Contributor Leaderboard

So any mention that Miliband was funded through university by wealthy Jewish donors, and there's absolutely no visibility about where his present millions have come from is "pure anti-semitism - nothing more, nothing less"? Well... knock me down with a copy of The Guardian! Excuse me but the link to Bilderbergers was in connection with the EU and crony capitalists... ...and, I never even mentioned that he was a Jew. In fact I had to spend quite a while to find a balanced link to the Bilderbergers, because the Internet is teeming with sites pouring out invective and the very "creating some sort of New World Order" conspiracies you mention. Click on that link and read what it says following "Is Bilderberg a secret conspiracy?". The question about loyalties, and following the money trail, is a perfectly valid one. It's one I've asked about The Telegraph and HSBC recently too, and I'm sure you'd have given me permission to go there. The purpose of the thread was to flag up his hypocrisy of repeatedly attacking hedge funds to uninformed Labour supporters whilst taking lightly laundered hedge fund money to fund his campaign. He was slagging off hedge funds again during the "Leaders Debates" the other night for good measure. So, no, I'm not saying he's involved in wittingly creating your new world order (Semitic, Gentile, or any combo) - I'm simply saying that he's as tainted as the rest of LibLabCon, and already as up to his neck in international crony capitalism as the rest of the establishment politicos. The dumb trade unionists think that they are pulling his strings, but - like PC left-wing debate - the range of possibilities was severely pre-limited to create the illusion of democratic choice. If he gets power he's going to be yet another crushing disappointment to tribal Labour supporters - particularly those who still haven't worked out that the Labour Party they support died in 1995, and what replaced it is essentially no different from new Tory or new LD. The trivial difference in emphasis doesn't matter two beans to ordinary working people; it's working against their own interests, and is once again an illusion of democratic choice. I hesitate to call them turkeys voting for Christmas, but I can't think of anything more succinct.

Get the kettle on! You'll be needing a cup of tea. This might just be a wee bit long. First of all I give my apologies to Mawer. His name was Allen - not Alan, as I previously wrote. Having now read the complete work I think we have to knock any ideas of the Venerable Bede's involvment on the head. Sorry Maggie! Firstly, it wasn't only he who had the name Bede. It appears to have been quite a common name at the time. Secondly, -ing would appear to be purely genitive in function and monks didn't own anything. Thirdly, as Bede entered the monastery at the age of seven he was unlikely to have set up any homestead and place names of the era were topographical or denoted ownership. Mawer's work is a tough read, not least because of the compositor's interpretation of the original work, which was almost certainly hand written. I give you a synopsis of the relevant points: Mawer, in discussing the -ington names of Northumberland, refers to an article on the early settlement of Northumbria written by one Dr. Woolacott. This appeared in the Geographical Journal (year of publication unknown to me). According to Woolacott the effects of the glacial period had a great bearing on the location of early settlements. Glacial surface deposits, he claimed, lay thickest "along the washes" and "on higher ground escarpments rise like islands from beneath the superficial deposits ". In Northumbria especially, this had considerable influence in determining the location of minor settlements as it was easy to obtain water in these places. With reference to Topley (no information as to who Topley may be) he says that the Northumbrian villages with -ing "are old settlements and either stand on sand and gravel hillocks lying on the boulder clay, or on exposures of sandstone which rise above the uniform level of the surface formations. A large number of the pit villages, which are in many cases merely enlargements of the ancient settlements belong to the latter class". Mawer tested this theory by completing a fresh survey of the topography. The theory, he said, "would appear to hold good for Acklington, Bedlington, Cramlington" and half a dozen other named places. All were situated on high ground where the geology of the area favoured the occurance of springs. However, this could not be applied to Choppington, he said, as it had a nearby stream from which water could be obtained. Taking all the evidence into consideration Mawer concluded that this theory was proved, at least for East Northumberland, where the number of -ington names on this type of ground was far too large to be due to pure coincidence. As for the genitive (posessive) nature of -ing Mawer names three different types: -inga - genitive plural, -ingas - genitive singular and , by far the most common - simple -ing. Various theories, ranging from number of syllables in the personal name to loss of inflectional suffixes have been put forward to explain the differences but all have subsequently been rejected in favour of one Professor Moorman's explanation that -ing denotes posession. According to Mawer the theory has been "confirmed beyond a doubt" by the examination of Old English evidence. Such place names, he says, are simply the farm, clearing or whatever it may be, of or belonging to a man bearing a certain name. So, there we have it. If you fancy wading through the whole book you'll find it at: http://archive.org/stream/cu31924028042996/cu31924028042996 djvu.txt