Carlwarker

Sorry to be facetious, but, I guess it depends upon which side of the bed ‘Flunkett’ gets out on. Seriously, I don’t know, but I think that (like so much these days) it’s up to Brussels. It’s about time Dictator Bliar gave us a referendum.

'Gotcha this time - April Fool'

‘In his ruling Wednesday on whether the Canadian record industry could force Internet service providers to identify digital music-swappers, Federal Court judge Konrad von Finckenstein didn't just poke a few holes in the industry's legal case – he blew it completely out of the water. In fact, if it was a turkey and this was hunting season, it would be nothing but a cloud of feathers…’ To read the article : http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040331.wmath2/BNStory/Business/ It’s nice to know that big business doesn’t have every judge and government in it’s pocket.

Alistair Cooke died yesterday. I've listened to his erudite, spoken essays on the BBC many times over the years. Whilst not, necessarily, always agreeing with him, his usage and command of the English language has, in my opinion, few equals. Being as History, to a great extent, tends to be a rehash of newspaper articles, his essays are both a delight to read and a record of many of the major events of the last century. A selection can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/page/0,14439,1181132,00.html

Not true - You seem to have conveniently ignored the main empirical evidence that I ‘dug-up’, i.e. ‘A Century of Change; trends in UK statistics since 1900’, http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf and, instead, have given have an argument based mainly on socio-economics and opinion based on intuition – it’s also interesting that your historian’s initial comment was one of uncertainty. Yup – But our reference frame is the beginning of the 20th century. Has anything really changed? That, by the way, is over a 70,000% increase, taking population increase into account. Again, read the research paper. It covers ‘indictable offences known to the police per thousand of population’ – so, in this study, the population increase is accounted for. And far fewer gun-related crimes too! I too, used my intuition, but, I believe, that part of one’s intuition is based on one’s cumulative experience and knowledge. Having being born in Crookes, Sheffield, in 1938 and having lived in ‘council housing’ since 1945 till 1966 (when I emigrated to Canada), returning to a council estate in 1998, I know that UK society is far more violent and crime-ridden then it was when I grew up. Quite frankly, anyone who denies that is living with their head in the sand (or in some middle to upper-class environment). I admit that this ‘experience’ only covers 65+% of the period in question, but, add to that my mother’s opinion (she died in 1996 aged 77) and that of her older contemporaries, then the ‘perceived wisdom’ of any of the older people – and they are the ones with first-hand experience of the changes in a society - that I regularly speak with is the same – that the UK is a far more violent society than it used to be. In other words, during their life-times – which almost covers the period in question. By the way, I too am a historian – allbeit in the History of World Religions. A further note: Burgess’s ‘Clockwork Orange’ was not just a work of fiction…

I was quite surprised that you would make such a sweeping statement – and one that is so ‘wildly’ off the mark. According to a research paper from the House of Commons (link below): ‘The number of indictable offences per thousand population in 1900 was 2.4 and in 1997 the figure was 89.1…’ – an increase of over 3,700%. It does go on to say that the British Crime Survey estimates that in 1997, 56% of crimes were not reported. It further states that in earlier years this figure was probably higher and accounts for some of the increase. The second link gives numbers of ‘Murder Related Crime 1898 – 1997’. In 1904 there were a total of 408 murder related crimes. In 1997 a total of 10,736. This is over a 2,600% increase In 1904 the population of the UK was about 40 millions and in 2001 about 59 millions, which when adjusted for population increase still gives over 1,780% increase in murder related crimes. http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf http://www.police999.com/stats/figures10.html

So Phan, in 1904, regarding crime in Britain, things were worse? Statistics please.

I'm taking a course on Web-design and hope to have my own web-site sometime. Does anyone have any knowledge and/or first-hand experience of/with Lycos.co.uk, the web-hosting company?

Just say that you are now 'uncertain' or 'no-longer sure'. The last few postings remind me of something I read years ago: "It often does more harm than good to force definitions on things we don't understand. Besides, only in logic and mathematics do definitions ever capture concepts perfectly. The things we deal with in practical life are usually too complicated to be represented by neat, compact expressions. Especially when it comes to understanding minds, we still know so little that we can't be sure our ideas about psychology are even aimed in the right directions. In any case, one must not mistake defining things for knowing what they are." -- Marvin Minsky, from The Society Of Mind, 1985 It also reminds me of one of the things that I’d do with a new (to me) class of kids when I was teaching. I’d ask them ‘What is a tree?’ – there would be several interpretations and descriptions, one child even drew a replica of one. To all the replies I received I answered ‘No, that is not a tree’ - then I’d go to a window and point to a tree. Sorry for the ramblings but I tend to despair at the inculcation of unnecessary words when plain language will suffice. Hope you see the irony within the last sentence Phan. By the way, to keep within the thread, I wish that there were more ‘whistleblowers’ in this sycophantic corrupt government. Keep up the good work Claire!

Thanks Mo - I mistakenly ascribed the article to The Times instead of The Daily Telegraph - I have edited the error:blush:

Re: Feasability (sic) study into the truth behind Nursery Rhymes A recently published book: ‘Heavy Words Lightly Thrown: The Reason Behind the Rhyme’ by Chris Roberts would seem to offer much of what you need for your research. There is an article about it in today’s on-line Telegraph and Amazon offers it for £12.00 plus delivery costs. From the review, and synopsis on Amazon, I would add it to my library if I had the cash to spare. Here is part of the review: ‘ …Mr Roberts, a librarian at East London University, said his book came out of research he undertook for a series of walking tours around London. While people already know that Ring a Ring o' Roses refers to the rash displayed by sufferers at the time of the Great Plague, it is less well known that Oranges and Lemons, a guide to the City of London, doubles as a lewd wedding song, he said. The line "here comes a candle to light you to bed", for example, is an apparent reference to the bride tempting her new bridegroom, while "here comes a chopper to chop off your head" alludes to the woman losing her virginity, or "maiden head"…’

Right On Phan!

Milk - with or without scotch.

Try these Sam for reference (and fun): ‘The Classic Fairy Tales’ and ‘The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren’ by Iona and Peter Opie ‘The Annotated Mother Goose’ by William S and Ceil Baring-Gould.

For an amusing slant on the American political scene: http://www.villagevoice.com/fiore/