How Much is that Golly in the Window?
I give in. No longer will I try to make sense of this world. The entire country is nuts.
Two neighbours live in £1 million pound properties separated by a spacious courtyard – and I do mean spacious. Dozens of cows used to mill around in this courtyard. One might speculate whether some still do. The two properties are renovated farm buildings and a Manor House. We’re not talking downtown Tottenham here.
One neighbour has visiting children who place a series of toys on a windowsill out of the resident dog’s reach, including a Gollywog.
Shock horror, someone still owns a Gollywog.
Prepare yourself children.
Yessiree, for the other neighbour is said to be ‘of Jamaican descent.’ Not ‘Jamaican’ , but of ‘Jamaican descent’ whatsoever that means.
You’re ahead of me, aren’t you? Well done!
Yes, the Gollywog owner is now to appear in court charged with racially aggravated harassment under Section 28 of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act….
For allowing to be displayed a toy, the sight of which, her neighbour claims, left her ‘shocked and upset’.
The maximum penalty that magistrates can give for the offence is six months in prison or a £5,000 fine, but if the case goes to Crown Court the maximum sentence is two years in jail.
Proving that people who live in vast houses….
Up to you, I’m speechless.
* Historical footnote – Florence Upton’s original gollywog (pictured) is STILL on display in Chequers the Prime Minister Country House.
September 14, 2011 at 19:21
-
My wife collects Golly dolls and is very fond of all of them. They are all
without exception very hurt and upset about this matter. They intend to come
to Suffolk and sue both parties in this dispute for misrepresentation and
defamation of character. Gollys are loveable creatures and are a toy, nothing
more, nothing less. Both sides in this matter should see sense and settle
their differences amicably.
-
September 8, 2011 at 09:47
-
Personally, I thought this was hilarious, and promptly fell about
laughing.
So obviously it crossed my mind that this might have been
deliberate.
Was my reaction Racist? Don’t answer that. I could be in enough trouble
already.
PS. Thanks for the tip about Ebay.
- September 8, 2011 at 05:44
-
Psychonaut99, I commiserate with your viewpoint that we are a bunch of
johnny-come-latelys and saloon bar mockers who have not bothered to learn the
finer points of law nor follow sentencing trends. Once again I plead guilty.
My previous employment was in construction management, In a similar way I
shake my head when the property-porn TV shows are airing and people insist on
calling concrete-cement, or airily state it would be easy to take this-or-that
wall down ignoring potential structural, plumbing, electrical, ceiling and
floor renovations that would result.It is a kind of professional snobishness
we all seem to indulge in.
I defer to your knowledge that people have previously been prosecuted for
displaying items visible through windows, that does not change my view that
display of inoffensive collectibles such as a gollywog, Mister Punch or indeed
Aunt Jemima should not be subject to frivolous prosecutions for the sake of
political correctness. Your comment that we are selective in criticism only
when “a black person” is involved is unworthy, I tried to make the point in my
previous post that I would find the prosecution ridiculous even if the
“twiggy” doll were in contention.
As to my comments relating to legal system reform, access for regular
working people to the arcane and expensive world of defending a prosecution is
little better than in Dickens days. While the system “works” for its
practitioners, the rich and those able to get legal aid, it most certainly is
a barrier for folks of average means. What good is a system of fair checks and
balances if it is effectively unaffordable and inaccessible? Based on that
premise I believe fundamental change is required.
I understand your professional reluctance at this stage of the proceedings
to announce any opinion as to who might be at fault because as you have ably
pointed out there are not enough facts to work from. Us plebs are not quite as
restrained, particularly when discussing cases in the pub, because we
understand that discussion is not the same as a court proceeding and by the
time the full facts are discerned the issue is no longer topical. I think both
points of view are valid, our opinions will never be mistaken for court
rulings and a judges ruling will never be mistaken for pub-talk (though it may
be whisky-stained).
-
September 8, 2011 at 14:11
-
An example of something in a window which someone took offence to (on
behalf of some other imaginary person) was the case of the old age pensioner
who stuck letters up on his window saying “Get the lot out” in red white and
blue letters in response to the MP expenses situation. The offendee took
offence on behalf of others by assuming that it was aimed at non-whites
(red, white and blue being the colours of the flag and therefore using them
means the user is a BNP supporter). The police got involved and the offender
voluntarialy changed the colours of the letters possibly on the biased
advice of the police that he would be arrested otherwise.
If red and white and blue colours can be considered racist then the
country really has gone to the mental asylum.
-
September 8, 2011 at 15:00
-
My neighbour has recently started putting little posters up in her
windows: so far they’re just for Weight Watchers, Immac and a cosmetic
dentist…
-
September 8, 2011 at 17:23
-
I suggest you ignore them Gloria and continue recycling your glass
containers in her bin.
- September 8, 2011 at
19:36
-
What an excellent suggestion!
- September 7, 2011 at 19:02
-
Psychonaut99, I plead guilty (as I assume other commenters would) to having
a pub discussion without the full facts arrayed before me. Its shocking I
know, but that is what normal people do some times. Were we in a court of law
I suspect we would be more circumspect and adopt your standards. Your
expertise is welcome and you undoubtedly explore some pertinent facts of law,
I am thankful that you would do so, as I am unlikely to start reading law
journals and common law.
We are talking here about a gollywog placed in a window of a private
residence, are we to believe that the justice system is an arbiter of taste as
to what can be displayed inside ones own home? Was that uppermost in the mind
of the legal drafters when they wrote the Crime and Disorder Act?
What I discern in this thread is a collective groan, that expensive court
time and related resources are being wasted to sooth the feelings of an overly
sensitive woman. I suspect the group response would be similar if the “twiggy”
doll illustrated above had been utilized and a skinny white woman had made the
complaint.
I think you might agree that when the natives start openly mocking the
legal process and its employees that some fundamental changes may be
required.
- September 7, 2011 at
19:07
-
What a very profound comment Cascadian. Well said Sir.
-
September 8, 2011 at 00:52
-
Cascadian, there are many occasions when my throat echoes that
collective groan. It has done for years. However, it just seems odd to me
that on all those occasions when people are prosecuted for acting in ways
that other people find offensive, no one seems that bothered by it.
However, when it’s a black person and her family that are alleged to have
been offended then suddenly it’s a waste of the courts time and money. I
find this dichotomy slightly unsettling.
As I said earlier, if people do find it so discomfitting that people
are being brought before the courts simply for having done something which
someone else found offensive, it’s odd that they’ve previously responded
with the silence of Trappist monks during the 25 years during which it has
been going on. Section 5 has always covered items displayed in people’s
homes, if those items are visible outside those homes, and there have been
prosecutions brought on such a basis before.
As to whether the legal system is in need of fundamental reform, I’m
afraid I must disagree with you. Our present system has it’s flaws,
without a doubt. Many of them, in fact. However, it think it bears
favourable comparison with most of the other systems which have been tried
in the past or currently operate in other countries. Even if that weren’t
the case, I’m not convinced that reform based on partly-informed pub
discussions would be likely to make it much better.
From personal experience, I know that reporting of specific court cases
is, as a rule, terrifyingly inaccurate. Even in this particular case, the
news media has been claiming that she’s been charged under a section of an
act which does not even describe an offence, and, in her original post,
Anna had somehow gotten hold of information indicating the defendant could
end up in the Crown Court and get two years in custody even though the
offence she’s charged with is non-imprisonable and can only be punished
with a fine or a discharge. If I were to be considering wholesale reform
of a criminal justice system, I think I’d want to start from a basis of
some rather more solid information, and all the saloon bar mockery in the
world would be unlikely to dissuade me from that view.
-
September 7, 2011 at 18:10
-
If so, we’ve down the rabbit hole since 1986, without a slew of newspaper
commentators and bloggers claiming that it represented the End of
Civilisation.
The Public Order Act is the statute which gives rise to the offences of,
essentially, being rude (section 5) and being rude with intent (section 4A).
4A is a more recent addition, and I really can’t remember when it came into
force, but its been there for a little while now. Section 5 has been there for
quarter of a century.
Literally thousands of people have been prosecuted under section 5 and
section 4A. In every Magistrates Court I have ever practiced in there will
usually be at least one person in court on every weekday charged with one or
the other. Every single one of those cases requires an assessment of whether
someone would be caused harassment, alarm or distress by the defendant’s
behaviour. I have not noticed, to date, anyone getting terribly vexed by this
situation.
The Crime and Disorder Act did not make it unlawful to be offensive toward
someone. The Public Order Act did that many years earlier. All the Crime and
Disorder Act did was create new versions of existing offences, effectively
saying that certain offences (specifically, Common Assault and certain
offences under the Public Order Act and the Protection from Harassment Act)
were to be considered more serious if they were racially aggravated. The
meaning of racially aggravated is contained in section 28 of the Crime and
Disorder Act, and it’s explained as concisely in the act as I could do here,
so please feel free to look it up.
However, the point is that the Crime and Disorder Act did not create any
fundamental new legal principles. If someone’s behaviour is found to consitute
a racially-aggravated section 5 offence, for example, then that behaviour
would still have consituted a standard section 5 offence even if the Crime and
Disorder Act had never been brought into existence.
I suppose what I’m getting at is this. You ask whether the CPS ought to be
getting involved in cases where someone is being offensive, whether
intentionally or otherwise. My view would be that sections 5 and 4A are pieces
of law which have their place, though they are vulnerable to abuse (usually by
the police: certain officers use them as an excuse to arrest people who fail
to accord them the deference which they consider themselves to be owed).
My counter-question would be: if this is present incident is, as you claim,
an indicator that the entire country is afflicted with a mental illness, why
is the same not true for all the other cases prosecuted in similar
circumstances for the last 25 years? Or does a prosecution for being offensive
only become trumped-up when the offensiveness has a racial element to it?
- September 7, 2011 at
19:11
-
“You ask whether the CPS ought to be getting involved in cases where
someone is being offensive, whether intentionally or otherwise.”
But you see, you are starting from the point that someone IS being
offensive. Whereas what I think is the issue here is someone behaving in a
perfectly normal manner and another person TAKING offence. No other doll
could be said to give offence.
If I stand outside this person’s house and smoke a cigarette which is
rolled in black paper…am I being offensive, or are they taking offence?
-
September 8, 2011 at 00:28
-
No, Anna. I’m not starting from the point of someone being offensive.
I’m starting from the point of saying that possibility that this is due to
a woman trying to be offensive is just as plausible as mixed-race family
being over-sensitive.
Here’s me saying that in an earlier post. I’m sure you remember it
because you quoted it in your own post:
““The equally-plausible
suggestion that this is a racist old cow using the golliwog to say in
terms “Up yours, darkie” as part of their neighbour dispute, is not even
considered”
And here’s your comment on the part of my post whihc you
quoted:
“Quite so Sir – and should the CPS be involved if that is the
case?”
You asked if the CPS should be involved if this was a case of the woman
trying to be offensive. I answered your question. You then claim we were
never talking about the woman trying to be offensive, even though we
clearly were.
Now, speaking purely for myself, I don’t consider putting racial
caricatures up in my windows in order to wind up my neighbours to be
“perfectly normal behaviour.” I consider it to be “being a dick.”
I don’t know whether or not the woman put the gollywog there in order
to wind up her neighbours. Neither do you. The CPS think she did, because
in order to prove their charge they’re going to have to show that she did
it wholly or partly motivated by hostility towards a racial group. They
may or may not have the evidence to support that claim. I don’t know.
Neither do you.
This brings us back to my original question, which no one has yet
answered. I’ll try again, phrasing it slightly differently to see if I can
get a result this time:
Why is “mixed-race couple being over-sensitive” more plausible (to the
extent that alternative theories are dismissed out of hand) than “woman is
a dick”?
To answer your question, if you smoked a cigarette rolled in black
paper outside someone’s house, and they took offence, it is likely that it
would be them being offended rather than you being offensive. But a
cigarette, of whatever hue, is not a racial caricature, and a gollywog is.
Even if you were deliberately doing it out of hostility towards a
particular racial group (no, I don’t know how that would work, I’m merely
operating within the parameters of the question you asked) then you would
be trying to be offensive but you would be unlikely to succeed, so no
offence would be committed. In order for you to actually succeed in
committing an offense under those circumstances, it would have to be a
case of the only person in the world who thought that smoking a
black-coloured cigarette would be a good way of offending someone
happening to do so outside the house of the only person in the world who
would actually be offended by that. This would make both of you very
beautifully unique individuals and maybe the shared experience would teach
both of you to learn to love humanity in all its weird eccentric forms and
permutations. Someone would turn the story into a best-selling book, and
then they’d make a romantic comedy film out of it. I might one day be
forced to go and see it by a girlfriend, and I probably wouldn’t enjoy it,
but I’d hope that my sacrifice would be rewarded later on in the
evening.
-
September 7, 2011 at 14:06
-
What strikes me about this is that on the basis of NO ACTUAL INFORMATION AT
ALL, pretty much every commenter on this thread has leapt with gazelle-like
agility to the conclusion that this is a trumped up charge caused by an
overly-touchy mixed-race family.
The equally-plausible suggestion that this is a racist old cow using the
golliwog to say in terms “Up yours, darkie” as part of their neighbour
dispute, is not even considered (or if it has been, has been rejected without
even being mentioned).
Instead, we have had detailed psychological profiles of
the mixed race
family based on, as I might have mentioned above, NO INFORMATION AT ALL. Some
of us even feel qualified to comment on their beliefs regarding the
countryside, their reasons for moving there, the place they moved from
originally, the motivations for making the complaints and so on. Based on, in
case you overlooked it, NO INFORMATION AT ALL.
Here is some information:
Racially-aggravated charges require CPS authorisation. The CPS would be
highly unlikely to authorise charge without the suspect being interviewed
under caution. If this is indeed a charge under section 4A, then its an either
way offence, and that would shift it from highly unlikely to simply
implausible.
What did the lady say during that interview? We don’t know. For all we
know, she admitted the offence. Maybe she gave an explanation that was
implausible. Hell, for all we know, she’s got a stack of previous for public
order offences.
Trumped-up arrests for racially-aggravated public order offences are
certainly not unheard of. However, trumped-up charges are rarer, particularly
in circumstances like this, because if the CPS lose, they end up looking awful
silly.
Now, I don’t know what evidence the CPS had access to when they authorised
charge. The things is, neither do any of the other people commenting on this
thread. God knows, the CPS are capable of making some truly baffling charging
decisions from time to time , but they are also quite capable of getting
decisions right. Despite this, and again, based on NO INFORMATION AT ALL,
we’ve had people who feel qualified to make detailed biographical claims
regarding the CPS lawyer who authorised the charging decision.
I’m just saying, based on actual facts that anyone actually knows about
this case, not speculative assumptions about the people involved, is there any
reason why Trumped Up Charge is more likely that Racist Old Cow?
- September 7, 2011 at
14:41
-
September 7, 2011 at 09:06
-
Blame new labours’ politicised police force, blame the shysters at
acpo.
- September 7, 2011 at 11:08
-
Sort of, but it is actually older than that.
Anybody familiar with the play “The Crucible” will note that one of the
historical elements fueling the tragedy as dramatised by Miller, was an
obscure boundary dispute between neighbours.
A charge of witchcraft – evidenced by having a poppet, a voodoo
doll-charm – was handy as the complainant could use that to remove a
litigant. A much shorter process than mucking about with land lawyers or
having to accept that you weren’t going to get the bottom field.
What we are looking at is a classic case of using the modern equivalent
of a witchcraft charge – raaaaaycism – which is unrebuttable and will result
in the (social) death of the accused regardless of whether they are cleared
or not. Mrs Mason may be a pillar of the parish community but she now has a
criminal record of an arrest which will have to be disclosed if she wants to
do anything which requires a CRB check.
So Twenty_Rothmans above is right; the complainant is claiming to have
been hurt via the agency of the existence of a poppet, a voodoo allegation.
Now, a literal belief is voodoo is entertained by many people of African
origin but that’s no excuse for our law to have confused their sincerely
held beliefs with objective reality.
Unfortunately we appear to have encoded this as if were possible in the
modern harassment law almost 365 years after the first time Matthew Hopkins
was paid to bring stupid and malicous prosecutions on the Essex/Suffolk
border.
Mrs Mason is currently being enclosed by watchers for signs of her
familiars or button-strewn golliwogs supping at her third nipple, at the
behest of a disgruntled neighbour, a none-too-bright constable and
Witchfinder at the CPS. No wonder she’s ill – they usually were after a few
weeks of sleep-deprivation in a closed room.
Next Tuesday they’ll be ducking her at Lowestoft pond to see if she
floats or drowns under the supervision of a magistrate. The community must
be protected from old ladies and their animated stuffed toys, who wish to
build evil temples to Satan, sorry, stables, on their own land after having
obtained due planning permission.
So it’s all nice and legal.
- September 7, 2011 at 11:32
-
If 99 is right, and the charge is based on the racially aggravated
version of section 5 POA, then I’d agree with your beautifully written
analysis. If, on the other hand, the charge is made out for the racially
aggravated version of section 4A ( intentional harassment), then I’m not
sure the analogy holds.
- September 7, 2011 at
12:39
-
I’m sharpening my story pencils for this one as the mixed marriage is
also relevant in the anguished “You live in the countryside and you
think you have got away from all this nonsense.”
My guess is that the villagers don’t much care for an IT executive
who sees the countryside as a version of Lark Rise to Candleford and
O’Donnell himself has misinterpretted this as racism. In fact, they
probably don’t give a chuff about the colour of his wife or, rather,
they didn’t until he made it an issue and opposed what was always going
to be a liklihood: the development of a rural site. A stable conversion
and a new stables is modest and protective of the site. A nimby could
hardly ask for more – it’s a lot better than a dozen starter homes or a
traveller encampment on the back field.
Tragically for the chump, he has just made it certain that the
children won’t be invited to birthday parties etc, not because of racism
but because nobody fancies taking a chance on having a touchy cow
calling the cops on them every five minutes. Even worse, it is not
O’Donnell who will ever bear the brunt of this because the parents of
mixed-race children never do, never are, stuck with the consequences of
their decision the way the offspring are. That’s the monkey on
O’Donnell’s back and I will betcha it’s what he was trying to shake off
when he moved from Kent to Beccles. He has just done the one thing which
starts it up all over again.
There’s a play in here, if it can be written without me getting sued.
Or arrested. I don’t know if I’d want to go that far to promote a
production.
- September 7, 2011 at
12:56
- September 7, 2011 at 13:26
-
“Tragically for the chump, he has just made it certain that the
children won’t be invited to birthday parties etc, not because of
racism but because nobody fancies taking a chance on having a touchy
cow calling the cops on them every five minutes. “
/applause
- September 8, 2011 at 23:31
-
I say – that was exquisite.
Do let me know when you’re single again.
- September 7, 2011 at 13:56
-
That’s certainly possible, Dennis. The phrasing of the news articles
indicate section 5, but it could be 4A, given that they’ve gotten other
details wrong. If so, then Anna’s comments on the maximum sentences
would be correct.
-
September 7, 2011 at 18:27
-
Mrs Mason’s solicitor is quoted in the Independent as saying it’s
summary only and carries a maximum fine of £2,500. So we’re back to
racially aggravated section 5.
Unless Mrs Mason refused a request to move the doll, or there is
something fairly significant missing from the reports, it’s hard to
see how a prosecution is justified.
-
September 7, 2011 at 08:04
-
If they stick pins into it, will the neighbour go ‘Ouch!’?
Pics in the DM.
If Mrs Mason had placed a melted wellie in the window, well then…
- September 7, 2011 at 00:47
-
that’s alright then
-
September 6, 2011 at 22:11
-
…and a liitle light Googling reveals that’s it’s both (1) and (2).
The gollywog appeared at the culmination of an existing dispute between
this lady and her neighbours, so there is more to this than someone
spontaneously taking offence at a doll; and
She’s charged with racially aggravated section 5, so she’s not looking at 2
years in chokey. It’s a fine, at worst.
- September 7, 2011 at 04:06
-
Neighbourhood disputes are abominably difficult to sort out as it often
becomes impossible to work out who is entitled to what. This one appears to
be about planning and objections – although there could be more. The police
may have been gulled in to chucking petrol on to a smouldering fire.
Terry and Jena Mason at the Manor House sought, and received, planning
permission to convert the stables at Worlingham Manor House in to
accommodation. However, this was not straight forward and the neighbours –
presumed to be the O’Donnells in the close-by property Manor Farm – objected
at parish level and to Waveney Council on the grounds of access, a lack of
tree assessments and the “steel building”. Access was particularly mentioned
as it appears to impinge on Manor Farm’s gate – but the clue is in the name;
that side of of the property may always have included right of access to
buildings which were parcelled up with them Manor House rather than Manor
Farm.
As with anyone making an application, objections are as welcome as an
attack of herpes and people hold grudges even when they have achieved their
aim. So it doesn’t look as if there was any love lost between the Masons and
the O’Donnells.
I’m guessing – purely guessing – that Mrs M was not thrilled at the
attempt to hamper her renovations and that Mrs O’Donnell finds it difficult
to accept that the planning process was gone through and gave Mrs M
permission to go ahead. I’ll bet race has nothing to do with it; Mrs M would
be just as annoyed no matter who objected and Mrs O would still object to
the conversion. Escalating this by playing the race card in order to get
someone arrested for having the nerve to do a building work is not at all
helpful.
In a case with some resemblance down in Essex the police arrested a
retired lawyer who was objecting to a neighbour’s building work. The police
use a trumped-up charge of harassmen. He was able to show it was mistaken,
forcing them to compensate him and make a grovelling apology.
- September 7, 2011 at 05:33
-
“The police may have been gulled in to chucking petrol on to a
smouldering fire.”
They do seem to be awfully gullible where this sort of thing is
concerned, don’t they?
- September 6, 2011 at 22:01
-
If we take this at face value the complainant should be charged with
wasting police time. The police involved should also be charged with wasting
police time.
-
September 6, 2011 at 22:43
-
I totally agree.
- September 6, 2011 at 21:51
-
Finding offence where none was intended is a lucrative modern business
(mainly for unscrupulous lawyers).
Having just read “Travels in West Africa” by Mary H. Kingsley (free on
Kindle), written in 1895-ish, in which the pros & cons of various African
tribes are discussed without any reticence or awareness of even the concept of
racism, I find the Harmon-isation of our culture hilarious.
- September 7, 2011 at 11:12
-
Mary H Kingsley, personal heroine, after an early adulthood as her
father’s amanuensis goes travelling in West Africa after his death,
initially as filial duty to his dilettante interests, and has an absolute
ball as a trader, doing it the native way by actual travelling in the
interior rather than hanging about the edges.
“On my first voyage out I did not know the Coast, and the Coast did not
know me, and we mutually terrified each other. I fully expected to get
killed by the local nobility and gentry; they thought I was connected with
the World Women’s Temperance Association, and collecting shocking details
for subsequent magic-lantern lectures on the liquor traffic; so fearful
misunderstandings arose, but we gradually educated each other and I had the
best of the affair; for all I had got to teach them was that I was only a
beetle- and fetish-hunter, and so forth, while they had to teach me a new
world, and a fascinating course of study I found it.”
She could have eaten Harriet Harman, and would have if her hosts had
required it.
-
September 6, 2011 at 21:36
-
Harassment requires a “course of conduct” in order to be made out as an
offence. Which means there must be more than one action. Which means that
placing the gollywog in the window is, on its own, not capable of constituting
harassment.
Either:
1. There is more to this than is contained in the article, or
2. The
gollywog owner is charged with a racially aggravated version of an offence
under section 5 of the Public Order Act (which can also be called “racially
aggravated harassment,” somewhat confusingly, but is only punishable with a
fine), or
3. Someone at the CPS needs to do a remedial class in fairly
basic law
Even if it’s (2), though, I’d still hope that there was rather more to it
than is implied in the article to justify the charge.
Oh, and the charge can’t be under section 28 of the 1998 Act because that
section doesn’t actually describe an offence. It would have to be under
section 31 (for the racially aggravated Public Order Act offence) or section
32 for for the racially aggravated Protection from Harassment Act offence.
- September
7, 2011 at 05:32
-
Let’s be fair here – it could well be a little bit of all three…
- September 6, 2011 at 21:06
-
My niece collects Golliwogs. Feeling generous so l’ve just ordered one off
Ebay to add to her collection.
- September 6, 2011 at 20:49
-
Travelling the world is said to broaden the mind, but our ‘rich diversity’
clearly has the opposite effect in dear old Blighty.
- September 6, 2011 at 20:43
-
I had to look twice, actually, to see where dolly put her hand
Sorry for lowering the tone of serious debate but it made me giggle
- September 7, 2011 at 05:42
-
Maybe that’s why his eyes are so wide…
- September 6, 2011 at 20:32
-
Surely we are missing the point here. Granted the idiot complaining is a
complete moron but what about the moron who brought the charges under Sect 28
of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act?
This is the person we should be concentrating on. Who the hell is this
moron?
- September 6, 2011 at 20:51
-
Just guessing-
30+years, university educated, wimmins and cultural studies, diversity
co-ordinator for local authority, no kids, drama queen, self
absorbed
Husband-white, third rate university, jobsworth, lib-dem
voter.
Parents of both were solid working-class, their children are a complete
embarrassment.
Thank you Harriet Harman and nu-liebour.
- September 7, 2011 at 05:30
-
These people were moving themselves into positions of authority long
before Harriet hove into view. Under Labour, the rate picked up, that’s
all.
-
September 7, 2011 at 05:38
-
I would not disagree, the Harpy just made the situation 10x
worse.
- September 6, 2011 at 20:21
-
Why do some people expect to have a ‘Right’ to not be shocked, upset, (or
offended)?
Perhaps the other householder can sue the Peeping Tom for Breach of Privacy
because the interior of her house was examined?
-
September 6, 2011 at 20:16
-
What does the man of the offendee’s house do?
Just asking.
BTW the car boot sale near Guildford boasts some lovely golliwog scarecrows
– I suppose you could always just ** **** ** ********* and get some for
free.
- September 7, 2011 at 10:04
-
- September 7, 2011 at
13:53
- September 8, 2011 at 23:41
-
I am indebted to you.
I am in the same line of business, strangely enough. I would prefer not
to work with him. I do not like the cut of his jib.
{ 48 comments }