No triskaidekaphobics among us?http://www.yogi.com/Teach/fear_of_the_number_thirteen.html

I joked about moving into no.13 on our street 'misfortune will surely follow', i said at our house warming. Within weeks our neighbour launched a campaign to oust us sending threatening letters and leaving bullets on the the doorstep (he has scared off four previous tenants, one a single mother with three small children), then we noticed the false wall ( still haven't plucked up the courage to investigate), maybe there is something in it after all.

...and leaving bullets on the the doorstep....

!!!!!!!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.




...nothin' to be afraid of.

...nothin' to be afraid of

You think dody's neighbour was just making a point, WW?

Dear dodyskin: I hope the neighbor was stupid enough to leave his fingerprints on the
cartridges, so that your police could show him the error of his ways.

Well, we couldn't prove it was him, if I lived in America I'd probably live in the 'hood'. Statistically, approx five people carrying loaded guns walk past my house every day, and this is England, so NO-ONE is allowed guns ( and rightly so).

Gee! I work in Hammersmith and I reckon that statistic's nearly right for that area. Around Shepherds Bush is probably even worse due to the Yardy prescence. Are there other parts of the UK that are as bad?

To legitimise this into a word based item, does anyone know the origin of Yardy?

I assume you mean Yardy as reference to Scotland Yard. I read recently that
Scotland Yard was originally a palace created by Edward III for use of the
kinds of Scotland when they came to pay homage.

No, its the name that gangs from Jamaica have given themselves here in the UK. They are usually involved in the drug trade and are highly dangerous and volatile.

Thanks for the bit on Scotland Yard, however, I didn't know that. The history of London's place names must be a study in itself. Is there a word for it I wonder?

In reply to:

---

joked about moving into no.13 on our street 'misfortune will surely follow', i said at our house warming. Within weeks our neighbour launched a campaign to oust us sending threatening letters and leaving bullets on the the doorstep (he has scared off four previous tenants, one a single m,other with three small children), then we noticed the false wall ( still haven't plucked up the courage to investigate), maybe there is something in it after all.

---

Dody can you elaborate? Sounds like quite a story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/371604.stm this link has some information on Yardies. dxb, I live in Moss Side in Manchester which is often referred to in the press (unfairly) as Crime Side, Gunchester. There are a lot of gangs here and shootings and riots happen often. Two shootings and two riots on my street in the last year, and it's a small street. However, it is also a friendly, vibrant community that, having been invigorated by waves of Irish, Indian, Jamaican and Somalian immigration is a rich and diverse, all year party. In the summer there are barbeques on the street corners and all the furniture from the second hand shops is commandeered by old women who sit on them shouting well meaning profanities at passers by. Carnival, Eid, St. Patricks Day, Jubilee and the World Cup were all celebrated by all residents ( except for those wanting taxis), and when it rains, which is often in Manchester, there is always the pub or the curry houses or the corner shop where I argue about politics with the boys who hang about in the back. Moss Side gets a bad press, and too many young lads die senselessly, but it is safe enough if you don't get involved in drugs.

We have an estate behind us called the Hemmingwell. It's row upon row of cheaply-built terraced housing. I understand that it was at least partly funded by London councils who wanted to be able to resettle people out of London. Wellingborough has a lot of London accents.

The police never go there less than mob-fisted and I've lost count of the number of times a police helicopter has hovered over the Hemmingwell at some ridiculous hour of the late evening or early morning.

I'm quite happy to go through the Hemmingwell in the daytime, but at night most residents lock themselves in. Outsiders such as me just don't go there ...

Thanks for that link Dody. It answered my question about the derivation of the name and provided a lot of interesting detail. It seemed to imply that the Yardies are a London problem. Is that true I wonder; are your local drug gangs coming from that same background for example?

Dodyskin,

what a wonderful elegiac description of your city!

the police helicopter parks in the sky above our house, it's one of those new 'silent' ones that you are not supposed to be able to hear unless you are right underneath it, well either it doesn't work or it is hovering above our house between the hours of two and five in the morning every night. It's fun watching it chase joyriders down wilbraham road though, it suddenly rises up higher and takes off in a diagonal to head them off, untill all we can see is the searchlight. then, invariably comes tear arsing back up lloyd street until its practically above our house. the joyriders all pile out and go yard hopping until they get to the alleys ( they are too narrow for police cars), whereupon half of them are rounded up by coppers on foot in contact with the bellypopper, which has a heat seeker thing any way and has been watching them run all over the place. Great entertainment, and some small compensation for the disturbance. I'm convinced actually, that the cumulative effect of fifteen thousand people having a bad nights sleep and getting up and having to go to work is probably much worse than whatever evils the police helicopter battles nightly. Trying to hang on to the whole word post idea, is there any better word than bellypoppers for helicopters? I can't think of one.

I'm convinced actually, that the cumulative effect of fifteen thousand people having a bad nights sleep and getting up and having to go to work is probably much worse than whatever evils the police helicopter battles nightly.

I agree, and if the 'good guys' had it *their way, the trees would line up in a row and the forest would be see-through.

bellypopper = helicopter... 'Tho it ain't listed nowhere, this sounds like "rhyming slang" (something the Cockney's are masters at).

naah, it's from the BFG by Roald Dahl. The big friendly giant who mixes up his words and mixes up dreams for children at night.

Statistically, approx five people carrying loaded guns walk past my house every day, and this is England, so NO-ONE is allowed guns
Ohmigawd--when I first read that, my eyebrows skyrocketed, and I thought, "She's got to be kidding!" But subsequent posts verified it. I cannot believe this. For AGES, it has been drummed into me that "England has no guns", along with the direct or indirect implication that the entire United States is nothing but trigger-happy fanatics and thugs. Interesting that no one bothered to inform me of the truth while telling me that *I* live in a lawless and dangerous land.

The majority of English people ( I suspect) have never even seen a gun in real life Jacks. It is a small problem that is confined to small areas of inner cities, just happens to be where I live tis all. Anyway, I'm still reasonably safe, at least the POLICE don't have guns.

The majority of English people ( I suspect) have never even seen a gun in real life Jacks

I'd agree with that, dode. Strongly. When I was in RAF cadets (sorta) I did some shooting and got to know a bit about guns. Also shot air rifles as a kid, but, even though I live in the country (where there is an occasional working need for guns), I hardly ever see "real" guns. Same applies to when I lived in a fairly rough part of London (obviously nothing like Moss Side, but..), and whenever I go to London these days.

There was an armed soldier outside the Royal Scots Guards barracks yesterday (near Victoria, London). The presence of a gun in Town is striking even if in a military context.

It's quite a shock to the average Brit when in another country, walking past armed police and so on.

at least the POLICE don't have guns.

Well, OK, not all of them. And not the average patrol officer. But.
I have been led to believe that there are UK police who are arms qualified and are called upon to carry - and sometimes use - weapons in critical situations. Regular officers, I mean, not the UK equivalent of the Special Weapons and Tactics teams (SWAT teams.)
Or have I been misinformed?

yes there are armed response units in England. They are highly trained two man teams who have served at least seven years as regular unarmed bobbies and then undergo a year at least of specialist training. Every bullet has to be accounted for, indeed every time a gun is pointed at ANYONE has to be accounted for. Very different from every bobby on the beat 'packing heat'. I wouldn't like to live in a country where the police patrol the streets with loaded guns, well scary. At least the criminals only shoot at each other.

Excuse me folks, does anybody know where Doc Bill went? He owes me four dollars.

Check out his (updated) profile, Mr M - sadly, looks like he's away for a while.

i don't know about other police forces in US, since this is an area that falls under "states rights", but in NYC, the police are supposed to file a report every time they un-holster their gun on the street, and they too, must account for every bullet, and file many, many reports if they fire gun on duty. (in fact, the officer is temporarilly (24 hours, 3 day of work!) given "desk duty" so that he/she will have time to complete the paperwork. )

over 90% of the NYC police force complete 20 years on the job with out ever firing a weapon on duty except for testing. (they are required to practice, and pass a marksmanship test every 5 years)

some cop shows have shoot outs every week. one of the reasons i like the cop show(s) law and order is that never once in all the episodes have the stars shot their weapons.. (other cops have, but not the stars of the show)-- they do occationally draw their weapons, but they have never fired them. this is "normal"-- shoot outs, while they make for dramatic stories, are rare. Not that you would know it from most TV shows or movies.

i don't worry much about cop's carrying guns in NYC.

some places in US are very similar, other places, like LA, have very different reputations.

have on the side of their patrol cars their new motto: We'll Treat You Like a King

other places, like LA...
have on the side of their patrol cars their new motto: We'll Treat You Like a King
S--t!

We'll Treat You Like a King

...depose and decapitate you ?

>We'll Treat You Like a King

Or other famous Kings - Martin Luther (I think not), Carole (maybe), Billie Jean (a few tough moments in her remarkable career as the Queen of tennis), Stephen (not really, after the car crash) Jonathan (oh dear, just for Brits, I think) ...

Ah - I know it is California isn't it.

It means that they will, like, treat you to a Burger King.

At the risk of getting sued by Joe O. Try Rodney, Jo.

Yoohoo, Rodney, comeer baby an' tell these fine folks what it means to be a King in LA

>Rodney

Looks like I missed one. Do they have a legal department? Did anyone really think about what they were writing? Are you sure it's not an Urban Myth?


For non USn's with short memories:
http://www.citivu.com/ktla/sc-ch1.html

an Urban Myth?

Playing Ron (not Joe (D'oh)) O again. It's a joke, Jo.

>an Urban Myth?

Could we make it an urban myth?

Funny how many Kings there are around isn't it? Is Jonathan King known in the USA?

On the subject of Kings - my favourite "sticky end" was Henry I.

Friday the 13th come on a Sunday this month.

"On the subject of Kings - my favourite "sticky end" was Henry I."
Dear jmh: None of the sites on Britich slang had a definition of "sticky end".
It sounds like US "s--t end of the stick" but I have no idea how that would
apply to Henry I, about whom I know nothing.
But I finally found a good history site about him. He sounds like a rather
good king. In what way does he remind you of the sh-t end of the stick?
Here a URL with several paragraphs about him, quite complimentary, I thought:
: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M5AC51B02

Friday the 13th come on a Sunday this month. is a paraphrased quote from Pogo, yes?

Bill

The comment about Henry I was a bit of a challenge. I'm sure it was discussed at some point in the mist of time.

Other people from history who came to a sticky end include:
Anne Boleyn, William Wallace and Guy Fawkes.

Here's what happened to Henry I:
http://www.quite.com/personal/cafeq/fooddeathtext1.htm

An he din't never eat no lampreys, far as I know. Perloo, yeah; lampreys, no.

Dear jmh: Over sixty years ago, I read "1066 and All That", about King John allegedly dying
of "a surfeit of peaches". I have since read expert medical opinion that he died of coronary
heart disease. I suspect same was true of Henry I, I suspect. Indigestion just does not kill.
Wofahulicodoc, where are you when we need you?
Incidentally, I wonder how lampreys were caught, since they cannot take a baited hook.
I dissected on in Comparative Anatomy, and still remember how ugly it was. I wonder if fishing
nets were sufficiently fine meshed in those days to catch lampreys along with other fish.

I'm sure it takes a sane person.

Or a boat plus several seine persons.

Finally I remembered that adult lampreys have to go up small streams as far as they can go
to breed and spawn. Fish weirs could be used to allow them to enter first weir, but not get
past a second weir. Then they could be either speared or caught with dipnets.
Fish weirs have a very long history, and would have been used in England of Henry I.

> lampreys and peaches

The writers of "1066 and all that" enjoyed a yarn and the surfeit story was a good one. Whether heart disease or dysentery were the real reasons, the sources of the day lacked modern medical expertise, so diagnoses were, at best sketchy.

King John:
When John came to the throne, he lost his temper and flung himself on the floor, foaming at the mouth and biting the rushes. He was thus a Bad King....
John was so bad that the Pope decided to put the whole country under an Interdict, i.e. he gave orders that no-one was to be born or die or marry (except in Church porches)....
John finally demonstrated his utter incompetence by losing the Crown and all his clothes in the wash and then dying of a surfeit of peaches and no cider; thus his awful reign came to an end."
1066 and all that, Sellar and Yeatman 1930

There is a discussion on the sources for the story here as well as reference to Shakespeare’s King John:
http://www.ku.edu/~medieval/melcher/matthias/t54/0135.html

Henry I:
The lampreys could have been sea lampreys, returning to fresh water to spawn and die or river or brook lampreys. Here is a site discussing the lifecycle of the sea lamprey
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/BMLSS/lamprey2.htm

The lamprey story was first raised by Henry of Huntingdon in his book "The History of the English People" 1123(ish) where he also tells the story of Cnut(or Canute) trying to stop the waves.
http://www.oup.co.uk/worldsclassics/mag/eels/

Here's a good site for Bill on medicine and Royal deaths in Britain:
http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/a_royalhx.htm

Dear jmh: I appreciate your very interesting information, but am shedding great big tears
that you did not mention the "stickiest end of all", namely, that of Edward III, about whom
Cap K posted a Latin paragraph a long time ago, which said he had a red hot poker inserted
through his anus into his rectum. Brewer repeats allegation that his queen personally
supervised this. I have been unable to confirm this, and doubt that the queen would have
wanted to risk opprobrium sure to be attached to this horrid act, though she may well have
privately found it fitting punishment for his msdeeds. Can you find reliable information
about this? I have looked diligently but could find none. I think the queen had gone back
to France before it happened.

Edit: I went back and searched again, and found a bunch of sites that said it was Edward II
who was murdered by red hot poker. Dear jmh, I beg you, find us the real history of this.

I hope you will forgive me for coming into this, but I got interested and found the following quotations from a professional archivist, Dr Caroline Shenton, formerly Senior Archivist at the Public Record Office. She deals with Edward's death and reputation. Thought you would be interested:

“Most sources do not recount how Edward II died. The red hot poker story emerged about 30 years after Edward's death, told to a chronicler by a man who alleged he was a guard in the castle on the night. It is far more likely that he was starved or suffocated, rather like Richard II.
The poker story is much more enjoyable to recount however...”

“In fact, Edward II had a bastard son called Adam, which suggests that at the very least he was bisexual - you don't father illegitimate children if you are an avowed homosexual.”

“Incidentally, the charge that the king was 'enchanted' by Gaveston is responsible for the suggestion that they were lovers. Chroniclers probably meant that Gaveston had undue influence not befitting his station; it did not necessarily mean they were lovers. Charges of homosexuality were only made after Edward II's death; the most recent revision of the relationship between Edward and Gaveston is in P.Chaplais, 'Piers Gaveston: Edward II's Adoptive Brother' (Oxford, 1994).”

“The thing that really got up the noses of the magnates was that Gaveston called them rude nicknames and did not defer to their superior status, not that he was sleeping with the king. If homosexuality were a bar to being a king then what about William Rufus, James I, William III....”

dxbuttingin

Dear dxb: thank you for your contribution. "Urban legends" began long ago, and hoax
busting is a comparatively new phenomenon. The barons who held Edward II would
not have wanted to create any public sympath;y with him. .

Here's something that I discovered today

Edward II was listed at number 192 in the top 500 lesbian and gay heroes in The Pink Paper, 10th. October, 1997, issue 502, page 15

Well, you learn something every day.
http://www.sbu.ac.uk/stafflag/gaymillennium4.html

Edward II got a bit of a bad press in Marlowe's play . He didn't come over too well in "Braveheart" either but given that the history element of Braveheart http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/bravehearterrors.shtml was laughable, I'm not entirely surprised.

As for the poker, I'm afraid that I have nothing more to add. If it was true it sounds pretty unpleasant, although, weren't the Middle Ages just a time of unrelenting misery, especially if you were famous (and worth killing) or just poor (and miserable)?

the history element of Braveheart..was laughable
http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/bravehearterrors.shtml

That's an excellent reference, Jo.
I'd known that Braveheart was mostly fantasy (albeit a very entertaining one), but this really brings it home well.

The problem is that there are an awful lot of people who treat "historical" movies as by definition true. And there are an awful lot of people making movies who see their duty as giving the majority of the audience what it wants - which ends up toadying to simplistic preconceptions.

Edward II's demise may or may not have been as described by Marlowe. Remember that Bill S. and Chris M. were writing their lightweight little Christmas pageants during the reign of a Tudor monarch whose grandfather had disposed of the Plantagenets only recently, comparatively speaking, and there was a certain amount of sycophancy in their "histories" and "tragedies".

Edward II may possibly have been bisexual but it seems far more likely, considering he fathered at least 14 children including 4 legitimate children and one acknowledged bastard, that his relationships with Piers Gaveston and the Despensers (father and son, for heaven's sake) were the actions of a "weak" king surrounding himself with people he liked and trusted. And he didn't love or trust his wife, and with good reason as the events of 1326 proved.

He was weak in fourteenth century terms, anyway. He didn't like warfare and he wasn't ruthless. He had plenty of experience of warfare from fighting in his father's armies and he probably knew how to be an absolutist despot, but these things were against his nature. He was a renaissance man born before his time if the truth be known. I rather picture a Prince Charles-type figure, seemingly politically unastute, meaning well but unable to influence events in the direction he really wanted.

He must have known that the favouritism he showed towards Gaveston and the Despensers was the cause of many of his problems, particularly the compilation of the Ordinances and the consequent political ascendancy of Thomas of Lancaster, who was his cousin. The loss of Scotland at Bannockburn probably resulted in him being generally unpopular rather than just unpopular among the aristocracy. Certainly, when it came to it he couldn't even raise an army to defend himself and his crown against his French wife's very small, almost token, invasion force.

It was a rather unsettled time in Europe. The "law" was a very mutable quantity. Disposing of enemies was carried out in the most savage manner "pour encourager les autres" politically, as well as being a reflection of the nature of the people of the time. This would, of course, carry on into the following century as the Hundred Years War dragged on to its unedifying conclusion.

It appears to be an undisputed fact that Edward was murdered at Berkeley Castle, and it would be surprising if he hadn't been butchered. The manner of his murder, however, is highly questionable.