Financial Times 12,738 (Bradman)

Yesterday Cinephile, today Bradman – it’s been an interesting couple of days. Some rather odd words in here!

Across
9 BALALAIKA: BALA (Welsh Lake) + LAIKA (dog breed)
10 SCHWA: SA (salvation army) around CH (church) + W (women). Not a word I knew but guessed from Hebrew ‘Shewa’
11 ACCLAIM: CCL (250) in A AIM (to train a weapon)
12 TEARFUL: T(he) EARFUL when he emerges
14 VACCINATION: C IN (cold at home) in VACATION
17 ABYSS: ASS around BY
19 NUDGE: EG (as, for example) + DUN (to perster), all reversed
21 HEADDRESSES: HE ADDRESSES
23 ADO: I don’t suppose the calendar includes AD 0!
25 REFUSES: REF USES
27 HOWBEIT: anagram of H BOW TIE
28 NOISE: I in NOSE (informer)
29 OVERLADEN: LOVER with first letter at finish + ADEN (port)
Down
1 ABRADE: sounds like ‘a braid’
2 ALACRITY: AL + R (runs) in A CITY
3 ILL-ADVISED: LAD in anagram of DEVIL IS
4 FILM: FI(r)M with right changing to left (L)
5 PART-TIMERS: anagram of TRAMP I REST
7 SHUFTI: F (bit of fish) in SHUT I. This took a while. Butchers, here, is to look around.
8 PARLANCE: PAR (standard) + LANCE
15 COFFEE SHOP: OF FEES in CHOP
16 ANNA SEWELL: ANNAS (old indian coins) + EWELL (London suburb)
17 ADHERENT: HE in anagram of ARDENT
20 DEAD ENDS: anagram of SADDENED
22 AFFAIR: A F (a female) + FAIR
24 OUTING: clever double definition
27 HEEL: another double definition

3 comments on “Financial Times 12,738 (Bradman)”

  1. Bradman's avatar
    Bradman

    Many thanks. LAIKA was the name of the first animal (a Russian dog) in space — seems (almost!) like yesterday.

  2. John Newman's avatar
    John Newman

    I got Laika but didn’t realise Bala was a Welsh lake.

    But is Ewell a London suburb? I think that it is in Surrey.

    And 26 down please? And what organisation of friends is FOE?

  3. smiffy's avatar

    Friends of the Earth, presumably?
    They’ve been around longer than most eco-types; I seem to recall them from at least the early 90’s, when David Icke went all Messianic and enviro-nutty.

    I think that, technically speaking, you’re correct on Ewell/Surrey. But it struck me as a fair enough approximation in this particular context.

Comments are closed.