web analytics

curry, or writes?

By Mike Cunningham On September 14th, 2011 at 12:00 pm

On the Today programme on Monday, we were told by Sophie Dahl, the extremely rich model , married to an even richer singer, that the Roald Dahl foundation is asking for public donations of £500,000.00 to ‘save’ her beloved Grandad’s hut where he wrote all his childrens books. Apparently the hut was never ‘built to last’ and is suffering from ‘decay’.

The plan is to demolish, very carefully, the hut; and then to transport it to a secure point inside the Roald Dahl Museum (entry £19 a pop) to save it for posterity!

Problem is, a lot of people were listening to that particular item, and many got more than a little hot under the proverbial collar, and so ‘sounded off’. One of the comments was to the effect, “They’ve got all that money, why don’t they do it all themselves?”; as well as ‘A preposterously wealthy family pleading for cash for its legacy? It sounds like a lost Dahl story!’

The best offer came from – ‘me me me over here in the corner, Hampton Court Maze behind a statue’, who wrote:-me and my mate will do it with a white van for for a monkey…….
Update:- I was wrong when writing that the shed would be transported. According to Amanda Conquy, chairman of the Roald Dahl Museum in Great Missenden, Bucks, and director of the author’s literary estate, said: “Some people are asking me questions which are not centred on the real good news, that the contents of the hut are going to be preserved and people will be able to see them.”

The hut’s contents include: the armchair in which Dahl sat as he wrote books such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, James and the Giant Peach and The BFG; the yellow legal pads imported from the US on which he wrote; his extracted hip bone; and a large ball of foil wrappers, evidence of the boiled sweets he sucked for inspiration.

They will be reassembled at the museum precisely as they were left in the hut when Dahl died in 1990, though the building itself, built in the late 1950s by his friend and snooker partner Wally Saunders – who was also the model for the BFG – will now be left to fall down. Built of a single layer of bricks, insulated by polystyrene blocks, it is thought unlikely to survive another winter.

So, they want Joe Public to cough up half-a-million smackers to ‘relocate’ everything inside, and then the hut falls down.

As another commentator once remarked, ‘Loads a’money!’


By Pete Moore On June 14th, 2011 at 2:06 pm

Oh how I wish I could have been in bed when the GOP debate was happening in New Hampshire last night. Given the need to swap emails with someone inconveniently on the other side of the world, I found myself livestreaming what was little more than a game show.

First up, the loser: by a long, long way it is CNN. Thirty seconds per answer with (IIRC) John King interrupting the moment a candidate starts speaking does not make for flow. Neither does chopping around from subject to subject. These things need a narrative for fair debate and inquiry.

Herman Cain needs an answer other than “first you have to identify the problem then deal with the problem”. Tim Pawlenty needs to stop looking like Arkan. It’s quite unsettling. Ron Paul needs a fitted suit and government needs to beware, because they all agree that government needs to get out of people’s lives.

Yes, it ought to be about the debate and the issues and not even I will make the claim Paul’s suited to the TV age, but TV has turned the challenge of choosing a president into a tv quiz. On what planet does anyone give a monkey’s whether Ron Paul prefers a Blackberry or iPhone, or Michelle Bachmann’s choice between Elvis and Johnny Cash. I can’t swear it but I’m sure King asked one of the hopeful contestants to choose between Coke and Pepsi.

Winners: who cares who goes home with the car?

Hillary Sticks Her Beak In

By ATWadmin On December 29th, 2007 at 1:30 am


I’ll pander to anyone!

Well, that didn’t take long.

Maybe Janet Reno and her crack team of super-sleuths are available.


Democrat Hillary Clinton called on Friday for an international probe of Benazir Bhutto’s killing and candidates in both parties sparred over foreign policy six days before Iowa kicks off a close presidential nominating race.

Clinton, battling rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards for the lead in Iowa, questioned the reliability of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s government after opposition leader Bhutto’s assassination.

"I don’t think the Pakistani government at this time under President Musharraf has any credibility at all," Clinton said in an interview with CNN as she campaigned across Iowa. "Therefore I am calling for a full independent international investigation."

Considering Obama threatened to invade Pakistan a couple of months ago, calling for an investigation may be a no-lose proposition.

But seriously, Pantsuit, everyone wants to know what happened.

It’s not as if you’re going out on a limb here.

And tell us, how exactly would this independent international investigation take place and under whose jurisdiction?

Bhutto’s killing on Thursday prompted candidates to flex their foreign policy muscles and, in the case of Clinton and Edwards, tout their experience. Several other Democrats leveled harsh criticism at Musharraf.



I suffered through a couple of Democrat debates and cannot honestly recall Pervez Musharraf’s name ever coming up.

Now we’re supposed to take these Democrats seriously when it comes to foreign policy and the dire situation in Pakistan and the region?


At least one sober adult weighed in.

Republican Fred Thompson, a former Tennessee senator who is lagging in Iowa polls and trying to make up ground, warned against rushing to a conclusion on Musharraf and said candidates should be more "deliberate" on Pakistan.

"I don’t think it would be a good idea to call for him to step down now," Thompson told CNN. "I hope that we as candidates out here don’t start lobbing these ideas that get plenty of attention but are not very sound."

At this point when we have several different accounts of what happened Thursday in Pakistan, it’s wholly irresponsible for presidential candidates to start sticking their noses into an investigation.

It’s to be assumed the White House and State Department are fully informed of developments. Should they choose to brief top candidates, it’s their choice.

At this time, however, Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the shameless Democrats ought to step back and stop being so reckless with our foreign policy.

After all, she and her husband’s first and foremost priority is to "repair our image" with the rest of the world, no? How exactly will that be accomplished by making reckless statements and proposing absurd ideas as a full independent international investigation?

I’ll assume some reporter might flesh this out, but word is she’s not taking any questions.



Also at JWF


Mouthing Off…Just For Attention

By ATWadmin On October 3rd, 2007 at 2:21 am

317jhaWscuL._AA115_.jpgNo……not me…Ann Coulter!

“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president.”

I’m offended! I’m a woman…and I’m definitely not voting Democrat!

But…then…here she is quoting Chesterton:

 On why global warming is religion on the left:

“Because we can’t prove them wrong for a thousand years, and I think the other thing about it is, it goes back to Chesterton’s statement: that when people stop believing in God, the problem isn’t that they believe in nothing, it’s that they’ll believe anything.”

Maybe not a dumb blond, afterall?  Or, just proof that even a blind squirrel can find a chestnut once in while?