mercuryg

I like cheese. Any cheese. But that place is a bit pricey for me so I wait for it at the cheap section in Tescos.

Electricity, or water?

Too bloody right! How dare you suggest such a sacreligious tenet, and at the BBC, too! I'm surprised you nave not been hanged, drawn and quartered at Alexandra Palace for such a heinous crime you hussy! By the way - why were you photographing butterflies eating chutney? that's just plain wrong. Yours, Nigel Havers

That is an amazing generalisation!

This is the problem, Monsta, for i'm not 'going on about conspiracies' at all. If you care to read much of the detail that has been written about the case - both now and ever since it occurred - it's quite clear that there is much more to it than meets the eye. Have you, for instance, read the judgement as to why he was found guilty, and used your own intelliegence to draw a conclusion? It's easy to say 'he done it, he was convicted' but tell me, who was he convicted by? I don't think you know, so i'll furnish you: he was convicted by a Scottish court sitting without a jury in Holland, behind closed doors, and he was implicated on the say so of one witness- who was later found to have been in the pay of the CIA - who stated that he bought the clothes that were found in his luggage on a certain date, in Malta. He was tried with a co conspirator who was acquitted (how so?) He is said to have put the bomb on a plane in Malta, for it then to be transferred to another flight in Frankfurt, and then to the fateful Heathrow flight. Even those in the courtroom thought this tenuous, at the very best. This is not conspiracy, monsta, this is what was said to have happened, and people closely associated with the case have admitted on several occasions that they foudn the conviction shaky to say the least. You would think, also, that a terrorist atrocity as terrible as this one, on british soil, would merit a full and in depth enquiry: there never has been one, and there never will be, because something is not right. And how would that save any arguments? I asked you before - what, I wonder, would your response be if someone else confesses to the crime at a later date? 'Oh well, he was an arab, he deserved it!'? this is a case where the evidence - just like in teh Barry George case, and james Hanratty, and many others - was simply far too flimsy to secure a conviction, yet one was needed so it was given. That is not what the law is all about.

Exactly that - Vic mentioned that being guilty or innocent is fact; I disagree - its not fact until its proven. Getting back to the Lockerbie bomber and while you're right to hail Brian's well put remarks about the situations as 'well said' - indeed it was - the same could be said of Barry George, james Hanratty, and a whole load of other less high profile cases where people have been wrongly imprisoned. I'm not saying that I know the Lockerbie accused did no do it, but pointing out - as is another on here, I believe - that the evidence upon which he was convicted was flimsy at best, and that there are very solid claims that it may not even have been Libya that committed the atrocity. To decry someone the right to protest innocence as they have been convicted in a court of law is to deny them there right; sadly for James Hanratty he didn't get a chance. What will be your response, I wonder, should Iran - who many suspect to be the real perpetrators of this terrible crime - admit to it at some point in he future?

Nothing is a fact until proven.

No, it shouldn't. he maintains he is innocent, and there is little in the way of evidence to prove otherwise. Absolutely, but convicted thanks to a very flimsy set of circumstantial evidence in a case where the powers that be were desperate for a scapegoat. I'm not defending the man - he may well be a hideous madman who killed a few hundred people - but pointing out the flaw in the system. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is the key, Monsta, and the very fact that there is much doubt means this conviction certainly does not fall into that category. Of course.

Surely they are not guilty until proven guilty.

Good to see you buying useful items, Mrs Vic. Only you!

An interesting conversation, this, and an interesting story also. The consensus among many who were involved in the original investigation appears to be that this guy was simply offered up by the Libyans as a token; there's very little actual evidence that he had anything to do with the event itself. Conspiracies will always rage with such as this, as there is much emotion in play and, also, a lot of political machinations that do not allow us to see a clear cut version of events. the 'he was found guilty so he should serve his sentence' line is on that is oft trotted out, but there have been many, many examples of people being imprisoned for crimes they did not commit; likewises, there have also been - although it would appear to surprise some - many, many British and American terrorists throughout history. We can start, if you like, with Guy Fawkes and his friends. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this is a diplomatic release that, as we don't KNOW whether or not this bloke did it should never have been comtemplated.

Watched a great deal of fun going on behind the fences yesterday afternoon as the poor sods had to move the already positioned post box to a new site. Apparently, there is a law that defines how far a postman is allowed to carry a sack of letters from the postbox to his little red van, and nobody knew about it. The original site meant poor Pat would have to walk a yard too far, so the box had to be moved.

Further, at the website of the 'Public Monument and Sculpture Association' includes the following: Builder - Not known Year of unveiling - c.1700s Unveiling details - Erected c.1700s Plus the unconvincing: Road - A189 Some info, then.....

A brief google brings up the website http://northumberland-cam.com/bedlington/index.htm Included is a picture of said cross, with the caption: "The old Market Cross - erected in 1782" I can find no reference to a source for this, and would actually reckon it be older.

Mrs Vic, first with the local business updates! I particularly like the selection of evil looking knives they had in a neat little box on the counter when I last visited, each replete with various implements, 90% of which nobody would ever need to use! They also has a truly brilliant innovation: an outdoor plug socket set cleverly disguised as a giant peanut, somethin found routinely in every Bedlington garden. Wonders will never cease. Got to go, need a new cardboard box and knackered bar-b, let's see how Mrs Vics' lock stands up!

I find this quite intriguing; it's well known that market crosses - popular constructions - were placed so that those who came to barter had a point of focus. Indeed, the type of cross we have at bedlington - quite rare now, as it happens - is known as a 'nail'. One explanation for the expression 'to pay on the nail' is the association with bartering and dealing at them in markets. This information was told to me by my grandfather when I was about eight, when visiting bedlington to see relatives. When it was built may be something of a mystery, but I don't believe why should be.

Is there really to ba 'speakers corner' or are you inciting rebellion?

They do eyebrows? Great! Mine really need some Ronseal.

In a small red convertible, by any chance?

If you peruse the sign hanging on the fence you'll see it's specifically designed to hamper the progress of small red convertibles.

By their own admission they were not aware the one they had pictured was a Polish squadron. For that alone I do underestimate their intellgence; when Nick Griffin opens his mouth I do so to a greater extent, almost immediately.

That's little surprise, Vic, given that it was organised and presented by Go Wansbeck. As someone who has been on the receiving end of much welcomed help from one of these business initiatives, allowing me - as you know - to set up in business and get off my dole-expanded !*!@# , it is perhaps no surprise either that I support their stance. Attending would have been a bonus for them - 'another local boy done good thanks to us' - but pointless to me as my clients are mainly abroad and I don't go anywhere other than the pub for less than £30 an hour these days. I suspect also that the recent pandering to Tesco's, a blight on a small town such as this if there ever was one, which has seen a number of outlets along the market place section rendered dead buried, is not a great advertisment for Bedlington as a town geared towards 'local businesses'.

I fully expected you to MrsVic, and that's just fine (thanks, by the way, for the Nigel Havers reference - always fancied him myself.) I will not reply in quote to all of your post, because I agree - very much - with a lot of it, but there a couple of points that stand out. I think it is a problem, and that thaty is plain to see. This is, after all, a country where the population is, frequently, packaged very tightly and that can often lead to problems. We see it time and time again, and we will continue to do so. There is good and bad in there, MrsV, and all I will say is that the immigrants I may have a probolem with are not those who turn to the west for the sort of help you are highlighting. i would contend that they are in a minority. mmm, you see, while I understand that you have witnessed such i can point to expensive - very expensive - mosques and other non-native (for want of a better phrase) religious buildings and community centres, built for the asian communities in the Longsight, Rusholme, Hulme areas of Manchester being torched, defaced, destroyed and wilfully damaged not by racist whites but by the very people they were built for. This happens because, thanks to the influx of such immigrant communities in set areas and the complete lack of work for both they and 'us' uthey react in very much the same way as the 'native' chav class - with anger and with violence. It's not just the whites, Vic, but 'them' aswell. The only problem I have with protesting the BNP is that the way many people go about it is wrong: the BNP, like it or not, have as much right to stand as the Labour, Tory and Raving Loony parties, and we fought for that right in the very same conflict that you refer to with your remark about the Jews. Our ancestors fought for the right for people to speak up - and yes, in protesting the BNP you are doing just that - but first you must let the other side have their say. When I saw the recent - well, some time back now - footage of the very horrible Nick Griffin and the protestors trying to stop him from doing what he has a right to do it reminded me not of those who fought to help the Jews, MrsVic, but those who tried to stop the Rabbi's from preaching, who broke windows, wrecked mosques and so on. Nick Griffin - odious and stupid as he is - is excercising a right, stopping him from speaking is standing in the way of that right. You, and I, may not like what he says, or what his party stands for, but we have to let him say it. After all, they are stupid enough to shoot themselves in teh foot by distributing millions of leaflets featuring a Polish flown Spitfire, so we ought to let them carry on. I think it's worrying, and while I agree with you with regard to the pointless wars etc, there is a real problem with immigration in this country.

With due respect, and I'm far from a BNP supporter, but surely one of the 'issues facing the country' is that of an excessively out of control immigration situation? We may not feel the pressure of it to any great extent in bedlington - or Northumberland - but it is very real in many other parts of the country, without a doubt, and has been for some time. repatriation may be a ridiculous concept in terms of cost and logistics, but surely the old adage that 'charity begins at home' should be remembered here? The complacency of those who choose to turn a blind eye to problems such as immigration, for reasons that are largely emotional rather than practical, have added to the problem; i have nothing against foreigners because of their nationality, but if I were elsewhere in the country where immigrants were more commonplace and found myself unable to get a job while those who were not nationals could I would, i'm sure, be mighty pissed off about it. Rather than you directing your efforts into anti-BNP demonstrations - which, incidentally, surely outline you as someone who is hypocritical as you are attempting to stifle the right to free speech and freedom of opinion - why not look at the 'real issues facing the country' that you are not emotionally attached to? Why not raise concerns as to the decimation of the manufacturing industry in this country in the face of orders for trams worth billiosn of pounds going to Austria and elsewhere, trams that could easily be built here if the government had not killed the industry? Why not raise concerns about this governments absurd car scrappage scheme which does nothing for the British economy as there are not British motor manufacturers left? What about raising concerns regarding the state of the power industry in the country, and concerns about where the electricity is going to come from when our nuclear and oil-powered plants are shut down in a few years? What about the real issue of the crumbling economy, where our national debt is higher now than it ever has been, and the figures are truly staggering? You are clearly someone who wants to be politically motivated, yet your attention is swayed by campaigning about a party that is never going to be anything more than a minor player that grabs the headlines once in a while. If you want to make a difference, if you want to stand up and shout about the 'issues facing the country' you really need to understand what they are, before slating others and declaring hatred for an entire town. You may not realise, also, that the UK did perfectly well, trade wise, without the EU, and would still do so were it not involved. That old chestnut carries no water. Nothing personal in this post, please understand, but a genuine concern that someone who clearly has passion about something should decide what it is before giving others the boot. At least I know where Monsta stands, and why.

No, it's been boughgt by the bloke who owns the old police station.