Quiz at Nine


A circular railway project was divided into five successive stages of construction. The contract for the construction works of each stage was awarded to a different contractor.

From the information given below, can you identify the starting and finishing point of each successive stage of construction, and say which contractor was awarded the contract for the construction works of each stage? Remember that every fact is important and must be considered.

1. Contractors are referred to by the following symbols: A, B, C, D, E.
2. The Points between the different stages of the project are referred to by the following symbols: P1, P2, P3, P4, P5.
3. Contractor E was awarded the contract for the works of the stage starting at point P4.
4. The stage from point P5 to point P3 was not the first stage.
5. Contractor D was awarded the contract for the works of the fourth stage.
6. Stage 3 finished at point P1, and the contract for the works of which was not awarded to Contractor A.
7. Contractor C was awarded the contract for the works of the stage ending at point P5.

What are the starting, finishing point of each stage in the project and which contractor would execute the works in each stage?

By misronet.com

Answer is here

The Land Girls – no victory without them


The Land Army fights in the fields. It is in the fields of Britain that the most critical battle of the war may well be fought and won. [Lady Denman, 1939]

In 1939, the farming community of Britain greeted the idea of a Women’s Land Army (WLA) with scorn. It was the view of those who worked the land that it was no place for a decent woman.

More than 100,000 Land Girls and 11 years later, it was the once-sceptical National Farmers’ Union that protested the most when the WLA was officially disbanded.


Wiki gives the background on the origins of the Women’s Land Army

The Board of Agriculture organised the Land Army during the Great War, starting activities in 1915. Towards the end of 1917 there were over 250,000 – 260,000 women working as farm labourers. 20,000 in the land army itself.

With 6 million men away to fight in the First World War Britain was struggling for labour. The government wanted women to get more involved in the production of food and do their part to support the war effort.


As the prospect of war became increasingly likely, the government wanted to increase the amount of food grown within Britain. In order to grow more food, more help was needed on the farms and so the government started the Women’s Land Army in June 1939.

In the Second World War, though under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, it was given an honorary head – Lady Denman. At first it asked for volunteers. This was supplemented by conscription, so that by 1944 it had over 80,000 members. The WLA lasted until its official disbandment on October 21, 1950.

During World War II a Women’s Land Army was also formed in the United States, lasting from 1943 to 1947, and the Australian Women’s Land Army was formed in Australia, lasting from July 27, 1942 until 1945.  Rosie the Riveter became a cultural icon of the United States, representing the American women who worked in war factories during World War II.


Becoming a Landgirl was a rude awakening for some:

The girls were interviewed to see if they were suitable, then were given a medical examination and enrolled. The official minimum age was 17, but some lied and became Land Girls at 16 or even younger.

It wasn’t hard to get into the WLA. One girl stated that she didn’t have flat feet or varicose veins when asked by a doctor and was accepted with no further examination.

Another who wore glasses, was asked to read a sheet of letters of diminishing size. As she struggled to undertake the request, the doctor said Never mind, I suspect you’d see a charging bull and passed her. Life then changed and gave many new Land Girls a rude awakening.


At the outbreak of war, the average wage for a male agricultural worker was 38 shillings a week, well below the national average wage of 80 shillings a week. Thanks to Lady Denman, Land Girls were awarded a minimum wage, but this was even less than their male counterparts would receive.

They earned just 28 shillings a week, half of which was typically deducted for board and lodgings. Once a girl had worked six months, and if she was working more than 20 miles from home, she was entitled to a free journey home, courtesy of the WLA.

However, there was no set holiday entitlement, paid or unpaid. It was left up to individual farmers to decide when a girl could take time off.


At the start of the war almost all the Land Girls lived in lodgings or billets near to, or actually on, the farms to which they’d been allocated. These could be cottages with the families of other workers, or in the farmhouse with the farmer and his wife.

Few such houses had baths or readily available hot water for washing. As the war progressed, mobile gangs of Land Girls were set up to work on different farms.

They lived in hostels which were vacant country houses and schools, where they were looked after by a warden and where conditions tended to be more comfortable than in billets. There could be anything between 6 and 100 girls in these hostels.


In 1950, at a ceremony at Buckingham Palace, 500 Land Girls marched past the Queen, who addressed them:

I have always admired their courage in responding so readily to a call which they knew must bring them … hardship and sometimes loneliness. Now the time has come to say goodbye, because the job has been done, but the sadness which many feel should be outweighed by pride in the achievement.


It would be a pity if only the men received the accolades.  It would be a pity if, to serve a political agenda, only the women received the accolades.

In this blogger’s opinion, all the brave men and women in all our national conflicts should be honoured according to their deeds.

Divide and rule – top down politics

Britainmapblank[Britain and the breakup of England]

Summer patriot, winter soldier, via Lord T, writes:

Racism used to mean that the racist was a person who devoutly believed that his racial or ethnic group was superior to another, or, indeed, superior to all others, and was usually a concept antecedent to an attempt at domination or even the elimination of another race or ethnic group.

Thus, in Europe in the 1850s, we saw the spectacle of European anthropologists and phrenologists, and perhaps even hairdressers, pontificating upon the superiority of the white race over the African race, with skull measurements and aesthetic observations as collateral evidence of the proposition.

It was the foundation of empire. It was an intellectual and psychological make weight to excuse the conquest and domination of another group or society and, the Europeans, not missing a turn, turned the same attitudes towards others, including Jews, as an excuse for anti semitism.

Hitler’s Germans were not the only anti semites in Europe: it was a European sin, and the peculiar conceits underlying its underpinnings were applied the world over.

That is not the application of the word this day.

As used in contemporary parlance, the word is applied specifically to those who resist immigration of foreign nationals into their native lands (such word usage, indeed, in and of itself might be termed as “racist” by those who wield it as an offensive intellectual sword), such foreign nationals almost exclusively of Islamic, Muslim or Arabic origin.

Those who usually raise such objections are European nationalists and Americans who oppose Islamic immigration into Europe and America, and such persons with a nationalistic bent are decried and derided as racists.

The Brown government’s recent admission that they had tried to socially engineer Britain in such a way that it had to become completely multicultural smacks of 30s imperialist movements and the Empire in this case is the European Union.  As ardent Europhiles, Labour had to necessarily support EU policy and EU policy is a Europe without borders.

The result of this is, by definition, that the poorer countries are going to lose hundreds of thousands of unemployed people to the richer countries and the strain on the economies of those richer countries, added to the engineered economic collapse, is going to throw indigenous people out of work and in the long term, create a new native underclass, particularly if accompanied by a socialist society, which we are pretty much in now – no incentive, welfare state, nanny state, draconian laws having zero input from us.

The natural corollary to this is civil unrest, with the bully boys being first onto the streets with the students, then the politically committed, until one day, miraculously, the messiah appears and leads Europe to a stamping out of all unrest.  Though the streets will once again be safe, the state now has your number.

We can’t help the rest of Europe, sadly but we can start to help ourselves ensure that this does not happen here.   As an absolute minimum, the people must have a voice in our relationship with the EU, before anything else can be achieved.

One way is to sign up at the Albion Alliance and through sheer numbers, together with the other movements also going on, we can stop this democratic deficit in its tracks.

Come the new age of allure and mystique … please


So interesting that the Washington Post runs this article today, titled “Graceful in all that she did” because this is what I’ve been debating with the lady for the old values, Ubermouth.  The article is about the life of Grace Kelly.

Let’s not get bogged down in the moral compass of Hollywood and the rapid divorce culture which has found its apex in the broader community today but concentrate on the central point – grace and allure, even mystique.

My contention is that it has gone in this styleless, pomo world of overequality today.


First up, we’re speaking of the younger woman here or the one still influenced by trends – that’s a given. So when I mention women, in the context of style and fashion, that’s whom I mean – the trendsetters.

The onslaught of feminism and postmodernism has produced a female whose allure is like the Brave New World styling of the house in Jacques Tati’s Mon Oncle. Now you could say that that’s just today’s fashion and a woman who puts a bit of black lace over her hairline, along with those furs, would look out of place commuting to the office today.

Well, she would and she wouldn’t. In London and NY, yes but in Paris, no. Paris still recognizes allure and women make an effort. If you look at how that woman’s dressed herself and the expression, you’ll see what I mean.


“Oh and you think I’ve got time to look like that for you, do you?” says the modern woman.

“Well no,” says I, “I don’t expect the modern woman to make any effort whatsoever to be alluring. It would be nice but no … I’d not expect it.” I’d then go on and say, “Look at the role models – Posh, Britney Spears, Jolie [whom so many women model themselves on] who rely on the face shape and body parts alone to do the job. To make an effort for the man is below these new pomo icons. A man is a nothing in her eyes so why bother?”

Now, into a room full of these bores comes a real woman – a Greer or Bacall or Beart and all male eyes go to them. They’ve made themselves look wonderful, either in simplicity, like Greer or in voluptuousness, like Beart. The key is that these latter women have something which has died today – style, allure, mystique, that femme fatale quality.


Test – go into the streets of Manchester any working day and observe. I did. Where would you see a femme fatale? We went to Paris a few years back and were surrounded by them. Feminism must take its share of the blame for this phenomenon in the Anglo-Saxon west, as part of the overall nasty political thrust we see going on.

“Oh, you say. You’d take women back to the dark ages.”

No, I’d lift them into a new golden age where men opened doors and doffed hats, where the clothing, even for men, had style, where a lady was seated by the man at the restaurant table, where the woman was adored and revered, instead of ignored as a whining creature. I’d like to see women regain the power with men they’ve thrown away today in this mad grasp at overequality and the loss of moral compass in day to day decencies, especially in the young.


Age is a huge factor here. Obviously, the older generation haven’t lost this and I see some of these women most days – charm and sophistication is what I see there – the incentive for a man to make an effort, rather than expecting the bonk will come no matter what so why bother.

Yet the style which still existed say, in hair, was still there in the 50s but was then lost. You might say it’s just changing fashions. Yes, a change for the worse. Our eyes are lowered these days, trendwise.

And yet people do recognize style as desirable. This was part of the popularity of the Poirot series and Jeeves and Wooster on TV, as a counterpoint to the awful reality TV types, with their complete stylelessness.  Actresses were interviewed for the publicity material and over and over said it was partly the chance to “dress up” which appealed. Why did it appeal?


Simple. It was redolent of the days when men were gentlemen in dress and manner and where women were ladies or femmes fatale. But it was not just dress.  It was language – do you recall a foulmouthed harridan harpy in any of the films of those days and it wasn’t just the Hollywood code here – it was reflected in the social interaction of that generation which has only now died out.

If there wasn’t decency in their personal lives, there at least still was in their public dealings.  Rather than argue for a double standard, I’d prefer to argue for decency in all dealings, public and private but certainly not for bringing the gutter talk between close friends into the public sphere.

And it is in the manner, even in the facial expressions, the concerns, the grace.  Certain women will always have mystique but the very institution of marriage in those days created a mystique, i.e. you didn’t get the goods until you’d tied the knot.  Women kept a price on themselves and it became a more effective tool than when they let it all go later, at the behest of the new world culture.


When they just let it all hang out, under the delusion that the way to entice a man is to expose bodyparts, that’s a denial of feminine mystique, something the French still have some vestige of.  This mystique says that I’ll accentuate my shape and move with style but you can’t actually get a glimpse of more than a hint.

Jane Greer, in one of the more memorable lines, rebuffed Robert Mitchum who’d been trying to come on to her by mentioning a cafe he could go to which would be better for him to resolve his issues and as she walked out of the door, added, “I go there sometimes.”  Clemence Poesy reprised this in In Bruges.

Just shoving a woman into beautifully cut clothes does not a lady make though.  It’s the way she moves and acts, the way she speaks, the breeding, the culture she’s immersed in, the high value she places on these things rather than the travesty of modern, gun-toting, kick butt so called “honesty” which is a pain in the butt, excuse my French – that’s what achieves the mystique, the allure.

charlotte-church-1024x768-23722[Before she lost it in that modern Anglo-Saxon way]

There have to be some women asking themselves what exactly they’ve achieved in this pomo world.  They certainly haven’t increased men’s respect for them, quite the opposite.  They certainly haven’t made the world a safer place for themselves in this date-rape age, quite the opposite.  They’ve just poured money into the pockets of the lawyers without significantly achieving any equality of note and the trend is now to the backlash.

The film noir woman had a power the modern woman doesn’t any more.  When the tide turns and women become women again, they’ll regain that plus the respect and dare I say it, even reverence of men … that’s if the feelings of men for them has any relevance any longer and they aren’t seriously advocating separate existences.

Churchill at Ten

charging_bull_sculpture-01[De Modica’s bull]

One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!