Holmes_and_Watson

Being called a liar is a bit of a surprise. My last post answered your question on whether people can call themselves English. I then lightheartedly wondered about what that actually means, as a number of posts have failed to actually define it. For example, you've mentioned 1000 years a couple of times. Is your definition of English a family that traces themselves back that far? Regardless of their origins before that (could have been one of a number of invading countries.) Is it from another point in time and if so, when? And why are any of these dates so specific, when in the land itself, people were coming and going all the time. Is it values driven, and if so, what are those values?

Explaining the efficient surrender to the taste of Edam cheese. 🙂

Can't dig in the garden without coming across beakers. Not burial goods. Just excess stock, as beakers was the only thing they did. All that high status metalwork was just stuff they got the locals to do and claim credit for. Does a beaker have entrails from which you can predict the future? I say to my folk.

From my prior post:- "groups, calling themselves whatever they like...including the English...are perfectly entitled to be proud of their heritage." So, it's clearly a "no" for question 1, and for 2, the answer for 1 also includes the English. What "English" actually means is up for debate. I've got:- Respect queuing. Be tolerant. Don't make a fuss. Unless any of the above 2 are being breached.

Human habitation in Britain approx 900 000 years Flag-shagging claims approx 1000 years Conclusion: Flag-shaggers claim to shape destiny of where they inhabit, is based on a tiny period of occupation of it. Thanks for the link to the cinema. Always good to be reminded about great cinema from across the world. And founded by someone born in London I see. Another success for the muti-cultural melting pot that is Britain!

Just to further my point, that you put in bold. I prefer having parties who have a membership who set out their positions clearly, so the electorate (or the authorities) can judge them on it. The beeb had some analyst on who either worked for papers and/or had prior jobs in politics. Among their suggestions were that Polanski should have buried it; that the party leadership should have veto power over what motions their membership want to raise. Basically, another party where the leadership makes the policy regardless of what their supporters actual back them to do. The person who raised the bill is being internally investigated by her own party. But 1022 others happily voted into policy (it won't be in their manifesto, but a single Palestinian state is now policy). I prefer knowing where they truly stand. One commentator said they now have an Islamist voting bloc, which must be fought by the Green leadership. But there will be degrees right across their party. But better knowing, through democratic voting within a grassroots party, than the leadership covering it up, and this lot being unleashed in a proportional representation coalition of the future.

My point was that putting limits on what counts as the proper ethnicity in a region, say 1000 years, is arbitrary. From my druid perspective none of the later groups, calling themselves whatever they like, Romans, Saxons etc have any true claim to the land. That applies to later groups too, including the English. Yet all are perfectly entitled to be proud of their heritage, the land and whatever bits of their culture they like. But claiming that a historically tiny span, mixed in with invasions and massive migrations (which completely mix up cultural group names) is somehow the only bit that has a true claim is for the birds (who are happily migrating away, laughing down at such notions) My Neolithic pal will be along shortly to laugh at my druidic claim to the land, despite my claim predating all of these other latecomers.

Poor

Of course they matter. How else are we druids going to identify all the people we shall be sweeping from our lands?! Angles, Saxons, Normans, Romans...feh!

"Eugene R Fidell, a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, told the BBC it was a "really unfortunate decision". "To livestream an execution is just so out of the Middle Ages. In a way, we are so past that as a society, at least I thought so until today," he said." You don't hear much about the most recent dark ages, when the people of the middle ages lost their streaming. But the US is the most likely to have betting markets set up to see how many bullets hit, where they hit and who got the blank. All delivered by enthusiastic sports commentators, streamed to your device. The Trump administration: making all those parodies of the US a reality.

Principle

If this were true, his interview panels would have to hold a séance for his last few appointments.

Oh I was referring to another forum. Not this one, where every post is deeply considered, based on extensive research, vast expertise in extensive fields and yet open and engaging.

A ghastly away shirt to wear as punishment...nope, done that.

The door is always open to our forum of knee jerk reactions, things we believe from headlines and strong, if incomplete, views on how things should be. 🙂