Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The tea and tiffin brigade (in Scott & Bailey)
980 views
Skip to first unread message
Isabelle Cecchini
Sep 1, 2012, 2:05:16 PM9/1/12
to
What is/are "the tea and tiffin brigade"? What connotations would you
attach to that phrase?
I know what "tiffin" is, lunch or a light snack, and I know of the
connection that word has with the Subcontinent. That unfortunately still
leaves me as totally flummoxed as I was when I heard that expression in
an episode of Scott and Bailey.
A bit of context, I can hear you ask.
DCI Gill Murray is having a bit of a rant, because a miscarriage of
justice might have occurred in an old case of hers. The possibly
wrongfully convicted man can count on the support of, in her own words:
"Journalists, peers, the tea and tiffin brigade".
Journalists would of course be interested in any miscarriage of justice.
Peers, I take to be a reference to the Earl of Longford, although I must
admit I'm a bit hazy as to whether being an earl also entails being a peer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Pakenham,_7th_Earl_of_Longford
What about the tea and tiffin brigade?
--
Isabelle Cecchini
attach to that phrase?
I know what "tiffin" is, lunch or a light snack, and I know of the
connection that word has with the Subcontinent. That unfortunately still
leaves me as totally flummoxed as I was when I heard that expression in
an episode of Scott and Bailey.
A bit of context, I can hear you ask.
DCI Gill Murray is having a bit of a rant, because a miscarriage of
justice might have occurred in an old case of hers. The possibly
wrongfully convicted man can count on the support of, in her own words:
"Journalists, peers, the tea and tiffin brigade".
Journalists would of course be interested in any miscarriage of justice.
Peers, I take to be a reference to the Earl of Longford, although I must
admit I'm a bit hazy as to whether being an earl also entails being a peer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Pakenham,_7th_Earl_of_Longford
What about the tea and tiffin brigade?
--
Isabelle Cecchini
Nick Spalding
Sep 1, 2012, 4:07:18 PM9/1/12
to
Isabelle Cecchini wrote, in <k1tipj$k04$1...@dont-email.me>
on Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:05:16 +0200:
He was indeed a peer.
> What about the tea and tiffin brigade?
Those of a certain age, possibly with military and colonial connections.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
on Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:05:16 +0200:
> What about the tea and tiffin brigade?
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Don Phillipson
Sep 2, 2012, 7:50:04 AM9/2/12
to
"Isabelle Cecchini" <isabelle...@wanadooo.invalid.fr> wrote in message
news:k1tipj$k04$1...@dont-email.me...
> Peers, I take to be a reference to the Earl of Longford, although I must
> admit I'm a bit hazy as to whether being an earl also entails being a
> peer.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Pakenham,_7th_Earl_of_Longford
British "peers" include all people with inherited titles except only
baronets. All the rest, dukes, earls, viscounts, etc. are included.
Only members of the royal family are princes in Britain, who are not
nowadays members of the House of Lords, although they used to be
when in the 18th century. E.g. Prince Charles is also Duke of Cornwall,
theoretically entitled to a seat in the Lords. Many hereditary peers
have various titles, e.g. the Duke of Devonshire is/was also Marquess
of Hartington. By tradition, dukes pass on their second title to their
sons, who because excluded from the House of Lords may run for
election to the House of Commons. This is why, in the historic past,
lords have served as MPs. This complexity and apparent contradiction
is just one aspect of having an "unwritten constitution."
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:k1tipj$k04$1...@dont-email.me...
> Peers, I take to be a reference to the Earl of Longford, although I must
> admit I'm a bit hazy as to whether being an earl also entails being a
> peer.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Pakenham,_7th_Earl_of_Longford
baronets. All the rest, dukes, earls, viscounts, etc. are included.
Only members of the royal family are princes in Britain, who are not
nowadays members of the House of Lords, although they used to be
when in the 18th century. E.g. Prince Charles is also Duke of Cornwall,
theoretically entitled to a seat in the Lords. Many hereditary peers
have various titles, e.g. the Duke of Devonshire is/was also Marquess
of Hartington. By tradition, dukes pass on their second title to their
sons, who because excluded from the House of Lords may run for
election to the House of Commons. This is why, in the historic past,
lords have served as MPs. This complexity and apparent contradiction
is just one aspect of having an "unwritten constitution."
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
the Omrud
Sep 2, 2012, 11:06:04 AM9/2/12
to
hereditary peers have seats (down from 100 by natural wastage), one of
whom is married to a friend of mine. In about 50 years there will be no
hereditaries left, even if no further reforms are made. All remaining
hereditary peers and their offspring are eligible to sit in the Commons.
I imagine that the Royal Princes are no longer entitled to sit in the
Lords, but could be elected to the Commons. This is not likely to
happen so it doesn't matter whether it's possible or not.
--
David
Guy Barry
Sep 2, 2012, 11:19:00 AM9/2/12
to
"the Omrud" wrote in message news:xBK0s.19632$905....@fx27.am4...
> Except that since the part-reform of the Lords in 1999, only 92 hereditary
> peers have seats (down from 100 by natural wastage), one of whom is
> married to a friend of mine.
declined slightly since then.
> In about 50 years there will be no hereditaries left, even if no further
> reforms are made.
Presumably most of the existing hereditary peerages will be passed on to the
next generation, and then the one after that. Or have I misunderstood?
I know they've abolished the by-elections that were held when there was a
vacancy, but they were pretty rare.
--
Guy Barry
the Omrud
Sep 2, 2012, 11:34:13 AM9/2/12
to
number. However, when a hereditary peer dies, his heir does not inherit
the Lords seat; the position is filled through a by-election of
hereditary peers (I can't find any evidence that these have been
abolished). The heir of the dead peer may, of course, stand in this
by-election as he is now eligible. Or she. My aforementioned friend is
of the male persuasion; it's his wife who came top of the original ballot.
--
David
Guy Barry
Sep 2, 2012, 11:46:17 AM9/2/12
to
"the Omrud" wrote in message news:V%K0s.268157$wF1....@fx17.am4...
> I see we're both partly right and both partly wrong. 92 is the original
> number. However, when a hereditary peer dies, his heir does not inherit
> the Lords seat;
converted into life peerages then?
> the position is filled through a by-election of hereditary peers (I can't
> find any evidence that these have been abolished).
been abolished, then how can the number of hereditary peers have declined?
Or hasn't it?
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 2, 2012, 1:03:35 PM9/2/12
to
"the Omrud" wrote in message news:V%K0s.268157$wF1....@fx17.am4...
> I see we're both partly right and both partly wrong. 92 is the original
> number. However, when a hereditary peer dies, his heir does not inherit
> the Lords seat;
website:
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/hereditary-peers/
" Hereditary Peers inherit their title and consists of five ranks: Duke,
Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron. Peerages may become extinct or fall into
abeyance, but so long as there is an heir the title will continue. The House
of Lords Act 1999 removed the entitlement of most of the hereditary Peers to
sit and vote in the House of Lords and of the 92 hereditary Peers who retain
their seat in the Lords, 75 were elected by their fellow hereditary Peers. "
> the position is filled through a by-election of hereditary peers (I can't
> find any evidence that these have been abolished).
government. I'll need to check again, but I know the by-elections were only
ever held when there was no heir.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 2, 2012, 1:14:48 PM9/2/12
to
"Guy Barry" wrote in message news:HjM0s.195458$_h6....@fx03.am4...
> the Omrud wrote:
> > I see we're both partly right and both partly wrong. 92 is the original
> > number. However, when a hereditary peer dies, his heir does not inherit
> > the Lords seat;
> You appear to be mistaken on this point, according to the Parliamentary
> website:
> http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/hereditary-peers/
not the right to sit in the House of Lords. I must have misunderstood this
issue from the outset. I'll need to read it up more thoroughly.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 2, 2012, 1:23:31 PM9/2/12
to
I knew I hadn't imagined it - the last Labour government *did* move to
abolish House of Lords by-elections:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8473000/8473325.stm
It got through the Commons, so I can only assume that the Lords must have
blocked it themselves. Need to find out more now!
--
Guy Barry
abolish House of Lords by-elections:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8473000/8473325.stm
It got through the Commons, so I can only assume that the Lords must have
blocked it themselves. Need to find out more now!
--
Guy Barry
Donna Richoux
Sep 2, 2012, 2:37:13 PM9/2/12
to
doesn't seem to be widely used even in its day.
I get one example in the Miami Daily News of 1938:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19380309&id=PwYtAAAAIBAJ&
sjid=QtQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3249,6372111
It is used for the State Department employees who tell President
Roosevelt he must wear spats when he receives foreign dignitaries. the
columnist considers them to be fussy, frippery, snobbish types.
The other of the few quotes I found:
-- The British Empire once kept this majestic white house for its tax
collector, in the days of black tea and tiffin, opium wars and officers
wearing swords and white gloves.
-- Through this job Herbert gained access to another world he wanted to
explore for his writing -- the colonial civil servants, the tea and
tiffin set.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
the Omrud
Sep 2, 2012, 3:03:03 PM9/2/12
to
Lords is not, since 1999.
--
David
Isabelle Cecchini
Sep 2, 2012, 3:07:14 PM9/2/12
to
Le 01/09/2012 22:07, Nick Spalding a �crit :
Thanks. Is there a reason why Gill Murray would find them so
aggravating? Are they considered to be particularly prone to criticizing
the police?
--
Isabelle Cecchini
aggravating? Are they considered to be particularly prone to criticizing
the police?
--
Isabelle Cecchini
Guy Barry
Sep 2, 2012, 3:14:06 PM9/2/12
to
"the Omrud" wrote in message news:q3O0s.176163$Lp7.1...@fx08.am4...
> Right. The peerage is hereditary. The right of the peer to sit in the
> Lords is not, since 1999.
As a matter of interest, do you know if the heir to a peerage has ever won
one of these by-elections? They strike me as quite bizarre affairs. In
some cases the electorate is smaller than the number of candidates.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 2, 2012, 3:31:28 PM9/2/12
to
"the Omrud" wrote in message news:q3O0s.176163$Lp7.1...@fx08.am4...
> Right. The peerage is hereditary. The right of the peer to sit in the
> Lords is not, since 1999.
"In about 50 years there will be no hereditaries left [in the Lords], even
if no further reforms are made."
Given that I was wrong and by-elections haven't been abolished, if no
further reforms are made, won't there continue to be 92 hereditary peers in
the Lords?
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 2, 2012, 3:44:29 PM9/2/12
to
"Guy Barry" wrote in message news:luO0s.208451$Wk.1...@fx09.am4...
> Given that I was wrong and by-elections haven't been abolished [...]
Just to clarify this bit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8607000/8607150.stm
"On 8 April 2010, peers passed the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
after the government decided to drop plans to phase out the remaining
hereditary peers in the Lords and to hold a referendum on voting reform in
the new Parliament.
The government had pledged to give the public the choice to move from
first-past-the-post to the alternative vote, where voters rank candidates in
order of choice, for Westminster parliamentary elections.
But the Conservatives opposed the change, and the government bowed to
pressure from the Tories for fear of losing the whole bill in the short time
before Parliament is dissolved for the general election."
So it seems the Labour government dropped the measure because they couldn't
get it through in time for the election. Which means that the "rump" of 92
hereditary peers, which was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow the
bulk of the hereditaries to be abolished in the first place, is now probably
going to continue indefinitely. Amazing for a 21st-century democracy.
--
Guy Barry
the Omrud
Sep 2, 2012, 5:56:45 PM9/2/12
to
next see them, but they don't live close so don't hold your breath.
--
David
the Omrud
Sep 2, 2012, 5:58:13 PM9/2/12
to
which I had misunderstood.
--
David
Whiskers
Sep 3, 2012, 11:33:30 AM9/3/12
to
On 2012-09-02, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> So it seems the Labour government dropped the measure because they couldn't
> get it through in time for the election. Which means that the "rump" of 92
> hereditary peers, which was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow the
> bulk of the hereditaries to be abolished in the first place, is now probably
> going to continue indefinitely. Amazing for a 21st-century democracy.
I prefer an un-elected second chamber, and I'm not convinced that it
matters very much how the membership is chosen. Random appointment of
individuals qualified to vote in parliamentary elections would probably
work as well as any system
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/01/random-promotion-research>.
Those who seek election to public office, thereby cast considerable doubt on
their suitability therefor.
The system of 'Life Peerages' has actually worked pretty well, producing a
revising chamber full of people with very varied life experiences and areas
of knowledge who can make valuable contributions to the consideration of
Bills sent up from the Commons. The Lords are not so constrained by
temporary short-term party-political considerations - which they would be
if elected. There would also be the likelyhood of stalemate if the two
houses had different parties in the majority, and endless disputes about
which chamber is more legitimate. If only one chamber is elected (which is
our present arrangement) then that chamber has incontrovertible supremacy,
whatever its faults.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
[...]
> So it seems the Labour government dropped the measure because they couldn't
> get it through in time for the election. Which means that the "rump" of 92
> hereditary peers, which was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow the
> bulk of the hereditaries to be abolished in the first place, is now probably
> going to continue indefinitely. Amazing for a 21st-century democracy.
matters very much how the membership is chosen. Random appointment of
individuals qualified to vote in parliamentary elections would probably
work as well as any system
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/01/random-promotion-research>.
Those who seek election to public office, thereby cast considerable doubt on
their suitability therefor.
The system of 'Life Peerages' has actually worked pretty well, producing a
revising chamber full of people with very varied life experiences and areas
of knowledge who can make valuable contributions to the consideration of
Bills sent up from the Commons. The Lords are not so constrained by
temporary short-term party-political considerations - which they would be
if elected. There would also be the likelyhood of stalemate if the two
houses had different parties in the majority, and endless disputes about
which chamber is more legitimate. If only one chamber is elected (which is
our present arrangement) then that chamber has incontrovertible supremacy,
whatever its faults.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
0 new messages