Re: Winston Churchill and crossing the house degenerating to crossing your legs

[T00ts]

In many ways he was a flawed leader, and certainly came with a lot of baggage that could be weaponised against him. Nevertheless, the policy agenda that emerged under him in 2017 was exactly the policies needed to appeal to the struggling working classes insofar as bread and butter issues were concerned - more social housing, rent caps and security of tenure for private tenants, higher minimum wages, an end to exploitative work contracts, the encouragement of unions in the workplace, free university education for all who wanted it. When polled, large majorities of the electorate approved of such policies. They just did not approve of Corbyn personally, nor the overt disunity and infighting in the party.

What Sir Limp Lettuce has done is to effectively ditch these policies, the only thing people liked about the party, and replace them with nothing but soundbites and spin. The millions of extra voters who voted Labour in 2017 will never vote for Starmer's party. As far as I am concerned, Starmer's Labour and the Tories are just two cheeks of the same establishmentarian arse, and as with any arse, there is always an arse hole in charge in the middle of it all.

It is about time this two party duopoly was broken down so that everyone's vote counts equally and all views are represented in parliament. We'll never get meaningful change without it, I have concluded.

After the election when Corbyn failed so spectacularly to make any impact didn't he admit that many of his policies were only aims rather than promises? My impression of his campaign was that he simply searched out any policy that promised lots to more or less everyone without once saying where the cash was really coming from. His campaign was based on dreams, or nightmares, depending on your political position, aimed at those who were gullible enough to sing 'Hey Jeremy Corbyn' ad nausem. He lapped it up of course because the one thing he did possess was the ability to whip up a crowd. His technique was always the same and very honed.

[srb7677]

Not with the likes of another Jeremy Corbyn zealot

In many ways he was a flawed leader, and certainly came with a lot of baggage that could be weaponised against him. Nevertheless, the policy agenda that emerged under him in 2017 was exactly the policies needed to appeal to the struggling working classes insofar as bread and butter issues were concerned - more social housing, rent caps and security of tenure for private tenants, higher minimum wages, an end to exploitative work contracts, the encouragement of unions in the workplace, free university education for all who wanted it. When polled, large majorities of the electorate approved of such policies. They just did not approve of Corbyn personally, nor the overt disunity and infighting in the party.

What Sir Limp Lettuce has done is to effectively ditch these policies, the only thing people liked about the party, and replace them with nothing but soundbites and spin. The millions of extra voters who voted Labour in 2017 will never vote for Starmer's party. As far as I am concerned, Starmer's Labour and the Tories are just two cheeks of the same establishmentarian arse, and as with any arse, there is always an arse hole in charge in the middle of it all.

It is about time this two party duopoly was broken down so that everyone's vote counts equally and all views are represented in parliament. We'll never get meaningful change without it, I have concluded.

[DeppityDawg]

Morays alright for a "teuchter".

I dont know moray except i have come across him on a number of other forums , and he just has a passionate belief in scot indy , and a more "serious" approach to discussion than me. Im not sure he is more partisan.........maybe........but he always comes across as the old socialist republican type  , staunch working class and no nonsense tolerance of the elite , both in scotland and without.

Thats 12 years or thereabouts i have posted now on this forum and its predesscessors. Loads of ups and downs politically speaking for me personally as well as most of us , and i can't say things are further forward or any better in many regards. The gradual slide away from the old two party camps , the splintering of groups and individuals , the constitutional rows increasing and taking a more prominent place on the political stage.

You have the ongoing situation in northern ireland , where every five minutes the declining DUP are threatening to bring down stormont over the brexit deal that cuts them off from the rest of the uk. The continuing division between green and orange , and the growing "middle" who support neither.

Wales seems to bumble along in a coma , very reminiscent of scotland decades ago under labour. Bottom of the league table in practically every direction under drakefords labour , while the welsh seem unable or unwilling to do anything about the same party that has kept them bobbing along at the bottom of the barrell for decades .

Scotland.....well i could write a fackin book. The snp appear to be the political wing of stonewall , and under sturgeons leadership , she has managed to stem and then decline any advance on the position of scottish indy , and have the independence movement at each others throat. The woman has been a fackin disaster , and her attemtped takedown of salmond still leaves a bad taste in my mouth today.

Despite mandate after mandate , she has now given johnson a veto over scot indy by her determination to go through the referendum route and begging for a section 30 from westminster when for decades , the accpeted route for scot indy as thatcher and others said was merely to get a majority of nationalist mps elected.

Whatever our agreements or disagreements on this union , take it from me , im almost 100 % confident there wont be a referendum under sturgeon next year or any year. The council elections could very well begin the ending of sturgeons political career. These past few years could very well have been sturgeons "dunkirk" moment , when she failed to send in the tanks and let the british escape.

As for your country england , well , we have johnson bumbling about day to day , the internecine war between him and cummings and others in the tory party , while he clings on with the skin of his teeth.

We have a labour party full of talentless bench warmers , the pre corbyn collection from prior to 2015 back in positions of power under starmer  , who seem to be shooting up the polls by doing nothing saying nothing and offering nothing. Whatever the partisanship of new labourites like good old , gerry" im here to talk about brexit and nothing else" etc , its not a good place for democracy when the electorate are being ofrced to constantly choose under a total anti democratic system between dumb and dumber. People seriously wonder why the uk has been on a terminal slide and managed decline these past 100 years?

So there we have it. 12 years of political bickering , no one really happy  , same shit on offer as yesterday and we are all even more divided than ever before.

In a way , i hope labour do get back in at the next election , and starmer and his muppets put on the spot. Labour as we all know have spent thier enitre history blaming the ills of the world on the tories. Tory bad no longer cuts it in the modern world where politics are constantly  splintering and the old fptp two party stitch up desperately trys to hold the status quo in place.

I think if they get in , and as predicted , start the machinations to tie the uk back into the eu , then it will finish them for good. Whatever my growing disaffection with politics , covid hysteria , scot indy movement and sturgeon , and many other issues , i remain resolutely opposed to those bastards with every sinew in my body.

Dont know how many more stab wounds in the back the public can take from new labour in power.

Thanks for that Thomas. That's a fairly accurate resume of the last 12 years. Much of it dominated obviously by Brexit, and also by the decline of the Labour party. That the two are linked escapes many liberal posters on here, but there can be little doubt that the same trend in Scotland over Independence has destroyed Labour there almost completely, and that (to me anyway) lies in the fact that it knows its fortunes are not served by the democratic will of the Scots

I don't really have much to do with Moray so perhaps I shouldn't comment. I do still believe Independence will come in my lifetime (next 20 years or so), and I believe Ireland will inevitably be reunited. Perhaps they will be delayed, but I don't think either of these things can be stopped in the long run. I don't have to agree with breaking up the Union, but I'm not foolish enough to be blind to its inevitability. 

I too also hope Labour will get back in. Reinvent itself, or somehow get back into power, because at present we have a virtual one party state or the prospect of endless European style coalitions (and how did the last one go) that solve nothing. Tbf, that might be a good thing for you (bargaining power), but I doubt it will serve the rest of us very well.

I think we've both tried to state how it feels to have been betrayed by the Labour party, but the likes of Good Old simply can't grasp it. We trusted the Labour party implicitly in the past. Many working class people couldn't even contemplate voting for anyone else. But the saying about not leaving labour is so true. Its like being shat on by your best mate. You expect your ememies to do it. You expect the Tories to do it. When someone you trust does it, that makes it a 1000 times worse. Thats what Labour simply cannot grasp. They will not get that kind of trust back again. Not with the likes of another Jeremy Corbyn zealot. Not with the likes of victim politicians like the David Lammy's and Angela Rayners of this world. They need to find a way to get the ordinary mass of people to vote for them again, and until they start representing us all again instead of the liberal lefts sacred cows, they won't ever get them back

What I do know is that Boris Johnson is not like his hero, Winston Churchill. Even his own party have seen through him now. The trouble is, not matter how far ahead Labour are right now, I still couldn't trust them with a wheelbarrow, let alone the country, and I suspect I'm far from alone

[DeppityDawg]

Oh Blimey is that you betraying the idea and there is some morality then?

I think the statement is pretty clear. There is a saying about the British Empire being forged on the playing fields of Eton, but I doubt many of us (even on this fairly right of centre forum) would support such a romantic view. The unblemished truth about conflict is seldom told, because to do so would expose that fighting a war and cricket matches have little in common, and that victories that are glorious in history books seldom are in reality. 

In any case, I was referring to our societies attempts to temper its guilt by trying to hold some comforting moral high ground, when in reality most modern conflicts have been fought for political gain or to make a small number of people richer. When the reality of a faraway war in some field in Helmand province crept out, we had to put a man in jail because our society (the one that sent him there in the first place) couldn't deal with those realities. That's not a criticism of you, I know your thoughts about such things, and anyway a discussion about Churchill is not the place for that argument

Churchill was a product of his times, and as others have pointed out, he had lots of faults. That we've made him into a hero is not really a surprise considering the country's collective experiences of 1939-45. I regard him as a great leader, but then so was Stalin if you look at what he also achieved (at much greater human cost). This perhaps shows that in the trade off between winning and losing, great men are not necessarily good men. That's what I mean.

[cromwell]

Morays alright for a "teuchter".

I dont know moray except i have come across him on a number of other forums , and he just has a passionate belief in scot indy , and a more "serious" approach to discussion than me. Im not sure he is more partisan.........maybe........but he always comes across as the old socialist republican type  , staunch working class and no nonsense tolerance of the elite , both in scotland and without.

Thats 12 years or thereabouts i have posted now on this forum and its predesscessors. Loads of ups and downs politically speaking for me personally as well as most of us , and i can't say things are further forward or any better in many regards. The gradual slide away from the old two party camps , the splintering of groups and individuals , the constitutional rows increasing and taking a more prominent place on the political stage.

You have the ongoing situation in northern ireland , where every five minutes the declining DUP are threatening to bring down stormont over the brexit deal that cuts them off from the rest of the uk. The continuing division between green and orange , and the growing "middle" who support neither.

Wales seems to bumble along in a coma , very reminiscent of scotland decades ago under labour. Bottom of the league table in practically every direction under drakefords labour , while the welsh seem unable or unwilling to do anything about the same party that has kept them bobbing along at the bottom of the barrell for decades .

Scotland.....well i could write a fackin book. The snp appear to be the political wing of stonewall , and under sturgeons leadership , she has managed to stem and then decline any advance on the position of scottish indy , and have the independence movement at each others throat. The woman has been a fackin disaster , and her attemtped takedown of salmond still leaves a bad taste in my mouth today.

Despite mandate after mandate , she has now given johnson a veto over scot indy by her determination to go through the referendum route and begging for a section 30 from westminster when for decades , the accpeted route for scot indy as thatcher and others said was merely to get a majority of nationalist mps elected.

Whatever our agreements or disagreements on this union , take it from me , im almost 100 % confident there wont be a referendum under sturgeon next year or any year. The council elections could very well begin the ending of sturgeons political career. These past few years could very well have been sturgeons "dunkirk" moment , when she failed to send in the tanks and let the british escape.

As for your country england , well , we have johnson bumbling about day to day , the internecine war between him and cummings and others in the tory party , while he clings on with the skin of his teeth.

We have a labour party full of talentless bench warmers , the pre corbyn collection from prior to 2015 back in positions of power under starmer  , who seem to be shooting up the polls by doing nothing saying nothing and offering nothing. Whatever the partisanship of new labourites like good old , gerry" im here to talk about brexit and nothing else" etc , its not a good place for democracy when the electorate are being ofrced to constantly choose under a total anti democratic system between dumb and dumber. People seriously wonder why the uk has been on a terminal slide and managed decline these past 100 years?

So there we have it. 12 years of political bickering , no one really happy  , same shit on offer as yesterday and we are all even more divided than ever before.

In a way , i hope labour do get back in at the next election , and starmer and his muppets put on the spot. Labour as we all know have spent thier enitre history blaming the ills of the world on the tories. Tory bad no longer cuts it in the modern world where politics are constantly  splintering and the old fptp two party stitch up desperately trys to hold the status quo in place.

I think if they get in , and as predicted , start the machinations to tie the uk back into the eu , then it will finish them for good. Whatever my growing disaffection with politics , covid hysteria , scot indy movement and sturgeon , and many other issues , i remain resolutely opposed to those bastards with every sinew in my body.

Dont know how many more stab wounds in the back the public can take from new labour in power.

Bloody hell a lot of caledonian cerebal thought process there and quite a lot  (but not all) I agree with 


Funnly enough I was sat here more than a bit peed off and coming to fairly similar conclusions,everythings gone a bit haywire and suspicion of everything abounds.

Boris is toast,the alernatives are tossers and as said we're no further but maybe a bit poorer when the energy bills come in and the drive for green sees other taxation revenue dry up and the scrabble to make up the shortfall.

Westminster is like some theme park gone wrong turned in to an asylum where the patients are running the show, I rerckon public confidence is at an all time low.

[Thomas]

I know that. I know your views have been pretty consistent on this and similar subjects right back to 2013 when I first starting posting on the old forum. I'm not so sure about Morays motives. He seems much more partisan to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats the impression I get. I understand you are a Scottish Nationalist, and I'd support your fight to win a democratic victory, even if I don't share your zeal to break up the Union. On the other hand, I don't think the Union is fit for purpose anymore either, so I can't exactly disagree with you 100% either. I think lots of "Brits", English, Scottish, Welsh and Norn Eyrish, feel the same. In lots of ways, we've all been fecked over by the same people, we just can't agree on the way to go from here

For writing history, thats always been the victors perogative though hasn't it. You'd hardly expect Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill (leave alone Cromwell [the real one I mean]) to have told the entire truth to their populations. For what happens in conflicts would hardly make the victors any better than the vanquished enemy, and thats the sad truth.

Morays alright for a "teuchter".

I dont know moray except i have come across him on a number of other forums , and he just has a passionate belief in scot indy , and a more "serious" approach to discussion than me. Im not sure he is more partisan.........maybe........but he always comes across as the old socialist republican type  , staunch working class and no nonsense tolerance of the elite , both in scotland and without.

Thats 12 years or thereabouts i have posted now on this forum and its predesscessors. Loads of ups and downs politically speaking for me personally as well as most of us , and i cant say things are further forward or any better in many regards. The gradual slide away from the old two party camps , the splintering of groups and individuals , the constitutional rows increasing and taking a more prominent place on the political stage.

You have the ongoing situation in northern ireland , where every five minutes the declining DUP are threatening to bring down stormont over the brexit deal that cuts them off from the rest of the uk. The continuing division between green and orange , and the growing "middle" who support neither.

Wales seems to bumble along in a coma , very reminiscent of scotland decades ago under labour. Bottom of the league table in practically every direction under drakefords labour , while the welsh seem unable or unwilling to do anything about the same party that has kept them bobbing along at the bottom of the barrell for decades .

Scotland.....well i could write a fackin book. The snp appear to be the political wing of stonewall , and under sturgeons leadership , she has managed to stem and then decline any advance on the position of scottish indy , and have the independence movement at each others throat. The woman has been a fackin disaster , and her attemtped takedown of salmond still leaves a bad taste in my mouth today.

Despite mandate after mandate , she has now given johnson a veto over scot indy by her determination to go through the referendum route and begging for a section 30 from westminster when for decades , the accpeted route for scot indy as thatcher and others said was merely to get a majority of nationalist mps elected.

Whatever our agreements or disagreements on this union , take it from me , im almost 100 % confident there wont be a referendum under sturgeon next year or any year. The council elections could very well begin the ending of sturgeons political career. These past few years could very well have been sturgeons "dunkirk" moment , when she failed to send in the tanks and let the british escape.

As for your country england , well , we have johnson bumbling about day to day , the internecine war between him and cummings and others in the tory party , while he clings on with the skin of his teeth.

We have a labour party full of talentless bench warmers , the pre corbyn collection from prior to 2015 back in positions of power under starmer  , who seem to be shooting up the polls by doing nothing saying nothing and offering nothing. Whatever the partisanship of new labourites like good old , gerry" im here to talk about brexit and nothing else" etc , its not a good place for democracy when the electorate are being ofrced to constantly choose under a total anti democratic system between dumb and dumber. People seriously wonder why the uk has been on a terminal slide and managed decline these past 100 years?

So there we have it. 12 years of political bickering , no one really happy  , same shit on offer as yesterday and we are all even more divided than ever before.

In a way , i hope labour do get back in at the next election , and starmer and his muppets put on the spot. Labour as we all know have spent thier enitre history blaming the ills of the world on the tories. Tory bad no longer cuts it in the modern world where politics are constantly  splintering and the old fptp two party stitch up desperately trys to hold the status quo in place.

I think if they get in , and as predicted , start the machinations to tie the uk back into the eu , then it will finish them for good. Whatever my growing disaffection with politics , covid hysteria , scot indy movement and sturgeon , and many other issues , i remain resolutely opposed to those bastards with every sinew in my body.

Dont know how many more stab wounds in the back the public can take from new labour in power.

[srb7677]

He would have lost many troops invading the uk....thats a given , it stil doesnt explain his unwillingness to take a chance.

He feared the loss of face and prestige that would result from a total disaster. And suspected that it might well turn out to be a disaster.

[srb7677]

i will have you know it was us scottish that invented the flushed toilet

But it took the English to make it better by putting a hole in the seat...

[srb7677]

But even Sandhurst educated officers will profess the greater mystery is why Hitler stopped the Panzers in front of Dunkirk, when that was the point at which he could feasibly have destroyed the British Army and caused a capitulation.

This certainly was a strategic blunder by the Germans, but the intial decision to halt the attack was not Hitler's. Gerd von Rundstedt, commander in chief of the main attacking army group, Army Group A, gave the order to halt. He was supported in this decision by Franz Halder, chief of the German general staff. Hitler merely confirmed a decision already taken by his top generals. Some of those much closer to the scene of the action wanted to continue the attack. Most notable amongst these  was Heinz Guderian, who had played a prominent role in formulating the tactics of blitzkrieg in the first place and was now in command of one of the main armoured formations. But he was overruled by his superiors. After the war, in their post war memoirs the surviving German generals liked to place the blame for every bad decision on Hitler to exonerate themselves. And Hitler did indeed make some howlers, especially later. But the German generals did make mistakes of their own too and this was one of them.

As to motives we first need to consider the reasoning of the generals who issued the halt order. And only then do we have to determine why Hitler chose to confirm it.

The top generals made the decision based upon tactical considerations, informed by false assumptions. Their landlocked brains could not conceive of an entire army escaping by sea, and assumed that being trapped it was doomed unless it could break out of it's encirclement. Only a strong defence was needed to prevent that. And Hermann Goring's Luftwaffe at that time was still thought to be invincible, and no one in the German camp doubted his promise to be able to prevent the British getting away in significant numbers by using his bombers to sink vessels. He probably believed it himself. Furthermore, there was a widespread belief amongst the generals, shared by Hitler himself, that with France defeated the UK would inevitably give in. The possibility of Britain fighting on alone was never taken seriously. The generals also overestimated the potential ability of the French to rapidly build new armies and underestimated the extent of the defeatism already poisoning the French high command. Seen from this perspective defeating France as rapidly as possible before it could rebuild it's strength was seen as the top priority, after which - it was assumed - Britain would give in anyway. The trapped British army was assumed to be doomed anyway in any case. So the halt order was given in order to withdraw the tanks so they could redeploy as rapidly as possible to finish off the French, and also to redeploy some of the infantry also for that purpose. That the area around Dunkirk with all it's canals and waterways was not good tank country reinforced this decision. Also it was felt necessary to rest some of the troops since they had been on the march and fighting for two weeks buoyed up by pervitin tablets, which were amphetamine based. The advancing German troops were basically high on speed, which probably fueled their paranoia about imaginary incidents of being shot at by civilians, triggering reprisals.

That the British would - or even could - evacuate their entire army by sea was never considered a serious possibility by the Germans, who even quite far into the evacuation were deriding it as a desperate attempt to get away on anything that floats. So they focussed upon what they regarded as the top priority of knocking France out as quickly as possible believing that Britain would then give in.

A number of possible motives have been attributed to Hitler for confirming this decision, including the strange and unlikely idea that he was deliberately being soft on the British. But Hitler's modus operandi when he had someone down was to go for the jugular and do maximum damage. In all likelihood he simply made the same false assumptions about priorities and tactical and strategic judgements as his top generals. Indeed once France was defeated he and most other Germans believed they had already won the war, and that Britain's request to discuss peace terms was inevitable and imminent. So certain was he that he wasted time on frivolities like victory parades in Berlin and sightseeing tours in Paris. It was many weeks before it began to dawn on Hitler and other Germans that Britain might actually fight on alone.

Undoubtedly the halt order saved the BEF, or more precisely made it possible for it to be saved. But luck was on Britain's side in other ways too. Firstly, throughout the entire evacuation the sea remained exceptionally calm which greatly facillitated the collection of troops. There were also several overcast days which reduced the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe. Also, spitfires from SE England frequently flew over and interfered with the Luftwaffe, the first time that these aircraft flew over France. Previously hurricanes had been deployed there. The spitfire was superior to the best German fighter of 1940, the ME109E, as the Germans were going to find out in spades in the Battle of Britain. Another factor that was unforseen at the time was that the sand on the beaches absorbed most of the explosive power of bombs, greatly reducing the effect of bombing the men on the beaches. It pretty much took a direct hit to do anyone fatal harm

[cromwell]

"For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history myself."

Winston Churchill

And write he did a history of the English speaking people......not bad for a drunkard and predictably the detractors will be along soon to slag off every last word.

I can only recommend to them the name of the chinese laundryman in Leslie Thomas's excellent book "The Virgin Soldiers"

[Borchester]

For writing history, thats always been the victors perogative though hasn't it. You'd hardly expect Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill (leave alone Cromwell [the real one I mean]) to have told the entire truth to their populations. For what happens in conflicts would hardly make the victors any better than the vanquished enemy, and thats the sad truth.

"For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history myself."

Winston Churchill

[cromwell]

I know that. I know your views have been pretty consistent on this and similar subjects right back to 2013 when I first starting posting on the old forum. I'm not so sure about Morays motives. He seems much more partisan to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats the impression I get. I understand you are a Scottish Nationalist, and I'd support your fight to win a democratic victory, even if I don't share your zeal to break up the Union. On the other hand, I don't think the Union is fit for purpose anymore either, so I can't exactly disagree with you 100% either. I think lots of "Brits", English, Scottish, Welsh and Norn Eyrish, feel the same. In lots of ways, we've all been fecked over by the same people, we just can't agree on the way to go from here

For writing history, thats always been the victors perogative though hasn't it. You'd hardly expect Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill (leave alone Cromwell [the real one I mean]) to have told the entire truth to their populations. For what happens in conflicts would hardly make the victors any better than the vanquished enemy, and thats the sad truth.

Oh Blimey is that you betraying the idea and there is some morality then?

[DeppityDawg]

so am i . As you well know , theres nothing "woke" about me. I hold views against churchill that long predate the latest in thing from the student book of playground politics.

I couldnt give a fack if he was a racist , or held misogynistic views , or glugged copious amounts of brandy , or said a bad word.


i know what you are saying but to be fair history is often being re written by the victors the moment an event has happened.

In the modern world though definetly , im sure you have been reading a few of the posts and links on the bbc thread where some of this is being talked about.

I know that. I know your views have been pretty consistent on this and similar subjects right back to 2013 when I first starting posting on the old forum. I'm not so sure about Morays motives. He seems much more partisan to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats the impression I get. I understand you are a Scottish Nationalist, and I'd support your fight to win a democratic victory, even if I don't share your zeal to break up the Union. On the other hand, I don't think the Union is fit for purpose anymore either, so I can't exactly disagree with you 100% either. I think lots of "Brits", English, Scottish, Welsh and Norn Eyrish, feel the same. In lots of ways, we've all been fecked over by the same people, we just can't agree on the way to go from here 

For writing history, thats always been the victors perogative though hasn't it. You'd hardly expect Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill (leave alone Cromwell [the real one I mean]) to have told the entire truth to their populations. For what happens in conflicts would hardly make the victors any better than the vanquished enemy, and thats the sad truth.

[cromwell]

i will have you know it was us scottish that invented the flushed toilet and brought it down to you mancs when you were still shitting in the woods and wiping yer backsides with weeds.

Rubbish

The first modern flushable toilet was described in 1596 by Sir John Harington, an English courtier and the godson of Queen Elizabeth I. Harington's device called for a 2-foot-deep oval bowl waterproofed with pitch, resin and wax and fed by water from an upstairs cistern. Flushing Harington's pot required 7.5 gallons of water—a veritable torrent in the era before indoor plumbing. Harington noted that when water was scarce, up to 20 people could use his commode between flushes. 

[Thomas]

And bog seats are an unknown to you lot.

i will have you know it was us scottish that invented the flushed toilet and brought it down to you mancs when you were still shitting in the woods and wiping yer backsides with weeds.