Word of Mouth  permalink

Accentuating the political

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 40 of 40
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by aquaticNickster (U6781871) on Sunday, 1st June 2008

    As politics in the UK becomes more centrist, are there votes for our aspiring representatives in becoming more or less RP or more or less dialectal?

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by albback (U11643252) on Sunday, 1st June 2008

    I would certainly look kindly on a prospective MEP who had a local accent. I think the days of equating RP with education and a local accent with lack of same are far gone.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by U11932431 (U11932431) on Sunday, 1st June 2008

    Hear Hear.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by albback (U11643252) on Sunday, 1st June 2008

    Hello Boris. Congratulations BTW.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by U11932431 (U11932431) on Sunday, 1st June 2008

    Thanks. You can call me Bo!

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Solly-its-shutting-down Sid (U2337718) on Monday, 2nd June 2008

    "RP"? Right Posh?

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by JB (U11805502) on Monday, 2nd June 2008

    Robert Peel was hurt when snobbish fellow Tories mocked his Lancashire accent. After him, it was over a century to the next PM with a regional English accent, Harold Wilson, who in his days as Attlee's President of the Board of Trade sounded very Oxford, but after that adopted an increasing Yorkshire tone to go with his prop pipe which he never smoked in private, preferring cigars.

    Roy Jenkins was the opposite of Peel, embarrassed that he could not shake off his cultivated tones having done what was expected of him at the time and forever obliterated his South Wales identity.

    Margaret Thatcher also learnt the "Oxford" accent, and then had to be expensively and painfully diselocuted by Ad Man Tim Bell.

    The late Gwynneth Dunwoody, Harriet Harman and Margaret Beckett can all be found on archive sounding very Oxford in the 1970s, but none of them ever went as far as Tony Blair in adoptin the glottal stop.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by jackntland (U5421248) on Monday, 2nd June 2008

    The late Gwynneth Dunwoody, Harriet Harman and Margaret Beckett can all be found on archive sounding very Oxford in the 1970s, but none of them ever went as far as Tony Blair in adoptin the glottal stop. 

    Nearly all of us are in reality multi-dialectal on some level, that is we change the way we speak to suit the company we find ourselves in. (It is infact a basic instinct survival instinct). That politicians might do it to appeal to their apparent constituency is pretty obvious and sensible really.

    Why is multi-dialectalism seen as such a negative, while multi-lingualism is hopefully normally seen as an asset?

    I suspect that its because the middle class cant and/or wont try to do it. Its really just about making different sounds and learning a little bit of grammar, like speaking another language funnily enough.

    (Tony B's use of the glottal stop has I feel on a personal level virtually nothing to do with adopting more working class like speech, its more that he like much of his class on all sides of the political spectrum are being influenced by the spread of estuarine English, an essentially social phenomenon for sure but not really a party political one)

    On going to France, Spain, Germany etc. particulary to live, it is I hope still considered a good thing to at least try and use the local language. (Although from the performance of many UK residents in Spain and France you could wonder about that).

    The same attempt to fit in is rarely true for all but working class people who move around the UK.
    (I know of one set of parents who made their childrens life hell by not letting them pick up the accent of the area they lived in, their childhood memories must be scarred by the taunts, ridicule and abuse they experienced through out their schools days. (Children are indeed cruel) I still wonder what exactly it was that their parents we afraid of, that their off spring might have some sense of identity?)

    It would not take much of a change to attitudes to make it acceptable to have and use various accents. Its not as if its a difficult thing to do.

    And the glottal stop, a perfectly accpetable speach feature found in dozens of languages and dialects is now very much part of main stream English whats the big deal?

    Exact why is that is ok to to say prop'ly for propERly, a feature almost standard in middle class English speech but not bu'er for buTTer or more accurately for the RP buTTah.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by MinnieBannister (U3716023) on Monday, 2nd June 2008

    Some regional accents seem to have become acceptable or even feted, while others are less so. An MP with a Yorkshire inflection seems quite normal, while a strong West Country accent seems to damn the speaker as a bumpkin as soon as he/she opens his/her mouth...

    (lighting the blue touch paper and standing well back...)

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by leontes (U250136) on Monday, 2nd June 2008



    Or even more even, fated: to be faked up by radio announcers who try to go all common-man and sound like Geordies when they've probably never been nearer Tyneside than Watford. Thus: 'And next,The Archers, whäuh Roouth is wäting foouh wöuhd from Toouhnäh about the fät of Gräuh Gäuhbles ...' etc.

    One wonders, doesn't one, I know I do, when they'll really stick their necks out and start faking up a 'Jamaican' sound. If they do, they'll be at a grievous disadvantage compared with the (genuine, I'd swear) W-I announcer on R4 who doesn't try to sound like an Ambrigian when he ushers in said long-runner.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by MinnieBannister (U3716023) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    ..."wooooaah, Deeeeavid!"

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by aquaticNickster (U6781871) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    I like jackintland's idea -


    It's a logical parallel to eating local produce, etc.

    As for politicians - if they adapted their speech according to where they were, would we find them any more insincere than we do already? The idea that they were making an effort for the local people might endear them.

    Where did John Major's 'wunt' come from?

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by jackntland (U5421248) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    Not quite sure what point your making Leontes,

    But isnt "Routh" a character in the long runner? And as such it shouldnt be unusual that she could be played by someone who has maybe never been in Tyneside?

    And as for the actors performance, if she's not from Tyneside she does very well portraying someone who who's speech obviously betrays their geographic origins, but who no longer lives there everyday, which means her speech is modified to fit in better where she now lives, she even strengthens her accent when she talks to her mum which reflects real practice.

    And I dont think announcers fake up accents that some of them actually have them is no bad thing

    As a Scot who has been around a bit I am well versed in modifying speech to be understood, I never the less still sound Scottish, whether I still sound like those who still live where I grew up or should try to is a moot point, if I go home I slip relatively easily into old speech patterns, it could sound to folk like I'm putting it on for all I know.

    When lived in London I used more London expressions and London forms, when I lived abroad I tried to use the local language and when speaking English picked up the habit of speaking slowly and more fully pronouncing words, which was not always welcomed when I spoke English back here in the UK. Both events, like my other other life experiences have impacted on how I now sound. For me regional accents can add colour and life to a persons speech as well give a sense of place, but thats just my opinion. Some people have memorable and powerful voices regardless of not sounding like they come from anywhere e.g. Richard Burton.

    And use of Jamacian patios, and elements of what was/is black amercian vernacular among all the young of London and other major cities is apparently fairly common. If its use, as it easily could, spreads, and when and if enough people use it, it will simply become the norm. And King William V may well giving us a "big up" in his Christmas address or Prince Harry may well be fessin' up to some future indiscretion.

    But dont worry this will not reflect any degradation of the language, or signal the end of civilisation, other linguistic trends will ensure that the lower orders can still be distinguished from their betters.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Wallflower (U12115051) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    Why, in this age of equality, do people still refer (albeit ironically) to 'their betters'

    I have never been able to 'do' a regional accent. I was brought up all over the place, by an italian mother and a public-school father. I have tried and tried, and all I do is embarrass myself, and others.

    I sound 'posh', but I'm not, and never will be but I've never been popular because of the perceptions of others. I can never belong to the crowd.

    When I lived in France though, I learned to speak french with a regional accent which I still just can't shift, and in France, Parisians laugh at yokels! I think what one learns first stays with one, but an accent really shouldn't be used to categorise people.

    I hate glottal stops though. It isn't because of any class distinction, it's because it sounds so darned lazy and I find it grates on the ear. Its a style of speech, rather than a region.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    Why, in this age of equality, do people still refer (albeit ironically) to 'their betters'
     


    I was wondering that Wallflower, although I did think that the rest of Jackintland's post was otherwise spot on.

    Regarding glottal stops, as a sound it has always had a bit of a hard time in the English-speaking world, being scorned upon by sections of the population. From a purely linguistic point-of-view it is not lazy in that the energy to produce a glottal stop in no more or less than producing the sound it replaces (the difference in energy levels do vary between sounds, but the differences are negligible).

    The speakers of other languages view the glottal stop as a seperate sound/letter, such as in Arabic or some of the Polynesian languages (e.g. Tongan), and it is necessary in Standard German to pronounce words spelt with a vowel first with a glottal stop in front of the vowel.

    The fact that glottal stops are considered the norm in so many other languages suggests that there is nothing intrinsically wrong or bad or lazy about it, but rather it is a cultural (or dare I say, class) view of the sound that makes so many English speakers dislike it so much. It is just another sound in the full array of sounds produced by humans, no more than that.

    Having said that, I freely admit to not liking it in the middle of words like http://butter, but I do think I often use it for words ending in a -t. I know I use it for the /t/ in words like "football" (in fact, it comes to a surprise to most people when it's pointed out to them that they use a glottal stop in "football" in normal speech - very few actually enunciate the /t/ sound fully in that word and if they do it often sounds stilted and false).

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by David Crosbie (U2338765) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    Reply to Message 14 by Wallflower
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Why, in this age of equality, do people still refer (albeit ironically) to 'their betters'
     

    An interesting question!

    I think the answer might be that accent has survived as a subtle index of class while other superficial indices have been discredited.

    I remember as a boy reading something about women at (I think) casino tables. All were able to afford the most expensive clothes and cosmetic care, but the women from working-class backgrounds were instantly recognisable. The journalist may well have been exaggerating, but this was generally believed in the past.

    I remember the clearest sign that this belief in grooming as an index of class was disappearing. In a famous TV commercial a beautifully-spoken and classy young man asked a beautiful and beautifully groomed young woman, 'Where have you come from? From Paradise?' In an accent we might now call 'Essex girl', the young goddess replies, 'No. Luton Airport'.

    My guess is that other superficialities -- table manners, applauding at concerts, openness to foreign foods and locations etc -- no longer indicate anything about our social backgrounds other than what we choose to display.

    Accent, by contrast, is not so easy to change. (Not impossible, though. My mother paid good money to lose her Swansea accent.) Indeed, many people have no perception of their accent. Still, we have inherited a finely-tuned ear for the accents of other people.

    RP was a class-based accent spread through public schools and later consciously promoted by the BBC to reduce geographical markers of difference. This created fine gradations of accent between RP and metropolitan to local accents free of any RP influence. At the latter end of the spectrum, the speakers were clearly working class with a basic education. At the opposite end, speakers were perceived to have power, influence, education -- in a word, authority.

    I think it's still defensible to assume that people who speak like 'one of us' are people we can empathise with. Far less defensible is to distrust those who don't sound like 'one of us'. Not so long ago, most of us were predisposed to trust either those with the same accent as ourselves or those with the RP accent of authority.

    I suggest that most of us still have a perception of class differences -- even if we consider them harmful or irrelevant. When we speak ironically of 'our betters', we allude to the existence of class difference while simultaneously decrying them.

    I hate glottal stops though. It isn't because of any class distinction, it's because it sounds so darned lazy and I find it grates on the ear. Its a style of speech, rather than a region.
     

    I'm sure you're wrong. They may 'sound' lazy, but the concept is nonsensical. The amount of effort involved in articulating any speech sound is infinitesimal. And that effort is not under conscious control. And most of the effort goes into controlling the glottis, so one speaker's glottal stop may involve much more effort that another speaker's T-sound.

    Glottal stops in place of /t/ and other consonants are regional in origin. They have spread from London, Glasgow and other centres because many people -- unlike you -- actually like the sound. They could make the conventional sounds, but it would feel insincere, alienating them from the peer group they respect.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    < Why, in this age of equality, do people still refer (albeit ironically) to 'their betters' >

    This is one of the 'woodwork' questions. Just wait and out they come from it.

    There was a time when 'betters' was not an ironic expression. Some people were recognisably better, e.g. in observing the law, caring for their families, caring for the community, speaking clearly. And they haven't gone away. I see my betters every day. To the extent possible, and it's hard work, I try, if not to copy, at least not to despise them.

    'Equality' on the other hand, is a ridiculous slogan. A false promise. In practice, no more than averaging everybody, other than, of course, the new chosen betters.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by jackntland (U5421248) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    There was a time when 'betters' was not an ironic expression. Some people were recognisably better, e.g. in observing the law, caring for their families, caring for the community, speaking clearly. And they haven't gone away. I see my betters every day. To the extent possible, and it's hard work, I try, if not to copy, at least not to despise them.

    'Equality' on the other hand, is a ridiculous slogan. A false promise. In practice, no more than averaging everybody, other than, of course, the new chosen betters. 


    Wimbled
    In the first paragraph you make a classic and totally unjustified mistake, how you sounded has never related to your liklihood to obey the law, look after your kids, (maybe you feel that having enough cash to palm them onto nanny, then ship your off spring of to prep school, and out of your hair age 5 is good parenting), being part of a community.

    Honesty, decency and a propensity for hard work has never been and still isnt restricted to those who "speak well".

    Similarly sleazy criminality, naked greed, disregard for others and laziness are as common in "good speakers" as elsewhere in society, e.g. Jeffrey Archer, Neil Hamilton or maybe the guys who screwed up Northern rock.

    Your right there can never be equality of achievement, and it can easily be argued that pretending there can be has messed up much of our educational system.
    But to assume that some have an inherent right to achieve more because of the way they sound is nonsense on stilts.

    I to see my betters everyday, not in those who have perhaps achieved more material, or social success than me but in folk who try simply get on with life and remain decent, honest hardworking citizens whatever life sends them.
    These are the folk we should try to emulate.

    Folk that their "betters", rather than support, often dismiss as part of the scum, or dogooding liberals herd in with those in need of their patronising, self serving "help" just because then dont sound right.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by JB (U11805502) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    But people can still make assumptions based on accent. A poll in 1992 had most voters thinking that John Major with his two A Levels was better educated than Neil Kinnock with his degree from University College, Cardiff, and today many people cannot get past the Texas twang and refuse to beleive that President Bush has degrees from Harvard and Yale.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    To jackintland re. your M18

    It appears to me that you have made the mistake of coming out of the woodwork, as a speech warrior, and accusing me of suggesting things that were never in my mind. I was referring generally to the term 'betters' and to the different ways I recognise other individuals as my betters. (Note, individuals, i.e. real people).

    On the matter of speech, I was not suggesting that people who speak well are by virtue of that admirable generally. Or that people who care for their families but do not speak well are to be despised. It is you who is making such assumptions in order to make your points.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by jackntland (U5421248) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    Some people were recognisably better, e.g. in observing the law, caring for their families, caring for the community, speaking clearly. 

    Rereading your entry I probably did over interpret your meaning, possibly to allow me to make my point, a little to strongly and for that I apologise.

    Part of my point was that I think the folk you list above have not gone away, they are still there, in every walk of life and/but how they sound is just not part of what makes them better people.
    In other words for me the "speaking clearly" has no place in your sentence.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by notoilydave (U11825763) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    Reply to message posted by aquaticNickster

    "Where did John Major's 'wunt' come from?"

    Probably from the circus, which a comedienne said he ran away from to become an accountant.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    To jackintland re. your M21

    So 'better' cannot refer to 'speaking'? I cannot refer to X as a better mathematician than I am? (Which would not be difficult for me, as I am not one).

    That would be a strange world in which I do not live. Even were I to think my speech perfect, it would be conceivable to me that someone might, in theory at least, be better.

    And do your remarks only apply to English? May I refer to Y's better French?

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by jackntland (U5421248) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    Wimbled,

    There are many people who are better users of the English language, particularly spoken English, than I am e.g. some rappers are very verbally innovative and clever, but it mostly has very little to do with how they sound, its more to do with the words the use and how they combine them.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by David Crosbie (U2338765) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    Reply to Message 17 by wimbled
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    There was a time when 'betters' was not an ironic expression. Some people were recognisably better, e.g. in observing the law, caring for their families, caring for the community, speaking clearly.
     

    That's an interesting -- and very unexpected -- assertion.

    I didn't realise that anybody ever used the expression http://your_betters to mean anything other than 'your social superiors. Wherever did you discover this quaint use that you describe?

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Tuesday, 3rd June 2008

    To D.Crosbie re. your M25

    If, as referred to by Wallflower in M14, the term 'their betters' is today ironic, then some other use, non-ironic presumably, exists. Otherwise, there is no irony.

    In fact, this term has been used in this (my)neutral sense in recent relation to kitchen equipment manufacturers, EU rulings on computers, cheating students, and no doubt many more. I do like to keep up with things.

    When your use is intended, the 'betters' is usually expressed in this form, in the interest of clarity






    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Wallflower (U12115051) on Wednesday, 4th June 2008

    I think it's rather optimistic to say that one doesn't have 'betters'.

    Its hard to explain what 'better' is; some (though not all) army officers have it, also very sucessful businessmen (women seem more egalitarian). They just sort of assume that they are more important than me/most other people, and although I try to fight it on principle, I always end up deferring to them.

    Its a pain because I suspect that, no matter how wealthy and successful I may become in the future, I will always have that slightly sub-dominant feeling towards well-fed, nicely-outfitted bosses, and I absolutely know I shouldn't, 'specially because I'm not entirely unsucessful myself.

    Does one ever lose the unworthy feeling of a very poor childhood? Big question, that!

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Poverty (U3995185) on Wednesday, 4th June 2008

    When I left school in the 1940s and went into the civil service for a few years, one of the first things that I was told very firmly was that those in higher positions were "senior" officers, not "superior" officers. No-one in the civil service was "better" or "superior", they were just "senior".

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by aquaticNickster (U6781871) on Wednesday, 4th June 2008

    That reminds me of being told, in the 70s, you just entered senior officers' rooms without knocking or they would think you thought they were doing something they didn't ought.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Wednesday, 4th June 2008

    To D.Crosbie re. your M25

    < I didn't realise that anybody ever used the expression your_betters to mean anything other than 'your social superiors. Wherever did you discover this quaint use that you describe? >

    I think that most people would agree that because you have never heard of something, it is not thereby quaint nor anything else, other than unknown to you. That stands to reason. But for some, of course, ignorance is a blissful existence.

    As a matter of fact, my older brothers used to tell me that I had to listen to my betters, i.e. themselves. And they were better. Bigger, certainly. And whether giving instruction or advice, they saved me from quite a few serious scrapes.

    On modern usage: "Many students stoop to dishonesty as do some of their betters.". Here the references were to weaker students and the better-performing ones.

    As to your idea of 'social superiority', this relies on the idea of 'social classes'. Another view is that the individual is a rational creature and quite able to classify him or herself without instruction from 'superiors'.

    Most classify themselves as superior to everybody else, other than in particular respects and circumstances. That appears to be in the nature of things and is readily demonstrable. Perhaps 'class' should be left in the 'class-room' where it can do less damage.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by David Crosbie (U2338765) on Wednesday, 4th June 2008

    Reply to Message 30 by wimbled
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    As to your idea of 'social superiority', this relies on the idea of 'social classes'. Another view is that the individual is a rational creature and quite able to classify him or herself without instruction from 'superiors'.
     

    Yes, but we Brits never quite got the hang of it.

    There are societies that claim to have no social class differentiation. The larger the society, the more likely they are to be kidding themselves.

    I grew up in a Britain where 'your betters' was taken seriously. I think it's much healthier now that 'your betters' is generally ironic.

    Either way, 'your betters' may refer to people who don't actually exist -- just the Platonic idea of such people.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Poverty (U3995185) on Wednesday, 4th June 2008

    In the old days the expression used to be "your elders and betters".

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Wednesday, 4th June 2008

    To Poverty re. your M32

    < In the old days the expression used to be "your elders and betters". >

    Yes, but not exclusively so. I heard both versions. As modern usage suggests, where 'elders' is not used much, if at all.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by MinnieBannister (U3716023) on Wednesday, 4th June 2008

    Wimbled wrote, "If, as referred to by Wallflower in M14, the term 'their betters' is today ironic, then some other use, non-ironic presumably, exists. Otherwise, there is no irony."

    But is not the non-ironic use generally rather outdated? I think the irony refers by implication to the time when such a phrase was used sincerely.

    Personally, I admit I occasionally refer to my 'better half', usually ironically...

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Monday, 9th June 2008

    To MinnieBannister re. your M34

    I'm sorry to say that your use of the term 'outdated' presents us with a classic case of an argument presented with a conclusion as one of its terms.

    The argument relies on the obvious fact that an ironic form must necessarily refer back in time to the ordinary form. In that sense, both uses are 'dated'.

    However, in expressing the earlier as 'outdated', this (actually pejorative) term refers to your intended conclusion, i.e. that the 'earlier' use should be abandoned as being obsolete, archaic, 'quaint', confusing, or suchlike. Perhaps there is even the suggestion of the supermarket, i.e. that the item referred to should be withdrawn for reasons of health.

    Also of course the the said two dates refer essentially to the time when the ironic form developed. An argument from these dates completely ignores the current situation. If the earlier use is to be abandoned (which is the intended conclusion) then it must still exist. So the apparently relevant dates, could not be more irrelevant, in the argument, the conclusion, and in reality.





    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Monday, 9th June 2008

    To MinnieBannister re. your M34

    Of course, were you to say that this is not about logic, I would tend to agree with you. Very few arguments on this board are.

    Of note, perhaps, is that my comments are based on those of my betters, the philosophers who in turn acknowledge their own betters. You might not agree with me or them, and for your purposes, the expression, 'betters', has been developed. The spoken form employs a sneering tone though the precise form is up to the speaker.

    Anyway, these are the forms I would use when referring to Das Kapital and its sequel Mein Kampf as ‘philosophy’. Highly opinionated, of course. But that is what irony is, isn’t it? We can all share the joke though. Or should I say ‘joke’?

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by leontes (U250136) on Monday, 9th June 2008



    You've gooaht it exactleeah, Minneah! Which non-sequitureealleh reminds me that some time ago one of the Archer girls had staying in Ambridge a (potential/possible boy-)friend from South Africa. He was so utterly totally a gentleman of culture, wisdom and decency such as hardly to be reckoned an inhabitant of this earth. (White Man's Good N-word, as they used to put it in the American South) Eventually this Cape Crusader seemed to return to his (then pre-Umbeke)homeland. What fascinated me was that no one but no one incl. Joe Grundy ever ever referred to his colour. A little strange for your average Ambridge?

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by aquaticNickster (U6781871) on Monday, 9th June 2008

    They did allude tho, and worked up to referring.

    You missed it, obviously.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by HabookII (U12268943) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008

    Ref 19, JB. Two degrees, Bush? Whatever in for God's sake? Media Studies and Hairdressing. Surely Yale as in lock....give us the facts bud, fast.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by leontes (U250136) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008



    Damn! D'ye think I can get it on Listen Again?

    Report message40

Back to top

About this Board

This was the BBC Radio 4 messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The Radio 4 messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Other BBC Messageboards

Copyright © 2014 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.