BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 08:26 AM

I read an article somewhere that suggesting that the UK was predominantly 'apatheiest'. If someone is not religious why bother thinking about it from a personal perspective ?

It does not rule out believing in both a secular state and religious tolerance.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 08:11 AM

Dave, if someone says they are a Christian but do not believe, they are not describing themselves accurately.

You mentioned nothing about people describing themselves accurately. You asked how anyone can be a Christian and not believe in God. I answered. You did not like the answer so you made up some of the things I had said. Wriggle, wriggle, squirm, squirm indeed. You need to define what you mean by christian I believe and if that includes following the christian tenet of attending church on Sunday then, as Raggy has said, only 2% of those who described themselves as christian can be said to be true christians.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 08:10 AM

The same, I would think, as most of the Christians ..... sweet Fanny Adams.

It still doesn't alter the fact that there are just 2% of the entire population who are practising Christians.

I know you like statistics so here we go:

The VAST majority of so-called Christians just can't be bothered.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 08:03 AM


I would think there is a far higher percentage of practising atheists than there are practising Christians. But there again, like you, I have no evidence for that statement.

You have no evidence.
I have the hard evidence of the census and a YouGov survey.
Also your report that, "No religion: 14.1m    (25%, up 10% from 2001)"

What does a "practising atheist" do Raggy?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:56 AM

I would think there is a far higher percentage of practising atheists than there are practising Christians. But there again, like you, I have no evidence for that statement.

Remember professor you are in a minority of just 2%, that's right just 2% of the entire UK population are god botherers like yourself.

Must make you proud.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:51 AM

Raggy,
Can you provide any evidence or justifications for your statement that
"Believers in God mostly do not bother to go to church. Why should they?"

Yes.
The numbers who say they believe in God in census and surveys far exceed those who say they attend church.

Dave, if someone says they are a Christian but do not believe, they are not describing themselves accurately.
We do not have windows into people's souls, so we must judge them by what they say.
That is the point of censuses and polls.
That is the only hard evidence that we have.
It says atheists are a minority.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:43 AM

Your question Keith Dave, please explain how anyone can be a Christian and not believe in God.

My reply I know people who class themselves as christians on official documentation, such as the census, because that is what they were brought up as. Yet they no longer believe in god. I did myself for some time. If you are using the census as an official guide to what religion people are remember that many of them also said they were jedi.

Your response You people choose to believe that a significant number of people would lie on the census about believing or not believing in God, because you do not like the answer.

Who are 'you people'? I assume that includes me? Yes? In which case where did I say a 'significant number' or that they lied? I said I know people, which I do, who put christian because it is what the had always done. No significant numbers, no lies. A few people, including me, for whom old habits die hard.

I answered your question honestly and to the best of my knowledge. If there was anyone who did not like that answer, that was you Keith. You just cannot stand to be proved wrong in anything and will do anything in your power, including changing peoples words (read: lie) to try and 'win'. Sad really but perfectly in character.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:26 AM

Can you provide any evidence or justifications for your statement that
"Believers in God mostly do not bother to go to church. Why should they?"

Three of my friends, two vicars and a priest all express sorrow that their congregations are diminishing.

As Dave would no doubt say: wriggle, wriggle, squirm, squirm.

The figures are there for all to see. Just 2% (and falling) of the entire population are practising Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:12 AM

Thanks for repeating all that irrelevant info on church attendance Raggy.
Believers in God mostly do not bother to go to church.
Why should they?

I have made no claims about church attendance and just reported the census and survey results that show non-believers to be a minority.

As you yourself informed us Raggy
"No religion: 14.1m    (25%, up 10% from 2001)"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:02 AM

98% of people in the UK chose not to go to church at Easter.

Ninety Eight percent of the entire population, of whom approx 50% "claim" to be Christian, couldn't be bothered to climb out of their pit to go and worship.

Which bit of that do you not comprehend.

You are in a minority of just 2% of the ENTIRE population.

I doesn't bother me in the slightest if you want to go to church but please do not make out that Britain is a Christian country the figures do not back you up.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: BrendanB
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 07:02 AM

The claim that Britain is a Christian country is not based on the idea that people are Christians but upon the fact that the social and moral principles upon which British society is based, drew upon primarily Christian traditions. Obviously these have evolved over time, it could be argued that the secular, liberal tradition that has its roots in the Enlightenment has drawn society away from its Christian roots although some basic values remain.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 06:50 AM

You people choose to believe that a significant number of people would lie on the census about believing or not believing in God, because you do not like the answer.
They had the choice to say "no religion" and only a minority selected that.

This YouGov poll asked different questions but showed the same picture.
Only 40% said "not religious at all."
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/xbqfnxhcct/YG-Archive-140423-Religion.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM

"first you need to demonstrate that the details can,t be harmonised"

The onus is always on everyone else to prove pete wrong, never the other way around.

As for Britain being a Christian country, it is in name only. It's hardly very Christian in it's compassionate approach to the world. Actions speak louder than words.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 06:07 AM

As Dave has indicated many people put on paper that they are Christians. It's an easy option when many, like myself, were christened before they had a choice in the matter.

However of 33.2 million who claim to be Christians only 1.3 million could be bothered (Easter 2013) to attend a church on one of the biggest days in the church calendar. Just 4% ...... 96% rolled over and had another hours kip. Not very religious in my book.

If you take that 1.3 million who did attend church on a major feast day as part of the whole population of the UK you find that just 2% (two)of the population are practising Christians which means that 98% of the population are not.

2% is a very small minority and not one that can realistically be used to maintain that Britain is a Christian country.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 05:51 AM

I know people who class themselves as christians on official documentation, such as the census, because that is what they were brought up as. Yet they no longer believe in god. I did myself for some time. If you are using the census as an official guide to what religion people are remember that many of them also said they were jedi.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 05:28 AM

Dave, please explain how anyone can be a Christian and not believe in God.

Raggy, thanks for your irrelevant info. on church attendance.
Here is something more relevant you posted earlier.
"No religion: 14.1m    (25%, up 10% from 2001)"

Musket, your survey was by an atheist organisation.
They counted believers who were not religious as atheists.
Believers are not atheists.
The census and independent surveys show atheists are a minority.

Steve, again sorry for confusing your posts with Musket's.
You would want to distance yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 04:51 AM

Written histories were abundant, and, if we are to believe what the New Testament tells
us, Jesus made quite a stir, being a pain to the Romans as well as to the religious establishment of the time. You'd have thought that Herod's slaughtering of babies, those alleged miracles, that mass meeting on the Mount and the political public execution might have provoked the odd mention of Jesus somewhere, no? Dismissing his alleged impact as a minor cult seems a stretch to me.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 04:17 AM

As I walked past our local Catholic church, yesterday (Easter Sunday), I noticed that several of the 'sharing-n-caring' congregation had parked their cars on the opposite pavement so that mothers with prams and elderly people had to walk in the road in order to get past. Meanwhile the church itself sits in the midst of a vast desert of asphalt that doesn't seem to get used for anything (thank you for your 'creation', Lord, you don't mind if we cover our bit of it over with a life-supressing layer, do you?).

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 03:36 AM

I hope my great great great great great great great great great great great great grandson doesn't worship at the church of Bilbo the father, Frodo the son and Gandalf the holy ghost!

If you don't eat your greens the orcs will take you to Mordor!

Although judging by history, it's either that or the temple of Justin Beiber.

If you look at how the Christian cult is dropping off here, and how education is the best way to combat superstition and the atrocities done in its name in all cults, I reckon we are two generations from recalling when people actually believed fairy stories, and in backwaters of Dumbfuckistan. the middle east and Africa still do.

It would be a pity because a comfort blanket is a comfort blanket but their interference in the lives of others is totally out of step with reality.

Mrs Musket told me she counted 37 filling the local pews from her vantage point in the ringing chamber. Seven up on normally. Must be Easter....

Perhaps normal people would be less dismissive if they took a leaf out of the Maori book. I was delighted to have a guide at one of their cultural centres keep saying "we traditionally believe" rather than assert nonsense as something more than dreamt up fairy stories.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 03:13 AM

"Either the thousands of contemporary writers were all part of a big conspiracy, or else the case for the existence of Jesus is thereby seriously weakened."

Or they had never heard of a minor, local, cult that did not make ground until a few decades later. After people had been travelling around spreading a tale in places where no-one would have read about it in any case.

A minor cult that may have taken advantage of written histories being less common that now to make up a few things.

Not that written histories prevent myths gaining ground.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 07:32 PM

Gosh, one does have to be patient. Of course there were references to Jesus well after he was supposed to have lived. The early Christian proselytisers were scrawling their tendentious stuff all over the place and that was going to be picked up in subsequent centuries by all and sundry. Robin Hood didn't exist but that doesn't stop people getting all romanticated about him as the centuries unroll. The point is that no-one outside those early Christian circles ever gave Jesus even the teensiest mention. Either the thousands of contemporary writers were all part of a big conspiracy, or else the case for the existence of Jesus is thereby seriously weakened. Take your pick.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 06:31 PM

"Shimrod, has already confessed that he can not do this, as he is not a biologist, and his own field is irrelevant to evolution."

I have not "confessed" to anything!! I have stated as a FACT that I am not a biologist (although I am an amateur botanist - how many flowering plants, ferns, mosses and liverworts can you recognise and name, pete?). That is NOT a "confession" or an "admission", it is a plain statement of FACT. It is also a FACT that I have a scientific background and can follow a scientific argument. I also have a sceptical and enquiring mind and can recognise bullshit when I encounter it!

You, on the other hand, pete, seem to have saddled yourself with a pretty weird and rigid belief system, based on the rather chaotic and equivocal ramblings in an old book and it is quite obvious, in everything you post, that you know NOTHING about ANY scientific subject, let alone biology!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 06:23 PM

Yes, but relevant additions. Which reminded me of another point I missed. The choosing of what to accept and what to leave out, was largely a question of what was the church at the time accepting as authoritative. There was some debate though, and I think Constantine acted a bit like an umpire !

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 05:58 PM

Crossed with Pete, that last post was thoughts provoked reading Steve Shaw's posts.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 05:53 PM

The lack of contemporary references to Jesus may not mean much either way. It could be that it was politically expedient to write him out of history and that the gospels are like a first century Wikileaks.

On the other hand giving Pontius Pilate a namecheck in the Nicene creed, to give a link to recorded history, could be good bit of creative writing at a time when they were picking and choosing which bits to put in the bible.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 05:51 PM

Please read a bit more carefully Steve. My post did not claim the quotes were at the same time as Christs life, but that with the spread of the faith, secular sources made mention of him. I am agreeing that there is not at present secular record of him, but IMO, the quotes a few decades after , confirm his existence and increasing influence, so as to then warrant mention from the secular and political angle.      As to the gospels giving different versions, first you need to demonstrate that the details can,t be harmonised . In fact there have been several harmonies of the gospels. Secondly, if they were in total detailed agreement you would claim collusion. Thirdly, most any event, would be remembered in different detail by different people. Fourthly, the Pauline letters are even earlier than the gospels. Fifth, were it not for the a priori rejection of miracle and supernatural, they would be in the same ball park of historical record as any other historical writing. The beginning of Luke, for example, makes it clear that he was setting out to outline carefully from witnesses the details of his life.                               The usual suspects claiming that I refuse to differentiate between belief and evidence , need only demonstrate that the data can only support their position, to prove that their position is not a belief. Shimrod, has already confessed that he can not do this, as he is not a biologist, and his own field is irrelevant to evolution. ( in fact, other than evolution itself, all of science can get along just fine without that storytelling ) they attempt to intimidate me by their science credentials, but appeal to authority...theirs or others....is irrelevant. What matters is the validity of the argument........always assuming an argument is made.....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 04:10 PM

On easter sunday 2013 just 1.3 million of the supposed 33.2 million christians in the UK attended a service at their church.

Just 4% of so called Christians could be bothered to get out of bed to venerate their god. By my calculations that means 96% of christians are not very christian.

Source BBC Website

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:37 PM

I didn't say "live with it" either. Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:21 PM

All Christians, religious or not, believe in God.

No they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:02 PM

Atheist humanists? I thought such polls found people at random.

Assuming they are alive, gave their opinions recently and are eminent..

😹

Read the article again. It was complaining about loaded questions that presume in the census. Further polls were in order to see the reality.

The reality is that the majority of people are rational, not deluded and don't need comfort blankets nor feel the need for sanctimonious "my shit doesn't stink as badly as yours.". Most people had reasonable science teachers at school and the RE nonsense just slipped away. Most people leave superstition to their granny.

On another thread, you are bemoaning the callous indifference to human life by religious people. Hypocritical lunatic.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:00 PM

This'll solve it for serious infinity seekers.

Infinity's too short to miss a laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 02:40 PM

Not 'any pedant': only an exceptionally boring one...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 02:36 PM

Any pedant will tell you that ∞ to the power of n is still just ∞.

Whatever you think about their belief, they tell the pollsters that they do believe in God.
That makes them believers not atheists, and they are a majority.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 02:07 PM

...& I, the obsessive taxonomist and 'legendary pedant' would still love to know where bloody Clarkson has gone, and what this thread is really supposed to be on about anyway -- as if we hadn't been thru all this stuff ∞ to the power of n times already......

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 02:03 PM

As the late Prof C E M Joad would have said, Keith, it depends what you mean by these "People who believe in God" whom you claim to be a majority. I suspect most of them neither believe nor disbelieve all the time, & that the majority of this majority only 'believe in God' because they really can't be bothered not to.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 01:21 PM

Sorry Steve.
That should have been to Musket of course.

Musket, your link is to a survey by atheist humanists.
They twist the findings by counting people who say they are "not religious" as atheists even if they believe in God.

People who believe in God are a majority in this country and every other as independent surveys all show.
Disbelievers are a minority.
As Steve said, "live with it."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 12:21 PM

Steve,
The vast majority of people, including many who call themselves Christian don't believe in God.

Completely untrue and made up.

Well, whoever "made it up", it wasn't me. Why don't you be a bit more careful, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 12:15 PM

Guest.#, are you the person who once told us that pete was "sincere"?

Like several others above, I think that pete is very rude too. He doesn't listen and he pontificates and lectures us about things that he obviously doesn't understand.He wilfully refuses to acknowledge the difference between 'belief' and 'evidence' for a start! As Stu put it so aptly above:

" ... pete has repeatedly called me and my colleagues liars and manipulators of information who are working to some mysterious agenda... His posts are riddled with falsehoods and fallacies and it's impossible to know where to start with him sometimes."

It would also appear that he is often just mindlessly re-gurgitating stuff that he's read on some creationist website and it is quite obvious, from the rubbish that he spouts over and over again, that he has allowed himself to be brainwashed by these fools, knaves and charlatans.

I have to admit that I've never come across anyone quite so ignorant, rude and obtuse - and I've met some plonkers in my time!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 11:26 AM

Thank you, Stu.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 11:09 AM

"We've never had a cross word because it's very difficult to dislike someone who chooses not to be rude."

Well, I'm chuffed that pete isn't rude to you, but he has been to me and I assert my right to defend my position. I care a lot about what I do, and it matters.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 10:48 AM

Keith said, "All Christians do believe in God.."

Nope. Christians believe Christ IS God. There is a difference.

***********************

Musket, you wrote, 'stop assuming everybody being rude back at him [pete] are name calling',

I don't assume people are name calling. But I agree with you on the rude part.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 10:31 AM

Fast typing on a phone with spellchecker off and not proof reading..

Not as bad as your sins though Keith...

No. Not all people comfortable with being called Christians believe in God. You can't have it all ways.

This was rather telling..

So much for Keith's assertion

#. pete is exceedingly rude. Dishonesty and peddling lies, brainwashing children and calling science wrong when he doesn't even understand the subject aren't exactly civil words. Christ on a bike, if you can't see that, stop assuming everybody being rude back at him are name calling.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 10:25 AM

Keith said, "Sorry #, but you are not a Christian or a Catholic.
You are an ex-Christian."

Tell that to the Catholic church. I'm already convinced.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 10:15 AM

Crap. I clicked something I shouldn't have. To continue very briefly:

Similarly, Mendeleev's work on the Periodic Table represents (to me) a brilliant creation from a keen mind. If someone chooses to say god designed it, ok. I choose to give credit to Dmitri Mendeleev. No skin off my nose if someone thinks I'm wrong about that.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 10:06 AM

Stu, I have never received any vitriol from pete. Pete knows where I stand on 'religious' matters and I know where he stands and years ago we agreed to disagree. We've never had a cross word because it's very difficult to dislike someone who chooses not to be rude.

In areas of belief and science there are two camps. I'm in the science camp, but I don't perceive those people in the belief camp to be my enemies. I think they are misguided, something I figure they also think of me. C'est la vie.

As to name-calling, there is altogether too much of that on this site. Just because I think someone is foolish doesn't give me license to call that person a fool. How people think they can further discussion or debate with bad manners is beyond me, but a read through the god/no/god/Darwin part of this thread will show that there's enough blame to give most of us a doggie bag of remarks as keepsakes.

Someone always hits someone else first. Both the religious and scientific people here should be able to see that.

If the topic is Gregor Mendel, there will necessarily be mention of both his religious bent and his studies that laid down the foundation for our understanding of heredity. Similar

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 09:27 AM

Sorry #, but you are not a Christian or a Catholic.
You are an ex-Christian.

Musket,
All Christians beleive (sic)in God? A hell of a lot of vicars and one celebrated bishop of Durham would take issue with you over that one.

No they would not.
All Christians do believe in God.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 09:07 AM

Jeremy Clarkson is part of the Holy Trinity of middle class not-quite-alpha-male dickswingers though, so the religious stuff is relevant.

Clarkson - Mother Mary/God
Hammond - the baby Jesus who needs to stay latched to Clarkson's tit for his career to survive.
May - the holy ghost and is utterly transparent too.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 09:06 AM

His statement is not only silly, but fits with Cameron' divisive shit today that we are a Christian country. If you apply both fools and their statements, you piss yourself laughing.

If however you are a member of a different religion, you feel alienated in your own country. Normal people can laugh it off,but religious people are by definition gullible and weak minded and such nasty talk is aimed at them as much as at rational people.

Cameron sinks low yet again. There again, his tactics work whilst ever the likes of Keith have a vote. Superstitious people will be impressed with the speech I'm sure.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 08:20 AM

Keith said "All Christians, religious or not, believe in God."

Nope. I am by definition a Catholic Christian: the Catholic definition, the census definition and possibly your definition. However, I have become an atheist. I haven't been a Christian for years. Nor have I ever been religious.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 08:04 AM

Has the pathetic boorish twat gone?

He hasn't posted since 06.25AM (in wherever the Mudcat time is, somewhere abroad obviously.)

Happy Easter to all indeed. Whether you be in the pub or nailed to a tree, enjoy.