Rod Speed wrote:
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Doesnt explain why those in the worst of the slums arent wearing suits.

Navvies could afford at least one new suit a year if that's all they
bought.

But that still doesnt explain why they would buy a new
suit at all instead of much more suitable work clothes.

I dont believe that navvies were weekly church attenders even in those
days.

Most of those Irishmen who came across to the UK to work on construction
projects were Roman Catholics and Ireland then was still a deeply religious
country. The church and observance of its rituals was as much a reason for
their existence as their own family.
Ireland has only really moved away from the situation where people based
their lives on influence by the church rather than the government in the
past 2 or 3 decades.

GH

On 02/06/2018 10:53, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-01, ARW wrote:

[49 lines snipped]

Other violations that were not in use back in the 70's

.
.
.
.

Wearing flared jeans

Not sure if you're serious because they are a snagging hazard or for fashion
reasons, but I not they appear to be coming back yet again. I even saw some
embroidered ones the other day.

Back for the second time? ****, I feel old.

"Marland" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Doesnt explain why those in the worst of the slums arent wearing
suits.

Navvies could afford at least one new suit a year if that's all they
bought.

But that still doesnt explain why they would buy a new
suit at all instead of much more suitable work clothes.

I dont believe that navvies were weekly church attenders even in those
days.

Most of those Irishmen who came across to the UK to
work on construction projects were Roman Catholics
and Ireland then was still a deeply religious country.

I dont believe most of the navvies showed up in their church every week.

The church and observance of its rituals was as much
a reason for their existence as their own family.

Dont believe that with the navvies.

Ireland has only really moved away from the situation
where people based their lives on influence by the church
rather than the government in the past 2 or 3 decades.

Separate issue entirely to how many of the navvies
showed in in a roman catholic church every week
in a suit and used the older suits at work.

https://www.google.com/search?q=navvies+uk&tbm=isch
shows that very few of the navvies actually wore
suits its mostly just the supervisors that wore suits.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Marland" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Doesnt explain why those in the worst of the slums arent wearing
suits.

Navvies could afford at least one new suit a year if that's all they
bought.

But that still doesnt explain why they would buy a new
suit at all instead of much more suitable work clothes.

I dont believe that navvies were weekly church attenders even in those
days.

Most of those Irishmen who came across to the UK to
work on construction projects were Roman Catholics
and Ireland then was still a deeply religious country.

I dont believe most of the navvies showed up in their church every week.

The church and observance of its rituals was as much
a reason for their existence as their own family.

Dont believe that with the navvies.

Ireland has only really moved away from the situation
where people based their lives on influence by the church
rather than the government in the past 2 or 3 decades.

Separate issue entirely to how many of the navvies
showed in in a roman catholic church every week
in a suit and used the older suits at work.

https://www.google.com/search?q=navvies+uk&tbm=isch
shows that very few of the navvies actually wore
suits its mostly just the supervisors that wore suits.

And I'm not convinced that most irish males wore suits to mass either.

In article ,
S Viemeister wrote:
I remember working along side BBC OB crews where the riggers wore
suits!

Smart dress was sometimes required on a specific location.

In the 60s, my uncle (BBC Glasgow) decided to wear a kilt, rather than
have a suitcase full of 'appropriate attire' for all the different
places he was sent to.

I'm sure that would be acceptable, but you'd still need a selection of the
bits for the upper body to cover all requirements.

--
*Forget the Joneses, I keep us up with the Simpsons.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 10:59:00 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Marland" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Doesnt explain why those in the worst of the slums arent wearing
suits.

Navvies could afford at least one new suit a year if that's all they
bought.

But that still doesnt explain why they would buy a new
suit at all instead of much more suitable work clothes.

I dont believe that navvies were weekly church attenders even in those
days.

Most of those Irishmen who came across to the UK to
work on construction projects were Roman Catholics
and Ireland then was still a deeply religious country.

I dont believe most of the navvies showed up in their church every week.

The church and observance of its rituals was as much
a reason for their existence as their own family.

Dont believe that with the navvies.

Ireland has only really moved away from the situation
where people based their lives on influence by the church
rather than the government in the past 2 or 3 decades.

Separate issue entirely to how many of the navvies
showed in in a roman catholic church every week
in a suit and used the older suits at work.

https://www.google.com/search?q=navvies+uk&tbm=isch
shows that very few of the navvies actually wore
suits its mostly just the supervisors that wore suits.

And I'm not convinced that most irish males wore suits to mass either.

I'm not so sure and it has NOTHING yo do with being Irish, but tehre is a saying "dressed in yuor sunday best' and where else did people go on sundays other than church, people did have their best clothes saved for church and for most their best clothes were for using at weddings and funerals.

On 04/06/2018 14:07, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-04, Max Demian wrote:
On 04/06/2018 10:24, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-04, Chris J Dixon wrote:

[13 lines snipped]

No trainers.

I wore black leather trainers to work for years when they were forbidden
and no-one ever noticed.

A senior director of the company wore jeans to work one day when the dress
code forbade them. Someone mentioned it to him and the rule was rescinded
the following day.

I used to find "dress down Friday" and the like rather annoying as I
prefer to wear different clothes at work and leisure. And I would
probably have had to buy a pair of blue jeans specifically to wear at
work on Fridays.

OTOH, I wear jeans and a sweat or T-shirt virtually all the time and once
the stupid "dress code" at work was dropped for back-room staff who never
saw a customer, that's what I wore to work, also.


I long ago gave up wearing shirt & tie for work. I don't have customers
to meet, only suppliers. I sometimes have to crawl about in dusty wiring
closets and handle hardware that is dusty. Work has no dress code. I'd
rather be comfortable.

On 03/06/2018 20:57, Bill Wright wrote:
On 02/06/2018 13:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Never ever did understand the purpose of a tie. And have never worn one
since leaving school. Except for those formal occasions when it's
expected.
Well you're a corbynite aren't you? Scruffy *******s, all of you.
Remember that old geezer Foot?

Bill
The Michael Foot/Donkey jacket story was a fabrication.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hat-wasnt.html

michael adams wrote:



Not an expert on pyjamas, but where would you keep your mobile phone?

For some reason pyjamas have got a top pocket



I'm not sure what its there for, as you'd imagine things would fall out
when you're in bed, but there you go.

I dont suppose the design has really needed to be changed since the days
when the toilet was out the back across a yard and in many cases shared
with other households.
The pocket could be used to carry your bit of paper most likely from the
days newspaper or a box of matches in case the candle you need for
illumination gets blown out while you cross the cobbles.

GH

On 6/5/2018 11:08 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
S Viemeister wrote:
I remember working along side BBC OB crews where the riggers wore
suits!

Smart dress was sometimes required on a specific location.

In the 60s, my uncle (BBC Glasgow) decided to wear a kilt, rather than
have a suitcase full of 'appropriate attire' for all the different
places he was sent to.

I'm sure that would be acceptable, but you'd still need a selection of the
bits for the upper body to cover all requirements.

Yes, but it still reduced what he needed to lug around. Different hose
and shoes, too.

"Marland" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:



Not an expert on pyjamas, but where would you keep your mobile phone?

For some reason pyjamas have got a top pocket



I'm not sure what its there for, as you'd imagine things would fall out
when you're in bed, but there you go.

I don't suppose the design has really needed to be changed since the days
when the toilet was out the back across a yard and in many cases shared
with other households.
The pocket could be used to carry your bit of paper most likely from the
days newspaper or a box of matches in case the candle you need for
illumination gets blown out while you cross the cobbles.

That might have well have sufficed on any warm, rain-free nights of summer.

But what about winters when it was really cold at night ? Or at any time of
year when it was quite possibly raining ?

Wouldn't there have been year round provision of an old coat or raincoat,
to be used by all members of the family, hanging on a nail somewhere ?
To cover all such eventualities ? Possibly with a copy of a days old
newspaper in the pocket to help pass the time ? To say nothing of a stub
of old pencil in another pocket, to help complete the crossword maybe.


michael adams

....

On 05/06/2018 17:39, michael adams wrote:
But what about winters when it was really cold at night ? Or at any time of
year when it was quite possibly raining ?

You would stay put indoors and use the guzunder.

--
Mike Clarke

"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
news
On 05/06/2018 17:39, michael adams wrote:
But what about winters when it was really cold at night ? Or at any time of
year when it was quite possibly raining ?

You would stay put indoors and use the guzunder.

For big jobs ? No 2's ?

I thought the whole purpose of guzunders was for small jobs
no 1's. To be used at all times. Not just for when it was raining.

However I'm quite happy to bow to the voice of experience, should
that be the case in this instance.



michael adams

....

On 6/5/2018 5:39 PM, michael adams wrote:

Wouldn't there have been year round provision of an old coat or raincoat,
to be used by all members of the family, hanging on a nail somewhere ?
To cover all such eventualities ? Possibly with a copy of a days old
newspaper in the pocket to help pass the time ? To say nothing of a stub
of old pencil in another pocket, to help complete the crossword maybe.

Some people kept covered chamber pots under the bed, and emptied them in
the morning.

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 6/5/2018 5:39 PM, michael adams wrote:

Wouldn't there have been year round provision of an old coat or raincoat,
to be used by all members of the family, hanging on a nail somewhere ?
To cover all such eventualities ? Possibly with a copy of a days old
newspaper in the pocket to help pass the time ? To say nothing of a stub
of old pencil in another pocket, to help complete the crossword maybe.

Some people kept covered chamber pots under the bed, and emptied them in the morning.

For no 2's ?

Anyway if that really is the case for both no 1's and no 2's, then it
would rather seem to invalidate the suggestion that I was responding to.

Namely that top pockets in pyjamas are so as to faciliate trips across
cobbled courtyards in the dark, in order to use shared outside toilets.

i.e. long term exposure/resignation to chamber pots having been made
use of for both purposes in cold or wet weather, would eventually
mitigate against the night time use of outside toilets at all.

Although again I'm quite happy to bow to the voice of experience
in this matter, if that is indeed the case.


michael adams

....

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Chris J Dixon wrote:

IIRC it was said that one of the TOTP directors donned a cheap
"rug" so that his shiny pate didn't stand out amongst the
teenyboppers.

The director of TOTP directed from the control room, not studio floor.

OK, not my field. Would "Floor Manager" be a more appropriate
individual?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 10:59:00 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Marland" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Doesnt explain why those in the worst of the slums arent wearing
suits.

Navvies could afford at least one new suit a year if that's all they
bought.

But that still doesnt explain why they would buy a new
suit at all instead of much more suitable work clothes.

I dont believe that navvies were weekly church attenders even in
those
days.

Most of those Irishmen who came across to the UK to
work on construction projects were Roman Catholics
and Ireland then was still a deeply religious country.

I dont believe most of the navvies showed up in their church every
week.

The church and observance of its rituals was as much
a reason for their existence as their own family.

Dont believe that with the navvies.

Ireland has only really moved away from the situation
where people based their lives on influence by the church
rather than the government in the past 2 or 3 decades.

Separate issue entirely to how many of the navvies
showed in in a roman catholic church every week
in a suit and used the older suits at work.

https://www.google.com/search?q=navvies+uk&tbm=isch
shows that very few of the navvies actually wore
suits its mostly just the supervisors that wore suits.

And I'm not convinced that most irish males wore suits to mass either.

I'm not so sure

Shouldnt be hard to find some photos on google images.

and it has NOTHING yo do with being Irish, but
tehre is a saying "dressed in yuor sunday best'

Yes, but its less clear if the few navvies who weren't
supervisors and who did wear suits when doing the
railways or the first motorways did actually bother
to have any sunday best. That may in fact have
been others like the middle class, not the navvies.

and where else did people go on sundays other than church,

Down the pub most likely with navvies.

people did have their best clothes saved for church

Its far from clear that navvies did bother with church even in ireland
let alone in england while doing the railways and first motorways.

and for most their best clothes were for using at weddings and funerals.

Sure, but whether it was suits with the irish is another matter entirely.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

and where else did people go on sundays other than church,

Down the pub most likely with navvies.


If you spent a whole 5 or 6 days a week covered in mud, while earning
a good wage wouldn't you want to clean yourself up and wear a clean
suit on at least one day a week ? If it was only to spend it in the pub.

I know that living in a corrugated iron hut with only kangaroos for
company 24/7, that may not be an issue. But for once in your life
why not try and use a bit of imagination, eh ?


michael adams

....

On 6/5/2018 7:22 PM, michael adams wrote:
"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 6/5/2018 5:39 PM, michael adams wrote:

Although again I'm quite happy to bow to the voice of experience
in this matter, if that is indeed the case.

That was the expected behaviour (using the chamber pot at night), when I
visited my grandfather's house when I was a child. By the time I was an
adult, a proper bathroom had been installed.

In article , Andrew
writes
On 04/06/2018 08:39, Thomas Prufer wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 12:38:46 +0100, ARW
wrote:

I shall be taking a copy of that to my next asbestos awareness
course.
It's the same course every year and the guy running it has not shown us
that one.
You've done the "Asbestos 'Pure White" Fireproof Snow" Christmas
decoration?
Keep the sprogs happy and safe in a pile of asbestos?
Thomas Prufer


I grew up in Barry, South Wales.

A local scrap dealer called Dai Woodham bought up the dock
sidings where all the redundant coal hoists used to be
connected to, and when BR decommisioned all their steam locos,
he bought up hundreds and stored them in these sidings where
they would sit and rust. He only sold off the tenders for use
by the local steelworks, but didn't cut the engines up
immediately, as happened elsewhere, so many were 'saved'.

There were no fences or jobsworths in fluorescent jackets in
that era and the place was a magnet for kids. We would climb
all over the engines, and pull out the insulation around the
boiler and make 'snowballs' out of it !.
Standard job for an apprentice in Crewe works when steam engines came in
for major overhauls. Needless to say Crewe is the most unhealthy town in
leafy Cheshire.
--
bert

In article , ARW
writes
On 02/06/2018 13:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Never ever did understand the purpose of a tie. And have never worn
one
since leaving school. Except for those formal occasions when it's expected.


Weddings, funerals and court appearances then?

OK here goes.
What do you call a scouser in a suit?
--
bert

On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 21:15:01 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , ARW
writes
On 02/06/2018 13:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Never ever did understand the purpose of a tie. And have never worn
one
since leaving school. Except for those formal occasions when it's
expected.


Weddings, funerals and court appearances then?

OK here goes.
What do you call a scouser in a suit?

The word, "Defendant" springs to mind (I've heard this one before).

--
Johnny B Good

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 6/5/2018 5:39 PM, michael adams wrote:

Wouldn't there have been year round provision of an old coat or raincoat,
to be used by all members of the family, hanging on a nail somewhere ?
To cover all such eventualities ? Possibly with a copy of a days old
newspaper in the pocket to help pass the time ? To say nothing of a stub
of old pencil in another pocket, to help complete the crossword maybe.

Some people kept covered chamber pots under the bed, and emptied them in
the morning.

Out the window onto the street.

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

and where else did people go on sundays other than church,

Down the pub most likely with navvies.

If you spent a whole 5 or 6 days a week covered in mud, while earning a
good wage wouldn't you want to clean yourself up

Yes.

and wear a clean suit

Nope, stupid uncomfortable things to wear on the day off.
And stupidly expensive compared with better clothes too.

on at least one day a week ? If it was only to spend it in the pub.

I'm not actually stupid enough to wear a suit when I don’t have
to because they wont let me in unless I am wearing a suit.

One of the most stupid forms of clothing ever invented IMO.

On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 06:34:46 +1000, cantankerous geezer Rot Speed produced
yet more rot:


Some people kept covered chamber pots under the bed, and emptied them in
the morning.

Out the window onto the street.

Viable option for an incontinent senile geezer like you, eh, Rot?

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 07:03:31 +1000, cantankerous geezer Rot Speed produced
yet more rot:



I'm not actually stupid enough to wear a suit when I don¢t have
to because they wont let me in unless I am wearing a suit.

One of the most stupid forms of clothing ever invented IMO.

Yeah, the diapers you incontinent senile geezer need to use are MORE
intelligent, aren't they, Rot? LOL

Rod Speed wrote:
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

and where else did people go on sundays other than church,

Down the pub most likely with navvies.

If you spent a whole 5 or 6 days a week covered in mud, while earning a
good wage wouldn't you want to clean yourself up

Yes.

and wear a clean suit

Nope, stupid uncomfortable things to wear on the day off.
And stupidly expensive compared with better clothes too.

on at least one day a week ? If it was only to spend it in the pub.

I'm not actually stupid enough to wear a suit when I dont have
to because they wont let me in unless I am wearing a suit.

One of the most stupid forms of clothing ever invented IMO.



But very cheap to acquire in the 50s and early sixties , almost every
British serviceman leaving the forces at the end of WW2 had been issued one
as part of their civilian clothing issue as it was recognised that a
serviceman who had been away from home for a fair time especially a younger
person would no longer fit any clothes still around at home,that is if they
hadnt been reworked into other items during wartime rationing.
That same rationing still being in force would have made obtaining a set of
new clothing difficult so a set of civilian clothes was issued of which the
infamous demon suit was the main part.
Reasonable quality but lack of suitable sizes and the reluctance by some to
be seen wearing the same suit design as 1000s of others meant many saw
little use by the original owners but were available on the 2nd hand market
cheaply by those were had little money to spare on more fashionable or
practical clothing and were not too worried about being seen wearing them.

Irish Navvies of that era often fitted that category.

GH

"Marland" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:
michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

and where else did people go on sundays other than church,

Down the pub most likely with navvies.

If you spent a whole 5 or 6 days a week covered in mud, while earning a
good wage wouldn't you want to clean yourself up

Yes.

and wear a clean suit

Nope, stupid uncomfortable things to wear on the day off.
And stupidly expensive compared with better clothes too.

on at least one day a week ? If it was only to spend it in the pub.

I'm not actually stupid enough to wear a suit when I dont have
to because they wont let me in unless I am wearing a suit.

One of the most stupid forms of clothing ever invented IMO.



But very cheap to acquire in the 50s and early sixties , almost every
British serviceman leaving the forces at the end of WW2 had been issued
one as part of their civilian clothing issue as it was recognised that a
serviceman who had been away from home for a fair time especially a
younger person would no longer fit any clothes still around at home,that
is if they hadnt been reworked into other items during wartime rationing.

That same rationing still being in force would have made obtaining
a set of new clothing difficult so a set of civilian clothes was issued
of which the infamous demon suit was the main part.

We never did that here and never had labourers wear suits when working
either.

I live in the biggest irrigation area in the entire country and there are
plenty
of pictures of the irrigation canals being dug using horses and scoops and
none of the labourers are wearing suits. None of the supervisors either.

You do see some wearing suits at opening ceremonys, but that all.

Reasonable quality but lack of suitable sizes and the reluctance by some
to
be seen wearing the same suit design as 1000s of others meant many saw
little use by the original owners but were available on the 2nd hand
market
cheaply by those were had little money to spare on more fashionable or
practical clothing and were not too worried about being seen wearing them.

Irish Navvies of that era often fitted that category.

And yet few in here are wearing suits.
https://www.google.com/search?q=navvies+uk&tbm=isch

In article ,
Chris J Dixon wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Chris J Dixon wrote:

IIRC it was said that one of the TOTP directors donned a cheap
"rug" so that his shiny pate didn't stand out amongst the
teenyboppers.

The director of TOTP directed from the control room, not studio floor.

OK, not my field. Would "Floor Manager" be a more appropriate
individual?

Could be. But TOTP had a number of assistants to push the kids around to
make sure they were always where the cameras were pointing. Obviously
rather older than most of the kids in the studio. But they would generally
stay out of shot. Long time since I worked on it, though.

One director I well remember wouldn't have suited your discription. Robin
Nash. Great shock of hair, and generally 'smartly' dressed in a three
piece suit and bow tie. ;-) Quite a character.

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , ARW
writes
On 02/06/2018 13:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Never ever did understand the purpose of a tie. And have never worn
one since leaving school. Except for those formal occasions when it's
expected.


Weddings, funerals and court appearances then?

OK here goes.
What do you call a scouser in a suit?

Dead?

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 09:57:00 +1000, cantankerous geezer Rot Speed produced
yet more rot:


We never did that here and never had labourers wear suits when working
either.

"Here"? That must your old people's home where obviously nobody wants to
talk to you quarrelsome idiot ...which, again, is the reason you need to
spread your rot on these groups, Rot.

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: