January 1, 2012 at 23:23 #385325SteeplechasingParticipant
- Total Posts 5767
For all his matchless talent, Lester would have come across to many as thoroughly cold and unlikable.
There was remarkable interview with him in The Observer in the ’70s (I’ve never been able to find it online). The interviewer, whose secret was to take no notes and simply remember everything, asked LP if he ever felt bad about stealing the mounts of others – Lester said "I have never cared what others thought of me" I found that a chilling statement.
The other thing I recall about the piece was Lester’s response on the question of the key aspect of top race-riding: balance, was his answer. He said no layman could ever appreciate how much strength it took just to sit still on a galloping thoroughbred and ensure the weight was always distributed in a fashion that least disturbed the horse’s stride.
Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience, then onlookers might not be able to tell the difference. https://lazybet.com/January 2, 2012 at 01:45 #385330HurdygurdymanMember
- Total Posts 1559
The media paint pictures of celebrities all the time that give totally false impressions of people.
The late Dick Francis was very close to Lester as is Victor Chandler who sings his praises as a thoroughly likeable person.
He does like money though. I saw an interview many years ago and he told a story about some racecourse reporter asking him a for an interview after he won a big race and he said ok "How much will you pay me" because apparently it wasn’t the done thing in those day. Whether he was the first jockey to be paid for an interview I don’t know but it certainly opened the flood gates and thereafter all jockeys made sure they get paid every time they step in front of a camera.January 2, 2012 at 01:51 #385331gambleParticipant
- Total Posts 2728
why care about what
the udders think about you
when you are the
Put him in a rudderless boat
on the high seas
with Michael Jackson
and Judy Garland
it would be odds on
his small feet would be
the first and only ones
to moon dance ashore.
Why so ?
He made a makeshift rudder
out of the others uddersJanuary 2, 2012 at 08:54 #385344DroneParticipant
- Total Posts 5114
It may be that the others on your list have declined honours,.
Yep, they all declined Honours, though I see David Hockney has accepted the OM, which along with FRS is the only one that hasn’t been corrupted into the meaningless
I believe George Bernard Shaw declined a knighthood, barony and the OM!January 2, 2012 at 10:35 #385353CavParticipant
- Total Posts 4809
I’m touched to see that CR and maybe others think the Queen has anything to do with the honours list, apart from two very prestigious but numerically tiny categories which are her personal decisions (Order of the Garter, Order of Merit).
Perhaps I’m being naive, George, but the Queen still has formal approval, if the process as explained here http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentc … /DG_067909 is anything to go by.
The most salient paragraph being…
"Once The Queen has given her informal approval, letters are then sent to each nominee asking them whether they would be willing to accept the proposed award. Once they have replied a final list is submitted to The Queen for formal approval"
.January 2, 2012 at 10:57 #385356GeorgeJParticipant
- Total Posts 160
I’m afraid being naive is indeed the right word.
For example, the Queen has to sign off parliamentary bills before they become Acts and therefore law, but it is purely formal. The monarch nowadays has very, very little personal authority – bestowing the two honours I referred to in my earlier post being now virtually the only ones. Which is not, of course, to say that the monarch is without influence – depending on how much notice the PM takes of the views she expresses as their weekly meetings.
It is a triumph of British ingenuity really. As the hereditary principle has become less and less acceptable in a democratic age, authority has passed from the monarch to the elected government, but we retain an hereditary and politically impartial head of state and thus avoid making that role a matter of party dispute. And in doing so we benefit from (a) certainty as to who becomes head and state and (b) a degree of decency – ie the lack of the air of corruption, dishonesty and partisanship that surrounds so many politicians, including some of the most prominent ones.
Alan Bennett and Michael Oakeshott (so unlike in some ways) are probably the two British people of the twentieth century (AB still alive, of course in the 21st) I most admire. Not because they declined knighthoods, but that (which in each case I learnt about long after my admiration of their work had developed) certainly increased my respect for them.January 2, 2012 at 13:35 #385375DroneParticipant
- Total Posts 5114
Alan Bennett and Michael Oakeshott (so unlike in some ways) are probably the two British people of the twentieth century (AB still alive, of course in the 21st) I most admire. Not because they declined knighthoods, but that (which in each case I learnt about long after my admiration of their work had developed) certainly increased my respect for them.
Can’t say I know a great deal about Michael Oakeshott but I’m in agreement with you regarding Alan Bennett
His 1972 masterpiece ‘A Day Out’ remains one of my favourite 40 minutes of televisionJanuary 2, 2012 at 14:14 #385379HimselfParticipant
- Total Posts 3772
You can’t give one to Lester without giving one to Ken Dodd. Now fair’s fair !
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.