If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Seriously, a couple days ago I watched one of my favourite Poirot episodes.
When Hercule sums up, there is one chap, McNeil who insists that Ridgway is the culprit. More than once the great detective must remind poor McNeil that Ridgway had nothing to do with it.
On the other hand, a one-track mind has advantages--it rarely derails.
Unless the anarchists paved the yard for free, I would say it was 'professionally' paved. And the material used looks like granite 'setts', known colloquially as cobbles and bog standard for paving in LV London.
Unless the anarchists paved the yard for free, I would say it was 'professionally' paved. And the material used looks like granite 'setts', known colloquially as cobbles and bog standard for paving in LV London.
MrB
We have one side of town with streets cobbled by stolen cobbles from the other side of town. As the town expanded business owners would pry up stones from the residential side and lay them in front of their stores. The other side stole them back for awhile, but then asphalt became a thing. But there are like 6 square blocks paved with stolen rocks. And a neighborhood called "The Quarry" which is low income housing with streets that look like a jacked up Tetris board.
It could happen.
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
how likely is it that the court or yard was paved with stone?
Hi Velma
Philip's book indicates it's likely the yard was repaved during the 1892 improvements to the property...the now famous picture dates from June or July 1900
Philip's book indicates it's likely the yard was repaved during the 1892 improvements to the property...the now famous picture dates from June or July 1900
All the best
Dave
Thanks everyone.
lm sorry but I do not have the Hitchinson book-- just a limited library.
With Dave's recent discussion of then and now, I'm reconsidering whether a woman would go all the way to the privy to dust herself off and make herself presentable
Wandering around that yard sounds daunting -- considering the deep darkness, the possibility of slipping, falling, maybe winding up even more dirty/muddy than she already was.
I can see her getting off the street to straighten herself out, brush herself off, and pop a freshner into her mouth.
But would she really have wandered further in the dark and mud with uncertain footing than she had to?
Unless the anarchists paved the yard for free, I would say it was 'professionally' paved. And the material used looks like granite 'setts', known colloquially as cobbles and bog standard for paving in LV London.
MrB
Hello Mr B,
I believe the anarchists arrived ten years later, along with Rudolph Rocker, who rocked, in my opinion. At the time it was a socialist club, new members had to be proposed by a member of the club and accept the principles of socialism. Or so I have read.
Not that there was a very great difference between anarchism, trades unionists and socialists and all three were disliked by the authorities (to say the least). The picture of an anarchist as a little man with a long coat and a smoking bomb in his hand is a little misleading. Anarchists wanted to do away with governments, it is true, and I can sympathise to some extent, seeing the present crop of greedy incompetents, but where they fell down was the belief that all people, left to their own devices, would help their neighbour(s). Nice dream, but wouldn't ever work. Although between the three of them, conditions for working men (and women) did improve.
Comment