby done left me'etc. but no-one ever criticises the Blues on these grounds. Why is it only English Folk Song which comes in for this sort of stick?
Finally, Weelittledrummer, if you don't like English Folk Song, don't listen to it - it's as simple as that!

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 04:55 AM

DB, the class system and the secondry modern does ring a bell with me.

I was both A stream comprehensive and later Gramman when we moved to Kent. Mark my only brother who was secondary modern was the only one to take the "Kent test" as it was then and do I believe if was any less inteligent than the rest of us, NO. Do I believe that belonging to the right "cliques" might have mattered, YES.

Do I believe such things might be specificaly English (rather than any other group with some sort of power), NO. Do I belive on the other hand that we have conquered nations and maybe not always been entirely moral, YES.

Do I believe that an Englishman is by defintiion any worse or better than anyone else, I'd give a NO. Perhaps and just maybe it is people desiring power that do the damage and a "basic Englishman" may be no different to a German living in Nazi times (its really hard to imagine they all enjoyed it or that some may not have suffered for just things like being a jew) or a Frenchman living with Napoleon.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 04:58 AM

Lat post was from me - for better or worse.... I don't want to be a "hidden" agent whetheer views re agreed or dissagreed with on this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 05:14 AM

ooooh!

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 05:31 AM

weelittledrummer. Can you stop winding people up. This is a serious thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 05:48 AM

I am so glad I'm English. I grew up with a strong English accent in Australia from the age of three, and took so much stick about it that I decided 'Damn you lot, I'll be a 'bloody Poom' then!' I'm so glad I did. The more I travel, the more I realise how tolerant, humorous, reliable and down to earth my countrymen are.

As for the Empire thing - just about everyone, from other European powers to African tribal chiefs wanted one back then, in the 'bad old days'. We were just better at it, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 06:45 AM

I must point out that the Irish sent many scholars to England in the Dark Ages. The Book of Kells was probably written in England by Irish monks there to teahc our ancestors some religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,Toby Jugg
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 07:04 AM

One englishman is worth a 1000 foreigners. We invented the wheel.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 07:53 AM

Teribus, WLD's written some excellent songs, one of the best being a number about the 'Bride In The Bath' murders. It contains a liberal sprinkling of a potent ingredient called 'humour' - which is also heavily present in his tongue-in-cheek postings on this thread. :-)
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,An Englishman Abroad
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 09:40 AM

Some of us take ourselves sooooooo serious.

good one Drummer I laughed

all the best John

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 07:51 PM

WLD is also ENGLISH and is a wind up merchant.....aint ya Al? First class bloke and the sort of guy you would choose for a buddy.....
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST,Old Glory
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 08:07 PM

You lot are leaches, saying it simply.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 08:22 PM

Walking on the beaches looking at the leaches
Dun de Dun de de de derr der...

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 08:25 PM

GUEST Old Glory. You then would appear to be some lonely person who has little more to do than to come on mudcat and slag others off!
Leeches (please note the spelling) is perhaps what we English choose to be...but at least we have each other...who have you got then?

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 11:27 PM

Strollin' Johnny - 07 Oct 05 - 07:53 AM

"Teribus, WLD's written some excellent songs" I've had a look at the web site very impressed, thanks for the heads up on LWD's talents

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 11:41 PM

Flanders and Swan, cited earlier, said it best.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 11:56 PM

Not meaning to denigrate WLD's talents--just in reference to the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 02:42 AM

I don't think the english thing really works.

we should be reassigned other identities. perhaps we could become a province of ireland. Intensive training courses could be organised. Seminars on what a bastard it is being oppressed, and who knows maybe we could get the church to take our money and mess around with our kids, we could have folk clubs where they play interminable jigs and reels - (no change there). then organise ourselves into loyalists and republicans and shout at each other - perhaps we could try a themed weekend fist, see how it goes

or American. obviously the first thing is to carpet bomb the country with leaflets tellin the real truth about the 1917-8 war and the 42-45 unpleasantness. If we were Americans we could have guns and hunt down the bastards in bowler hats.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Gurney
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 04:41 AM

Referring to WLD's scathing remark about songs of ploughmen: Assuming as I do that WLD is a Scottish person (From Wee..., never heard another Celt use it), wasn't Scotland's national poet, an Anglo-Norman called Burns, actually of that profession?

I readily admit that there are some great Scots songs, even if some are about total arseholes like Stuart kings. And Stuart Pretenders.

I do have a smile on my face as I type this. The English and the Scots are of course closely related, both being mostly Anglo-Saxon.
Bet you.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 05:25 AM

No I am English - in as much as any of us are anything - both grandfathers were probably Irish. This is what fires my deep insights into English folk music. Its my laser like perceptive powers and refined appreciation of the aesthetic that made me realise it was rubbish.

Being Scottish would be good. I read a great article about wearing a kilt for sexual purposes in Forum once. Great people the Scottish. Such ingenuity!

the weelittledrummer came about because I was listening to Paul Brady sing Arthur Macbride at the time I was registering for Mudcat. If I'd been listening to George Formby - it might have been Mr Wu.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Dead Horse
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 05:44 AM

Weelittledrumma, could you please come round and clean my windas mate, bloody pooter keeps slowin up an stoppin. I fink theres a bowler 'at inside it, so bring a 'ammer:-)
Wot could be more serious than a fred aimed at the Inglish?
And while were at it, it was the Inglish wot started the second world war. If we ad only appeased that 'itler bloke a bit longer, 'e would 'ave got all embarrassed and gone 'ome. Then we could 'ave made a fortune sellin old boats to the Yanks after Perl 'arbour!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 07:18 AM

didn't mean to scathe anybody with my remarks about ploughboys being pretty - everybody to his goat as the french say. similarly (ugly or handsome)cabin boys and people traumatised by the press gang - I apologise for any distress caused and admit that my statement was motivated in the main by malice and was probably without foundation.

Its like slipjigs and hornpipes. I bet if you're a sailor about to tread on a banana skin, they are dead easy to relate to.

they just leave me.......sort of irritated.

Subject: RE: BS: Are We Anti-English
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 08:40 AM

Stone the crows Ted, I thought we could have banked on you for a Tally-Ho-Jolly-Hockey-Sticks sort of 100th? No? Ok then, back to boiling my beef.