# Speaker Bercow ditches stockings



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

In this morning's State Opening of Parliament, Bercow wore morning dress in lieu of court dress:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8365971.stm

Personally, I think white tie would have been more correct since that is the most formal civilian form of dress below full court dress but I suppose morning dress is also more or less appropriate given the circumstances.


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

It saddens me, but at least he wore the robe and bothered with morning dress I guess. I'm just holding out for the next speaker personally. Failing that I'll do my best to get elected (both to the commons and the position of speaker) and report back on my attempt to find a tailor able to make all the accoutrements of the office.
...This might take a while.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I think that's a bad development for the future of morning dress in the UK.

I think one of the main reasons that morning dress remains more wearable in the UK than the US* is that there are still public, serious, regular displays of clothing that is even more formal - court dress. That gives morning dress some "headroom." It's not the _most_ formal wear, after all... If court dress goes by the wayside (and it's rare to see an erosion of formality reverse course) in the highest ceremonial contexts, morning dress will be imperilled in more human-scaled ceremonial environs. But maybe Royal Ascot will keep it alive and healthy.

* Morning dress is still worn in the US for a small minority of daytime weddings, but it is nearly always rented, and _nobody_ who was not a member of the wedding party would wear it.


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

As Bercow said, a morning coat is the modern form of court dress. White tie is evening dress. 

I would have thought tabs were an alternative to a tie, but I just don't see a problem. There is nothing particularly distinguished about the sight of most men in tights and funny shoes. That isn't dressing - it's dressing up.


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

And wearing the speaker's robe? And the parliamentary robes of the peers? And Her Majesty's robes? You can call all this 'dressing up'. I call it dressing appropriately for the situation.


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> In this morning's State Opening of Parliament, Bercow wore morning dress in lieu of court dress:
> 
> https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8365971.stm
> 
> Personally, I think white tie would have been more correct since that is the most formal civilian form of dress below full court dress but I suppose morning dress is also more or less appropriate given the circumstances.


Formal evening dress would not have been appropriate: wrong time of day and a tailed morning suit ranks as formal day dress.

Evening wear would be akin to the American abomination of wearing tuxedos at daytime weddings.


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

Jake1990 said:


> And wearing the speaker's robe? And the parliamentary robes of the peers? And Her Majesty's robes? You can call all this 'dressing up'. I call it dressing appropriately for the situation.


I don't mind what you call it. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with a robe. But when it removes itself from what anyone might conceivably wear on any other occasion it turns into a game. Do you want pageantry or a determination to show that the country is being governed by responsible people?


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

I want both. I think pageantry is appropriate to such occasions, and I don't think that responsibility to govern is affected by clothes.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Simon Myerson said:


> As Bercow said, a morning coat is the modern form of court dress. White tie is evening dress.





GBR said:


> Formal evening dress would not have been appropriate: wrong time of day and a tailed morning suit ranks as formal day dress.
> 
> Evening wear would be akin to the American abomination of wearing tuxedos at daytime weddings.


No no, it is entirely appropriate as it is considered full court dress for civilians, especially with breeches (cf. Storey, History of Men's Fashion, pp.79-84). Diplomates wear it and I don't see why Bercow can't (in fact, his reasoning is wrong as morning dress derives from a different branch of dress which is rather far from court dress unlike full dress/white tie and tails). Of course, this can only be worn at court at very formal state events, which is what the State Opening is. At other times, it is considered too formal for day wear hence this is where formal morning dress steps in. Dinner jackets are in a lower league and there is no precedent to wear it during the day (as it is a 'party dress' and not connected with court dress).


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

There is an argument that since William Lenthall the speaker, representing of the House of Commons, should never have worn "court" dress.


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> No no, it is entirely appropriate as it is considered full court dress for civilians, especially with breeches (cf. Storey, History of Men's Fashion, pp.79-84). Diplomates wear it and I don't see why Bercow can't (in fact, his reasoning is wrong as morning dress derives from a different branch of dress which is rather far from court dress unlike full dress/white tie and tails). Of course, this can only be worn at court at very formal state events, which is what the State Opening is. At other times, it is considered too formal for day wear hence this is where formal morning dress steps in. Dinner jackets are in a lower league and there is no precedent to wear it during the day (as it is a 'party dress' and not connected with court dress).


All very fine but this is parliament NOT Her Majesty's Court.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

GBR said:


> All very fine but this is parliament NOT Her Majesty's Court.


Yet why are the diplomates and many others wearing civilian court dress/white tie and tails?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ny6qs/b00ny6kl/The_State_Opening_of_Parliament_18_11_2009/

And also, when the Queen is present inside the House, it IS her court until she leaves.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

IMHO this is just one very silly example of seemingly endless symptoms of inherent schizophrenia in your government's structure. I've never understood even the concept of it.

A monarchical democracy? Pick one of those and go with it.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

A bit like an imperialist republic?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Salieri said:


> A bit like an imperialist republic?


Not really. We elect our emperors.


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

Salieri said:


> A bit like an imperialist republic?


+1

*W_B*


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> No no, it is entirely appropriate as it is considered full court dress for civilians, especially with breeches (cf. Storey, History of Men's Fashion, pp.79-84). Diplomates wear it and I don't see why Bercow can't (in fact, his reasoning is wrong as morning dress derives from a different branch of dress which is rather far from court dress unlike full dress/white tie and tails). Of course, this can only be worn at court at very formal state events, which is what the State Opening is. At other times, it is considered too formal for day wear hence this is where formal morning dress steps in. Dinner jackets are in a lower league and there is no precedent to wear it during the day (as it is a 'party dress' and not connected with court dress).


Interesting. I never really agreed with Storey's belief that white tie can be formal day wear but it would have made sense in these circumstances.
Good post.

*W_B*


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

whistle_blower71 said:


> Interesting. I never really agreed with Storey's belief that white tie can be formal day wear but it would have made sense in these circumstances.
> Good post.
> 
> *W_B*


I didn't say white tie was formal day wear, I said it was a form of civilian court dress and that can be worn regardless of time of day. It depends on the occasion.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

On May 4th, 1970, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on student anti war protesters, killing 4 and wounding 9.

From 1976 to 1979, Pol Pot killed between 1.7 to 2.5 million people or 21% of the Cambodian population.

In 1989, 500 people were killed in Tiananmen Square.

I've lived through all of this, but never have I been as deeply disappointed in a government as I am today. It is fortunate that the government has effectively disarmed the populace, otherwise there would be mass suicides on a level that would make Jonestown look like a picnic. Gentlemen, I feel your pain.


----------



## Sean1982 (Sep 7, 2009)

I attended the State opening in 1999, seated in the Royal Gallery, and morning dress was required for the gentlemen.

In the Lord's Chamber, Ambassadors to the Court of St James wear white tie or national costume, judges wear full gowns and wigs, peers their full gowns (but not coronets), and officers of state their full uniforms.

Bercow is an officer of state in many ways, and it was a disgrace for him to abandon the court robes. This is a court occasion, and the dress should be as such. 

I am saddened to see centuries of tradition overturned by Speaker Bercow. It denigrated the dignity of office.

By the way, I'm a republican, but am very happy with state occasions and British tradition being observed. I'd still have the State Opening, but with a non executive President. A modern democracy can have elements of pomp, certainly the President of the United States has much American magnificence around him.

P.S: I see from the broadcast, that many people in the Royal Gallery this year are not wearing morning dress, it was 100% in 1999.
P.S.S: Having seen the Speakers procession into the Lords from the Commons at other State Openings (in the Central Lobby), I can say that the speaker looks magnificent in her state robes (Speaker Boothroyd).


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

To put this in a proper prospective, I just did an advanced Google search of hits on Project Runway within the last 24 hours and came up with *292,000.*

I then did an advanced search on Speaker Bercow within the last 24 hours and came up with *417. *Interestingly the first thing to show up was this thread. I think the sun will come out again tomorrow.


----------



## Sufferable Fob (Aug 26, 2009)

beherethen said:


> To put this in a proper prospective, I just did an advanced Google search of hits on Project Runway within the last 24 hours and came up with *292,000.*
> 
> I then did an advanced search on Speaker Bercow within the last 24 hours and came up with *417. *Interestingly the first thing to show up was this thread. I think the sun will come out again tomorrow.


Are you sure ?

Because I bought some food yesterday and the price rang up as 6.66.

I think it's a sign - and I know that I for one will be sacrificing a bull. If you refuse to take such measures, you can simply thank me if you wake up tomorrow for I am certain I will have saved the world.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Sufferable Fob said:


> Are you sure ?
> 
> Because I bought some food yesterday and the price rang up as 6.66.
> 
> I think it's a sign - and I know that I for one will be sacrificing a bull. If you refuse to take such measures, you can simply thank me if you wake up tomorrow for I am certain I will have saved the world.


This begs the question "is a world in which someone no one ever heard of went without wearing socks worth saving?" Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of socklessness?


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

I write with surprise and relief that we are all still here and that the threatened malestrom did not descend upon us in the night. 

Fob - do not think that your bull alone was enough. My contribution - to dance windershins naked round a tree - was, I am confident, equally important. I will be able to receive your thanks just as soon as I am dealt with by the Magistrates.


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> I didn't say white tie was formal day wear, I said it was a form of civilian court dress and that can be worn regardless of time of day. It depends on the occasion.


I was commenting on Storey. Get over yourself.

*W_B*


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> I think that's a bad development for the future of morning dress in the UK.
> 
> I think one of the main reasons that morning dress remains more wearable in the UK than the US* is that there are still public, serious, regular displays of clothing that is even more formal - court dress. That gives morning dress some "headroom." It's not the _most_ formal wear, after all... If court dress goes by the wayside (and it's rare to see an erosion of formality reverse course) in the highest ceremonial contexts, morning dress will be imperilled in more human-scaled ceremonial environs. But maybe Royal Ascot will keep it alive and healthy.
> 
> * Morning dress is still worn in the US for a small minority of daytime weddings, but it is nearly always rented, and _nobody_ who was not a member of the wedding party would wear it.


I couldn't agree with you more. I will be requiring all guests at my wedding to wear morning attire or a suit. No exceptions.


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

I suspect there will be a new speaker of the House of Commons after the Conservatives win the next election. They are rather unhappy with Mr. Bercow, who only became speaker because of Labour Party support.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

hockeyinsider said:


> I couldn't agree with you more. I will be requiring all guests at my wedding to wear morning attire or a suit. No exceptions.


Good luck with that. I think you may be overestimating your male guests interest in attending your or any wedding. When I get a wedding invitation from a relative or a close friend, I send a check with a note that I'm sorry but unable to attend. If they had the nerve to demand any kind of dress code, I wouldn't even send a reply let alone a check.


----------



## storeynicholas (Feb 15, 2008)

We can surely expect more of this in the Age of The Common Man. The first point od decline was allowing Ambassadors to move to alternative Court Dress (basically full evening dress) and to abandon their magnificent uniforms. Uniforms on occasions such as this bring a measure of equality to the participants and are an outward demonstratio of national pride. One note - on my book and the BBC report - QED.

The occasion is the Opening of Parliament which comprises the Monarch in Her Parliament assembled - Lords and Commons and it takes place in the House of Lords, once Black Rod has summoned the Commons thither. No reigning Monarch has entered the House of commons since Charles I (King and Martyr) entered to make arrests as a prelude to the Civil War.

Moreover, if a State Occasion does not justify magnificence, I am not sure what does. The trouble is that the correct specification of dress for these occasions has not been _strictly_ regulated since 1939 and the consequence is that the rabble have far too much latitude. By the way another book is on the way and another after that too (a two book deal) - both intended to delight the democrats amongst us.:devil:
NJS


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

National pride is, surely, more than how some unrepresentative flunkey looks in fancy dress. 

Those most interested in grandiose dressing are almost inevitably bloodthirsty and vicious. Think Idi Amin and Bokasso - both of whom loved their uniforms. We can do better that that.


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

hockeyinsider said:


> I suspect there will be a new speaker of the House of Commons after the Conservatives win the next election. They are rather unhappy with Mr. Bercow, who only became speaker because of Labour Party support.


While we would have preferred Sir George Young, we have no power to remove Bercow. The only way he could be ousted is if Nigel Farage takes his seat from him at the GE. I doubt this will happen.



Simon Myerson said:


> Those most interested in grandiose dressing are almost inevitably bloodthirsty and vicious. Think Idi Amin and Bokasso - both of whom loved their uniforms. We can do better that that.


That's an absolutely ridiculous statement.


----------



## storeynicholas (Feb 15, 2008)

Jake1990 said:


> While we would have preferred Sir George Young, we have no power to remove Bercow. The only way he could be ousted is if Nigel Farage takes his seat from him at the GE. I doubt this will happen.
> 
> That's an absolutely ridiculous statement.


Seconded in the expressed wish and in the assessment of the statement. The world has been full of great leaders who delighted in their dress and uniforms and it is, after all, also principally in language and dress that this humankind is distinguished from lesser beasts. If people like Simon had their way, State ceremonies would be conducted in jeans and sneakers. After all, they are appealing to the rabble of voters and terribly comfy!:devil::devil::devil: Moreover, since when has the Speaker of the H of C been a mere 'flunkey'? There is a good deal (too much) hatred around for anything that is fine. This is because in the Age of the Common Man, every aspiration has to be lowered to meet his aim.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

I WILL SAY THIS ONCE- NO POLITICS IN THE FASHION FORUM!



FrankDC said:


> IMHO this is just one very silly example of seemingly endless symptoms of inherent schizophrenia in your government's structure. I've never understood even the concept of it.
> 
> A monarchical democracy? Pick one of those and go with it.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

To be clear, my post was directed at everyone, not just those who have already posted politically motivated replies.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Thanks for that, WDF. The post was intended to be funny. So much for my sense of humor. :icon_pale:


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

storeynicholas said:


> If people like Simon had their way, State ceremonies would be conducted in jeans and sneakers.


This is nonsense! The Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales conduct their affairs in a dignified way, with their members properly dressed and without pomp and circumstance, including the occasions when they are opened by the Queen. I expect that the legislatures of Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are similarly dignified but unpompous.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Jake1990 said:


> While we would have preferred Sir George Young...


Speak for yourself! The politics in this thread was introduced by you.


> ...we have no power to remove Bercow. The only way he could be ousted is if Nigel Farage takes his seat from him at the General Election.


This is undoubtedly correct. The Speaker stands as "The Speaker" at the General Election, not as a party candidate, and continues as Speaker afterwards. In the UK the Speaker is a party-neutral presiding officer, not the majority leader as in the US House of Representatives.


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

williamson said:


> Speak for yourself! The politics in this thread was introduced by you.


Allow me to rephrase. The majority of Conservative MPs. Anyway, let's not get into it. As WDF wisely reminds us, this is not the place.
I was the last to speak of politics before WDF's intervention, not the first. Please see the several previous political posts, including the one quoted by me in my post. I have no interest in bringing up party politics in a discussion which should be about clothes, but I felt the need to correct the assertion that Bercow would be replaced.


----------



## Sean1982 (Sep 7, 2009)

beherethen said:


> Good luck with that. I think you may be overestimating your male guests interest in attending your or any wedding. When I get a wedding invitation from a relative or a close friend, I send a check with a note that I'm sorry but unable to attend. If they had the nerve to demand any kind of dress code, I wouldn't even send a reply let alone a check.


Why would you not attend a wedding with a dress code?

On other matters, political feelings should have little to do with your view of court dress and the Speaker. I am left wing, and would like proper attire to be worn, and see no problem with this. Many right wing Americans wear casual '*******' clothes. Lenin wore suits. Conservative MPs often have pocket handkerchiefs. Elderly working class men of my Grandad's generation usually wore ties when out. I could go on with unrelated statements.


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

Sean1982 said:


> On other matters, political feelings should have little to do with your view of court dress and the Speaker.


Hear hear.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Sean1982 said:


> Why would you not attend a wedding with a dress code?


It's a huge imposition to attend one of these things. Standing around talking with people I either don't know or don't much care about while listening to Dancing Queen and YMCA and the ever popular Lady in Red is not my idea of a good time. I'm not a bad guy however, I will send a check. But if someone has the gall to tell me how to dress while making the imposition, they can go to Hell sans my check.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

storeynicholas said:


> It is a curious feature of 'Modern British' life that, half-in-and-half out of the EU (never beneficially either way - and, overall, left-out), and dominated by the heirs of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and the other unspeakable bastards who fucked the modern world, unviable portions of Britons seem to feel entitled both to keep their devaluing GBP and, on the Celtic Fringe, to wear skirts. Whatever else, keep your peckers up, chaps!!:aportnoyon't fear - I am far from the maddening crowd (and the q crowd of morons that dominate public life - I see that the most popular search on Yahoo, for days past, has been Katie 'get-my-tits-out 4-u Price' Can this be symptomatic of a national decline?? let's hope not but the rabble imposing their ideas of 'taste' hardly helps the contrary argument.ic12337:


I cannot tell whether this is coherent, irrelevant or offensive (the first sentence is very strange English). Can anyone else?


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

storeynicholas said:


> This is because in the Age of the Common Man, every aspiration has to be lowered to meet his aim.





storeynicholas said:


> other unspeakable bastards who fucked the modern world, unviable portions of Britons seem to feel entitled both to keep their devaluing GBP and, on the Celtic Fringe, to wear skirts.......
> Katie 'get-my-tits-out 4-u Price' Can this be symptomatic of a national decline?? let's hope not but the rabble imposing their ideas of 'taste' hardly helps the contrary argument.ic12337:


Dear Mr Storey,
With these two delightful posts I think you've torpedoed your own agument very effectively and proved once and for all that those with the most social influence and money are certainly not those with the most "class". I enjoyed your book (aside from the ridiculous political sniping as demonstrated in your posts here too) but you have now demonstrated that you yourself are far from the idealised gentleman who forms the central tenet of your work.

Chris.


----------



## storeynicholas (Feb 15, 2008)

I am, frankly, *sick to death of the politically correct freaks* who, in and out of government, dominate British life by a kind of terrorist activity: anyone who dares to defend the remains of the day or traditional standards is described as '_offending_' the inclusive society and, normally, the accuser is a Harriet Harman clone, has a cockney twang and would be better off staying at home and cooking her husband's dinner. Just a few thoughts - and I am as entitled to my opinions as the heirs of Hitler. Mussolini and Franco. Free expression of opinion is a big element in Freedom - something else that Modern Britain is leaving behind - did you know that, thanks to the EU, all e-mails are being read by the government and that there are people employed to do it? It is all beyond Orwell and even Hitler, Mussolini and Franco - but only because the technology did not then exist...and you, finding me offensive, overlook tthe horrors around you that you permit to happen. Here is a letter from John Osborne to The Times, nearly 20 years ago, when the rot really set in:


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

What I find offensive is not your particular political bent-I'm surrounded by people with odd political views on a daily basis. I find it offensive that you, as an author and "big cheese" on this site, feel that you can discuss politics in the fashion forum and use language which is wholly inappropriate in any civilised discussion. Please read the rules of the forum and the words of the moderator from earlier in this thread. As a supposedly respected clubman I would have thought you'd have rather more respect for your host (in this case Andy) than this. 

Chris.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Bercow is an extremely nasty little man, a classic example of the career politician - a man on the make who will do whatever it takes to promote his own interests.


----------



## storeynicholas (Feb 15, 2008)

chrstc said:


> What I find offensive is not your particular political bent-I'm surrounded by people with odd political views on a daily basis. I find it offensive that you, as an author and "big cheese" on this site, feel that you can discuss politics in the fashion forum and use language which is wholly inappropriate in any civilised discussion. Please read the rules of the forum and the words of the moderator from earlier in this thread. As a supposedly respected clubman I would have thought you'd have rather more respect for your host (in this case Andy) than this.
> 
> Chris.


You _have_ got a thin skin - thinner even that FNB's.


----------



## storeynicholas (Feb 15, 2008)

Kingstonian said:


> Bercow is an extremely nasty little man, a classic example of the career politician - a man on the make who will do whatever it takes to promote his own interests.


Let's just hope that he doesn't fiddle his expenses or use them to pay per view some porn like some of the others, eh? That's what I call _offensive_.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

No I don't have a thin skin. I just abide by the rules put in place for all of our benefit here or else every thread would have its very own ranting maniac-a role that you seem to be able to play very well.

If you want to spout political nonsense then go to the interchange where you can shout yourself hoarse. 

Chris.


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

storeynicholas said:


> Seconded in the expressed wish and in the assessment of the statement. The world has been full of great leaders who delighted in their dress and uniforms and it is, after all, also principally in language and dress that this humankind is distinguished from lesser beasts. If people like Simon had their way, State ceremonies would be conducted in jeans and sneakers. After all, they are appealing to the rabble of voters and terribly comfy!:devil::devil::devil: Moreover, since when has the Speaker of the H of C been a mere 'flunkey'? There is a good deal (too much) hatred around for anything that is fine. This is because in the Age of the Common Man, every aspiration has to be lowered to meet his aim.


Love 'British' authors writing from another continent.

Perhaps a little more research would be of benefit to you? May I suggest starting with reading the thread itself? You would find - if you could but spare the time - that my comment was limited to whether the man should have worn stockings rather than anything else.

You could then go on to schooling yourself not to pretend that an argument says something which it does not. I appreciate that this would deprive you of the thrill of demolition. But does that really afford you much satisfaction?

Finally, you might resist the siren call of contributions such as Jake's. I know that you need people to agree with you, but propositions unsupported by argument are, surely, for teenagers and the inebriated.

Knowing that you won't mind, I have replied to you in the tone in which you yourself use for others.


----------



## storeynicholas (Feb 15, 2008)

They are not political points at all as we are discussing dressing and lifestyles but another trick of the bovver boys is to instruct us to shut up if we kick over the traces of the Zeitgeist. 
PS Good for you Si. My point is that it is the likes of you who are engaged in demolition - of tradition - and I feel entitled to speak out. So far as living in South America is concerned - here they have not forgotten what freedom means and the weather is terrific. what's it like over there today? Belting down??


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

Simon Myerson said:


> Love 'British' authors writing from another continent.
> 
> Perhaps a little more research would be of benefit to you? May I suggest starting with reading the thread itself? You would find - if you could but spare the time - that my comment was limited to whether the man should have worn stockings rather than anything else.
> 
> ...


While your reply may have been in keeping with his tone, it was not with mine. There is no need to start throwing personal insults around. Well done for deducing that I am a teenager, but that is no reason to be frankly rude to me. When providing a proposition, I support it with an argument. When expressing an opinion about my instinctive reaction to what someone is wearing, I cannot provide evidence. For the record I find his posts unintelligible and offensive. I think Bercow should have kept the traditional dress as a mark of respect for the ceremony. Disagree with me if you like, but don't try to say my views are worthless because I am still a few months away from celebrating my 20th birthday.


----------



## storeynicholas (Feb 15, 2008)

Interesting to be perceived as simultaneously unintelligible and offensive - in fact - quite a feat.:devil:


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

Jake - don't have a cow. If you call someone stupid you have to be prepared to take it as well. Next time, say why and we can debate it. I reckon I am the only person here whose job involves Court Dress every day. I know a bit about tradition.

Nick Storey (whoops, sorry, Nickers: forgot your egregious passion for undue familiarity) - your attachment to your country seems dependant on the weather. In those circumstances, one wonders what tradition you actually defend. Running off to Brazil because the old country's gone to the dogs eh what? Like ... err ... Ronnie Biggs? 

Traditions you could adopt: living in the place you profess to love; paying your taxes there; taking part in its society rather than bellyaching from the sidelines; politeness; mature debate. That should keep you so busy that you won't be here for months. :teacha:


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

Simon Myerson said:


> Jake - don't have a cow. If you call someone stupid you have to be prepared to take it as well. Next time, say why and we can debate it. I reckon I am the only person here whose job involves Court Dress every day. I know a bit about tradition.


I didn't call you stupid. I said that your statement - 'Those most interested in grandiose dressing are almost inevitably bloodthirsty and vicious. Think Idi Amin and Bokasso - both of whom loved their uniforms.' - was 'absolutely ridiculous'. You can't say that someone's clothing preferences predetermine their character. I don't doubt that in some cases it is part of their unsavoury personality, but by no means all.
There is quite a difference between questioning what someone has said and making personal attacks.
I fail to see what your wearing of court dress has to do with it. I would have preferred it if he had worn stockings, you wouldn't. I don't quite see why what we're wearing when we opine affects the validity of our opinions.


----------



## storeynicholas (Feb 15, 2008)

I am not sure that patrotism ('the last refuge of the scoundrel') requires presence to be genuine or that it is ignominious to express dismay at the dissolution of a civilization from a safe distance. Moreover, I did try my best, in relation to my home town, when they were about to bring the bulldozers in to demolish the old Odeon cinema that had stood for over 70 years, to replace it with an ugly, cardboard building, cloned in Slough and 'guaranteed' for 25. The developers won and I find it hard to support such naked greed, reckless of all consequence, so I came away: apart from seeing family, friends and a little shopping, I shall stay away. "Suits me, sir!"

Ronnie Biggs' reasons for being in Brasil were rather special were they not, Si?:devil:


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

I see my thread has been decommissioned... 

*sigh*


----------



## storeynicholas (Feb 15, 2008)

Decommissioned?


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Update to the story! Boothroyd criticises Bercow over ditching court dress!


----------



## storeynicholas (Feb 15, 2008)

As I got rapped knuckles over my earlier contributions, I shall not say too much except that, if these 'New' Labour chaps aren't up to playing the game, according to hundreds of years of precedent, they ought to get jobs in which they feel 'comfortable'.
NJS


----------



## Jake1990 (Jan 5, 2009)

Saw that. Didn't want to reignite the flames!
Sound advice all round from Boothroyd.


----------



## storeynicholas (Feb 15, 2008)

Jake1990 said:


> Saw that. Didn't want to reignite the flames!
> Sound advice all round from Boothroyd.


Hear!! hear!! :devil:


----------

