Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Clanger Special

THE BOARD THUG

Proving that he really is the thug of the board, the Clanger responded to RJ Palmer's sensible post that he didn't want to waste any more time discussing the diary with Miss Information by saying:

'Did you run this before your Lord and Master before you posted it?'

The Clanger, as usual, was being absolutely ridiculous as well as thuggish, but bullies are gonna bully and you can't stop 'em.

CLANGER'S FISH AND CHIPS

In the 'Proposed modification to Lechmere's route to work thread', the Clanger said (in #5) that 9 times out of 10 when he walks from Liverpool to Spitalfields he takes a certain route, 'even if I'm heading to Poppy's for fish and chips':

Here's the proof:

 

Is there a Poppy's fish and chips shop anywhere on the route?

No!  This is the Clanger we are talking about though.  Does he mean Poppie's Fish & Chips in Hanbury Street?

 

Clanger's attention to detail fails again. 

Poppie's not Poppy's. 

And with Poppie's Fish & Chips shop being in Hanbury Street, any stop at that shop would be totally unaffected by any route selected by because ALL Lechmere's proposed routes (to work) ended up with him walking along to the end of Hanbury Street.  The question is did he turn left into Commercial Street or go straight across to Lamb Street.

I do want to make clear that it was entirely possible that Lechmere might have turned left into Commercial Street and then right down Brushfield Street, assuming he was heading for where Liverpool Street station is today (which itself is uncertain, and for all we know he was heading for Primrose Street/Appold Street).  The point I was making in the last update was that he wouldn't have gone as far as Dorset Street because it would have been irrational for him to have spurned the turn into Brushfield Street, and walking down Dorset Street would not have involved him taking a direct route to his place of work.

BILSTON KATE AND THE UGLY TRUTH

Massive credit to the Clanger for his one-man campaign to expose the use of dramatic license in the play 'Bilston Kate' (audience: 3).  The idea that dramatic works such as plays and films might not reflect reality is absolutely shocking.  It's started to make me think that perhaps the old lady didn't drop the diamond into the ocean after all.  The Clanger must continue his important work to ensure that the minds of the citizens of Stourbridge are not corrupted any further by what seems to be a criminal corruption of history, the consequences of which are impossible to understate.

THE CYCLE OF CLANG

The Clanger's responses to this website tend to go round in a weird cycle.  After one Orsam Day we find the Clanger furiously rage-posting about Lord Orsam in multiple threads on multiple sites but then, after the next Orsam Day (when Lord Orsam has inevitably responded to the rage-posts and shown him the error of his ways), he goes totally silent.

It happens time and time and again. 

Following the last Orsam Day, we were on the part of the cycle when the Clanger had gone totally silent.  Not a squeak out of him. Unfortunately for him it meant he didn't get his quarterly retainer from Orsam Industries Inc., due to his being in breach of contract for failing to delight our readers with his hilarious antics, but it's amazing how it happens so often, with the Clanger simply never acknowledging or admitting to any mistakes or even engaging in discussion.

When you think about it, it's remarkable how similar he is to Hallie Rubenhold in this respect, never responding directly to criticism.  When Rubenhold doesn't respond to the criticisms that he makes of her work, he howls and complains incessantly, yet his own behaviour is literally no different.

There was obviously loads of stuff that the Clanger didn't respond to from the last Orsam Day but the one thing about which I would particularly have liked a response from him, is in answer to the question I posed for him in 'Lord Orsam Says...Part 28' which I repeat below and will continue to repeat it every Orsam Day until I get an answer.  The question is this:

If Charles Lechmere had changed his name by deed poll to 'Charles Cross' prior to 1888:

(a) what would his 'real name' have been in 1888?

And

(b) when giving evidence at an inquest in 1888 relating to his discovery of a body in the street, would he have been obligated to inform the coroner of his previous name/name change? 

With Clanger being a self-proclaimed expert on the subject of witness etiquette at Victorian inquests, it should be a breeze for him to answer this simple question.

No one seemed to be brave enough to ask him this question on either Forum directly, despite having been ordered by me to do so - I guess you lot are either all too scared of confronting the Board Thug or cowed by Crazy Ally - but it's a crucial question which requires a response.  

 

LORD ORSAM
14 May 2022