Popeye promised us no ropes, no hills, and no shiggy. 

The last word needs defining; if there was relatively little mud, we found water in abundance, and soon had wet feet.  More surprising was the duration; I am told those in front took 48 minutes.  Belcher and I were back before noon. Now, “those in front”: Atalanta arrived too late to catch them, but who were they? Stevie Blunder and Simple, but otherwise visiting families, complete with dogs.  Ah, youth!  This was their second visit; we must persuade them to become members.

  Trails from Gracious Pond often take in the Common to the north, and so did this one, but Popeye also found farmland.  And cows. A herd of Belted Galloways took a very dim view of our presence, and first lumbered menacingly towards us, and then elected to follow us, an alarming addition to our numbers.  Fortunately the trail twisted and turned, and the cows preferred a more linear progress.  It is many years since we had the Fat Controller lecturing us on the errors of our ways, disturbing nesting birds (he said); I am not sure that herds of cows are more careful of bird life.

  Now, it is true Popeye avoided the hills on the Common (and therefore the views).  In his pre-run discourse he spoke of an 8-bar gate and suggested we go left when we found it.  In fact it had only 6 bars, and was climbed quite easily; Atalanta, obedient to what we told her, climbed back over it and went left, for some distance (there was a house and garden obstructing any direct progress); when she did re-appear there was a large group of other hashers in her wake, with Belcher and myself no longer alone.  Soon thereafter we came upon ‘Ardon Provocateur, and knew we were nearly back at base.  The in-trail had been laid after we set out; Popeye had put his first flour at some distance from the car park.  Since Popeye is normally our RA, Uncle Gerry took over the role, and managed to find almost everyone present guilty of some misdemeanour or other, but these days culprits only get a thimbleful of beer.  Once sinners got a full tumbler of shandy from a bucket: tempora mutantur!  I suppose the present system is more hygienic and also more economic.

  Freedom of speech means accepting to hear opinions you do not share.  But who defines the limits?  Anti-vaccine campaigns have cost many thousands of lives: should the anti-vaxxers be silenced?  We all agree main-stream parties are entitled to air time: would you extend this to the EDL?  To Marxist groups, if any are left?  Libel and slander laws offer protection only to the wealthy.  Most people think the powerful must accept more public criticism than the humble; but are politicians allowed to abuse the impoverished sectors of society unlikely to vote for them? Americans, obsessed by the amendments to their constitution, allow more freedom of speech (the First Amendment) than is usual elsewhere on main-stream media (obviously in the cockpits of social media all restraints vanish, and courtesy with them, rantings protected by anonymity, that resort of the inept).  Do you consider the current anti-woke campaign, endorsed by Cabinet ministers, to be an assault on free speech?  Or an attempt to protect those not very good at defending their opinions from those more articulate?  You will have seen that this is by no means a simple or straightforward subject; not shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre was always too facile a summary.

  On On, FRB