 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009Hung, drawn and quartered and...
At the moment there is a lot of fuss about the expenses claimed by members of the UK Parliament. We are coming up to the elections on June 4th for UK members of the European Parliament and for some local government councillors in England. Candidates have been out canvassing in the traditional way: knocking on people's front doors and asking for support. Although none of these candidates are Members of Parliament they are members of the same political parties as MP so they are "getting it in the neck" from the people they speak to. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6338061.ece From The Times May 22, 2009 Local candidates on the doorstep bear the brunt of voters' scorn Jill Sherman I am absolutely disgusted. I have always voted but I am not going to this time. Youre sleazy the lot of you. Dont come back to my house, shouted Deborah Sharp as she slammed her garden gate shut, and retreated to the far end of her manicured lawn. A shaken Helyn Clack, a Conservative councillor campaigning yesterday in Surrey for the elections on June 4, hurried down the drive before nervously turning to the wistaria-covered house next door. Like many of her town hall colleagues, Ms Clack had fallen victim to the growing anger over the Westminster expenses debacle, with councillors of all parties now being tarred with the same brush as MPs. .... .... And referring to MPs: They should be hung, drawn and quartered and kicked out of Parliament, said Knole Pirt. Er, yes. An MP who has been chopped into four pieces will definitely be unfit for duty. There is no point leaving the body sections to rot in the Houses of Parliament.  SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > At the moment there is a lot of fuss about the expenses claimed by > members of the UK Parliament. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > house,” shouted Deborah Sharp as she slammed her garden gate shut, > and retreated to the far end of her manicured lawn. Being serious for once, this attitude is almost certain to get us a BNP MEP in the North West. I've been trying to persuade Daughter to vote, but she can't see the point; she is a fervent anti-racist but she's convinced that her vote is pointless. If I weren't the wrong shape, I'd be tempted to go in for personation (*). > A shaken Helyn Clack, a Conservative councillor campaigning > yesterday in Surrey for the elections on June 4, hurried down the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > unfit for duty. There is no point leaving the body sections to rot in > the Houses of Parliament. Public School lunch? * Feeble attempt to keep the remark on topic. SignatureDavid > > At the moment there is a lot of fuss about the expenses claimed by > > members of the UK Parliament. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > * Feeble attempt to keep the remark on topic. I just got a card indicting that the Northwest knows I'm entitled to vote there -- but that they hadn't figured out that my postal address (in A N Other Country) meant that I'd requested a postal vote. Sigh. S in B,not in M [toss the rascals out] >>> And referring to MPs: >>> “They should be hung, drawn and quartered and kicked out of >>> Parliament,” said Knole Pirt. >> Being serious for once, this attitude is almost certain to get us >> a BNP MEP in the North West. I've been trying to persuade Daughter >> to vote, but she can't see the point; she is a fervent anti-racist >> but she's convinced that her vote is pointless. If I weren't the >> wrong shape, I'd be tempted to go in for personation (*). >> * Feeble attempt to keep the remark on topic. > I just got a card indicting that the Northwest knows I'm entitled to > vote there -- but that they hadn't figured out that my postal > address (in A N Other Country) meant that I'd requested a postal > vote. Sigh. > S in B, not in M ObAnotherfeebleattempt: quartered in the wrong place, you mean. > Being serious for once, this attitude is almost certain to get us a BNP > MEP in the North West. I've been trying to persuade Daughter to vote, > but she can't see the point; she is a fervent anti-racist but she's > convinced that her vote is pointless. If I weren't the wrong shape, I'd > be tempted to go in for personation (*). One of the advantages of compulsory voting is that people like your daughter can write rude messages on the voting slip instead actually voting. SignatureRob Bannister >> Being serious for once, this attitude is almost certain to get us a >> BNP MEP in the North West. I've been trying to persuade Daughter to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > daughter can write rude messages on the voting slip instead actually > voting. She's very sensible; I think that if she found herself in a booth with a ballot paper in her hand she would try to act responsibly. SignatureDavid On 22 May 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote -snip- > From The Times > May 22, 2009 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > victim to the growing anger over the Westminster expenses > debacle, -snip- ObAUE. Something I've noticed in the press coverage of popular reaction doesn't ring true. I keep seeing referencees (as in that last paragraph) of voters' "anger" -- we're all apparently "furious" about it -- but that just strikes me as wrong. Me 'n' da' guyz down t'pub (like the woman quoted in the article) are deeply, deeply disgusted with the whole sleazy bunch of 'em, but I've not met anyone I'd describe as "angry" (let alone "furious") about it. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 22 May 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >sleazy bunch of 'em, but I've not met anyone I'd describe as >"angry" (let alone "furious") about it. It could be that disgusted people are expressing their anger to politicians and reporters rather than among themselves. Nick Skellett, outgoing leader of the Tory-controlled Surrey County Council, has rarely witnessed such fury. There is real anger, he said. Its the main topic of conversation and we are all tarred with the same brush. There is a fair percentage of people who have started attacking us on the issue. Some have been really abusive saying, P*** off. You couldnt organise a p***-up in a brewery. Others just say, How many homes have you got?. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > On 22 May 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > sleazy bunch of 'em, but I've not met anyone I'd describe as > "angry" (let alone "furious") about it. Seems to me any furiousity should have been directed at themselves for having let it all go on to the extent it has. SignatureFrank ess >> On 22 May 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >Seems to me any furiousity should have been directed at themselves for >having let it all go on to the extent it has. Members of the general public were not aware of what was going on. I and many others knew that MPs were paid expenses, but we did not know the details of the system. We did not know that some MPs were making dubious and in some cases apparently fraudulent claims. An MP is paid about one third of what a member of the US House of Representatives is paid. Under the UK party political system a person does not need to be even mildly wealthy to be elected to Parliament. I think that most people would have accepted that it was fair for MPs to be paid some sort of expenses to cover the costs of having the second home needed because of the job. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Seems to me any furiousity should have been directed at themselves for > having let it all go on to the extent it has. Surely, "for having allowed themselves to get caught". SignatureRob Bannister > I keep seeing referencees (as in that last paragraph) of voters' > "anger" -- we're all apparently "furious" about it -- but that just > strikes me as wrong. Me 'n' da' guyz down t'pub (like the woman > quoted in the article) are deeply, deeply disgusted with the whole > sleazy bunch of 'em, but I've not met anyone I'd describe as > "angry" (let alone "furious") about it. Most Poms I've spoken too - and there've been quite a few later; it must be "visit Australia week" - mainly seem to find the whole thing hilarious. SignatureRob Bannister > ObAUE. Something I've noticed in the press coverage of popular > reaction doesn't ring true. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sleazy bunch of 'em, but I've not met anyone I'd describe as > "angry" (let alone "furious") about it. http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/05/jon-stewart-rips-into-our-little.html Adrian On 23 May 2009, Adrian Bailey wrote >> ObAUE. Something I've noticed in the press coverage of popular >> reaction doesn't ring true. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/05/jon-stewart-rips-into-our-li > ttle.html That's wonderful. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed Peter wrote on Fri, 22 May 2009 16:48:17 +0100: > We are coming up to the elections on June 4th for UK members > of the European Parliament and for some local government > councillors in England. > Candidates have been out canvassing in the traditional way: > knocking on people's front doors and asking for support. > And referring to MPs: > “They should be hung, drawn and quartered and kicked out > of > Parliament,” said Knole Pirt. > Er, yes. An MP who has been chopped into four pieces will > definitely be unfit for duty. There is no point leaving the > body sections to rot in the Houses of Parliament. As Lord Acton rightly said "All power tends to corrupt" but, unfortunately, he did not mention that long tenure of office increases the tendency. It amazes me that term limits are endorsed by so few in the US and Britain. Wikiquotes has some other things from Acton that politicians should be compelled to read. President Obama and the folks who tried to prosecute the Daily Telegraph might ponder "Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity". SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Peter wrote on Fri, 22 May 2009 16:48:17 +0100: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >the tendency. It amazes me that term limits are endorsed by so few in >the US and Britain. I'm not convinced that limits on the term served by individual members would help very much. What seems to become corrupt is the institution of which they are a part: the ways things are done. Simply clearing out the people and replacing them with a fresh bunch will do no good unless all the processes and procedures are thrown out too and reconstructed from sfirst principles. >Wikiquotes has some other things from Acton that politicians should be >compelled to read. President Obama and the folks who tried to prosecute >the Daily Telegraph might ponder "Every thing secret degenerates, even >the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it >can bear discussion and publicity". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> Peter wrote on Fri, 22 May 2009 16:48:17 +0100: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >the processes and procedures are thrown out too and reconstructed from >sfirst principles. That is not going to happen without a French-style revolution, and we Brits are too apathetic to do anything like that. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>> Peter wrote on Fri, 22 May 2009 16:48:17 +0100: >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > That is not going to happen without a French-style revolution, and we > Brits are too apathetic to do anything like that. Probably true. But not too apathetic to miss out on the opportunity for one of the British public's periodic fits of morality, liberally plastered with ignorance and hypocrisy. Wake me up when somebody's leaked the Telegraph's expenses claims (actually, cancel that: I don't want to enter a persistent coma, so I'll stay awake, hoping for a constitutional reform which won't come). SignatureMike. >Probably true. But not too apathetic to miss out on the opportunity for >one of the British public's periodic fits of morality, liberally >plastered with ignorance and hypocrisy. Wake me up when somebody's >leaked the Telegraph's expenses claims Why would that be relevant? Are British newspapers getting government subsidies now? Surely it should be obvious that the situations of /Telegraph/ reporters' expense claims and that of elected officials' expense claims are not remotely analogous, the former coming from a private business whereas the latter come from the state and thus the taxpayer. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >In article <gvch97$f0b$1@news.eternal-september.org>, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >private business whereas the latter come from the state and thus the >taxpayer. As I see it, the proposed comparison is between a man who over-claims expenses from an employer who pays him out of a government purse filled by the public through taxation, and a man who over-claims expenses from an employer who pays him out of a corporate purse filled by the public through purchases and loans. In the end, the man over-claiming is doing equally wrong no matter which of the two purses is robbed, or if it's any third party purse, come to that. Isn't he? Or am I missing something that says there are fair game purses and not-fair game purses? It's very hard to find clear thinking on this matter. SignaturePaul >> In article <gvch97$f0b$1@news.eternal-september.org>, >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > purses and not-fair game purses? > It's very hard to find clear thinking on this matter. AOTA. SignatureMike. >>In article <gvch97$f0b$1@news.eternal-september.org>, >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >It's very hard to find clear thinking on this matter. Perhaps because the whole country, maybe the whole world, has lost the idea of honesty, personal integrity, probity and honour. Even writing these words, in today's world, sounds naive. Do what you can get away with, cover your arse, and if you get caught, lie. That seems to be the way things are done in most walks of life, not just politics. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >As I see it, the proposed comparison is between a man who over-claims >expenses from an employer who pays him out of a government purse filled [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >any third party purse, come to that. Isn't he? Or am I missing >something that says there are fair game purses and not-fair game purses? It's your choice to buy the /Telegraph/, or any other newspaper, and excessive expense claims on the part of their staff are a purely private matter, to be settled between them.[1] A private employer may well decide to allow seemingly bogus expenses as part of the price of employing the people of their choice.[2] By contrast, you have no choice over paying for anything the government decides to spend your money on; it is reasonable and proper that employees of the (small-g) government should be held to a higher standard in respect of their expense claims. -GAWollman [1] Leaving aside the possibility of making bogus expense claims as a means of tax evasion, which I don't know enough about the British tax system to comment on. [2] As seen more frequently in the case of corporate executives and their perquisites. SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >In article <9R9p1Dpw2tGKFAFm@fpwolff.demon.co.uk>, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >government should be held to a higher standard in respect of their >expense claims. Right, I understand it now. If someone robs me, I have cause to despise him. If he robs my neighbour, I have no reason to think him anything but a fine fellow. SignaturePaul >>In article <9R9p1Dpw2tGKFAFm@fpwolff.demon.co.uk>, >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > despise him. If he robs my neighbour, I have no reason to think him > anything but a fine fellow. Doesn't that "rob" rather presuppose that the _Telegraph_ doesn't approve (at least grudgingly) of the expenses? I had thought that the original implication was simply that if we were to see "the Telegraph's expenses claims" we'd find that the paper was being chargerd for the cleaning of its reporters' moats and the like, not that this was done without the approval of those making policy for what was reasonable. Just because you feel something to be unreasonable for you to pay for doesn't mean that your neighbor feels the same way about his money. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |People think it must be fun to be a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |super genius, but they don't Palo Alto, CA 94304 |realize how hard it is to put up |with all the idiots in the world. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Doesn't that "rob" rather presuppose that the _Telegraph_ doesn't >approve (at least grudgingly) of the expenses? No, it presumes that the expenses were not necessarily incurred in the performance of the claimants' duties, and therefore not honestly claimed (add any further adverbs that the law might require). The Telegraph may approve such expenses, just as the Parliamentary expenses office (whatever its official name) approved the MPs' expenses. The row is not about whether or how the expenses were approved for payment, but about whether the claimants showed themselves honest men and women in making their claims. >I had thought that the >original implication was simply that if we were to see "the >Telegraph's expenses claims" we'd find that the paper was being >chargerd for the cleaning of its reporters' moats and the like, not >that this was done without the approval of those making policy for >what was reasonable. Public indignation in this matter is about people making extravagant claims for the refund of genuine expenses, by alleging them to have been incurred in performing their work. The claims are in all these cases approved by whoever has charge of approving them. Some parliamentarians are being pointed out by the Telegraph journalists as requesting, and receiving, compensation for expenditure of, shall we say, speculative necessity. It is, I think, being suggested that the Telegraph's journalists might care to bare their own expense claims so we can be sure that they are not just as guilty. >Just because you feel something to be unreasonable for you to pay for >doesn't mean that your neighbor feels the same way about his money. It's not about what I feel or what my neighbour feels. It's about the thinking of the people who submit claims for recompense. SignaturePaul >>>In article <9R9p1Dpw2tGKFAFm@fpwolff.demon.co.uk>, >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >Just because you feel something to be unreasonable for you to pay for >doesn't mean that your neighbor feels the same way about his money. The thing everybody is missing is that the claims from the MPs are not "expense claims" in the normal sense at all, which is why the money is officially called an "Additional Costs Allowance". The usual meaning of "expenses" is somthing that could be claimed as such against tax, which requires that the expenditure is "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" incurred for the purpose of doing the job. There is no such requirement in this case. Indeed, what is properly claimable and what is not is totally obscure, as a number of unfortunate MPs have tried to point out. For them to say, as many have, that they supposed that anything approved by the Fees Office was allowable, seems entirely reasonable (which is not to say that the claims themselves always are). SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" > I'm not convinced that limits on the term served by individual members > would help very much. What seems to become corrupt is the institution of > which they are a part: the ways things are done. Simply clearing out the > people and replacing them with a fresh bunch will do no good unless all > the processes and procedures are thrown out too and reconstructed from > sfirst principles. Can you think of any case where this has been tried and the new reconstructed institutions ended up less corrupt than their predecessors? For longer than a few months, that is? The problem is in human nature - about all the institutions can do is try to minimize the opportunities for corruption and maybe periodically try to scare some honesty into the less honest memebers through scandals and prison terms. Of course, there are some institutions which seem to be slow learners. There's a couple examples in Canada right now, maybe not quite as exciting as the UK one - no swimming pools, so far, at any rate. I keep telling myself that things were even worse in the same institutions some decades or centuries ago. Cheryl > And referring to MPs: > “They should be hung, drawn and quartered and kicked out of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be unfit for duty. There is no point leaving the body sections to > rot in the Houses of Parliament. But surely, in this expressly legal context at least, it should be _hanged_, drawn, and quartered. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Happiness is touch and go: Some of us touch, and we all go. :|| >> And referring to MPs: >> They should be hung, drawn and quartered and kicked out of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >But surely, in this expressly legal context at least, it should be >_hanged_, drawn, and quartered. They could be hung in the Tate, which, if I remember correctly, is not far from the Houses of Parliament. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > Joe Fineman wrote: >>> And referring to MPs: >>> "They should be hung, drawn and quartered and kicked out of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > They could be hung in the Tate, which, if I remember correctly, is > not far from the Houses of Parliament. For being hung, maybe Viagra could help. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> And referring to MPs: >> “They should be hung, drawn and quartered and kicked out of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But surely, in this expressly legal context at least, it should be > _hanged_, drawn, and quartered. Depends. Is the "hanging" an execution, or is it merely the first component of a three-part punishment. SignatureDavid >>> And referring to MPs: >>> They should be hung, drawn and quartered and kicked out of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Depends. Is the "hanging" an execution, or is it merely the first >component of a three-part punishment. This Act modified the punishment to hanging until dead but started by describing the existing process: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1028653 Treason Act 1814 1814 c.146 54_Geo_3 Whereas in certain cases of high treason, as the law now stands, the sentence or judgement required by law to be pronounced or awarded against persons convicted or adjudged guilty of the said crime in such cases is that they should be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution and there be hanged by the neck, but not until they are dead, but that they should be taken down again, and that when they are yet alive their bowels should be taken out and burnt before their faces, and that afterwards their heads should be severed from their bodies, and their bodies be divided into four quarters, and their heads and quarters to be at the Kings disposal:... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_drawn_and_quartered Typically, the resulting five parts (i.e. the four quarters of the body and the head) were gibbeted (put on public display) in different parts of the city, town, or, in famous cases, in the country, to deter would-be traitors who had not seen the executio mutilation would be performed post-mortem. Gibbeting was later abolished in England in 1843, while drawing and quartering was abolished in 1870. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Quoth the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gEXPUNGEmail.com>, and I quote: >>> And referring to MPs: >>> "They should be hung, drawn and quartered and kicked out of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Depends. Is the "hanging" an execution, or is it merely the first >component of a three-part punishment. The OED has an observation about the geographical distribution which surprised me: "to put to death by suspension by the neck. In this sense, hanged is now the specific form of the pa. tense and pa. pple.; though hung is used by some, esp. in the south of England." It's nice to see, for a change, that it's southerners who use the "wrong" form, but I wonder how true that is nowadays. It took a long time before we settled on these two forms of the past participle, abandoning the following: hangen, hongen, hingen, honged, henged, hinged. SignatureJames (BrE with a distinctly septentrional flavour) > The OED has an observation about the geographical distribution which > surprised me: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's nice to see, for a change, that it's southerners who use the > "wrong" form, but I wonder how true that is nowadays. In America, "hanged" was legal & is literary usage, but "hung" is usual in vulgar dialects: Hurrah, hurrah, my father's gonna be hung. Hurrah, hurrah, the dirty drunken bum, etc. The sheriff took Frankie to the gallows, Hung her until she died, etc. That some such speakers are quite unaware of the standard usage of "hanged" is evinced by Bob Dylan's line Trapped by no track of hours they hanged suspended. Presumably he did not intend us to think "by the neck until they were dead". Very likely he had heard "hanged" he had forgotten where, and thought it sounded nice & clangy. I was startled to hear Pete Seeger, singing "John Brown's Body", make it They hung him for a traitor, they themselves the traitor crew, for the apposition is rather elevated style, and one would expect formal diction to go with it. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Quantity for the young, quality for the middle-aged, :|| ||: reliability for the old. :|| Joe Fineman filted: >That some such speakers are quite unaware of the standard usage of >"hanged" is evinced by Bob Dylan's line [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >dead". Very likely he had heard "hanged" he had forgotten where, and >thought it sounded nice & clangy. I thought it was "hang", imperfect present...mind you, I'm basing that impression on the Byrds' recording of the song....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Joe Fineman filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I thought it was "hang", imperfect present...mind you, I'm basing > that impression on the Byrds' recording of the song....r It would be hard to be sure in any case, in isolation. When I try singing the line, the d is pretty obscure. However, the rest of the narrative is in the past tense, so "hang" would be discordant. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: If you're cute _and_ useful, your clock never stops :|| ||: running. :|| |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.