Posts by wizzywick

    Theresa May attempted a reshuffle today, yet all she did was move the milk from one side of the fridge to the butter, but added some butter and cheese into the mix.What are your views on the reshuffle and did Justine Greening get sacked or did she really quit of her own accord?

    On a side issue, very sad news about James Brokenshire, hope he recovers well.

    Well the provisional schedules reveal that for the first time since 2004, there is NO ANIMATED movie on BBC1 after The Queen. Instead it's a premiere of Disney's live action remake of Cinderella, a fitting film for Christmas afternoon.

    The Christmas Eve line up isn't too bad either with:

    6.00pm Countryfile

    7.00pm Still Open All Hours Christmas Special

    7.30 Mary, Mel and Sue's Christmas Thank You

    8.30 EastEnders

    9.00 Michael McIntyre's Big Christmas Show

    10.05 Not Going Out Christmas Special

    10.45 The Vicar of Dibley (rpt)

    11.25 BBC News

    11.45 Midnight Mass

    LW, your poem moved me. Thank you so much for sharing. I wrote a collection of poems in 2014 for a book called "Field of Souls" which were all commemorative poems on the subject of WWI. I sent a copy to none other than HM The Queen and I received a reply from her lady in waiting confirming that the Queen had read them and had enjoyed reading them. Your poem LW, is so thought provoking that I thought it would be an ideal poem for someone to read at The Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance.

    Sorry for inflicting another poem on you all, but with Remembrance Weekend upon us, I thought I'd share a poem that I wrote to commemorate the start of World War One, which is, I believe, appropriate for Remembrance:


    "Are you going dad?" asked Lucy.

    "In a bit love" dad replies.

    With kitbag filled with all he requires,

    Dad smiles but silently cries.

    "Are you ready love?" asked Flora.

    "Not quite, but soon" says Stan.

    With all his worldly possessions at side

    He is a terrified young man.

    "Is it time yet?" asked Violet.

    "A few minutes left" answers Dick.

    With his memories of the ones he loves,

    He is desperate and worried sick.

    How long before the battle cries

    Wake them in their sleep?

    How long before they shiver with cold

    In the trenches vast and deep?

    How long before the sound of guns

    Penetrates their brain?

    How long before their dead friends'

    Spirits drive them all insane?

    These few good men that are off to war

    Are just somebody's son.

    Or dad or husband or brother dear

    A loved one for someone.

    Some of them will one day return

    But most of them will die

    And when back home the women hear,

    They will learn to say goodbye.

    They will hold them forever in their hearts

    And think of them everyday

    For the special men who fought so brave

    Some poppies we will lay.

    "I've died" dad tells Lucy,

    "I'm in heaven love" says Stan.

    "I'm coming home" Dick replies,

    The returning hero, man.

    I would definitely prefer a first post the post system so we can a better balanced parliament more representative of the wishes of the people. I know it can lead to hold ups in getting some legislation through but with PR views are better balanced and we can stop the extremism from all sides. When alliances and compromises have to be made, we can get better balanced policies by agreement.

    The AV referendum was lost because people allowed themselves to be convinced that they themselves could not be trusted to count up to four.

    I would vote for First Past The Post. The current behaviour of our MP's over Brexit has convinced me enough that they would be unbearable in a situation where thrashing out coalition agreements were necessary. They only act for the good of themselves, not the country. And, what would be the point of manifestos? What would we actually be voting for?

    Been very warm. Hate it. It's meant to be October. Still, colder air from the North set to come in over the weekend, thank goodness. The colder, the better as far as I;m concerned. November looking to be cold and sunny with high pressure dominating from the North. But we'll see what really happens when it gets here!

    I don't think we're going to get too much warmth into the middle of winter, wizzy, but yes, for an extra hour's light, I would change the clocks.

    When was the last time winter was cold? 2010/2011? Last Christmas Day it peaked at nearly 16 degrees in some places of England. I love winter, I like it the way it is.

    You might be right Ron, I'll check into that later. Thanks for posting it.

    Of course, extra light into the evenings wouldn't help some people who go onto forums very early in the mornings.;)

    Extra light in the evenings is pointless. Dark at 4.30pm or 5.30pm. What difference does it make? Most people would be travelling home from work at 5.30pm anyway. Keep the clocks as they are. Fall Back, Spring back.

    Here's the video from the BBC about when we changed the clocks to keep it on BST - renamed British Standard Time.…the-clocks-didn-t-go-back

    Our time zone is our time zone. It's British! And it's a time zone the rest of the world set theirs too. The Greenwich Meridian line is the most crucial timeline there is. Why are so many people wanting to give that up, the importance of it all, just to "get an extra hour in the evening in winter." The clocks are already only set to GMT for five months anyway. It may also not have occurred to some, that not everyone loves summer and wants lots of glorious warmth and sunshine. Therefore, what we have now is a fair compromise, and I think it is right and proper that we keep it the way it is.

    If we left the clocks as they, there would be darkness for longer in the mornings and more risk of children getting run over on the way to school as orientation is not as strong in the morning as it is in the evening. If we are two hours ahead of the continent it would catastrophic for business. We'd lose two hours of trade.

    I like the clocks going back. I see no reason to change that process just to satisfy some small groups of self obsessed idiots who think they would have longer at the theme park in the winter.

    I've only seen Bradley Walsh on The Chase... Is he an actor as well? Or am I thinking of someone else?

    He was in Corrie and Law and Order UK. Jodie Whittaker has also only been in similar types of drama before so playing quirky and eccentric may be a challenge for her.

    It's one of the reasons that I like Game of Thrones as it has strong female characters who are their own characters in their own right, not extensions of male characters.

    Absolutely. I like shows that just cast women in roles created for women and men in roles created for men. I think both sexes have so much to offer in terms of differences and talent and as such we should be celebrating those differences, not merging them into one non-descript gender.

    Can you imagine the outcry if Call The Midwife decided to ditch the female lead roles and turn the nuns into monks and the midwives into male gynecologists? Or if Wonder Woman became Wonder Man? Way too much effort is put into trying to appease to the minorities in order to be diverse and to not to offend, that it has got to the point where people are being offended by things that are totally avoidable. One of the reasons I liked Merlin was because it treated its male and female characters on an equal footing. Sure, the story centred around a young Merlin, but it was often told through the eyes of Guinevere who had such a pivotal role in the series, it would not have worked without her. I also only noticed she was mixed race when it was pointed out to me, so in that respect I think it was superb casting, and demonstrates that people by and large do not have any care as to whether an actor is black or white, male or female, because we have adapted and embraced our diversity.

    What is happening now is degrading to women and ethnic minorities. Forcing diversity causes unease and potential animosity and shows also a lack of creativity from modern screenwriters. You pointed out Game of Thrones as an example where strong female characters are their own and as such the women shine in those roles. We are at the point now where, supposing Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman quit Strictly, there would be outrage if they were replaced by men.

    I don't have any ill feeling towards Jodie Whittaker. It isn't her fault. I blame Chris Chibnell and the PC gone mad BBC. They have recruited a bloke in a wheelchair as a Countryfile presenter. I'm sure he is a nice bloke and capable of doing many things, but I find his presenting skills terrible. There is a black guy as a continuity announcer on BBC1. Again, I'm sure he is very talented, but he's awful as a continuity announcer. He says free instead of three. Friller instead of thriller and so on. You wouldn't employ a blind man as a sole worker in a petrol station who has to authorise the pumps for use. So, why just employ people because they "tick boxes"?

    Sorry, I am ranting, but I hope my point is made clearer by my explanation.

    Is it that the character is now played by a woman, that you dislike wizzy? Well, basically you've pretty much said that, so fair enough. I'm going to give her a chance, though.

    Sorry to hear about your upbringing. If you want to create a thread and talk about, go ahead. My mum was strict, but nowhere near to the extent of your experiences which seem to be sadistic in nature.

    Yes. It is absolutely that I dislike the fact the character is now played by a woman. There are lots of liberal people saying "About time" but why is it about time? There are a lot of people saying "why not" but never ask "why?" The Doctor has been male for 54 years. He is married to a woman and has a granddaughter so clearly has children too. Yet only since "The Doctors Wife" has it been assumed that Timelords can whimsically change sex. There have always been Lords and Ladies in Doctor Who canon and as such, the character of the Doctor is sacred to me and the shows mythology. In fact in "Night of the Doctor" when the Doctor would have died forever had the Sisters of Kahn not given the Doctor the chance of regeneration through a magic potion, he refused to take a potion that enabled him to become a woman, instead choosing the "War Doctor" to turn into. I think it is sexist that writers are incapable of creating strong roles for women without casting them in roles traditionally played by men or making them bitches and strong minded bosses. When do you ever see a normal woman played normally by a normal woman on telly? Why could they not come up with an equal for the Doctor who happened to be female? She could outsmart him, she could also guide him too. But then he would be able to outsmart her, to guide her as well. That's true equality. We are going way too far into the world of surrealism, where the Two Ronnies "Worm That Turned" sketch is starting to become an inadvertent reality.

    Another point to consider, many young boys regard the Doctor as their role model. In a world where boys are being brought up by single mums (mostly brilliantly), taught by female teachers and even possibly have girls in their scout group, who the hell do they get male guidance from? If television is their only means of escape from a world without male voices and even their male role models are being removed from them, what else do they have left?

    Apart from a few episodes here and there, I haven't seen Dr Who since it came back onto our screens several years ago and what I did see, I wasn't keen on. But the new lady doctor has piped my interest and I like Bradley, so shall tune in for the first few new episodes and see how it goes.

    I'm a fan of Doctor Who since Jon Pertwee and as such I regarded the geeky, eccentric mainly unattractive (until Tennant) male hero as my role model. When you grow up with a dad who takes pleasure in humiliating you and setting the dog on you for laughs, I needed someone I could relate to. In those days it was not even considered that the Doctor could be a woman. I physically grieved the loss of my role model on 16th July this year. I can not put into words how angry I felt that they had stolen this brilliant, amazing yet totally bonkers ordinary bloke with a time machine and a sharp mind. In my view this is the worst most offensive publicity stunt ever carried out to such an iconic character and show. Doctor Who has, in my mind, finished. It finished with Peter Capaldi dying in the series finale this year.

    Bradley Walsh as one of the new doctor's assistants!!

    That's got to be worth a watch for that alone.:)

    I disagree. I think the appointment of Bradley Walsh is confirmation that the BBC are shit scared that they have made a big mistake by recruiting a female to play a male role and that they employed Bradley Walsh to attract viewers. The danger is is that people will be thinking "Bradley looks like the Doctor, acts like the Doctor so should be the Doctor." The term "All New Doctor Who" is also enough to ensure I don't switch on. Doctor Who has lost me as a viewer.

    Of course, the BBC also need to save face. Had Doctor Who flopped because of Jodie, they would have looked stupid, but if Bradley brings viewers in, then the BBC will say, triumphantly, that the female Doctor is a great success. This is one clever confidence trick.

    In Newbury, we have two English Civil War battle sites, and one ancient monument, Donnington Castle, is one such prime site. One night my brother came hurtling through the front door so fast, he was white as a sheet and his hair was literally stood on its end. He slammed his bedroom door and didn't appear for about an hour. When he came downstairs mum asked him what was wrong, and he said that surrounding the castle was a strange blue mist that just appeared and coming out of the mist were what looked like black shadows of men. They were advancing towards him and his friends. My brother only glimpsed at them for a second because he was 13 at the time and found them terrifying, Don't know what he saw to this day but he recalls what he saw vividly. Whether his "sighting" has been exaggerated by memory is another issue, but something was there that night that frightened him so much. He still visits the castle with his kids, but only during daylight hours.

    Remember, this is not about being 'nice' or being a 'personality'. It's about having, as our constitutional Head of State someone who is entirely unelected, and in no way answerable to the democratic process.

    This sends out the message that to have political control - even political rights - in this country, one must be white, Christian and from an elite minority.

    So, whenever you praise the personality cult of a Diana, a William, a Harry or a Kate, you are opening the door to the selfish, ambitious creed of a Boris Johnson or a Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    Elizabeth II in my view is not a cult personality. The biggest example of cult personality in this country is Corbyn and the way his followers ignore or protest about any fact or criticism is disturbing beyond the realms of sensible behaviour. The Monarch may be unelected, but they don't make the laws do they? We elect people to do that for us, yet these same folk who bemoan the monarch as being unelected, are embracing the EU as some kind of wondrous, fair organisation, that is fully democratic and accountable. If you believe that, you believe the loch ness monster lives in your garden pond!

    As for your "one must be white, Christian and from an elite minority" comments, I found this quite offensive to be honest. All of us can go to a posh college or university if we really aspired to. The only ones preventing us from doing so are ourselves. Aspiration is what this country used to be about. And if you stop promoting aspiration you develop a country of state reliance, where those with little start resenting those who have more. In honesty, rather than resenting the have's, people should be aspiring to become like them. If they choose not to, fair enough, but why waste energy resenting them? As for your white and christian comments, I'm sorry to say this, but it comes across to me as if you have a persecution complex, or at the least a very big chip on your shoulder. Britain historically is a white, Christian country, and our population is still majority white, and will be like that probably for all our lifetimes. Are you suggesting the majority should no longer be represented by people they can relate to anymore, as some kind of forced appeasement to the ethnic minorities? Maybe if people stopped looking beyond skin colour and ethnicity, they might start achieving things.

    I'm not overly sure about what you mean about the "selfish, ambitious creed of a Boris Johnson or a Jacob Rees-Mogg." Although I do observe that these two figures are rattling the left so much it would be delicious to have them in power just to witness the fireworks! Joking aside though, these two men are politicians, therefore by their very nature they are ambitious. I can't think of one MP or politician who isn't. As for being selfish, well surely that is just a bizarre comment based on the fact that you oppose their politics. They clearly have the interests of Britain as their priority and whether their vision of what the country should be is something you share or otherwise, does not mean they're selfish.

    I will give one simple answer to the Question asked by the Thread Title:

    Do we need a monarchy in 21st Century Britain?


    Did we ever?


    Monarchy is part and parcel of what this country is about. Our democracy is founded upon monarchy and the system of governance today is also kept in check by a monarch. And the alternative of having President Blair or President Osborne feels me with such nausea, I couldn't even relate to this being Britain if such a thing occurred.