I had tea and cakes

On 23 Apr, 20:38, "ROBBIE" <hjkhj....DeleteThis@hhhh.com> wrote:
> "P.S.Burton" <dlb....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177328542.359689.270810@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > with Michael Foot on Friday. He is a lovely, lovely man
>
> What's the difference between a lovely man and a lovely, lovely man?

I repeated it for emphasis. Is that not allowed in the Ilford Bugle's
style guide?

you really are an utter (utter) twat sometimes


>
> and sharp as a
>
> > tack. His favourite Orwell is Homage to Catalonia.
>
> I expect it is; that internecine chimps' tea party in 36 must remind him of
> his own party before the Makeover...
>
> Good review of a biography of him in the Spectator some weeks back.
>
> ROBBIE
 >> Stay informed about: I had tea and cakes 

On 23 Apr, 20:38, "ROBBIE" <hjkhj....RemoveThis@hhhh.com> wrote:
> "P.S.Burton" <dlb....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177328542.359689.270810@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > with Michael Foot on Friday. He is a lovely, lovely man
>
> What's the difference between a lovely man and a lovely, lovely man?

I repeated it for emphasis. Is that not house style at the Ilford
Bugle?

You really are an utter (utter) twat most of the time.


>
> and sharp as a
>
> > tack. His favourite Orwell is Homage to Catalonia.
>
> I expect it is; that internecine chimps' tea party in 36 must remind him of
> his own party before the Makeover...
>
> Good review of a biography of him in the Spectator some weeks back.
>
> ROBBIE
 >> Stay informed about: I had tea and cakes 

"P.S.Burton" <dlbits.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177495913.096029.4450@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On 23 Apr, 20:38, "ROBBIE" <hjkhj....DeleteThis@hhhh.com> wrote:
>> "P.S.Burton" <dlb....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177328542.359689.270810@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > with Michael Foot on Friday. He is a lovely, lovely man
>>
>> What's the difference between a lovely man and a lovely, lovely man?
>
> I repeated it for emphasis. Is that not allowed in the Ilford Bugle's
> style guide?
>
> you really are an utter (utter) twat sometimes

Righteous! I like it.

I'm running amok on the local rags - I'll soon be shot or hanged, or get
knighted.

ROBBIE
 >> Stay informed about: I had tea and cakes 

"P.S.Burton" <dlbits RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177328542.359689.270810@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> with Michael Foot on Friday. He is a lovely, lovely man and sharp as a
> tack. His favourite Orwell is Homage to Catalonia.
>

Anyway, come on, spill the beans re tea with old Duffel Coat - what are you
*at*?

ROBBIE
 >> Stay informed about: I had tea and cakes 

On 29 Apr, 11:39, "ROBBIE" <hjkhj... DeleteThis @hhhh.com> wrote:
> "P.S.Burton" <dlb... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177328542.359689.270810@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > with Michael Foot on Friday. He is a lovely, lovely man and sharp as a
> > tack. His favourite Orwell is Homage to Catalonia.
>
> Anyway, come on, spill the beans re tea with old Duffel Coat - what are you
> *at*?
>
> ROBBIE

ridiculously, he's a friend of a friend. My daughter's best mate was
round ours for tea one night and her dad came to pick her up. He's a
history professor at one of the London universities. Anyway, he had a
browse though my books whilst I was making the chips and saw the
portrait of george on the mantel and when I came back he said "you
know who *you* should meet..."

Michael showed me a lot of his books and press cuttings, including
some really nice orwell stuff. When I mentioned that I hadn't read the
patrick reilly book on George he insisted I have his copy. Dashed off
an inscription and shoved it into my hands even while I was muttering
things like "too kind" and "really no need". GREAT man.
 >> Stay informed about: I had tea and cakes 

On 30 avr, 04:15, "P.S.Burton" <dlb....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Apr, 11:39, "ROBBIE" <hjkhj....TakeThisOut@hhhh.com> wrote:
>
> > "P.S.Burton" <dlb....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1177328542.359689.270810@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > with Michael Foot on Friday. He is a lovely, lovely man and sharp as a
> > > tack. His favourite Orwell is Homage to Catalonia.
>
> > Anyway, come on, spill the beans re tea with old Duffel Coat - what are you
> > *at*?
>
> > ROBBIE
>
> ridiculously, he's a friend of a friend. My daughter's best mate was
> round ours for tea one night and her dad came to pick her up. He's a
> history professor at one of the London universities. Anyway, he had a
> browse though my books whilst I was making the chips and saw the
> portrait of george on the mantel and when I came back he said "you
> know who *you* should meet..."
>
> Michael showed me a lot of his books and press cuttings, including
> some really nice orwell stuff. When I mentioned that I hadn't read the
> patrick reilly book on George he insisted I have his copy. Dashed off
> an inscription and shoved it into my hands even while I was muttering
> things like "too kind" and "really no need". GREAT man.

Very nice, thanks for spilling the beans. I assume that the book is
George Orwell: The Age's Adversary, the one which Mr. Foot reviewed in
the Guardian a few years ago ("this is a wonderful book, not to be
missed, not a single page of it"). I too like Patrick Reilly's
perspective on Orwell: in his study about Nineteen Eighty-Four he
wrote, "Too many readers still come to it determined to use it as
propaganda for one side or the other, as cold war warrior or bulwark
of socialism. Yet as a novel it resists absorption into the propaganda
machine of any state or sect. It is a fiction, and we must resist the
temptation to treat it as a model of the real world or as echo chamber
for our own political predilections....Orwell's declared aim was to
transform politics into art, and when he decided to write a novel and
not a tract, he was paying homage to the primacy of the creative
imagination. It follows that the meaning of the political concepts
within Nineteen Eighty-Four is defined by the context of the fiction
as a whole and not by the external world. The purpose of this study is
to present Orwell as a great, underrated creative writer who has not
yet received just recognition for what he achieved in Nineteen Eighty-
Four."
B.
 >> Stay informed about: I had tea and cakes 

<georgeorwell.DeleteThis@email.com> wrote in message
news:1178164565.285839.76610@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 avr, 04:15, "P.S.Burton" <dlb....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29 Apr, 11:39, "ROBBIE" <hjkhj....DeleteThis@hhhh.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "P.S.Burton" <dlb....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:1177328542.359689.270810@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > with Michael Foot on Friday. He is a lovely, lovely man and sharp as
>> > > a
>> > > tack. His favourite Orwell is Homage to Catalonia.
>>
>> > Anyway, come on, spill the beans re tea with old Duffel Coat - what are
>> > you
>> > *at*?
>>
>> > ROBBIE
>>
>> ridiculously, he's a friend of a friend. My daughter's best mate was
>> round ours for tea one night and her dad came to pick her up. He's a
>> history professor at one of the London universities. Anyway, he had a
>> browse though my books whilst I was making the chips and saw the
>> portrait of george on the mantel and when I came back he said "you
>> know who *you* should meet..."
>>
>> Michael showed me a lot of his books and press cuttings, including
>> some really nice orwell stuff. When I mentioned that I hadn't read the
>> patrick reilly book on George he insisted I have his copy. Dashed off
>> an inscription and shoved it into my hands even while I was muttering
>> things like "too kind" and "really no need". GREAT man.
>
> Very nice, thanks for spilling the beans. I assume that the book is
> George Orwell: The Age's Adversary, the one which Mr. Foot reviewed in
> the Guardian a few years ago ("this is a wonderful book, not to be
> missed, not a single page of it"). I too like Patrick Reilly's
> perspective on Orwell: in his study about Nineteen Eighty-Four he
> wrote, "Too many readers still come to it determined to use it as
> propaganda for one side or the other, as cold war warrior or bulwark
> of socialism. Yet as a novel it resists absorption into the propaganda
> machine of any state or sect. It is a fiction, and we must resist the
> temptation to treat it as a model of the real world or as echo chamber
> for our own political predilections....Orwell's declared aim was to
> transform politics into art, and when he decided to write a novel and
> not a tract, he was paying homage to the primacy of the creative
> imagination. It follows that the meaning of the political concepts
> within Nineteen Eighty-Four is defined by the context of the fiction
> as a whole and not by the external world. The purpose of this study is
> to present Orwell as a great, underrated creative writer who has not
> yet received just recognition for what he achieved in Nineteen Eighty-
> Four."
> B.
>
>

VERY pseudy.

It's all about the world at the time and where Orwell thought it MIGHT go if
Man wasn't careful (which he isn't); it is a warning and as literary art it
stoops pretty low at times, not so much propaganda as porn. Ronald Firbank
it ain't.

ROBBIE
 >> Stay informed about: I had tea and cakes