Mec Vannin Make Believe

[Frances]

I await with interest the production of a detailed study on the constitutional situation - maybe you could put it on your blog and include where necessary either refs or transcripts of the relevant documents - you can then point out the claimed errors in various authors (Moore is on line - later histories have been criticised by others (esp Dolley) for being too populist (I guess they too felt it necessary to simplify) ) - it may well provide a useful benefit as the New History volume that covers this period has not yet appeared though I understand the volume covering the Norse period is about to appear (much new information of this period has been brought to light in the last 10 years so that volume will probably require a revision of views on that period). Obviously any professional/academic expertise you have in the area would considerably add to any credence of your work.

[staaue]

Nor does your scornful opinion of the ‘once proud Manx nation’ mean your impoverished sense of dignity which is compensated for by such scornful arrogance is shared by others.

 

You silly man, I don't have a scornful opinion of the Island. I do however recognise that due to its size and limited economic potential (in absolute terms) that it is always to some extent or another going to be economically dominated by the U.K., and that the current relationship we have with the U.K. is overall not that bad. We have a fair amount of autonomy in terms of the budget and choosing who heads our (in your own words) Quisling government, so it's difficult to see just how we are subjugated other than in your own view.

 

this does not mean that others with a truer sense of their Norse-Gael heritage share your opinion

 

And thus we discover the wellspring of your fervour: a misplaced notion of "heritage" that's been hammered into something vaguely resembling an identity, and one that's dominant characteristic is at best one step removed from ancestor worship - in other words, the frustration of some celt fanboy who's found to his disappointment that his ancestors didn't spend all their time coming up with jaunty poetry and slaughtering the English.

 

I'll say this much: It is very unlikely you have any true sense of "Norse-Gael" heritage. That identity was long diluted and faded by external influences and the passage of time before even our grandparents were born. That of course isn't to say that there isn't a certain "Manxness" that owes something of its character to this heritage, but what actually remains of it is but a very vague remnant. What you have instead is closer to a hat load of romantic notions. I don't know if you've read through the excellent Manx Notebook that's online, but one of the defining characterists of the Manx that always seems to be mentioned in accounts of the Island is a general apathy (perhaps to the point of complacency) when it comes to politics and change, so if you really want to embrace your heritage you should probably stop caring about all this toss about independence and constitutional matters.

 

This kind of debate goes on and on doesn't it, especially when individuals think it's all about point scoring??? Vinnie, you're playground tactics and repetitive bitchiness is really none conducive to a healthy debate. If the contents of this debate interest you, then weigh up the pro's and con's in an intellectual manner; if you have something that is going to contribute, other than your own bias 'Sostnagh' opinion of what everyone should believe, then by all means contribute. If all you are going to do is blurt how delusional someone is, then shut up fool; you're coming across as a very disrespectful individual who obviously doesn't understand the issues in hand.

 

So you don't give a toss about our heritage (you are a minority mate), yet you claim to have an interest in your own countries constitutional status with our country? I bet you're not that interested in our links with Ireland or elsewhere. Don't respond to that, I'm not that interested either.

 

Skeddan has given some interesting points for us to debate, have a little respect.

 

Yes, and I will crush all who oppose me with intimidation tactics and groundless accusations, following the example of the beloved church.

 

Say's it all doesn't it Vinnie

[Freggyragh]

Poor old Vinnie - gone through the education system and learnt bugger all about his own people's history, language and culture, because it wasn't on the curriculum - so can't contribute much beyond insults and snide to the debate - though I bet he could add something to a debate about English history, language and culture, and as a result, he lives in England. Governor Loch - mission accomplished.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Though I think Vinniek is completely correct in summing up Manx heritage in this way. People with too strong a sense of nationalism (and too strong a sense isn't much in my view) never reflect upon the more negative aspects of their heritage, as for example those mentioned by VinnieK.

 

Poor old Vinnie - gone through the education system and learnt bugger all about his own people's history, language and culture, because it wasn't on the curriculum - so can't contribute much beyond insults and snide to the debate - though I bet he could add something to a debate about English history, language and culture, and as a result, he lives in England. Governor Loch - mission accomplished.

 

What do you mean by this, because nobody has gone through the Manx education system and learnt Manx history?

[Lonan3]

So you don't give a toss about our heritage (you are a minority mate),

No, he most certainly is not. The vast majority of people who live on our island - regardless of their origins - 'don't give a toss' about it's heritage. Occasionally, when something they particularly like is under threat (such as horse trams/Queen's Pier etc) they will suddenly begin to bleat about it but, for the most part, they wouldn't have a clue about the island's history.

Personally, my own knowledge is extremely 'sketchy' - and even that is probably giving myself more credit than I'm really due - and I've found that the young people who are taught Manx history today find it so insufferably boring that most of them lose interest very quickly.

[Albert Tatlock]

Heritage usually represents all those symbols and artefacts that culture uses, along with the learned and shared patterns the population demonstrate when living their lives, in order to define itself. In other words you would think Manx culture needed Manx heritage in order to exist. However, I would say the reality is that the Manx culture that WAS needed it, the Manx culture of today does not.

 

In terms of heritage, we clearly have everything physical here from: our own flag, to pre-historic sites, the Vikings, and even Victorian archaelogy such as old tram lines and Queens pier etc. But what is Manx culture really about these days? Can it be summed up by a throw away phrase like 'Freedom to flourish'? Who are the 'Manx' people, or people 'from the Isle of Man', these days?

 

When the majority of the population were born Manx in the 60s, 70s and 80s, the Manx culture that I always knew seemed so easily defined, and much of it through the heritage here. I could easily state the numerous differences between the island and the UK, and was proud of those differences. I felt we were independent in many ways, and that our refusal to adopt many elements of the English way of life protected us from much of the poor influences and behaviours we are now seeing on the island. The way we went about things hadn't changed for many years.

 

IMO, that Manx culture has all but gone, and the rest of it is rapidly dissapearing as the island: adopts more and more UK legislation; adopts more former UK and other residents; and allows many of the differences that once made us unique when compared to the UK to dissapear. In many ways I feel we have given too much control and influence to English culture and other cultures (e.g. U.S.), mainly through trying to ensure that they, and others in the world, accept our finance sector. In some areas this has been a good thing, because it has allowed our economy to interlink and compete with the rest of the world and allowed many of us to prosper. In some areas it has been a bad thing, as for example we adopt more and more legislation, adopt more and more immigrants, and hand over more and more once private information, that effectively makes us just another English county.

 

At present, IMO one culture is actively and busily replacing another, whilst ignoring much of the heritage, because though it is nice to look at, that heritage is simply not important enough to that culture to impact its takeover. That new culture to me is mainly business driven led by a beurocracy of people from that outside culture, with too many people from that culture being allowed to call the shots - whilst people from the original culture are simply too thick or scared to limit it e.g. how many MHKs really understand finance, when most are more concerned with talking trivia in the papers? The fact is, 'Freedom to flourish' is about nothing more than money and business, even if an element of it is making money out of heritage.

 

I believe that many of the immigrants attracted to live on the island also liked many elements of the old culture and would not want them to dissapear. I do believe there is a compromise, and that not all of our unique differences have to be handed over to please others outside of the island, nor just to make the new immigrants here more comfortable by bringing in their own culture. I don't want to live in 'just another English County', and I think we need to review just what we are doing, especially in terms of adopting legislation, and assess legislation far more stringently in terms of how it will affect Manx culture, otherwise before you know it Westminster will have far too much say, and through such legislation we will end up finally losing the TT and what other little differences we have.

 

We need to redefine Manx culture - what we think it is, and what we think it should be - and act accordingly to protect it, primarily through a far more rigourous assessment of legislation. Our failure to do so will make us all miserable in the future IMO.

[staaue]

So you don't give a toss about our heritage (you are a minority mate),

No, he most certainly is not. The vast majority of people who live on our island - regardless of their origins - 'don't give a toss' about it's heritage.

 

Regardless of their origins????? Nobody is interested in that aspect of the populous. They have little to contribute and history tells us that they won't contribute in a manner that is conducive to our culture.

 

I have family members who have the same attitude as yours. Can I ask why you think like this????

 

I know people who think they're Manks, because they were brought up here or their parents moved here prior to them being born etc, they have no history here and so it is understandable why they have the attitude they do not giving a toss.

 

When I speak to Manks people/families who have a financial link (Family business or working in the finance/gov't sectors) to the finance sector, that same attitude comes through. Not surprising really and I can't help but feel sad for them. But I try to respect their opinion and expect them to do the same.

 

What I do find hard to swallow, is how every time those of us who are interested in debating such issues, we are continuously put down with a negative slant; either by English, Anglo-Manks or worst of all - our English loving brethren.

 

Even though I'm an atheist, I still understand why spirituality is good for a person, even though I hate what religion has done to cultures in the past; I would never in a million years go on a forum to slag their beliefs off. Even though I believe strongly that the world will never move forward until we see an end to what I believe is the humans inability to believe we are nothing of significance in this great big universe. I don't debate it as I know I am dealing with peoples mind sets and conditional programming etc.. Its too powerful to change with words.

 

My point, if it isn't obvious, is leave subjects that interest you alone, when you have nothing but negativity to add. Posters are happy to hear peoples opinions, they just find it hard to be positive when some people seem to enjoy putting a negative twist on a debate to ruin it or control it to their own ends. By definition, (and I'm guilty of this myself at times on the subject of nationality and negative feedback) being negative creates a bad taste in the mouths of participants who can see so plainly that this person is lacking the skills needed to convey their message constructively.

 

Isn't ignorance bliss eh... or is it bigotry????

[Skeddan]

The vast majority of people who live on our island - regardless of their origins - 'don't give a toss' about it's heritage.

….

for the most part, they wouldn't have a clue about the island's history.

Personally, my own knowledge is extremely 'sketchy' - and even that is probably giving myself more credit than I'm really due - and I've found that the young people who are taught Manx history today find it so insufferably boring that most of them lose interest very quickly.

 

Lonan3, I don't entirely disagre with you.

 

I have no idea what Manx history is being taught to young people. I would imagine it is something along the lines of: “IoM was sometimes a nuisance and sometimes a plaything for English Kings who were its masters. It was given away and taken back lots of times, until finally the Crown decided to take it back once and for all, and now everyone is much better off.”

 

Yawn.

 

If you call what I imagine is being taught in schools ‘Manx heritage’, it’s no wonder most people don’t give a toss. It’s junk. It just says Manx have no identity apart from England. It's muddled, it's bunk, and it is insufferably boring, and it certainly wouldn’t engage young people in feeling any positive sense of who they are and where they come from - their 'heritage'. It just teaches that they and their country are ‘subservients’, so most will then prefer to identify with the UK or feel disaffected. (There’s a great scene in 'Trainspotting' when the junkies are talking about how the Scots have always been second-rate to the English - which IMO is the dramatic core of the movie).

 

It’s a shame really. I imagine schools teach nothing about how IoM was a center of learning in earliest times, was never part of the Roman Empire, but lived peacefully with Rome, about how knowledge and learning was kept in IoM and Ireland in the Dark Ages and spread to Europe through monasteries, bringing art and culture to France and Italy; Nothing about the treacherous English massacre of the Manx at Ronaldsway in 1275, about how the infant Manx princess was taken captive by her wicked uncle who was the crony of the devious Edward I; Nothing about how a Manx king defeated an English king and won his crown by right of conquest at the Battle of Bosworth, and then gave it to the rightful English successor so establishing the Tudor dynasty, or how Manx kings were patrons of poets and playwrights such as Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare, or about the role played by Manx in bringing about the American War of Independence, or about…

 

for the most part, they wouldn’t have a clue about the island’s history.

 

That’s sad. The first lesson is take away a nation’s history, you take away it’s identity.

[Frances]

I have no idea what Manx history is being taught to young people.

...

I would imagine it is something along the lines of:

...

is this from the same text book as gives the Island floating on a sea of oil and gas being siphoned off by the English or is it more soundly based

 

The first Manx History book for Manx Schools was written by A W Moore c. 1900

 

In the last decade there have been many information packs put out by Manx National Heritage for use in schools, as others may confirm there is a considerable increase in Manx Language classes (they are widely available), all primary schools seem to run trips to various sites, the Museum provides help for any teacher who asks (even my own site's CD is freely given to any teacher who asks for it)

[VinnieK]

I never said I didn't give a toss about the Island's heritage. Why, I positively adore cregneash and those funny chaps who stand outside Castle Rushen in the olde worlde costumes.

 

Poor old Vinnie - gone through the education system and learnt bugger all about his own people's history, language and culture, because it wasn't on the curriculum... though I bet he could add something to a debate about English history, language and culture, and as a result, he lives in England. Governor Loch - mission accomplished.

 

That's quite true, actually. All these years I was kidding myself that I was living in England because it offered the opportunites I wanted to persue, but now I realise it's just because I've been made an outcast in my own home by my education Now I finally realise that knowing the intricacies of Manx history and being able to have merry chit chats in Manx about how magnificent being Manx is would more than compensate for not being able to do what I want to do in life.

 

- so can't contribute much beyond insults and snide to the debate -

 

It'd probably be wise to remember that you've contributed precisely bollocks all to it other than alternating between insults and snide remarks and acting as Skeddan's cheerleader. In fact, lets stop beating around the bush, shall we? There has been no debate worthy of the name. Skeddan came in with a dull attack on Mec Vannin because they deviate from his own ideal of nationalism, thus followed a lot of empty bluster trying to justify his bizarre rhetoric about subjugation, quislings and plunder (the one potentially major example of which being the claims regarding the EEZ, which have now been retracted!) and wrangling over rights of succession and the like, all to the sound of stauue and yourself giddly clapping along like dim children being entertained with some tin foil. I admit that at first I felt vaguely guilty at first about derailing a discussion with flippancy, until, that is, it became clear there was no discussion - merely the usual nationalist braying and distortions of history.

 

Illustrative of this is Skeddan's latest post. I can't imagine anyone attempting to write "how Manx kings were patrons of poets and playwrights such as Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare, or about the role played by Manx in bringing about the American War of Independence" without bursting into a fit of the giggles. That's it is it, Skeddan? So amongst other reasons for pride in our nation are:

 

1. Being ruled by English noblemen who also happened to fund English playwrights who even then had far more prominant patrons contributing more to their success.

 

2. Being perhaps the second least important factor in the American revolution after stinging nettles.

 

As for the other distortions, magnifications, and examples of sheer lunacy:

 

1. IoM was a center of learning in earliest times

 

I think Athens has us beat. Along with Alexandia, Rome, China, India, most places in fact

 

2. knowledge and learning was kept in IoM and Ireland in the Dark Ages and spread to Europe through monasteries, bringing art and culture to France and Italy

 

No where teaches this. And why? Because it's largely rubbish. The Isle of Man's role in the renaissance was somewhere between negligeable to nothing. The Renaissance primarily began to take off after the reconquest of spain, during which a great deal of texts (including ancient greek) were captured from the retreating Moors (the Islamic nations being the most scientifically and culturally advanced at the time), and this process accelerated during the crusades. Indeed it is the Islamic preservation of (and improvement on) classical European texts to which Western Europe owes its renaissance, and although it's true that a number fine works were also discovered in European monastries, the vast majority of these (and the better ones at that) were concentrated in continental Europe itself, not on some isolated outpost on the fringe of western Europe. As for talk of indepence from Rome, well, this might be impressive if they'd attempted to conquer us, but I hardly think being more or less ignored by a superpower is much claim to fame

 

These examples of distortion, romanticism and dishonesty with the historical record demonstrate exactly why I dislike nationalism of the kind that's been promoted here. It's bad enough that we aren't good enough now, that we are apparently less valuable members of society for our deviation from a dimly recalled (including amongst nationalists) ancient Manx identity, but even the very past that nationalists claim as their own and seek to revive isn't good enough for them. Instead they're forced to exagerrate and inflate the Island's historical importance to satisfy their own desire for glory and honour by proxy, doing so to proportions so ludicrous that they only undermine their own claims of pride and national dignity.

 

The fact is, Skeddan, you're not proud of Manx heritage. If you were you wouldn't have to rely on preposterous claims such as the Island being the crucible of democracy, or the like, to bolster your pride with; indeed, the sense of disappointment in the Island is palpable in nearly every last one of your posts. The simple fact is this: the Island has always existed on the very margins of world history. It has its own local history, which is interesting and worthy of study, but if you feel the need to then force it into a position of prominence in events such as the Renaissance then you're not just a fool, but one who detests his own history and who insults the memory of his predecessors by the unspoken admission that their lives aren't on their own merits worth your interest or pride, prefering to substitute and embellish them with an embarassing fantasy.

[triskelion]

We need to redefine Manx culture - what we think it is, and what we think it should be - and act accordingly to protect it, primarily through a far more rigourous assessment of legislation. Our failure to do so will make us all miserable in the future IMO.

 

Okay, so you think that culture can be mainly defined by legislation? I'm sure it has an effect, but I don't see culture as something that can be controlled. Do you think that it is the adoption of UK legislation that is the determinant of "Manx Culture?" Surely the fact the the Island is exposed to so many different cultures through TV, radio, newspapers, music, film, the internet, holidays, university, immigrants (especially teachers), the development of new areas on employment, new types of food and drink, clothing.

 

In my time as history undergraduate, I've found that cultural characteristics usually have pragmatic origins. For example, in John Quirk's The Manx Connection, members of the Manx societies he meets tell him that the reason the Manx did so well was that they were a thrifty bunch and very hard-working, with the latter being backed up to a large degree with the personal accounts Quirk includes. Now, I would interpret these cultural aspects as being the result of the difficult economic situation that such people experienced on the Island prior to their departure. This is supported by several of those who went to America saying that to get a job in those days you pretty much had to wait for someone to die.

 

Trying to define and protect a "Manx Culture" is, I think, counter-productive in many ways. I totally agree with maintaining a sense of history and heritage, and applaud those groups that strive to keep alive things like the Manx language and Manx dancing. However, the only way you preserve a culture is by shutting out others, or by ensuring that your culture is something others admire and aspire to.

 

So then, I guess I agree with you in the sense that the Island shouldn't just copy what the UK is doing, though the UK isn't exactly doing everything wrong. Instead, I think it should looking around the World to find solutions to issues like immigration, the rising cost of caring for an aging population. We need an legislature that is more pro-active (terrible term I know, but anyway) and decides to do things like update the driving test for the 21st century by requiring people to be able to handle a car at speed, or in difficult conditions or at night and to have at least basic knowledge of how to maintain their vehicle. Or instead of paying out fuel allowance every year, invests in insulating those homes so that the vulnerable do not need to use so much fuel. Etc, etc, etc.

 

So, Mr Tatlock, though I don't agree with you that legislation is a major factor in defining culture, we do need a Government more willing to think for itself.

[Skeddan]

Frances, I do know the secondary sources such as Moore Parr etc. However these are sometimes very shonky as may be gathered when one looks at the foundation of their information and refers back to primary sources.

 

What I said I imagined might be the kind of thing taught was in part paraphrasing an academic publication on the Isle of Man ("Isle of Man, Celebrating a Sense of Place" Vaughan Robinson, Danny McCarroll, Liverpool University Press 1990, p.125, in the chapter 'The Isle of Man Constitution'):

 

“The Island seems to have been alternatley a nuisance and a plaything for its masters; at times ignored, at other times passed as a gift to temporary favourites such as Piers Gaveston”

 

This same sort of stuff is in Moore, Blundell, Parr's Abstracts, and all over the place - reiterating the idea that Gaveston, Beaumont and others were granted the sovereignty by Kings of England like some kind of plaything. I would imagine that they might teach that if they cover this period - given it recurs in most of the published histories.

 

The trouble is half of it is based on make-believe, fiction, fancy and muddleheadedness, and the other half based on failure to appreciate historical facts and fundamental legal principles. If need be I'd be quite happy to show you that it did not pass as a gift to either Piers Gaveston or Henry de Beaumont contra to what is so often claimed (and which you might think may be substantiated simply by citing authorities with references - even though these ultimately have no solid foundation).

 

If the history being taught is being provided by Manx National Heritage, then that's even more of a worry. Here is an example of the calibre of 'scholarship' that one finds:

 

“By 1405, England had gained control of Mann and a grateful Henry IV granted kingship of the Island to Sir John Stanley after his intervention at the Battle of Bosworth.”

 

http://www.gov.im/mnh/heritage/story/kingslords.xml

 

I hope you will not try to argue for time warp distortions of 80 years taking place to justify this nonsense.

[Frances]

I don't believe Moore repeats this which actually is found in Camden 1695 "Afterwards King Edward the Second passed a grant thereof unto his minion, Piers Gaveston, what time as he created him Earle of Cornwall; and when the said Piers was rid out of the way, hee gave it unto Henry Beaumont, " - the whole chronology is expressly queried by Cumming in his notes www.manxnotebook.com//manxsoc/msvol01/notes2.htm which dates from the 1850's - I have no idea why the Liverpool book reprinted it except that it was a throwaway remark in an introduction to the Manx Constitution by Robert Quayle (for whom I can find no other academic paper)

 

If you want to debate history giving refs then fine - the Liverpool book is mainly a Geologists & Geographers book not an attempt at a serious history of the Island (as they say in the intro it arose from introductory field notes for students of these two disciplines)

 

The MNH is a five paragraph ovierview - grossly simplified to fit in the space but I agree Bosworth has no connection here - I don't know the author of this little paper but obviously they hadn't checked their dates as it was given to his grandfather Sir John as he was granted the Lordship of Man in return for his help in suppressing the rebellion in Wales led by the Percies.

 

I'm not debating that there are many errors in general circulation (eg where did you get the gas/oil field info from - did you check it before repeating it several times ?) but serious academic histories are usuaally peer reviwed to avoid howlers such as the MNH (which was really an intro to Castle Rushen)

[Skeddan]

I don't believe Moore repeats this

 

In A.W.Moore Supplement to History of the Isle of Man, Gaveston is listed among the Governors together with Beaumont / Bello Monte:

 

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/pe...rnors/index.htm

 

The supposed grant to Gaveston is also found in Blundell, Parr's abstracts, and elsewhere apart from Camden, as is the supposed idea that Beaumont had the sovereignty by grant from Edward II.

 

So the Liverpool University book, Blundell, Parr, Moore etc. aside, are you saying that it is accepted that IoM did not pass by grant to Gaveston or Beaumont? Is there an up to date scholarly publication that corrects these errors and this is now accepted? If so I'd appreciate the reference to this work. Otherwise am I right to assume that this junk history is still being peddled?

 

 

was given to his grandfather Sir John as he was granted the Lordship of Man in return for his help in suppressing the rebellion in Wales led by the Percies.

 

What evidence do you have to support your assertion that this was granted in return for his help in suppression the rebellion? Is it simply someone's surmise and conjecture - yours or someone elses? I know of nothing in the primary sources which states this to be the case.

 

 

howlers such as the MNH (which was really an intro to Castle Rushen)

 

The webpage this is on is titled "Kings and Lords of Mann" and is part of the "Story of Mann" on the Isle of Man Government website, and headed as 'Official website of the Manx National Heritage Agency'. It is not just an intro to the Castle Rushen - it is telling the story of IoM, and given in an official government publication. It is the kind of place people look to get a basic historical overview, and which given the status and remit of MNH would suggest that this should be authoratative and has been properly edited. I don't think it can be excused so easily as you seem to think.

 

You say there have been "many information packs put out by Manx National Heritage for use in schools" and reassure that "serious academic histories are usuaally peer reviwed" - is this meant to be reassuring that MNH have these information packs peer reviewed, or that the material for the local schools goes through a more rigorous editorial process than the official webpage published on the world wide web?

[Freggyragh]

 

 

 

2. knowledge and learning was kept in IoM and Ireland in the Dark Ages and spread to Europe through monasteries, bringing art and culture to France and Italy

 

No where teaches this. And why? Because it's largely rubbish.

 

Vinnie - from the New York Times Review of 'How the Irish Saved Civilisation' by Thomas Cahill.:

 

'In this delightful and illuminating look into a crucial but little-known "hinge" of history, Thomas Cahill takes us to the "island of saints and scholars," the Ireland of St. Patrick and the Book of Kells. Here, far from the barbarian despoliation of the continent, monks and scribes laboriously, lovingly, even playfully preserved the West's written treasury. When stability returned in Europe, these Irish scholars were instrumental in spreading learning, becoming not only the conservators of civilization, but also the shapers of the medieval mind, putting their unique stamp on Western culture.'

 

For 'Irish' here you can read 'Gael', because it was not just about Ireland - (Old Irish is much closer to Modern Manx than Chaucer's English is to Modern English). Mannin was a major centre of Gaelic education - where kings sent their children to be educated. Strange to believe - but the monks tucked away in all those little keeills were indeed preserving Western Civilization - and then going to establish monastries in England, France and Italy..

 

Vinnie K, it is sad you seem to know nothing of this. No doubt you will now try and deny it ever happened, or call me silly for thinking it is of any importance. I am not a cheerleader for Skeddan - but he does at least know what he is talking about. I am in broad agreement with Albert and Staaue - except that I don't have any problems with immigrants.