BS: Sackings at the Tower

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 02:35 PM

This thread has become yet another personal squabble. I guess it's time to close it, even though I get the feeling that certain parties are trying to manipulate me into closing it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 12:48 PM

"There'll be a press release coming aout about Sidmnouth soon no doubt and you haven't even told us who is headlining!!"

Correct. I haven't.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 12:41 PM

I haven't been to Torquay in years. I'm looking forward to going again.

Haven't found the website yet though. Still I am sure it's on it's way.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 11:50 AM

Four

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 11:34 AM

I have friends living in Torquay I'll ask them to keep their ears open for news - cant wait !
It will be a good excuse to pop down and see them.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 11:28 AM

And if you and folkiedave cannot see a parallel between Moira's case and so much of the shite you two write about me, then I'm afraid that there's not a lot of hope left, is there...

Nope Lizzie, no parallel at all.

I have not once mentioned your sex, never once. And if you are a bloke it would make no difference. I only comment on what you yourself write.

Despite the abuse.

Now why not organising your Torquay Folk Festival. There'll be a press release coming aout about Sidmnouth soon no doubt and you haven't even told us who is headlining!! And I have offered practical help. YOu haven't even said thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:25 AM

"since 2006" = "after 2006". Meaning she also has posted subsequent to the messages you unearthed.

Now can you please just heed your own advice, and leave these people alone:

"whatever happened at the Bellowhead concert is private and purely between the people concerned. It is NOT something to be put on messageboards where speculation can run rife and mischief makers can thwart and demean people to their hearts content. There are now comments coming out which, to me, seem almost like defamation of character."

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:16 AM

This thread needs to be closed.
There is an element of gang warfare appearing now.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:15 AM

Yup, I tried to stop it getting out of hand. And...I stood up for the man concerned, still would, still do.

I also had PMs come my way thanking me for standing up for Gordon, from people who'd known him for decades and knew what a kind and generous person he was.

It's a great shame he's still not helping to Sidmouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:13 AM

Ruth: "I understand the points you're making, but I do think there must be less contentious and problematic descriptors." >>>

OK, Ruth; then "original - sin - evil" don't work for you: they happen to express the concept that I wish to convey when trying to address, conceive, comprehend such phenomena as Auschwitz; Holocaust; AnneFrank [please, Spaw, keep off that bloody drumkit just for once; you have tediously beaten {word deliberately chosen} that particular (un)pleasantry to death]. If you, Ruth, can think of a better verbal explication of such, feel free to use your preferred one. "Original Sin", in, I reiterate, no doctrinal sense, is the only term I can come up with to cover the concomitant concepts to my own verbal satisfaction. You, as I say, will have to choose your own, less 'loaded' nomenclature.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:10 AM

Well, that's strange, because she posted in August 2005, as you can see in the thread link above. So she was here before 2006.

Seems to me your 'friends' manage to get others into a bit of trouble rather easily.

If she was upset, well, just think how the other person felt, although methinks that's not a strong point of those who only see one side of things.

Ho hum...

"I have nothing to apologise to you for, and I never have."

And I'm sure the two men who behaved likewise to your friend felt the same way.

As I said earlier on, physician, heal thyself.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:03 AM

Ohhhh, and look at one Lizzie Cornish said about the very incident in question at the time:

"Kate and Musician Anon.....whatever happened at the Bellowhead concert is private and purely between the people concerned. It is NOT something to be put on messageboards where speculation can run rife and mischief makers can thwart and demean people to their hearts content. There are now comments coming out which, to me, seem almost like defamation of character."

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 09:56 AM

Kate has been on Mudcat since 2006. I can't remember how she signed herself in at the time, but she is my friend, and I remember her e-mailing me and telling me how upset she was that you'd dragged the incident up again. She then posted on Mudcat to set the record straight. She had at that time stopped working for Bellowhead and had stopped running Queen Mab, so her log-in was obviously not the one you have found.

I have nothing to apologise to you for, and I never have.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 09:43 AM

"There have been several threads on which you made reference to this incident. Kate has come to Mudcat on more than one occasion to try and get you to stop defaming her. You were not there. You did not witness the incident. It is, and always was, none of your business, unless your business is hysterical, ill-informed shit-stirring."

And here, is the proof that what you say is a lie, Joan, because in all of Kate's posts here, and these go back to the 'Sidmouth 2005 - the Verdict' thread where that incident was brought up, she NEVER, in any way whatsoever, addressed me personally.


Kate's messages on Mudcat

Thank you.

And yes, I do accept public apologies, even from people who are so determined to drag my name through as much dirt as they can find to throw at me, time after time after time.

Your dirt is of no substance...and of no importance to me.

Go spread your rumours about someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 09:22 AM

"There have been several threads on which you made reference to this incident. Kate has come to Mudcat on more than one occasion to try and get you to stop defaming her. You were not there. You did not witness the incident. It is, and always was, none of your business, unless your business is hysterical, ill-informed shit-stirring."


The person who did the shit-stirring in this matter was the person who started that thread, way back...actually.

Kate has NOT come on Mudcat 'several times' to 'try and get 'me' to stop defaming her'

If she has, then please, print it out here for us all to see...

Sorry, Joan, but I do have a right to my opinion on this matter, and it is also, in a way, relevant to this thread, because of the man/woman/man thing.

And if you and folkiedave cannot see a parallel between Moira's case and so much of the shite you two write about me, then I'm afraid that there's not a lot of hope left, is there...

And I still think, getting BACK to the thread topic, that the end result of this case has been so drastic and hugely damaging for two families, the rest of the Beefeaters, and the lady concerned.   I'm sure that the right person could have smoothed those rocky waters over and it's a crying shame that no-one was able to find that person.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 09:11 AM

"it doesn't of itself, surely, imply or presuppose any necessary metaphysical or spiritual or faith-based component? It is, in not merely the grammatical sense, a simple qualitative adjective [or abstract noun, depending on its syntactical function within its context]."

But I think it does, MtheGM. As a descriptive term, it's too loaded to be useful outside of a spiritual context. While I understand that some of the genetic or chemical predetermined factors which govern behaviour can be termed "original", I'm not sure that adding the words "sin" or "evil" is particularly helpful. If anything, they simply introduce a certain bias against the individuals in question. I understand the points you're making, but I do think there must be less contentious and problematic descriptors.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 09:04 AM

Lizzie. You really are slipping on this folk festival idea. You really need to be getting on with it now. Otherwise it could be a disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:50 AM

There have been several threads on which you made reference to this incident. Kate has come to Mudcat on more than one occasion to try and get you to stop defaming her. You were not there. You did not witness the incident. It is, and always was, none of your business, unless your business is hysterical, ill-informed shit-stirring. Oh, that's right...

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:44 AM

"You have brought this up on several occasions. On more than one occasion Kate came to Mudcat to ask you to stop. You were not there. You did not witness the event. Just leave it."

Sorry, but I was on the thread. You weren't. Kate did not ask me personally. Also, Peter spoke *personally* to Gordon about the incident. He and Gordon got along very well. Sorry if that irks you, but heyho.

The man is marvellous, and without him, there'd be no Sidmouth. Simple fact.


I expect Dave'll go quiet for hours now, whilst he tries to find said thread and quote from it... LOL

Bodhrans, Spaw..Brilliant!!! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:34 AM

You have brought this up on several occasions. On more than one occasion Kate came to Mudcat to ask you to stop. You were not there. You did not witness the event. Just leave it.

Why not focus on the guest list for Torquay Folk Week? Are you ready to announce your headliners yet? Maybe you could devote a special spot to it on your radio programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:29 AM

Obviously the drum kits are less than what is needed here..........................HMMMMMM.....................okay then....................... I see we just got in a shipment of AF bodhrans for those requiring something different......and gawd knows this group here needs something.............Ya' know I think I'll keep one myself so any of you who want to can stretch my skin and play with my tipper...............................


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:23 AM

"Lizzie, I know Kate. She specifically came onto Mudcat and asked YOU to stop spreading your version of events. It is innacurate and defamatory. Stop it now."


Then find the thread, Joan. You'll see that Kate came on and asked 'generally' for the whole matter to be laid to rest.

Sadly, she came on very late, and the damage had been done. I'd have had far more respect for her if she'd come on straight away, because that thread should never have been started in the first place. I've no idea who started it, but obviously it had to be someone who knew Bellowhead.

She, at no time, asked *me* personally to stop.

I think she came on shortly after I'd said that I was losing my respect for Bellowhead and their manager....

I do not need your permission to talk, nor to put my opinions down. You do not own Mudcat, nor Sidmouth Folk Week, nor the English Folk World, so I'd rather you stopped behaving as a Folk Dictator, because I've been surrounded by them for way too long.

Thank you.

And again, I wonder if Moira had half as much to put up with as I so often do in here, from the very folks who are defending what happened to Moira?   

If she didn't, and her abuse was far less than many of the things that are said in here to me and about me, then I think it's terrible that two families have now lost their homes and income over this.

No, she should not have been made to feel unwanted, or had nasty things said about her or to her, if that's what happened, but I still think that the end result is not a happy one for anyone and I doubt that even Moira is happy with it, because it must weigh heavily on her mind.

All a very sad and sorry state of affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:07 AM

You cross into Evil when you decide, of your own free will, to do evil things, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:52 AM

But surely, Ruth, to take your three donnés; social, psychological, brain chemistry — you present them as if they were full equivalents: BUT, I would urge, no such thing.

The social is, as it were externally induced; but the other two, internally — so to describe them as 'original' doesn't seem to me an unreasonable distortion of the term[s]. The fact that their causes may be, in your word, 'determinate' does not make them any the less - to find a cognate but perhaps less loaded word - intrinsic. & if they lead in their turn to any particularly antisocial manifestations, then 'evil' seems a perfectly reasonable adjective to use of their effects — it doesn't of itself, surely, imply or presuppose any necessary metaphysical or spiritual or faith-based component? It is, in not merely the grammatical sense, a simple qualitative adjective [or abstract noun, depending on its syntactical function within its context].

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:38 AM

"I know, Ruth; but just now & again one comes across an inexplicably bad person [I saw it in my years of teaching, e.g.] where one just has to fall back on the concept."

See, i find that very hard to reconcile with. There are so many factors that will determine behaviour: social, psychological, brain chemistry. These things all have determinate roots and causes.

"Evil" points to something intangible and without cause; something spiritual. To believe in evil, you have to have a spirituality. I can't make myself believe in anything spiritual, so consequently can't believe that there is a "badness" in the world, and that some people are born with it and some aren't. It's all chemicals and conditioning, in my opinion. If you factor "evil" into the eqiuation, it's too easy for society to write off certain members as irredeemable, because they are fundamentally "bad".

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:20 AM

Kendall, ............... only if he has a head start.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:15 AM

Depends on the size of the stick used

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Smedley
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:09 AM

I'm sure the sackings weren't the 'first resort' - those accused of bullying etcetera would have had warnings before this final step was taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: kendall
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:08 AM

Is it still legal in England for a man to beat his wife?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:05 AM

"I'm always puzzled as to why no other person is treated in this obsessive and analytical way."

That is the problem Lizzie - you just don't get it do you?

But it has been explained on a number of occasions and you never got it then. So there is no reason to think you will now.<<<<<



Oh, yes, I get it, Dave. I get it very well. I also get you very well...

And, I think that it's very sad that this whole case, going back to Moria and The Tower, couldn't have been settled in some other way, other than two people having to lose their jobs AND their homes as well.   It seems crazy that no other way through could have been found..

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:50 AM

I was in Lille three weeks ago and used their metro a lot. I have never been offered so many seats ever, anywhere. I felt quite old!!

Generally I give up my seat!!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:41 AM

I was the one who started this bit of the drift going in describing my dilemma re young ladies offering a male oldie [me] a seat on the Tube: & I decline to apologise for my inability to accept in such circs, perverse in its quaintness &/or masochism as it might appear to all of you lovely young people. Just my early conditioning which was right at the time — & I consider remains so.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:35 AM

excuse the thread drift but - in reply to bubblyrat's earlier post

Smedly used the phrase
'your gender differentiation in accepting/refusing a seat seems at best quaint & at worst masochistic'

Apart from the fact I would agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly I also feel that the word 'gender' was the best word to use in this context as it refers to a role
'determined by social interaction, exchange, and absorption of peer, familial, and larger cultural values that determine identity and affiliation.'
and not simply 'an individuals physical anatomy – genitalia, facial hair, body structure and composition. i.e. the biological characteristics that separate male from female.'

I don't see any confusion in Smedley's use of words - just the opposite in fact!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:32 AM

I know, Ruth; but just now & again one comes across an inexplicably bad person [I saw it in my years of teaching, e.g.] where one just has to fall back on the concept. I don't urge this dogmatically — that's just how it seems to me. I think, mind, to take up your mode of expression, that 'evil', as a CONCEPT, is inescapable.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:28 AM

MtheGM: Original sin only has to exist if you believe in the concept of evil, and some people being born evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:24 AM

As a slight sidetrack, Emma — I have absolutely no religion, but it seems to me that the concept of 'original sin', used non-doctrinally, makes a lot of sense: about the only 'religous'formulation that does it for me. Evil does exist, and is a real puzzler; but it must come from somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:46 AM

'And thanks, Emma, but I'm well aware of how some women were once treated'

Well actually, as I believe I pointed out, it was how ALL women were treated prior to the fight for equality and the freedom from being 'protected' from making life decisions by a paternalistic society.
It might have saved some bandwith if you posted as though you were aware of some historical context instead of 'I don't know any men who would want to do that'


"That's my point. You can't blame ALL men for the few bad ones."

Well I don't Lizzie - perhaps you can demonstrate where I have ever done that?
I was brought up in the principle expressed in religious terms as 'loving the sinner not the sin' but not in the concept of 'original sin'

Fortunately, I also don't regard all women on the basis of some of the ill informed and wilfully misleading things you have posted here either.


"so I know that not all men are evil little bastards, as some women still like to think of them...Thank you"

It does seem to me Lizzie that you are the only person who keeps bringing this idea up, as far as I can see the women posting here are all in perfectly satisfactory relationships with men they respect and who respect them as individuals NOT because they were conditioned to behave in certain ways to 'ladies'

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:44 AM

I'm always puzzled as to why no other person is treated in this obsessive and analytical way.

That is the problem Lizzie - you just don't get it do you?

But it has been explained on a number of occasions and you never got it then. So there is no reason to think you will now.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:43 AM

Lizzie, I know Kate. She specifically came onto Mudcat and asked YOU to stop spreading your version of events. It is innacurate and defamatory. Stop it now.

You have never been involved in the festival. All of your information is based on hearsay, speculation and rumour. You have, and have never had, any authority to speak about any internal matters that ever took place with regard to Sidmouth Folk Week because you, personally, have never been involved in the event, except as a customer. So please stop spreading nasty rumours and outright lies, and stick to making Torquay Folk Week a success. How's it coming, by the way? Where can I get my tickets?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:30 AM

"You do not know what happened because you were not there. She has actually come on line in the past to challenge your version of events and to ask you to stop spreading it. So stop it. You do not have any authority to speak about anything that happened at that time because you were not directly involved with the festival and never have been."


Er, actually, she didn't ask *me*, at all, nor refer to me in any way whatsoever. I think you'll find it was actually Diane she was referring to, as she'd taken off on one of her 'all men are misogynists' rants...and was dragging Gordon further and further down.

And in case you've forgotten, my husband was one of the Directors at the time, so I was very aware of what happened and the fall out of how one person was treated afterwards.

Quite frankly, imo, it stank!

And it stank because one woman threw a wobbly over something that was said at the height of an incredibly stressful moment, during an incredibly stressful week when nobody knew what the outcome of Sidmouth Folk Week would be.

YOUR festival would have had NOT outcome had it not been for that one man who put one helluva lot of money....and love....into a festival he's loved all his life, and he wanted his new grandson to enjoy that festival too, in his later years. He ensured, with his incredibly generous backing that that would happen.

Don't tell me, in (imo) a highly bullying manner, what I can or cannot write about,Joan, nor what I do and do not know.

Thank you.

And, I can assure you that I was doing my own part for quite a few of the artists involved in that first Folk Week, not that you'd know about that of course, because I was doing it through peter...but heyho....

I do not have to explain, nor justify myself to any of you. I do what I do. This is not a Folk Court of Law (sorry to tell you that, Dave) and I'm always puzzled as to why no other person is treated in this obsessive and analytical way.

I wrote 15,000 words about Siddy which were enjoyed by many people. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but I think it's probably best to just get over it...and move on....Sidmouth is yours now, it is nothing to do with me any longer.

And don't forget, Show of Hands have a new CD out, so I'm really looking forward to hearing your thoughts about it soon.


And now, back to Moira and The Tower..

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:29 AM

I think it is because SEX is something they use to carry coal in Cheltenham and people are distinguishing between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: bubblyrat
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:25 AM

A lot of you seem to be confusing the words "gender" and "sex". Yes, I know that the word "gender" has become,for some extraordinary reason,popular for describing a person's SEX, but that doesn't make it right and proper . Go on --be different !! Refer to peoples' sex, as it does on Birth Certificates,and leave GENDER to grammarians ! Unless the word SEX is un-feminist, or "dirty",or something ? Beats me !

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:13 AM

just a silence, as you all wanted

Really? Having left Mudcat on a number of occasions, and promised to leave this thread why do I not believe you.

I'll leave you to add that to your notes, and pull it all apart too.

Since you were happy to complain that people were not getting involved in folk music because you left the BBC board, perhaps you would like to try and explain the upsurge of interest. I think the two are connected. Don't you think we should be told?

That'll do for starters. Then we'll move on to the Torquay Folk Festival.

I am genuinely interested how you are getting on. Should I mention it on my radio show yet? Happy to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 04:56 AM

And Ralph McTell sold out the Artrix in Bromsgrove, and Whalebone filled Feckenham Village Hall. And you can never get tickets for Christy Moore at the Symphone Hall in Birmingham even if you were to strip naked and run up and down New Street screaming 'gimme a ticket' which I may actually do next year !!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 04:48 AM

"Ah, but I was helping....in the background....very much so..."

What, by writing endless streams of crap on the internet? By engaging in pitched battles with people who didn't have the "right attitiude" and telling them not to come to the festival (and consequently not buy tickets and contribute vital income) if they couldn't see it your way? I've seen those messages, Lizzie. You never had any right to be speaking on Sidmouth's behalf, and you did it more potential damage with your endless confrontations and attempts to put off the "moaning minnies" who might actually have bought tickets than any possible good that might have come of your dubious "support".

"I'll never write another word about that festival again, so you can all rest easy...No more 15,000 words..."

Thank god for that. Please stick to it.


"Who have I 'defamed'....?"

Bellowhead's ex-manager, for a start. You do not know what happened because you were not there. She has actually come on line in the past to challenge your version of events and to ask you to stop spreading it. So stop it. You do not have any authority to speak about anything that happened at that time because you were not directly involved with the festival and never have been.

As I say, when help was needed, you offered none. None. So please in future channel all the wonderful practical skills you acquired in writing about Sidmouth on messageboards to help you focus on Torquay Folk Week. What are the dates? Have you got your headliners in place yet? Have you applied for your licencing and got all your insurance together? What about the company providing your infrastructure - are they contracted yet? Have you done your H&S and Risk Assessments for those concerts in the caves you were so excited about? Have you booked your first adverts yet? There are some important print deadlines coming up - have you got them in your diary? These are all things I would try to do before Christmas, if I were you.

Good luck!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 04:28 AM

"But one thing I do know: when the festival really needed people down in Sidmouth to offer practical help, such as leafletting and flyering etc, or stuffing the proverbial envelopes, or helping to drum up local sponsorship, you never lifted a finger. Not one. So much for the Sidmouth's loudest "champion".


Ah, but I was helping....in the background....very much so...

Yup, I once was Siddy's Champion, but I've passed that on to you, as a special treat. I'll never write another word about that festival again, so you can all rest easy...No more 15,000 words to inspire and delight...just a silence, as you all wanted.

Who have I 'defamed'....?

Vi's fine, thanks, Dave. She has her handles, which were given to her by a wellwisher, free of charge. Torbay Care Trust are still dealing with me...and I with them. And many local people wrote in, more offering handles, one person even sending money to Vi anonymously, with a very sweet note......It restored her faith that there are some people out there who still care...

And now, Dave...I'll leave you to add that to your notes, and pull it all apart too.

And thanks, Emma, but I'm well aware of how some women were once treated. Luckily, I was raised by a man who protected and loved the women in his life and who treated all women as ladies, called them all ladies...so I know that not all men are evil little bastards, as some women still like to think of them...Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:40 PM

Oh, and Dave, you may have not noticed, but I rarely write about the music that I love any longer.   I rarely even go into the music section. If that makes you feel that you've 'won' something, then it just shows me what a sad situation the English folk world is in, because to feel some sort of victory has been scored by getting people NOT to write about the music is very sad indeed....and it explains totally why so many good people walk right away from English folk music.

Actually Lizzie there is a huge revival going on at the moment. I thought that was the inspiration for you organising a festival in Torquay? How is that going? And the radio programme? How is that coming along? I do not know any good people who have walked away from english folk music, on the other hand I know a lot of people coming into it.

In the past couple of weeks I have attended packed concerts by Bella Hardy and Spiers and Boden and been to four packed out traditional carol events. I understand the Unthanks concert in Sheffield Memorial Hall last night did well but I cannot comment for certain.

Kerfuffle's latest tour is selling tickets hand over fist and on December 19th in Sheffield Martin Simpson and Roy Bailey and Donald Grant sold out a 950 seater venue as the tickets went on sale. (Discovered Donald Grant yet?)

Most folk festivals last year ran on budget and even though it was a difficult year most survived.

BBC are showing a programme about Bellowhead, filmed a few days ago who along with the Unthanks have been on Jools Holland. Stuart McConie plays a lot of English folk music. Community radio stations are filling the gaps the BBC leaves.

Radio 2 is devoting a day to Pete Seeger to celebrate his 90th birthday and they are also doing a series of four programmes on traditional carols on December 21st-24th.

Looks like you leaving has rather improved things to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1 - PM
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:10 PM

I'm outta here...

Sorry I thought you meant that! Clearly you didn't. Lizzie writes things she doesn't mean. There's news.

And I'll let you know how I'm getting on with South West Water soon...I spoke to one of their executives the other day...Yeesh! Now THAT was a phone call and a half!

You will let us know?

One thing is for absolute certainty. You haven't let us know about your own mother-in-law, (what did happen to Vi? you have been asked loads of times); the people who were searched in Boots; the national strike you were going to organise; The National Trust you were going to sort out; to the folk festival, the radio show, and countless other episodes which not only have we forgotten but you have too.

Will you tell us why this one should be any different?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:29 PM

"However I don't expect to be 'protected' from owning and controlling my own property, choosing a partner, be prevented from seeing my own children should he so decide and the myriad of other things women were 'protected' from by men in your mythical Golden Age"

"I don't know any men who would want to do that. That's my point. You can't blame ALL men for the few bad ones."

Lizzie I'm not talking about a few 'bad' folks here I'm describing the lot of all 'protected' women in the UK before the end of the 19thC


Sorry for the thread drift and lack of drums but for Lizzie's information and to put the ongoing movement for equality in work, education etc into perspective......


Traditionally, women lost all rights to own property or exercise contract rights after marriage; before marriage, such rights usually belonged not to the woman, but to her father.

Prior to the Married Women's Property Act 1884 married women were classed as 'femmes covert' and a woman's personal property was transferred automatically to her husband on marriage

During their 'coverture' women had no legal testamentary rights at all in relation to real estate. Any personal property of a woman which she had before the marriage, or acquired after the marriage, became her husband's absolutely, and as such, he had the right to leave it by will.
Only with her husband's permission could a wife make a will leaving personal property - even if it had been hers before her marriage. Moreover, his consent only applied to a particular will and this consent had to be strictly proved. His consent could be revoked even after her death. The only exception to this was her right to make a will leaving her 'paraphernalia' - clothing and personal ornaments.

Of course anyone familiar with Jane Austin like yourself would have come across this situation in literature.

The accepted reasoning was that the career for women was marriage.

"To get ready for courtship and marriage a girl was groomed like a racehorse, the qualities a young Victorian gentlewoman needed, were to be innocent, virtuous, biddable, dutiful and be ignorant of intellectual opinion.

Whether married or single all Victorian gentlewomen were expected to be weak and helpless, a fragile delicate flower incapable of making decisions beyond selecting the menu"

During this era if a wife separated from her husband she had no rights of access to see her children whatever the cause of the separation
A divorced woman had no chance of acceptance in society again.

The first wave of feminism focused on education, employment and marital law; one of the causes they vigorously pursued became the Married Women's Property Committee of 1855 they collected 26,000 signatures to change the law for all women married or single.

Another example of 'some women wanting to get their way'

As always some women were not always supportive of each other's efforts, and often distanced themselves from these pioneer feminists. but nevertheless reaped the benefits of the Married Women's Property Act 1884 as you now have the right to your children Lizzie!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 02:53 PM

Lizzie, everything you have posted above veers between gross distortion and downright lies. You have once again defamed people you don't know concerning incidents you never witnessed and that were absolutely nothing to do with you, based on third party information and hearsay. It's a bit of a pattern.

But I am not going to hand you any more opportunities to damage the festival, because you've done enough of that already with your diatribes and rants over the years. But one thing I do know: when the festival really needed people down in Sidmouth to offer practical help, such as leafletting and flyering etc, or stuffing the proverbial envelopes, or helping to drum up local sponsorship, you never lifted a finger. Not one. So much for the Sidmouth's loudest "champion".


Do keep us posted with news about Torquay Folk Week, and your radio programme, and all those other things you're going to prove you can do so much better than the rest of us, once you manage to tear yourself away from your computer screen.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 02:51 PM

You know, people. I realy do think it is time we all gave up and got a drum roll from Spaw. Mind you, I prefer a fig roll and maybe the blues fans out there may be happier with a jelly roll but a plain old drum one will do for me. Got any spare, spaw?

After all arguing with someone who can always see the other persons point of view, leaves when they say they are going to, never resorts to foul language or bullying and only ever posts on BS threads is no fun. I can see now that the world is run completely by rabid feminists who would cut the tackle off every man in the blink of an eye. Moira obviouly deserved to be picked on, simply because she is a friend of Joan. The whole country has gone to the dogs since those good old days when we all sang around the piano to the sound of German doodlebugs and all music is folk music. Apart from folk music. Which is under the control of Shturmbanhfuhrer Kecil Sharpe It all makes sense now!

My brain hurts...

DeG