Tweet
It reminds me of Nigel's plans for rebuilding 'Stone'enge' in Spinal Tap....
All the best
Dave
-
Sorry the reference eludes me...
All the best
Dave -
Watch this then, Dave -I'm afraid that Nigel, the lead singer, was famously 'confused' between feet and inches -hence the dwarves having problems not tripping over 'Stone'enge' on stage http://youtu.be/_Zdyo4vJuCUOriginally posted by Cogidubnus View PostComment
-
Dave:
"under the circumstances, taking this to mean the dress was somewhere between the navel and the pubic area, would seem to me at least, quite reasonable..."
Between the navel and the pubic area? When the abdomen stretches down to the pelvic brim? Or is that not colloquial enough? To me it has always been - I have always called the bit over my finer parts (or family happiness as us Swedes put it
) my abdomen. What do YOU call it, Dave? Is there a name for it, or is it no manīs land?
The best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 07-30-2012, 08:19 PM.Comment
-
Times 18th September 1888, testimony of Robert Baul (sic...Paul)
"...Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach...."
No matter how uneasy you may or may not feel about the Times, do you really think an East End carman of the LVP would have said "stomach" or "abdomen"?... as far as I can recall, for that very reason, I've always quoted "stomach" vis-a-vis the clothing...
All the best
Dave
Edited to add:- Ask a typical Englishman to rub his "tummy"...it may surprise you...Comment
-
Ellow,Ellow,Ellow,
So from the age of 9 up until 22 Chas Lechmere is officially known as Chas Cross.
Thomas cross dies in 1869 .. his step son chas, is now 20 .
Chas Cross marries in 1871 aged 22 . And from here on, he returns back to his original fathers name (Lechmere) in official history. Are we good so far ?
He Clearly had a good relationship with his step father .. Hence he named his first son Thomas after his step dad.
His son Thomas started work at the age of 14 as a Vanguard carman .
So here is my question ;
Is it not a possibility that Chas Cross may have started work around the same age as his own son .. baring in mind , he also had a strong father figure with work ethics .
So from somewhere around 1863 a young Charles Cross .. would have been out and about in the work force as Charles Cross ..
He started work at Pickfords in 1868 , aged 19 . No reason to assume anything other than he was down as Charles Cross here too .
Even Given the slim chance that he made a point of switching his name at work the year after his step dad died in 1869 .. ( my guess is the marriage to his wife and the census of 71 was the first time he reverted back to his Fathers name Lechmere ) But even if it was the year after his father's death , that still gives us six years possibly eight he would have been known as Cross ..
And maybe even throughout his entire work career he would have been known as Charles Cross, if he didn't switch it up at all .. and what would have been the point of confusing everyone at work anyway ?
I guess my main point here is that no one can really make the claim " we know lechmere lied " when he used the name Cross . When you accuse a man of lying .. i think you should be sure 100% of your claim .. Especially when that man is not about to defend himself .
When only half the facts are available , it is only half the story you can be sure about .. and that is along way from 100%
cheers
moonbegger .Last edited by moonbegger; 07-30-2012, 09:12 PM.Comment
-
archive
Hello Christer. I daresay you've seen this.
I have taken the liberty of contacting them to see if they have an archive of former employees.
Wish me luck.
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Moomin
Research the use of the name Thomas in young Thomas's Lechmere's blood relations.
You have filled in a lot if gaps there.
Did you know that young Charles was christened as Charles Levhmere aced his mother bigamously married Thomas Cross?Comment
-
Lynn
I hope you have better luck than I have hadComment
-
reply
Hello Lechmere. Thanks. Did they tell you to bugger off? Or did you even get a reply?
Cheers.
LCComment
-
I got a book on Pickfords history for my pains after I tried ringing and writing and was told they had no records.Comment
-
Good Morning Fisherman ! .....and cheerio...Have a Good Day (as they say at McDonalds) !Comment
-
Dave:
"No matter how uneasy you may or may not feel about the Times, do you really think an East End carman of the LVP would have said "stomach" or "abdomen"?"
Stomach, most probably. Or tummy. And all three stretch all the way down to the pelvic area. There is nothing inbetween, no matter what we choose to call it, and that is the point I am making. The area between the solar plexus and the pelvic brim is the ... oh, okay: stomach. And if Nicholsīclothes were raised up NOT to reach her stomach, but only almost, then why would that specification indicate that the clothes were raised to a level up ON her stomach - between the navel and the pubic area, as you put it?
Would a collar that almost reached the chin cover the nose? Would a temperature that almost reached 100 degrees Celsius make water boil?
The points that are made out here are sometimes very strange, I find. Sure, Paul could have meant that the clothing reached halfways up to her breastbone, and expressed himself poorly. We cannot rule that out totally. But why would we not accept that the wording implicates that the clothing did NOT reach up to the stomach area - when this is what the testimony says? Itīs all very fine to look for useful criticism and to go digging for material that could overthrow the Lechmere proposition - but is this such a thing?
Just asking, Dave.
The best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 07-31-2012, 06:35 AM.Comment
-
Ah! THERE you are! Good morning, Ruby!
FishermanComment
-
Moonbegger!
I coupled these quotations from your last post:
1. "He Clearly had a good relationship with his step father"
and
2. "When only half the facts are available , it is only half the story you can be sure about"
... and decided to let them speak for themselves.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Fisherman ,
Not totally sure what you need me to clean up here .. but .
"He Clearly had a good relationship with his step father"
I was just of the opinion that 1) if he had a bad relationship with his step father he would not have been too happy or willing , to call his son Thomas.
and 2) If he did have a good relationship with his step dad Thomas .. then he may have enjoyed the association and perks that the son of a police officer may have had ( Thomas Cross police colleges and friends would have no doubt kept an eye on him after his father ( stepfather ) their friend died. He may have been in no rush to change his name untill he got Married or registered .Which gives him more than enough time to be known as Cross ..
""When only half the facts are available , it is only half the story you can be sure about"
Where i come from , to say " i or we are of the opinion this man lied" is one thing , but to say its a Known fact .. is wrong .. the evidence is not there one way or another to make that claim . when you have the evidence that says no one referred to him as Cross , then you can say " it is known " but until then all you can do is surmise and assume , that's the bottom line .
moonbeggerComment
Comment