Letters (emails) to The Times

going back 5 years Ron







The parade pace is 100 steps per minute with 6 paces between contingents.







http://raoc.websitetoolbox.com/post/raoc-whitehall-cenotaph-parade-2008-3022110

 

CL1

Thanks for that !

I've just remembered something about Sunday's parade.

One of the RECCE units came back onto Horse Guards parade ground marching at a cracking pace which must have been at least "Double-time" and I was so impressed that I literally applauded them for their efforts

Ron

 

As a regular letter writer to The Times I have always been puzzled by the criteria they use when deciding to publish or ignore such letters.

One such letter has once more been junked by The Times and I wondered whether or not the Times has a no swear word policy that automatically ban such letters.

This is the letter in question:

Sir

Your story about the attempts to sneak a banned four letter word into Hansard reminded me of my own efforts to get a another word pass the BBC censors.

Many moons ago I posted an article to the BBC People's War that told of my wartime tank commander shouting at me "Let the bastards have it !"

Although the B word was common parlance, the BBC rejected my story but suggested that if I used asterisks in the appropriate place they would accept it.

I duly ammended the offending word and the story was then published.

A few years later I spotted that other stories now contained the previously offending word so I wrote to complain.

When the Bebe replied that they had adopted a more open policy regarding such entries I promptly replied, "Please can I have my bastard back !"

Ron Goldstein
Ex 4th Queen's Own Hussars


Full story here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/30/a2017630.shtml

 

Ron, so did you get your 'bastard' back?

The rejection probably isn't due to the swearing but for giving publicity to a BBC initiative. A huge sin in the eyes of News International.
The Times will likely tip off The Sun and next week you're make the frontpage with "The British Banning Corporation Bans War Hero's Swearing"

 

Lee

Glad you spotted that they eventually relented and allowed my "bastards ".

Sorry to report that this was my only victory over the BBC and I have never forgiven them for removing their simple to use search box.

Best regards

Ron

 

Ron, annoying that their own search was gone. Sadly this sort of thing is going to be common with digitisation projects, they neglect to take into account the longterm maintenance of the project. In some respects that's possibly for the better else they would never get the go-ahead in the first place.

I've recently been thinking about the same with my own little piece of internet real-estate. My website will probably die with me.

 

Lee

I know i digress but it is an important point that you raise about the life span of internet sites.

I created, and still run, a Blog dedicated to a boy's club, established in 1924 that has an annual reunion.

Inevitably this year's function will be the last and I have been trying for years to get someone to take over the control of the Blog but without any sucess.

The Blog will eventualy dissapear when I am no longer around to control it.

A pity, but a fact of life.

Ron

 

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it."


https://web.archive.org/web/20120822080627/http://spitalfieldslife.com/2010/08/11/ron-goldstein-cambridge-bethnal-green-boys-club

 

Ron, during the time I was a volunteer for the BBC "People's War" project I believe there were only two occasions I had to use asterisks when quoting someone, including this one:

"There was a loud bang: the gun had gone off! The bullet ricocheted around the tin hut, firstly hitting the tin roof and it then lodged in the leg of the bunk. Father had shot the bed and Joe Bell had s**t the bed!"

Ref.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/21/a8671421.shtml

Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with asterisks. You should not let the asterisks get you down, Ron.

 

Oh, asterisks leave a "je ne sais quoi", a tease in the back of your mind... From the example in the post above the shy ommision of a couple of letters instead of the glaring but dull entire, explicit word leaves a mistery.

"...Joe Bell had s**t the bed!" What could it be? Slot? Slat? Those are aeronautical terms but do they fit in the semantics? Stat? Is the bed a mathematical entity now? Does it have to be an English word at all? "Sbrt" in Serbo-Croatian means roughly "The Wax Museum opening hours are from 10 to 16, not closing for lunch", Serbo-Croatian being a famously syncrethic language. What, but what can it be?

I think my brain hurts.

Hi Ron

 

I was led to believe the instance was about the first shot and the first s**t of Silloth Home Guard!

Among the House Rules of the site was the following statement:

"Swear words will be ****d out. The moderators will **** out the entire word, except for the first and last letters."

Strictly speaking, one could make the case - as with Ron's "b******s" - that these were not swear words at all but good, honest, proper nouns used and there should be nothing wrong with using them in the correct context.

For example, when I return to Normandy and think about William the Conqueror in French I generally think of him as "Guillaume le Bâtard" (i.e. which describes his immediate family origins!). To make Ron's day, I have just looked up the "BBC History" website biography of William, where he is described as:

"William was born in around 1028, in Falaise, Normandy the illegitimate son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy. He was known as 'William the Bastard' to his contemporaries."
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/william_i_king.shtml

He was not really 'William the Asterisk' after all!

 

You've set me thinking as to why I write to the Times in the first place.

I suppose, initially because I get the paper delivered six days a week (it used to be seven days but I found myself discarding half the Sunday edition without even looking at it)

I tend to write mostly about things that annoy me, whatever the subject, and I can cheerfully write at least once a week either on a fresh subject or on something already mentioned in the paper.

Do I get annoyed when they don't publish my brilliant pieces of commentary ?, perhaps when I was younger but advancing years have mellowed me and I've had more than my fair share printed over the years.

I've even been known to re-hash some of my rejects and post them on this forum and, todate anyway, they've never been turned down

Ron

 

One of my e-mail folders is headed "Letters to the Times" with a sub-folder separately titled "Published"

The sub-folder holds just 10 e-mails whilst the main folder runs to 110 e-mails addressed to the editor but it is the latter folder that I occasionally browse through when I have a moment to spare.

Spotted this one today...... i still think it is funny

Sir

Peter Evan's "Boreout is nothing new" referred to "skiving" by National Servicemen who cycled around carrying sheets of paper to look as though they were actually working.

I am reminded of the classical Naval story of the rating who used to spend all his days at the Chatham docks trundling an empty wheelbarrow in and out of the main gate.

After his release from the Navy he met one of the Military Police who had manned the gate who said to him

" We all knew you were on some fiddle or other, but could never work out what you were actually stealing"

"No problem" said the ex-matelot..."Wheelbarrows !"

Ron Goldstein