Penguin68

Just to put one point to bed - the gollywog character created, as I have said earlier, in 1895, was thus created after the US emancipation of slaves - it thus did not necessarily characterise a slave, although possibly a former slave, now free. It showed a 'jolly' interpretation of an afro-american dressed in a popular entertainment costume and was probably beneficent in intent - even though actually in our minds hideously condescending and 'stereotyping'. Enid Blyton's later hijacking of the character was more malign (though possibly not intentionally racist - the linkages with actual black people were less obvious to a British than to an American eye) - popular sentiment anyway had those characters in her Toytown stories later substituted by goblins - the only non-toys in that universe, I believe. I suspect Blyton, looking for possible rogues in her stories chose the gollywog toy because it was black (a colour, long before racism, associated with wickedness because the colour of night) - not because it represented a 'real' black person. However, we cannot rule out at the very least unconscious racism in her choice (although Mr Golly was the original garage owner in the books, not an evil character). If you have a universe of toys - how do you chose the rogues from that, particularly if they have to be able to do things like drive cars (which takes snakes off the agenda - another archetype for evil). I also dimly recall that the wearing of a Robinson's 'Golly' broach took an an entirely subversive (nothing to do with racism) character - in the '60s I think, at least in popular myth.

It is worthwhile pointing out that the original gollywog character, created by the American Florence Kate Upton in 1895, although clearly what we would now see as an offensive racial stereotype, was portrayed as a broadly sympathetic character, and gollywog dolls were often very much loved and cared for by their owners. The Black and White Minstrel show, now seen as horrendous (and using much the same stereotype) was in its day loved by millions, and not seen by them as an adverse racial commentary, but as a way of embodying a (much enjoyed) style of singing. We now see why that is wrong, and unecessary, but we shouldn't read back our sensibilities to other generations. Neither portrayal created either fear or loathing of a different race, in their time, although even then they could be used by those already with that attitude to further offend. We now see stereoptying as clearly wrong, but to stereotype then wasn't necessarily to hate, or even disparage.

Savage cutting back of some types of hedging/ trees will simply kill them - some types of hedging etc. need proper pruning (to growth buds etc.) to avoid death, or at the least unnecessary die back. Overhanging branches when well above head height - i.e. of trees and tall shrubs, do not cause pedestrian problems (generally) and add to the look of a locale (after all, in roads with trees planted these 'overhang' pavements and roads without any problem, when tall enough). Cutting any overhang back to the boundary is unnecessary and may detract from the visual amenity of a road. I take delight in neighbours' front gardens (I am lucky enough to live where there are some), and this includes growth which grows over boundaries without restricting passage. Sending warning notices to householders about intrusive hedging was in the past the norm, with punitive slash-and-burn only when that warning was not heeded.

I saw a guy the spit-and-image of Karl Pilkington in DKH Sainsbury's this morning, with a small child in tow - does anyone know if the real KP has such an encumbrance, or indeed lives anywhere near London?

When people complain about the lack of recycling vim shown by the great british public - I think they forget that every council, indeed with us every street, apparently, has its own recycling rules - I used to look after my mother's house outside London, it had different boxes, different things that could be mixed together in boxes (paper and cardboard couldn't be disposed of together) - trying to remember which rules I was working to was a nightmare. Some councils recycle plastic, other's don't, and so and so on. If a single set of rules were instituted across the country we would all be clear what we should be doing, and the only issue then would be what our collection days were. Then we could get on with it. Some hope, eh? IMHO

Mick Mac - I am not sure that feather colour is matched by skin colour (it isn't in the chickens I eat) but visually I do of course consider myself black and white (but never grey!) Showboat - your response to Neil's question is one I concur with. However I suspect that one may interpret actions by other groups more swiftly (and in a condemnatory fashion) than you would of groups whose behaviour you are more confortable with. As someone on the wrong side of 60 I am more wary of young people (of whatever colour) because I no longer share or have real knowledge of what idioms and actions actually mean. 'Gay' meant cheeful when I was young, then homosexual and now apparently 'bad' (or sad) - so if I heard someone calling me 'gay' I might find it difficult to interpret it correctly, but would probably be most concerned if it was a young person speaking when I was most unsure what he/ she actually meant by the word. However much we fight it 'people like us' are more reassuring than 'people not like us' - whether that's an age, a sex, an education, a religion, a social class, a nationality etc. etc. thing. We all try to act on the basis of what real individuals are, not what their 'group' may represent, but one of our human skills is actually classification of things, which exactly militates against these good intentions.

I have no children now at (any) school at all, so I have no 'interest' (any form of stake) in this, hence I am disinterested but not, as it happens, uninterested in what appears to be a compounding series of misunderstood-communications both within the school and within this forum. There are real problems with defining racism; some believe that people who form part of a racial minority who may have been, or who are, oppressed cannot themselves ever be racist - thus in the UK only white people (the unoppressed majority) can be racist. Others perceive that judging anyone simply by the external criteria of skin colour or national origin suggests a racist attitude, regardless of what the ethnic background of the one judging is. There are also some people who would define racism as being based only on the pereception of the one who feels discriminated against, outwith any intention of the one seen as discriminating - hence the concept of institutional racism where the intent of the 'racist' is not an issue, but simply the balance of the processes the 'racist' is operating. I personally believe that intent is a requirement, although knowledge that an inherently discriminatory system is being worked within can be seen as 'implied' intent. I am not sure that someone is a racist simply if they are unable to put themselves in another's shoes sufficently to be sensitive to what could be interpreted as 'racism' even where it is not, and never had been, intended as such. Often that requires levels of knowledge and experience far beyond the normal. 'Lynch-mobs' have never been part of the UK experience of racist activity - such that portraying one (especially one which nods towards the Gothic horrors of the Frankenstein myth) might not have been seen by someone not sensitised to the history of the Southern states as being racist (although clearly violence towards racial minorities by groups is not, sadly, unknown in the UK).

of a couple of vacuous over priviledged leaches I do not know the couple personally (neither I suspect does ratty) - so I cannot comment on whether either or both are vaccuous - their public statements are necessarily guarded, so they may appear vaccuous - but the Prince does appear to be holding down a quite serious Services job and Ms Middleton has certainly worked (if only in the family firm, although I know many people who work very hard and effectively in family firms). I see no evidence in Ms Middleton's case, of over-privilege - she is a normal daughter of a successful middle-class couple, so unless being middle-class is a sign of over-privilege I don't think she, at least, qualifies. Neither, yet, is she in any way benefittng from the public purse (I don't think Prince William either is in receipt directly of public funds other than his Services salary, presumably the same as any other offcer of his rank/ experience). Clearly he does have the benefit of being the son of a very wealthy man, but that does not make him a leech. By all means attack the concept of an hereditary head of state, and a deference society which sees merit simply in being royal, but equally the reverse of the coin (attacking an individual soley because of their heredity) is also unthinking. I hope that the couple have a happy married life togther as I would wish any couple marrying. I will not be watching the festivities as I care no more about them than any other couple marrying, but I would not wish to deprive those who will enjoy the spectacle of their fun. And 'the rest' of us are not all facing the prospect of austerity and hardship, although undoubtedly some of the rest of us are.

This might be a solution http://reviews.homebase.co.uk/1494-en_gb/328419/reviews.htm

Now when Concorde used to fly over - that was LOUD! I live under the old flight path as well - it was loud, but boy was it beatiful. My heart lifted everytime I saw it.

Oh, goodeee, the prospect of clowns

Two things - I don't understand why (possibly) rude and (possibly) thoughtless cyclists should be branded as ignorant. In what way are they demonstrating lack of knowledge? Care, perhaps. Second - cyclists if coming up fast behind pedestrians need to make sure that the pedestrian will be holding a steady line - elderly pedestrians (I'm one) can easily veer sideways or stagger - obviously anyone with a child may make sudden sideways movements (or their child might) - as a walker I occcasionally have to do so to avoid unexpected gifts from thoughtless dog-walkers. When I have cycled I tended to slow down when passing people in case they made unexpected movements, as a driver I certainly do when passing cyclists - who again do not always maintain a steady line - for instance when steering round potholes. A cyclist coming up very fast behind you and apparently not slowing or 'noticing' you, the walker, can leave you genuinely scared that it was only by chance that they avoided an accident, had you by chance (and reasonably) diverted your path at the moment they passed. Cyclists are very quiet, if you are talking, or listening to music, or just slightly deaf they can come as a real and unwelcome surprise as, and when, they spin past you.

Well, at my time of life, it's not in The rapia

I've got water problems - always put it down to age...

Curiously probably not - the cold weather foxes are Arctic foxes, whereas us penguins are strictly Antarctic.

To be wholly honest I prefer foxes in my garden to cats - cats can be equally noisesome regarding their lavatorial habits (and tom's when marking territory) and at least the foxes tend not to massacre the birds - they both are equally helpful (foxes possibly more so) when it comes to rodent control. And cat's can also be noisy. Foxes, unless very tame, don't beg for food or try to ingratiate themselves into multiple households, and I prefer their territorial displays to those of aggressive cats. And foxes, if they are trying to catch my fish, aren't doing so blatantly in front of me with a sneer! Additionally I'm not allergic to foxes but cats give me asthma.

Amazingly most councils charge the cost of crematoria (where they run them) and cemeteries to 'Leisure & Recreation' The only logic is that both tend to include large open and cultivated spaces (i.e. gardens of remembrance) and hence call on the same skill sets as parks.

Fair do's iarnr it takes a certain chutzpa to advertise yourself and your firm under a headline of Dog Crap - that's almost post-modern in its explictness!

Bully for Barry

At the 1 Forest Hill Road surgery they are advertising closing times for several events, including the Royal Wedding (well I suppose it is) and something called Seasonal Break, which apparently happens at the same time as I (a committed and indeed militant atheist) will be taking time off to celebrate the Christian festival of Easter. Good Friday and Easter Monday are now apparently Seasonal Friday and Seasonal Monday. Could any committed Hindus, Jews or Moslems who read this forum let me know whether they would be offended by reference to Easter as a description of the set of bank holidays we are just to come into - as in 'Easter Break'? As (also) a republican should I be asking the surgery to refer to the bank holiday on 29th April as a seasonal wedding?

James As the road works to further narrow Underhill etc. etc. are actually now underway (some days earlier than you suggested) my comments were in an appropriate place - 'road works on Barry Road' - this is the most up-to-date thread directly addressing the issue and I have used it - albeit the initial road works discussed on the thread have now appeared to move down to the Underhill intersection works. Frankly traversing Barry here is now a nightmare, with the junction at the southern end now severely narrowed (I hope just by the construction) and right-of-way given to traffic driving towards Whately Road (but of course as there is limited vision it is difficult to give way where you are obliged to, as you can't see oncoming traffic until you reach the actually junction). If 5 weeks of this doesn't lead to accidents I will be very surprised.

It is normally easier, and safer, to prune trees when not in leaf, the weight (and consequent danger) of boughs is much reduced. This does lead to autumn (in fact early winter) pruning of trees that do put on flowering growth in the summer - so this is lost - although trees should anyway be pruned, not savaged, unless they form part of a managed wood for pollarding. Pruning trees should be about removing damaged and dangerous elements, elements growing where they are not wanted (into buildings) and sometimes a general thinning to reduce overall weight (a protection against storm damage). The 'short back and sides' favoured by councils isn't pruning, it's vandalism. Properly pruned trees should still (even when spring flowering growth which grows in summer is 'lost') have sufficient blossoming growth to offer a decent show (and feed the bees). As many blossom trees only leaf-up fully after blossoming they can be safely pruned post-blossoming and still put on growth for next spring's show; again, where fruits and nuts follow, leaving sufficient on the tree for human or animal harvest. It is typical of many councils that they employ experts (tree surgeons) but don't think to listen to, or take, their advice.

If I was a cynic I would think that the officer responsible for this bizarre and inappropriate decision, like me, suffers from 'hay-fever' triggered by tree pollens. I take the anti-histamines and learn to live with the beauty and the utility of flowering and blossoming trees. Clearly he/ she takes the Colonel Gaddafi option when faced with recalcitrant nature.

Amongst other things, the blossom offers substantial food sources for bumble bees, now out and about and hungry - removing the blossom deprives them - and we know the problems we are facing as bee populations plummet.

As I have already noted, the effects of the raised areas will be to slow down cars crossing Barry or turning into Underhill, which means that this increases their chances of being struck by cars speeding along Barry. It is possible that the raised position of cars waiting to cross/ enter Barry will give them better visibility (which is good) but that is, I believe, an unintended consequence, if it happens at all. The ramp work will further narrow the junction for users of Underhill, again making easy progress off Barry and into Underhill a greater problem. The problem is with Barry, a solution based around Underhill makes no obvious sense.