Friday, December 15, 2006

THE FIRM

As mentioned, last night I went to see "The Queen" starring Helen Mirren. It's true that she is marvellous in the role, and of course the physical ressemblance is quite startling (it's the hair that does it!). The other actors weren't so good but of course didn't look too much like the people they were playing, but it must be very difficult to find actors that can act and look like a living person. Charles was pretty well interpreted and of course Cheri came over as her usual vulgar self.

What I didn't know/had forgotton, was the film was based on the period when Diana died and my toes started to curl. I was never a fan of Diana and I think she did a lot of harm to 'The Firm', confusing being part of the Royal Family with Hollywood. When she went on television to explain the breakdown of her marriage, she should have been banished from the kingdom, in my view!

And ten years on, we are still talking about Diana, with the report published on the causes of her death. As she was a 'star' and died in tragic circumstances, I fear that the saga will go on for years and years - as with JFK or Marilyn Monroe - theories and counter theories will keep on popping up, adding fuel to the fire.

What has really annoyed me is that the report just published has cost £3.6 million of taxpayers' money ... 'People's Princess' indeed - I hope the 'people' are happy to have paid for the report which states what we all knew from the beginning, chauffeur over the limit, no seat belts, and high speed. Could be any of us couldn't it? But we don't have a father that runs an Egyptian bazaar in Knightsbridge (aka Harrods) and has enough clout to con someone into ordering a report that will be paid for by the taxpayer.

I can understand that al Fayed is mourning his son and that everyone has their own way of coming to terms with such grief; that it has reached such dramatic proportions, is another thing. A niggle at the back of my mind wonders whether he is also mourning the fact that perhaps his ne'er do well son might have married the ex Princess of Wales and mother to the future King of England, and of course that carpet has now been ripped out from under his feet.

With his enormous wealth, Fayed should have paid for this report out of his own pocket.

I take my hats off to the French authorities who did their job extremely well, did everything they could to save Diana's life, who acted with modesty and honesty in the aftermath of the accident and were treated very badly by the British, along the lines of 'Right, well thank you very much, we'll take over the case now, as you lot have probably made a hash-up'. I hope the French government send HM government the bill for all the work they did. The only blot on their report is the Fiat that no-one can trace ... if I had been the driver of that car, I would have destroyed it as fast as possible and emigrated.

Of course, the Press come out of this badly - but if one is in the limelight it comes with the job and Diana realised she had a ally in the Press and used them accordingly. Unfortunately they were her undoing. A terrible and tragic accident.

As Disraeli said 'Never complain and never explain' - a shame that Diana never took heed.

114 comments:

Anonymous said...

Re the Hollywood factor. There was a precedent long before Diana gave that notorious interview (proving that the "camera-shy" nursery teacher we had seen at the start had been a complete charade). The rot set in when Princess Anne, Fergy et al decided to do "It's a Royal Knockout". It was that alright !

Louise said...

Yes, I heard about that but fortunately never saw it!

Anonymous said...

Cor, that was a quick reply.

Louise said...

Don't doubt it - this "Firm" is a bulldozer! It's only I hear the ping as an email comes through and am putting off evil moment to go off to do all my Christmas shpping this morning! You posted pretty rapidly after I added this blog!

Anonymous said...

"The Queen" was one of the best films I've seen in yonks. Some of the scenes (royal audiences etc) were handled with such confidence that I reckon they must have had inside information from a confidant of TB, or maybe from an ex-PM (who of course are officially supposed to say nothing about those weekly audiences).

But don't let me detain you a moment longer, Louise. Christmas is almost upon us - so get moving.

Bill Taylor said...

The press often comes badly out of celebrity deaths -- assailed by the very people who rush out to buy the most lurid tabloid coverage they can find and can't read enough about conspiracy theories. And, as you say, Diana was a consummate manipulator of the media.
Re the movie, I thought the guy playing Tony Blair had a lot more credibility than Blair himself.

Louise said...

Does anyone still believe in the credibity of Blair?

Bill Taylor said...

One can only hope not. I doubt if the queen is any fonder of him than she was.

richard of orléans said...

Surprisingly I went to that film. Not by choice evidently. If somebody does a perfect impersonation of the back end of a bus, are they a good actor? I suppose so, but it is still the back end of a bus.

Bill Taylor said...

Duck for cover, everyone. We have an Anne Gilbert sighting over on Richard of Orleans' blog.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry The Circus has moved on Louise. But then, you know these circus types.

Fickle, fly-by-night characters to a man, and occasional woman. Be patient. They'll be back.

Soon, you'll look out your chalet window, to see where your lawn used to be, and wish you hadn't.

Louise said...

I am more than happy that The Circus has moved on to Richard's blog - they can all bitch at each other under their assumed names, whilst I get on with putting up my Christmas decorations!

Nice to see that the 'Giblet' has posted on Roo's blog!

richard of orléans said...

Louise The only one I would be worried about is the clown that keeps changing his name. A high wire artist at ground level.

Anonymous said...

He just doesn't get it, does he ? He, and folk of his ilk, who latch on to individuals, and proceed to attack them in the most personal and offensive terms, are the reason why those same individuals choose to conceal their identities, as I am doing.

Yes it's Christmas, a time for peace on earth, goodwill to all men. But goodwill is wasted unless Richard of Orleans makes some New Year's resolutions to moderate his comments.

The latest post to his own blog could be the harbinger of better things to come, but let's not start counting our chickens just yet.

Bill Taylor said...

I fear it's you who just doesn't get it. I don't follow your logic at all. Have you been attacked and vilified while using your own name? Is that why you now conceal your identity? Or are you simply afraid that you MIGHT be attacked? That being the case, what difference would anonymity make? No one else might know who you were but YOU'D know that you were the target.
Wouldn't it be better to have the courage of your convictions and make your argument for moderation under your own name? Or, if you did happen to come under what you deem to be an attack (some of us regard it simply as the cut-and-thrust of debate) to fight back openly, rather than cower behind a shield that really is rather ineffective?
It's sticks and stones, remember, that break your bones, not words. And no one's throwing sticks and stones here.

Anonymous said...

There have been innumerable occasions in the past when someone has come onto a blog under their real name, to find themselves personally vilified by BT for failing to have an opinion identical to his own. Unfortunately for them, BT has a habit of spelling out that person's name in full. With all the interest and controversy generated, the target for BT's abuse may then find that the first Google entry under their name records their being at the receiving end of BT's abuse. And because the Google entry itself generates further interest, the high ranking tends to become self-perpetuating. Note, BT, that I am sparing you the same fate, by referring to you by your initials.But I am someone who was once attacked by you in the most contemptuous of terms. It was for what I and my family and friends consider a minor matter, yet I have suffered the consequences described above. This is why people are wise to use a false name, or remain anonymous BT, whenever you are around. There is nothing illogical about it - quite the contrary in fact.
Maybe people would not feel the need to do this if you would could just tone down your language.

Louise said...

I shouldn't get involved - but I shall.

Firstly, assuming that 'Anonymous' is who I suppose he is, I would just like to point out that you don't accept anonymous comments on your blog and it would appear you are using mine, and others, to carry out your personal vendetta.

'It's not cricket' old chap ...

Addressing Bill as BT in your last comment assumes that anyone reading this blog is a complete idiot and can't work out that they are one and the same person!

As most of us 'met' originally on the Colin Randall blog when he was with the Telegraph, I think that at one time or another we have all had the s**t thrown at us (not by CR but amongst ourselves), but as I keep repeating - this is only a BLOG. Are you receiving hate mail, obscene 'phone calls or bombs through the post?

Bill defends his opinions, and why not? It would appear he stands by his convinctions and defends them - nothing stops you from doing the same. The world, and blogs, would be a pretty dull place if we all thought and reacted in the same way - Brave New World here we come.

Perhaps we have become rather incestuous and we should all make a New Years' blog resolution to find at least three new links each - if you into fisticuffs I'm sure you'll find someone blogging on the Guardian who is ready for a fight.

So to all the 'anonymice' out there, please post prettily otherwise go fight somewhere else.

Louise said...

Just one more remark - if, on your blog, you trash remarks sent by others, that's fine. However it seems rather silly to trash them and then remark on who sent the comment and why you trashed it.

Either trash it and that's it, or leave it on your blog either ignoring it or commenting. But trashing a remark and then saying "I trashed this remark from ... because he said ... " is your interpretation of their remark, but not necessarily the interpretation of others.

Anonymous said...

While I wish to consider your points before replying, Louise, can I just make one. You have missed entirely the reason for using "BT" instead of his full name. Of course everyone knows who is being referred to. That is not the point its to avoid these references being picked up by Google and the other search engines, with everything said here appearing in a few days under his full name, and maybe trumping the many excellent points he has made in the past which arent' spoiled by his particular fierce line of personal invective.

I think it highly unlikely you know who I am, Louise, since this is the first time I have posted to your blog.

Louise said...

Well, there are so many anonymice around, I have absolutely no idea if you have posted here before.

I just thought I would google my name to see if there were any results - there weren't...I then googled chocs and cuckoos and it just sent me to my blog.

So why all this worry about being picked up on search engines? Someone somewhere might find my email address but we all give out our email addresses willy-nilly nowadays - if fact it is almost obligatory.

I have nothing to hide - do you?

sciencebod said...

Assuming it's my blog that you are referring to Louise ( given the context I can't think who else it might be) then here is the comment of mine to which I think you are referring:

"As you can see, I have just deleted a comment from Richard of Orléans. It was not offensive - he merely accused me of smugness, which may or may not be true.

But that's not the point. This blog no longer accepts comments from this individual, for reasons previously described.

So he is wasting his time sending them here. But since he now has his own blog, it's not as if he were without a place for posting his views."

www.richarddorleans.blogspot.com




I hardly think this is "trashing" someone's opinion, Louise. I went out of my way to summarise its gist in as neutral and fairminded a way as possible, to the extent of adding a link to his new blog.

The reason for doing this was defensive: I (accurately) predicted that he would inform people on his blog that one of his comments had been blocked, while failing to point out that I now block all his comments as a matter of policy. That is because too many have been expressed in terms that I find personal and offensive, and I see little prospect of that man ever changing his ways, at least in the immediate future. But if his blog prospers, and he in turn attracts his own unwelcome contributors, then he too may in time adopt a "do as you would be done by" philosophy.

While not wishing to add fuel to the fire, it is one thing to rally to Bill T's support. It is quite another to adopt one of his favourite tactics that I have complained about in the past, which is to misrepresent a person's position, casting them in an unfair light. I hope this comment makes clear that I am not misusing my blog to "trash" any person or their opinions. But I do have a right to defend myself.

Anonymous said...

I have nothing to hide, Louise, but I do have a reputation to maintain.

Are you aware that if you apply for a job, your name may be the subject of a Google search before the interview. If they do not like what they see ( too controversial etc.) you may not even be invited to interview.

sciencebod said...

Anonymous has a point, Louise. You say you have googled your name. We can't do that, because you have not divulged your surname. You have to understand that it's a entirely different ballgame for those of us who post under our real names, like BT does, or which is available in our Profile.

Louise said...

Yes, I am quite aware that in our smug, politically-correct society, one risks being googled before a job interview and probably if I were 25 it might worry me. This no longer being the case, and not being in the public eye or whatever, being googled worries me not in the slightest.

On the other hand - perhaps being googled before a job isn't a bad idea - at least if you get to the interview stage, you know that your employer is like-minded and you won't be pulled up on your first day at work for saying something outrageous!

What a sad state society is in ...

Louise said...

My real name is Louise, Colin - it's never been anything else. You want my surname - here it is - Manfield. So where does that get you now. I haven't googled my surname so I don't know what will come up - nothing of particular interest.

I have no criminal record, I am kind to children and animals, I help old ladies across the street, I pay my taxes on time (not very graciously though), I left France legally and didn't sneak in zilliions of bucks to Switzwerland, and any stand I make on my blog is my own personal belief and if they upset people - what the hell!

I have never intentionally been rude to unkind to someone (I hope) but I refuse to bow to the PC, bunny-hugging society in which we live.

Told you I was grumpy!

sciencebod said...

I hope you did not feel pressured into revealing your surname, Louise. It was, after all, you who brought the issue of "having something to hide" into the argument, not me. I hope you don't feel you had to divulge it for my benefit, or to prove a point.

But if you want some unsolicited advice, you will delete that last comment of yours, as well as this comment( be my guest) and give yourself a cooling-off period. At the risk of sounding patronising, there are many things to consider before revealing one's full name. Like whether one's in the telephone directory, the added risk of making oneself an easier target for identity theft etc.

If I could put the clock back, I would have two web identities: one's real name for the serious stuff, like political blogs, but a pseudonym on blogs.

And I like to think that if someone else appeared on the blog under their real name, I would try to exercise due sensitivity to that person's (potential) vulnerability, which is what the long-running spat with BT and R of O is all about. It's nothing to do with personal vendettas, and I am sorry that you should have seen it in those terms.

richard of orléans said...

Colinb What sort of job are you looking for? I have a position free right now. I promise not to hold your blogging activity against you.

sciencebod said...

I could be your new front man on that blog of yours, Richard. Mind you, there would have to be some changes, like replacing that picture of St.Peter's at the Vatican with one of your real local church, thereby sparing you the accusation that your "blog" exists simply as an (unseasonal) piss-taking exercise.

Louise said...

Don't worry, Colin - I don't think anything awful will happen to me, having revealed my name...I used my christian name only because it is quicker to type.

I am ex-directory, so that doesn't worry me!

And identity theft - oh, dear! Come on, Colin - what are we talking about here? Tell me who would want to 'steal' my identity!!!

sciencebod said...

It's exactly as Anonymous describes it. When I google my full name, the first entry, on page 4, is a reference to my blog (which could only have appeared recently, since it's only been going for two months or so).

But here, verbatim is the second reference on Page 5:

Telegraph Blogs: Foreign: Colin Randall: September 2006: ...Good old Colin B***** - sensitive to the end! Here we have a man, ... And all Colin B***** can do is whine about what's happening to this blog and demand a ...

(the asterisks are mine - no sense in giving that Google entry a new lease of life !)

Yet when I go back to the Colin Randall blog referred to, what do I find ? First that the contemptuous comment about me was made by none other our dear beloved BT.

Second, BT was commenting on my second contribution to the thread, where I fulminate against the new order at the Telegraph, and consider the consequences of a post-Colin R era.

But here's the thing that REALLY gets my goat: he makes no reference to my first comment, which was a shocked first reaction to the news of Colin R's departure, under the title "Apocalypse Now".

So there you have it in a nutshell. Some selective, intemperate, unfair, demeaning comment, levelled at a fellow-blogger, in which I am addressed by my full name, would until recently have been the first thing anyone(say an old school friend) would have found if they had googled my name.

Admittedly, I'm too long in the tooth to have to worry about how this might affect my job prospects. But your point is well made, Anonymous. It's all very well hurling these insults at each other, but it gets picked up, and who knows what repercussions it might have in the future, possibly without our ever knowing it.
The moral is obvious: moderate one's comments, especially when dealing with those who use their real names.

richard of orléans said...

The man from antibes. You are effective at complaining at the alleged wrongs that are done to you, but what about your own behaviour?
1) The blogs are in the public domain, as such, criticism of what is said and what is said about the writer's personality is in order as long as reasonable language is used. To call somebody who persistently changes his identity 'a clown' is reasonable.
2) To identify oneself under a nom de plume would be a normal practice. To go to considerable lengths to discover a person’s real identity, to publish it on the web along with email and home town seems to me to be abusive.
3) To impersonate a priest and a policeman is out of order and can lead to real distress. I would say even illegal.
4) To use an endless series of false identities to mislead one's correspondents as to one’s real identity is out of order.
5) To counter arguments of real value (the burden on French taxpayers of a large influx of elderly people, the extraterritoriality of certain investigations) by disparaging and personal comments is out of order.

Hopefully we can get discussions back onto a reasonable keel and cast off some of the ungentlemanly behaviour that we have experienced.

If you wish to establish yourself under a unique nom de plume I am sure we would all be happy to comply with your wishes.

Bill Taylor said...

The six-hour time difference between Canada and France can be a mixed blessing. I'm just out of bed and freshly re-caffeinated and find that a quite stimulating debate has been going on.
I almost laughed out loud at Colin Berry's statement that "if I could put the clock back, I would have two web identities: one's real name for the serious stuff, like political blogs, but a pseudonym on blogs."
The man has and always has had dozens of pseudonyms! He's a classic blog sniper, always shooting from cover, always shifting his ground, always covering his tracks and changing his arguments to suit himself. He is incapable of straightforward, legitimate debate. As I believe Louise is, I'm far from convinced that he isn't the anonymous contributor here, too. It certainly sounds like him. But that's what posting anonymously is all about -- being able to hit and run away.
Yes, I have strong opinions and sometimes express myself strongly, even scathingly. I make no apology for that. But I'm upfront about it, I do it under my own name and I don't give a damn about what comes up when you Google "Bill Taylor." One of my email addresses is freely available on my website and the other isn't hard to come by.
What it comes down to is having the courage of your convictions. If you don't want to enter into a debate, no one's forcing you to (though why else would you visit a blog?). Stay out until a subject comes up that you feel warrants your input. But don't hide behind a cloak of anonymity. How ironic that Colin Berry should defend this practice while apparently barring anonymous comments on his own blog. It's typical of his self-serving duplicity.

Bill Taylor said...

I just took the liberty of Googling your name, Louise. A handful of entries come up (once the search engine has been reassured that I'm not really looking for Louise MANSFIELD), only two of which I believe apply to you -- a translation service and a letter to the Telegraph last February about smoking.
Google Colin Berry and you have to go four screens in until you come across the duplicitous blogger.
Finally, of course, I Googled Bill Taylor. After eight screens of the name, I still hadn't come across a reference to myself, in or out of a blogging context.
Chicken-hearted bloggers may wish to revisit their fear that the sky is about to fall on their muddled heads.

Louise said...

Having re-read the comments, I'm still convinced that Colin and anonymous on this posting are one and the same person, but still ...

As you are googled on page 4 Colin (I haven't looked but will take your word for it), let us imagine you are applying for a job.

I would hope for your sake that your future employer, having got to this sad state of affairs of googling you, has the intelligence to seek out the subject of the remarks that are googled. If he doesn't, then you don't want to work for people like that anyway.

Anyway this is all hypothetical, isn't it - I am not, and I hope you aren't, looking for a job where you are googled by a kid who is probably younger than your own children and spends most of the day on YouTube or something of the kind!

richard of orléans said...

Bill
You're right. Both my real name and Richard of Orléans are completely swamped by any number of more important people.That is his tactic, keep raising false issues to avoid any of the real issues and notably his own scurillous behaviour.

On another issue I see one Kate Middleton has pride of place on the front cover of the Toronto Star. I wonder what she has achieved of such merit to warrant a prime billing.

Louise said...

Well I looked at my name on Google and found nothing! The smoking thing was a letter I had published in the Telly yonks ago and the translation thing is perhaps me.

Without really looking hard, I actually had to go to page 10 before finding a reference to anyone in my family - and that was my great grandfather!! A few more pages and I found a remark from one of my brothers on a blog and by page 20 I'd given up!

sciencebod said...

Once again, you are presenting your suppostitions as if they were established fact.

Re you comments under para 2: anyone reading those comments would assume that I was the guilty party. Nothing could be further from the truth. When have I ever divulged anything that was not already in the public domain ? If you are referring to your own full name, you have previously appended it to correspondence. Yet I have never divulged my home address, but some "clown" (my term) possibly yourself, posted what they claimed to be it onto my own blog a few days ago.

Why are you so careless with language, Richard ? Do you intend people to form the wrong impression ? Do you think I have nothing better to do with my time than fend off an endless series of false or misleading accusations ?

Speaking of "clown", I do not recall being called that recently. If you, or someone, did so, I cannot imagine myself taking umbrage. I have been called a lot of worse things on blogs, notably by yourself, that have given deep offence, but the relatively innocuous "clown" is not one of them.

Please don't speculate on what is, or is not, legal. You are not, as far as I am aware, a lawyer. To suggest, as you do, that my behaviour has been illegal is typical of your tendency to act as judge and jury.

There is no such thing on a blog as a false identity. Anyone is free to call themselves what they want - Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Pluto, all three, or simply Anonymous. So get off your moral high horse , Richard. You have claimed on your blog that the picture of St.Peter's is your own local Church, without a hint of irony, tongue-in-cheek whatever. You are in no position to preach on questions of truth and honesty.

There are other matters in your post on which I could take strong issue, but to do so simply risks perpetuating some of your fantasies.

Finally, someone who has set up a blog that actively encourages folk to adopt a different identity ("daemon") is hardly likely to take kindly to your suggestion that he adopts a unique identity. In any case, it is not for you to make the rules. If you and others were to moderate your language, and refrain from attempts to demonise your perceived opponents, then it would not be necessary to change one's nom de plume. Yes, I have done it in the past, but purely as a defensive measure, or, as in the case of BT's "James Hamilton" , simply to inject some extra life into proceedings when things were starting to look a bit stale.

Yes, I would welcome a new start for 2007. But your blog is not a promising omens. It's clearly intended as a piss-taking wind-up of all things British, so is hardly calculated to inspire confidence in your stated desire to "get things back onto an even keel".

Thank you for the courtesy of your column, Louise (to revive an expression that one rarely hears these days). I think your blog is off to a brilliant start, although I rather resent the line you took earlier in the thread. I hope what I've said will cause you to withdraw some of the hurtful charges laid at my door.

richard of orléans said...

OK so we know you are a translator. I see that the EU has difficulty in finding translators from lithuanian into maltese. Interested? You'd have to move to Bruxelles.

Bill Taylor said...

That's funny, Richard -- my wife and I were having that discussion over breakfast. It wasn't a placement decision either of us would have made, had we been asked. On the other hand, I just did a check of the most e-mailed stories of the day from the Star website and Kate Middleton was either second or third. So it obviously struck a chord with the readers. Modesty precludes (no it doesn't!) my asking whether you saw my own modest contribution to today's paper?
Once again, Colin Berry demonstrates his utter lack of humour or flexibility. If Richard chooses to use his blog for the purposes of satire, that is entirely his own affair. Why are you so fascinated by his blog, anyway, when you abjure everything he says and refuse to tolerate his presence on your own blog? Judging by the speed of one of your responses yesterday, you appear to monitor Richard rather closely.

Louise said...

I seem to remember many months back that Richard accused me of being thin-skinned, or words to that effect - Colin, you are far too sensitive! Take all this stuff with a pinch of salt!

Honestly, did you really think that Roo would write a frightfully and seriously sensible blog? So what if he added a photo of St. Peter's? Or a tap? Or a digger? Of course he is taking the piss, but did you expect anything else? I didn't!

No, Richard, I am not a translator! I do some translation work just to keep the brain ticking but I am not responsible for translating instructions into incomprehensible English which you get with your new computer, mobile phone, or whatever! My Lithuanian isn't too good so I don't think I'll move to Brussels - great city - although I wouldn't mind getting work from Brussels, when you see the enormous amounts of dosh they get paid.

sciencebod said...

Perhaps BT would like to suggest the minimum and/or maximum number of times that I consult someone else's blog in the course of the day.

Or maybe he should just get off that high horse of his, and give us all a break.

sciencebod said...

If we keep lifting remarks out of context, we're condemned to forever go round in circles. I did not condemn Richard for having what BT calls an "off the wall" blog. I merely asked what prospect there was of things getting back "on an even keel", to use Richard's words, while he is set on his present course of winding us up.

Bill Taylor said...

You don't a sense of humour, Colin Berry, do you -- beyond that of the boy-scout campfire "josher?" I'm sure Richard's blog has you utterly confounded. But you may, of course, visit it as often as you like. I'm merely curious about the fascination it so obviously holds for you, given your oft-stated antipathy for the man himself.
Ah well, dyb, dyb, dyb...
Speaking of Brussels (definitely a widely under-rated city) and "dosh," Louise, would life be easier for the Swiss in general if the country were in the EC and using the euro?

sciencebod said...

It's a free country, BT. I'll visit any blog I want, without seeking your approval first. I'll laugh at what I want, wince at what I want. Right now, I'm wincing at most of your comments, but you have entertained in the past, so I'll continue reading what you have to say, and any blog you chose to start would be visited regularly, even if critics of your own ilk were to start probing one's motives for doing so.

Bill Taylor said...

Laudable sentiments, Colin Berry. But how sad that you're so incapable of laughing at yourself.

Louise said...

Right - tell me what 'dyb' is - I'm not into using initials!

I would be quite happy for Switzerland to be in the euro zone - having travelled quite a lot in Europe, I am all for the currency which as a visitor makes life much easier. And I'm afraid my knowledge of 'Europe' stops there, as I am too lazy to delve into the pros and cons of the European constitution.

It was hell moving to Switzerland - leaving a 'European' country to come here is a marathon. Apart from the tons of paperwork necessary, the actual moving is hard work. Every single carton that went into our removal lorry had to be precisely marked with its contents - I had cartons marked 'junk' or 'books' or 'kitchen stuff' - well, that is NOT on! The 'junk' had to be detailed, the 'books' in the box had to be counted, the 'kitchen stuff' the same...it was never ending.

It took three hours to clear customs - mainly hassle from the French authorities - and I was lucky that they didn't decide to make us unpack the lorry - not that I was importing anything dodgy but I admit that towards the end of the packing, I didn't count exactly what was in each box. Then one has to price this stuff...it was never ending! And I turned up at Customs with all the papers necessary - or so I thought!

My latest problems are money wise! I recently received a cheque here in pounds sterling. This is then sent to my bank in France and then a certain sum was transfered to my account here in Switzerland. We are into week SEVEN of this lark and the money might arrive by Christmas! As cheques no longer exist in Switzerland, if you try and pay in a cheque in foreign currency into your account, things get horribly complicated, so it is actually 'quicker' for me to transfer the money through France! And please, don't all start shouting about doing a bank to bank transfer - in this case it was not possible!!!

On the other hand, it's interesting to live in a country that is fiercly protective of its identity and hasn't opened the floodgates to mass immigration and stands by its principals...

A suivre ...

richard of orléans said...

Colinb There have been some significant points made here to which you don't seem to have a response. I feel we have laid down some markers indicating the fallaciousness of your position, which we won't hesitate to call in when you restart your whining and personal attacks. Under whatever identity you are using at the time.

Bill I go to 'Star columnists' and read your articles, which I appreciate. Some are a bit folksy, no doubt needed by the market, others very good. As far as detecting what you have written in today's paper. How do I do that?

Bill Taylor said...

"Dyb, dyb, dyb. We'll dob, dob, dob" is an old boy-scout catchphrase -- "dyb" is "do your best" and "dob," of course, is "do our best." Colin Berry, you may recall, has looked back fondly on his scout-camping days -- when, no doubt, the excitement was intense (that's a joke -- joshing, to you -- Colin Berry: intense = in tents).
Interesting stuff about your experiences, Louise, especially to one living in a country that might survive but certainly wouldn't prosper without a high level of immigration. We still haven't worked out precise or equitable controls, alas, but that's too deep a subject for now. Yes, though, you do sometimes find doctors driving cabs.
Almost all Canadian shops will accept American money for purchases and give the appropriate rate of exchange. Many bank machines here are set up to issue U.S. dollars if you want them and it's simplicity itself to pay a cheque (yes, we still have them, though they're in rapid decline) in U.S. funds into a Canadian bank account. But try going over the border and doing it in reverse. It can take weeks for a Canadian cheque (or even a money order, where the funds are guaranteed) to clear an American bank.
Richard: Thanks for the kind words. Yes, the nature of the business is to write sometimes in a market-friendly style (though, to be honest, it comes quite naturally to me). Easiest way to find me today is to enter "Bill Taylor" (with the quotation marks) into the 7-day search engine.

sciencebod said...

What Orléans has to understand (and I have said this before) is that he can set himself up as an Arch Inquisitor, and ask all the questions he wants. But it is for me to decide whether those questions are worth answering, or whether submitting to such an inquisition would set a bad precedent for the future. While Richard of Orléans persists with his present line of impertinence, I will continue to refer to him as the Prig of Orléans.

Bill Taylor said...

Now THAT is genuinely funny -- Colin Berry (who has said EVERYTHING before) referring to someone else as a prig. And "impertinence" -- what an outmoded, schoolmasterly word. Perhaps Colin Berry might choose as his next pseudonym, "Mr. Chips."

Louise said...

I shall just continue along parallel lines while you guys chat among yourselves!

Yes of course there is immigration here - the country couldn't survive without it, but there are priority jobs for the Swiss (and housing) and one has to come with a job lined up and are then issued with a work permit which is not indefinite. Or you can come in like Johnny, with a lot of money!

Stores here take euros and there is one bank that has an ATM that will dish them out but it's better to pay in Swiss francs.

sciencebod said...

Doesn't BT just love to latch on to these past affiliations, or occupations, such as " boy scout" "schoolmaster" etc and turn them into derogatory labels ? It confirms one's worst preconceptions about facile "tabloid journalists".

Bill Taylor said...

I used to work on tabloids, both as a freelancer and on staff -- it's the finest training a journalist can have. If you can write for a tab, you can write for anything. Far more people make the transition from tabloid to broadsheet than vice-versa. The Toronto Star is a broadsheet but my tabloid experience in Philadelphia and New York has stood me in very good stead. Alas, all Colin Berry's past affilitions with boy-scouthood and schoolmasterdom have done is narrow the lines upon which his mind runs so undivergingly.
I've been an immigrant twice myself, Louise: first to the U.S. and then to Canada. Coming to Canada was the best thing I ever did. I hope you feel the same way about Switzerland.

richard of orléans said...

OK Colinb you revert to type. You duck the arguments and embark on personal insults. Briefly the arguments are:
-You overstate the risks to being googled
-Most of my comments are justified, notably the latest on clowns and high wires. Publishing in the public domain you have to accept criticism.
-Your behaviour has been reprehensible (instances cited in detail)

Bill OK got your article. You sound like you're sitting on the fence.You want to say that Canada shouldn't be in Afghanistan but don't. Incidentally I was in Prague in 1968. I went up to a soviet tank and took a picture. The guy jumped down with his machine gun and confiscated my film. Nervous seconds.

Bill Taylor said...

I'm less troubled about our presence in Afghanistan than about our current role there. I'd much prefer it to be as peacekeepers rather than aggressors. I felt that I said pretty much what I wanted to say in today's piece but perhaps it did come across as sitting on the fence.
I've had one or two moments myself, photographing where I apparently wasn't supposed to -- from Chinese soldiers to Hells Angels. But it's amazing how easy it often is to take pictures of people, even quite close up. They either assume you're shooting past them or apologize for getting in your way.

sciencebod said...

I too spent two years in Philadelphia, BT, at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital Medical School, researching the phototherapy of neonatal jaundice. I was the first to propose that light causes bilirubin to isomerise to a more readily excreted form, published in BBRC journal in 1972 (search for Berry, Zarembo and Ostrow).

So what derogatory put-down label will Mr.Know-All, High-Horse BT place on that, I wonder. Something quaint, old-fashioned no doubt. But my paper was not ephemera, like your paper, and these blogs: it's something that will always be in the literature, and is, in fact, together with several others, still cited to this day. It's not something you or anyone else can take away from this boy scout/biomedical reseacher/teacher and lecturer.

Seems you failed to imbibe the spirit of that city on the Delaware, assuming that you are familiar, as I'm sure you must be, with the origins of the name "Philadelphia".

Bill Taylor said...

And you've been blowing that 34-year-old trumpet ever since, haven't you? It appears to be all that you possess to justify your existence. Be that as it may, and impressive as I'm sure your sole achievement is, it hardly justifies your setting yourself up as an arbiter of acceptable taste and behaviour, which is what you've always sought to do on these blogs. And you appear to have lost the ability you must surely have needed to formulate and pursue a cogent argument from start to finish.
My wife comes from just outside Philadelphia and I'm well aware of all that the city is and is not. Only a shallow man would be taken in by the origins (if anyone's wondering: city of brotherly love) of its name -- a piece of 18th century marketing, nothing more.

sciencebod said...

My sole achievement? Just one paper, the very first I published, early in my scientific career ? Why do you make such ludicrous, ill-informed statements, Bill Taylor, without a shred of evidence ?

I did not mention my Philadelphia work to blow my own trumpet, but to disabuse you of your pathetic attempts to label me as a boy scout/schoolmaster - activities you apparently despise.

But for the record I would mention that my 1986 paper in the Journal of Cereal Science is a Citation Classic, having been cited many hundreds of times.

I would advise you now to check Colin R's blog, where you will find a long overdue comment on your blog-stifling tendencies, shared with the Prig of Orléans.

Bill Taylor said...

The Journal of Cereal Science? Wow! Can't top that one! I'll bet it is a classic. You should've told us long ago that you were a cornflake specialist and we'd all have treated you and your fulminations with much more respect.

sciencebod said...

I won't waste time giving you the full title, Bill Taylor. The keyword was resistant starch, currently one of the hottest areas in dietary fibre research. I was the first to publish a paper devoted exclusively to resistant starch. Google "Berry CS", "resistant starch" and you will see that it's about more than just cornflakes (though they do get a mention)

Your sneering cynicism confirms the worst stereotype of the tabloid journalist.

Bill Taylor said...

Sorry, Professor Cocoapop, we've already been through the tabloid journalism bit. Try to think of something new. But how could anyone be anything but cynical when you're so absurdly proud of yourself? You're not a religious man are you? I seem to recall you claiming once to be a humanist. Still, I would remind you of the biblical imprecation: He who humbleth himself shall be exalted. He who exalteth himself shall be abased.
Face down in the rice krispies, I fear.

Bill Taylor said...

Louise, did you know we have a cereal killer in our midst?

sciencebod said...

Goodnight all.

One wouldn't wish to interrupt Bill Taylor while he reveals to the world his true colours.

Louise said...

My last comment for the day and then I'm off to continue with 'Les Bienveillantes' by Jonathan Littell.

When I posted this blog I thought I would be attacked by a load of pro-Di fans, all crying and screaming hysterically.

Wrong! We have had a load of hysterics but not about Di.

Bill Taylor said...

See you tomorrow, I hope, Louise. Thanks for a very entertaining Di. Sorry, day.

richard of orléans said...

That was entertaining. I would give the round to Bill Taylor on points, just. But I am sure snap crackle and pop has deep resources and will come out fighting tomorrow.Don't write that man off.

Colinb, I followed your google instructions and found lots of citations but couldn't find your paper. Is it possible to get it on the net? regards from your adorable Orléans prig.

Anonymous said...

Looks as if the Circus has moved on again, Louise. Where's their next stop, we wonder ? Salut! ? Richard of Orléans ?

Sorry about the trampled state of your lawn. Don't say I didn't warn you.

You won't believe the trouble I have just gone to in putting the accent in Orléans. Why couldn't the fellow have chosen to live somewhere else, like Blois, or Poitiers? Anywhere without an accent!

Roads said...

Some interesting stuff there about the Swiss immigration experience, Louise. I can remember my own encounters with the charmingly-named Fremdenpolizei in Bern.

It's no doubt an interesting thought from a French perspective that Switzerland might one day consider joining the Eurozone, although I'm not sure what the Swiss would think about that idea.

There has been some mild rapprochement with the EU lately, and perhaps this may be more pronounced in la suisse romande. But in the düutschsprachigeschwiiz which I know best, many of the older generation of Swiss do still tend to be quite suspicious of anything which might involve surrender of even the tiniest part of national identity.

I always felt that stance to be something of a contradiction. For a start, Switzerland itself is a suprisingly loose federation where distinct regional, cultural, religious and linguistic identities have been resolutely and very successfully retained.

And beyond this, its very diversity means that Switzerland is in some respects (almost) a model of Europe in miniature. This means that to me Switzerland often actually feels more 'European' than any other single country in Europe could possibly aspire to be.

What brought you to Switzerland, Louise ?

Bill Taylor said...

Richard: Try Googling "Nobel Prize" and "Weetabix"

Anonymous said...

One could understand the Patron Saint of Piss-takers referring a matter to God. But why the other way round ?

anonyhamster said...

Hey, that's plagiarism, Anonymous. It was I, Anonyhamster, who canonised Richard of Orléans as the Patron Saint of Piss-takers. Acknowledgments next time, if you don't mind.

Anyone who has written a Science Citation Classic may rightly consider themselves to be in the premier league of scientists (I happen to know about these things). But we don't belittle our premier league footballers for their failure to win Olympic Gold medals ( "Nobel Prizes"), do we ?

Seems to me that Mr. Taylor is indeed trying to act the Almighty, sitting in judgement on people and their careers. Since when has being a journalist, whether tabloid or broadsheet, given one the right to do this ?

Bill Taylor said...

Of course you know all about "these things." There's a very good chance that you're Colin Berry in yet another tedious, ill-fitting disguise.
I'm not sitting in judgement on anyone or anything - merely having a good laugh at something that strikes me as extremely funny (and a little bit sad, though not enoug to move me to tears).

anonyhamster said...

Oh not again, you pathetic little man! Someone else has already taken you to task for your paranoia, seeing this Colinb in every new blogger. Go ask Santa for some treatment over Christmas.

Bill Taylor said...

You're big on taking people to task, aren't you? That inescapable streak of British authoritarianism.
I remain unconvinced.

anonyhamster said...

You remain as unconvinced as you want, son; just do it quietly!

Bill Taylor said...

Tough little talker behind that mask, aren't you? Take it off (not that you ever would) and I'm sure you'd shrink down to your actual size. As unimpressive in body as you are in mind.

richard of orléans said...

The cited may be in the premier league of scientists, though I am not sure he has cleared the relegation zone. Are two goals scored long ago enough to keep the fires burning? That makes an awfully long coast through to early retirement.The laurels must indeed be ever green.

There are also premier league journalists, premier league sweepers. Do the latter two have to bow and scrape to the former? Some people skedaddled to countries where the lackey culture is no longer current.

Anonymous said...

It's pretty certain that the eyes of science can see the sweepers'laurel.

richard of orléans said...

There's only one 'i' in science. We need a scientific counter. Don't you zinc.

Anonymous said...

Removal of "i" leaves two e's.
The vision of e requires an eye.
Eyes with i's is no suprise.
His spirit counts as he's always tried.
What has he tried?
He gives of himself.
For you to know and wear his wealth.
The wealth of your laurel is yours and his.
The Spirit of Christmas will always give.

richard of orléans said...

I spy with my little i, an anonymous giblet

sciencebod said...

Asking what I have ever done for the world of science is starting to sound like the Life of Brian ( what did the Romans ever do for us ?)

Well, let's see, you have had phototherapy and resistant starch, but apart from that .....

Well, we could go on like this for a while. Try googling "berry colonic diverticulosis" or "berry UDP-glucuronyltransferase" or "berry microsomal compartmentation". Each one brings up a dozen or more new citations .

Earlier I said to google "berry,cs" "resistant starch". Simply changing that to "c berry" "resistant starch" brings up new and different citations, because Google is highly sensitive to the way one writes one's name on scientific paper.

Self aggrandisement ? An attempt to lord it over others ? No, neither of those. Just an attempt to stop a pair of ill-informed loudmouths doing me down, that's all.

sciencebod said...

PS Here are three more search profiles that work with Google:

Berry UDP-N-acetylglucosamine

Berry CS BNF Task Force complex carbohydrates

Berry scanning electron colon

Inevitably, there is some overlap, but each search profile bring up addititonal unique citations:

Oh, and let's not get carried away with analogies. Barring fraud, or having one's work rubbished, there is no relegation zone in science. One can stagnate, or lose one's funding, either of which could affect future progression, but there is emphatically no relegation.

Anonymous said...

OK. They'll read it; colonic diverticulosis etc.And when they educate themselves,maybe, if their intelligence grows,they will connect to something.A thought,a word a concept.Then they don't need to praise you,you've shown them themselves and they will discover a need to share themselves.Both are inquisitive,just not on the same page as you.Let it flow.Suggest a copy of The History of Science,all those people who went before them in the dark and tried their best.
The L's know where they stand.


And will Bill ever send you his Greetings?
You bet he will.

Bill Taylor said...

Certainly not on your say-so, anonymous, whoever you are or are not. Besides, I'm an ill-informed loudmouth, doing him down. But at least I sign my name. I'm not a spiteful little coward, getting my kicks on the fringes of other people's battles.

richard of orléans said...

Pope jean paul has 1 300 000 hits with google. Adolph Hitler has 2 530 000.Napoleon 28 300 000. Jesus Christ 36 700 000. Instead of ruminating about your lack of fame, maybe you could do a disertation on the criteria of success in the modern world and how they are distorting the personality of once sane individuals.

richard of orléans said...

And if you want to get into the nitty gritty anonyme and call people ignorant, I don't accept that somebody that spent his life looking at colonic diverticulosis and other such obscure matters is by definition, a great human being. The poor guy needs to come on this blog and vaunt to all and sundry what a genius he is. Whatever he found in his gut has spread to his brain.

Bill Taylor said...

All of these references that Colin Berry wants us to Google bring only vague listings of names, including C.S. Berry, but nothing of any substance for us actually to read -- no full sentences, paragraphs, learned papers. And they all seem to be shared credits. C.S. Berry and a couple of A.N. Others. It all looks a bit... spurious.

Anonymous said...

Here we see the evolution of Bill's thoughts."Not on your sayso"
Good.But he took the negative first;
somebody else was pushing him.
It was a reminder Bill,that's all.
What does your name mean to you Bill?
Please explain to us and why the rest of us should follow your credo.

richard of orléans said...

Bill If you want to do a bit of investigative journalism you might like to look into the citations game. I don't know much about it, but I do know a lot about the anglo saxons. It wouldn't take Brits long to come up with a racket of I cite you and you cite me. Strange how the Brits come out high in that game whereas the Germans, French and Italians are made to look stupid. Just maybe they keep their heads down in the laboratory and the CB's of this world go prancing on the internet.

Bill Taylor said...

What on earth are you talking about? Your ideas are jumbled and your words largely incomprehensible. But why should anyone follow my credo? They shouldn't. I'm merely expressing opinions and engaging in debate. I'm not seeking converts.

anonyhamster said...

Inspired by Anne Gilbert's versifying, but not her seasonal spirit:

There's a sad old sweeper called Dick
A pain in the arse and a prick;
His Kanuck friend Bill
Is also a pill.
Together they make people sick.

Bill Taylor said...

My last post was, of course, addressed to anonymous, not to Richard.
I'm wondering, Richard, if our scientific wunderkind didn't simply stagnate and lose his funding. Seems to be an ongoing problem in the world of complex carbohydrates.

Bill Taylor said...

When lost for a cogent argument, anonyhamster (who is NOT, let us all be assured, Colin Berry; nor are ANY of the anonymice), resort to vulgarity. How predictable of you. And you misspelled Canuck. Your literacy is about at the same level as your wit and repartee.

richard of orléans said...

Bill, this guy is a complete fake. I don't think he would recognise diarrhoea if he walked in it. He has never been cited for anything, the man is a complete phoney.

Anonymous said...

My Mum said that if you don't all stop, I am going to be allowed to sink my very large white teeth in your collective ankles.

Bill Taylor said...

Louise, I think your dog's hungry.

Louise said...

Angus is ALWAYS hungry and is also a great mouser.

Anonymous said...

Bill has confusion between opinion and statement.

"At least I sign my name".
What do you mean by this Bill?

"The spitefull little coward geting kicks on other peoples battles."
Who is the coward and whose battles are they Bill

sciencebod said...

Well, let's nudge you little closer to your first century, Louise, with some information for those who are long on opinions, and short on facts.

If you google the name of scientists, and one or two keywords relating to their field, all you will get are citations to their work, made in other highly-cited papers. You will not get a free copy of the scientists' work, for the simple reason that is now big business. You would have to go to the journal that published it, and probably be asked to cough up £30 or thereabouts.

I apologize to RO for confining my attention to lesser matters,like colonic diverticulosis, and having failed to find a cure for cancer. And I apologize to BT for having produced only one single- author paper, albeit my most successful in terms of those vital citations. It is in the nature of scientific research that most breakthroughs are made as the result of team work, where each member brings specialized skills and know-how. It is unreasonable to expect every scientist to operate as a one-man band, even assuming they could get funding to operate on that basis.

I would reiterate again that I am revealing my scientific cv under duress, having been written off by RO and BT as a ne'er-do-well. So et that serve as a warning to anyone on this and other blogs to think twice before saying anything that contradicts the world view of these two rottweilers. There may be a very heavy price to pay!

Louise said...

Well - got to the first century, but I'm not too sure I like the way I arrived at it.

Colin - you really shouldn't let Bill and Richard wind you up like this - you are playing straight into their hand!

Angus is sharpening his teeth and growling loudly - I'll have to feed him another tourist to calm him down.

Bill Taylor said...

Hey, your first ton-up, Louise! Has any other blogger ever run up a century so quickly?
Anonymous is beginning to sound (and spell) a bit like Anne Gilbert, whoever she is. "At least I sign my name" means I don't post anonymously. Was that really so hard to understand? In that case, I'm not even going to try to explain the rest; it would obviously be beyond you.
Richard, I think the shredded-wheat expert is trying to get 30 quid apiece out of us. Interesting that he should claim to be revealing his scientific cv "under duress." It certainly wasn't my idea for him to do so, nor do I think it was yours. And once he got started, there's been no stopping him.
Louise: Have you considered that Angus, always hungry, may have a tapeworm? Perhaps Colin Berry could help you with a diagnosis; it seems to be his area of expertise.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Louise should delete the offensive Anoyhamster post.

Perhaps we should all adjourn over to Richard's blog to further this discussion.

Bill's comment that Anoyhamster is writing a piece of wit shows how wide off the mark he is.And he knows no better than the rest of us who Anoyhamster is.So why does he embellish words?

Bill Taylor said...

Okay, THIS anonymous is definitely Anne Giblet.

Louise said...

Just one last thought before I tootle off - which maybe you have all worked out yonks ago...

despite the quality of the postings going downhill at breakneck speed, there isn't one single remark from Colin R, or is there?

Bill Taylor said...

Louise, are you suggesting that, all this time, Colin Berry has just been a figment of Colin Randall's imagination? That's quite apocalyptic; possibly the hoax of the decade.
Richard, it appears that we've been had!!

Bill Taylor said...

When you say Hippo, do you mean Colin Randall?

Louise said...

Well - don't forget the man is looking for a job so perhaps he is trying out his talents on us to see how long it takes us to cotton on.

He's done pretty well - couple of slip-ups though ... he couldn't think of another name and he told us he was moving south.

Maybe this poor man who has been a reporter all his life is in fact a budding poet, fighting to come out.

Louise said...

Just a very, very last thought, Bill (hell, I have to be up in six hours!) - is it wise to invite Colin R to meet up with you in Rome? Colin B might turn up.

Just a thought, mind you ...

sciencebod said...

Sorry to disappoint you folks, but while beavering away as a grey bespectacled scientist, I was in fact moonshining as my alter ego, Colin Randall. It wasn't easy, especially having to wear that uncomfortable "minimal-hair' piece,and pretend to like curry. And the cost of being seen in Washington, Paris etc at all the right times was a logistical problem of the first order.

But now the truth is out, I feel a strange sense of relief. Exhiliration even, given that BT thinks himself the fall guy of the decade, if only for a fleeting 20 minutes. I and hippo have relished every single second.

Bill Taylor said...

I was up at 4:30 this morning, Louise, for work-related reasons and I have a dinner date tonight. I must not to yawn over the food. And when I finally do get to bed, I'll be having nightmares about Rome. Thanks a lot!
Colin (Randall or the person I knew as Colin Randall) used to be, and probably still is, a very good folk singer and guitarist. He didn't write his own songs, though, but perhaps all this time he's been bursting with creativity. His poetry, alas, hasn't been very good so far, has it?
Anne: Please don't. Let sleeping hippos wallow.

Bill Taylor said...

Well, so much for THAT theory. Colin Randall's grammar, punctuation and spelling have always been impeccable. Or is "exhiliration" some abstruse scientific term?

anonyhamster said...

So now we know Bill Taylor's position on his newspaper - he's the spell-checker! And we all thought he was the "Toronto Star" equivalent of Woodward or Bernstein (yeah, right!)

As regards people choosing to use their own names or a pseudonym when contributing to a blog, does the poor soul really imagine that his buddy Richard has the surname of Orleans? He could be Kevin of Essex for all we know. Someone recently mentioned a surname for Richard and he squealed like a startled mouse (hmm! mouse or ... mous?)

redtown said...

The one character not developed in the film was Diana herself.  The "people's princess" remains the icon of superficial popular culture.  But the Royal family knew a very different Diana -- the one behind the facades of glamour and pseudo-compassion.

Both Diana and her brother, Charles Spencer, suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder caused by their mother's abandoning them as young children.  A google search reveals that Diana is considered a case study in BPD by mental health professionals.

For Charles Spencer, BPD meant insatiable sexual promiscuity (his wife was divorcing him at the time of Diana's death). For Diana, BPD meant intense insecurity and insatiable need for attention and affection which even the best husband could never fulfill. 

Clinically, it's clear that the Royal family did not cause her "problems". Rather, she brought her multiple issues into the marriage, and the Royal family was hapless to deal with them.

Her illness, untreated, sowed the seeds of her fast and unstable lifestyle, and sadly, her tragic fate.