[sherlock holmes] adventure of what?

Racking the brain trying to remember the Holmes story in which the events I'll describe took place. The thing is, it might have been one of Poirot's but I simply can't remember. I know that the man who tried to help had a partner, so that could be either Watson or Hastings.

Can you help me? Here's the plot, as briefly as I can put it:

Someone, possibly the mother, comes to Holmes [?] asking him to intervene - the daughter has got herself into the clutches of a charming rogue and the mother wants to stop the match. She's tried everything - reason, persuasion, threats, all to no avail of course.

Once a girl gets it into her head that a bad man is interested in her, something romantic turns her head so that reason flies out the window and the more the pressure is applied, the harder she digs her heels in and clings to him.

In this case, the rogue, [whose motivation I'm not entirely sure of - maybe he can't help consuming girls and spitting them out], has schooled her in all the possible people who'll come at her and what they'll say about him.

He explains everything about every possible incident [the ones which could possibly arise, that is] and puts his own slant on it. You know the type of thing - sitting on the edge of the settee, hands clutching, head bowed gravely and her young heart goes out to him.

Sure enough, they do come to her one by one and she "receives" them politely but haughtily.

"Yes, James warned me you would visit, so let me assure you, Mr. H, there is nothing you could possibly add to the wrongful slurs which have already been meted out to my James, the noblest man who ever walked the earth," etc. etc.

Impossible.

Another young woman accosts the silly young thing and in very direct language explains just what a womanizing beast "her James" really is. Same result. Head in the air:

"Yes, well, I can see how the machinations of a woman such as you and an earnest desire to malign and sully the reputation of …" etc.

Call in Holmes.

He has some failures and then hits on the only way. They purloin the rogue's personal diary and leave it where the girl will find it.

Game set and match.

In that diary were all his secret perversions, the way he womanizes for his own all-consuming need and so on. Relationship off and the rogue finally exposed.

So, if you can remember the story, please tell me. I'd be interested to read it again. Thanks.

[tents] fun in the rain

Tents have been the butt of jokes since time immemorial.

We had a super-duper arrangement at the beach, 18x12, with a complicated double awning arrangement over the top, 24x24, which required near scaffolding being erected and can you imagine all the lines and pegs?

My mother was never really mechanical. My father was. You can also imagine the altercations as he'd holler some instruction from a distance which my mother would completely misunderstand and as I was holding the Barnum and Bailey's centre-pole inside, I was the one with the tent collapsing all over him.

Oh, we then had carpets stretched out the front to "privatize" the space which led to the only passage to the beach, through the shrubbery for fifty metres either way and only sometimes did a foolhardy member of the public cross all the cunningly deployed guy lines and cross our hallowed carpet, to the intense glare of my mother.

Once the damned thing was up and running, once all the trenches had been dug around the tent, leading the runoff to a safer place, once my boat was parked at the front and the water, ice and everything else had been brought in, it was great for weeks, seabreeze, fresh air and so on.

Until it rained, of course.

That's why I had to laugh when reading Alice B's account of her experiences vis a vis tents. You remember Alice from the vandals who broke up her "glasshouse" teepee on her allotment.

What is it with tents? Folding poles and water resistant fabrics were invented quite a while ago now, surely it’s not that difficult to design something that basically works. It seems unlikely that people design tents who have never actually camped, but when I thought about getting a new one and saw the way some of them are made I started imagining them improvising budget versions of the product testing machines on those Ikea adverts.

“This tent is fully waterproof to 2000mm hydro static head (the recommended use for the UK is only 1500)” it said. “Abrasion, mildew and ultraviolet resistant” it said. “Fly sheet – 70 Denier Polyester (190T Threads per square inch)” . Very nice.

Cut to me lying in said tent in a muddy field, a very long way from the nearest central heating, curled around the edge with a plastic bag in the middle to catch the steady drips running straight into the tent from the ventilation mesh right in the top.

I can feel every drop, Alice.

[watch carefully] don't be lulled

Lord Nazh, he of the Longshanks' diluted blood and womanizer of royalty, has consistently said the American people wouldn't buy it and there'd be insurrection; Beach Girl said it was already underway.

What are we referring to? To the CFR plan to merge Mexico, Canada and the United States into one state, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, controlled by the NAAC [the CFR, in other words]. Details for those born on Mars are here. As you can see, it's already a done deal with the three Presidents agreeing to it on March 23rd, 2005.

One of the main whistleblowers, Matt of Buckeye Thoughts, now says this:

We're trying to figure out what the hell to do to stop the NAU but as I was telling my best friend (to whom I lent the Corsi book today), it's not going to happen. Sure, they might be able to get some stuff in but the "Grand Compromise" failure was the nail in the coffin.

No American will stand for it!

That was the first time I can remember in my twenty years of life on this planet of an issue touching such a raw nerve with the American public. If any politician tries this (in secret or in open, it's starting to get out, btw, slowly but surely), they will get smited so fast they won't be able to blink.

It might look like we're going down from the outside, but Corsi's book is starting to make a splash. People are starting to learn the truth. The US, Canada, and Mexico will stay sovereign. The citizens of each country will see to it, peacefully. If our gov'ts refuse to listen to us, then force will be used and they will listen.

Count on it!

Now I don't give a damn about being wrong. Don't you know I'm praying to be wrong and Lord Nazh right? Don't you see that I was pushing the issue ad nauseam just to bring it to the public eye, over our way.

Dear Matt and Lord Nazh - don't you boys realize the thing will be done surreptitiously, slice by slice, under different names, never becoming a constitutional issue, never becoming an issue before the election, only after?

I don't think you boys have cottoned on yet to the amazing persistence of these people. Look one more time at Senator Jenning's comment before the U.S. Senate on February 23rd, 1954:

The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is underway.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is not even a new idea:

October 28, 1939 - John Foster Dulles [later U.S. Secretary of State] proposes that America lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.

The key words were "without our suspecting the change is underway". You're not even going to know it's happened. You guys are much closer to the action than I and you are Americans after all and I'm not. That gives you way more authority than me to write on this.

And yet ... and yet ...

[krazy for kate] my future queen

Sisters doin' it for themselves. Queen Kate tests the waters.

All right, I admit it - I have a thing for the future Queen of England and this sort of comment by Wolfie,alleging the less than nice side of Kat … er … Kate, is entirely uncalled for:

We bumped into Kate and Wills over dinner way back in 2005, just before their relationship was made public. I was of the opinion that she was a good catch for William but my wife (then my fiancée) disagreed, and to be honest I tend to listen to her on these matters because she has this amazing built-in bitch detector which never seems to fail in its accuracy.

Apparently on a trip to the bathroom during the evening there was one of those “women sizing each other up”/”evil eye” moments between Miss Middleton and my somewhat amused wife, which seems quite bizarre considering she was clearly romantically involved with me and seven years her senior.

Sigh - doesn't she hold a mean paddle?

So, I launched into a spirited defence of Lady Middleton:

I don't understand why everyone's down on Kate Middleton. Is the average blogger down on her because the media also is? And how did that come about? What did she do which was so wrong?

… only to receive this in the comments, from another Lady:

I think this lady doth protest too much, I don't think she has had a hard time. [Ellee]

But not everyone agrees. Lady Mutterings and Meanderings defended the chewing gum princess ... but at the expense of the family she's marrying into:

I think the poor girl is well shot of the lot of them. We do not live in the sort of society depicted in a Jane Austen novel. Those who criticise the Middletons for lack of class are pompous oafs who lack class themselves. Anyway, I reckon William's losing his looks already ...

And was this entirely necessary, Lady Welshcakes?

I think she should thank her lucky stars that she has not married into that most dysfunctional of families.

... and Sir Tom, you may have waxed lyrical here but I don't think this entirely clears the air:

William seems a sensible guy - not difficult by comparison with his barking mad Dad. He has the free will to be Free Will if he wants.

But Lady Mutterings and Meanderings is not convinced of our Kate's newsworthiness:

But why was the break-up of their romance the top story on the BBC TV news? That's not right ...

Kate - she might be up that creek but she sure has a paddle.

To which the Minnesotan, erstwhile New Yorker, producer of Little C, Lady Ruthie, had to ask:

An even more pertinent question, Mutterings and Meanderings, might be: "Why was the story of their breakup the top story in a mid-sized American city in Minnesota?" I mean, good heavens ... But, um... as long as we're on the topic... how does one go about meeting an eligible prince?

... to which some desperate hopeful called james higham replied:

There are plenty of us about.

Anyway, to the present Konundrum about Kate by that authoritative, serious news source, the Daily Mail, who kindly supplied the pics I swiped for "reasonable usage" and they point out:

Kate Middleton has been forced to pull out of her Channel boat race - a clear indication that her romance with Prince William is officially on again. After all the ballyhoo about her joining the Sisterhood, a 21-strong female crew of a Chinese dragon boat, and weeks of training on the Thames, I can reveal she has abruptly dropped out, leaving her fellow amateur rowers high and dry.

Officially her decision was taken because of security fears that her high-profile presence might jeopardise the safety of the other girls. But I understand she was ordered to drop out by royal aides who fear Kate's continued role was in danger of becoming a major media event.

So there you have it. Kate's back [hoorah!] and the greatly missed Tin Drummer is pleased that she's finally being treated as the Queen she will be:

I am a kind of instinctive monarchist and I'd like William to be a good King one day but I don't want people associated with him to be hounded every time they step out the door.

Perhaps an American visitor, Lord Nazh, should have the final word:

I'd buy her lunch ... maybe dinner ...

"Need some more gum, mum?"

"Don't you start!"

Sometimes I'm just a big poop head, as Lady M pointed out:

"GET OVER TO MY BLOG and PICK UP YOUR AWARD and stop crying on Welshcakes shoulder over at her blog, you big poop head!"

Welshcakes and JMB's comments were unprintable, due mainly to the fact that they were e-mailed.

I can report that the wounds have been bound, the tears dried and the instructions dutifully obeyed, [as you can see by the pic]. Feeling frightfully braced and ready for the fray.

[local politics] not only for brits

Non-Brit readers won't know who the heck these people are or even what the issue is but what you will recognize is the attitude. The attitude behind these Tin G-ds. I reprint in full:

In tonight’s Shropshire Star (only a couple of weeks after sending it!) …

Unitary proposal shows contempt for opinion

When Shropshire County Council first proposed abolishing local councils and replacing them with a single sub-regional unitary authority, people said they didn’t want it. Three of the five districts under threat held referenda and all three referenda rejected the idea of one council for Shropshire.

The county council, however, showed its utter contempt for public opinion by not only continuing with its bid but submitting its proposal to central government on the day one of the referenda results were due to be announced.

Stuart Parr
Telford (West Midlands No! Campaign)

I think all of us can relate to this.