Do You Speak 'Olde Worlde'? BBC's 'Versailles'

Even his nightclothes look fabulous: Louis and Philippe

BBC’s Versailles, fun but quite often unintentionally funny.

My original review of Versailles is here. This is a humorous look at the worst of its dialogue, more proof I’m afraid that the writing in Versailles is genuinely ‘olde worlde’ by which I mean completely inauthentic, someone’s strange idea of how people used to speak in the past, evidently in the belief that back then, no one made much sense and no one much cared. It’s starting to remind me very much of Jessie Burton’s The Miniaturist, which is not a good thing. See my review here. ITV’s Victoria accomplishes this far better and with more credibility and with an equally attractive cast - I'm not sure why The Crown wins awards but not Victoria.

The cast struggle manfully to deliver lines, which surely by the law of averages, some at least must realise are pure nonsense.

The second series didn’t have to do much to send the press apoplectic, with newspapers disgusted by a so-called five-in-a-bed orgy scene. Hmm. I say that if there are several people in one bed but they’re not doing anything, that’s a sleepover not an orgy. Am I the only one who was disappointed? Then, as a woman, I’m a bit annoyed by the excessive female nudity with poor Madame Montespan (Anna Brewster) hardly ever permitted to put a stitch on while the men are usually fully dressed, with their dignity intact or if naked, are shot from artful angles from the rear.

Semi-gratuitous Shemar Moore

But back to my point. I don’t want to cast aspersions but I think the same writers, Simon Mirren (Helen's nephew) and David Wolstencroft, are possibly responsible for some equally daft and meaningless lines in Criminal Minds, where we’re expected to believe that the supposedly super-intelligent (Dr Spencer) Reid (Matthew Gray Gubler) doesn’t realise what he’s actually said, eg of Halloween:

It rivals only Christmas in terms of popularity

which means it doesn't rival anything else but Christmas when what he means is that Christmas is its only rival. And don't get me started on 'in terms of' – that's a whole other blog.

Then we have Rossi (Joe Mantegna) saying of an ‘unsub’ (anyone else hate that? why not just say perpetrator or suspect – we have the words, we just need to use them), who bludgeons his victims to death, gouges their eyes out and keeps them as souvenirs:

I got a bad feeling about this guy.

Me: No kidding.
 What an amazing insight. I don't think you need any special skills to be sure that this ‘unsub’ is bad news.

Rossi: He no doubt has issues.

Me, in imitation of Leroy Gibbs (Mark Harmon) in NCIS: Ya think?

The only excuse for Criminal Minds is the presence of the talented and easy on the eye Shemar Moore as Morgan. 

But back to Versailles, which despite all its flaws, is still immensely enjoyable. The locations and costumes are gorgeous. I just wish that they would get some help on the script.

Errors often arise out of a desire to sound deep, mysterious, wise, authentic and almost always, no, always, have the exact opposite effect.

The writers are inordinately fond of the word ‘emanate’, hence:

Why are the utterances that emanate from your mouth so critical of the king?

Ouch, listen to that again: ‘the utterances that emanate’. And

How many words are emanating from your mouth?

A fan painting*

Particularly adept at managing this dreadful twaddle is the talented George Blagden (Louis XIV). He delivers it with such conviction, it almost makes sense:

Why are you casting all this rage at me?

Honestly, it’s enough to make you want to cast some rage at someone.

Do you have my back, brother?

We’re not in some modern action flick, guys.

I don’t mind the writers updating the dialogue to the modern vernacular but, if they’re going to use the language properly, it should at least make sense. 

Blind to his failings, dumb to his faults.

The first part makes sense but not the second.

We are all of us in sickness here – we’re just waiting for it to take root.

Why would we be waiting for sickness to take root? How is someone ‘in sickness’? How does sickness take root?

Fabien: Given no reason to smile

Another to suffer is poor Fabien (Tygh Runyan), who gets to say:

Better to lie fallow and collect information.

You don’t lie fallow, you lie doggo. Fallow means unplanted.

We might fend off all who would take us ill.

All who might mean us ill could work at a pinch, take us ill they’ve confused with being taken ill.

Another who has lain hidden before us.

I think this is an attempt to convey hiding in plain sight in olde worlde.

You once cured me of certain ill effects.

Ill effects? Ills perhaps.

You have been dabbling in some nefarious doings.

They just wanted to use ‘nefarious’ here but could not be arsed to construct a proper sentence.

The Chevalier is beyond reproach.

Usually you would say ‘above reproach’ and it would mean something very positive, someone who cannot be criticised, a paragon. Ok, so you might say, well, what’s wrong with that? But this isn’t what the writers mean here. They’re saying he’s incredibly wicked. They mean something like ‘beyond the pale’, the very opposite of ‘beyond reproach’.

MonChevy: Chevalier and Philippe

I’m sure that the series lost a segment of fans when Philippe (Alexander Vlahos) and the Chevalier (Evan Williams), known as #MonChevy in the Twitterverse split up.

My favourite:
The clock is ticking … fast.

It should always tick at the same speed, guys – better get it mended.

Offer you respite from your sleepless nightmares.

If you’re sleepless, you don’t have nightmares, you’re not asleep. Either say respite from sleeplessness or nightmares. It can't be both.

Then, Louis misses his mistress so much he declares, with some conviction:

It is all empty ashes.

Empty ashes? What are empty ashes? Are they worse than full ashes? We can have ‘It is all empty’ or even ‘It is all ashes’ but not ‘It is all empty ashes’.

Louis' advice:
Trust only in yourself, above all others.
If you trust only in yourself that negates the second part of the sentence.

A visitor to Versailles declares:
Versailles is more beautiful than I can imagine.
Once he sees it, he doesn't need to imagine it. This is just a tense problem. They must mean 'than I could have imagined'.

Her pallor is looking a little wan.

If your pallor is wan, perhaps you’re on the mend.

Nothing can be atoned for what you've done to me.

No – they mean ‘You cannot atone for what you've done to me’ or ‘Nothing you do can atone for what you've done to me’.

Rome has only one aim: to protect the Catholic Church and dispose of its enemies.

Ok, I don’t want to quibble but that’s two aims.

This is not a battle.

No, but it is a war.

This isn’t a contradiction. Same difference.

You’re not who you think you are but who you’ve been told you are.

I don't know if I can even parse this out to fathom the meaning.

At one point, a trespasser pronounces the gardener’s name, Jacques, as Jock, perhaps an unwitting response to his strong Scottish accent.

The absurd thing is that no expense has been spared in the making of this programme. The costumes are exquisite; they film in the actual Palace of Versailles; the actors are all good, some much better than good. They have to convey the desired effect in the way they speak the words, in their tone, movement and expression simply because the dialogue is so awful. And despite all this, it’s great fun to watch and the credit sequence, with M83’s ‘Outro’ deservedly won an award. It’s very classy.**

More on George Blagden here: Vikings: Ragnar and Athelstan, Travis Fimmel and George Blagden.

For more on Travis Fimmel: Travis Fimmel Is Ragnar Lothbrok.

Other TV reviews are here:
Cold Case: Honor.

Law and Order: Skate or Die.

For more on language, see Judge Judy: Lost in Translation.

* I've lost the credit for this so please supply if this is your artwork. Hope you don't mind me using it.

**Versailles Title Sequence credits: Executive Producers : Ian Whitehead, Incendo, Claude Chelli, Capa Drama Post production Supervisor : Gary Evans, Incendo Post production assistant : Josianne Bottari, Incendo Creative Director : Christian Langlois, Mémoire Liquide Film Director: Christian Langlois, Mémoire Liquide Art director and motion design lead: Charles Bertrand, Fly studio Production: Mémoire Liquide Line Producer: Marie Josée Bourassa Director of Photography: Étienne Proulx Vfx, liquid specialist and props: Etienne Proulx Production Designer : Jean Bécotte Post production, color grading, motion design: Fly studio Music: M83

#howmanysleepstillyougrowup? (My Article for Me)

... or should that be ‘Your Article for You’?

I don't believe it!

Once upon a time, I lamented the loss of old-style PCs, the days of File Manager, the facility to create your own macros or work in MS-DOS. I blame Apple for the general infantilisation of our society. Apple Macs turned up, all new kid in town, claiming to be more user friendly (user friendlier?), with ‘My Documents’, ‘My Pictures’, ‘My Music’; it was the beginning of the end. Microsoft inevitably followed suit. I was flabbergasted. I imagined a toddler stomping a foot and saying 'MY Computer!'

Scary Haribo ad

It reminded me of that terrifying Haribo ad where the adults put on kids’ voices. But I’m not four. I can share. I don’t need to personalise everything this way or to continually assert ownership. Why aren’t other people at best patronised, at worse insulted by this system, which assumes the user is incapable of naming their own folders and that we all have the intellectual capacity of small children? I felt as if I were being condescended to by my own computer. I seemed to exist, a bit like Victor Meldrew from One Foot in the Grave, in a state of permanent indignation.

Then the trend spread like some insidious disease till it was everywhere, an out-of-control virus. No one would stand firm and behave like an adult. Everybody jumped on the bandwagon till it was completely overloaded. Adding a personal pronoun became de rigueur though many companies were confused as to whether they should use 'your' or 'my'.

MyWaitrose card

The shops jumped on ergo, perforce ... I now have a MyWaitrose card (it's still very 'in' to join words like this, hence YouTube, SoundCloud); Morrisons began to label their ready-meal sections Meals for Me, Meals for Us; Boots has sections in its magazine called 'Your Health', 'Your Beauty', what's wrong with just 'Health' and 'Beauty'? The media followed suit: MyTimes, MyMail, My5, My4, etc. ad infinitum.

Financial institutions knew no better. We now have MyBarclaycard (if I’m grown-up enough to have a creditcard, I don’t need to believe there’s a page that relates to me alone, called ‘My Account’, - why not just ‘Barclaycard’ or ‘Account’? - as I would hope that only I would be able to access my account details, and that I would not be privy to information relating to JackNextdoorsBarclaycard). My Dad’s not online but there’s no MyDadsBarclaycardBillforMetoPay page.

InjuryLawyers4U

We're told to trust InjuryLawyers4U because they're injury lawyers for you as if we can't trust a company which doesn't claim to be for us. Does this type of marketing really work? If it does, it's a sad indictment of our society and probably a result of the nanny state taken to extremes. I wouldn't trust a company that talked down to me like this. Do other people like being patronised? By the way, it's still considered trendier to use numbers and letters like this, I don't know why. Prince (RIP) was doing it back in the 80s. It was cool then, guys, now, not so much.

And let's not forget that every time something is branded/rebranded so pointlessly, the consumer picks up the tab somewhere down the line.

>

Gok Wan

Anyway, I could go on but I think you get the idea. This is I'm afraid all part of a larger picture of a society dumbed down to primary school level. I have many other examples of similar trends, all symptoms of the same malaise. Don't get me started on Gok Wan's Activia ads with his 'Happy Tummy People' ('When your tummy smiles, you smile' – seriously?). Which demographic is this aimed at? People who still call their stomachs their 'tummies', people who never grow up. Perhaps it's the same so-called adults who write, in newspaper columns, stuff like 'Six sleeps to Christmas/Easter/whatever'. It gives me the creeps. I'm always tempted to ask 'How many sleeps till you grow up?'

STOP PRESS: Have to include the latest from Waitrose, an advert for My Authentic Greek Yogurt by Kri Kri!

Meanwhile — what did you decide? My Article for Me or Your Article for You? Or Our Article for Us perhaps?

span style="color: #4c1130;">

In Defence of Boris Johnson: Blond Ambition: Channel 4's Attempted Character Assassination

Channel 4 brand

An aside before I begin. Today the BBC (remember its somewhat patronising mission statement: 'To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain', rather than to misinform, mislead, disseminate propaganda) has accompanied a news story about sexual harassment at the Presidents Club Dinner with video of Boris Johnson as if he were attending said dinner and involved in the allegations. He wasn't. He merely allowed them to auction off a lunch with him to generate funds for Great Ormond St Hospital. It really is as Judy Sheindlin (Judge Judy to most of us) is wont to say: 'No good deed goes unpunished.'

Programme blurb: Channel 4 charts Boris Johnson's first 14 months as Foreign Secretary. Our unlikely chief diplomat has shared his grand vision for Brexit, but can he ever achieve his dream of becoming Prime Minister?
 

This programme purports to be a documentary but is really simply an unfunny hatchet job on Boris Johnson.

I should have guessed what it would be like from the fact that its title focused on Boris’s appearance (so what if he’s blond?) and implied that he has a desire for power for himself, regardless of party politics. It also aligns him with Madonna, whose 1990 tour had the same name, so suggesting he’s more of an entertainer than a bonafide politician. Of course I can't deny it’s also a catchy, clever title.

Seriously this programme was so blatantly biased that I assumed it was on the very much pro-Remain, unremittingly anti-Brexit BBC, on which they continually talk about the Foreign Secretary's 'gaffes' (their favourite word around Boris, even if he solved world poverty, it'd still be a gaffe to the BBC) even though that's just their opinion. The BBC always sticks to the same left-leaning agenda. See my Brexit blog. Well done, Channel 4, for sinking to that level. I write that in the certainty that it will be taken as a compliment.

Boris Johnson and Theresa May

Everything is presented in such a way that Boris Johnson cannot win. If he backs the government, he’s not sticking by his principles, if he doesn’t, he’s undermining Theresa May. If he tries to do a bit of both, to be loyal and be honest, he’s dismissed as inconsistent. But some of us applaud his refusal to toe the party line when he feels strongly about something.

The image Channel 4 chose to accompany the programme

Boris’s appearance is usually accompanied by silly, fairground-style music to imply that he’s some kind of clown who can't be taken seriously. It is also suggested that his being well known will be a detriment to his political career. It’s not as if he’s appeared on Celebrity Big Brother. He’s known for his political nous and straight talking, things most people would appreciate in any politician.

The Channel 4 interviewer seems determined to provoke everyone else into having a dig at Boris and is disappointed when Andrew Neil responds with this: I don't think you can fault the man for doing the right thing.

C4: That makes it sound like he could be leader still (to Jacob Rees-Mogg who evidently believes Boris has done nothing to disqualify himself from the role).

Channel 4 describes the situation thus: Once again the PM can't control him.

The book he didn't promote in Serbia

They even go so far as to claim that he used his visit to Serbia to promote his own book although anyone watching can see that a member of the public brought him a copy of his book to sign. He can hardly be responsible for that and he can't really refuse to sign it. How ungracious would that seem? It’s not as if he sat down at a table with tons of copies and a pen though this is how C4 characterises it. In fact, you can tell he’s embarrassed enough to make a joke about it.

C4: He was wading in on the Syria question.

‘Wading in’ is loaded against Boris, as if he were at fault for having strong feelings and daring to express them, as if he shouldn’t get involved, for daring to do his job.

C4: Could he resist playing the joker?

Time and again C4 acts like being quick-witted disqualifies him from a job for which you would think it would be a prerequisite. He’s not allowed to have a sense of humour, something else that you’d imagine would be a boon to any negotiator or diplomat.

C4: Less of a chance to play at politics.

This vocabulary is chosen to belittle him. He’s not 'playing at' politics. He’s a politician.

C4: A chance to prove he’s not just a joker.

Again that’s merely C4’s entirely unobjective opinion.

'Intransigent' EU still holding us to ransom

They criticise him for panning Donald Trump, while doing the same themselves. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In fact, they treat Trump in much the same way as they do Boris, showing gold busts of him dropping off a conveyor belt. This is done in an effort to connect the two. Boris has opinions and he shares them, perhaps occasionally unwisely but I would rather put my faith in someone who takes a stance than someone who doesn’t. If anybody else had done this, C4 would be applauding them. He says what he thinks, is not spun till his position is not robust enough to survive a strong breeze.

C4: No 10, clearly exasperated.

Again, according to C4.

Another politician, can't remember who, sees Boris as: A mix of altruism and egotism.

Like the politician, I see nothing wrong with that.

Rudyard Kipling

The documentary makers continually attempt to ambush him. He’s not allowed to recite Rudyard Kipling because C4, BBC et al. believe we have to apologise for the Empire for the rest of our lives even if no one alive today had anything to do with it. But are we asking for reparation from the Romans or the Vikings? What's really being attacked here is Boris's erudition because the media has a patronising attitude to the general public (particularly prevalent at the BBC, our so-called public service broadcaster) who they're sure will not understand the reference. And there may be a little truth in that. A phrase like 'Gadarene rush' might easily be lost on some people but to me this is more evidence of the fact that Boris is not willing to promote an image that's not real. He isn't striving to be an Everyman; he doesn't purport to be 'a man of the people'. He's not going to pretend not to know something he does. He doesn't condescend to people like David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn do. I would rather endorse someone who is well read and erudite than someone who isn’t.

C4: Scolded, wooed and mocked, again and again breaching the line.

They don’t know that any of this has happened and come across as bad losers, disgruntled that Boris finally refused to have anything to do with them, no doubt because of their wilful misrepresentation of certain situations, eg the book-signing incident.

C4: The most centralised and controlling no. 10 anyone could remember.

They seem to believe that this is a good thing. Why? And that Boris is some sort of mischievous schoolboy, always up before the headmistress. This notion does not reflect well on either Theresa May or Boris Johnson. And why wouldn't you respect someone who refused to be controlled?

If he keeps out of the way, in order not to steal the limelight, they attack him for that, with: Boris, chairing his own version of Bake Off. If he were in the throng, they would say he was trying to compete with the Prime Minister. He really can't win.

Jeremy Corbyn at Glastonbury

C4: There were several articles mocking Boris Johnson as a joke.

According to Channel 4. Have they read the Evening Standard’s satirical report on Jeremy Corbyn at Glastonbury? I love the description of Corbyn looking like a pensioner who'd lost his coach party.

The programme closes with a sequence showing Boris good-naturedly participating in a tug of war and ends, predictably for Channel 4, with Boris falling over.

C4 is asking us to believe that you can't be taken seriously if you

look rumpled

have a sense of humour

are able to quote literature

occasionally reference something the media consider is not widely known

have a wide vocabulary

ride a bike

have blond hair.

They’ve refused to understand what Boris is about,

I hope that the viewers are able to distinguish the dishonest, subjective agenda that the programme makers are trying to push. It really is the exact opposite of impartial reporting, with every opportunity taken to subvert Boris Johnson’s mission and motivation. It’s a failed assassination attempt on his character.

The Press and the Establishment versus Brexit and Democracy

Boris and the Brexit bus

I have to confess, come clean, own up, at the risk of alienating all my friends … I voted to leave the EU. But, you know, I object to the fact that this is something I have to admit to (that I have to use the language of blame and apology), as if anyone in favour of Brexit must be right-wing, bigoted, racist or worse. I'm angry that people are getting ostracised or attacked in the workplace as if they've committed some terrible sin rather than merely exercised their right to vote or dared to have an opinion. 

Voting for Brexit doesn't mean I've turned against my many European friends. It doesn't mean I no longer want to travel to Europe. It just means I'm rejecting an institution that point-blank refuses to compromise or reform.

Some people rejoiced

It’s pathetic that the politicians (from all the major parties), the BBC, the papers (the broadsheets rather than the tabloids), the youth, the woolly liberals on Facebook, are still angsting about this and bleating on about having another referendum. And why? Because the powers-that-be thought they had presented such a totally biased view of the outcome if we left that there was no way the nation wouldn't do as it had been told. We voted. We're out. Get over it. I would say that that's the beauty of a democracy but this remains to be seen as at the moment, everyone seems to be trying to ensure the democratic process is voided.

It's incredibly patronising, even insulting, when the politicians and pundits (does anyone really trust Tony Blair?) pushing for another referendum imply that the result would be different if it were done over because the idiots who voted to leave (that's me and statistically probably you) didn't know what they were doing, hadn't really thought it through. Why can't they accept that we thought long and hard and made a considered decision? It just wasn't the decision they desired or expected. In fact, what's happening now is that this liberal elite, from the upper middle to upper classes, are realising that they can't control the rest of us, the proletariat, the people they think of as plebs.

The BBC votes Remain

The BBC and the government worked hand in hand to prevent Brexit. Let's not forget that, in the run-up to the vote, the government was debating  whether it should renew the BBC's charter and ergo the corporation's right to charge a licence fee (for non-Brits, that's a fee we pay to the BBC for the privilege of owning a television). Can anybody calculate how much this is worth to them? At the time of the vote, it was £145.50 per household per year (with an agreement to increase it to £147.00, now done). There are approximately 27 million households in the UK. The maths is beyond me. With the EU referendum date announced in February and scheduled for June, and the charter ratified for another 11 years in May 2016, it is hard not to suspect that there was some quid pro quo, perhaps reflected in the BBC's almost unanimously pro-Remain coverage of the referendum.

Nigel Farage returns to sender

Even though the press was so pro the Remain camp in the lead-up to the referendum, sinking to the absolute nadir of implying that the killing of Jo Cox had something to do with Brexiteers, even though the financial institutions (or government tools) predicted doom, even though the government spent our money (£9 million) on producing and sending us (the 27 million again) their propaganda (a nice little full-colour booklet) before the campaign officially began (the only way they could get around the rules – I loved Nigel Farage's visit to Downing Street to return his to sender – he really came out of this as intelligent, committed and able to leaven his message with humour), even though the government acted as if our being in the EU was the only reason there wasn't a war in Europe (as if all EU nations were naturally belligerent) and maybe in fact because of all this prejudiced rubbish, the majority of us voted out. Press coverage in the aftermath of the vote has also been vituperative and extremely biased. The BBC as national broadcaster should be objective but instead it broadcasts one viewpoint only, over and over. Now BBC stalwart, David Attenborough, has jumped on board, crying woe and destruction. He has no vested interest whatsoever of course (coincidentally, his new series Planet Earth 2 is being broadcast on the BBC as I write). 

That booklet - fact or fiction?

Oh and then the BBC treated said booklet as the truth, waving it at Brexiteers, saying 'How do you get away from the facts here?' This is simply poor reporting. Since when have we taken any politician's word as gospel, let alone in the midst of an emotive campaign?

Just before the vote, the politicians and the establishment started to get anxious so they pushed through emergency legislation to extend the registration deadline by two days during which time over 430,000 more people applied. In other words, people who hadn't cared enough to bother to register till the last minute were given another chance. But this ploy didn't work either.

The people who voted out were not afraid to try something new. Some of them remembered that it wasn't so bad being on our own. After all, we signed up to a nine-nation EU in the distant past. Now it's a megalithic structure of 27 countries (since Brexit: 28) that's impossible to control, absurdly bureaucratic and rule-bound, with however many would-be members on the waiting list, all of whom will be entitled to a say once they're accepted.

It is quite widely known that I like shoes ...

I was pleased that Boris Johnson was involved with Brexit as I respect him as someone who has the courage of his convictions, is sensible, forthright and doesn't always toe the party line. I read an interesting piece that compared him with David Cameron at school and at university. While Boris was actively involved in politics, 'Dave' merely studied the subject and kept his head down. Boris was memorable, Dave forgettable. Of course some people will say that this was because Boris was larger than life (and mean that in a bad way). What I see is focus, commitment, someone who cares, someone who isn't at all interested in what he wears.

Airheads

I like my politicians like this. It shows that they're not influenced by the superficial or swayed by appearances, that they have different values, common sense and intelligence, unlike Theresa May, who was able to bond with Holly Willoughby, you know the total airhead from This Morning (she and Philip Schofield have turned what was previously a respected magazine format into a Saturday morning children's show) over their mutual passion for shoes. She, Theresa not Holly, said 'Birth should not be a barrier to an education'. I agree. Surely it should be a prerequisite? How can you go to school if you haven't been born? I'm dismayed that a PM can come up with such a sentence.

Those of us who voted to leave are being accused of letting down the 'young people', many of whom we're told didn’t get around to voting. That's not their fault though. Some of them, their Mums didn’t get them up on time. Some, they were up but no one would tell them where to go to vote. Some, they knew where to go but no one could give them a lift. Others thought they’d already voted by filling in a poll on Facebook.  We're told the issues were too difficult for them to understand and it should have all been made simpler for them. I'm sorry, if they didn't understand the issues, they should have tried harder. If they were eligible to vote and didn't, that's not our lookout. They evidently didn't care enough. Although I also think it's irritating that the press almost universally believe that they would have voted to remain, if they could have been bothered.

The Camerons make their escape

It is disappointing that, after the campaign and the win, the politicians let us down, with David Cameron stepping down as leader although he'd promised to stay on and see it through whatever the decision and Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage backing out of the fray when we needed them, needed a strong, enthusiastic Brexit leader instead of someone who appeared to have no opinion either way, was happy to sit on the fence, but who now gives the impression that she's willing to make the best of a bad job.

Now there's talk not only of another referendum but of wholesale changes to the EU monolith (which remember, wouldn't budge one iota when we were still part of it) so that no one else leaves, and a delayed two-year exit period. It's irritating that when people need to work together, they decide to rip each other to shreds, with Michael Gove betraying Boris, thus ensuring that we didn't get that forceful, committed leader. It's a pity that politicians by their very nature seem incapable of putting the nation's needs above their own.

Philippe Juncker - the pose says it all

The reaction of the EU President, Philippe Juncker should only confirm to those who voted out that we/they made the right decision. He had a hissy fit when we voted to leave, and is still acting like a toddler having a tantrum, trying to ensure that the Brexit negotiations are handled in a spirit of resentment and rancour and insisting that the EU remain 'intransigent'. That's a good starting point for a negotiation, Philippe, intransigence. He needs to grow up and stop taking a nation's decision as a personal insult. All this talk of a payment is appalling. We don't owe the EU anything. Many of us feel it's been bleeding us dry for years. Juncker himself has decried the low turnout at the European Parliament after only 30 out of 750 MEPs deigned to attend for an important vote. EU business mainly takes place in Brussels but the Parliament meets in Strasbourg, resulting in travel costs of 200 million euros per year.

Gina Miller

Here we go again. The High Court has ruled that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without the approval of Parliament after a court case brought by Gina Miller. Does anyone think that if Brexit had lost, it would still be in the news every day? No.
 

Tony Blair

Tony Blair, ever a media w***e, is bleating on and on about how, if only the common people (think Pulp), the young, were bright enough, or had had the whole thing explained to them in words of one syllable, they wouldn't have voted to leave the EU. It's not their fault – they were just too dim to understand all the issues and ramifications or the vote-registration procedure. Think about what he's saying here. And why should we trust someone who's partly responsible for the problems the UK now has, whom history has proven to be a liar?

Now it's the European Courts of Justice. This is getting ridiculous. Next stop, the Supreme Court. All because they can't accept that things didn't go their way. Last time I checked we had a democracy. This is a battle to ensure those that think they know better get the result they want. It's opposed to the very spirit of democracy.

Then there's the question of national identity, an emotive topic. On this, I would say that there's a reason why we never stopped thinking of Europe as separate to us. We're not European. We've never felt European. Here's a quote from The Times war correspondent, Anthony Lloyd, 'the UK suffered expensive strategic consequences after its hostages were publicly beheaded … while captives from European countries walked free after the payment of ransom'. I'm sure he meant to say 'other European countries' but to me, it proves that most of us don't think of ourselves as 'European'. Europe is somewhere we go for our holidays. The vote doesn't mean we hate Europeans. We just want to get off the train as we don't like where it's headed.

As for immigration, someone said that each country should take in immigrants/asylum seekers according to their capacity. Many of us living in the London suburbs feel that we reached our capacity some time ago. The disgruntled Remain voters in the posh parts of London aren’t the ones getting shoved out of the way in the pound shop and probably have private health care so will still be able to get a doctor’s appointment while the receptionist at my surgery was heard suggesting an appointment time to one caller with the words 'You'd better take it as I'll be selling it on eBay later for £200'.

One of the parks the council plans to 'dispose of'
- Old Farm Park

The character of the place I live, the sort of place where two elderly ladies reach the bank at the same time and then try to give way to each other - 'After you', 'No, after you', is already being changed by the influx of incomers, who arrive with their own codes of conduct, value systems, languages and religions. I'm not opposed to change but I want it to be for the better. The streets are already at gridlock. Our council has already built on school playing fields and now plans to dispose of 23 of our parks to developers so we'll have more housing but no infrastructure to support the people who move in. The council's been told to increase supply to meet demand. As Peter Whittle said 'How about reducing demand instead?'

Then there's the question of acculturation. There are such large groups of certain nationalities that there's no pressure to assimilate or learn the language. They come with their own ready-made community. And meanwhile everyone you meet is talking a basic version of English, a kind of Pidgin that can serve for many purposes but means that our language is gradually being denuded of multisyllabic words, that any pretence at proper grammar has left the building, that in a pub in the heart of London, you can't get a shandy because the girl behind the counter doesn't know or care to know what it is.

Child asylum seekers

Postscript 1: The images of the 'child' immigrants arriving in Croydon (blurred out in The Guardian and on the BBC because they realise their appearance belies the word 'child' and think that the general public can't be trusted to react the right way, the way they want us to) should raise concerns because, if we're letting in mainly young men rather than children, a) we're being duped and b) who's helping the actual children? And who's helping the girls? Of the child migrants at Calais, 52 were female, 1,000+ male – that makes them 95 per cent male. Is that a true representation of the gender split of refugees? Of 27 EU nations, 24 age-test child asylum seekers so why is it that anyone who suggests we do the same is considered guilty of cruelty? Surely we can show compassion without being taken advantage of?

Postscript 2: As for Donald Trump's victory in the US, the most shocking thing about this is that 47 per cent of those eligible to vote couldn't be bothered. 

Aside: Tristram Hunt (Labour MP) speaking on Victoria Derbyshire, asked about the Trump win and comparisons to Brexit: 'We on the left are not speaking to the people we came into being to represent.' Condescending much? Nice of you to come into being to represent us.

In case it's important to you, I'm mixed race, the child of a first-generation immigrant and have only ever considered myself British.