Castle Aching

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Since GWR loco development became refinement/evolution rather than the massive strides taken by GJC in the Edwardian era, I suppose that even those other 4 might be considered as pre-grouping in origin...

 

Likewise the most notable Southern and LNER designs, given the continuity provided by Maunsell and Gresley, to say nothing of the LMS. The new designs produced in the pre-Stanier era, notably the 2-6-4T and both 4-6-0 designs, were built on ideas that had been much chewed over in the Derby LDO since the start of the century.

 

I am now removing myself to a safe distance, complete with hat and coat.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Compound2632

[Regularity]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

the LMS. The new designs produced in the pre-Stanier era, notably the 2-6-4T and both 4-6-0 designs, were built on ideas that had been much chewed over in the Derby LDO since the start of the century.

Yep.

Typical Derby: at the forefront of loco design in the nineteenth century. Still there 30 years later...

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Is August a Saint? 

 

53 minutes ago, Annie said:

Oooooooo very nice.  I do like Miss April.

 

Me too, but she ain't no saint.

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Edwardian

[nick_bastable]

44 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

Me too, but she ain't no saint.

 

 

 

sorry Great way round are smut now for a real engine

 

 

Nick

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Oxford Dictionaries Online:

 

Smut n. a small flake of soot or other dirt or a mark left by one. ‘all those black smuts from the engine’.

 

For 1905, not to be confused with Jan Smuts, much in the news.

 

Oh how boering.

 

Just when the essential smuttiness (snigger snigger) of the steam powered railway is revealed someone has to inject something sensible into this muddy stream of consciousness and ditches,

 

Is it just me but does that horse in the pre-Raphaelite depiction of Lady Godiva look slightly taken aback.

[Hroth]

10 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

now for a real engine

 

Can't be Real, its 213 so it must be Integer*.....

 

11 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Me too, but she ain't no saint. 

 

Oi loikes 'em ALL!!!

 

 

* In fact, you could get away with short Int or Char.

[Compound2632]

I read that as 273. 1906 was a little late in the day to be building a Victorian 4-4-0 even with a Belpaire boiler - Harry Pollitt was there in 1895.

 

 

Apologies, blunder. The photo is Pollitt's Class 11A of 1897, with piston valves. The five engines of Class 11 built in 1895 had slide valves. Nevertheless as far as I'm aware, the first Belpaire-boilered passenger engines in Great Britain and Ireland.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Compound2632

[Hroth]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I read that as 273. 1906 was a little late in the day to be building a Victorian 4-4-0 even with a Belpaire boiler - Harry Pollitt was there in 1895.

 

 

You're right, 273 so it has to be a long Int. Unsigned.... 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Hroth

[wagonman]

17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Is August a Saint? - 

 

No, August is a wicked month....

[Edwardian]

Good to know that, while our politics might be broken, our unwritten constitution is working just fine .....

 

I speak, of course, of the Case of Proclamations [1610] EWHC KB J22, which, we learn, is still good law, and authority for the proposition: "The King has no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him".  

 

Link 

 

What are the limits to the prerogative that the law of the land allows?  Well, it turns out that the prerogative cannot be used to frustrate or prevent without reasonable justification the exercise of Parliament of its legislative powers or duty to oversee the actions of the executive. 

 

 

So, thanks to principles established in our common law during the Stuarts' attempts to rule without Parliament in the Seventeenth Century, we have confirmation that an independent judiciary is able to uphold the rule of law in order to safeguard the sovereignty of parliament. That cannot be understood as anything other that the checks and balances of a living constitution working just fine. There are not all that many countries in the world that could say the same. I feel very grateful, and a little proud, about that.

 

Further, the sovereignty of parliament has been upheld by the highest court of the land without any recourse to European law or to the European Court of Human Rights.  This affirmation of Parliamentary and Judicial sovereignty ought to delight the members of the European Research Group, so I can only imagine that Rees-Mogg, Francois et al are currently dancing celebratory jigs of joy! If not, they need their irony meters adjusted. 

 

Of course, we now hand back to politicians, where infantile fanatics control both major parties, so we will all go to Hell in a handcart nevertheless .....  

 

But at least we'll do it in a constitutionally legal way!

[Regularity]

It has been funny to read some of the comments on the BBC website. The foaming on there would put the wishlistery of some in this place to shame.

 

I have actually read the judgment, and for once was pleased to see plain English in a legal document. Highly entertaining.

 

Also worth quoting this particular piece (paragraph 61):

Quote

It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful.

Why is that relevant?

 

Too often on RMWeb and indeed other forums, we have speculation and assertion without any form of evidence or reason.

[runs as required]

I was interested to hear that our current Parliament emerges with one thing in common with CA's railway happenings  - that in effect it has continued sitting within a fold in the map, never having been Prorogued.

RaR imagines the CA timetable of trains to be a smudgily printed 'blank sheet of paper'. I so admire such theoretical conceptual thinking.

dh

[Nearholmer]

All well and good, and I genuinely mean both words, but in a practical, as opposed to legal, sense “the right of sovereignty rests with the people”, so that if we withdraw our consent to our interests being represented by our MPs, the story isn’t over. 

 

I’m not advocating that we should, but I do get the strong sense that we are being led-by-the-nose towards doing exactly that, by people who would be far happier if we were to hand our right of sovereignty to them, as a small coterie, rather than continue to hand it to our MPs.

 

Very uncomfortable times.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

53 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

But at least we'll do it in a constitutionally legal way!

 

Though I did hear one commentator say that the Prime Minister's head was now on the block...

 

I'm afraid I'm living in a town noted for its regicides - it must be rubbing off on me.

[Edwardian]

31 minutes ago, Regularity said:

 

Why is that relevant?

 

 

It is relevant because prorogation in order to be lawful would require reasonable justification. 

 

The Government dropped the ball big time by failing to provide any justification; they put no evidence of any reason for a prorogation of that length before the court (betting everything, it seems, on the assumption that the Supreme Court would accept the Government's argument that it was a non-justiciable political decision). Bad call. 

 

To my mind therefore the decision to prorogue was a classically arbitrary exercise of power. 

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

It is relevant because prorogation in order to be lawful would require reasonable justification. 

My question was rhetorical. 

And I answered it, albeit in the context of this forum.

[Edwardian]

20 minutes ago, Regularity said:

My question was rhetorical. 

And I answered it, albeit in the context of this forum.

 

It all makes sense to me now!!

[runs as required]

Did anyone else pick-up a distinctly pre-Grouping kind of a comment collected by a BBCNews Channel correspondent 'vox pop' interviewing a group of youths in a 'Five Towns' Stoke-on Trent shopping mall directly after the Judgement this morning. 

In a very North Staffs accent one said "I were too young to 'ave a dog int' Brexit Referendum fight, but etc ..."

dh

[brack]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Though I did hear one commentator say that the Prime Minister's head was now on the block...

You mean I dug a ditch in my garden for nothing?

[ian]

In other news, I received this email from the wholesalers A B Gee today:

 

With October 31st quickly approaching and the uncertainty of Brexit looming, Hornby want to make sure that all customers are stocked up on their railway essentials in case of possible delays.

With this in mind, check out our Hornby Essentials below....

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, runs as required said:

 

In a very North Staffs accent one said "I were too young to 'ave a dog int' Brexit Referendum fight, but etc ..."

 

 

I've just been reading an article on the crisis of 1914, which had many of the features of the current situation, but heightened by the threat of civil war, fuelled by supposedly respectable politicians. On that occasion, we were saved from ourselves by the outbreak of the Great War, which as Asquith noted, would "take attention away from Ulster" and was thus "a good thing". 

 

On the whole, I'm inclined to be thankful that we don't have such a convenient Get out of Jail Free card this time.

[Hroth]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Though I did hear one commentator say that the Prime Minister's head was now on the block...

 

Quite a Shakesperian thought...

 

I wonder when they'll be taking him to the Tower, or will we need to keep an eye on Whitehall to see if scaffolding is being erected in front of the Banqueting House?

 

[brack]

28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

On the whole, I'm inclined to be thankful that we don't have such a convenient Get out of Jail Free card this time.

Yet.

 

Let's not tempt fate too soon please.

 

[Regularity]

8 minutes ago, Hroth said:

I wonder when they'll be taking him to the Tower

Not at all.

The advice he gave to the Queen was unlawful, meaning it was without an enforceable basis, and when asked to provide evidence in support of his reasoning, he (nor his "advisers") could do so.

It wasn't illegal: he didn't break any laws, he just didn't follow constitutional conventions properly.

 

Think of a contract for sale. If I sell something to you on the marketplace, and you don't pay me, that is illegal as you have broken the contract. If, however, the contract required you to make payment in the form of fresh dodo droppings, it would be an unlawful contract.

[Edwardian]

My first supervision as an undergraduate was to sit chatting with my supervisor about how she was learning the harpsichord and was having one built.  She gave me tea and biscuits.

 

At the end she said, "come back this time next week and tell me if you think Edward II's opponents had an ideology"

 

Why do I mention this?

 

Well, Edward II's opponents were faced with the conundrum facing all who opposed a divinely anointed executive; you cannot criticise the King because it undermines the whole system (and you get your head chopped off). 

 

So, they had a think about this and decided to draw a subtle but important distinction; the institution of monarchy is sacred and inviolable and commands our loyalty and respect but we can have a go at the individual monarch, the office holder, not the office, if we think he's a berk.

 

You see, before this handy "ideology" you were stuck with being unable to criticise the King and having to blame everything on the King's "evil counsellors"

 

Does this not have a familiar ring to it?  Has not an evil counsellor recently been held up for criticism by those whose allegiance makes them unwilling or unable to criticise the World King himself. 

 

Bleakly amusing to see us return to an artificial medieaval construct to explain why we are so badly ruled and seem to be unable to very much about it.