Dear Mr Field

I would be grateful if you would permit a lowly Championship fan to ask a question. Back in the 1980's it was rumoured that the "normal" capacity of Wembley Stadium (then not all seater) used to be reduced for Rugby League fans attending the Challenge Cup final because they were considered to be fat northerners and a breed apart from soccer fans. Is this a myth?

I can indeed confirm this to be true and having sat in what were then the "expensive" seats directly opposite the Royal Box I do recall being absolutely confused by the bench seating that awaited our arrival on that May afternoon of 1977 for each ticket bore a number and each long bench bore similar numbers at nine inch intervals, all was fine fof the first person to sit at the far end of the row but by the time it came to me to sit down the number beneath my a[irs[/ie on the bench bore no resemblance to the number on the ticket, nine inches per a[irs[/ie just didn't work.

Now my girth of these modern times was in no way as well developed back in those halcyon days of my youth and for the life of me I could not quite work out how a football crowd would manage with such seating arrangements and I surmised that football supporters must all have very skinny a[irse[/is and perhaps matching rat boy features too, you can only imagine my surprise and delight when I watched the FA Cup Final on TV the following week and on a close-up of the crowd in the same section that I had sat in, found this to be absolutely true.

And thus has it ever been the same for Liverpool and Man Utd supporters, skinny s and rat boy features, the burghars of Wembley Stadium actually increase the capacity by 15% whenever those two clubs use the facilities.

I knew it !! And an anecdotal reference to boot. Thank you Sir.

Well Mr field it went terribly well. What has this city come to when you can have a pint with a cockney and a scouser??

Thank you, Mr Field.

I have taken your advice and, after his screams had died, the bestowee of my wisdom whispered that he did, indeed, possess several "dessert bowls".

Without saying "Dessert is the fecking fruit and nuts that come after the cheese, you t", how can I explain to him that he does, in fact, own bowls that hold the fruit and nuts served after the cheese?

Not wishing to be impudent on the matter, BUT...

My understanding was that a "pudding", involves suet and flour. Designed to fill the stomach and expand the waistline. (I put Spotted dick and Roly polys in this category too) They can be sweet or savoury The bowl is integral because you need forearms like Garth to manhandle the pudding mixture around the bowl and some flimsy article just won't do, the force would smash it. Hence "Pudding" bowls being so hefty. The other advantage of their heavy construction being that they distribute the heat effectively around their interior allowing for even cooking of said puddings in the boiling water. (Note I did not say Baine Marie).
In the summer when the summer fruits are available, you can create a pudding using old bread and your pudding bowl. This is called a pudding but isn't technically one.
Dessert, I thought, is just a bracket for something that you eat for taste. Something sweet to end the meal. You CAN eat a "Pudding" as a dessert. But a dessert is not a pudding.

Mr Field I have been invited to York Maze on Saturday. How do I find myself out in time for Sunday?

I’m terrible at getting my way out of a maze

You have to be more forceful in your insistence that these are not "dessert bowls" at all but "pudding bowls" and if he still does not believe you then simply exclaim, "What are you, some sort of bloody southerner ?" its a one size fits all argument stopper for discussions such as this for no-one will admit to being a bloody southerner even when they obviously talk like one, for to admit to being a bloody southerner is tantamount to admitting that you are quite stupid and know nothing.

You're a bloody southerner for a start...

Electric hedge clippers and a long extension lead.

I believe the York Maze is a maize maze and therefore is edible. Take some cake for afters.

Oh GOD! Learn your English language!

Take that back!

Paternal Grandfather: b Durham
Paternal Grandmother: b Bedlington
Maternal Grandmother: b Sowerby bridge
Maternal Grandfather: b Cleckheaton
Dad: b Newcastle
Mum: b Batley
Me: b Londonderry (NI, not Leeming Bar)

Southerner my foot.

Describing the sweet course following the main course as "Dessert" is a silly, effete, lower-middle-class and middle-middle-class affliction.
If a person is working, upper-middle or upper class, they will probably say "Pudding" regardless of whether it's a tart, a meringue or an apple pie.
If they are upper class they will further assume that "Dessert" is, indeed, as you say, the fruit and nuts that may follow the cheese.

It's easily determined by asking what they call the cloth item on their lap.

If they say a napkin, they eat "Pudding".
If they say a serviette, they eat "Dessert".
If they look puzzled about having a cloth in their lap at all, it's "Pudding" again... or just "Sweet".

I'm thinking of writing a guide to the etiquette of those who don't have a country estate, a sort of reverse [iDebrett's[/i, with a working title of "Dinner is at noon, teatime is at teatime".

When we go on our little cycling jaunts all over the country, amongst our group of eight or ten there is one, just one, who tucks a napkin into his shirt collar and smooths it out over his chest, he reminds me of that scene from The Godfather where Michael Corleone goes to the restaurant with Sollozzo and the corrupt police chief and shoots them both - the corrupt police chief tucks his napkin in in exactly the same way that my friend does.

Personally I throw the napkin on the floor if offered one - one thing that I can't bear about Aagrah in Leeds is that the waiters place a napkin on your lap as you sit down, I always throw it on the floor after he's turned his back and I've had them pick it up and put it back - I know what its f'kin for, I'll take my chance on trousers splashed with curry thanks ever so much...

Carry on.

And brunch is for those with more money than sense...

Personally I couldn't give a stuff either way. Sugary foodstuffs that follow meals are nasty and make me gip. The only exception to this rule is Lime jelly and Carnation, and this must only follow crisps, sausage rolls and sandwiches at the party of a young child.

What's wrong with simply calling it "afters"?
As in: "What's for afters?"

I think thats a very good compromise.
I'm pleased we sorted that one out, thats what this thread is all about, sorting out the important things in life.

And of course after afters have been eaten, then comes cake.

I love you and, assuming you are a bloke, want to marry you.

After reading the previous few posts I am starting to get the idea that cake could be sweet/afters/dessert or even PUDDING ! ! !

Mr Field . Please will you sort this matter out . I am clear on the point that cake could never be pudding , but there may be youngsters on here that could become confused by such outrageous allegations .

Silly. Cake is served at tea-time, but never as a pudding after dinner. I'm sure Mr Field will be along soon to put you right.

Cake is Cake

and can be eaten whenever Cake is needed, Morning, Noon & Night

I know that . But the authority on all things cake is Mr Field . You or I making a statement alleging to be factual about cake means nothing unless it is backed by one so wise as Mr Field .

I am learning this. What a guy.