Ebenezer Scrooge: Conservative or Liberal?

[zoo22]

He is saying that when the artificial comfort provided by the welfare programs is removed, then people will take responsibility for their lives and will labor to improve them.

But, as long as there are people willing to provide handouts to keep the poor out of sight, then the poor will remain in bondage to those handouts.

This was one of the primary reasonings behind the Victorian workhouses of Dickens' time.

 

[zoo22]

It's fairly clear in this thread how various folks might answer (at least in concept) Oliver Twist's plea:

"Please, sir, I want some more"

"The master was a fat, healthy man; but he turned very pale. He gazed in stupified astonishment on the small rebel for some seconds, and then clung for support to the copper. The assistants were paralysed with wonder; the boys with fear.

'What!' said the master at length, in a faint voice.

'Please, sir,' replied Oliver, 'I want some more.'

The master aimed a blow at Oliver's head with the ladle; pinioned him in his arm; and shrieked aloud for the beadle.

The board were sitting in solemn conclave, when Mr. Bumble rushed into the room in great excitement, and addressing the gentleman in the high chair, said,

'Mr. Limbkins, I beg your pardon, sir! Oliver Twist has asked for more!'

There was a general start. Horror was depicted on every countenance.

'For MORE!' said Mr. Limbkins. 'Compose yourself, Bumble, and answer me distinctly. Do I understand that he asked for more, after he had eaten the supper allotted by the dietary?'

'He did, sir,' replied Bumble.

'That boy will be hung,' said the gentleman in the white waistcoat. 'I know that boy will be hung.'"

One only needs to look at Dickens' own politics or the many other iterations of Scrooge in his works to understand Scrooge's leanings... It's not as if Scrooge is really a one-off character; Dickens portrayed the free market capitalist and businessman as greedy exploitative villain again and again. Try Hard Times. The Chimes. Oliver Twist.

Dickens was a staunch advocate of rights for and public support of the poor, the working class, artists. He believed education was a right that everyone should be afforded, he believed the poor should be provided with proper healthcare (yes, government-provided healthcare), was highly critical of capitalism, industrialists and of Parliament's Laissez-faire policies. He was a vocal critic of the Poor Law reforms because they didn't do much to help the poor, but rather exploited them. He supported worker's rights. All of this is Dickens 101. His views are known; he was very outspoken and active regarding social reform. He was a Social liberal and he was a radical. In his own time, he was criticized by many as being a socialist.

But to assign Scrooge as being a modern day liberal or conservative is absurdly simplistic, and in my opinion, surely undermines the true message in A Christmas Carol; ultimately, it's a humanist message, as most of Dickens' messages were. He took issue with society as a whole more than he did with either government or individuals.

If one really wants to jam Scrooge into their own particular modern belief system, so be it, but to point fingers saying "They [liberals or conservatives] are Scrooge!!" seems a complete waste of a wonderful story and discards a profound moral.

Scrooge was a "liberal": A Classical Liberal. Nothing like the modern liberal. Absolutely more aligned with the modern day conservative. The same? No. Different times. Also, Dickens was a liberal: A social liberal. Far more in-line with the modern liberal. The same? No. Different times. I'm certain he'd both align with and take issue with aspects of both sides of our modern political spectrum. Personally, I don't believe conservatives would care for him much.

He was a Unitarian. He accepted Darwin's Theory of evolution. He gave voice to the poor and he villainized businessmen and the comfortable (fat) middle class who exploited the poor and working class for greed. He gave hearts to prostitutes, allowed sympathy to thieves.

I believe his overall message was "do unto others..." whether that pertained to a government, a business, an organization, an individual.

Consider his statement when he started the radical paper The Daily News: "The principles advocated in The Daily News will be principles of progress and improvement; of education, civil and religious liberty, and equal legislation."

Bob was part of the problem as well by not seeking better and more gainful employment.

This is one of the saddest comments that I've seen at TOL in a long time.

Sadder even than the prospect of you discussing Dickens.

 

[MrRadish]

Unions are socialist

Funny how people who argue that employers should be allowed to run their businesses however they want don't extend the same liberty to their workers.

And no transportation? Really? He didn't have two feet and a heartbeat?

So you just assume that there'd be a better-paid job that Bob was qualified to take, which was also within walking distance of his house, that he'd be able to apply for without taking any time out from his existing job? Hmm.

No he doesn't. He suggests imprisoning them or putting them in workhouses.

Not as a means of controlling the surplus population, though.

You really think there would be a single person for whom no one would care? You're stupid.

Of course there would be! People who've been alienated from their families, orphans, drifters, the diseased, the disabled, immigrants... the list goes on.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble believing that even you would think that, absent welfare, everybody would be adequately looked after by someone.

If you save your money then you don't need "benefits" if you lose your job.

It's made very clear that most workers at that time didn't earn enough to save money.

None of these are right-wing arguments.:nono:

'Allowing people to take responsibility for their mistakes' is one of the most common pieces of right-wing rhetoric used today.

I think zoo makes some great points, by the way. Scrooge's real journey is from selfish materialism to a love of his fellow human beings. It's just that his views on economics seem to me to be more similar to those of what would today be considered a right-libertarian than those of, say, a socialist. But the story isn't fundamentally about politics even if some of the issues that arise in it have political resonance.

 

[some other dude]

It's made very clear that most workers at that time didn't earn enough to save money.

And yet they kept producing scads of children :think:

 

[Granite]

It is a matter of proportion in my mind. There are far too many people that use the welfare system as a crutch.

This may well be the way you perceive the problem but I wonder if there are any cold, hard numbers to back you up?

This will ever be the case as long as they exist. They are not the answer. Like all goverment programs - that may or may not be well-intentioned - once the are implemented THEY NEVER END.

So let's retool or reform the system, not throw the needy out into the cold. Why penalize the genuinely downtrodden because of the exploitation of some freeloaders?

So many liberals love to play the BOO HOO card.

And the lazy, and the unimaginative, play the whole "liberals versus conservative" card, and I'm sick to death of it.

Conservatives dare to suggest that immigrants come into this country by the front door and suddenly we hate Mexicans.

Yes, well, some conservatives do. I'm no fan of illegal immigration, either, but there's an undercurrent of racism that's not difficult to encounter.

Conservatives dare to suggest that public handouts from the goverment paid through tax dollars are not the sollution to poverty and suddently we hate children and poor people.

Then you better figure out an alternative solution other than "get a job," vegas, because you can't beat something with nothing.

Conservatives dare to suggest that adoption or abstinence is a viable alternative to abortion and suddenly we hate women.

This is probably the one stereotype where you have a leg to stand on. I would say that the pro-life movement has not done enough to provide a viable network of options and a system that can compete with its opponents, but that's another story.

I am not suggesting that we get rid of poor people.

Ummmmm...good? I'd hate to hear how we would "get rid" of the poverty stricken and those in need. Especially considering how a dirt-poor carpenter once pointed out that the poor would always be with us. (His compassion for the needy and the poor is striking, consistent, and an example that most American Christians completely ignore.)

 

[some other dude]

(His compassion for the needy and the poor is striking, consistent,

and devoid of instructing them to seek succor from the government

and an example that most American Christians completely ignore.)

This may well be the way you perceive the problem but I wonder if there are any cold, hard numbers to back you up?

 

[Lighthouse]

This is one of the saddest comments that I've seen at TOL in a long time.

Sadder even than the prospect of you discussing Dickens.

:yawn:

P.S.
Many of Dickens' political leanings are considered right-wing today.

Funny how people who argue that employers should be allowed to run their businesses however they want don't extend the same liberty to their workers.

Nobody has to work for greedy, selfish, abusive people. If they treat their employees badly they'll go out of business when non one wants to work for them. Simple as that.

So you just assume that there'd be a better-paid job that Bob was qualified to take, which was also within walking distance of his house, that he'd be able to apply for without taking any time out from his existing job? Hmm.

How do you define walking distance? I used to leave two hours ahead of my scheduled shift and arrive with minutes to spare at one of my jobs. The only stop I made was to buy a drink on the way there. My boss told me today that one of our customers told her he walks an hour and a half from his home to his job.

And why wouldn't he be able to apply without taking time off?

Not as a means of controlling the surplus population, though.

For that he suggests they die.

Of course there would be! People who've been alienated from their families, orphans, drifters, the diseased, the disabled, immigrants... the list goes on.

So, no churches? You're a moron.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble believing that even you would think that, absent welfare, everybody would be adequately looked after by someone.

Then you're even dumber than I thought.

It's made very clear that most workers at that time didn't earn enough to save money.

Then get two jobs.

'Allowing people to take responsibility for their mistakes' is one of the most common pieces of right-wing rhetoric used today.

No right-winger wants the children to suffer the consequences of their parents actions, except in cases where the consequences are the removal of the children from the household.

I think zoo makes some great points, by the way. Scrooge's real journey is from selfish materialism to a love of his fellow human beings. It's just that his views on economics seem to me to be more similar to those of what would today be considered a right-libertarian than those of, say, a socialist. But the story isn't fundamentally about politics even if some of the issues that arise in it have political resonance.

The primary thing that shows Scrooge to be a liberal at the beginning is that he hates Christmas. His refusal to believe Bob earned more than he was paid is secondary to that.

 

[chrysostom]

This is one of the saddest comments that I've seen at TOL in a long time.

but the list is long
and
it really doesn't take that much time

right?

 

[Granite]

The longer this thread goes on (and the longer Lighthouse talks) the more depressing it gets.

Why can't you guys just let someone of their day and age speak for their day and age? Why insist on making them out to be something they weren't?

I guess original intent isn't good enough for some of you.

 

[MrRadish]

Nobody has to work for greedy, selfish, abusive people. If they treat their employees badly they'll go out of business when non one wants to work for them. Simple as that.

And supposing the greedy, selfish, abusive people are the only ones who'll give you a job? Employment was quite scarce in the Victorian era and in some ways Bob was quite lucky to have found an indoor clerical job at all.

Also, bear in mind that the prevailing attitude at the time was that one had to be grateful and loyal to one's employer; there was a status difference that was, in effect, not dissimilar to the dynamic between master and servant. What you're proposing is a fairly consumerist approach to employment which, again, relies on being in a position to choose.

How do you define walking distance? I used to leave two hours ahead of my scheduled shift and arrive with minutes to spare at one of my jobs. The only stop I made was to buy a drink on the way there. My boss told me today that one of our customers told her he walks an hour and a half from his home to his job.

If one's adding an extra four hours per day onto one's work day (bearing in mind that working-class Victorians tended to be toiling for 65 - 80 hours a week) in travelling time seems to largely negate the benefit of finding a better-paying employer.

And why wouldn't he be able to apply without taking time off?

Because he would need time to look for another potential employer, speak to them or give them a letter and be interviewed or assessed in some way.

For that he suggests they die.

Yep. Rather like how VC was implying that only the threat of actual starvation will make poor people 'saddle up' and find jobs.

So, no churches?

Dickens makes it abundantly clear that philanthropy at the time couldn't possibly have helped everybody who needed help. Nor could it if welfare were abolished tomorrow.

Then you're even dumber than I thought.

Classy as ever, Lighthouse. Are you this obnoxious in real life, out of interest?

Then get two jobs.

How can you possibly get two jobs when you're working 65 - 80 hours a week and are making your wife and children work as well? You'd die within months, especially considering the conditions in which the poor at the time lived.

No right-winger wants the children to suffer the consequences of their parents actions, except in cases where the consequences are the removal of the children from the household.

And are you saying, then, that you'd totally remove all forms of welfare then 'solve' the problem of inadequately provided-for children by taking them away and giving them to someone else? Would it be the government that did this?

The primary thing that shows Scrooge to be a liberal at the beginning is that he hates Christmas. His refusal to believe Bob earned more than he was paid is secondary to that.

One's stance on the Christian faith and the celebration of holidays has nothing to do with right- and left-wing politics. Furthermore, most liberals in the West do celebrate Christmas, just like most conservatives.

 

[MrRadish]

Why can't you guys just let someone of their day and age speak for their day and age? Why insist on making them out to be something they weren't?

As I've said, I do acknowledge that the story is mainly about Scrooge's progress from materialism to humanism, it's just that the original question posed by VC seemed to be a sort of 'springboard' into discussing the politics of Victorian England. As far as I'm concerned, the ongoing 'discussion' with Lighthouse isn't really about A Christmas Carol any more.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As I've said, I do acknowledge that the story is mainly about Scrooge's progress from materialism to humanism, it's just that the original question posed by VC seemed to be a sort of 'springboard' into discussing the politics of Victorian England. As far as I'm concerned, the ongoing 'discussion' with Lighthouse isn't really about A Christmas Carol any more.

I wonder if he thinks 'Dr Who' is right wing?

lain:

 

[MrRadish]

I wonder if he thinks 'Dr Who' is right wing?

lain:

- It has bad guys who usually lose.
- Dr Who travels in a police box and so represents law and order.
- One of the characters had a baby this one time and didn't abort it.
- There is a faithful heterosexual married couple in it.
- Lighthouse enjoys it.

Ergo, yes. Of course Lighthouse thinks it's right-wing. I daresay the one thing he'd argue is left-wing about it is the fact that it involves time travel.

 

[Arthur Brain]

- It has bad guys who usually lose.
- Dr Who travels in a police box and so represents law and order.
- One of the characters had a baby this one time and didn't abort it.
- There is a faithful heterosexual married couple in it.
- Lighthouse enjoys it.

Ergo, yes. Of course Lighthouse thinks it's right-wing. I daresay the one thing he'd argue is left-wing about it is the fact that it involves time travel.

The bad guys always lose Mr R (well eventually anyway, even if they do resurface after supposedly being wiped out... 'exterminate' etc...)

He actually travels in a TARDIS which for reasons never satisfactorily explained is stuck looking like something out of 'Dixon Of Dock Green' despite supposedly being able to take the form of anything within reason.

Reason 3 I'll give ya though plenty left wingers would support that too.

There may be a heterosexual married couple in it but there's also a bisexual second world war captain in it as well....

I enjoy it too (Well, as passing entertainment goes anyway although the more recent forays have been somewhat lacking on cohesive narrative and plot points rather weak IMNSHO) *Ahem*....

Time travel left wing?! What an outrageous suggestion!

lain:

 

[Psalmist]

I’ve read Christmas Carol several times; we have a few of the dvd/video versions, the orginial, The Muppet Christmas Carol, An American Christmas Carol starring Henry Winkler, and of George C. Scott’s masterpiece.

Pre ghost…

Ebenezer, a miserly tightwad bent on making it on the backs and brains of others, with little sympathy for who fail to make it on their own.
​

Ghostly visitors…

Then through the efforts of his three visitors, the self centered narcissistic Ebenezer is drawn out to show him for what he is.​

Post ghost…

Like the story and the out come, and like Ebenezer when we see things in a real perspective I believe there is change in a persons, but we have to start and take the initiative to make the changes even if it slow. I believe it really does work.

After watching Christmas Carol and if all we were was entertained, then that what it is. However, if watched Christmas Carol and were entertained and came away with a new zeal and perspective for life like Ebenezer Scrooge, then I say the storybook or dvd/video has done what the writer intended more than to entertain.

Does that make sense? It does to me, but then I like Edsel cars too.​

​

 

[MrRadish]

The bad guys always lose Mr R (well eventually anyway, even if they do resurface after supposedly being wiped out... 'exterminate' etc...)

As is right and proper! Beating up bad people is the solution to social problems. Right-wing points.

He actually travels in a TARDIS which for reasons never satisfactorily explained is stuck looking like something out of 'Dixon Of Dock Green' despite supposedly being able to take the form of anything within reason.

Exactly. And it looks like a police box because he represents order and justice, both of which the left hate. Right-wing points.

Reason 3 I'll give ya though plenty left wingers would support that too.

No you moron, left-wingers think that all pregnancies should be aborted. They love abortions. Right-wing points.

There may be a heterosexual married couple in it but there's also a bisexual second world war captain in it as well....

That's because the writers were forced to include him by the PC radical Marxists at the BBC. The heterosexual married couple are much more significant, and anyway Jack Harkness is basically evil. Right-wing points.

I enjoy it too (Well, as passing entertainment goes anyway although the more recent forays have been somewhat lacking on cohesive narrative and plot points rather weak IMNSHO) *Ahem*....

I watch it on rare occasions at the behest of friends. I get the impression Steven Moffat's episodes are good and the rest are, um... yes. Which they freely admit before the episode, then get angry at me for pointing it out during.

Time travel left wing?! What an outrageous suggestion!

Well of course a liberal pervert imbecile like you would totally fail to see it, so I suppose I'll explain it to you: Bob Enyart disagrees that time travel is possible on theological grounds. Therefore, it's socialist. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have realised the irrefutable logic of this long ago.

Anyway, I feel we're doing Dickens a disservice by discussing Dr Who here. Rory the Last Centurion has nothing on Martin Chuzzlewit.

 

[zoo22]

Double post.

 

[zoo22]

Michael Levins (I know a favorite of some here at TOL) "In Defense of Scrooge":

It's Christmas again, time to celebrate the transformation of Ebenezer Scrooge. You know the ritual: boo the curmudgeon initially encountered in Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, then cheer the sweetie pie he becomes in the end. It's too bad no one notices that the curmudgeon had a point—quite a few points, in fact.

To appreciate them, it is necessary first to distinguish Scrooge's outlook on life from his disagreeable persona. He is said to have a pointed nose and a harsh voice, but not all hardheaded businessmen are so lamentably endowed, nor are their feckless nephews (remember Fred?) alwavs "ruddy and handsome," and possessed of pretty wives. These touches of the storyteller's art only bias the issue.

So let's look without preconceptions at Scrooge's allegedly underpaid clerk, Bob Cratchit. The fact is, if Cratchit's skills were worth more to anyone than the fifteen shillings Scrooge pays him weekly, there would be someone glad to offer it to him. Since no one has, and since Cratchit's profit-maximizing boss is hardly a man to pay for nothing, Cratchit must be worth exactly his present wages.

No doubt Cratchit needs—i.e., wants—more, to support his family and care for Tiny Tim. But Scrooge did not force Cratchit to father children he is having difficulty supporting. If Cratchit had children while suspecting he would be unable to afford them, he, not Scrooge, is responsible for their plight. And if Cratchit didn't know how expensive they would be, why must Scrooge assume the burden of Cratchit's misjudgment?

As for that one lump of coal Scrooge allows him, it bears emphasis that Cratchit has not been chained to his chilly desk. If he stays there, he shows by his behavior that he prefers his present wages-plus-comfort package to any other he has found, or supposes himself likely to find. Actions speak louder than grumbling, and the reader can hardly complain about what Cratchit evidently finds satisfactory.

More notorious even than his miserly ways are Scrooge's cynical words. "Are there no prisons," he jibes when solicited for charity, "and the Union workhouses?"

Terrible, right? Lacking in compassion?

Not necessarily. As Scrooge observes, he supports those institutions with his taxes. Already forced to help those who can't or won't help themselves, it is not unreasonable for him to balk at volunteering additional funds for their extra comfort.

Scrooge is skeptical that many would prefer death to the workhouse, and he is unmoved by talk of the workhouse's cheerlessness. He is right to be unmoved, for society's provisions for the poor must*be, well, Dickensian. The more pleasant the alternatives to gainful employment, the greater will be the number of people who seek these alternatives, and the fewer there will be who engage in productive labor. If society expects anyone to work, work had better be a lot more attractive than idleness.

The normally taciturn Scrooge lets himself go a bit when Cratchit hints that he would like a paid Christmas holiday. "It's not fair," Scrooge objects, a charge not met by Cratchet's patently irrelevant protest that Christmas comes but once a year. Unfair it is, for Cratchit would doubtless object to a request for a day's uncompensated labor, "and yet," as Scrooge shrewdly points out, "you don't think me*ill used when I pay a day's wages for no work."

Cratchit has apparently forgotten the golden rule. (Or is it that Scrooge has so much more than Cratchit that the golden rule does not come into play? But Scrooge doesn't think he has that much, and shouldn't he have a say in the matter?)

Scrooge's first employer, good old Fezziwig, was a lot freer with a guinea—he throws his employees a Christmas party. What the Ghost of Christmas Past does not explain is how Fezziwig afforded it. Did he attempt to pass the added costs to his customers? Or did young Scrooge pay for it anyway by working for marginally lower wages?

The biggest of the Big Lies about Scrooge is the pointlessness of his pursuit of money. "Wealth is of no use to him. He doesn't do any good with it," opines ruddy nephew Fred.

Wrong on both counts. Scrooge apparently lends money, and to discover the good he does one need only inquire of the borrowers. Here is a homeowner with a new roof, and there a merchant able to finance a shipment of tea, bringing profit to himself and happiness to tea drinkers, all thanks to Scrooge.

Dickens doesn't mention Scrooge's satisfied customers, but there must have been plenty of them for Scrooge to have gotten so rich.

Scrooge is said to hound debtors so relentlessly that—as the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Be is able to show him—an indebted couple rejoices at his demise. The mere delay while their debt is transferred will avert the ruin Scrooge would have imposed.

This canard is triply absurd. First, a businessman as keen as Scrooge would prefer to delay payment to protect his investment rather than take possession of possibly useless collateral. (No bank wants*developers to fail and leave it the proud possessor of a half-built shopping mall.) Second, the fretful couple knew and agreed to the terms on which Scrooge insisted. By reneging on the deal, they are effectively engaged in theft. Third, most important, and completely overlooked by Ghost and by Dickens, there are hopefuls whose own plans turn on borrowing the money returned to Scrooge from his old accounts. Scrooge can't relend what Caroline and her unnamed husband don't pay up, and he won't make a penny unless he puts the money to use after he gets it back.

The hard case, of course, is a payment due from Bob Cratchit, who needs the money for an emergency operation on Tiny Tim. (Here I depart from the text, but Dickens characters are so familiar to us they can be pressed into unfamiliar roles.) If you think it is heartless of Scrooge to demand payment, think of Sickly Sid, who needs an operation even more urgently than Tim does, and whose father is waiting to finance that operation by borrowing the money Cratchit is expected to pay up.

Is Tim's life more valuable than Sid's just because we've met him? And how do we explain to Sid's father that his son won't be able to have the operation after all, because Scrooge, as Christmas generosity, is allowing Cratchit to reschedule his debt? Scrooge does not circulate money from altruism, to be sure, but his motives, whatever they are, are congruent with the public good.

But what about those motives? Scrooge doesn't seem to get much satisfaction from the services he may inadvertently perform, and that seems to be part of Dickens's point. But who, apart from Dickens, says that Scrooge is not enjoying himself? He spends all his time at his business, likes to count his money, and has no outside interests.

At the same time, Scrooge is not given to brooding and shows absolutely no sign of depression or conflict. Whether he wished to or not, Dickens has made Scrooge by far the most intelligent character in his fable, and Dickens credits his creation with having nothing "fancy" about him. So we conclude that, in his undemonstrative way, Scrooge is productive and satisfied with his lot, which is to say happy.

There can be no arguing with Dickens's wish to show the spiritual advantages of love. But there was no need to make the object of his lesson an entrepreneur whose ideas and practices benefit his employees, society at large, and himself. Must such a man expect no fairer a fate than to die scorned and alone? Bah, I say. Humbug.

Source

How remarkably sad. And how remarkably sad how closely it fits with so many comments in this thread.

lain:

My apologies for the long cut-and-paste.

Merry Christmas one and all.

 

[MrRadish]

Good grief.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As is right and proper! Beating up bad people is the solution to social problems. Right-wing points.

Except he doesn't beat them up you insufferable Jane Austen character. He tries everything but the violent route usually (which inevitably doesn't work but still) before wiping out hordes of enemies. Get a haircut and then that fringe of yours won't obscure your vision so much!

Exactly. And it looks like a police box because he represents order and justice, both of which the left hate. Right-wing points.

Once again you bridge playing fop, it only looks that way cos the 'chameleon circut' is knackered, rendering any other disguise effectively void. Considering the idea is to blend into the scenery somewhat, a 1950's call box ain't gonna cut it is it? I think at one point he managed to fix it and it turned into a pipe organ but I digress....

No you moron, left-wingers think that all pregnancies should be aborted. They love abortions. Right-wing points.

Tish and pish sir. The only thing left wingers have in common is a contempt for morris dancing....though to be fair I think that's kinda universal anyway....

That's because the writers were forced to include him by the PC radical Marxists at the BBC. The heterosexual married couple are much more significant, and anyway Jack Harkness is basically evil. Right-wing points.

Hogwash sir. Absolute balderdash and drivel of the 'highest' order. Captain Jack is effectively given immortality and goes on to battle aliens galore, unlike the married couple who throw a peanut at a cybermat or some such and then go home to watch Emmerdale or whatnot....

As with the rest of the above you have amassed a score not too dissimilar to Luxembourg's usual in the Eurovision Gong Contest...

I watch it on rare occasions at the behest of friends. I get the impression Steven Moffat's episodes are good and the rest are, um... yes. Which they freely admit before the episode, then get angry at me for pointing it out during.

Why does it not surprise me you're one of those gits who talk during programmes? I bet you flick popcorn at folk in cinemas as well....

Well of course a liberal pervert imbecile like you would totally fail to see it, so I suppose I'll explain it to you: Bob Enyart disagrees that time travel is possible on theological grounds. Therefore, it's socialist. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have realised the irrefutable logic of this long ago.

My dear chap, if that counts as an 'explanation' then not only am I a Scotch egg, I'm the accompanying french fries and "salad" to go with it...

Anyway, I feel we're doing Dickens a disservice by discussing Dr Who here. Rory the Last Centurion has nothing on Martin Chuzzlewit.

Ah, except in a certain Dr Who episode he makes acquaintance with Mr Dickens.....so :nananana: to you....

lain: