this person was in a ‘pre-1900’ bookthe oldest person i have found, maybe 

this person was in a ‘pre-1900’ book
the oldest person i have found, maybe 

wet the bed

the youngest person i have found, maybe

thomas hope floyd shouts about peace and war and power but not love in 1958

thomas hope floyd shouts about peace and war and power but not love in 1958

hope floyd on einstein


‘peace cannot be kept by force. it can only be achieved by understanding’
einstein

‘the exact opposite to the above statement by einstein is the truth. the key of peace is power. the problem of peace is one of the distribution of power. division of power amongst sovereign states spells war: the centralisation of power under an impartial professional legal world authority alone spells peace throughout the world. there is no other way. this is the only hope for the survival of manking in the nuclear age. defeatism is not the answer.’ 
thomas hope floyd 

i think she is french, but i can’t be sure

i think she is french, but i can’t be sure

dear mr. chesterton, 
 we have corresponded before and there were, and still are, a number of issues on which we are far from being in agreement (How can any person who uses his brains to think out his views for himself on all questions possibly find himself in complete accord with ALL the standpoints of any particular organisation or political party or religious creed?); but i feel that i must write at once and let you know how delighted i am to read your castigation of sir stephen king-hall in the issue of CANDOUR which i have just received. 
 i have got, and am in the process of reading, his terrible book on DEFENCE IN THE NUCLEAR AGE. i have deliberately, under the title at the front of the book, labelled it “textbook for defeatists”. 
 i consider that by the publication of this pernicious work this one-time naval officer has taken his place with sir roger casement and trebitch lincoln, lord haw-haw and john amery, burgess and maclean, in the historic gallery of eminent traitors. earl russell, the novelist priestley and alan taylor and their friends are also, as you remark earlier in this issue of CANDOUR, cattle of a similar breed. i was glad to see that in the DAILY TELEGRAPH another naval officer, vice-admiral baillie-grohman of chichester, replied to his arguments in yesterday’s issue and concluded by expressing the hope that the majority of englishmen would prefer to die by the hydrogen bomb rather than to make the dishonourable surrender to aggression recommended by King-Hall. 
 it is also to be regretted that the present bishop of manchester is betraying the church to which he belongs by utilising his position to propagate this pro-Russian politic. he was addressing a Ban the Bomb meeting at the manchester university this week and has encouraged a vast number of university dons and students there to sign a petition demanding our unilateral disarmament on the King-Hall lines. he is quite prepared to see our country over-run by russia than that we should in any circumstances use the hydrogen bomb. when he made his memorable speech at the diocesan conference on this theme last summer i wrote and told him what i thought of his policy, in spite of the fact that i have always retained a high personal regard for him. he remains unrepentant! unfortunately the prestige of a naval commander and the bishop of the established church carries great weight with church people who do not happen to be keen thinkers on public questions! so the responsibility of these public men is great. 
 i also agree with your comments on the united nations emergency force. it has always been a completely futile body. 
 there is nothing whatever of a confidential nature about this letter. so you are at liberty to make any use of it which you may think fit. 
yours sincerely, 
thomas hope floyd

dear mr. chesterton, 

we have corresponded before and there were, and still are, a number of issues on which we are far from being in agreement (How can any person who uses his brains to think out his views for himself on all questions possibly find himself in complete accord with ALL the standpoints of any particular organisation or political party or religious creed?); but i feel that i must write at once and let you know how delighted i am to read your castigation of sir stephen king-hall in the issue of CANDOUR which i have just received. 

i have got, and am in the process of reading, his terrible book on DEFENCE IN THE NUCLEAR AGE. i have deliberately, under the title at the front of the book, labelled it “textbook for defeatists”. 

i consider that by the publication of this pernicious work this one-time naval officer has taken his place with sir roger casement and trebitch lincoln, lord haw-haw and john amery, burgess and maclean, in the historic gallery of eminent traitors. earl russell, the novelist priestley and alan taylor and their friends are also, as you remark earlier in this issue of CANDOUR, cattle of a similar breed. i was glad to see that in the DAILY TELEGRAPH another naval officer, vice-admiral baillie-grohman of chichester, replied to his arguments in yesterday’s issue and concluded by expressing the hope that the majority of englishmen would prefer to die by the hydrogen bomb rather than to make the dishonourable surrender to aggression recommended by King-Hall. 

it is also to be regretted that the present bishop of manchester is betraying the church to which he belongs by utilising his position to propagate this pro-Russian politic. he was addressing a Ban the Bomb meeting at the manchester university this week and has encouraged a vast number of university dons and students there to sign a petition demanding our unilateral disarmament on the King-Hall lines. he is quite prepared to see our country over-run by russia than that we should in any circumstances use the hydrogen bomb. when he made his memorable speech at the diocesan conference on this theme last summer i wrote and told him what i thought of his policy, in spite of the fact that i have always retained a high personal regard for him. he remains unrepentant! unfortunately the prestige of a naval commander and the bishop of the established church carries great weight with church people who do not happen to be keen thinkers on public questions! so the responsibility of these public men is great. 

i also agree with your comments on the united nations emergency force. it has always been a completely futile body. 

there is nothing whatever of a confidential nature about this letter. so you are at liberty to make any use of it which you may think fit. 

yours sincerely, 

thomas hope floyd

thomas hope floyd renames ‘defence in the nuclear age’ by stephen king-hall the ‘TEXTBOOK FOR DEFEATISTS’

thomas hope floyd renames ‘defence in the nuclear age’ by stephen king-hall the ‘TEXTBOOK FOR DEFEATISTS’

i made a new friend today


to fill the void that reverend butterworth left

his name is thomas hope floyd
he lived through two world wars 

he and derek ‘superficially’ do not seem to have much in common, except me 

thomas was born in 1896 and he died in 1973

i found him in a book from the university of salford library named ‘defence in the nuclear age’

it seems that thomas hope floyd felt very strongly about ‘defence in the nuclear age’
he ‘graffitied’ the book, sticking relevant articles from newspapers on almost every page. some of these articles are written by floyd, most are ‘letters to the editor’ (@ various publications from ‘the paignton observer’ to ‘the evening news’) about the ‘h-bomb’/contemporary ‘war & militarism’

there were three letters tucked in the book, also on the subject of the hydrogen bomb. one to lord bishop greer in 1958, one to winifred grace toby in 1958, and one to arthur k chesterton esq of the ‘league of empire loyalists’, also in 1958. the letters are heated, particularly the one to greer; it concludes with an unconvincing ‘there is nothing personal in all this. apart from my political disagreement with you i sincerely admire you as a bishop’

other books owned by thomas hope floyd are ‘the glass lie’, ‘the second tory party 1714-1832’, ‘the smaller democracies’, ‘a history of the liberal party’, ‘unconditional surrender: the roots of a WWIII’, ‘commonwealth or anarchy?’, ‘HERE COME THE TORIES’ and so on. 

it seems that none of the above inspired such feelings as ‘defence in the nuclear age’, as his ‘decorations’ are sparse and controlled for the most part.

he read and wrote (loudly) late into his life, though by 1970 - three years before his death - like derek, his hands began to shake and the elegant cursive of his apparently most ~’politically-active’ years (post-WWII until ?early sixties) gave way to sad little scribbles that make me feel quiet when i look at them too long.

it turns out that thomas hope floyd wrote a book 
effing smartass
it is called ‘AT YPRES WITH BEST-DUNKLEY’ 
it is about thomas hope floyd’s experience of WWI as a junior officer

To me, Floyd comes across as a stuffy, priggish man, prone to fussing over detail and as such there is not much in the way of humour in the book except when he is recounting the words of others. That said, one really shouldn’t be reading a book about a battle that claimed tens of thousands of lives for the LOL’s! 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ypres-Best-Dunkley-Thomas-Hope-Floyd/dp/0554053063/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314128305&sr=1-2

i am going to download it on kindle and read it


i have lots of cuttings and things and i am going to post them now i guess

pleasure to meet you, mr. floyd 

‘jesus is the incarnate word of god’ 

derek’s handwriting deteriorates