Monday, August 12, 2013

Tagged under: , ,

Are you being Gagged?

For about a a week now I have been nonchalantly anticipating two letters: one from the Ethics Council of the NUJ and the other from a censor lawyer. It seems one at least is about to be on its way, if not already in the post. 

Why I’ve been expecting this is not because I have been guilty of any wrongdoing, the opposite in fact. I suspect that after Allison Morris was caught lying on Letters Blogatory, her fury was so unbridled that she would strive to find some other way to silence me and prevent me from explaining her unethical behaviour on that blog to anyone who might be inclined to read it – quite a lot of people by the look of things.

The Ethics Council of course, having made itself look mega stupid by reaching the silly verdict that it did, and then only to have it overturned, would jump at the opportunity for another round. No doubt those members of the Ethics Council think another bite at the cherry would be sweeter: ‘How dare that rotter from the slums make us look foolish old boy. Box his ears I say.’ Try boxing them indeed if you are willing to risk another bloody nose.

Censor lawyers, always on the lookout for some target they can home in on with their eraser sharp clutches, and from whom they might extract cash, just love to issue their letters confetti-like to anybody with an opinion on behalf of somebody else eager to smother that opinion, and possessed of the financial clout needed to impose a regime of silence. Lolly, not ethics, is always important in these matters: the need to turn a pound more important than the need to turn a phrase. As I am hopelessly bereft of cash, it all sort of goes over my head. I don’t envisage breaking rocks either to pay up.

Today while in a second hand bookshop I was contacted by a solicitor in Belfast to inform me that Morris was looking my home address. Unlike Morris, he has an ethics based approach to his profession and just does not hand clients’ addresses out willy nilly to any chancer that comes along seeking them. Before I went back to browsing through the book I had in my hand, The Liars Club, I instructed him to let her search for it herself. It might be an honest day’s work for her.

So I guess it is just a question of which letter arrives first from what would-be censor. As you can see I am really stressed out by it all and have taken to the drink to cope. I am so terrified that they might ultimately jail me that I have just rushed off and removed every blog post I have ever written, and have plastered the internet with profuse and profound apologies to Allison Morris. Readers are advised to contact me when they find any and I will reward the first one across the line with all the money Morris hopes to get but never will. Why should she be rewarded for lying on Letters Blogatory?

So, dear reader, before I sign off, do copy all the posts written in relation to this scandalous affair so that they may be widely distributed over the internet in the event of the censors managing to put the lights out here through court orders or whatever. Whichever threatening letter arrives first, as it duly shall, you can see it posted on this blog or on another if the censors manage to close this one down. The freedom to write will not only be defended but vigorously asserted whatever the odds. Allison Morris will become a byword for censorship. And if prison is the going rate to achieve that it will be a price well worth paying. In this case silence is not a commodity that money can buy.


michaelhenry said...


Cross Morris may not be able to silence you but she has done a grand job at silencing Fido-not a bark out of him this weather-maybe
because she was able to house-train Fido she expects everyone else to roll over and get a kick up the arse from her-she is in for a shock-

larry hughes said...

Did anyone ever consider putting a muzzle on Fido?

Dread to think what would happen if you had the outlets and reach to be filling the minds of the entire population with lies and deliberate false information in order to facilitate global mass-murder.

Agh but that's just a silly notion, and besides, that gig is already taken by the national press!!

AM said...


it matters not what she does, who she sends, writs she has issued, legal threats she makes, courts she goes to, her attempt at censoring will fail. The list of questions she will face in a court would embarrass a rhino. They will also send Fido off to the divorce court. Do you think I have been sitting on my hands letting it all pass by? The folder grows bigger by the day. A day in court at her expense - because I will not contribute one cent to it - manna from heaven. Anyway, I am so concerned about it I am away to amuse my son and then read a novel.

tfolkman said...

I feel somewhat responsible for the treatment Allison Morris has received here (as I invited her to comment on her absence from NUJ hearing), and so though I almost never comment here, I think it is important that someone say, "Let the poor woman be!" Her reasons for not attending the NUJ hearing were immaterial. You say she was untruthful, but if she lied it was a venal sin. You and your readers had a chuckle on account of her intemperate boyfriend--find. Let it be. Not everything needs to be turned into a titanic struggle of you against the state.

AM said...


you are not responsible for any response to Morris. You merely invited an explanation and she gave you a lie which you seem prepared to accept as venal, no doubt on solid theological grounds: not something I profess to know a great deal about.

Her reasons for not attending the NUJ may well be immaterial, that she lied on your blog about those reasons is material, particularly when she wanted to lay the charge of unethical behaviour.

Your decent sense of sympathy is misplaced Ted. It was not forthcoming in language 'let the poor man be' when the baseless charge was laid against me.

Yeah, we can let it go, and were about to until she lied on your blog and has been seeking to offset the damage from that ever since.

I think Morris needs to let it go. But either way, the freedom to write remains paramount. The 'struggle' as you term it is not against the state but against those that wish to have their critics censored.

Questioning authority Ted is a much healthier stance than deferring to it. But you and I have thrashed this out before in respect of other matters.

The first and only time I met Fido he merely introduced himself as 'Allison Morris's partner'. He left the intemperate bit out!

menace said...

Anthony, a couple of points come out of this,
1) why did the ethics council not consider an adjournment to permit the other side to attend when they could?
2) Was such adjournment sought by either party who could not attend, if so, why was it not granted, if not, why complain?
3) Miss Morris did attend the original hearing, when was this, unless over the usual Christmas media lull then it's usually a busy time for journalists, no?
These are questions, easily answered by yourself as one of the parties to the case(s) who would have had to be informed of possible departures from set dates.

AM said...


I presume you mean the Appeals Tribunal. All sides turned up at the Ethics Council thing in January.

Ciaran, made some mention on Letters Blogatory about asking the Appeals Tribunal for a different date due to illness. He would have a right to ask for a date change if the proposed date did not suit him.

I think because so many people have to make it to the hearing (the Tribunal has six or something alone) that a date can't be found to suit everybody. I was the appelant so it would not have been good had I not turned up despite the problems of getting a date to suit. Going to London never suits anybody I suppose, but the effort has to be made.

Allison attended the original hearing in late January in Belfast.

On the day in London, I was surprised that they did not turn up.

menace said...

Sorry Anthony, the Appeals Tribunal and thank-you for the clarification.
It must be in order for any tribunal such as this to apply the over riding objective contained in the Civil Procedure Rules which should afford parties to be present in person or otherwise. an electronic approach, making use of technology, would have enabled those others to present their sides of the argument without the need to be present in London.
It should also have enabled the Tribunal to take place in Belfast at a time to suit all parties.
Did you get a notice from the Appeals Tribunal asking for a switch in the date?

AM said...

Menace, I didn't get a request for a switch.

itsjustmacker said...


""Let the poor woman be!"

I am astounded that you are able to type the above , Its obvious to myself and others reading what you typed that you are on her (Morris's) side, even though she lied on your blog.

Venal Sin?, Its still a Lie. No such thing in a court of law as venal sin, A lie is a lie in the eyes of the law, and she would not have a leg to stand on, regarding her twit and photographic evidence at being at a football match with her partner. She needs to be told that it would be detrimental to her career to pursue recompense , or , for anyone to attempt to get it for her regarding what has been written about her, everything has been nothing but the truth on this blog (TPQ).

AM said...


the one thing that did puzzle me about Ted's comment is if her reasons for not attending may well be immaterial why did he even ask her in the first place to give one. He considered it material enough to suggest she give one.

What became very material is her response.

In relation to all of this if I believed that I was doing her an injustice by allowing discussion of it, or by taking part in discussion of it, I would refrain. I do believe she tried to do me an injustice.

I would much rather be watching soccer with my son, arguing with my daughter, reading novels, or writing reviews rather than be engaged in all this or fighting the Boston College case.

I just feel people should have the freedom to write and not face the wrath of the censor. Allison Morris will always have the right to reply on this blog in full article form. But seemingly that is not enough for her.

Trying to gag people on the internet is like playing that game Whack A Mole. Ryan Giggs learned that much. More people seem to have learned about him via the gagging order than through the initial allegation.

How many people would ever have heard of any of this were it not for the ill considered action of Morris/Barnes in rushing off to the Ethics Council in pursuit of some sanction?

Tain Bo said...

I am curious on the one hand you invited her reason for being a no show and on the other you deem her answer immaterial. Why would you pose a question to someone that in your own words has no bearing on the issue?
It is noble of you to grace us chucklers with a defense but it sounds more like a plea bargain. She may not have been exactly truthful and therefore is not guilty in your words of poor ethical standards.
Your opinion only fans the flames on this issue that should never have been.

I can’t speak for all the readers and chucklers but would it be fair to suggest that if Fido and his blundering had not appeared don’t you think the comments would have been fewer?

If journalists go toe to toe in a verbal sparring match then have at it but spectators should be free to back whomever they think is in the right. In my book Morris is literally behind on points.

tfolkman said...

itsjustmacker, I would like to think I'm not on anyone's side here, except the side of treating people with a little decency, even on the internet. Anthony made a suggestion similar to yours when he wrote: "Your decent sense of sympathy is misplaced Ted. It was not forthcoming in language 'let the poor man be' when the baseless charge was laid against me." I would say that one who doesn't see a difference in tone and substance between my coverage of the original NUJ hearing and what has happened here hasn't been reading very carefully.

tfolkman said...

Tain Bo, as I indicated later in the comment thread, I was mostly interested in her view about whether her absence had made a difference to the outcome.

AM said...

From Carrie Twomey

All either Barnes or Morris, or indeed anyone who has a problem or concern with The Pensive Quill, need do is contact Anthony to discuss it – as was shown when Kevin Cooper initially contacted him over a year ago about Allison’s concerns. Even the Appeals Tribunal grasped this – no attempt at conciliation whatsoever was made before going for the nuclear option. Now it appears the only objective for them all along was to secure headlines to discredit Anthony in the middle of the Boston College fight rather than because of any real sense of grievance.

We never respond well to legal threats, whether it is from Editors such as Noel Doran, who first threatened Anthony with legal action on behalf of Allison over a year ago, or should it be whatever libel lawyer chooses to act on her behalf now (I wonder if the Irish News is footing her bill?). I do not think many people would respond favourably to legal threats, especially if that is the first entreaty made, which in Allison’s case, apart from the informal NUJ approach which saw her request granted, has been the only form of entreaty made – legal threats or being hauled before Ethics Councils. Of all things!

Compounded with the bullshit she has spread to further her legal threats and sanctions, and the utter disdain displayed by choosing a football match over attendance at the hearing of her own complaint, is it any wonder her position is viewed with utter amazement - the sheer brass neck of it all? Just who exactly does she think she is?

After dragging Anthony through that farce of the NUJ complaint, securing the headlines in the middle of the BC case, not bothering to show up in London, and now seeminly siccing her lawyers on us, any sympathy I may have had for her feelings being hurt is long spent. Seriously, fuck her. She’s no interest in resolving anything. Unless there’s some other agenda fueling her actions, she just wants to escape condemnation for being the asshole she is. Well, that ain’t gonna happen as long as she continues to act like an asshole.

AM said...


don't forget the horse she rode in on!! I sort of like that auld horse. Not it's fault.

AM said...


you were in fact complimented for your balanced coverage. You did not come in when Fido was launching his scurrilous broadside and people probably wonder why. You don't need to explain to me because I don't care.

The upshot is that you by your comment have drawn more attention to the issue you seem to have wanted to go away. While I am not going to complain about that, I do wonder why people proceed down a course that brings the result they hoped to avoid. If I want to avoid a punch I don't lead with my chin.

Kev O'Higgins said...

Sad to see a serf on a tiny smallholding within a declining 4th Estate seemingly engaged in an attempt to perform a ventriculocordectomy* with rusty shears on a whistling itinerant laborer.

I'm for cooperative farming and ethical practices.

I also love ridiculous metaphors and the use of words that require google.

*ventriculocordectomy - also know as devocalization, mainly used to quieten the barking of dogs and can be enforced by court order after complaint

Organized Rage said...

I always took it as a basic rule of journalism that journalists do not sue, and certainly not another journalist.

Ms Morris seems determined to destroy what is left of her reputation. She has already disgraced herself by taking a fellow journalist to her unions Ethics Council, which is her right, but then failing to attend the subsequent appeal to substantiate her charge.

Given a journalist like Anthony relies in his writing on his reputation for honesty, that to my mind is a dreadful thing to do. You cannot make serious accusations like that and then fail to turn up at the appeal, preferring to go to a soccer match. If she was not going to attend at the very least she should have withdrawn her accusations and let the matter rest.

This cannot be dismissed as a silly spat on facebook as a man's reputation and thus his work as a writer were at stake here. I can see why some like Ted might find the tone a little uncomfortable.

But no one can trash a man's reputation, and then expect he will just roll over. Life isn't like that, and McIntyre is not like that.

Tain Bo said...


I appreciate your candor and understand your point. I could accept her decision not to show but that would raise the issue of why Barnes also decided not to show.
In my opinion given that both decided not to defend their reputations that there may well have been advanced knowledge leaked to them that they had no case that would be a more plausible explanation rather than chickenpox and hardship it would appear their mighty Titanic was destined to hit the iceberg.
Would it have a bearing on the outcome? Definitely yes, would that be a sign of the weakness of their claim against Anthony in my opinion yes.
Ted I have been following the BC legal battle and you come across as a very reasonable man.
I was surprised to see your comment as it does show Morris being irresponsible in her answer to your question.
In a court of law her answer under oath would be considered perjury? In a lesser setting of a tribunal would the same not apply?
I do not mean to sound rude Ted in my opinion your comment lends more weight to Anthony’s corner.

If both felt so aggrieved then both should have made their case at the hearing?
I could consider their lack of interest in putting in an appearance as irresponsible why make allegations if you lack the fortitude to defend them?

I will agree we are all guilty of committing terminological inexactitudes in our daily lives though as you pleaded her answer down to a minor sin it clearly demonstrates you agree she was wrong?
Otherwise there would be no mention of a minor indiscretion.

Although you don’t visit or post on this site much I do thank you for your consideration and I did get a chuckle out of your chucklers comment.

itsjustmacker said...


" I would say that one who doesn't see a difference in tone and substance between my coverage of the original NUJ hearing and what has happened here hasn't been reading very carefully."

There is no mention in your post regarding the original NUJ hearing.

My reply to you was based on what you wrote, and , no matter what you say, based on what you wrote , I have no doubt whatsoever that you were sticking up for "Morris".

That's the bottom line , you should be weighing up the true facts instead of jumping the gun and taking sides, Anthony Doe's not tell lies , unlike "Morris", and you should keep that in mind.
Its easier to debate than to take sides.

AM said...

Kev O'Higins,

ventriculocordectomy - what a mouthful!

It is easy ultimately to quieten a barking dog. How do you silence a barking net?

Daniel McArdle said...

I have reading through The Pensive Quill this last week shaking my head at
embarrassment for you.
Firstly - I want to put it straight- im a Sinn Fein Supporter, I read many
Republican blogs including your own and many non agreement supporters. It
gets my day in. so don't take this that I don't like you.
I want to explain a few home truths
1. Boston College was a mine field from the off, you knew that Maloney knew
that and people who were  doing it knew that- Financial gain must have been
your aim.
2. D.Price told  the Irish News what she had told you in BC Tapes- you had
met her days either before or after (not sure when to be precise) true! so
stop your lies Anthony.
3. Carrie Twomey rant or breakdown( whatever you want to call it)" Let's
see, my husband Anthony is now supposed to be an misogynistic stalker"
ANTHONY you behaviour is now over bordering on stalker ism. Honestly your a
4. I think the reason that you are being sent a solicitors letter is
because your take on freedom of speech means you cant write anything. Well
you cant, malicious rumours and lies can put people in danger. True
5. I think you seeing Allison Morris at a Cliftonville game, (after all you
have described Fido as a coach-so where on earth would they have been on
the biggest night in their history?) when she should have been jumping to
your tune in London has a sound of control freakery that only you and not
Carrie can understand( although she looked hot with the Cliftonville top
on, have you anymore photos?#imnotastalker).
6. Fido's comments can only be described as giving you a bone on a leash
and you having one almighty bite on bom! I think he will be chuckling
on the response you and Carrie have produced.
7. You have descended The Pensive Quill into a one mans rant( sorry two if
you include you Guest- (sorry ghost oh did I say ghost I meant Guest)
Writer Paul Campbell) about a women who went to a Cliftonville match and
you couldn't control her- a sad life to live, 20 pound on top of your bru ,
credit cards, I have a right to be angry, are you being gagged, getting
thrown out of the Murf, hunger strikes, Owen Patterson, breakdowns and now
me having a go. I have had enough of poor Anthony now its simply boring.
Anthony get a good lawyer because your gonna need one, resign from the NUJ
before the turf you out, stop obsession over a women when the pen is
mightier than the Quill. Give up and stop crying you have done it all your
life and pretty much every Republican in Belfast are laughing at your

AM said...


thanks for commenting here. I am sure your writing will continue to improve with time. Good luck with it.


I am sure there is stuff that I have written which later turned out to be wrong. It is part and parcel of the writing game. But I have never written anything I believed to be wrong. And when I do, you can call me whatever you want. I won't censor you for it.

If somebody wants to tell porkies about not being in the pub when they were, or as a cover for why they were late for work, I don't care in the slightest. If Allison Morris was writing in the Irish News that she wore a blue dress rather than black jeans, why would I be interested?

I have seen too many people lie to take the tension out of awkward social situations, or to make their CV look good, to be worried about it one way or the other.

The issue here is not that she is somebody who lies all the time about everything, but that she gave a demonstrably inaccurate account about why she did not attend the NUJ hearing. Not a hanging offence by any stretch of the imagination, but it has to cast doubt over her narrative about the rest of this issue.

Somebody said to me today she has the ability to be a very good journalist. I didn't disagree. I just don't want her hounding me for ethical matters which she has to know are groundless.

menace said...

Thanks again for the clarification Anthony, there is a certain irony this week, In the first, the loss of records by a senior staff at BC library, paid to care for and guard such sensitive material is ironic as it matches the loss of an even more sensitive document by the brits in relation to Dolorus sister in respect of the Royal Pardon granted the sisters in 1980 which, had it not been 'lost' could have prevented Marian from spending several years in custody for expressing her opinion.
It seems equally ironic that, in an appeal to the NUJ Appellate Tribunal two witnesses for, if you like, the prosecution fail to turn up, fail to seek adjournment before then creating curious excuses and using their failure to be present as an further reason to besmirch the appellant.
Alison Morris is a good journalist, working for a pro-brit rag, her attitude in respect of this has reduced her standing in mine, and I suspect others, opinion.

AM said...

Organized Rage,

The tendency to reach for libel lawyers has had a detrimental effect on the freedom to write. I notice that in the North the leading libel lawyer is leading a campaign to keep censorship laws in place that have already been done away with in the UK. I know barbers will never tell you that you don’t need a haircut but it does underscore the point that there is profit in silencing people.

A robust public discussion is guaranteed not by libel laws but by writers willing to put their views out there and fighting their corner. I think the print media is aware that the internet has created a much more difficult environment for it to operate in. Years ago the print media could monopolise commentary and reporting but the net changed all that. I think the print media wants to police that and remain daddy on the block. It will realise at some point that it will have to coexist.

I have a respect for the Appeals Tribunal and many people in the union. I have nothing but disdain for the Ethics Council. I have no faith in the union leadership particularly after its stance on Leveson, where it took a decision to effectively back state regulation of the press and did not consult the membership. So, I no longer place a value on belonging to the union. I no longer feel the union protects journalism. What was the Ethics Council doing during Leveson? Absolutely nothing worthwhile. If M15 had have made a submission to Leveson could it have been any less radical than that made by the chair of the Ethics Council?

I have to agree with Nick Cohen when he wrote Extraordinary that the NUJ's wretched leaders are supporting statutory regulation of press, we have been fighting that since the 1640s

How do I justify paying a monthly due to keep that in place? I don’t believe I can.

And as always when we make the break, we later come to conclude that we should have made it earlier.

Robert said...


Enjoyed your considered response to Daniel!

As always, a Jimmy Krankie squaring up to Tyson moment. An inevitable conclusion but it is the method employed, in placing them on the canvas, that never ceases to amuse.

AM said...


my issue is not that she is a bad journalist but that she was out of order in bringing me in front of the Ethics Council. And we have to wonder why.

itsjustmacker said...


Just read what Daniel Typed. lmfao.

Your response to him was professional and to the point.
Well Done.

I laughed at some of the silly mistakes, Like , since when did "Woman" become "Women" , and , "They" become "The". If I didn't know any better I would swear that was "Fiddo" typing!, But he did say sorry a few times. lol

Dixie said...

trying to make head or tail of Daniel McArdle's comment was like trying to unravel tangled fishing line...

And he wouldn't be a shinner/supporter if he didn't throw the old financial gain brick. Ricky O'Rawe got hit with a few of those himself.

I could throw out few bricks wrapped with the names of a very long list of shinners who hadn't tuppence a few years back but now own bars, security firms, holiday homes in places like Portugal etc but we all know who they are anyway.

I could throw a brick with a note attached that he supports a party headed by an notorious liar who sang a song a year before it was written; according to himself...A party kept adrift by British funding - but I won't!!

OK so I just did, but I doubt my bricks could penetrate the thick sculls of SF employees and supporters.

itsjustmacker said...


was just going to bed when i read your post.

Shush , MI5/RUC/PSNI Internet Police are on the prowl.
Wouldn't want SF and dumb as dumber supporters thinking they were being grassed on.

Oh, you forgot to mention the car parks and most of them never worked a day in there whole life. Is this how SF gathers money into its so called CENTRAL POOL (fund), nice mafia style that , secret bank accounts with undeclared funds, but not in any of Top SF echelon's Names of course, They keep themselves white as white clean, the dumb as dumber's will be the fall guys/Girls and they can't even prove themselves that the money is going into SF pockets.

Oh Crap, have I said to much , must stop now.

Posting this and off to bed.

AM said...


he is probably young and given time might come to see things differently.

menace said...

Dia duiut ar madin a chairde, let's not worry too much about the brit. internet police, they know what's said here and who is saying it.
Young Daniel, as Anthony suggests , is probably young and impressionable of stories by the party leadership.
Let us refer him instead to the stories of people who gave their lives for re-unification through their role in the gaol struggle, he might instead of listening to bollocks read the writings of Tommy McKearney, Brendan Hughes and Dolorus Price to find out who is leading him astray.

Daniel McArdle said...

thanks for the comments on my writing skills. as a young person yourself Anthony
you spent a lot of years in jail perfecting your writing when you took someone's life. So maybe when I hit college in September I can come up to your perfect boring writing ability, just like your boring talk on Darkie that I had to endure- Seeeeeeeection 1 zzzzzzzzzz seeeeeeection 17 zzzzzzzz I wanted to cut ur supply to ur mouth.#ur means your cause ur so out if touch. Your a looser and thank god your hiding down south so Republican's across the board don't have to endure your pathetic outlook in life and a stalker ism of a women.

Dixie said...

Ignoring the school boyish tone of your comment Daniel I would ask how you are able to speak for "Republican's across the board?"

How do you know what Republicans think, particularly as you admitted to supporting SF?

Shinners aren't allowed to think Daniel. Its anti-peace process...In fact as they like so say themselves, its anti-SF.

I would safely say that a good cross section of Republicanism has respect for Mackers despite our differing opinions.

Thats whats called freedom of speech mo chara.

Daniel McArdle said...

Dixie or Anthony as you have many names on this, Ignoring the school boyish tone of your comment Daniel I would ask how you are able to speak for "Republican's across the board? I don't need to speak for Republicans across the board but I have spoke to Republicans across the board from Interment march to the Fenlons club and are disgraced of Mackers behaviour. Carrie Twomey must be ashamed of what you are and done on her life. Dan SFY

itsjustmacker said...


There is nothing better than a good education , I hope you have made the grades to get into college in September , I wish you well and hope you achieve your objectives and get the grades required to enter University , because , you type with so much venom and hatred it is unbelievable for someone SO YOUNG to have that type of hatred within yourself , you must be really hurting inside.

I will not comment on what you wanted to do with Anthony , nor will I comment on what you said with reference to his good lady and wife, who has stood by him through thick and thin.

But , I am curious regarding you sitting at Anthony's Speech about "Darkie" , do you mean The legend "Brendan (The Dark) Hughes" (R.I.P.

Very few called him Darkie , and I mean very few . If you were that bored why did you sit through it , Please Don't tell me you were forced to sit through it.

To me , You are a bit young to remember "Darkie" , that is if you are young , I have no reason to disbelieve you, except , I tend to see the same idiosyncrasies in your spelling , grammar ,also the venom and hatred which you spiel out , as the same from two other posters.

I hope you get a proper education and have a bright and happy future.

Oh, sorry , one more thing, Were is The "Fenlons" , Its nowhere near The "Felons"!

larry hughes said...


If Daniel makes the grade at any university I'll have to reconsider my evaluation of my own degree and MA.

Daniel McArdle said...

Sorry- if I offended you with the darkie comment, you must have been his best mate and won't allow anyone to call him darkie even though Anthony did throughout his snoozed speech! Sad life that you lead and its actually a retarded website and I am going to annoy you but that's life

larry hughes said...

The 'Darkie' error by Daniel is indicative of what the quality of people the SF 'bob-a-job' leadership has deliberately surrounded itself with these days.

Obviously those who were responsible for internal 'education' and who introduced the History of the English Working Class as the curriculum text book in the H-Blocks continue to out-do themselves within SF today.