Pub Grub in 1986

In 1986 the BBC launched an ambitious project to record a snapshot of everyday life across the UK for future generations. A million volunteers took part. The BBC has launched the new Domesday Reloaded website which has lots of memories from 25 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/domesday

To celebrate this, I will be posting occasional extracts from 1986 editions of "Thinks!", the Journal of Channel Islands Mensa, on which I worked as Assistant Editor in the 1980s; the Editor was Ken Webb.

In this piece from February 1986, the pseudonymous gastronaut, Yvonne Ronez, reports on the monthly dinner.

Henry Cooper, whom she mentions, was a well known boxer and personality of that time, who died very recently on 1 May 2011. He was a heavy-weight fighter, whose left hook was called "Enry's 'Ammer", and he is most famous for fighting world champion Muhammad Ali (then known as Cassius Clay). The fight nearly ended in Henry winning, had it not been for the chance coincidence of his punch and the bell:

Cooper finally connected and Clay went down. Hard. This was no flash knockdown. Clay was the recipient of a perfecty timed hook and sent reeling into the ropes, his body falling against the middle strand of the ropes on the way to the canvas. As everyone in Wembley jumped to their feet in unison, Clay lay on the canvas for a few brief seconds with a look akin to shock on his handsome face. Clay scrambled to his feet as the timekeeper tolled four. Fortunately for the American, the bell rang just as he got up. Clay had been fortunate in two ways: the punch that floored him came at the very end of the round; the punch that floored him came near the ropes and the ropes cushioned his fall. Under other circumstances, perhaps the outcome would have been different. There's no denying Clay's recuperative powers, but there's also no denying that Clay was more than just dazed. He was hurt. (1)

Clay went on to win, and it was Cooper who was defeated. He later retired from boxing and became almost as well known as a "character" in BBC quiz shows such as "A Question of Sport" and advertisements, notably for Brut aftershave.

The dinner mentioned by Yvonne Ronez took place at La Bourse Pub, which still exists at 8, Charing Cross, St.Helier. A guide notes that: "Located just off the main high street this small ale house has a friendly mix of local and visitors. The pub offers a great selection of beers and lagers along with a cosy atmosphere." The price of £6.95 for three courses plus coffee would probably be around £15.20 today, which would still be extremely good value for money. Unfortuunately I've not been able to find what a meal there would actually cost today, but I suspect it would be more!

Yvonne Ronez Returns!

Well, my little Jersey Wonders, guess who is back. And very glad too - as big, beautiful and bouncing as the US is, I got sick to the back teeth of burgers, brunch and bourbon. So I was rather pleased to be joining everyone on the 1st at La Bourse. Also, having read what that silly old fool, the Colonel, called a feature, I should think you are all pleased I am back too.

One should not be put off by La Bourse's grim green Victorian facade, I know it looks like a film set for Jack the Ripper, but the upstairs restaurant is extremely pleasant. The decor here is also turn of the century but without the clutter, Dark green swagged curtains, mushroom coloured walls and soft but good lighting give the room a pleasant restful atmosphere. Another bonus is that for once we did not have to compete with 40 watts of sound system going full blast. There were some pleasant prints, something Renoirish, a few framed Chinese Government Bonds, a couple of excitable looking ferns, a mother - in - law's tongue, and some other plants which I recognised but can
never remember the names of.

Like many Jersey eating houses, the bar is extremely small. It is also en route to the kitchen and a constant stream of staff bearing laden dishes had us all ducking and weaving like 'Enery Cooper.

We had opted for the table d'hote menu which was arranged not by fish or meat category, but by the length of wording so that It formed a pyramid display.

The starters included such delicacies as oysters, smoked salmon, clams, escargots, ripe melon, and avocado. Then came the soup - hot, thin and complete with croutons, but I was not really sure what the flavour was except it was tasty. This was followed by a warm prawn concoction in a sauce and served in scallop shells. The main course consisted of various types of good steak, veal, Jersey plaice, sole, chicken and trout. To round off, a selection of sweets, and for once I had no room left to try one. The coffee was Rambout, which is nice enough but means you only get one cup. Not that one could complain for the whole meal was only £6-95 and very good value, The house wine was also excellent and
not expensive. All in all a thoroughly good evening.

Links
(1) http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=1478&more=1
(2) http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/result.php

The Good Old Days - from 1986

In 1986 the BBC launched an ambitious project to record a snapshot of everyday life across the UK for future generations. A million volunteers took part. The BBC has launched the new Domesday Reloaded website which has lots of memories from 25 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/domesday

To celebrate this, I will be posting occasional extracts from 1986 editions of "Thinks!", the Journal of Channel Islands Mensa, on which I worked as Assistant Editor in the 1980s; the Editor was Ken Webb.

In this piece, Ken Webb looks at Woolworths, which was facing a financial crisis in 1986 which - that time around - it surmounted, largely by closing unprofitable stores. It seems that financial problems were recurring, coming back in cycles, until at last, of course, all the stores closed between 27 December 2008 and 6 January 2009, under the administration of Deloitte's.

I was personally of the opinion that they didn't really make enough of an effort to sell off profitable parts of the company as a going concern, and of course, whether they did so, or simply closed Woolworths down, they still took their administration fees, so there was no direct incentive to keep some stores going. In Jersey, the closure was badly handled due to the lack of any proper compensatory scheme for staff, and an absence of legal redress. A report on the legal hearing in 2 March 2009 noted that:

The Bailiff made clear his concern and displeasure that the joint administrators had been exercising their duties without authority of the Court. Deloitte lawyers argued that as a matter of law they acted as agents of the Company and did not need express sanction of the Court, albeit with a possible risk as to their personal liability more so than if they had been acting under such express authority. However, in order to undertaking conveyancing required registration and that is why their lawyers were in court. The hearing had been due to proceed last Monday and clearly had been delayed as the wrangling and haggling progressed. Deloitte lawyers were reluctant to mention details of what they alleged were commercially sensitive matters and reference to precise financial details was avoided in open court. They were also clearly embarrassed at not having registered sooner, and squirmed at having to be reminded by the Bailiff that the draft Order failed to recite the request for registration in the jurisdiction. The Bailiff granted the Order in the terms set out and had to be called back again to reconvene the Court because the lawyers were still unsure about the precise status of Deloitte and whether the Court had now officially appointed them. It was made clear to Deloitte that their appointment was a limited one to the terms agreed in the Order. Clearly Deloitte have been cavalier in their dealings with the liquidation of Woolworths. They abused the good will of staff who worked hard to sell off all stock in a grand sale, and in doing so raised millions, knowing all along they had no intention of paying redundancy or notice. (1)

Back in 1986, Woolworths was downsizing, but unlike the situation under Deloitte's administration, on this occasion it survived. Nevertheless, part of its problem may have been with the change in its original market position as a "bargain basement", and the shift upwards to more competitive markets. Here is Ken Webb reminiscing on the early days of Woolworths:

The Good Old Days! by Ken Webb

In order to fight a take-over bid and to expand their B & Q outlets, F.W.Woolworth are selling several of their major stores and closing down a further 22 which are unprofitable. I remember the good, old-fashioned Woolies of the old - the very old - days.

When I was a kid, Woolies boasted that nothing in their store sold over 6d, in fact they were known as the "3d and 6d store". Considering that the Woolworth family made millions one wanders how this could be so when the top price was - in modern parlance -- 2 new p. Doubtless something to do with the intricacies of turnover and profit margins.

I recollect as a lad, barely of school age, I had an intense desire for a gramophone but, our family being exceedingly poor, it was but a pipe dream.

Imagine my surprise and delight when, that Xmas, I was presented with my heart's desire. Woolies had done it again! A gramophone for 6d? Well, not quite. The case was 6d (Dad); the clockwork motor 6d (Mum); turntable 6d (Aunt & Uncle); Pick-up arm 3d (Uncle); sound head 4d(Aunt); box of needles 2d (two cousins) - two shillings and three pence all told (11 new p).

How about the records, you might say. Well, Woolies sold them for 3d and 6d each but, family finances being as they were, my source of supply was a second hand shop where you could pick them up for 1d each - scratches and all included!

My present system cost some hundreds of pounds but never gives me the happiness of my first ever -2 shillings and 3 pence at at Woolies.

Such is progress!

Links
(1) http://www.isthisjersey.com/print.php?news.713

Modern Art: Another Opinion from 1986

In 1986 the BBC launched an ambitious project to record a snapshot of everyday life across the UK for future generations. A million volunteers took part. The BBC has launched the new Domesday Reloaded website which has lots of memories from 25 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/domesday

To celebrate this on this blog, I will be posting extracts from 1986 editions of "Thinks!", the Journal of Channel Islands Mensa, on which I worked as Assistant Editor in the 1980s; the Editor was Ken Webb.

For background, I previously had posted a piece from "Thinks!" on Modern Art which I had written under the pseudonym of Dr Gideon Fell, which can be found at:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2009/01/modern-art-opinion.html

In the March 1986 edition, artist, art teacher (at Victoria College Prep), Derrick Rolls (father of famous local artist Ian Rolls) replied.

I agree with much of what Derrick says, and regarding more abstract art, I like the work of the late Robert Tilling, especially his seascapes. But I still think there is something amiss about how art is valued, not by the artist (as in the case cited of Whistler), but by critics who often are speaking absolute nonsense.

The best experimental verification of this was the "blind assessment" when an anthropologist put an "abstract" piece of art in a museum alongside other art - it looked liked colourful scrawls in paint - and gleaned all kinds of interesting comments about what the artist was intending, and what emotions he was trying to portray, also valuing it with a high price tag. It was, of course, painted by a chimpanzee!

Anyhow, here is Derrick on Modern Art:

Modern Art: Another Opinion
Contributed by Derrick Rolls.

In a recent edition of the Mensa magazine "Thinks", there was an article entitled "Modern Art". In some ways think the title is a misnomer. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate if he had called it "Art I Heartily Dislike", if you will forgive the pun!

Modern Art is a term frequently used today, but what on earth does it mean? Does it mean art that has been executed In the last twenty five years or so, or does it mean - as in the case of a modern history book which I have on my shelf entitled "Modern History from 1500 to the present day" - works of Art originating as far back as the sixteenth century? Therefore I suggest the term "Modern Art" is rather vague and valueless, far too general to describe exactly what one means.

The attractiveness of a picture, painting, a piece of sculpture, a watercolour, be it what it may, lies very much In the eye of the beholder. What one person can live with I'm quite sure another would detest. Therefore the true artist paints because he has to. He paints that which he likes; he does not paint, necessarily, for the general public. His art is a very personal thing.

Art has never been solely concerned with the true, the good, the beautiful. Artists throughout the history of Art have depicted the gruesome and the grotesque. One has only to look at the paintings of Bosch (people with weird monsters and torturing demons) or the wood cuts of Durer (depicting apocalyptic prophesies) to have proof of that.

Durer also, incidentally, produced many studies of nature which speak of nothing but beauty and innocence. When an artist exhibits his paintings he is presenting his work to the public, not necessarily for approval but for reaction and that public is no more compelled to like or live with any of the exhibited works than the television viewer is compelled to watch a programme he dislikes.

Since all artists, to some extent, are a reflection of what goes on around then, by necessity, the ugliness must be recorded alongside the beauty, for without the one we cannot know the other.

But to return to the opinion of Gideon Fell: it is not very clear to my mind what kind of "Modern Art" he is referring to because, on re-reading the article I find he does not mention the word "Abstract" at all, which rather surprises me. Most people think of "Modern Art" as the abstract art which one finds so frequently in galleries and exhibitions.

As far as abstract art is concerned, I personally like some abstract art but on the whole, I do not like much of what I see. In fact I think, especially when one hears a painting described or "explained" by an art "expert", much of what is said is the speaker's own opinion which is often very far from what the artist intended. I am quite sure there are the unscrupulous artists whose art is a "big con". They are almost poking fun at the general public and at the same time, I suggest, "laughing all the way to the bank".

It must also not be forgotten, for example, that in the days of the "Impressionists" their work was as evolutionary and detested just as much as some of the art referred to by Gideon Fell. Whistler is the classic case of an artist whose paintings today are considered to be sublime exercises in good taste but in whose day were thought to be extreme and outrageous and an attempt to "con" the public.

E.H.Gombrich in his book "The Story of Art", relates how in 1877 Whistler exhibited nine pieces in the Japanese manner which he called "Nocturnes", asking 200 guineas for each. A critic wrote:- "I have never expected to hear a cockscomb ask 200 guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face." Whistler sued him for libel and the case once more brought out the deep cleavage that separated the public's paint of view from that of the artist. When cross examined as to whether he really asked that enormous sum for 'two days' work, Whistler replied - "I ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime".

Artists ( who are by nature observant and receptive) have always borrowed, and always will borrow, elements from many different sources. These may include tribal art but will almost certainly include art from different cultures which cross fertilise at regular intervals. So when an artist uses elements from the art of a different culture, perhaps even unknowingly, he is not consciously imitating but utilising qualities of colour, shape,
line etc. , which be admires for their own sake. Whistler in particular and the Impressionists in general were greatly influenced by the aesthetic simplicity of Japanese Art but in no way could be accused of imitating another culture's art.

However, on the whole, I cannot help agreeing with much of what Gideon Fell has written. There is a great deal in so called "Modern Art" which I dislike and could not live with. However, there is also much that I find beautiful, colourful and appealing and could live with, quite happily, in my own home.