Chap who Punched a Police Horse

[RedRider]

Forget toothache, this Newcastle guy blames the rotten influence of Rusty Charley and he gets away with it...

Then he steps up to one of the ice-wagon horses and hauls off and biffs it right between the eyes with a right-hand smack that does not travel more than four inches, and down goes old Mister Horse to his knees looking very much surprised indeed. I see many a hard puncher in my day including Dempsey when he really can punch, but I never see a harder punch than Rusty Charley gives this horse.
Well, the ice-wagon driver comes busting out of the store all heated up over what happens to his horse, but he cools out the minute he sees Rusty Charley, and goes on back into the store leaving the horse still taking a count.

 

[ASC1951]

Forget toothache, this Newcastle guy blames the rotten influence of Rusty Charley and he gets away with it...

Newcastle?? Rusty Charlie was a Noo Yoiker - the quote is from Damon Runyon's "The Idyll of Miss Sarah Brown".

 

[400bhp]

Is assulting a police horse not the same as assulting a police officer?

Well, it's a little known fact that once a policeman mounts a horse the resulting form becomes a monocoque (deemed "Horseman" FYI). So, actually assaulting a police horse isn't the same as assaulting a police officer, and is only the same if an officer and horse transmogrify.

Or sommat like that.

 

[RedRider]

Newcastle?? Rusty Charlie was a Noo Yoiker - the quote is from Damon Runyon's "The Idyll of Miss Sarah Brown".

'This Newcastle guy' refers to the bloke in the OP. I was attempting to ape Runyon's style whilst making a joke that the OP-puncher might've presented a defence of being under the influence of a short story. . I know I failed otherwise I wouldn't be explaining
Edit: He may not have been wearing a newcastle shirt so I could've made that bit up Edit Edit: The bloke in the OP that is, not Rusty Charley.

 

[Boris Bajic]

'This Newcastle guy' refers to the bloke in the OP. I was attempting to ape Runyon's style whilst making a joke that the OP-puncher might've presented a defence of being under the influence of a short story. . I know I failed otherwise I wouldn't be explaining
Edit: He may not have been wearing a newcastle shirt so I could've made that bit up

No failure there. The reader needs to be familiar with the works of the Bard. Rusty Charlie's fist is a most dangerous weapon at all times.

 

[ASC1951]

'This Newcastle guy' refers to the bloke in the OP. I was attempting to ape Runyon's style whilst making a joke that the OP-puncher might've presented a defence of being under the influence of a short story. . I know I failed otherwise I wouldn't be explaining

I grovel.
I do read the OP some days ago; but I am not expecting quotes from a favourite - and more than somewhat obscure - scribbler on this forum.

 

[RedRider]

That's alright, I know Boris likes Runyon too and in his 'man punches horse' thread there was only one reference to make, albeit clumsily.

 

[swansonj]

He left £400,000 in his will which, after liabilities left £30,000 to distribute. He was such a great business man that he'd distributed his assets out of the reach of the Inland Revenue well before his death.

Ah, so "great business man" is pretty much synonymous with "successful tax avoider", is it?

 

[asterix]

[QUOTE 2678489, member: 1314"]An elephant could do more pushing than a horse.

I've now come to the conclusion that Met Horses only exist for Shire people to ride, as a full-time and free hobby, simply because they like riding horses.[/quote]

Yes, I don't think that guy would have got anywhere punching an elephant. Unless maybe flying through the air and being dashed against something solid..

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

Just about the only thing I remember from many years reading the Notes & Queries section in the Guardian is that zebras cannot safely be ridden.

It may have had something to do with weak ankles. As was the way with Notes & Queries, the discussion went on for some time.

Yes I did point out that riding them would be a problem for the poor Zeb if the rider was over a certain weight.

There was a photo of someone riding a zebra, but it looked staged.

Probably not so staged as you'd think, Europeans really did try to domesticate them and other Wild African animals in the past before they finally took heed of why the natives were laughing at them (there are stories of people trying to use Cheetahs and other animals for security and so on. Of course, it never worked).
There are pictures of Colonial types with ridiculous Victorian facial hair and pith helmets riding their Zebs about the Savanah and so on.
That said, Lord Rosthchild had a group of Zebras to pull his carriage about with, but due to problems with the animals, it was never really more than a gimmick.

Still, some people try on a small basis with varying results.

We could cut out the middle man and just put the cooppers on the lions

What have barrel makers got to do with it?

I'll get me coat.

 

[vernon]

Ah, so "great business man" is pretty much synonymous with "successful tax avoider", is it?

Do I detect a little jealousy? Don't you have enough assets to to justify the Inland Revenue trying to stop you from passing them in their entirety onto your family? If he's optimised his asset transfers to minimise his tax liabilities then hats off to him.

 

[swansonj]

Do I detect a little jealousy? Don't you have enough assets to to justify the Inland Revenue trying to stop you from passing them in their entirety onto your family? If he's optimised his asset transfers to minimise his tax liabilities then hats off to him.

Gosh, that was a remarkably quick descent into personal insult, even by the standards of CA&D!
It is, of course, possible to define success in a businessman simply as making, and hanging on to, shed loads of money. But some of us might feel that is a rather limited understanding of "success". I would suggest that true success encompasses making your money without screwing too many people along the way. Arranging your financial affairs so that you pay virtually no tax and therefore contribute considerably less than your fair share to the collective funding of society must count as screwing quite a few people, whether it is done by Amazon, Starbucks, John Harvey Jones, or you or me.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Gosh, that was a remarkably quick descent into personal insult, even by the standards of CA&D!
It is, of course, possible to define success in a businessman simply as making, and hanging on to, shed loads of money. But some of us might feel that is a rather limited understanding of "success". I would suggest that true success encompasses making your money without screwing too many people along the way. Arranging your financial affairs so that you pay virtually no tax and therefore contribute considerably less than your fair share to the collective funding of society must count as screwing quite a few people, whether it is done by Amazon, Starbucks, John Harvey Jones, or you or me.

Yes and no. I too find Vernon's judgement slightly harsh and leapt-to. But I do draw a distinction between J H-J and those big, monolithic corporate heffalumps like Starbucks.

Harvey-Jones distinguished himself in the war, serving as a submariner (with the extraordinary risk that involved) and before that twice having his ship sunk under him as a teenager. I think he did his bit for society and was pretty active in charitable matters.

He happens to have been a canny fiscal operator, but that is not illegal and he had quite a good record in other areas.

 

[ASC1951]

It is, of course, possible to define success in a businessman simply as making, and hanging on to, shed loads of money. But some of us might feel that is a rather limited understanding of "success". I would suggest that true success encompasses making your money without screwing too many people along the way.

Which IMO John Harvey Jones did. For someone in his position he lived fairly modestly and IIRC his hobbies were birdwatching and dinghy sailing.

Arranging your financial affairs so that you pay virtually no tax and therefore contribute considerably less than your fair share to the collective funding of society must count as screwing quite a few people, whether it is done by Amazon, Starbucks, John Harvey Jones, or you or me.

I don't think you can apply that to JHJ. He died before his wife and under English Law anything left to your spouse has always been free of inheritance tax. In fact the joint IHT threshold is well over £600,000, so there would still have been no tax to 'avoid' on her death.

 

[swansonj]

I made and make no comment on JHJ personally - if the reason he had little money left at the end of his life is because he gave it all to charity, then good for him. But my comment was, and still is, on the attitude that arranging your financial affairs so that you make a minimal contribution to the collective needs of society is something to be celebrated.