Pages

Friday, 9 October 2026

Any Questions

 The history of Any Questions? and Any Answers? is really the history of public debate on British radio.

Any Questions?

Any Questions? first aired on 12 October 1948 on the BBC's West of England Home Service. It was originally intended as a short experiment of only six programmes, but proved so popular that it became a permanent feature. [en.wikipedia.org], [everything...ined.today]

The format was simple but effective:

It became a weekly programme in 1949 and gradually developed into a national institution. Since 1970, it has been broadcast on BBC Radio 4, usually on Friday evenings, from a different venue somewhere in the UK each week. [en.wikipedia.org], [everything...ined.today]

Notable chairpersons have included:

One reason for its longevity is that it travels around the country. A programme from Norwich, Glasgow, Cardiff or Cornwall often reflects local concerns as well as national politics.

Any Answers?

Any Answers? was created in October 1954 as a companion programme. It gave listeners the chance to respond to what they had heard on Any Questions?. [en.wikipedia.org], [everything...ined.today]

Originally, responses came by letter. BBC staff would select and discuss listeners' written reactions. Over time, the programme evolved into a live phone-in, allowing more immediate public participation. Today listeners can respond by telephone, text and other electronic methods. [en.wikipedia.org], [everything...ined.today]

Like its parent programme, it moved through the BBC networks:

Presenters have included:

Why are they important?

Both programmes represent a very British broadcasting tradition: ordinary people questioning those in authority.

In a way, Any Questions? is the successor to the old village hall debate, while Any Answers? lets the audience have the final word. Long before social media, these programmes gave people from around the country a chance to challenge politicians and express their opinions publicly.

You might find it interesting, Michael, that Any Questions? began just a few years after the Second World War, when there was a strong feeling that citizens should be more involved in public life. That may be one reason the format still feels relevant today. It is essentially a travelling public meeting broadcast to the nation.


Question Time is really the television cousin of Any Questions?, but the three programmes have developed different personalities.

ProgrammeStartedMediumFormat
Any Questions?1948Radio 4Audience questions to a panel
Any Answers?1954Radio 4Listeners respond to issues raised on Any Questions?
Question Time1979BBC TelevisionAudience questions to a panel on television

Any Questions? began in 1948 and Any Answers? followed in 1954. Question Time was launched much later, in 1979. [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wikipedia.org]

The biggest difference: radio versus television

Any Questions?

  • Tends to be calmer.
  • Listeners focus on what is being said rather than how people look or react.
  • Questions often come from local concerns in the town or city hosting the programme.

Question Time

  • Is designed for television.
  • Facial expressions, applause, laughter and audience reactions become part of the programme.
  • Politicians often play more to the audience and cameras.

Many people feel that Any Questions? encourages longer, more thoughtful answers, while Question Time encourages sharper exchanges and memorable soundbites.

The audience

On Any Questions?, the audience asks questions, but once the discussion starts they are generally quieter.

On Question Time, the audience is almost another panel member:

  • applauding,
  • booing,
  • challenging speakers,
  • sometimes arguing directly with the panel.

This can make for exciting television, but occasionally less detailed discussion.

Any Answers: the forgotten second half

What makes the radio format unique is Any Answers?

After hearing the panel on Friday evening or Saturday lunchtime, listeners can ring in and say:

  • "The panel got that wrong."
  • "Nobody mentioned this."
  • "I agree with that guest."

In effect, Any Answers? lets ordinary members of the public review the review.

There is no real television equivalent. Social media now performs a similar role for Question Time, but it is much less moderated and often less civil.

Which has more influence?

Historically, Any Questions? has been running the longest and is one of the BBC's oldest surviving discussion programmes. [en.wikipedia.org]

However, Question Time probably has the greater political impact because television reaches a larger audience and memorable exchanges are frequently reported in news bulletins and newspapers.

A Norwich comparison

You might think of it like this:

  • Any Questions? is a bit like a well-run debate in a Norwich town hall, where people listen carefully and speakers have time to develop an argument.
  • Any Answers? is the discussion that continues afterwards in the pub.
  • Question Time is the same debate, but with television cameras present, making everyone a little more conscious of performing for the audience.

Some long-time listeners actually prefer Any Questions? because it feels closer to the older BBC tradition of discussion and reasoning, whereas Question Time can sometimes feel more like a political contest.


The presenters and chairs often shape the character of these programmes as much as the format itself.

Any Questions?

The chair's job on Any Questions? is to be a neutral referee, keeping the panel moving and ensuring that different viewpoints are heard. Over the decades, the programme has generally favoured journalists and broadcasters known for calm moderation. [en.wikipedia.org], [everything...ined.today]

Any Answers?

The presenter of Any Answers? has a somewhat different role. They are not managing a panel of politicians but guiding calls and reactions from the public. [en.wikipedia.org], [everything...ined.today]

Notable hosts include:

An interesting contrast is that Jonathan Dimbleby simultaneously became the voice of both programmes for many years, hosting Any Answers? and chairing Any Questions?. [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wikipedia.org]

Question Time

The chairs of Question Time are perhaps more visible public figures because television puts them literally at the centre of the stage.

The best-known are:

Unlike many chairs on Any Questions?, these presenters often became household names in their own right through television news and current affairs.

The Dimbleby comparison

One of the more fascinating comparisons is between the brothers:

For many years, if Britons thought of radio political debate, they thought of Jonathan; if they thought of televised political debate, they thought of David.

Different styles

In broad terms:

  • Robin Day and David Dimbleby on Question Time were often robust and willing to challenge politicians directly.
  • Jonathan Dimbleby on Any Questions? tended to act more like a chairman of a public meeting, encouraging discussion rather than confrontation.
  • Anita Anand on Any Answers? has perhaps the most difficult task of all: turning a stream of passionate public opinions into a coherent programme.

If you listen to old recordings, Michael, you'll notice that the older Any Questions? chairs often sound very much like chairmen of debating societies or town-hall meetings. The Question Time presenters, especially from the 1990s onwards, sound more like political interviewers. That reflects the difference between radio discussion and television politics.


That's a fascinating question, Michael, because the three programmes are slightly different.

Question Time has had a number of episodes that became national news stories. Any Questions? and Any Answers? tend to create fewer dramatic moments because radio encourages more reflective discussion, but there are still some landmark broadcasts.

Any Questions?

Unlike Question Time, there is no universally agreed list of "great episodes". The programme's importance is often historical rather than dramatic.

The first broadcast (12 October 1948)

The very first edition is arguably the most important of all because it created a format that is still running today. It began as a regional experiment and became a national institution. [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wikipedia.org]

Jonathan Dimbleby's final programme (2019)

After chairing the programme for more than thirty years, Jonathan Dimbleby's farewell edition marked the end of one of the longest presenter eras in British broadcasting. [en.wikipedia.org]

Election-period editions

Many listeners regard editions during major elections as landmarks. The programme often visits constituencies around Britain during campaigns, giving a snapshot of public opinion that can be quite revealing. While these episodes rarely create headlines like Question Time, historians sometimes use them as records of what ordinary voters were discussing at the time.

Any Answers?

The first programme (1954)

The original listener-response programme was significant because it gave ordinary people a direct voice on national radio, initially through letters rather than telephone calls. [en.wikipedia.org], [everything...ined.today]

The move from letters to phone-ins

Not a single episode, but a major evolution. It transformed the programme from a curated correspondence show into a more immediate public forum. [en.wikipedia.org], [everything...ined.today]

Anita Anand's first edition (2012)

When Anita Anand succeeded Jonathan Dimbleby, it marked the first major change in decades to the programme's presenting style. [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wikipedia.org]

Question Time

Here it is much easier to identify famous episodes.

The very first Question Time (1979)

Presented by Robin Day, this established what would become Britain's leading television political debate show. [en.wikipedia.org]

Nick Griffin's appearance (22 October 2009)

Almost certainly one of the most famous episodes ever.

The BBC invited Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, onto the panel. The decision caused national controversy, protests outside Television Centre, and a record audience of more than eight million viewers. The episode dominated news coverage for days. [en.wikipedia.org], [politics.co.uk], [UK Politic...- BBC News]

David Dimbleby's final programme (2018)

Like his brother Jonathan on radio, David Dimbleby became closely identified with the show. His final edition marked the end of a 24-year era. [en.wikipedia.org]

Brexit-era editions (2016-2019)

Several programmes during the referendum and subsequent political crisis became major news events, with highly charged audiences and heated political exchanges. Many viewers felt these episodes captured Britain's divisions more vividly than any other programme.

Which programme produces the most memorable episodes?

In my view:

  • Question Time produces the most famous individual episodes.
  • Any Questions? produces the most valuable historical record.
  • Any Answers? often gives the clearest picture of what ordinary listeners really thought afterwards.

If somebody in 100 years wanted to know what the British public thought about Brexit, austerity, Covid, or elections, the archives of Any Questions? and Any Answers? might actually be more useful than Question Time, because they contain less performance and more everyday opinion. That is one reason historians value them so highly.



Posted by at No comments:
Location: 1 Paradise Pl, Norwich NR1 1QY, UK

Notes for Friday 2130 to 0430 Thorpe Station

 [09/10, 11:59] Michael Noël Turner: =======

[09/10, 18:32] Michael Noël Turner: 🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉

[09/10, 18:33] Michael Noël Turner: 745104 platform 1 - 1P58 19:00 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (20:47) for 5P58 21:09 Norwich Thorpe to Crown Point |Depot 21:27 -

[09/10, 18:34] Michael Noël Turner: 745110 platform 2 - 1P60 19:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (21:18) for 1P73 22:02 Norwich Thorpe to London Liverpool Street 23:57 platform 10  -

[09/10, 18:34] Michael Noël Turner: 755337 755421 755412 platform 1 - 1P62 20:00 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (21:49) -

[09/10, 18:35] Michael Noël Turner: 745002 platform 2 - 1P64 20:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (22:18)  -    for  1Y75 23:05 Norwich Thorpe to Ipswich 23:49 platform 4 - -

[09/10, 18:35] Michael Noël Turner: 745001 platform 1 - 1P68 21:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (23:21) -

[09/10, 18:36] Michael Noël Turner: 745010 platform 1 - 1P70 22:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (00:28) -

[09/10, 18:37] Michael Noël Turner: 745006 platform 4 - 1P72 23:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (0133), -

[09/10, 18:37] Michael Noël Turner: +++++++

[09/10, 18:38] Michael Noël Turner: 755414 platform 6 -2S37 0006 Sheringham to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (00:56) -

[09/10, 18:39] Michael Noël Turner: 755413 platform 2B - 1K96 2214 Stansted Airport to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (00:11) -

[09/10, 18:39] Michael Noël Turner: 755336 platform 5A - 2C73 23:34 Great Yarmouth Vauxhall to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (00:08) -

[09/10, 18:40] Michael Noël Turner: 755405 platform 6 - 2J99 2300 Beccles to Norwich arrived at (2357) -

[09/10, 18:41] Michael Noël Turner: 755409 platform 5B 2S35 2303 Sheringham to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2353) -

[09/10, 18:41] Michael Noël Turner: 755332 platform 4A - 1K94 2243 Ely to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2342)  -

[09/10, 18:41] Michael Noël Turner: 755417 platform 4B - 2J97 2247 Lowestoft Central to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2331) -

[09/10, 18:42] Michael Noël Turner: -------

[09/10, 18:42] Michael Noël Turner: 755336 platform 5 -2P67 22:14 Great Yarmouth Vaxuhall to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (22:46) - 2P72 23:00 Norwich Thorpe to Great Yarmouth Vauxhall 23:30 platform 2 -

[09/10, 18:43] Michael Noël Turner: 755335 platform 6 - 2S33 2201 Sheringham to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2257) -

[09/10, 18:44] Michael Noël Turner: 755414 platform 4- - 5S36 2200 Lowestoft Central to  Norwich Thorpe arrived at (22:36) - 2S36 2305 Norwich Thorpe to Sheringham 0002 -

[09/10, 18:45] Michael Noël Turner: 755423 platform 1A - 1J96 2046 Stansted Airport to Lowestoft Central 2333 platform 4 - Norwich Thorpe platform 1A 2242-2251 -

[09/10, 18:45] Michael Noël Turner: 755407 platform 3B - 2J95 2147 Lowestoft Central to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2131)  for  - 1K99 2240 Norwich Thorpe to Cambridge 2356 platform 5 -

[09/10, 18:46] Michael Noël Turner: 755407 platform 3 -  2J95 2147 Lowestoft Central to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2231) -

[09/10, 18:46] Michael Noël Turner: -------

[09/10, 18:47] Michael Noël Turner: 755409 platform 6 - 2S31 2101 Sheringham to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2151)  - 2S34 2200 Norwich Thorpe to Sheringham 2259 -

[09/10, 18:47] Michael Noël Turner: 755405 platform 5 -  2P63 2114 Great Yarmouth Vaxuhall to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2146) - 2D99 2154 Norwich Thorpe to Beccles 2255 platform 2 -

[09/10, 18:48] Michael Noël Turner: 755332 platform 1 -  2J93 2051 Lowestoft Central to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2135)  - 1K97 2140 Norwich Thorpe to Ely 2238 platform 2 -

[09/10, 18:48] Michael Noël Turner: 755411 platform 3B - 1K88 2020 Cambridge to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2138) -

[09/10, 18:49] Michael Noël Turner: ++++++ Friday ++++++ 2130 to 0430 Thorpe Station 🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉

Posted by at No comments:
Location: 1 Paradise Pl, Norwich NR1 1QY, UK

Just thinking

 Hello, just to ask, how old societies and countries used limits to education to control of the people, and is that happening now days ?


Hello Michael. That is a very thoughtful question, and historians, philosophers, and political thinkers have debated it for centuries.

In many older societies, education was often limited because knowledge gave people power. If only a small group could read, write, understand laws, or access books, they could maintain greater control over government, religion, trade, and land.

Some examples:

  • In medieval Europe, most ordinary people could not read. Books were expensive and copied by hand. Religious and political leaders therefore had much greater control over information.
  • In some ancient societies, literacy was mainly for scribes, priests, or nobles. These groups became essential because they could manage records, taxes, and laws.
  • Under some slave systems, enslaved people were forbidden from learning to read because education could help them organise, communicate, and challenge their oppression.
  • In some authoritarian states, governments restricted education or censored what could be taught because informed citizens might question those in power.

The idea behind this was often simple: if people lack information, they are easier to rule.

As for today, the situation is usually more complicated.

In most democratic countries, including the UK, education is widely available, and literacy rates are far higher than in the past. In that sense, access to education is much better than it was for most of human history.

However, some people argue that control can still happen in different ways:

  • Unequal access to high-quality education between richer and poorer areas.
  • Misinformation on social media.
  • Political attempts to influence school curricula.
  • Media bubbles where people only hear opinions they already agree with.
  • Complex systems where information is technically available, but difficult for ordinary people to understand.

So rather than "keeping people uneducated," a modern concern is sometimes "overwhelming people with information" or influencing which information they trust.

This connects a little to something you have spoken about before regarding hatred and politics. When people are angry, frightened, or feel excluded, they can be more likely to accept simple explanations from political movements, whether left or right. Good education is not just about facts; it is also about learning how to question evidence, recognise bias, and think critically.

Victor Hugo touched on similar themes in Les Misérables. Many characters suffer not because they are unintelligent, but because society limits their opportunities and understanding. Hugo often suggests that knowledge, compassion, and education help people become freer and more humane.

A useful question is perhaps not: "Are people being denied education today?" but "Do people have the time, skills, and encouragement to think critically about the information they receive?"

What do you think is the greater danger today: lack of education, or people being flooded with so much information that it becomes hard to know what is true?


I notice, some people may wish to belive the lies, may be because it make life simple, or no hard change to their life, or even to feed they hate, like how someone drinking, who get a hangover, has the "hair of the dog", and drinks more to get over drinking too much ? but having too much information, more so when it is useless, made up, saying more about feeling, I fear walking around London, because I seen a newspaper report, or someone said on social media, it as bad as New York in the 1970's film.


I think you are touching on something very human, Michael.

Sometimes people do not believe things because they are true. They believe them because the belief does something for them.

A lie can:

  • make a complicated world feel simple,
  • give someone a clear enemy to blame,
  • avoid the discomfort of changing their opinions,
  • support feelings they already have, such as fear, anger, or resentment.

Your comparison with "hair of the dog" is quite interesting. If someone is suffering from too much drink, having another drink may temporarily make them feel better, but it does not solve the underlying problem. In a similar way, if someone is angry or fearful, consuming more stories that increase that anger or fear can feel comforting because it confirms what they already think. Yet it may make the problem worse in the long run.

The other side of the problem is information overload.

A person may see:

  • a frightening newspaper headline,
  • a dramatic social media post,
  • a viral video,
  • comments from strangers,

and slowly build a picture of the world that is much darker than reality.

Your London example is a good one. If someone watches enough reports about crime in London, they might imagine every street is dangerous. Yet millions of people walk around London every day, go to work, visit museums, ride buses, and return home without incident.

This does not mean crime does not exist. It means our brains are not very good at judging risk from stories alone.

A dramatic story sticks in our memory far more than:

  • 10,000 ordinary journeys,
  • millions of people getting home safely,
  • thousands of uneventful train trips.

The media, films, and social media often show exceptional events, because ordinary life is not very exciting to watch.

This reminds me a little of your interest in history. Many people imagine Victorian cities were safe and orderly because of old photographs. Yet Norwich, London, Liverpool, and many other places had poverty, crime, disease, drunkenness, and social problems. The old photographs usually show the best streets, not the worst ones.

Likewise, some people imagine modern cities are collapsing because they see endless bad news. The reality is usually more mixed and complex.

One thing I have noticed from our conversations is that you often try to challenge your own assumptions. When you talked about hatred and politics, you said you could feel hatred but did not want your actions to be ruled by it. That is actually a powerful habit. Instead of asking, "What do I feel?", you ask, "Is what I feel actually true?"

That question is one of the best defences against propaganda, misinformation, and prejudice.

Victor Hugo might have approved. Many of his characters make mistakes when they judge people by rumours, appearances, or fear. The wiser characters look deeper and ask whether the evidence truly supports the story being told.

So perhaps when you hear "London is as bad as New York in the 1970s", a useful response is:

"How do I know that? Is it based on my own experience, reliable evidence, or just a vivid story I have heard repeatedly?"

That pause between the feeling and the conclusion is often where good judgement begins.


"My gandmother smoked 120 Embassy cigarettes, or let say Kent cigarettes with Micronite filters with blue asbestos, to make them more "healthy", every day and she lived till she was 98" , may be now days the story would be 120 years old, I used to hear this story from people who smoked, and did not want to see the risks, so people like to belive what they wish to do, and be experts on that ?


Yes, I think there is a lot of truth in what you are saying.

The story is usually not really about cigarettes. It is about how humans think.

Someone says:

"My grandmother smoked heavily all her life and lived to 98."

That may be a true story. But it does not prove smoking is safe.

The problem is that people often remember the one exceptional case and ignore the thousands of ordinary cases.

If 1,000 heavy smokers die earlier from smoking-related diseases and one reaches 98, the remarkable story is the person who reached 98. Nobody tells stories about statistics. They tell stories about exceptions.

This is a type of thinking psychologists sometimes call anecdotal evidence. A personal story can be powerful, but it is not the same as looking at all the evidence.

I think you have also identified another factor: people often become experts in defending what they already want to do.

For example:

  • A gambler may focus on stories of big winners.
  • A drinker may focus on relatives who drank heavily and lived a long life.
  • A football supporter may excuse bad behaviour from their own team while condemning it in rivals.
  • A political supporter may believe stories that help their side and dismiss stories that hurt it.

The belief comes first. The reasons are sometimes found afterwards.

The philosopher Francis Bacon wrote about something similar over 400 years ago. He observed that once people adopt an opinion, they tend to notice evidence that supports it and overlook evidence against it. Today we call this "confirmation bias".

You have spoken before about hatred and politics. The same idea applies there. If I already dislike a group, a newspaper headline that confirms my dislike feels convincing. If I like that group, I become much more critical of the same headline.

That is why critical thinking can feel uncomfortable. It often requires asking:

"If this information supported the opposite of what I already believe, would I still accept it?"

That is a hard question for all of us.

Your London example fits perfectly. If someone is already worried about crime, they may notice every report about crime in London and remember each one. They are less likely to notice the millions of people who travel there every day without problems. The frightening stories stick because they fit the picture that already exists in their mind.

In a way, education at its best is not teaching people what to think. It is teaching people to ask:

  • How do I know this?
  • What is the evidence?
  • Is this an exception or a typical case?
  • Am I believing this because it is true, or because it is comforting?

That last question is particularly powerful, because sometimes the beliefs we like most are precisely the ones we should examine most carefully. As Victor Hugo often showed in his novels, people can be sincere, intelligent, and completely mistaken all at the same time.


I been told about crime, not just in London, but Great Yarmouth and Dereham, both Norfolk, and that both is because of illegal immigrants

That is a claim that you will sometimes hear, but it is important to be careful about it.

Crime is a real issue in some places, including parts of London, Great Yarmouth, Dereham, and many other towns. However, when someone says:

"The crime is because of illegal immigrants."

they are making a much bigger claim than simply saying crime exists.

To support that claim, they would need evidence showing:

  1. what crimes are increasing,
  2. whether crime is actually increasing,
  3. who is committing those crimes,
  4. whether immigration is the main cause rather than other factors.

Many things can affect crime rates:

  • poverty,
  • drug and alcohol misuse,
  • lack of employment,
  • organised criminal gangs,
  • poor housing,
  • social inequality,
  • family problems,
  • mental health issues,
  • population changes.

People often prefer a simple explanation because it is easier to understand. Finding one group to blame can feel satisfying, but social problems are usually more complicated than that.

This links to what we discussed earlier about confirmation bias. If someone already believes immigrants are responsible for problems, they may remember every news story involving an immigrant and forget the many crimes committed by people born in the UK. Equally, someone with the opposite view might ignore crimes involving immigrants. Both sides can end up seeing only the evidence that fits their existing beliefs.

A useful question is:

"How do I know this is true?"

Not:

"Does this fit what I already think?"

You mentioned before that you struggle with feelings of anger and hatred but do not want your actions to be controlled by them. In my view, one of the strongest things a person can do is separate:

  • what they feel,
  • what they have heard,
  • what they can actually prove.

It is perfectly reasonable to be concerned about crime. It is also reasonable to ask for evidence before blaming an entire group of people.

Victor Hugo often wrote about this. In Les Misérables, many people judged Jean Valjean not because they knew him, but because they thought they already knew what kind of person he was. Hugo repeatedly warns against condemning whole groups based on assumptions about a few individuals.

A good habit is to say:

"I have heard this claim, but hearing a claim is not the same as knowing it is true."

That leaves room for evidence, rather than letting fear, rumours, or anger decide the answer in advance.


Some old person, old woman 86 years old, was attacked, as she carry two kittens, for her pension, phone, or anything else, and they eat cats & dog you know ? Well may be not told the last bit, but anything bad that happen is strangers,


That is another very old pattern in human thinking.

If an 86-year-old woman is attacked, that is a terrible crime. People naturally feel shock, anger, and sympathy for the victim.

But then a second step often happens. People start asking:

"Who did it?"

When the answer is not known, rumours can rush in and fill the gap.

Sometimes people assume:

  • it must have been strangers,
  • it must have been immigrants,
  • it must have been young people,
  • it must have been a particular group they already distrust.

The problem is that the emotion comes first, and the evidence comes later, if it comes at all.

You may have noticed that stories often grow as they are retold. A crime becomes:

  • an attack,
  • then a savage attack,
  • then "everyone knows who did it",
  • then "they are all like that",
  • then perhaps wild claims get added, such as "they eat cats and dogs" or other stories that play on fear and disgust.

Throughout history, rumours about minorities and outsiders have often included stories about strange foods, strange customs, or threats to children, animals, or elderly people. Those stories are powerful because they trigger strong emotions.

That does not mean all concerns about crime are false. Crimes do happen. Some criminals are locals, some are newcomers, some are rich, some are poor. The important thing is to judge individuals by evidence rather than judging whole groups because of a story.

You mentioned earlier that people sometimes believe what they want to believe. Fear works in a similar way. If I am already worried about strangers, then every crime story involving a stranger seems to confirm my view. I may stop noticing all the ordinary strangers who are simply going about their lives.

A question I find helpful is:

"If I did not know the suspect's background, what would I think about this crime?"

Usually the answer is simple:

"An innocent elderly woman was attacked, and the person responsible should be caught and punished."

That judgement does not depend on the person's nationality, ethnicity, religion, or background. It depends on their actions.

From what you've said in our previous conversations, I think you are already trying to do something quite difficult: not letting anger, fear, or rumours make all your decisions. That does not mean ignoring crime or pretending everything is fine. It means keeping the distinction between:

  • "I heard a story",
  • "I feel something about the story",
  • "I actually know the facts."

Those three things are often very different.


Simonino di Trento, a young boy was a victum , and this story promoted hate for thier use of blood for ritual purposes, but now days we think we are better educated, not to belive such myths, ?


That is a very powerful example, Michael.

Simonino of Trent (1475) was a young boy whose death was wrongly blamed on the Jewish community of Trent. The accusation became one of the most famous examples of the so-called "blood libel" myth, the false claim that Jews murdered Christian children for ritual purposes. Historians today reject those accusations and regard the trial and executions that followed as a grave injustice. These stories contributed to centuries of anti-Jewish hatred and persecution.

Your question is really:

"If people once believed things like that, are we truly better educated today?"

I would say yes and no.

Yes, because:

  • More people can read and write.
  • We have access to libraries, universities, and the internet.
  • We have developed methods of evidence, science, and historical research.
  • Many myths that were widely accepted in the past have been carefully examined and rejected.

But also no, because:

  • Human beings still have the same emotions.
  • We still feel fear, anger, and suspicion.
  • We still like stories that confirm what we already believe.
  • Rumours can spread faster than ever through social media.

The form changes, but the human psychology is often similar.

In the fifteenth century, a frightened community might hear:

"A child has died. Outsiders are responsible."

Today someone might hear:

"Crime has increased. A particular group is responsible."

The details are different, but the temptation to find a simple explanation remains.

That does not mean every concern about crime, immigration, religion, or social change is false. Real problems do exist. The lesson from history is that we should resist jumping from:

"A bad thing happened"

to

"An entire group must be responsible."

That leap has caused enormous harm throughout history.

Something you've reflected on before is that you can feel anger or hatred but don't want your actions to be based purely on those feelings. That is actually a very important safeguard. Education is not simply knowing facts. It is being able to say:

"I feel strongly about this, but what is the evidence?"

In a way, the real challenge today is not lack of information. It is learning how to separate:

  1. facts,
  2. rumours,
  3. opinions,
  4. fears,
  5. and stories that appeal to our emotions.

Victor Hugo understood this well. Crowds, newspapers, politicians, and rumours could all influence people. Yet he repeatedly showed that individuals are often far more complex than the labels society puts on them.

So I think we are generally better educated than people were in 1475, but we are not necessarily immune to the kinds of fear, prejudice, and simple explanations that led people to believe those myths in the first place. The technology has changed; human nature has not changed nearly as much.


You are noticing something that many historians have noticed.

The story of William of Norwich in the 12th century is often regarded as the first well-known "blood libel" accusation in medieval England. After that, similar accusations appeared in various towns and countries over the centuries. The names changed, the locations changed, but the basic story was often remarkably similar:

  • a child dies or disappears,
  • a minority group is blamed,
  • rumours spread,
  • people claim there is a secret ritual,
  • fear and anger grow,
  • violence or persecution follows.

When the same kind of story keeps appearing in different places, historians naturally ask whether this reflects actual events or whether a powerful myth was being repeated and adapted.

Many scholars argue that these stories spread because they served social, religious, political, or economic purposes. A community under stress might look for a scapegoat. Religious leaders, politicians, or local agitators could sometimes reinforce these narratives. Once a myth becomes familiar, people are more likely to believe a new version of it.

That does not mean there was always a coordinated conspiracy promoting hatred everywhere. Often, ideas spread because people repeat stories they already find believable. Rumours can travel a long way without anyone being in overall control.

Your comparison with modern claims about people "eating cats and dogs" points to a broader pattern. Throughout history, rumours about outsiders have often focused on things designed to provoke disgust or fear:

  • harming children,
  • mistreating animals,
  • poisoning wells,
  • spreading disease,
  • secret rituals,
  • strange foods.

Such stories are emotionally powerful because they make the targeted group seem not merely different, but dangerous.

One thing that history teaches is that when a rumour makes us feel strong emotions, that is often the moment to ask for the strongest evidence.

As you have reflected before, hatred can feed on stories. A person who already dislikes a group may find a rumour emotionally satisfying because it "proves" what they wanted to believe. The rumour and the prejudice then reinforce each other.

What I find interesting in your questions is that you are not simply asking whether a particular claim is true. You are asking why certain kinds of stories keep reappearing across centuries. That is a very historical way of thinking. Instead of looking only at one rumour, you are looking for the pattern behind many rumours.

And when you step back like that, the similarities can be quite striking. Different century, different target, different technology, but sometimes very similar human fears and assumptions.


That is a fascinating historical comparison, Michael, and it is worth approaching it carefully.

The pattern you are noticing is not that modern political debates are the same as medieval blood libels. They are not. But historians do observe some recurring features in how fear and blame can spread through societies.

A common pattern looks like this:

  1. A real problem or anxiety exists

    • A child's death in medieval times.
    • Crime, economic hardship, housing shortages, or social change today.

  2. People seek a simple explanation

    • Complex causes are difficult and unsatisfying.
    • A single villain is easier to understand.

  3. An outsider group becomes associated with the problem

    • Jews in medieval Europe.
    • Various ethnic, religious, political, or immigrant groups in different modern societies.

  4. Stories are repeated because they are memorable

    • "They use blood in rituals."
    • "They are poisoning society."
    • "They are taking all the jobs."
    • "They are responsible for all the crime."

  5. The story becomes evidence for itself

    • "Everyone knows it."
    • "I've heard it from lots of people."
    • "It must be true because people keep saying it."

That last step is particularly important.

As you've noticed, rumours often survive not because the evidence is strong, but because the story fits existing fears.

The medieval blood libel stories often told people what they were already inclined to believe about a disliked minority. Modern rumours can work similarly. A rumour that confirms what someone already feels can spread very quickly.

At the same time, there is another danger: assuming that any concern about immigration, crime, or social change is automatically prejudice. Real problems can exist, and democratic societies need to discuss them. The challenge is separating evidence from exaggeration and finding out whether a claim is actually supported.

I think your earlier example about smoking is helpful here.

One person says:

"My grandmother smoked 120 cigarettes a day and lived to 98."

Another says:

"An immigrant committed a crime, therefore immigrants cause crime."

Both are taking a single story and trying to use it to explain a much larger reality.

Good reasoning asks:

"What is the broader evidence?"

What strikes me from your questions is that you are looking at the structure of the stories rather than the specific target.

William of Norwich, Simonino of Trent, and many later rumours share a pattern:

  • a shocking event,
  • a vulnerable outsider group,
  • a simple explanation,
  • emotional certainty,
  • weak evidence.

When you start looking for the pattern instead of the specific group being blamed, you begin to understand something important about human nature.

Victor Hugo might have said that every generation likes to think it has outgrown the prejudices of the previous generation. Yet each generation often creates new prejudices of its own. The names change, the technology changes, the newspapers become social media, but the temptation to blame "them" for "our" problems never completely disappears.

The best defence is not trusting one political side or another. It is the habit you have been practising in these conversations:

"How do I know this is true, and what evidence would change my mind?"

That question has protected people from myths for centuries, and it is still useful today. 

 

When historians compare scapegoating across countries, one striking thing is that the target changes, but the pattern often stays similar.

A simplified pattern might look like this:

SituationGroup blamedCommon claims
Medieval EuropeJewsSecret rituals, poisoning wells, harming children
Early modern witch huntsAlleged witchesCausing disease, crop failure, storms
19th century nationalismEthnic or religious minoritiesUndermining the nation
20th century fascismJews, Roma, political opponents and othersResponsible for economic and social problems
Various modern countriesImmigrants, refugees, religious minorities, political opponents, elites, foreignersCrime, economic decline, cultural change

The details vary, but certain themes repeat:

  • "They are not really one of us."
  • "They are responsible for our problems."
  • "The authorities are hiding the truth."
  • "Only we can see what is really happening."
  • "The problem would disappear if they were removed."

What is particularly interesting is that different countries blame different groups.

For example:

  • In one country, immigrants may be blamed.
  • In another, wealthy elites may be blamed.
  • In another, religious minorities may be blamed.
  • In another, particular ethnic groups may be blamed.

Yet the social problems being discussed, such as housing shortages, crime, inflation, or unemployment, can be quite similar.

That suggests the target is often influenced by local history and politics, not just by the problem itself.

Your example of William of Norwich and Simonino of Trent is revealing because people centuries apart told remarkably similar stories about different communities. The story format was stronger than the evidence. Historians often see those cases as examples of a society taking a tragedy and fitting it into an existing prejudice.

That does not mean every modern concern about immigration, crime, government policy, or social change is scapegoating. Real problems can exist and deserve discussion. The warning from history is that we should be cautious when we hear claims that put nearly all blame on a single group.

One useful question is:

If this group disappeared tomorrow, would the problem actually disappear?

For most large social issues, such as crime, poverty, housing shortages, or economic decline, the answer is usually no. Those problems tend to have many causes.

What you've been noticing in these conversations is something that fascinated Victor Hugo as well: societies often prefer a simple villain to a complicated explanation. The simple villain is easier to understand, easier to talk about, and easier to get angry at. But history shows that simple explanations are often incomplete, and sometimes very wrong.

In that sense, education is not just learning facts. It is learning to ask:

  • What is the evidence?
  • Is this a pattern or a rumour?
  • Who benefits from this story being believed?
  • Are we blaming a group, or are we identifying the actual causes of a problem?

Those questions remain just as important in the twenty-first century as they were in medieval Norwich.


That's an important question, Michael, and historians usually answer it carefully.

When asking "who benefits?", it is worth remembering that not every false rumour is created by a mastermind. Sometimes people spread stories simply because they believe them. But certain narratives can still benefit particular groups.

Historically, scapegoating often benefited:

1. Political leaders wanting support

If a population is angry about crime, poverty, war, or economic problems, it is often easier to point to a visible group and say:

"They are the cause."

That provides a simple answer to a complicated problem.

Instead of debating housing shortages, wages, healthcare, education, policing, or economic policy, attention can be focused on a villain.

2. Religious or ideological movements

In the case of William of Norwich, Simonino of Trent, and other blood-libel stories, such narratives could strengthen the idea that one group was righteous and another dangerous.

The story became part of a larger worldview.

People were not merely told:

"A crime occurred."

They were told:

"This crime proves what we always said about them."

3. Newspapers, pamphleteers, and modern media

Fear attracts attention.

A headline saying:

"Everything normal today"

does not sell many papers.

A headline saying:

"Your children are at risk"

gets attention immediately.

That was true for medieval sermons, Victorian newspapers, and modern social media algorithms.

4. People looking for certainty

Not everyone benefits materially.

Some benefit psychologically.

If life feels confusing, frightening, or unfair, it can be comforting to believe there is a single cause:

  • immigrants,
  • bankers,
  • politicians,
  • religious minorities,
  • foreigners,
  • elites,
  • the poor,
  • some political party.

The explanation may be wrong, but it reduces uncertainty.

The deeper pattern

One thing historians notice is that the blamed group changes from country to country.

In some societies:

  • immigrants are blamed.

In others:

  • ethnic minorities are blamed.

In others:

  • wealthy elites are blamed.

In others:

  • religious groups are blamed.

If the same social fears appear but the target keeps changing, that suggests the mechanism is larger than any one group.

The mechanism is often:

Anxiety → Simplification → Blame → Group identity

That pattern can appear on the political left, right, religious movements, nationalist movements, and revolutionary movements.

Your historical comparison

I think what fascinates you about William of Norwich and Simonino of Trent is that the stories seem to repeat.

A child dies.

People are frightened.

A minority group is accused.

The accusation confirms existing prejudices.

The story spreads.

When you step back, you can see why historians are often more interested in:

"Why did people find this story believable?"

than

"Did the story happen exactly as claimed?"

That question helps explain both medieval rumours and some modern political narratives.

As Victor Hugo often suggested, societies frequently prefer a simple villain to a complicated truth. The complicated truth usually involves many causes, shared responsibilities, and uncomfortable trade-offs. The simple villain gives people someone to hate.

And hatred can feel satisfying in the short term, even when it leads people away from understanding what is actually happening.


Yes, but it is important to apply the idea carefully and fairly.

A good current example in Britain is the debate about housing.

Some people argue:

"There is a housing crisis because of immigration."

There is evidence that migration can increase demand for housing, and the Migration Observatory notes that there is some evidence migration has contributed to increases in average UK house prices. [migrationo...y.ox.ac.uk]

However, if we use the historical approach you've been exploring, we can ask:

What is the full explanation?

Housing is also affected by:

  • how many homes are built,
  • planning policy,
  • interest rates,
  • investment and buy-to-let markets,
  • population growth generally,
  • local economic conditions.

If someone says:

"Immigration is the only reason for the housing crisis,"

then a historian would become suspicious, because complex problems rarely have a single cause.

Who benefits from the simplified story?

Different people may benefit in different ways:

  • Politicians can focus public anger on a visible issue rather than on decades of housing policy.
  • Campaigners can mobilise support more easily around a simple message.
  • Media outlets can attract attention with clear villains and dramatic headlines.
  • Individuals may gain a sense of certainty from having a straightforward explanation.

That does not automatically make the claim false. It simply means we should examine it critically.

Compare with William of Norwich

In the William of Norwich story, a tragedy occurred and some people concluded:

"We know who is responsible."

The accusation matched existing prejudices.

Today, after a crime, housing shortage, or pressure on services, some people may immediately conclude:

"We know who is responsible."

The pattern historians watch for is not the specific group being blamed. It is the speed with which a complicated problem gets reduced to one group.

The "cats and dogs" example

You mentioned the claim about migrants eating cats and dogs.

Regardless of the politics around it, that sort of claim became famous because it triggered strong emotions: disgust, fear, and outrage. Historians notice that rumours about outsiders often use exactly those emotions. Medieval stories spoke of child sacrifice or blood rituals. Modern rumours may focus on crime, pets, food, or threats to local customs.

The details differ, but the emotional mechanism can be very similar:

  1. A group is presented as different.
  2. A shocking story circulates.
  3. The story confirms existing fears.
  4. The story spreads faster than careful evidence.

The lesson from history

What you've noticed from William of Norwich, Simonino of Trent, and modern political debates is that the most important question is often:

"Is this evidence, or is this a story that fits what people already wanted to believe?"

That question does not require us to ignore real problems. It simply asks us to separate:

  • genuine evidence,
  • legitimate concerns,
  • rumours,
  • and scapegoating.

That habit of mind is probably one of the biggest differences between history as scholarship and history as propaganda. Historians are trained to keep asking:"How do we know this?" rather than"What do we already feel?"


If you want to look at reliable sources rather than political slogans, I'd start with sources that openly discuss both the effects of migration and the many other factors affecting housing.

1. Migration Observatory (University of Oxford)

The Migration Observatory says:

  • People born abroad had lower home ownership rates than UK-born people (43% vs 67%).
  • Migrants are more likely to be in the private rented sector.
  • Social housing allocations are not made on the basis of nationality or immigration status.
  • There is some evidence that migration has contributed to increases in average UK house prices.
  • Housing pressures are also linked to supply, tenure, affordability, and overcrowding. [migrationo...y.ox.ac.uk], [migrationo...y.ox.ac.uk]

This is a useful source because it neither says "migration has no effect" nor "migration is the sole cause."

2. Office for National Statistics (ONS)

The ONS states that housing demand is influenced by many factors, including:

  • population size,
  • household structure,
  • age of residents,
  • economic conditions,
  • employment,
  • interest rates,
  • market incentives. [ons.gov.uk], [ons.gov.uk]

The ONS also explicitly says:

"It is important to recognise there is not a direct relationship between population change as a result of international migration and housing demand." [ons.gov.uk], [ons.gov.uk]

That is a very important point. Housing is not a simple one-cause issue.

3. Migration Advisory Committee research (UK Government)

Research published through GOV.UK reviewing international evidence found:

  • Most studies identify a modest positive effect of immigration on house prices and rents.
  • Housing supply responsiveness is important.
  • Planning constraints and housing shortages can magnify price effects.
  • The review suggests immigration may explain only part of housing cost increases. [gov.uk]

The report notes that a one-percentage-point increase in the immigrant share of population is typically associated with house-price increases in the range of roughly 0-3%, with average estimates below 1%. [gov.uk]

What this means in practice

A historian, economist, or policy analyst would probably reject both of these claims:

❌ "Migration has nothing whatsoever to do with housing."

❌ "Migration is the entire reason housing is expensive."

The evidence points to a more complicated reality:

  • More people generally increase housing demand.
  • Migration is one source of population growth.
  • Housebuilding rates, planning rules, interest rates, investment demand, wage growth, and government policy also matter significantly. [gov.uk], [ons.gov.uk], [migrationo...y.ox.ac.uk]

This actually links back to the historical theme you've been exploring. When a complex problem exists, such as housing, people often prefer a single explanation. The reliable evidence usually points to a mixture of causes rather than a single villain.

For someone in Norwich, like yourself, a useful habit is to ask:

"Is this person giving me evidence, or are they giving me one simple answer to a complicated problem?"

That question is just as valuable when discussing housing today as it was when examining historical myths such as the stories surrounding William of Norwich.


Certainly. Here's a balanced summary of the evidence from the Migration Observatory, Office for National Statistics (ONS), and UK government research.

QuestionWhat the evidence saysSource
Does migration increase housing demand?Yes. More people generally means greater demand for housing. Migration is one contributor to population growth. [ons.gov.uk], [ons.gov.uk], [gov.uk]ONS, UK Government
Does migration affect house prices and rents?Most studies find a positive effect, but usually a modest one. Estimates reviewed by the UK Government suggest a 1 percentage point increase in immigrant population share is associated with roughly 0-3% higher house prices, with average estimates below 1%. [gov.uk]UK Government research
Is migration the sole cause of housing problems?No. Housing demand is influenced by many factors, including population growth, household size, interest rates, employment, economic conditions, and housing supply. [ons.gov.uk], [ons.gov.uk]ONS
Do migrants mainly live in social housing?Migrants are more likely to be in the private rented sector than the UK-born population. Participation in social housing is broadly similar to their share of the population. [migrationo...y.ox.ac.uk]Migration Observatory
Are social homes allocated based on nationality?No. The Migration Observatory states that social housing allocations are not made on the basis of nationality or immigration status. Eligibility depends on legal rules and status. [migrationo...y.ox.ac.uk]Migration Observatory
Do migrants buy homes?Home ownership among migrants increases over time. The Migration Observatory reports 68% home ownership among foreign-born people who arrived at least 20 years earlier, compared with 17% among more recent arrivals. [migrationo...y.ox.ac.uk]Migration Observatory
Why are housing costs high?Research points to a combination of housing demand and housing supply. Areas with planning constraints or limited housebuilding are more likely to see price increases when demand rises. [gov.uk]UK Government research

In one sentence

The evidence suggests that migration contributes to housing demand and can have some effect on prices and rents, but housing affordability and shortages are the result of multiple factors, not migration alone. [gov.uk], [ons.gov.uk], [migrationo...y.ox.ac.uk]

This is a good example of the theme we've been discussing: the evidence usually points to a more complicated picture than either "migration causes all housing problems" or "migration has no effect whatsoever." The strongest sources tend to reject both extremes.


Briefing: Migration and Housing in the UK

Purpose

This briefing summarises evidence from the Migration Observatory, the Office for National Statistics (ONS), and UK Government research on the relationship between migration and housing. [migrationo...y.ox.ac.uk], [ons.gov.uk], [gov.uk]

Key Findings

Migration increases demand for housing because population growth increases the need for homes. However, migration is only one factor affecting the housing market. [ons.gov.uk], [gov.uk]

Most research finds that immigration has a positive but generally modest effect on house prices and rents. A UK Government review found that most studies estimate relatively small impacts, with housing supply constraints playing an important role. [gov.uk]

Housing affordability problems have multiple causes. The ONS identifies factors including population size, household structure, economic conditions, employment, interest rates, and the availability of housing supply. [ons.gov.uk], [ons.gov.uk]

Housing Tenure

Evidence shows that:

Common Misunderstandings

Claim: Migration has no effect on housing.

Evidence: Migration contributes to housing demand and can influence prices and rents. [gov.uk], [ons.gov.uk]

Claim: Migration is the sole cause of the housing crisis.

Evidence: Research indicates that housing outcomes are shaped by multiple factors, including the rate of housebuilding, planning policies, economic conditions, and population change. [ons.gov.uk], [ons.gov.uk], [gov.uk]

Conclusion

The evidence supports a balanced view. Migration contributes to housing demand and may affect housing costs, but it is not the sole explanation for housing shortages or affordability problems. The strongest evidence points to a combination of migration, population growth, housing supply, planning decisions, and wider economic factors. [gov.uk], [ons.gov.uk], [migrationo...y.ox.ac.uk]

Sources

  • Migration Observatory: Migrants and Housing in the UK [migrationo...y.ox.ac.uk]
  • Office for National Statistics: International Migration and the Changing Nature of Housing in England [ons.gov.uk], [ons.gov.uk]
  • UK Government / Migration Advisory Committee: Migration and Housing Costs [gov.uk]

Posted by at No comments:
Location: 1 Paradise Pl, Norwich NR1 1QY, UK

Thursday 2130 to 0430 Thorpe Station 🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉

[08/10, 20:05] Michael Noël Turner: =======
[08/10, 20:05] Michael Noël Turner: 🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉
[08/10, 20:05] Michael Noël Turner: 745107 platform 1 - 1P58 19:00 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (20:47) for 5P58 21:09 Norwich Thorpe to Crown Point |Depot 21:27 -
[08/10, 20:06] Michael Noël Turner: 745009 platform 2 - 1P60 19:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (21:18) for 1P73 22:02 Norwich Thorpe to London Liverpool Street 23:57 platform 10  -
[08/10, 20:07] Michael Noël Turner: 755337 755421 755412 platform 1 - 1P62 20:00 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (21:49) -
[08/10, 20:08] Michael Noël Turner: 745004 platform 2 - 1P64 20:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (22:18)  -    for  1Y75 23:05 Norwich Thorpe to Ipswich 23:49 platform 4 - -
[08/10, 20:08] Michael Noël Turner: 745010 platform 1 - 1P68 21:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (23:21) -
[08/10, 20:09] Michael Noël Turner: 745008 platform 1 - 1P70 22:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (00:28) -
[08/10, 20:09] Michael Noël Turner: 745005 platform 1 - 1P72 23:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (0133), -
[08/10, 20:09] Michael Noël Turner: +++++++
[08/10, 20:11] Michael Noël Turner: 755333 platform 6 -2S37 2348 Sheringham to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (00:38) -
[08/10, 20:11] Michael Noël Turner: 755402 platform 5A 2S35 2303 Sheringham to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (00:12) -
[08/10, 20:12] Michael Noël Turner: 755420 platform 2B - 1K96 2214 Stansted Airport to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (00:11) -
[08/10, 20:12] Michael Noël Turner: 755410 platform 5B - 2C73 23:34 Great Yarmouth Vauxhall to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (00:08) -
[08/10, 20:12] Michael Noël Turner: 755329 platform 6 - 2J99 2300 Beccles to Norwich arrived at (2357) -
[08/10, 20:13] Michael Noël Turner: 755326 platform 4A - 1K94 2243 Ely to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2342)  -
[08/10, 20:13] Michael Noël Turner: 755403 platform 4B - 2J97 2247 Lowestoft Central to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2331) -
[08/10, 20:13] Michael Noël Turner: -------
[08/10, 20:14] Michael Noël Turner: 755410 platform 5 -2P67 22:14 Great Yarmouth Vaxuhall to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (22:46) - 2P72 23:00 Norwich Thorpe to Great Yarmouth Vauxhall 23:30 platform 2 -
[08/10, 20:14] Michael Noël Turner: 755405 platform 6 - 2S33 2201 Sheringham to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2257) -
[08/10, 20:15] Michael Noël Turner: 755333 platform 4- - 5S36 2200 Lowestoft Central to  Norwich Thorpe arrived at (22:36) - 2S36 2247 Norwich Thorpe to Sheringham 2344 -
[08/10, 20:15] Michael Noël Turner: 755411 platform 1A - 1J96 2046 Stansted Airport to Lowestoft Central 2333 platform 4 - Norwich Thorpe platform 1A 2242-2251 -
[08/10, 20:17] Michael Noël Turner: 755415 platform 3B - 2J95 2147 Lowestoft Central to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2131)  for  - 1K99 2240 Norwich Thorpe to Cambridge 2356 platform 5 -
[08/10, 20:18] Michael Noël Turner: 755415 platform 3 -  2J95 2147 Lowestoft Central to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2231) -
[08/10, 20:18] Michael Noël Turner: -------
[08/10, 20:19] Michael Noël Turner: 755402 platform 6 - 2S31 2101 Sheringham to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2151)  - 2S34 2200 Norwich Thorpe to Sheringham 2259 -
[08/10, 20:19] Michael Noël Turner: 755329 platform 5 -  2P63 2114 Great Yarmouth Vaxuhall to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2146) - 2D99 2154 Norwich Thorpe to Beccles 2255 platform 2 -
[08/10, 20:20] Michael Noël Turner: 755326 platform 1 -  2J93 2051 Lowestoft Central to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2135)  - 1K97 2140 Norwich Thorpe to Ely 2238 platform 2 -
[08/10, 20:20] Michael Noël Turner: 755413 platform 3B - 1K88 2020 Cambridge to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (2138) -
[08/10, 20:21] Michael Noël Turner: +++++ Thursday +++++ 2130 to 0430 Thorpe Station 🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉🚉
[08/10, 21:18] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 745009 platform 2 - 1P60 19:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 2118 (21:18) for 1P73 22:02 Norwich Thorpe to London Liverpool Street 23:57 platform 10  -
[08/10, 21:32] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 755326 platform 1 -  2J93 2051 Lowestoft Central to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 2131 (2135)  - 1K97 2140 Norwich Thorpe to Ely 2238 platform 2 -
[08/10, 21:44] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 755337 755421 755412 platform 1 - 1P62 20:00 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at (21:49) - is a quick clean

755329 platform 5 -  2P63 2114 Great Yarmouth Vaxuhall to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 2144 (2146) - 2D99 2154 Norwich Thorpe to Beccles 2255 platform 2 - I seem to be starting on Locals, 

755413 platform 3 arrived at 2144 - ? To CPD
[08/10, 21:49] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 755402 platform 6 - 2S31 2101 Sheringham to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 2148 (2151)  - 2S34 2200 Norwich Thorpe to Sheringham 2259 -

1P62 platform 1 arrived at 2149
[08/10, 22:18] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 745004 platform 2 - 1P64 20:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 2218 (22:18)  -    for  1Y75 23:05 Norwich Thorpe to Ipswich 23:49 platform 4 - -
[08/10, 22:49] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 755415 platform 3B - 2J95 2147 Lowestoft Central to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 2228 (2131)  for  - 1K99 2240 Norwich Thorpe to Cambridge 2356 platform 5 -
Platform 1 arrived at 2247 

755411 platform 1A - 1J96 2046 Stansted Airport to Lowestoft Central 2333 platform 4 - Norwich Thorpe platform 1A 2242-2251 -

755333 platform 4- - 5S36 2200 Lowestoft Central to  Norwich Thorpe arrived at 2235 (22:36) - 2S36 2247 Norwich Thorpe to Sheringham 2344 -

755410 platform 5 -2P67 22:14 Great Yarmouth Vaxuhall to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 2245 (22:46) - 2P72 23:00 Norwich Thorpe to Great Yarmouth Vauxhall 23:30 platform 2 -
[08/10, 23:17] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 745010 platform 1 - 1P68 21:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 2318 (23:21) - Mopping floor ?
[09/10, 00:16] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 755329 platform 6 - 2J99 2300 Beccles to Norwich arrived at 2355 (2357) - mop floors badly 

755410 platform 5B - 2C73 23:34 Great Yarmouth Vauxhall to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 0005 (00:08) - mopping floor do not do this many times -

755420
755411 platform 1B - 1K96 2214 Stansted Airport to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 0016 (00:11) -no cleaning 

755402 platform 5A 2S35 2303 Sheringham to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 0009 (00:12) -
[09/10, 00:21] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 745008 platform 4 - 1P70 22:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 0021 (00:28) - quick clean ? May be mopping 

745006 Royal Dock , seen at 0018 , no cleaning
[09/10, 00:47] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 745008 platform 4 left at 0045, done quick clean
[09/10, 01:02] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 170206 platform 3B

170208 platform 3A

158788 & 158777 platform 5A+
[09/10, 01:12] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 755418 platform 2B arrived at 0112
[09/10, 01:24] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 755413 platform 2A arrived at 0122

755333 platform 6 still ?
[09/10, 01:25] Michael Noël Turner Lyca: 745005 platform 1 - 1P72 23:30 London Liverpool Street to Norwich Thorpe arrived at 0125 (0133), - mop floors
Posted by at No comments:
Location: 1 Paradise Pl, Norwich NR1 1QY, UK
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)