I was shopping in Sainsbury's, Clifton Down, recently with one of my wonderful grandchildren.
A 30ish attractive woman seemed interested in my trip and followed me round the shop.
It must have been obvious to her that I had my hands full, with the child screaming, "I want some sweets, Grumpy. I need a drink, Grumpy. Mummy didn't give me any pocket money this week, Grumpy. Where's Grannie, Grumpy, she always buys us treats".
I said quietly, as I always do, "It's OK. we won't be long . . .keep calm. Everything will be OK. We'll be home soon".
After another outburst, the lady must have heard me say something along the following lines, "It's okay, don't fret, just a couple more minutes and we'll be out of here".
At the checkout, the little terror was throwing items out of the trolley shouting, "Grumpy this" and, "Grumpy that", and I again said, in as controlled a voice as I could muster, "Keep calm, don't get upset. We'll be home in five minutes; stay cool".
She must have been very impressed, because she came up to me in the car park and said, in a very kind way,
"It's none of my business I know, but you were amazing in there. You are an inspiration. I don't know how you did it. That whole time you kept your composure, and no matter how loud and disruptive the child got, you just calmly kept saying that things would be okay. She is very lucky to have such a thoughtful grandpa. What a different world it would be if all grandparents were as lovely as you".
I was touched but felt I had to be honest with her.
I told her I was talking to myself not that horrible little brat.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Monday, 31 January 2011
Uncle Roy's Guidelines - 2. Democracy
As with all other current methods used or proposed as a way of choosing our political representatives, the proposals regarding the Alternative Vote (AV) system seem to miss an important point; that in most constituencies there is a larger number of those eligible to vote who choose not to do so, than those who vote for the most popular candidate.
Put simply, more people do not want to be represented by the winning candidate than do.
If democracy means anything, it means the will of the majority.
May I propose a more rigorously democratic system which responds to the will of the majority?
The True Democratic Result system.
==========================================
TDR. True Democratic Result.
As simple as ABC.
Where the number of those eligible to vote (TEV) exceeds the number
voting for the most popular candidate (VMP), then there will be no overall winner (NOW).
Algebraically expressed: If TEV > VMP = NOW.
The result reflects the majority preference (MP).
The majority would rather NOT be represented than would prefer the most popular candidate.
The advantages of this would include:
1. Encouragement to participate.
2. Reduction, depending on impact, of number of MPs.
3. Financial savings as a consequence of 2. above.
- (A rough estimate of these savings would be a minimum of £350,000 per constituency).
4. Greater identification of candidates with constituency needs rather than Party.
5. If applied to local elections, the savings, based on current voting statistics, would be considerably greater, relatively speaking.
6. The result reflects the wishes of the majority.
7. No-hope candidates would be discouraged from standing.
--------------------------------------------------------
The disadvantages would be:
1. Uncertain career prospects for career politicians.
================================================
Thus TDR would truly represent the preference of the majority.
====================================
Comments welcomed.
Put simply, more people do not want to be represented by the winning candidate than do.
If democracy means anything, it means the will of the majority.
May I propose a more rigorously democratic system which responds to the will of the majority?
The True Democratic Result system.
==========================================
TDR. True Democratic Result.
As simple as ABC.
Where the number of those eligible to vote (TEV) exceeds the number
voting for the most popular candidate (VMP), then there will be no overall winner (NOW).
Algebraically expressed: If TEV > VMP = NOW.
The result reflects the majority preference (MP).
The majority would rather NOT be represented than would prefer the most popular candidate.
The advantages of this would include:
1. Encouragement to participate.
2. Reduction, depending on impact, of number of MPs.
3. Financial savings as a consequence of 2. above.
- (A rough estimate of these savings would be a minimum of £350,000 per constituency).
4. Greater identification of candidates with constituency needs rather than Party.
5. If applied to local elections, the savings, based on current voting statistics, would be considerably greater, relatively speaking.
6. The result reflects the wishes of the majority.
7. No-hope candidates would be discouraged from standing.
--------------------------------------------------------
The disadvantages would be:
1. Uncertain career prospects for career politicians.
================================================
Thus TDR would truly represent the preference of the majority.
====================================
Comments welcomed.
Uncle Roy's Guidelines - 1. Taxation
I detect a worrying tendency amongst my suspected left-leaning friends to undermine the attempts of the coalition to deal with the debt-ridden catastrophe in which we find ourselves.
I hope the briefing note below may go some way to rectify.
===========================
Scenario: Ten men go out for a daily drink and the bill for all ten
comes to £100...
---------------------------------------------------------
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1, sixth = £3, seventh = £7. eighth = £12, ninth = £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
--------------------------------------------------------------
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement.
One day, the bar owner said,"Since you are all such good customers,
I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20".
Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
------------------------------------------------------------------
It was suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of
the tax system they had been using, and they proceeded to work out the
amounts each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
As it always does, that corrosive reptile 'envy' began to destabilise the friendships.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!"
"Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth, "I only saved a pound too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh. "Why should he get £10 back, when
I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men beat the tenth man up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that, Guardian readers, union administrators, public sector
parasites and other 'victims and martyrs' is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most
benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not
show up any more.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is
somewhat friendlier.
===============================================
I hope the briefing note below may go some way to rectify.
===========================
Scenario: Ten men go out for a daily drink and the bill for all ten
comes to £100...
---------------------------------------------------------
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1, sixth = £3, seventh = £7. eighth = £12, ninth = £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
--------------------------------------------------------------
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement.
One day, the bar owner said,"Since you are all such good customers,
I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20".
Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
------------------------------------------------------------------
It was suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of
the tax system they had been using, and they proceeded to work out the
amounts each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
As it always does, that corrosive reptile 'envy' began to destabilise the friendships.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!"
"Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth, "I only saved a pound too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh. "Why should he get £10 back, when
I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men beat the tenth man up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that, Guardian readers, union administrators, public sector
parasites and other 'victims and martyrs' is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most
benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not
show up any more.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is
somewhat friendlier.
===============================================
Uncle Roy's Guidelines - 5. Quantitative Easing
Q.E.D.
Quantitative Easing Described.
Times are tough in Bristol. Many people are in debt and living on credit.
A banker visited on business a few days ago and dropped into the local hotel to book his accommodation. He left £100 in cash as a deposit and went to inspect the rooms and facilities.
The owner gave him the keys and as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier ran next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher took the £100 note and walked round to his landlord to settle the outstanding rent. The landlord took the £100 note and paid his office manager last week's wages. The office manager took the £100 note and paid his drinks bill at the pub. The publican slipped the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and given her services on credit. The hooker then popped to the hotel and paid off her room bill to the hotel owner with the £100 note. The hotel proprietor replaced the £100 note on the counter.
At that moment the banker came down the stairs, picked up the £100 note, said the room was not satisfactory and left.
No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the debts are cleared and people are facing the future with a lot more optimism.
Quantitative Easing Described.
Times are tough in Bristol. Many people are in debt and living on credit.
A banker visited on business a few days ago and dropped into the local hotel to book his accommodation. He left £100 in cash as a deposit and went to inspect the rooms and facilities.
The owner gave him the keys and as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier ran next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher took the £100 note and walked round to his landlord to settle the outstanding rent. The landlord took the £100 note and paid his office manager last week's wages. The office manager took the £100 note and paid his drinks bill at the pub. The publican slipped the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and given her services on credit. The hooker then popped to the hotel and paid off her room bill to the hotel owner with the £100 note. The hotel proprietor replaced the £100 note on the counter.
At that moment the banker came down the stairs, picked up the £100 note, said the room was not satisfactory and left.
No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the debts are cleared and people are facing the future with a lot more optimism.
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how quantitative easing works.
Sunday, 30 January 2011
"I'm 65 and I'm Tired" By Uncle Roy
I'm 65. Two weeks after graduating from university in 1966, with no gap year, I started my first job and have worked ever since. I enjoy work and make a fair living. I didn't inherit my job or my income. I intend to work as long as I am able.
I'm tired but not tired of work.
I'm tired of being told that I should share my earnings and savings with people who don't work.
I'm tired of being told the government will confiscate the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people and projects with which I have no sympathy, and, given the option, which I would not support.
I'm tired of all religions where fundamentalists justify bestiality, rape, murder, revenge because they believe they are showing loyalty to some historical fiction. I am aware of the immensely sophisticated marketing techniques employed by companies in this much-favoured sector. However, every day I read of madmen in the name of religion killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family honour; of nutters in the name of religion rioting over the slightest offence; of murderers in the name of religion eliminating those they regard as non-believers; of arsonist criminals burning schools for girls; of followers of some super-criminal stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of genital mutilation and other atrocities because they feel they are told to do so by a holy book.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which if I choose to debate, I am accused of cynicism.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts are suffering from a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. I did not stuff the white powder up their noses while they tried to fight me off.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of all parties talking about innocent, stupid or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught.
I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor. The victim and martyr industry is protected by an institutional resistance to honest analysis, for the fear of being accused of racism, ageism, sexism, and an ever growing list of --isms.
I'm really tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm very tired.
But I'm not unhappy to be 65. I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. Perhaps I'm just sorry my grandchildren may never know the world I knew.
--
I'm 65. Two weeks after graduating from university in 1966, with no gap year, I started my first job and have worked ever since. I enjoy work and make a fair living. I didn't inherit my job or my income. I intend to work as long as I am able.
I'm tired but not tired of work.
I'm tired of being told that I should share my earnings and savings with people who don't work.
I'm tired of being told the government will confiscate the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people and projects with which I have no sympathy, and, given the option, which I would not support.
I'm tired of all religions where fundamentalists justify bestiality, rape, murder, revenge because they believe they are showing loyalty to some historical fiction. I am aware of the immensely sophisticated marketing techniques employed by companies in this much-favoured sector. However, every day I read of madmen in the name of religion killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family honour; of nutters in the name of religion rioting over the slightest offence; of murderers in the name of religion eliminating those they regard as non-believers; of arsonist criminals burning schools for girls; of followers of some super-criminal stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of genital mutilation and other atrocities because they feel they are told to do so by a holy book.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which if I choose to debate, I am accused of cynicism.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts are suffering from a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. I did not stuff the white powder up their noses while they tried to fight me off.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of all parties talking about innocent, stupid or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught.
I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor. The victim and martyr industry is protected by an institutional resistance to honest analysis, for the fear of being accused of racism, ageism, sexism, and an ever growing list of --isms.
I'm really tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm very tired.
But I'm not unhappy to be 65. I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. Perhaps I'm just sorry my grandchildren may never know the world I knew.
--
Saturday, 23 October 2010
David (Horfield Mens Snooker Club) v. Goliath (Horfield Parish Church)
Preamble. Horfield Mens Snooker Club was established in 1932 in a purpose built annex attached to the Parish Hall. It has been used exclusively for that purpose since formation. In 2009 a letter was received by the Chairman of the Club stating that the room was required for other parish activities and the snooker club members were no longer welcome.
There has been an exchange of increasingly acrimonious letters culminating in the correspondence reproduced below.
For completeness, more information will be provided in due course.
=============================================
From Roy Tallis to Reverend Hadley
1st October 2010
Dear Reverend Hadley,
Horfield Mens Snooker Club
I'm writing to say how sorry I am that relationships seem to have suffered over the issue of the snooker room. If I caused any offence, please accept my apologies. It was done in the heat of the moment and because of a strong commitment I feel to the Parish of Horfield, though you may question that after some of the things I have said!
Yesterday we removed most of the personal items and some of the memorabilia. I hope this was done without any damage to the other items of furniture and fittings.
In order to simplify matters, I purchased the snooker table and some of the specific fittings from the club, and will be making arrangements to deal with these items in the next few days.
You may be aware that I think there is an arguable case that the Church has exceeded its authority in evicting us. I don't want that to be an issue between me, you and any members of the congregation, many of whom I still regard as friends after such a long association with the church. In fact, in the last few weeks I have been attending bell-ringing practice, ringing for the morning service and last week for a wedding. If there is any good to come out of this difficulty, and I am ever the optimist, it is that I am delighted to be associated more closely with the Church again.
If you could spare a little time in order for us to meet in a more agreeable way than via email or the press, I would be very grateful.
I am away on business most of next week but will be in Bristol on Friday 15th. I am also here this Friday, 8th., if that's a possibility.
Yours sincerely,
Roy Tallis
=========================================
1. Email from Paul Wilson, Parish Hall Manager, to Roy Tallis, member of snooker club.
Dear Roy
It was agreed with the chair of the snooker club that all items would be removed by 15th October. I understand that the snooker table is now in your possession and has yet to be removed
As a gesture of good will we will extend that deadline to Friday 29th.
Please respond confirming that you will comply with this final request by return
Paul Wilson
Paul Wilson
paul.wilson@provelio.com
Provelio Limited
The Meeting House
Lewins Mead
Bristol BS1 2NN
Tel: 0117 302 0001
Fax: 0117 302 0002
Mobile: 07775 792 517
www.provelio.com
==============================================================================
2. Reply.
Thursday 21st October
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your email. Your gesture of good will is noted.
I also note that you request a reply 'by return', though I'm not sure precisely what is meant by that in this context.
It sounds heavily legal and I may not have complied with it, noting also that your email was sent at 5.33 a.m.
Do I understand correctly that it was blind-copied or forwarded separately to others? I believe this is not the recommended protocol with email correspondence.
I enjoyed a very pleasant lunch with John Hadley on Monday this week and, inter alia, he implied speed was not of the essence, my words not his, though I did say I would try and get things sorted by the end of this week or certainly by the end of next.
If that proves difficult for me, and I am away from Bristol on business from 25th., noon, until late on 28th, might I advise that you are careful when dealing with my property if you choose to remove it yourself?
No doubt Osborne Clarke will know the law relating to the handling of squatters' property. It would be unfortunate to incur further publicity for the Parish.
If you wish to purchase the property from me, that might be the best way to resolve this very unfortunate situation.
I would accept a reasonable offer.
I intend to visit the snooker room on Monday, 25th October at 10ish to give further thought to the problem, unless we have agreed a price by 9.30a.m. on that day.
I have open-copied this reply and your original to various people who have either a direct interest or have offered some support to the club over this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Roy
--
Roy Tallis,
=======================================================================
3. Follow on - Wilson to Tallis
22/10/2010
Roy
Thank you for your email
My mail was not blind copied to anyone
By return means asap which you have done - this was not legal speak, simply a request for the matter to be dealt with promptly
I can confidently speak on behalf of the church that we are not interested in purchase. My email stands that we need the space cleared by next week
Will wait to hear from you
============================================================================
4. Tallis to Wilson
22/10/22010
Dear Paul,
I note the contents and tone of your very interesting reply.
Sincerely,
Roy
===========================================
5. Tallis to Wilson
22/10/2010
Dear Paul,
Please accept sincere apologies if I was wrong on the alleged copying or forwarding your original email.
A couple of points have been brought to my attention:
1. Were we not told that there would be a rent valuation?
2. You say you can confidently speak on behalf of the church. I'm not sure what to make of this and would be very keen to debate the matter in front of the parishioners to judge the mood. Certainly, of the people to whom I have spoken, more seem to offer support for our cause than for yours. You may speak on behalf of the Committee, though I would be surprised if the actions you have taken had unanimous support even of this group.
Some even see a conspiracy which may be triggered by the potential development of the land on which the Hall stands. I note this only for historical purposes but do hope we are not being evicted to give the advantage of vacant possession.
Yours sincerely,
Roy
===========================================
6. Wilson to Tallis
22/10/2010
Roy
The position of the pcc and therefore the church is as my first email this morning
Please remove the table by next friday as requested
========================================================
There has been an exchange of increasingly acrimonious letters culminating in the correspondence reproduced below.
For completeness, more information will be provided in due course.
=============================================
From Roy Tallis to Reverend Hadley
1st October 2010
Dear Reverend Hadley,
Horfield Mens Snooker Club
I'm writing to say how sorry I am that relationships seem to have suffered over the issue of the snooker room. If I caused any offence, please accept my apologies. It was done in the heat of the moment and because of a strong commitment I feel to the Parish of Horfield, though you may question that after some of the things I have said!
Yesterday we removed most of the personal items and some of the memorabilia. I hope this was done without any damage to the other items of furniture and fittings.
In order to simplify matters, I purchased the snooker table and some of the specific fittings from the club, and will be making arrangements to deal with these items in the next few days.
You may be aware that I think there is an arguable case that the Church has exceeded its authority in evicting us. I don't want that to be an issue between me, you and any members of the congregation, many of whom I still regard as friends after such a long association with the church. In fact, in the last few weeks I have been attending bell-ringing practice, ringing for the morning service and last week for a wedding. If there is any good to come out of this difficulty, and I am ever the optimist, it is that I am delighted to be associated more closely with the Church again.
If you could spare a little time in order for us to meet in a more agreeable way than via email or the press, I would be very grateful.
I am away on business most of next week but will be in Bristol on Friday 15th. I am also here this Friday, 8th., if that's a possibility.
Yours sincerely,
Roy Tallis
=========================================
1. Email from Paul Wilson, Parish Hall Manager, to Roy Tallis, member of snooker club.
Thursday, 21st October 2010
Dear Roy
It was agreed with the chair of the snooker club that all items would be removed by 15th October. I understand that the snooker table is now in your possession and has yet to be removed
As a gesture of good will we will extend that deadline to Friday 29th.
Please respond confirming that you will comply with this final request by return
Paul Wilson
Paul Wilson
paul.wilson@provelio.com
Provelio Limited
The Meeting House
Lewins Mead
Bristol BS1 2NN
Tel: 0117 302 0001
Fax: 0117 302 0002
Mobile: 07775 792 517
www.provelio.com
==============================================================================
2. Reply.
Thursday 21st October
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your email. Your gesture of good will is noted.
I also note that you request a reply 'by return', though I'm not sure precisely what is meant by that in this context.
It sounds heavily legal and I may not have complied with it, noting also that your email was sent at 5.33 a.m.
Do I understand correctly that it was blind-copied or forwarded separately to others? I believe this is not the recommended protocol with email correspondence.
I enjoyed a very pleasant lunch with John Hadley on Monday this week and, inter alia, he implied speed was not of the essence, my words not his, though I did say I would try and get things sorted by the end of this week or certainly by the end of next.
If that proves difficult for me, and I am away from Bristol on business from 25th., noon, until late on 28th, might I advise that you are careful when dealing with my property if you choose to remove it yourself?
No doubt Osborne Clarke will know the law relating to the handling of squatters' property. It would be unfortunate to incur further publicity for the Parish.
If you wish to purchase the property from me, that might be the best way to resolve this very unfortunate situation.
I would accept a reasonable offer.
I intend to visit the snooker room on Monday, 25th October at 10ish to give further thought to the problem, unless we have agreed a price by 9.30a.m. on that day.
I have open-copied this reply and your original to various people who have either a direct interest or have offered some support to the club over this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Roy
--
Roy Tallis,
=======================================================================
3. Follow on - Wilson to Tallis
22/10/2010
Roy
Thank you for your email
My mail was not blind copied to anyone
By return means asap which you have done - this was not legal speak, simply a request for the matter to be dealt with promptly
I can confidently speak on behalf of the church that we are not interested in purchase. My email stands that we need the space cleared by next week
Will wait to hear from you
============================================================================
4. Tallis to Wilson
22/10/22010
Dear Paul,
I note the contents and tone of your very interesting reply.
Sincerely,
Roy
===========================================
5. Tallis to Wilson
22/10/2010
Dear Paul,
Please accept sincere apologies if I was wrong on the alleged copying or forwarding your original email.
A couple of points have been brought to my attention:
1. Were we not told that there would be a rent valuation?
2. You say you can confidently speak on behalf of the church. I'm not sure what to make of this and would be very keen to debate the matter in front of the parishioners to judge the mood. Certainly, of the people to whom I have spoken, more seem to offer support for our cause than for yours. You may speak on behalf of the Committee, though I would be surprised if the actions you have taken had unanimous support even of this group.
Some even see a conspiracy which may be triggered by the potential development of the land on which the Hall stands. I note this only for historical purposes but do hope we are not being evicted to give the advantage of vacant possession.
Yours sincerely,
Roy
===========================================
6. Wilson to Tallis
22/10/2010
Roy
The position of the pcc and therefore the church is as my first email this morning
Please remove the table by next friday as requested
========================================================
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Tues 6th April 2010. Puzzle.
Does anyone remember these few lines? I don't think I've got it right and would be grateful for corrections and any details of origin.
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. Shun Him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows is a stray. Lead him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not is ignorant. Help him.
He who knows and knows that he knows is wise. Follow him.
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. Shun Him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows is a stray. Lead him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not is ignorant. Help him.
He who knows and knows that he knows is wise. Follow him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
