The Industrial Revolution and the Enclosure Acts - contemporary relevance
Robin Carmody
with his rather curious comments in another thread where he seemed to be
dismissing the Northern contribution to the Industrial Revolution, got me
thinking (incidentally, I always thought a key part of that dramatic shift
in society was the rapid development of Manchester from an insignificant
backwater to a vast powerhouse of a city, plus the development of football
clubs from the Northern towns as the dominant force in the game to such an
extent that, after the university and public school sides had been pushed
aside, there was no FA Cup final between two Southern teams until 1967).
Many of the certainties and much of the "fixed order" of society that
someone like my mother would have had sensed growing up in the 1950s - the
songs they sang at primary school, the detail of the textbooks, the tone of
the schools radio programmes - was based around the aftereffects of the
Industrial Revolution and the Enclosure Acts, which did admittedly predate
mass industrialisation, but only came to their full fruition with the
urbanisation of the working classes and changes in agricultural practice
meaning that fewer people were needed to work the land anyway. Imagery of
the landed gentry in their isolated splendour and the football crowds in
their plain, decent, unified support resonated through British society.
But, like so many other old certainties, this situation has faded away.
The thing is that for much of the last 50 years, accelerating in the early
1980s, the Industrial Revolution has been contracting. Quite obviously I'm
not thinking of the most cliched sense in which one might use that phrase -
that of William Morris' "News From Nowhere", J.B. Priestley's "A Summer
Day's Dream", Peter Dickinson's Changes trilogy and even Sandy Denny's "The
Sea", the sense of a return to the land and to a superstitious, neo-medieval
society. The extent to which the Industrial Revolution changed the
landscape and the appearance of this country is such that it can never be
wholly undone. But the invention RH cited as the epitome of the Industrial
Revolution - steam power - has long since faded into history. In the late
50s and early to mid-60s it was removed from the railways at a breathtaking
pace by a modernisation plan which may have revived the "workshop of the
world" principle (the BREL works at Doncaster, where many of the
first-generation diesel and electric locomotives were built, were firmly in
the tradition of the original industrialists) but created a much cleaner
society where fewer people were employed in the dirtier, more physically
draining industrial jobs of which a classic example was the footplate of the
steam locomotive. Concurrently, the Clean Air Acts dramatically changed the
atmosphere of our cities, which became much less polluted than at any time
since before heavy industry really took off.
While all this was going on, the first mass rehousing of the working class
since the "flight from the land" was taking place - the demolition of the
old back-to-back terraced houses in the industrial towns, and the moving of
the population to tower blocks and new housing estates which had a much more
standardised, suburbanised design aesthetic. The 1969 short film "This
Town", a blood-rushingly striking picture of Halifax on the cusp, captures
this process chillingly: people still work en masse in the factories, still
walk as one through the streets and through the town's market, but suddenly
it jump-cuts from the crowds to adverts in the town utilising glossy imagery
in the vein of a 60s Bond movie, and then it shows the new flats with their
vague promise of a new form of employment (of course it also gives the lie
to the notion, beloved of some on the anti-Blair hard left, that the Wilson
government was particularly concerned about the patterns of living that had
grown up in the areas formed by the Industrial Revolution to which the
Labour Party owed its very existence; if it was felt that such things had to
be sacrificed to its beloved modernism, then sacrificed they were). The
film ends with a frozen image of terraced housing clearly about to be pulled
down forever; de-industrialisation was on the way, even if it wasn't
foreseen at the time.
In the short term, it didn't necessarily matter, but before too long it was
manifestly evident that people no longer felt the same sort of shared
affinity within their work that they once had - the trade union militancy of
the mid to late 70s was ultimately a sham led by increasingly egotistical
figures in the Scargill vein - and the process made the full-scale grinding
down of the Industrial Revolution legacy that little bit easier. Once the
collectivism had died, and alienation amid rootless, lumbering architectural
monsters had become virtually par for the course (the worst thing about the
tower blocks was the institutionalisation of the elderly), destroying the
institutions of these people's employment seemed almost like a natural thing
to do.
What happened under the Thatcher era and subsequently needs no introduction,
of course - I cannot be certain, but I'm guessing that the percentage of the
population working in heavy industries is now the lowest it has been since
we were still a predominately land-based society. Similar changes have, of
course, happened within the rural population as agriculture has declined,
especially over the last decade or so ... and that brings us back to the
theme which makes this piece fit for crossposting to a rural political ng.
It has become a truism to the point of cliche to state that the mass
closures of the mines, factories, railway works and the like are the undoing
of much of the order of society set up by the Industrial Revolution,
admittedly not restoring the previous situation but instead leaving us with
an increasingly rootless population now employed, if at all, in a variety of
technological and service industries, but the undoing of the Industrial
Revolution nonetheless. If we accept that the dominance that the
Countryside Alliance set developed in rural society was mainly brought about
by the enclosures coupled with the urbanisation of the working classes -
processes which removed the people who could have formed communal resistance
to their position, and put them in places where the landed aristocracy would
have been pretty much out of sight and out of mind - then aren't the
dramatic changes in rural Britain over the last few decades, now coming to a
head, the effective reversal of the enclosure acts?
The interest in the countryside among the hippie generation was a factor:
this was a movement of the progressive liberal-left where "back to the land"
did not carry the right-wing connotations it would have had after punk, and
songs like Steeleye Span's "The Weaver and the Factory Maid" plugged into an
unease at the aftereffects of industrialism fuelled by the 1973 oil crisis
and the growth of environmentalism (the outstanding example of this is, of
course, Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull, who now owns vast swathes of the west
of Scotland whose owners 30 years ago would presumably have denounced him as
a "filthy hippie", and whose actions in the 70s have proved to be far more
influential on the recent Scottish hunting ban than those of Jim Callaghan).
The increasing influence of the urban nouveau riche in many old farming
villages is another factor, and in this context the House of Lords Act 1999
(the legislation removing most hereditary peers), the Countryside and Rights
of Way Act 2000 (aka "the right to roam act"), the recent act outlawing
hunting with dogs in Scotland, and the hunting bill soon to come before the
Westminster parliament are all of a piece. The removal of hereditary peers
finally enacted what would have happened some time in the 19th Century had
the massive changes in society brought about by the Industrial Revolution
erupted into genuine insurrection and the formal overthrow of the old order
(this further underlines one of RH's lines; although a massive social
transition, the Industrial Revolution was still in a sense "no revolution"
because the flight from the land which made it possible actually
strengthened the power of the landed aristocracy). The "right to roam act"
gave the people a freedom that was slowly taken away from them during the
enclosures, and foxhunting is ultimately a relatively new pastime passed off
as something from time out of mind by the landowners once the old communal
farmland was in their hands.
The same applies to the party political situation. In my essay "The lost
lineage of rural liberalism" I cited the split between the Liberal and
Labour parties and the Liberals' subsequent self-destruction as the starting
point for an unfair polarisation which reflected the urbanisation of the
proletariat and the ultimate weakness and marginality of that minority of
the working class that had not been absorbed into mass industrialisation
(without the Industrial Revolution, there could never have been a Labour
Party in the sense understood by all its leaders until Blair came along; it
might easily have developed differently, in the vein envisaged by early
socialists like the "Merrie England" dreamer Robert Blatchford, but the
whole history of British politics would inevitably have been very
different). At its nadir in 1955 the Liberal Party held six seats, of which
three were in rural Wales (never industrialised, but crucially never Tory in
the way that most of rural England was) and two were, oddly, in the urban
north of England (the last has regrettably slipped out of my mind). Even in
1966, their worst electoral showing between 1945 and 1997, the Tories still
held overwhelming dominance over the shires mainly because the Liberals -
the only party that could have challenged them in those areas that had not
been heavily industrialised - remained largely a weak, denuded force.
But now we have a Labour Party thoroughly disassociated from its old
heartlands, able to gain seats that were beyond it even in 1945 and 1966,
because the association with the Industrial Revolution and its
aftereffects - the party's source and its strength for so long - is now
pretty much drained out. Moreover, the Liberal Party which challenged the
Tories throughout the country until its collapse in the 1920s has, in its
current incarnation, seriously eaten away at the Tories' position in the
shires to an extent quite unprecedented in at least the last 60 years.
Without a major party umbilically linked to the massed working classes, and
with the Liberals a major challenger to the Tories rather than an
inconsequential third party with zero political credibility, our political
situation is oddly akin to a post-industrial version of the pre-industrial
one. It is obviously a totally different world in every possible way, but
something of the pre-Labour narrative is still with us (Blair will be
pleased with that - when NuLab were in opposition he frequently expressed
his regret at the 1900 split, making no secret of his view that socialism
was, for him, a blip on the flow of history, not a theory for all time), and
the safe tribal narrative of the years between the completion of the
Industrial Revolution and the mass erosion of its patterns of living in the
1980s has faded away.
Industrialism and the enclosures changed this country for all time, but the
tribalism they engendered has already gone. With its dominant centre-ground
parties and its marginal socialist movements not represented in the cultural
or demographic basis of any of the main parties (present-day trade unionists
are in a position much closer to that of the Swing rioters of 1832 than to
that of the 1970s unions), post-industrial Britain has a political narrative
which oddly harks back to the time before the aftereffects of the Industrial
Revolution had altered the political process, and knows little and cares
less for or about the absolute certainties that still seemed so
unimpeachable in the mid-20th Century. The Industrial Revolution *did*
change everything, as did its aftereffects on the land the working classes
had left behind, but when much of it had been dismantled, the new structure
would have the power to surprise us with its echoes of the system we thought
we'd left behind for good, and its utter removal from the system we thought
would last forever when the earls and the miners alike still knew their
place. That's the biggest change of all, really; *nobody* knows their place
anymore.
--
Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
Jon°
"there was no FA Cup final between two Southern teams until 1967)."
......................................................
What absolute tripe. The cup final has been played between two southern half
of the country based teams 9 times between 1872 and 1967
http://www.thefa.com/application?origin=template.jsp&event=bea.portal.framew
ork.internal.refresh&pageid=maximise&pageName=facup_thefacup_stats&pillar=fa
cup&navMax=true
Also let me give you a few further facts that may help you to stop making a
fool of yourself in future posts........
The league and cup double has been won 5 times by southern half based
teams. (Arsenal have done this 3 times and Spurs once). Northern clubs have
only managed to win the double three times, Liverpool once and Man United
twice. Hardly the type of statistics that confirm your long-winded diatribe.
The facts for this can be found in the same link above.
*********************************
The number of years in which proper cup finals have been played between 1872
and 1967 is 86. This figure is arrived at by stripping out the 9 years in
which it was not played during the two world wars (Played properly
remember!) Of those 86 years in which it was played southern half based
clubs have won the FA cup forty times. This gives a fractional advantage in
straight terms of winning to the north. Not though a complete northern
working class domination of the game as you suggest in your faulted
opinions. I personally cheer on northern clubs as much as southern clubs
even though I am a Londoner. That though is because (unlike you) I am a
patriot who supports Britain and I do not take every opportunity to
disparage my own country.
http://www.krysstal.com/facup.html
********************************
You always do this with your ICBM's of posts....ICBM's because they land
with a thud on Usenet and explode into hundreds of words of meaningless
chuntering backed up by false assertions. You hope that by using reams of
unprovable jargon you will bemuse readers into accepting the lies you
spread. The worrying aspect of this is that the British State will be
paying you to sit at your 'puter churning out rubbish. Get a job and forget
trying to be a statistician with deep philosophical offerings, you are not
up to it my dear little plonker.
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:arfgf1
Gareth Hunt
>
> Many of the certainties and much of the "fixed order" of society that
> someone like my mother would have had sensed growing up in the 1950s - the
> songs they sang at primary school, the detail of the textbooks, the tone
of
> the schools radio programmes - was based around the aftereffects of the
> Industrial Revolution
Might it not also be an affect of family and community ties and structure,
which seemed so much stronger then? How much they were based on effects of
the IR I'd argue, as they seemed to be pretty much the same across the
board, town and country.
Isn't it all now about breaking down those communities? The East End went in
the 60's with the tower blocks, Thatcher did it to the miners in the 80's
and now it's the countryside's turn.
In the meantime social cohesion is broken down further by the constant
assault on English "identity"
What is this in preparation for? Is it purely to turn us into USA-led
consumers? Is it a Euro-plot? The New World Order? Who knows?
Mel Rowing
"Jon°" <jon_j...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:R5KC9.22077$H4.1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Carmody of errors said
>
> "there was no FA Cup final between two Southern teams until 1967)."
>
> ......................................................
>
> What absolute tripe. The cup final has been played between two southern
half
> of the country based teams 9 times between 1872 and 1967
> Get a job and forget trying to be a statistician with deep philosophical
offerings, you are not
> up to it my dear little plonker.
What are you talking about?
Don't you know the here is a writer waiting discovery?
Judging by the first paragraph of the is diatribe:
"Robert Henderson's material on this subject taken from his book, coupled
with his rather curious comments in another thread where he seemed to be
dismissing the Northern contribution to the Industrial Revolution, got me
thinking (incidentally, I always thought a key part of that dramatic shift
in society was the rapid development of Manchester from an insignificant
backwater to a vast powerhouse of a city, plus the development of football
clubs from the Northern towns as the dominant force in the game to such an
extent that, after the university and public school sides had been pushed
aside, there was no FA Cup final between two Southern teams until 1967)."
And this sentence in particular:
"In the late 50s and early to mid-60s it was removed from the railways at a
breathtaking
pace by a modernisation plan which may have revived the "workshop of the
world" principle (the BREL works at Doncaster, where many of the
first-generation diesel and electric locomotives were built, were firmly in
the tradition of the original industrialists) but created a much cleaner
society where fewer people were employed in the dirtier, more physically
draining industrial jobs of which a classic example was the footplate of the
steam locomotive."
it is clear he does not mind waiting.
Mel Rowing
Robin Carmody
>
> Might it not also be an affect of family and community ties and structure,
> which seemed so much stronger then? How much they were based on effects of
> the IR I'd argue, as they seemed to be pretty much the same across the
> board, town and country.
The point is that the archetypes of British society in the 1950s and
earlier, whether the landed gentry or the miners, became what they
were as a result of the realignment of British society brought about
by the Industrial Revolution.
> Isn't it all now about breaking down those communities? The East End went in
> the 60's with the tower blocks, Thatcher did it to the miners in the 80's
> and now it's the countryside's turn.
A great simplification. I made the point upthread that the supposedly
"Old Labour" Wilson government allowed the aesthetic demolition and
cultural erosion of a town like Halifax in the late 60s. The Thatcher
government is likewise responsible for a vast amount of the current
erosion of traditional rural society - it's just that Tories will
never admit to it.
> In the meantime social cohesion is broken down further by the constant
> assault on English "identity"
>
> What is this in preparation for? Is it purely to turn us into USA-led
> consumers? Is it a Euro-plot? The New World Order? Who knows?
The American factor is the strongest, IMO. This is why I don't get
Robert Henderson's idea that "England is the modern world" because the
USA has English roots. The US is no friend of Henderson's idea of
England, though it is a key influence on the ideas of England he
opposes.
Jon°
Gareth Hunt
> A great simplification. I made the point upthread that the supposedly
> "Old Labour" Wilson government allowed the aesthetic demolition and
> cultural erosion of a town like Halifax in the late 60s. The Thatcher
> government is likewise responsible for a vast amount of the current
> erosion of traditional rural society - it's just that Tories will
> never admit to it.
Tories and Labour both sold out their respective "classes", neither would
ever admit to it.
> The American factor is the strongest, IMO.
But what type of American factor? Seems mostly to be ghetto culture to me
Robert Henderson
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson's material on this subject taken from his book, coupled
>with his rather curious comments in another thread where he seemed to be
>dismissing the Northern contribution to the Industrial Revolution,
No I wasn't, merely putting it in context. RH
> got me
>thinking (incidentally, I always thought a key part of that dramatic shift
>in society was the rapid development of Manchester from an insignificant
>backwater to a vast powerhouse of a city, plus the development of football
>clubs from the Northern towns as the dominant force in the game
Utter drivel. The football league had mostly northern clubs but other
leagues soon arose, most notably the Southern League and more Midland
and Southern Clubs soon joined the football league after a second
division was introduced in (from memory) 1892. RH
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Robin Carmody
> Robin Carmody <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:27904a9a.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > A great simplification. I made the point upthread that the supposedly
> > "Old Labour" Wilson government allowed the aesthetic demolition and
> > cultural erosion of a town like Halifax in the late 60s. The Thatcher
> > government is likewise responsible for a vast amount of the current
> > erosion of traditional rural society - it's just that Tories will
> > never admit to it.
>
> Tories and Labour both sold out their respective "classes", neither would
> ever admit to it.
agreed about the Tories, but Wilson made it eminently clear in his
1963 "white heat of technology" conference speech, a full year before
he became Prime Minister, that he would overturn old ways of working
and trade union organisation if elected.
> > The American factor is the strongest, IMO.
>
> But what type of American factor? Seems mostly to be ghetto culture to me
I was referring to the effects of the unregulated free market (c.1983
onwards).
Robin Carmody
> In article <arfgf1$c1u$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Robin Carmody
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >Robert Henderson's material on this subject taken from his book, coupled
> >with his rather curious comments in another thread where he seemed to be
> >dismissing the Northern contribution to the Industrial Revolution,
>
> No I wasn't, merely putting it in context. RH
But it was the North of England where its effects were strongest, and
the North of England which suffered most dramatically when it all
contracted in the 80s.
> > got me
> >thinking (incidentally, I always thought a key part of that dramatic shift
> >in society was the rapid development of Manchester from an insignificant
> >backwater to a vast powerhouse of a city, plus the development of football
> >clubs from the Northern towns as the dominant force in the game
>
> Utter drivel. The football league had mostly northern clubs but other
> leagues soon arose, most notably the Southern League and more Midland
> and Southern Clubs soon joined the football league after a second
> division was introduced in (from memory) 1892. RH
Doesn't alter the fact that the dominant clubs in English football
have generally been Northern, especially in the context of the league
(even at their best Spurs have usually been essentially a cup side,
Chelsea even more so).
Robert Henderson
Carmody <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ZyzY2QAyOO
>39E...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <arfgf1$c1u$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Robin Carmody
>> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> >Robert Henderson's material on this subject taken from his book, coupled
>> >with his rather curious comments in another thread where he seemed to be
>> >dismissing the Northern contribution to the Industrial Revolution,
>>
>> No I wasn't, merely putting it in context. RH
>
>But it was the North of England where its effects were strongest, and
>the North of England which suffered most dramatically when it all
>contracted in the 80s.
>
the north. RH
>> > got me
>> >thinking (incidentally, I always thought a key part of that dramatic shift
>> >in society was the rapid development of Manchester from an insignificant
>> >backwater to a vast powerhouse of a city, plus the development of football
>> >clubs from the Northern towns as the dominant force in the game
>>
>> Utter drivel. The football league had mostly northern clubs but other
>> leagues soon arose, most notably the Southern League and more Midland
>> and Southern Clubs soon joined the football league after a second
>> division was introduced in (from memory) 1892. RH
>
>Doesn't alter the fact that the dominant clubs in English football
>have generally been Northern, especially in the context of the league
>(even at their best Spurs have usually been essentially a cup side,
>Chelsea even more so).
>--
Tell that to Arsenal, Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest etc. RH
>Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
Robin Carmody
> In article <27904a9a.02112...@posting.google.com>, Robin
> Carmody <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >
> >the North of England which suffered most dramatically when it all
> >contracted in the 80s.
> >
> The industrial revolution had its roots in the Midlands if anywhere, not
> the north. RH
True enough, but the greatest unemployment when it contracted was in the
North. Very few areas in the South of England suffered greatly, apart from
a few isolated mining areas like Cornwall and the small Kent coalfield.
> >Doesn't alter the fact that the dominant clubs in English football
> >have generally been Northern, especially in the context of the league
> >(even at their best Spurs have usually been essentially a cup side,
> >Chelsea even more so).
> >--
>
> Tell that to Arsenal,
The only Southern team since the Spurs double side of 1961 to have been a
consistent, serious challenger for the league title.
> Aston Villa,
Only one League championship since 1910 (from memory). No FA Cup since
1957. The great underachievers.
> Nottingham Forest etc. RH
One League championship in their entire history. Two consecutive European
Cups, four League Cups in 13 years. Case dismissed.
Robert Henderson
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> The industrial revolution had its roots in the Midlands if anywhere, not
>> the north. RH
>
>True enough, but the greatest unemployment when it contracted was in the
>North. Very few areas in the South of England suffered greatly, apart from
>a few isolated mining areas like Cornwall and the small Kent coalfield.
Tell that to those who lived through the holocaust of the decision to
open our markets to foreign food in the 1850s and 60s. RH
Robin Carmody
Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2sPzxXA9...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <aro8jg$bf3$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Robin Carmody
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >> The industrial revolution had its roots in the Midlands if anywhere, not
> >> the north. RH
> >
> >True enough, but the greatest unemployment when it contracted was in the
> >North. Very few areas in the South of England suffered greatly, apart from
> >a few isolated mining areas like Cornwall and the small Kent coalfield.
>
> Tell that to those who lived through the holocaust of the decision to
> open our markets to foreign food in the 1850s and 60s. RH
But surely that merely prompted the "flight from the land" and greatly
strengthened the Industrial Revolution?
Che Guevara
Carmody <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>(ages ago)
>
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2sPzxXA9gg
>49E...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <aro8jg$bf3$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Robin Carmody
>> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> >> The industrial revolution had its roots in the Midlands if anywhere, not
>> >> the north. RH
>> >
>> >True enough, but the greatest unemployment when it contracted was in the
>> >North. Very few areas in the South of England suffered greatly, apart from
>> >a few isolated mining areas like Cornwall and the small Kent coalfield.
>>
>> Tell that to those who lived through the holocaust of the decision to
>> open our markets to foreign food in the 1850s and 60s. RH
>
>But surely that merely prompted the "flight from the land" and greatly
>strengthened the Industrial Revolution?
enclosure bollocked a lot of lives. it was a huge land grab by the
better off. the less well off wuz robbed.
and now the same better off class fights to protect its fox hunting
'rights' and to stop the plebs from walking on the land the plebs used
to farm and own communally. wot a bunch of wankers. our right wing gov
has at least been slightly left wing in its 'right to roam' and
legislation.
--
che
BrianScowcroft
> > Tell that to those who lived through the holocaust of the decision to
> > open our markets to foreign food in the 1850s and 60s. RH
Anyone got an Ouija board I can borrow????
Che Guevara
<b...@scowcroft01.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>
>> > Tell that to those who lived through the holocaust of the decision to
>> > open our markets to foreign food in the 1850s and 60s. RH
>
>Anyone got an Ouija board I can borrow????
>
>
a brandy glass is good for use with spirits
: )
--
che
welsh witch
"Che Guevara" <uf...@Cuba.CubedRum> wrote in message
news:NKTorKAx...@western-pr.demon.co.uk...
******************************************
AND Christmas is the best time in the world for this evening
activity.A lot of people don't seem to understand that the best
results are brought about with the use of incense...its quite amazing
the people who appear in the smoke. Its not a properly serious ritual
like this but interesting.
But you'd better not have too many of the otehr sort of spirits with
it!
.
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/sexcrystalwitchcraft.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/beheaded.htm
Robin Carmody
> "Che Guevara" <uf...@Cuba.CubedRum> wrote in message
> news:NKTorKAx...@western-pr.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > a brandy glass is good for use with spirits
> >
> > : )
> > --
> > che
> ******************************************
> AND Christmas is the best time in the world for this evening
> activity.A lot of people don't seem to understand that the best
> results are brought about with the use of incense...its quite amazing
> the people who appear in the smoke. Its not a properly serious ritual
> like this but interesting.
> But you'd better not have too many of the otehr sort of spirits with
> it!
Hippies and the far-right find common ground. Time and time again ...
RC
Robin Carmody
> enclosure bollocked a lot of lives. it was a huge land grab by the
> better off. the less well off wuz robbed.
Odd that the Henderarse approves of the enclosure acts ... but then his
romantic nationalism is of the Arthur Bryant or H.V. Morton kind, rather
than the William Morris tendency. RH's public school (Haileybury /
whatever) was probably built on land which had been seized during the
enclosures, after all.
RC
Che Guevara
<webmi...@nospam.com> writes
>
>
>"Che Guevara" <uf...@Cuba.CubedRum> wrote in message
>news:NKTorKAx...@western-pr.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <au88nn$c2e$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, BrianScowcroft
>> <b...@scowcroft01.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> >
>> >> > Tell that to those who lived through the holocaust of the
>decision to
>> >> > open our markets to foreign food in the 1850s and 60s. RH
>> >
>> >Anyone got an Ouija board I can borrow????
>> >
>> >
>>
>> a brandy glass is good for use with spirits
>>
>> : )
>> --
>> che
>******************************************
>AND Christmas is the best time in the world for this evening
>activity.A lot of people don't seem to understand that the best
>results are brought about with the use of incense...its quite amazing
>the people who appear in the smoke. Its not a properly serious ritual
>like this but interesting.
>But you'd better not have too many of the otehr sort of spirits with
>it!
>.
actually, i burned some incense a bit earlier but i don't think i've got
the knack of it yet. any tips?
che
Che Guevara
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
uh, how come?
che
Robin Carmody
> In article <aub0s5$s7q$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Robin Carmody
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >
> >Hippies and the far-right find common ground. Time and time again ...
> >
> >RC
> >
> >
>
> uh, how come?
just my personal impression. in some cases.
RC