mrs proudie
Uncategorized

A school for Muslim girls that forbids them the use of toilet paper ‘for cultural reasons’?

Goodness! I have had a very busy few days, dear friends, going from door to door with my collection tin, asking the good people of Barchester to give generously for a worthy cause. You see, it came to my attention that the talentless chanteuse, social justice warrior and vulgarian, Miss Lily Allen, is going to be homeless this Christmas. Having berated the nation for not doing enough for the Calais ‘refugees’ and demanding we open our homes to welcome them, she generously rented out her London apartment to a couple of Syrian diplomats (hardly the sort of terror-fleeing penniless unfortunates I envisaged when she first opined, but I digress). Now she wants her apartment back and the diplomats, claiming immunity, are refusing to budge. What is a girl to do? She could, of course, pitch up outside and sing for ten minutes – that would surely shift them – but she prefers to twitter the injustice of it all. Oh… you are wondering about the money? No, my dears, I am not collecting so that she can get a hotel room – it is to pay Sir Omicron Pi for an independent psychiatric assessment, and referral to a secure facility internment. I have already approached the St. Electrode’s Asylum for the Marxist Delusional on Rockall (by carrier pigeon, obviously) and they are more than happy to take her in, under restraint.

I do find good works bracing.

There was an interesting ‘coming together’ at Gatherum Castle on Tuesday evening, hosted by the Duke of Omnium and attended by the great and the good of the Conservative Party. Thanks to my coffee morning on Wednesday with Duchess Glencora and the Countess de Courcy, I found out all about it. There is considerable disquiet in Tory ranks about the way Mrs. Dismay has handled the Zollverein to date, and this business with selling Northern Ireland by the pound has stirred things up considerably. In short, the knives are out, and candidates for her replacement are being mooted. The duke has of course ruled himself out – the zeitgeist is against hereditary peers (though it seems to favour every other minority) – but other interesting names have surfaced.

  • Roderick Spode
  • Caesar Salad-Borgia
  • Cholmondeley-Warner
  • Madame Arcarti
  • Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Whom to choose as the replacement?

Mrs. Dismay must surely go down as the worst Prime Minister we have ever had (and that is saying something). She returns from Brussels bearing the imprint of the last posterior that sat on her – really, it is too much. Last week she (and a whole stream of others) condemned President Trumpelstiltskin for his warnings on Islamic terrorism; this week we see two Muslims in court for plotting to kill her, and another in the dock for planning to murder Prince George, and she still blames the President and ‘the far-right’ for stirring things up! As the Archdeacon rightly said:

“Somebody should whisper in her ear that it wasn’t Britain First who plotted to kill you…”

Of course, Mrs. Dismay might wriggle out of this latest negotiating disaster, after all she has form (plus the ability to shed her skin when it suits). As I scribble my last few words this Saturday morning it appears a deal has been struck with the Irish and the Eurobots, thus allowing trade talks to progress. The Prime Minister has offered Northern Ireland six commitments.

Good luck with that. She has made so many U-turns I’m surprised she hasn’t screwed herself into the floor.

One has to be even-handed, however. Sir Keir Stormtrooper’s condemnation of Mrs. Dismay’s government as a ‘coalition of chaos’ is a bit rich coming from a member of a Labour shadow cabinet which comprises of Trotskyites, Stalinists, Fantasists and anti-White racists (naming no names). Sir Keir’s impression of Bart Simpson, however, is masterly.

Apropos of nothing, I find myself reacquainted with gin… but only when the Bishop is out. Must bash on…

It is many years since one has ventured into The Potteries, a dark and hellish place in my youth and so it seems, today. I understand Stoke-on-Trent is shortlisted to be named a ‘City of Culture’. Ah, but which culture? It is disconcerting to hear of a school for Muslim girls that forbids them the use of toilet paper ‘for cultural reasons’. Soap, too, is off the menu, so the poor dears have to ablute the Karachi way. One wonders if the school provides proper toilets, or simply issues the girls with a trowel and points them towards the shrubbery? So much for all cultures being equal, for indeed some are more equal than others. At least inspectors have deemed the school to be ‘inadequate’, which should send leftists spinning and surely counts as a ‘hate-crime’.

Speaking of the disciples of St. Marx, I understand the Bishopric of Heligoland is now vacant. Perhaps someone could inform Bishop Broadbent?

Alas, I have to report that Mr. Slope has taken the words of the Provost of St, Mary’s Cathedral, Edinburgh, to heart, and has been trolling off to the Chantry Chapel of Sir Piers Gavescon each morning to pray for the gayness of Prince George. I have always put his inclinations down to an unhealthy fascination with the Eastward Position and getting his tippet trapped in a revolving door, but he recently confessed to being a bosom-buddy pen-friend of the present Swedish Archbishop, she of the moustache, Doc Marten’s and biblical de-genderisation (how she handles the Burning Bush is anyone’s guess). In deference to her linguistic purging, Mr. Slope refers to her as ‘The “It-girl” of Stockholm’. Do keep up…

Well, I must be getting on. The world is a baffling place and sometimes I feel the need to bring down a mental drawbridge and shut it all out. Perhaps you feel the same, dear friends? This afternoon I am awarding prizes at the Silverbridge Theological College’s annual ‘Coat a Curate in Custard for Christmas’ competition, which always amuses, followed by a fund-raising soirée at Greshambury hosted by Lady Arabella. It is a most worthy cause – ‘Buy Smokeless Fuel and Save a Sweep’s Lad’s Lungs’ – though I confess we need a nattier slogan. So, as the First Trump opens the Gates of Hell and the Cutty Sark of Liberal Outrage meets the doldrums of Conservative Indifference, I bid you all adieu for this week.

Cast out your nutty slack and go smokeless- you know it makes sense!

  • Father David

    Dear Mrs. P, Having read through thoroughly your premier paragraph, I am looking for somewhere to stay for my post-Christmas Break – any suggestions?

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Rockall?

      • Father David

        Excellent suggestion, I’ll look into it immediately and when I arrive I shall declare UDI and thereafter pronounce that Rockall shall remain a member of the European Union and shall forthwith have nothing to do with this Brexit madness. Cannot for the life of me think why Mrs. Dismay’s dismal deal is being hailed as a triumph as she seems to me to have caved into every single EU demand and her red lines are now SHOCKING PINK.

        • DespiteBrexit

          I think your views on Brexit are nutty – and doubtless vice versa. However we are now in the position that May is despised by all sides. Unbelievable. If this was fiction I would have put the book back on the shelves unfinished long ago.

          • Father David

            Dear Despite, Not sure what your views on Brexit are so, I shall refrain from commenting other than to say that I wish you and Mrs. May the very Happiest of Christmases.
            P. S. Any idea what the title of the book you refer to is? I wish to put it in as a request in my letter to Santa and hope that the volume appears in my Christmas stocking. It sound a right riveting read.

        • HedgehogFive

          Don’t you realize that the European Project was dreamed up by a group of Communists that Mussolini had exiled to the island of Ventotene?

          All 28 countries need a form of Eurexit, or maybe Eurexcrete.

          • Father David

            Good old Musso, so, not only did he make the trains run on time but also ……

  • dannybhoy

    “Mrs. Dismay must surely go down as the worst Prime Minister we have ever had (and that is saying something). She returns from Brussels bearing the imprint of the last posterior that sat on her – really, it is too much. Last week she (and a whole stream of others) condemned President Trumpelstiltskin for his warnings on Islamic terrorism; this week we see two Muslims in court for plotting to kill her, and another in the dock for planning to murder Prince George, and she still blames the President and ‘the far-right’ for stirring things up!”
    Fantastic!
    I had forgotten about her berating President Trumpelstiltskin, only to have two wannabe Jihadis plot to storm the nerve centre of British power…
    Such irony, how the Donald must have chortled over that one. Perhaps the Pentagon knew about the plot but decided it should stay as a seasonal surprise for Treeesa..

    • Manfarang

      Worst Prime Minister since WW2. Remember Anthony Eden and Suez?

      • Anton

        Suez was going well until the superpowers became involved behind the scenes.

        • Manfarang

          The end of colonialism in fact.

          • Anton

            The world would have been a better place if the postwar USA had preferred a strategic alliance against communism with the British Empire.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Yes, exactly. From Roosevelt to this . . .

      • betteroffoutofit

        And BLiar, and Brown, and Camoron, and Heath, and Major …. and I never could stand Wilson, whose voice had the same effect (a false and lying person) as O’Barmey’s.

        Something is terribly wrong with the selection of our political candidates – we don’t get anything worth voting for.

      • bluedog

        Come now, Suez was a military success, but thanks to our American cousins, a political defeat.

        You need to remember that the US in 1956 was still rabidly anti-colonial and had decided to brook no competition in its own drive towards global hegemony. Thus an independent Anglo-French enterprise, in defence of legitimately acquired and owned infrastructure, could be described as a neo-colonial outrage, echoing the claims of Colonel Nasser himself. As usual the irony is great. Having gone out of its way to collapse European power structures, the US now finds itself confronted by a deadly serious challenger to its position, communist China. China’s annexation of the South China Sea under Obama has exposed the US as a paper tiger, and one awaits The Donald’s response with fascination.

        • TropicalAnglican

          When Trump (finally) made his announcement that he would be running for the presidency back in June 2015, the MSM went wild with joy (from what I have seen retrospectively, anyway — I wasn’t paying attention to American politics in 2015). They lost no time describing him as negatively as possible, and I am pretty sure they painted him as a dangerous ignoramous who their knowledgeable, stable and experienced heroine Hillary Clinton would have no problems meeting.
          Yet, in this very first speech, Trump spoke out against the militarisation by China of the South China Sea.
          How many other Republican candidates also mentioned the South China Sea problem in their own announceements, I wonder?

          • bluedog

            The answer to your question would be: nil. So well done The Donald for identifying the most difficult problem facing the West today, the emergence of a hegemonic rival state to the US. And it’s not just the West which faces a crisis. One wonders how much of recent Russian aggression reflects the need to retain credibility with China, with which Russia enjoys an uneasy strategic alliance. There are studies showing a conventional war between Russia and China would see the loss of the Russian Far East, with China making gains to take areas to the west of Lake Baikal before becoming over-extended. If the Russians suddenly make peace with Japan and return the four islands seized in the dying days of the Second World War, we will know they are starting to hedge their position.

          • Manfarang

            In 1991 the Sino-Soviet Border Agreement was made which demarcates the Russian Chinese border.

        • Manfarang

          I remember the petrol coupons although rationing was never introduced.
          On 19 October 1954 a treaty was signed by Nasser and by Anthony Nutting, British minister of state for foreign affairs. The agreement was to last for seven years.
          British troops were to be withdrawn from Egypt by June 1956, and the British bases were to be run jointly by British and Egyptian civilian technicians. Egypt agreed to respect the freedom of navigation through the canal
          Egyptian sovereignty and ownership of the Canal was later confirmed by the United States and the United Nations.
          Vietnam and the Philippines both assert claims on the South China sea.
          In January 2013 the Philippines formally initiated arbitration proceedings against the PRC claim on the territories within the “nine-dash line” that include Scarborough Shoal, which the Philippines claimed is unlawful under the UNCLOS convention. The Permanent Court of Arbitration on 12 July 2016 agreed unanimously with the Philippines. While the PRC rejected the courts decision it said it would still be “committed to resolving disputes” with its neighbours.

        • carl jacobs

          Eisenhower and Eden were looking at the crisis through different lenses. Eisenhower was worried about Soviet penetration, and the possibility of WWIII. The British and the French were attempting to re-establish a 19th Century status quo of European preeminence in the ME. They were also worried about implications for existing colonies. The idea that the US would have supported what was essentially a colonial expedition in the face of the risks presented is pretty fanciful.

          • Anton

            Nasser was the aggressor and the USA would always do well to support Israel, which has a western mindset, against Islamic nations which have an anti-Western mindset. The USA threw off colonial status fully 180 years earlier and should not have been swayed by emotional arguments about colonialism.

          • carl jacobs

            It was Eisenhower’s position that Nasser had every legal right to do what he did so long as compensation was paid. No international treaty covered the operation of the canal. The canal was wholly within sovereign Egyptian territory and sovereign nations can exercise eminent domain. To Eisenhower it was the wrong fight about the wrong issue.

            It’s also true that the two world wars burned to ashes the ability of Europe to maintain colonies. It was not so much American anti-colonialism as it was the loss of European power. The US was not going to jeopardize its international position for the sake of unsustainable European ambitions.

            The vital interest that drove the war was a loss of prestige imposed upon Britain by Nasser’s act and the impact that loss could have on other British interests in the ME. To the US those interests represented a declining asset and were harmful to the greater goal of containing the Soviet Union.

          • Anton

            British prestige had already gone down the pan with our bankruptcy after WW2 and withdrawal from east of Suez. I repeat that the USA would always do well to support Israel, which has a western mindset, against Islamic nations which have an anti-Western mindset. Nasser soon turned to the Soviets anyway, so it did Washington no good. As for Moscow threatening nuclear war, it’s called brinkmanship and Ike blinked.

          • carl jacobs

            What US interest was involved that justified the risk of war with Russia? The US did not believe the Suez Canal was placed at risk by Egyptian ownership. The US did think the larger struggle with the Soviet Union would be damaged if the US was seen backing an Imperial Expedition to coerce a small power in the name of 19th Century empires.

            The fact that Nasser turned to the Soviets dies not mean Eisenhower made the wrong decision in 1956.

          • Anton

            Just because the Soviets said that they regarded this as a nuclear issue doesn’t necessarily mean that they did. Diplomacy is poker.

            Israel didn’t view it as a last gasp of decaying Empires, and was worth supporting because it is a Western-style power in a desert of Islamic oligarchies. It is important to know who your friends are and support them because you never know when you will need them. The entire West lost control of the Suez Canal, not just Britain and France. You never know when you will need your strategic assets.

          • carl jacobs

            Israel just wanted to smash the Egyptians. I understand their motivations. But Britain and France were objectively acting against Western interests in their respective parochial pursuits of maintaining Empire. This war was not primarily about the Suez Canal. It was about Nasser’s defiance of Britain and France, and the impact that defiance would have if it was left unchallenged. Both Britain and France wanted Nasser removed for it.

          • Anton

            I consider it was in Western interests for the Suez canal to remain in Western hands rather than Islamic hands. The implication of your concentrating upon Britain and France as weakening colonial powers is that Washington prioritised teaching them a lesson above keeping a major strategic asset in Western hands – and the leader of the West remains the USA. It was therefore acting against its own best interests.

          • carl jacobs

            No, the fear in Washigton was that supporting Britain and France would drive nations into the Soviet camp without actually contributing to Western power.

          • Anton

            You said earlier that the fear was nuclear war…

            Part of Western power comes from controlling strategic assets, of which the Suez Canal was one.

          • carl jacobs

            The very first thing I said was that Eisenhower was worried about Soviet penetration and WWIII. Eisenhower didn’t care that the Egyptians controlled the canal so long as they provided access and efficient operation.

          • Anton

            Agreed. Now, which of the British and the Egyptians are more likely to do that in a major West vs Rest confrontation?

          • carl jacobs

            That’s the wrong question. The correct question is”How do you expand the West and decrease the Rest?” The US was not going to be back-doored into supporting a colonial operation when colonialism was collapsing everywhere. Britain and France did not play straight with the US. They did this in secret, and then expected the US to support them when presented with unalterable facts on the ground. They exposed the US to potential conflict with the Soviet Union with a glib assertion of “But we are your allies.” It was a catastrophic miscalculation.

            You are focused on the canal. I don’t believe this was about the canal. There was no reason to risk war over the canal. But Britain and France would risk conflict over empire. France was already fighting in Algeria in 1956. But you don’t expose your most important ally to that kind of risk on the assumption that you can simply ask for forgiveness after the fact.

          • Anton

            The USA only became involved because the Soviets rattled their nuclear bombs, which was not expected by Paris or London. By doing so the Soviets got the USA to jump to their tune, while a major strategic asset, the Suez Canal, changed from being run by a Western nation to being run by a nation whose majority religion has been Western [European] Civilisation’s most deadly and enduring enemy for more than a thousand years. I call that a bad outcome for Western Civ, and it went pear-shaped from the moment Ike decided his response.

          • carl jacobs

            Didn’t expect the Russians to rattle the nuclear sabers? Bit of an oversight there, don’t you think? Since the nuclear issue would involve the US, might it not have been a good idea to tell the US about what was discussed at the secret meeting in Paris on 16 October? Well no. Because the Americans would have shut down the whole enterprise, and how does that help the preservation of Empire?

            The Soviets were involved because they had sold a whole bunch of weapons to Egypt just that year. The Soviets were involved because they saw it as a political opportunity to gain influence in the ME. The Soviets were involved because they had nukes. The truth is that the Americans could not be kept out of this. It is in fact true that the British both expected and depended upon the US being forced to support this action whether it wanted to or not. This was not a matter of “We’re going to do this. You can stay out of it.” This was a matter of “We did it and we can’t change it so you need to support us because we are your allies. OK? Thanks! Bye.”

          • Anton

            I’m beginning to wonder, with Avi, whether US foreign policy is not very good at discerning what its own best interests are. Britain had the same problem in the 1930s when we were still just about a superpower. (Best chronicled in Correlli Barnett’s book The Collapse of British Power).

          • bluedog

            The US had the option of abstaining, ie, just standing to one side. But instead it threatened to intervene economically in order to damage Sterling. The threat seemed credible and potentially devastating. Nobody wanted WWIII, but it was a reasonable calculation that defending the position at Suez was not a cause of war. It can be argued that after Suez, the old European powers were demoralised and to some extent disarmed themselves, thus increasing the burden on the US for upholding the post-colonial order. Was British and French non-involvement in Vietnam a reward for Suez? Was Vietnam a neo-colonial expeditionary war?

          • carl jacobs

            The Russians were threatening nuclear war. The US did not have the option of standing aside. Besides which, abstension would have been seen as tacit support. Britain and France tried to impose a fait accompli on the US and thought the US would be compelled to support their action. It was a very bad calculation.

          • bluedog

            ‘Besides which, abstension would have been seen as tacit support.’ If the Soviets were threatening nuclear war, it was important for the West to show resolve in the face of all threats. Suez ticked that box. The rest of your post implies that Britain and France had no right to independent action in defence of their interests, and that every initiative had to be signed off by Washington.

            ‘The British and the French were attempting to re-establish a 19th Century status quo of European preeminence in the ME.’ Not really, there were agreements that post-dated that, and which it was subsequently proved could only be abandoned at very real cost to the West. In 1971, the Wilson government withdrew British forces from ‘East of Suez’, abandoning the various British protectorates in the Persian Gulf. Whatever the motivation, this was a serious error. In 1973, sensing a power vacuum and likely lack of any Western military response, the Arab-led OPEC tripled the oil price causing a global recession and a period of stagflation that was only ended by Paul Volker in 1981. A greatly enriched Saudi Arabia has gone on to spread Wahhabism globally. Arguably, this was the real cost of Suez.

          • carl jacobs

            The US was not going to risk a confrontation with the Soviet Union over what amounted to European difficulty in coming to terms with the loss of Empire. The British and French were trying to cling to that which they had already lost. The colonial peoples had seen the European powers beaten by Japan. They now believed they could throw off colonialism. And that is what happened. Europe did not possess the power or the money or the will to impose its rule any longer. There was no long-term possibility of European Empire anymore. It was all unraveling and the US had no intention of being put in the position of trying to stop that process.

            Eisenhower in his speech to the nation said the Britain and France had the right to do what they did. He also said the US had the right to disagree. In Eisenhower’s judgment, the actions by Britain and France threatened peace, the interests of the US, and the wider interests of the West. So the Americans reacted as they did. Britain and France could have continued with their independent action. But they didn’t have the ability to cross the US and not suffer significant loss. So, yes, they should have cleared it with the US. But of course they didn’t do this because they already knew the US would not approve. That’s why they offered a fait accompli instead.

          • Anton

            Perhaps the US would have done better to approve, however. The Suez canal, a huge strategic asset, moved form being run by Western powers to Islamic ones, and Nasser soon turned to the Soviets anyway.

            By the way, you said that Kissinger told the Israelis not to destroy the Egyptian 3rd Army in the Yom Kippur War. Why, though, did he tell Israel not to launch pre-emptive strikes but let Syria and Egypt fire first in that war, thereby costing the lives of thousands of IDF men?

          • carl jacobs

            The Israelis were receiving boatloads of aircraft and tanks and munitions from the US to replace material consumed in the war. Their war effort depended on it. That gave the US leverage.

          • Anton

            I understand that, but what I don’t understand is why Washington didn’t want Israel to repeat 1967’s pre-emptive strike when it was blatantly obvious in 1973 that Egypt and Syria were about to invade?

          • carl jacobs

            The Israelis were fairly complacent about their Egyptian enemy in 1973. They had learned the lessons of 1967 too well. I don’t remember any Israeli desire to preempt the Egyptian attack. They didn’t believe the Egyptians would attack. The Egyptians had in fact staged several exercises to disguise the actual attack when it came. The Israelis were wholly unprepared for war on October 6th. That’s why the war became such a threat to Israeli survival.

          • Anton

            Why then did Kissinger say to Golda Meir: “Don’t pre-empt”?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#Lack_of_Israeli_pre-emptive_attack

          • carl jacobs

            “In the week that we began to inquire into the tactical situation [in late September and early October], it was caused by the fact that I received an intelligence report that spoke of concentration of Egyptian and Syrian forces along the dividing lines. It was natural to inquire of the CIA and Mossad what their assessment of the situation was. Their initial assessment was that these were normal maneuvers, and therefore did not represent an additional threat of war. I asked that these assessments be repeated, or that a new assessment be made, every two days, in order to be sure that we were not surprised.

            “On the Friday, October 5, we were informed of an increasing concern − but not of any specific new danger − but of an increasing concern that these mobilizations which we had noticed might be something more serious. And we were asked to convey to the Arab side that Israel had no intention of launching a preemptive attack, and that therefore any military move that they might be contemplating should not be placed on the fear of an Israeli attack, and this we did. I was notified at 6:30 Saturday morning, [12:30 P.M.] Israel time. I was awakened by assistant Secretary of State Joe Sisco, [who said] that a war was imminent. We were in New York for the General Assembly, and he woke me up and said, if I started acting immediately, I probably could still avert the outbreak.”

            Kissinger’s urgent calls to the Soviets and the Egyptians did not do the trick. Kissinger agrees with Meir’s belief that an Israeli attempt at preemption at this late stage would not be cost-effective.

            “The Israeli decision, taken on its own volition and not at our request, not to preempt − was that a wise decision, with the [Arab attack] only a few hours away? So the first question is how effective would a preemptive attack have been at that point, on Yom Kippur, without a mobilized Israeli Air Force, and against the Soviet missile defense system along the canal, which proved later in the war as fairly effective until the canal was crossed. So I can see that it was a reasonable judgment of Golda’s, balancing the risk she had of Israel looking like the aggressor, against the real option she had, and against the actual capabilities of Israel on Yom Kippur, to launch a significant attack in the very limited time that was left.”

            read more: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.555704

          • Anton

            Why should I trust Kissinger’s self-justifying memoirs written long afterwards? If you are convinced that war is inevitable, striking first is tactically better. Israel had much less time to do so in 1973 than 1967 but the principle is the same. The Wikipedia article I linked to above says that during that short period Kissinger warned Israel not to pre-empt. The article also quotes Kissinger as saying that had Israel pre-empted then it would have received no subsequent help from Washington. It seems a strange way to treat your allies to tell them to await an attack that has become inevitable.

          • carl jacobs

            Why should I trust Kissinger’s self-justifying memoirs

            Because he is the primary source. Because you have no evidence that he is lying. Because his account agrees with the strategic situation on 6 October 1973.

            Israel had much less time to do so in 1973 than 1967 but the principle is the same.

            No, it’s not the same at all. The Israeli attack in 1967 was carefully planned. That’s why it succeeded. It involved the entire Israeli military in a coordinated attack. The “preemption” pondered in the hours before the start of the Yom Kippur War would hacve been ad hoc strikes with whatever aircraft the Israelis had available. The results would have been ineffectual. They would not have had any significant impact on the outcome of the Egyptian attack.

            The Israelis were not prepared for war because they didn’t expect war. The Egyptians achieved strategic surprise.

          • Anton

            Kissinger is not the primary source. A message from one country to another has both a sender and a receiver, and both may make it public – check the Wikipedia article for copious quotes from senior Israelis about it.

            Whether a pre-emptive response form Israel would have done any good at such short notice isn’t the question. It’s why the leader of the Western world told a Western nation facing Muslim nations patently bent on imminent aggression that it had to wait to receive the first blow.

          • carl jacobs

            There is no inconsistency between what Kissinger said and the reports listed. The date/time group on the classified memo is 06/1250Z

          • Anton

            I trust you to be right about the timing of that specific “Don’t pre-empt” message, but the same Wikipedia article is explicit that this message was not isolated but merely the last of many such received by Israel before it was attacked.

          • carl jacobs

            Thought you might find this interesting.

            https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/kissinger-the-yom-kippur-war/

            Commentary is a Jewish Magazine to which I subscribed at one time. It has its biases but it is a very credible source. This account of Kissinger strikes me as true because it agrees very well with Kissinger’s actions at the end of the war.

          • carl jacobs

            When I read the phrase “Preemptive attack”, I think of what the Israelis did in 1967. It requires mobilization and a coordinated strategy to defeat the enemy by attacking first. Cobbling together an airstrike a few hours before the other side lauches a major offensive is not “preemption” in my understanding.

          • Golda Meir and her cabinet didn’t believe the intelligence and thought the Arabs were up to their usual posturing and wouldn’t be able to project more than the same scared rag-tag armies as in ’67.

          • Anton

            That is true in the *days* before Yom Kippur. i am talking about the *hours* before the battle began.

          • The hours before were a mess, with regulars and reservists scrambling to get to the two fronts, often to units they weren’t assigned to. So, Carl may be right that a preemptive strike would have made little difference. I’ve relatives who were there and think that preemptive air strikes. like in ’67, might have helped substantially had not the pilots been ordered to jettison their bombs after take-off, and others who say that the Russian SAMs would have damaged the air force eveb more than they did. Up until then, Egyptian positions and movements looked indistinguishable from their regular maneuvers.

            That being said, the greater damage the US caused was in pressing Israel to return the Sinai in 1980, whicj emboldened the Arabs to believe that attempts to destroy Israel would cost little. Giving away Gaza for nothing, pressure or not, was Israel’s turn for idiocy, and hopefully this can be in part compensated by formally claiming all of Jerusalem and officially annexing the Golan. The latter should be politically easier with Syria becoming a vassal of Russia and Iran.

            Nice to have Jerusalem recognized, but letting Russia and Iran romp around Syria unimpeded was Trump’s first major strategic error.

          • Anton

            My point to Carl has always been that telling Israel not to pre-empt is not a friendly act. That has nothing to do with how effective such action would or would not have been.

            Gaza was given away because the Israeli government could not guarantee the safety of the Jewish community there and was not willing to let them risk their lives. It’s the same sort of reasoning that makes a government seek to ban smoking, I agree.

          • I look at it as another stupid decision by the US trying to be clever, rather than an intentionally unfriendly act. The US is an equal oppotunity fucker-upper; it messed up with Vietnam and Iraq by trying to be “realistic,” instead of pushing for victory and letting the world come to terms with it. Carl’s as a good egg, but he tends to defend the “realists” and isolationists.

            I can’t blame the US for such attitudes, as it oscillates from trying to save the world one day and wishing to be left alone the next, given the declining quality of its allies, especially in the EU, but maintaining the can’t-stop momentum of the modern world with its security alignments and interlinked economies, requires swift, decisive action, especially when the outcome can potentially unravel everything. Israel pulled off a miracle in ’73 thanks to swift and heroic acts and sacrifices, and superior leadership and logistics against a well-armed enemy led by Soviet “advisers.” Had Israel lost, the ME and a good chunk of the planet would have been Russia’s for the taking, with country after country trying to make “realistic” deals with the Kremlin…probably not the type of an arrangement the US would have been pleased with.

            Gaza should be Exhibit A on “realism” in war colleges; retreat not only doesn’t get you thanks or good wishes, and can result in thousands of rocket attacks and international condemnation for trying to stop them.

          • bluedog

            But it was Ariel Sharon who was the architect of withdrawal from Gaza. He would have been able to calculate the risk-reward as well as anyone in Israel. Maybe you should consider the outcomes if Israel had stayed on. It’s easy to see that it would have been a commitment that chewed up military resources for no benefit. Short of resettling the entire Arab population of Gaza somewhere in Egypt, it’s hard to see how Israel could retain Gaza.

          • It was actually Sharon’s son, Gilad, who came up with the hare-brained suggestion. Sharon, like many military heroes, was a failure as a politician. He accepted a role in a plan for the piece-meal dismemberment of Israel as a prerequisite for every step in the imaginary peace process; the land-for-promises shtik. It was either an idiotic, or quite possibly a corruption-driven “assessment” loved by the Left, the Euros, the Arabs and the UN, and rejected by ordinary Israelis and most soldiers who actually understood the realities.

            You can just as easily say that it’s also hard to see how Israel can retain…Israel short of resettling Palestinians elsewhere. It’s hard, but it’s done and life goes on. here was no pressing reason at the time to justify uprooting thousands of Israelis from their homes and businesses and for removing the security forces from a volatile, but mostly disarmed Muslim population. Israel was retaining Gaza quite effectively and there was no need to move either Palestinian Arab or Israeli communities anywhere. As things are now, Gaza under Hamas chews up far more more resources in lives than Gaza under Israeli military control and moreover, threatens the entire country from nearby Sderot to Haifa in the north with missile attacks. which suck billions out of the economy.

            The Gaza “disengagement” experiment was a dismal failure useful in only one respect; many idiots, commonly called “moderates” (like yours truly in his younger years), who once upon a time believed in a “two state solution” of an independent self-policing Muslim enclave right in the historic and strategic centre of Israel now laugh at the very idea.

          • bluedog

            Glad you’re not a believer in the two-state solution fallacy. This communicant is firm believer in a greater Israel that includes full annexation of the West Bank and potentially the recovery of the Sinai. Israel needs strategic depth and buffer zones, so any proposal to trade away the Golan Heights, won at such cost, is a betrayal of those of your people who died in the course of a brilliant victory. Recovery of the Sinai would enable a better outcome in Gaza. If the Gazans lost the moral and material support of a border with Egypt, their isolation would settle them down. Land for promises may have been something Israel had to try to prove to the outside world that it would not work. If course, Israel’s enemies in the West were always hoping for failure.

          • Yes, the hope for failure is what the foundation behind Oslo and the “peace deals” is. A terror state under Syria and Iran in the strategic highlands and the return of the Golan would make Israel essentially defenseless and open for additional concessions, such as a sea port and airport in Gaza, a land bridge between the new state of “Palestine” and Gaza, allowing descendants of real and imaginary Arab refugees into Israel and withdrawal from the Western Wall and eastern, Arab-claimed Jerusalem. All land give-aways would have resulted in loss of territory and a gain of more hostile Arabs as refugees and nominal Israeli citizens in whatever is left over. Jerusalem’s recognition by the US may seem inconsequential strategically, but it was a decisive blow to the “progress” of this incremental creep.

          • carl jacobs

            The ’67 air campaign was a masterpiece. People study it. It didn’t happen by accident. It was planned, rehearsed, and prepped. What could the IAF have done in ’73? Close Air Support? Along the whole front? They would have popped a few tanks and destroyed some bridges across the canal. Neither would have significantly slowed the Egyptians. Interdiction takes mass and time – neither of which the Israelis had. Counter air? That’s doctrinally correct but it would not have slowed the Egyptian Army.

            They would have thrown a few sorties at a mass and achieved nothing.

          • Air Force’s Peled had solid plans that relied on preemption. This involved feinting flights to direct the US-made radar-seeking missiles for the SAM batteries and and a well-practiced low level flight approach and lobbing bombs from a distance at bottle-necked and massively packed Syrian and Egyptian staging areas from a distance.

            Peled’s strategy (successfully tested later, in Lebanon) would have succeeded in damaging the SAM batteries over the Golan and the Sinai and in wreaking such carnage on massed troops and equipment that forward movement by them would have been impossible.

            This IDF tactic of breaking Arab field discipline, will and tactical organization was probably developed by the Brits, developed and fine-tuned by Israel in ’48, used in ’67 and later, in ’82, is more than a doctrine; it’s a battle-tested virtual guarantee evident even in the initial ISIS vs Iraqi army encounters, where a few thousand lightly armed but “inspired” thugs routed an army of tens of thousands of disorganized poltroons. As things happened, the Syrians nearly took the whole of the Golan, with Israel’s highly populated plains neatly laid out before their artillery.

          • carl jacobs

            It’s a counter factual. Everything works perfectly in a counter factual case. But can you gin up that kind of mission with a peace time air force in the few hours before a war starts? And what would the Egyptians do? This kind of hasty ad hoc mission planning typically leads to disaster.

          • You are grasping at straws, Carl. Peled’s boys had the lobbing maneuver worked out with intensive training as soon as Soviet SAMs appeared on the scene. It would have kept most planes from being picked up by the radars. Egyptian and Syrian logistics were a joke, with their men, equipment and supplies bunched-up and clogging bridges and passes, which would have made the job easy, had not the IDF pilots been ordered to dump their bombs in the Med! Hasty, ad hoc missions is what the IDF was very good at …legacy from British special forces training in independent operations and Red Army make-do-with-little tactics. The carnage might have been insufficient to cause the Arabs to beg for a cease fire yet again, but would have certainly bought time for Israel’s reservists to get to their own units, 2/3rds of whom were on leave and scrambling to get to the fronts in private cars, buses and taxis.

            Yes, it would have been a disaster, to be remembered as the One day War, but for the Arabs and for Soviet prestige.

          • carl jacobs

            http://m.jpost.com/International/The-air-forces-last-chances-to-turn-around-the-Yom-Kippur-War-506253

            A detailed plan, labeled Srita (Scratch), was drawn up and rehearsed by the air force. When war came the next year, however, Srita was overlooked amid the intense confusion of the opening hours of the war, with surprise attacks unfolding on both the Syrian and Egyptian fronts.

            I’m not grasping at straws. I’m recognizing what confusion and friction and unpreparedness can do to a military operation. You are imagining an idealized strike. I am imposing on that strike that conditions under which it would have unfolded. You are also dismissing entirely the response of your enemy. That’s a dangerous attitude. But its a natural tendency in a counter-factual argument. “If only we had done X!” You don’t account for the reality that X will cause the enemy to respond with Y.

            I have also read that the IAF had a plan to destroy the SAM umbrella on day one – with considerable loss of aircraft. But if that is so, the IAF could also have destroyed the SAM umbrella on day 2 or 3 or 4. Against this stands the factual record that the IAF never successfully penetrated the area protected by the SAM umbrella until Sharon destroyed those SAMs. The inability of the IAF to provide Close Air Support was why the Egyptians were able to hold their position.

            The beginning of that war did not lens itself to the neat clean precise attack the IAF pulled off in ’67. It would have been an attack conceived and generated and carried out in chaos. That would have significantly reduced its effectiveness.

          • The very idea that Israel overlooked “Scratch,” the only viable air-to-ground tactic against SAMs is absurd beyond belief. Yes, there was confusion, with Golda in denial and Dayan expecting the Apolcalypse, but you more than anyone here understand the practically fail-safe and routine application of operational plans even and especially, in times of chaos. Even if Golda dismissed the possibility of Arab attacks due to hubris and even with Kissinger, the “realist” politely asking Dobrinin to hold the Arabs and ordering Israel to abstain from preemptive strikes right to the last minute.

            I’m not talking about an idealized strike. I don’t think that the Arab troops would have thrown off their boots and peeled off into the desert as in times past, but the damage to Israeli troop formations and materiel and certainly morale, would have been significant enough to mitigate initial set-backs to the IDF.

          • carl jacobs

            you more than anyone here understand the practically fail-safe and routine application of operational plans even and especially, in times of chaos

            We were SAC. We were basically a pre-generated force waiting to go to war at any moment. 24 hours a day. 365 days a year. We had phenominal alert rates. We were always at a heightened state of readiness. Our whole system was designed to prevent loss of Command and Control. I had eight different communication channels for receiving messages. But most importantly for this discussion, everything we did was based upon careful meticulous planning. We didn’t require sortie generation. We didn’t require mission briefings. Our coordination with other forces was built into the plan. The basis of everything we did was called the Single Integrated Operations Plan. It was periodically updated, and so every so often we would have to learn a new SIOP. But once we knew what to do, it was simply a matter of training and waiting to execute it. We didn’t operate in chaos. So long as we had communications, we could execute the plan.

            The very idea that Israel overlooked “Scratch,” the only viable air-to-ground tactic against SAMs is absurd beyond belief.

            I’m just quoting an Israeli Air Force general who was there. It takes a long time to move divisions across a canal. There may have been no desire to attack at 1100 am but everything west of the canal was still stacked up at 1405. So why wasn’t it executed? The more time available the better the coordination. It should have been more effective at 1400 than at 1100. What stopped it?

          • What stopped it was the request by Kissinger and Haig for Israel to stand down. The Egyptians attacked at 1355, hours before Israeli intel thought they would. The Russians had promised they would hold off the Arabs too, even as their families were taking flights out. To be fair, Golda’s cabinet, including Dayan, agreed or said they agreed with the cancellation of the preemptive strike (the holding off of US ammo shipments certainly “influenced” that decision) and I think it was only Peled and Elazar who were arguing for it.

            An earlier attack by Israel would have been to their advantage; their planes were ready to mess-up Egyptian build-upat the Canal and coordination would have been easier with messed up Egtptian tank brigades and bridging equipment destroyed. All Israeli op plans were based on a preemptive attacks. Instead, the Egyptians were given time to brake through Israel’s sand berms and the Egyptian air force was able to launch a surprisingly effective air attack on Israeli air bases.

            So, the first error by the “realists,” American as well as Israeli, was to stick Israel with fighting a defensive war in the initial hours and days, whereas it did much better on offensive ones sand later on, to stop the destruction of Egypt’s 3rd army and Sharon from driving into Cairo.

          • PS to below: Peled’s air plan would have worked well, but I suspect the US was unwilling to deal with the Russians screaming at the UN about naked imperialist Zionist aggression against peaceful Egyptian and Syrian worker-soldiers out for a camping trip on Israel’s borders.

          • bluedog

            Clearly there are differing conclusions about what constitutes the Western interest.

            ‘There was no long-term possibility of European Empire anymore.’ Undoubtedly true and in the case of Britain, once India had been voluntarily given its independence by Britain, British power was destined to collapse. However, there were other sustainable commitments that depended on mutually agreed interests involving Britain and other parties. This was true of British interests in both the Persian Gulf and for a long time after Suez, on the key fulcrum of power in Asia, the island of Singapore. As late as the period of Confrontasi between Malaysia and Indonesia from say, 1966, a British carrier battle group based in Singapore was able to determine events in the Indonesian archipelago. Indonesia was backed by the Soviet Union at the time. Had the US learned a lesson from Suez? Or was it simply distracted by the escalating war in Vietnam?

            China’s recent annexation of the South China Sea leads inexorably west towards Singapore, where Britain retains a commitment through the FPDA. At Singapore, US and British interests coincide, so there should be no argument about resisting Chinese encroachment by any means possible.

          • Ray Sunshine

            Eisenhower later changed his mind. According to Nixon, Ike said it was the worst foreign policy mistake he made in his eight years at the White House.

          • carl jacobs

            Do you have a primary source where Nixon actually records this story?

          • Ray Sunshine

            I don’t know who the primary source was. I saw it in a book by Dennis Ross called Myths, Illusions, and Peace. Ross, in turn, seems to have found it in Peter Rodman’s book, More Precious than Peace: The Cold War and the Struggle for the Third World, p. 86. But that’s a book I haven’t read.

          • carl jacobs

            This assertion about Eisenhower changing his mind surprised me. I have never heard this before. I tried to find a reference but could only find statements like “According to Nixon, Eisenhower said …” When did Nixon say this? To whom? Why? What was the specific subject? In what context? Did he in fact say it at all? It is certainly not recorded in Ike’s memoirs. Otherwise, people would be pointing at it. So there are many things that make me doubt the authenticity of this claim. An explosive charge like this is not made on the basis of such poorly documented hearsay unless the author has an agenda.

            One can imagine that there were things about the crisis that Ike might have considered a blunder – most specifically the abrupt termination of negotiations with Nasser over the Aswan dam that gave Nasser the pretext to nationalize the canal. But to say he regretted not supporting the military invasion would require some significant documentation. If it was common knowledge, it would be easy to find.

            I watched this video tonight …

            … to see if the subject would come up. It didn’t. If this claim the Ike changed his mind was an actual credible hostorical claim, this man would have addressed it in his book, and it would have been a topic of conversation in his talk.

          • Ray Sunshine

            I think I still have Dennis Ross’s book somewhere. I’ll carry on looking for it later. In the meantime, I just have a short scribbled note. In a meeting with Nixon “a decade later,” my note says, Ike said his action had prevented Britain and France from playing a constructive role in the Middle East and that U.S. actions to reverse the crisis for Nasser’s benefit didn’t help as far as the Middle East was concerned. Nasser became even more anti-West and anti-U.S. The worst fallout from Suez was that it weakened the will of our best allies, Britain and France, from playing a major role in the Middle East or in other areas outside Europe.

            Carl, please pass on whatever else you can find about this. I’ve never read very much about U.S. politics. My interest in Ross’s book was the background on the Israel/Palestine issue, and it’s news to me that there are grounds for reasonable doubt.

          • carl jacobs

          • Ray Sunshine

            … And here it is in book form:
            https://www.amazon.com/Ikes-Gamble-Americas-Dominance-Middle/dp/1451697848/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1513244295&sr=1-2

            It would be interesting, too, to try and unravel the thread from the other end: When Eden, Mollet and Ben Gurion were planning the operation, what assumptions did they make about Eisenhower’s reaction? Did they keep the State Department informed? If so, what kind of feedback did they get?

          • bluedog

            Thank you for the link to the conversation with Doran, Carl. Puts it all in the correct perspective. Eisenhower’s views on the British would have been formed in the final days of WW2, and that’s where my own insights come from. My late mother was a good-looking slip of a girl with excellent connections who got a job on Admiral Ramsay’s staff at Southwick House during the planning of D-day. Eisenhower fetched her coffee, and she knew at first hand the attitudes of the US general staff. US Gen. Mark Clark, with film star looks, was one of the most fervently anti-British generals and his views would almost certainly have influenced Ike. This latent anti-British sentiment seems to have carried over into the Eisenhower administration’s dealings over Suez. Of course, many of the US and British leaders in 1956 were men who had first met in 1944. Attitudes to personalities were already set in concrete before Suez began, leading to a subjective rather than objective US approach.

      • Royinsouthwest

        Ah Suez, we aborted the military operation to regain control of the Suez Canal because of pressure from President Eisenhower. The hypocritical Americans said that the Suez Canal belonged to Egypt even though they continued to claim for many years afterwards that the Panama Canal belonged to the United States.

        • bluedog

          Precisely.

        • Manfarang

          With the backing of the United States, Panama seceded from Colombia in 1903, allowing the Panama Canal to be built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers between 1904 and 1914. In 1977 an agreement was signed for the transfer of the Canal from the United States to Panama by the end of the 20th century, which culminated on December 31, 1999.

  • David

    Greetings Mrs Proudie and once again countless thanks for your wonderful, weekly summaries.

    There seems to be a rapidly growing agreement that Mrs Dismay is the worst PM since WW2. Perhaps Blair did more harm ? But for failing to seize the initiative and, and for lack of respect for the democrat decision to Leave, yes Leave, Mrs Dismay must be the winner.

    Far from going smokeless we, like many of our village, are busy heaping logs on our wood burner which produces lots of welcoming, healthy smoke.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Thank you for your kind words yet again, dear David. I agree Blair did more harm than good, but then we must consider Heath who sold us a whopper, Brown who sold off the gold at knock down prices and Cameron who ran away…what did we do to deserve such a crew?

      • layreader

        I have more faith in Teresa May, daughter of the vicarage, than in her two predecessors, both of whose ambitions appeared to be to make as much money as they could, and get out as soon as possible. Implementing the democratic will of the British people? What an awful thing to have to do…

        • Anton

          I’m starting to think that Teresa May would make a better PM than Theresa May…

      • Anton

        You ask the right question, for people by and large get the government they deserve.

      • David

        Yes indeed. We have not been blessed with good Prime Ministers.

      • Ian G

        We have sinned against God and against our fellow men and there is no health in us…

    • DespiteBrexit

      Blair had longer and – for all his many faults – at least had political horse-sense. Give May 10 years and she would leave him for dead.

    • dannybhoy

      We too too live in a rural village, but most folk heat their homes with oil.
      Danny and wife use a multi fuel burner which we mainly feed with smokeless ovoids. It means the wife gets smothered in coal dust two or three times a day though, poor thing.
      I am considering buying her a smaller shovel….

      • David

        You wicked wife beater you !
        Our house comprises two 1849 cottages, joined, plus rearward extensions. All the houses in our village also use oil. But nine years ago when I faced a bill of £8000 for a new oil boiler plus a new, relocated oil tank, I decided to fulfil an idea I’d long been investigating. So I researched and installed a ground source heat pump. It gives us continuous 24 hours a day warmth at half the price of the oil. The drawback is the capital cost which then was £15,000. I’d recommend it if you have the initial money and the room to sink the energy collectors.

        • Anton

          A heat pump is a good thing. It is essentially a refrigerator with the door open to the world and the back of it inside the house, so as well as the heat from the electicity used to run it (which you could routinely turn to heat in a fan or radiant heater), you get the extra thermal energy which has been extracted from the outside. An air conditioner is the same thing turned round 180 degrees.

          • bluedog

            Does a reverse cycle air-conditioner turn through 360 degrees?

        • dannybhoy

          If we were younger I would have wanted a ground source heat pump, but it wouldn’t be economical for us now that we’re gently running down towards the big day,,

          • David

            If you organise your private life according to the rules of economics, you could say that it is an expensive piece of domestic kit requiring a ten year period to justify the investment.
            But you sound healthy enough to me !
            But as I age I have no intention of estimating my years left, and will, finances permitting, buy what we want for that time. I intend neither hoarding nor squandering it, but having what’s needed, as it is needed. After all we know not the hour of our departure.

          • Anton

            Is your first paragraph talking about a heat pump or a wife?

          • David

            I am deeply traumatised by your little joke.

          • dannybhoy

            We have indeed ordered our private life according to the rules, which is why I decided not to go with the heat pump..
            I am a long term asthmatic which has become COPD, so I have about 45% lung efficiency. Strengthwise I am healthy enough, combustionwise., not so. So death will be probably be a combination of suffocation and heart attack.
            My prayer is of course that I will pass in my sleep. I get told off for being morbid, but actually I keep in mind the life cycle of the butterfly, and in order to be with the Lord, or to sleep until awakened with all the saints, I must slough off this mortal body..

          • David

            Economics aside,
            God bless you.

          • dannybhoy

            Thank you David.

      • Ah, fond memories of coal stoves. Nothing like dressing under the covers on a crisp February morning and running to the cellar in socks (because the shoe laces are still frozen) to haul up a bucket of briquettes.

        • dannybhoy

          Nothing like dressing under the covers on a crisp February morning and running to the cellar in socks (because the shoe laces are still frozen) to haul up a bucket of briquettes.
          Hmm.
          Not being picky or censorious, but how’dya manage on Shabbes?

          • We didn’t do shabbat in Prague…no clue about anything until ’68.

          • dannybhoy

            Ah, I thought you were talking about Canada!
            I know you have shared with us about Czechoslovakia and (I think) your Dad’s fondness for English literature. I can’t remember how devout or otherwise he was?
            When we were children in Kent our bedsheets were damp in the wintertime; not for the reason that readily springs to mind, but because our mothers couldn’t get them dry properly..

          • We hit the refugee trail in ’69, through Yugoslavia and onto Vienna. Comfort wise, things weren’t that much better in Vienna for most people and people like us who were saving their money to get out of Europe ASAP. My first intro to central heating, hot water, a shower in the home, tv and a refrigerator (not to mention stupidly cheap food) was in Canada. Oddly enough the lack of showers in the homes in Austria was a good thing, as many of us went to the municipally subsidised swimming pools with excellent showers, exercise rooms with TVs and hot pool facilities every day…you could keep clean, informed and fit.

  • Anton

    Good Lady,

    Kindly add Francis Urquhart to the list of potential Tory leaders.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Of course…how could I forget him?

  • Anton

    Justin Welby has now criticised grammar schools as “contrary to the notion of the common good”. Leaving only Eton and comprehensive schools for the people to send their children to, I suppose. I regard Welby as contrary to the common good.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      He’s a creature of his time…

    • layreader

      Rather betrays his complete and utter hypocrisy over education, also that of most of the bishop’s bench. Bishop Justin Welby (Eton and Trinity College. Cambridge) must really, really wish he had been Bishop Stephen Cottrell (Belfairs Secondary Modern and Polytechnic of Central London), and one can only feel the deepest sympathy for him.

      • Anton

        In fairness he didn’t choose Eton – his parents did. But does anybody know where he sent his children?

        • Anna055

          Local comprehensives

          • Anton

            Then he’s not a hypocrite. As to whether his comment is ill-judged and foolish…

      • dannybhoy

        Welby is like perhaps others in the Church and Establishment, thoroughly ashamed of his privileged background and elitist education: the British Empire, Colonies, country homes, clipped accents and knowing how to eat peas with a fork..
        ” I’m oh so ashamed Mummy and Daddy, of our pwivileged backgwound. Why couldn’t you two have divorced? Daddy could have been gay or twansvestite, and you Mummy could have become a Cwackhead and hung awound stweet cowners looking for ‘twade..’
        At least I’d have some stweet cwed with those wough boys who keep beating me up and stealing my sovweigns…”

        • layreader

          Welby’s parents did divorce. He regards his childhood as ‘a bit of a mess’, as his natural parents were both alcoholics. In fact, he didn’t discover until last year that his actual father was someone else, rather more aristocratic.

          • dannybhoy

            Thanks.
            Mine was supposed to be funny rather than factual….

          • layreader

            Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction…

        • Jilly

          Brilliant! Love the ‘Cwackhead’…..

          • dannybhoy

            Well thank you Jilly, you’ve made my day!
            I thought it was pretty funny at the time I wrote it, but it wasn’t
            meant as an insult to Justin Welby..

          • dannybhoy

            Alphonse Gabriel??
            That wouldn’t be our dear friend Linus under yet another alias would it?

      • magnolia

        Trouble is that if the Church of England doesn’t want anyone or anything that comes from a privileged background, or to provide church services that engage such people, those people might feel inclined to take their worship (and money, brains, influence, leadership, and connections) elsewhere….And there are various forms of elsewhere that would be very happy with that and very bad for this country. Not sure they haven’t already been advantaged…

        • bluedog

          Were you at Delphi in an earlier life, magnolia?

    • David

      The upper class benefits from not allowing the bright and able working class to compete with them.
      Although an Anglican I feel more and more, well almost repulsed by Welby’s hypocrisy and theological weakness. He is the ultimate establishment “archbishop”. I regard myself as led, not by the weak, effete archbishops and indeed the majority of the bishops, but by the few hard working, Biblically guided, conservative vicars, including our own.

    • Royinsouthwest

      What a surprise! More virtue signally from Welby. Perhaps he should explain how ordinary people are going to compete with future generations of Etonians.

      Margaret Thatcher said in 1977, “people from my sort of background needed grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn.”

      • Margaret Thatcher was spot on as far as Grammar Schools were concerned.

    • I went to a grammar school and I think that at least a quarter of the boys came from what would now be called deprived areas, although they wouldn’t think of it in those terms. These boys were some of the hardest workers in the class; having got into the grammar school, they and their parents were determined not to waste the opportunity, the ambition for such children in those days was to try to do better than their parents.
      I think the grammar schools offered a great opportunity to many children which I’m afraid is no longer available in many of our deprived areas.

      • Chefofsinners

        I think many children and their parents no longer value that opportunity, because real deprivation no longer exists, unless you think having to make do with an iPhone 6 is deprivation.
        Grammar schools today have been taken over by the ambitious lower middle classes, who pay for tutors to get their kids in, and buy houses in the catchment areas.
        Social mobility is all very well, but Godliness with contentment is great gain.

    • magnolia

      I don’t particularly like the anxiety about social mobility in our time, because it represents the church thinking things other than a relationship with Christ make a real and lasting difference when they don’t. We know better than to suppose having A level grades or a university place is the be-all and end-all. I have been told by this generation “in your day people went to university because they were interested in a subject now they mostly choose a subject they think they will get in on to get ahead.” That is a shocking situation, even a repulsive one, and I blame Tony Blair for encouraging that. Plus when its 50% any advantage per se is laughable.

      In terms of social mobility since it is comparative anyone on the up escalator is matched by another- perhaps the disabled children – on the down escalator. It is not a matter for rejoicing. It is a process, almost inevitable, but not particularly godly. The Church should be above and beyond these worldly escalators, pointing to Christ..

      Learning just for social and economic climbing is horrid, and leaves far behind the concept of the “vale of soul-making” which was the original concept behind the foundation of many schools.

      • Anton

        I don’t agree with the comment you report that a generation ago “people went to university because they were interested in a subject now they mostly choose a subject they think they will get in on to get ahead.” The universities are packed with people on utterly useless courses.

        • magnolia

          Agree that many of the courses are useless. But the people on them believe (because they have absorbed this) that they are a guaranteed ticket to an inflated wage packet that will probably pay off their student loan. ‘Borrow now, earn and pay back later.’

          Many were sold a bogus dream at an age at which they could not distinguish it. It was and is cruel, really. Many first year university courses operate at the old O level standard.

          • Anton

            Yes, but if you enact a policy of having half of the population go to university then the less demanding courses will have to be cater for people of exactly average intelligence. It would be equally futile to put them on (say) a mathematics course.

          • Anton

            PS Isn’t is more likely that they go on mickey mouse courses not because they were cruelly misled but to have three years of partying on the taxpayer?

          • magnolia

            I bet the author of this went on a mickey mouse, sorry cisgendender minnie mouse course.
            https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/12/intersectional-feminist-first-date/

            Written with the Inspector in mind I think. I had some difficulty understanding the language, as its not a form of English I am familiar with.

            Clearly the first date is vastly hard work, with no jokes allowed. You have to pity them.

  • len

    One gets the feeling that Donald Trump is like the little boy who said the king wasn`t wearing any clothes and was in fact naked, but no one is listening and they are chastising the little boy for commenting on the fact.
    It comes to something when Trump is the voice of reason among the politically correct but brainwashed political class.

  • Islamic sacred law might be expected to turn its nose up at matters lavatorial but it jumps in with relish. From the ‘Going to the Lavatory’ section of Reliance of the Traveller:

    e9.1 It is recommended when one intends to use the lavatory

    ● (4) to ready stones to clean oneself of filth;
    ● (6) to enter with the left foot first and depart with the right foot first [though nothing, alack and alas, about doing the hokey cokey];
    ● (8) to put most of one’s weight on the left foot while squatting;
    ● (15) not to urinate into less than 216 litres of running water [in the event of Brexit, approximately 47 imperial gallons];
    ● (16) and not to relieve oneself with one’s front or rear facing the sun, moon, or the Sacred Precincts in Jerusalem.

  • dannybhoy

    Why Mr. Cholmondeley-Warner of course..
    He really understands people..

  • Stanley Monkhouse

    Dear Lady, St Mary’s Glasgow, not Edinburgh. Both buildings by G G Scott, but Edinburgh indubitably finer.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Ah yes, you are right of course…I blame the gin.

  • TropicalAnglican

    It’s quiz time! See if you can answer the questions below without clicking on the corresponding link:

    1. Who said in March 2016 that he thought Britain would leave the EU?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QfyMVbm258
    2. Who wrote the book “What Happened”?
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFvhB3XXcAEVRdJ.jpg
    3. What is the answer to “What Happened”?
    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/09/03/04/43DACF8900000578-0-image-a-16_1504410948124.jpg
    4. Who won the Wondering, I mean, Wonder, Woman Award in October 2017?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5022723/Hillary-Clinton-goes-crutches-none-70-birthday.html
    5. Who said, “Diversity — it sounds nice, but it is not nice … We will take all necessary steps to protect our people and our nation as a whole … We have to get much smarter and we have to get much less politically correct … We will never waver in the defence of our beloved country — EVER.”
    https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-says-new-york-terror-attack-suspect-sayfullo-saipov-should-be-executed-11109445
    6. Who said, “The supporters of this so-called boycott [against Israel] are a bunch of corduroy-jacketed lefty academics”?
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/anti-semitism/boris-johnson-bds/
    7. President Trump is looking for his bottle of water. Where is it?
    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/11/15/21/4664114500000578-5086785-image-a-38_1510781702727.jpg
    (If you are thinking that was an unfair quiz question, you could have just guessed something general like “where he wasn’t looking”, and you would have been quite correct).
    8. How many players are there in an Australian Rules football team?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football#Field
    9. Which country famously upset New Zealand in a semi-final match of the 1999 Rugby World Cup?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/rugby_world_cup/500562.stm
    10. Sorry to discriminate against American posters, I assume everyone else is familiar with cryptic crosswords:
    Cricket player makes another mistake (6, 4)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_(cricket)
    (I don’t know anything about cricket myself, so I asked my father to list all the playing positions, and said, “Thanks – that’s it!” when he gave one that fitted the clue).

    There, wasn’t that easy!

    • Chefofsinners

      Second or fourth slip?

      • Anton

        There’s a faint but definite implication in “another” that one mistake only has been made beforehand. On top of which 4th slip is virtually Gully.

        • Chefofsinners

          Does the phrase “Another brick in the wall” imply that the wall was previously composed of only one brick?
          Or “Another day, another dollar” that there was previously only one day of labour and a single unit of currency earned?
          How about “Six of one thing and half a dozen of another”?

          • Anton

            Does the phrase “Another brick in the wall” imply that the wall was previously composed of only one brick?

            Psalm 118:22.

          • Chefofsinners

            Ah, the chef cornerstone.

  • David

    The next leader of the Conservative Party and Unionist Party should be Jacob Rees-Mogg !

    • Cullerchris

      Of course he should, but he won’t be.

      • Anton

        Consider this scenario. A general election gets forced soon, as is distinctly likely. It will be fought on one issue and one issue alone: Brexit. The Tories can ride the increasing anti-EU sentiment in the country to victory if they ditch May and install a harder Brexit type as leader. They realise that this is the only way to win and they therefore install a leader of this sort. Given that Labour will enact the softest Brexit or none, and given the increasing and glorious up-yours-Brussels sentiment in the country, the Tories win, and Brexit happens with no more capitulation to Brussels.

        A week is a long time in politics but this is very clearly a possible future.

        • bluedog

          If there is an election on the basis you suggest, there is only one candidate who could lead the Conservatives to victory, and that is Boris Johnson. He is the only ‘harder Brexit type’ who consistently wins elections, despite the sneers of his critics on His Grace’s blog.

          • Anton

            I’d take that. I think he’d be a disappointment in many areas, but Brexit is more important at present.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            I think Mr. Johnson’s love of Turkey needs stuffing…

          • bluedog

            At least he was never asked by the BBC while in occupied-Constantinople, ‘What does it feel like to come home?’.

          • IanCad

            Problem is bd; The Garden Bridge. Boris is a man of fertile imagination and unsound judgment.

          • bluedog

            £37.4m is a mere bagatelle compared to the money that Mrs May is throwing at the EU to avoid froideur. While there has never been any doubt about Boris’ fertility in all regards, one can’t say it often enough, he also wins elections.

          • IanCad

            £46.4m now bd. A huge amount of cash for nothing. It reeks of corruption and his opponents will use it against him.
            The Brooklyn Bridge and the Boris Bridge. He’s sunk.

          • bluedog

            We can trust Boris to sell a bridge for more than it’s worth.

      • Why do you think he wont be? Of course he will have to put himself forward, but he said he didn’t want to.

  • not a machine

    Oh Mrs Proudie so much going on in dear Barchester the coat a curate in custard, Christmas competition must surely be the same thing as identify the infidel. I have little to offer at the moment and had something of a theological light on bulb go on which is quite absorbing and it’s going to snow.

  • Chefofsinners

    Poor Lily Allen, who can doubt her hardship? She’ll be finding Ferrero Rocher wrappers down the back of her sofa for weeks. And now there’s competition: Despite looking less like Dolly Parton than any woman alive, Mrs May has released two new songs:

    Arlene, Arlene, Arlene, Arlene
    I’m begging of you please don’t break my plan…

    And the remix of Islands in the Stream: ‘Ireland’s up the Creek.’

    Yet Mr Junker claimed the Brexit deal was a “personal triumph” for Mrs May. One is reminded of the ‘Triumph Acclaim’, the model which finally sunk that once-great British marque.

    Here’s the silver lining: we’re going to make back some of the £40 bn through a sponsorship deal. Brexit has become so soft, and it’s going down the toilet so fast, that it’s going to be renamed Andrexit.

  • IanCad

    Far more pressing than your concern about toilet habits in schools Mrs. P., should be a close questioning of the staff at your local curry house.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3537652/Swindon-takeaway-chef-prepared-food-wiping-bottom-bare-hands-doesn-t-use-toilet-paper-cultural-reasons.html

    • Royinsouthwest

      Perhaps the school is showing admirable initiative in preparing the girls for the world of work.

    • Gasp! that’s disgusting. The filthy buggers are unbelievable I’m so glad I don’t frequent these places or eat takeaways.

      • IanCad

        Sure put me off frequenting our local spicery.

    • bluedog

      Shocking. There must be a traceable increase in hepatitis in areas surrounding these establishments.

      • IanCad

        There must also be a traceable decrease in customers – if very many have read of the hygiene breach.

        • dannybhoy

          Spread the lurrve, fecal style..

    • dannybhoy

      So that is where those exotic dishes get their erm, ‘exoticness’ from..
      I knew there was a reason I prefer good old English fare…

      • IanCad

        Can’t beat the wonderful Raj Recipes though Danny. Kedgeree, mulligatawny soup, limey curry. Maybe there’s a business opportunity out there for some enterprising chef. A chain of Raj Restaurants!! – Kiplings? Mountbattens? Napiers? General Dyers???

        • dannybhoy

          Nope.
          You enjoy them Ian, and jolly good luck to you. My concession towards foreign food is hot pepper sauce which I apply liberally to stews, stir frys, pizza, lasagne and sardines on toast.
          The wife and I were once taken to a very popular Indian restaurant in London. I had a hot curry consisting of rice and some brown sludgy stuff. Our friends had something quite different, consisting of pickled vegetables and … some brown sludgy stuff.
          I can’t remember what the wife had, but it also included some lighter brown sludge…
          Naaaa, people must of course eat what they like, but I’ve never been impressed.

    • Ray Sunshine

      As featured, also, in an unforgettable Seinfeld episode, The Pie

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0697753/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_21

  • Inspector General

    Good evening to you, Mrs Proudie
    One apologises for todays tardiness and as soon as this man stops rolling on the carpet in hysterics over what has happened to the strumpet Allen, he will in due course read the rest of your greatly appreciated weekly letter…

    • Father David

      today’s

      • David

        You old grammarian you !

      • Ray Spring

        We should abolish ‘ things. They have no place in decent English.

        • Father David

          As Lionel Bart once wrote – “Fings ain’t wot they used T’be”

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      I must admit Miss Allen’s predicament brought mirth unconfined to the denizens of The Palace…

  • Stephen Christie

    there are two party’s in this country the immigrant labor scum bastards and the immigrant conservatives all self serving scum

    • Father David

      parties
      labour

      • IanCad

        It is to embark on a hiding to nowhere when one adopts the role of grammar policeman, Poppa Dave.
        Stephen may well be an American and “Labor” is perfectly acceptable in their lingo.

        • Father David

          When in Rome, Ian, when in Rome!
          Indeed – far from kind and gentle phrases. I see that Dannyboy has already taken him to task over his ill tempered colloquialisms.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            So you have crossed the Tiber…

          • Father David

            Nay, I am still within the warm embrace of Ecclesia Anglicana, even though I fondly look back to the days when the Church of England was the Church of England. Being a cradle Anglican, I would find it hard to leave the raddled old whore!.

        • Hahaha!

    • Father David

      Not forgetting – There
      Christie – any relation?

      • Ray Sunshine

        Christie – any relation?

        Who did you have in mind? Chris? Agatha? Rillington Place?

        • I think he’s hinting at Christie of 10 Rillington Place.

          • David Trevett

            Rev. Christie’s Captive Congregation included one Hectorina. What were her parents thinking (hoping) for her with that name?

          • Ray Sunshine

            If her parents were Scottish, it would mean she had a godfather called Hector.

          • dannybhoy

            I had an auntie Ina once. Dunno what her godfather’s name was though; Salvatore I think.
            He liked horses..

          • Ray Sunshine

            Not all Scottish parents give their daughters their godfather’s name, but if you meet a woman who has a man’s name with an -ina tacked on at the end, it’s a pretty safe bet she’s the daughter of Scottish parents.

            Funny you should mention the name Salvatore. Doesn’t sound Scottish to me!

          • dannybhoy

            Sunnier climes mate, sunnier climes..
            Think …….Sicily
            (having you on, but I really did have an Aunt Ina..

          • She must have come from a Scottish background.

          • Anton

            Linford?

          • Father David

            Well, let’s just say – it wasn’t Julie!

    • dannybhoy

      “the immigrant labor scum bastards and the immigrant conservatives all self serving scum.”
      You can’t call people who came here for a better life ‘scum bastards’ and I think you should apologise and withdraw it.
      Your anger may be understandable but the blame should be directed towards politicians and social engineers who made it possible.
      Proverbs 6: 30
      “Men do not despise a thief if he steals To satisfy himself when he is hungry..”
      And no one blames a desperate man and his family for seeking a better life..

      • Ray Spring

        I do blame the desperate man if he ends up on my doorstep. There is more blame if he brings his wife and kids, too.

        • dannybhoy

          To a large degree our political system no longer serves the best interests of the people who pay for them. Until the British people demand that their views are listened to we will continue to be represented by self serving politicians.
          I still believe that on issues such as Law and Order/Defence/ Immigration/Terrorism/ Welfare State/Education the State should consult the British people for their views and formulate basic policies taking into account majority views and after further debate using them as guidelines.

          • Ray Spring

            Any political party that did that would be labelled ‘Fascist’, with the whole of the media against them. It works very well in times of a bit of prosperity. Once people are starving, the gloves are off and anything can happen.
            As an example of how far things have deteriorated globally, consider Fiji. They are now importing bus drivers from the Philippines. Cheaper you see. The Fijian bus drivers, who want a ‘Living Wage’ are now labelled ‘Racist’ for objecting.
            Fiji is where a few years ago there were major race riots, with Fijians expelling Indians and burning their homes. Globalism is now adding Philippinoes to the mess. Actually Filipinos, but it helps to keep teachers in employment, trying to explain English. I suppose Filipinos are a natural import for Fiji.

    • Dreadnaught

      You must have put some deep thinking into this Tourettes tic.

    • Chefofsinners

      We’re all immigrants. If you look back far enough.

      • Anton

        But not into a place occupied by someone else. If you look back far enough.

        • Ray Spring

          Brilliant.

          • Chefofsinners

            Not particularly brilliant. There is virtually a nil probability that anyone in Britain is not descended from someone who migrated to this country in the last 500 years.

        • Chefofsinners

          Find me this pure descendant of the celts, this child of the master race, perfect in his generations, unsullied by any intermarriage with Romans, Saxons, Danes, Normans or Huguenots, nor yet West Indian, Indian, Amerindian, Jew or Greek. And let us return to him his rightful inheritance: Albion the beautiful, all of it, especiallly your back garden.
          And did those feet in ancient times…? Bugger off out of my country you ruddy immigrant!

          • Anton

            The Celts? Let’s start with Adam and Eve.

          • Chefofsinners

            Why Eve? Surely she was an immigrant to the garden of Eden. And look at the trouble she caused. Satanic influence, theft of fruit, mother of a murderer. You could divert the argument endlessly.

            But what does this have to do with the fact that everyone in Britain is descended from immigrants?

      • dannybhoy

        Speak for your self B’wana..

  • Thank you again for an excellent weekly missal Mrs Proudie.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      My pleasure

      • Ray Spring

        And a pleasure for us to read, too. Keep up the good work.

  • TropicalAnglican

    Re Brexit, the sentiment seems to be that the EU only has to say, “Jump!”, and PM May will ask, “How high?”

    Nay, it is actually this way: The EU says, “Sink!”, and The Appeaser goes, “How low?”

  • IanCad

    Our Declaration of Independence is now well over a year old. The man, without whom, we would still be a vassal state under the thrall of foreign intriguers and domestic traitors, is in the wilderness.
    Our liberty has been cast aside by the action of wretched, disloyal communitarians who, in sterner times, would be tried for capital crimes.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    Well I never….

    • bluedog

      One worries that Comrade Corbyn will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize if/when he scraps Trident.

  • Norman Yardy

    Forbids them the use of toilet paper? Well, the french may say that is not a bad thing providing you have a
    good bidet. To my mind they are just trying to take us back the the middle ages. If these girls are to live in a Western country they need to be brought up in what is called a civilised way.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      On the bright side of things, they are always reluctant to shake hands…

      • Ray Sunshine

        There could be another explanation for that, though – Mustafa Fatwa might be hiding something behind his back.

      • dannybhoy

        Lol!

        • dannybhoy

          James I haven’t forgotten your previous post re God’s interaction in human history. I will respond soon.. :0)

    • Manfarang

      They have washer sprays fitted to the toilet.

      • Norman Yardy

        Are you sure? Have you checked it out?

        • Manfarang

          I have lived in the Middle East. In China they have squat toilets. Now they take a bit of getting used to. (Burma is so poor they can’t afford toilet paper)

          • Royinsouthwest

            In the 1950s there were still places in Britain where indoor toilets were uncommon. Instead the toilet would be in an out-house in the back garden. Old newspapers hanging from a nail in the wall were used as toilet paper.

          • Manfarang

            There is an episode in Steptoe and sons where the young Steptoe begins to read a story on a piece a newspaper and starts to franticly search for the rest of it.

          • Ray Spring

            I remember it well.

          • michaelkx

            ah the good old days, and it was my brother and I who dig the hole and emptied the bucket.

  • Inspector General

    It’s diversity education for impressionable children. And look who’s turned up…

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/12/06/this-is-why-drag-queens-are-reading-stories-to-children-across-the-country/

    • Ah, thanks for the lovely visuals there, Inspector. It’s why my kids didn’t go to public school until high school when they could laugh at stuff like this, We thought it was a bad thing to take kids to the Beldams so they can have a good laugh…now we bring the lunatics to act as instructors and role models?

  • carl jacobs

    I fear Jack is back in the Hospital. Well, this should cheer him up!

    Man City 2, Man Utd 1

    Get Well Soon, Jack. We are thinking about you.

    • Anton

      He said here that he was recovering but taking a break from blogging.

      • dannybhoy

        I did wonder if he had perhaps gone back into hospital. My thoughts and prayers are with the old fella.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Goodness! We wish him well and hope for a speedy recovery…

      • Chefofsinners

        There is no known cure for Catholicism.

    • not a machine

      Get well soon happy Jack

  • Inspector General

    It’s unfortunate that Islam deprecates toilet paper, but it all adds to the new order being established in the UK. The order used to be based on wealth and privilege, but the socialists dismantled that or so they would like to think though it’s still there, you know, but not openly. Anyway the point is that a social order exists in humanity as it does with animals. Ours is now based on race and ethnicity and there is absolutely nothing any politician can do about that. Some things ‘just are’ and no government initiative can hope to change it. The people have their own appreciation of how it is now, but sensibly clam up about it if probed by pollsters….

    • The Snail @/”

      They could use newspaper – I could think of a number of daily rags that would fit the bill nicely!

      • dannybhoy

        When I wert’lad in the early 50’s that’s what we used.. Actually I didn’t realise (some) Muslims don’t use tp. I remember reading somewhere though that they have a lower incidence of bowel problems because those ghastly legs astride squat loos encourage a natural position for ‘easing’ one’s self..
        Personally I prefer the bidet.

        • The Snail @/”

          Indeed – I was there too in the 1950s. The real ‘luxury’ was IZAL toilet paper if you remember.

          • not a machine

            I would think the original sanitation benefits of IZAL are lost in time, however it did encourage care and precision in matters of nether region cleanliness. IZAL and Isil seem close as word constructs though.

          • dannybhoy

            I think statistically more Catholics used Izal loo roll than did Prods.
            Something to do with penance…

          • not a machine

            Or that iron will

          • David Trevett

            Didn’t JEYES have a similar product?

          • not a machine

            I think IZAL was part of the of Jeyes either that or they smelled similar.

          • dannybhoy

            I certainly do, but I don’t think snails liked it much.
            Too slippy..

          • Inspector General

            Yes. IZAL. The stuff you quickly exchange for the kitten soft when you are keen for your guests to leave…

          • James M

            Ding-dong-dell,
            Pussy’s in the well,
            But now we’ve put some Izal down
            And never mind the smell.

            Source: “Verse and Worse”, pub. by Faber & Faber.

          • David Trevett

            80% of sewer blockages caused by wet-wipes. People clean too much…

          • No idea what IZAL is, Inspector, but surely it can’t compare to the paper product Warsaw U students used to sow together for notebooks back in the halcyon days of the Jaruzelski regime. Served even better as the perfect definition of socialism; available to everyone, does the job, but is hard on the arse.

            Anyhow, wouldn’t the animal welfare folks have had… well, kittens … if people were to start using kittens? There is precedent, though, I believe Rabelais’ Gargantua confessed to experimenting with the same and discovered that as soft and fluffy as kittens may be, they also happen to have very sharp little nails.

          • Inspector General

            Izal is medicated toilet paper, Azi. Using that stuff may have been responsible for the famous British ‘stiff upper lip’.

            Today, one of the Inspector’s few pleasures in life is using kitten soft toilet roll, or in an emergency as you mention, a sleeping kitten…

          • “Medicated” is such an open concept. Anything from lip-balm grease or Swiss herbs all the way along the pharmaceutical spectrum to Borax, iodine, bleach or plutonium. Anyway, stiff-lipped but healthy-arsed can’t be that bad. Must have taken years of practice not to wake the kitten, I’m guessing.

          • David Trevett

            Rabelais has a list of wipes.
            Includes a goose’s neck…

          • Ian G

            Served even better as the perfect definition of socialism; available to everyone, does the job, but is hard on the arse.

            That’s IZAL.

      • Inspector General

        Do muslims read newspapers, Snail. Or is it a case of “I get all the news I need from the local mosque”…

        • Manfarang

          In the Middle East of course. They have to do something at the office as well as drinking tea.

      • David Trevett

        Poor African women subscribe to a monthly rag…

  • not a machine

    Looks like some weather problems for tomorrow morning.

  • Chefofsinners

    A case of the Devil finding work for idle hands, if ever there was one.

  • Ivan M

    Narrated / Authority of: Abu Huraira
    I followed the Prophet while he was going out to answer the call of nature. He used not to look this way or that. So, when I approached near him he said to me, “Fetch for me some stones for ‘ cleaning the privates parts (or said something similar), and do not bring a bone or a piece of dung.” So I brought the stones in the corner of my garment and placed them by his side and I then went away from him. When he finished (from answering the call of nature) he used, them.

    For Allah is most wise and forgiving.

  • Manfarang

    The red book?

    • Ian G

      A little.

      For those of a certain age 😉

  • Coniston

    Roderick Spode – this should be updated to Lord Sidcup.

    • Chefofsinners

      Spode can, as any reader of Jeeves and Wooster will know, be exorcised with the word “Eulalie”.

      Stinker Pinker for PM.

  • Yahya Snow

    As a Muslim, I just responded in a blog to the comments about the Muslim girls school. discover-the-truth.com/2017/12/21/muslim-spanks-archbishop-cranmers-derriere-lightly/