THE BRITISH THREAD II

Wait...you arent in an asylum ? I thought that was our bond, we band of brothers...

You didn't watch Dr. Who, I suppose.

Spendy is right. He knows all about this.

"Compulsory admission to a psychiatric hospital is admission of someone with mental health problems against their will.

The Mental Health Act 1983 is divided into Sections. When you are admitted to hospital under compulsion this is commonly known as "being sectioned".

You can be sectioned under a number of different sections for the purpose of being assessed for or receive treatment for a mental disorder. This part deals only with the civil sections of the Act, that is the sections that do not involve the criminal law. These include sections 2, 3, 4, 5(2) and 5(4).

What happens when you are sectioned?........."

It's not funny really.

Who can say when, and to whom, the call to holy orders will come?

The still, quiet but insistent voice in the night. The burning bush on the road to Damascus. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Extract from Bowell's London Journal Nov. 30th 1762.



I might add others if I deem any fit enough to amuse you you tight-fisted scion of a race of skin-flints.

You got me there, Spenders, dead on.

There was a tale on Sky News tonight Mac about a Scotch couple who won the lottery jackpot. One said " But what have we to do about the begging letters?" to which the other replied "Oh--I think we should keep sending them."

The old ones are the best, eh.

Anyway, aren't you from Yorkshire? They, and Lancastrians in my experience, have shorter arms and deeper pockets than any Scot.

Hey !! My pommy bastard ancestors are from Lancastershire !! I wont have a bad word said about them unless its me saying it !

Just as a sideline issue, POMs have to learn how to organise a war better. Most of the Lancastrians supported the York cause in the "War of the Roses"and most of the York population supported Lancastrian efforts. Very poor organising, chaps. The Scots being strictly neutral, fought for both sides.

There will always be an England !!! So long as there is a scotsman left to fight their bloody wars for them.

There was a great programme on British history on TV recently.

I had no idea the Scots played such a big part in the English Civil War. In fact, they started it.

Maybe the pub had run out of beer.

They did ???I knew they served in numbers, but I thought the main reason was Warwick, the "proud setter up and puller down of kings". After his effort, weak heirs were owned by strong families and the fun began. Feel free to correct me, everyone else does..

It was a lot to do with the Reformation in Scotland. They did not want any chance of a catholic king again in England, and went down mob-handed to prevent that.

Warwick was the "King maker" in the era of the Wars of the Roses, in the late 15th century, nothing to do at all with the English civil wars of the 17th century. In a sense, McTag is correct, but the Scots didn't really start those wars. The big buddy of Charles I was Archbishop Laud, who intended to force the Book of Common Prayer on the Scots--dangerous Calvinists in his view. Charles attempted to get money from Parliament for that purpose, but they wouldn't play, so in 1628 he prorogued Parliament. In about 1637 or 1638 (someone would have to check the date), he attempted to invade Scotland in what became known as "the Bishop's War." The Scots handed him his ass, militarily speaking. At the same time, John Hampden refused to pay ship money--a tax always willingly paid in coastal counties because it supported the Royal Navy, but Charles had attempted to extend it to inland counties. So Charles was forced to recall Parliament, which immediately began discussing what one member called "the vexed question of religion." Then Charles, pigheaded fool that he was, dismissed Parliament, leading to another election. The new Parliament, to become known as the Long Parliament, immediately took up the "vexed question of religion," and Charles very stupidly attempted to have his leading critics arrested, failed, and was obliged to get out of Dodge. He went to Oxford, raised the royal banner, and started a civil war which i doubt Parliament would have had the balls to start on their own.

The rest, as they say, is history.

This recalls to mind the Cromwell thread, when Hobbit Bob showed up to express his disdain for Antonia Fraser, at which point McTag gave him a warning . . .

OOps. My fault McT, I was talking about the War of the Roses and didnt notice you switched to The Civil War. I suppose to be accurate, the War of the Roses is about the Royal Succession whereas the Civil War was about Parliament's Seccession of power from the throne. There were definitely religious aspects to the Civil War that the scots were very concerned about.

No--they were both about bored young men seeking adventure, rape and pillage. Without them the leaders would have had to have duels.

You're obviously an elitist Ionus.

Thank you ! That is the nicest thing anyone on this forum has said to me ! Excuse me, I have something in my eye.....Ok.



Will you be starting another adventure ? The rape and pillage sound particularly attractive.

This reminds me of a story.

A lot of Norwegians study in Glasgow, and are popular with the Scottish lady students.
My pal went to a wedding of one Norwegian fellow-student to a local lass, and in his speech he said

"In the past, Torsten's Viking ancestors came over here, burned our villages, sacked the place, carried off our young women and....
Thankfully, times have changed.
I never saw Torsten burn any villages."

I had to help out at a very large parade once and the colonel supervising had a pipe band with a real scots man as the drum major. The scot wanted to do this thing where he throws the baton about 30 ft in the air as he marches on and then catches it. The colonel wouldnt let him do it because it would spoil the show if he dropped it. It was a very strange discussion :
DM...but I'hm new gonna droop it
col...yes but what if you do
DM...(a look of complete puzzlement) but itll look like crap ifa Ah droop it'
col...that is why I dont want you to throw it.
This conversation went round in circles for some time. The scot couldnt understand why the col thought he would drop it. He didnt want to drop it. It would look like crap if he dropped it. What was wrong with this man ? Why was he going on about dropping it when he wasnt going to drop it ?

As the DM walked away, the col turned to me, and I had a huge grin from listening to these two, and said..he's gonna throw it isnt he ? Yep, I replied.

On the actual day, the TV crew and thousands of spectators were there . The little scotsman led the pipes and drums around. People cheered and applauded, and when he came up level to the guest dias, the col looked like he was having a baby. The DM threw the baton (which because of his little size, looked more like a mace) the col said a whisper of ...**** !...though with great emotion. The baton twirled and twirled about 30 ft into the air. The DM never even looked at it. He kept marching, the crowd gasped, it took forever to spin to height, and then it came twirling down. He pushed out his hand with the brievest of glances upward and stopped the spinning baton, pulling it to his chest with perfect precision in mid step. The crowd roared with delight and it was the highlight of the show. The col had no colour in his face.

After the show, the col said to him why did you throw it when you could have dropped it. The DM replied : but I didnt want to drop it and walked off very puzzled as to what was the hidden meaning of the col's words.

When ever I feel confidence slipping, I always smile to myself and say : but Im not gonna drop it...

Samuel Johnson said-



Your presence here Mac is evidence of the good Doctor's wisdom.