Thursday, August 17, 2006

The future's bleak...

Poor Mr Inigo Wilson. He wrote a satirical ‘Lefty Lexicon’ for a private website, solely to highlight the manner in which the political left inhibits or prevents debate in order to propagate their particular world view. His humorous definitions clearly indicate an aversion to collective stereotyping, preferring instead to view people as individuals. The article was written in his own time, and did not mention his employer. Unfortunately for him, a group calling themselves the Muslim Public Affairs Committee discovered that he was employed in the community relations department of Orange, and so they whipped up a number of complaints. He has now been suspended, pending an internal review.

Cranmer is more than aware of the importance of words. If one’s personal definition, no matter how pedantically correct, does not chime with the vernacular, it may mean death – professional if not physical. When any pressure group seeks to grasp an agenda by re-defining words, this results in a distortion which restricts public debate by producing a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as a jarring dissonance. It is virtually impossible to survive this.

Orange is, of course, entitled to fire any of its employees with just cause, but only Mr Wilson's contract will clarify whether or not he was barred from making political comment. But more importantly, this suspension is solely at the behest of a reactionary, self-appointed group which purports to speak on behalf of all British Muslims. A cursory glance at the MPAC website reveals not only a defence of Hezbollah, but a certain distaste for Jews. These odious and humourless Muslims have contrived charges of ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘racism’, and many of them seem determined to return the United Kingdom to an era where religious views, however extreme or offensive, may not be challenged, even satirically. This is a fundamental issue of freedom of speech.

But on these charges, firstly, Islam is not a race, so Mr Wilson’s comments cannot be racist. Secondly, the MPAC defines Islamophobia as ‘an irrational fear of Islam’. How then are we to define those who fear Islam for entirely rational reasons?


Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

Ironic considering that most mobile phone fraud is carried out by muslims of a Bangladeshi/Pak persuasion
Trust me I know these things.

18 August 2006 at 00:00  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...

"Cranmer is more than aware of the importance of words" -
And clearly highly skillful with them.

Reality is increasingly mediated by an elite, and is therefore no longer available to the masses as a frame of reference. Opinions are by and large handed out ready-made and received gratefully without the need or requirement for further engagement. It is like buying a chicken korma ready meal at the supermarket, but being shocked at seeing the slaughter of the animal. Somehow the two concepts seem alien to each other in spite of them being different strands of the same process. It is just that the unpalatable bit has been removed from the common consciousness. Likewise we were asked to believe in weapons of mass destruction and it is those same people who are asking us to believe that our present troubles have no connection with British foreign policy. Soldiers are dying but we cannot smell burning flesh. Children are starving but we do not understand hunger. We see war-torn cities and most of us know nothing of this as reality.

Political Correctness ploughs this same furrow because it makes a semiotic leap by shutting down the avenues of interpretation. It also asks the recipient to move from passive, uncritical engagement to active, though negative engagement. For example, a word such as "Islamophbia" is highly problematic but it is presented in the media as if everyone knows what it means. What do you see when you hear the word? Is it something akin to a fear of spiders where you are the pursued - or is it more a picture of a poor bearded man looking sad? Does it, as is probably the case with adherents of Islam, conjure up for them a picture of a violent agressor?

Thus, in allowing the word to be narrowly defined for their own ends with the help of an infuential elite, they have made the leap from victim to victim creator, or as René Girard puts it:

" The main purpose of PC thinking, which is a perversion .. is not to defend victims but to make victims once again by accusing certain people of being victimizers".

This unfortunate and perhaps very naive man has become a scapegoat and a victim of the very freedoms he would confer upon others. It is the tyranny of the weak, mediated by political correctness.

I hope my opinion does not appear "irrational", though since it dissents from the spoon-fed line, I dare say it will be.

18 August 2006 at 01:31  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Perhaps it is time for us to be reminded of two prescient books:

George Orwell's ... 1984
Aldous Huxley's ... Brave New World.

18 August 2006 at 06:19  
Anonymous Rick said...

Yes but there are others: Karl Popper "The Open Society & Its Enemies" and Christopher Lasch "Revolt of the Elites"

and Hayek "The Constitution of Liberty" and

Robert Nozick "Anarchy, State & Utopia"

and of course "Gulliver's Travels"

18 August 2006 at 06:27  
Anonymous A humble serf said...

If it please his Grace can I just point out something that has been highlighted on other blogs. At no point in his post on ConservativeHome did Mr Wilson mention the name of his employers. This means that somebody has actively searched for his details after seeing his post. Considering the gloating that his suspension has been greeted with on some MPAC realted blogs.....

'News just in, he has been suspended.
This is fantastic news and a major coupe for everyone on this forum!
Just shows what Muslims can do when they act intelligently.'

is this not just a straightforward case of repression.

18 August 2006 at 07:09  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

is this not just a straightforward case of repression

If you accept, as I do, that all of Islam (including its mythical moderates) has already declared war upon the West (not just militarily, but culturally, and ethically too) then it is not so difficult to imagine "Islamic Agents" listening out for dissenters in places of work, and other public spaces.

Over the years, I have witnessed several British subjects being surplussed or sacked by Arab employers (i.e., those having overseas contracts) because of what has been overheard. In one particular case, a prior 10 years service counted for nothing.

Chief agent at Mission Impossible has even had his telephone tapped, and taped transcripts presented to his Arab manager without, of course, his knowledge.

I cannot stress enough, the seriousness of the situation we are now in. Getting rid of New Labour is a prerequisite for turning the tables.

18 August 2006 at 07:32  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...

Mr Impossible. Certainly those two books, 1984 and Brave New World should help anyone to see parallels with the present. I would also add, "The Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire.

18 August 2006 at 08:36  
Blogger istanbultory said...


The Popperain principle of falsifiability i.e., the differentiation between rational scientific theories from various kinds of pseudoscience, especially those, like of Marxism and psychoanalysis, is one that western elites have, and continue, to ignore at our peril. The open society is, indeed under threat...from within and without.

18 August 2006 at 09:42  
Anonymous Lena Mouse said...

Inigo Wilson is a victim of repression and conspiracy. I know that word has fallen out of use, but this MPAC clearly conspired to cause him maximum harm, by demanding his sacking. I will definitely cancel my Orange subscription if this man loses his job. I don't agree with his article, and can see why it might be offensive (if you're looking to be offended!), but he has a perfect right to say it.

If I complained every time a Muslim offended me, I'd probably have a fatwha (?) on my head by now!

18 August 2006 at 10:10  
Blogger istanbultory said...

In terms of recommended reading, I would also suggest- The Retreat of Reason: Political Correctness and the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain
by Anthony Browne.

See here:

18 August 2006 at 10:13  
Anonymous DavidG said...

This is potentially great news. If Orange keep Wilson, this will cause Muslims to leave Orange. They will then have less mobile phones to use as detonators for bombs, and we'll all be safer!

18 August 2006 at 10:20  
Blogger istanbultory said...


There is a good piece in The Times today "Latest drama from the War on Terror: er, all quiet on the Walthamstan front" by Mick hume. Hume argues, as most contributors to this blog would argue that:
"...The distinctive identity promoted by multiculturalism is that of the victim. Each identity group vies to win prestige and grants by parading its sufferings. Thus Muslim community leaders elevate any perceived slight into evidence of a wave of Islamophobia,..."

Thus, Mr. Inigo Wilson's current difficulties.

18 August 2006 at 10:24  
Anonymous Rick said...

I think we are agreed that the word "witchhunt" is applicable in the case of Mr Wilson - what is of concern is the protection against such "lettres de cachet" as were used in Revolutionary France or "denunciations" as kept the Gestapo informed and aware.

Freedoms which existed within homogeneous societies have steadily been eroded and many have forgotten what they in fact were and what was once possible. From the days of a simple musical evening as the Black & White Minstrel Show became George Mitchell Singers to the absence of any such programming whatsoever.

Or the way a crucifix is more ikely to be displayed as a piece of teenager fashion jewelry than as a symbol of Christian Faith; and the modes of Chuirches which seem to have swallowed a thricefold Denial of Christ in order to have superficially warm relations with Muslims - as Mohammed urged them to do - in 'taqiyya' and 'kitman' both.

In the Warsaw Ghetto - I recommend Wladeslaw Szpilman's book 'Smierc Miast' or "The Pianist" for a description of how some cooperated with the invaders and served up their fellows before being consumed themselves...............or read some Hannah Arendt - the great Hannah Arendt - particularly on the hierarchy of Concentration Camps and Soviet Labour Camps - how the enforcers were coopted from the inmates.

The Nazis preferred the Politicals like the Communists to keep the Dissenters in line as 'Kapos' (incidentally this was Berlusconi's jibe against Martin Schulz MEP "Kapo" - this is not a "Guard" as the BBC stated but a "trusted Inmate" who serves the authorities.)

Sometimes it seems as if the Church of England wants to appear useful but has no traction with the public, nevertheless it is seeking to become an arm of the executive as charities have done. The recent report that 47% income for many charities like Barnardos now comes from The State shows how easy it is to be co-opted to political ends.

Likewise I am reliably informed that the largest single provider of social workers in England is the Church of England, they are funded however by local authorities and so their connection to the C of E means they are unbranded but employed in Church projects

18 August 2006 at 11:01  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Rick said:
"...the modes of Chuirches which seem to have swallowed a thricefold Denial of Christ in order to have superficially warm relations with Muslims..."

While Christians across the Islamic world, are (to an increasing extent)subject to vilification, persecution and death.
In Turkey:

In Pakistan:

18 August 2006 at 11:25  
Anonymous leon said...

You guys might like to check out an alternative reason for his sacking:

18 August 2006 at 13:25  
Anonymous Rick said...

He hasn't been "sacked" and your suggesting he has is your facts before your Website gets called to account for publishing a libel

18 August 2006 at 14:01  
Anonymous Rick said...

Coming soon….

Well you might sunshine....but libel suits can be brought by Orange against Pickled Politics since you imply they have breached employment law

18 August 2006 at 14:03  
Anonymous Ernest said...

since you seem to allow long posts, here's one that I submitted to the MPAC website that doesn't seem to have appeared.


My apologies for writing a long post but I feel that in the spirit of rational dialogue that this site was created to promote it might be useful to unpick what has happened and what has actually been said. Real people have suffered real hurt and it is in the interest of all to think clearly about how this has come about.

Inigo Wilson wrote an article on the ConservativeHome website. Some elements of this article have been said to be offensive and demonstrate that the writer is Islamophobic and Racist. As such some members of this forum have complained to his employer and he has been suspended. This has led to some furious debate on a number of websites and insults have been thrown by both sides in a number of sub debates about Racism, Islamophobia, Freedom of Speech and the responsibilities that we owe to our employers outside working hours.

I would recommend that anyone interested read the whole of the article that Mr Wilson wrote at
The article starts with an opinion piece about the way in which language is used to frame debate. His contention is that there has been a trend to use overly verbose language and jargon to obscure the truth rather than to shed light upon it. His particular target is the current UK Government and those that he describes as being on the "left". These include parts of our administrative bureaucracy, education establishment and race and rights activists.

He follows the opinion piece with a list of ways in which words have been used that he thinks do not reflect the true meaning of those words. The writing style is plain and blunt as it is the intention to criticise verbosity. It is worth quoting the preamble to this list of definitions:

"If we want to limit the spread of this grating, euphemistic and deeply political language in our national life, the first thing to do is recognise it for what it is. So, in the list below, I've brought together some of my favourites - a compilation of 'key learnings' if you will - and tried to describe their usage and meaning as I've encountered them. Welcome to the 'Lefty lexicon'."

Notice that he is trying to "describe their usage and meaning as I've encountered them". This is very different to the suggestion that has been made that the list is a collection of what he believes to be the true definitions of these words.

There are two definitions that seem to have caused much of the offence:

"Islamophobic - anyone who objects to having their transport blown up on the way to work."


"Palestinians - archetype 'victims' no matter how many teenagers they murder in bars and fast food outlets. Never responsible for anything they do – or done in their name - because of 'root causes' or ‘legitimate grievances’."

From the debates of the MPAC forum it seems that the definition of "Islamophobic" has been taken to mean that if you object to being blown up on your way to work then you are Islomophobic. This is thought to mean that Mr Wilson thinks that it is rational and right to be Islamophobic.

Similarly with "Palestinian" the definition on its own would suggest that he thinks Palestinians to be murderous and irresponsible.

I suggest that if those definitions were all that he had written then it might be fair to think him prejudiced. However, that ignores his own stated intention in writing the list. He has written the definitions as being self evidently stupid so as to satirise those that use the words in such an inaccurate way.

The complaint that he is making about the use of the word "Islamophobic" is that it is misused in order to shut down rational debate. What he is saying is that of course anyone would object to being blown up. Of course anyone would want to criticise people who want to blow you up.

We are sadly in a position though that some people do, however, think that blowing up trains is a legitimate form of protest. The evidence suggests (although many may not believe it) that some of those people also happen to be followers of Islam (whether they are truly devout is a different matter). It ought to be legitimate to criticise those people, who happen to be followers of Islam, and want to blow up trains, without it being seen as a criticism of all followers of Islam. To assume that all followers of Islam are violent protesters is ridiculous. To assume that no violent protester is a follower of Islam seems to be contrary to the available evidence.

If the word "Islamophobia" is applied to those that want to criticise (misguided) Islamic violent protest then that is a misuse of the word "Islamophobia".

With "Palestinian" he is saying that some believe Palestinians to be always right in every case - just as some believe Israel to be always right in every case. You may also believe that those Palestinians that bomb Israelis are justified in doing so or you may believe the Israeli army bombing civilians in Lebanon are similarly justified. It is however, a legitimate point of view to suggest that the murder of innocents, whether Israeli or Palestinian, is not helpful to a rational solution to the problems that have beset the Middle East.

Again it is the view that he ascribes to “the left” that to criticise one is to criticise all – this is what Mr Wilson is hoping to satirise. It is certainly not to criticise all Palestinians - some of whom will be good and innocent and some of whom will not (just as some Israelis may be good and innocent and some may not.)

This interpretation, which I believe reflects Mr Wilson's view is in direct contradiction to the interpretation made by some members of this forum. Where quotes have been taken out of the context of the "meaning as I've encountered them" they have led people to believe that Mr Wilson is Islamophobic and Racist. If those phrases are placed back into context they show the precise reverse. Mr Wilson ridicules the suggestion that people should be treated according to race. The clear implication of his piece, if read in the whole, suggests that he thinks all people stand or fall on their individual merits.

Through the misunderstanding of his article some members of this forum have placed pressure on Mr Wilson, through his employer, that many people find frightening. If someone reads the article and takes the meaning to be that which I have described, not how some on this forum have described it, and then sees that he has been persecuted by “Muslim activists” they may well think the persecution unreasonable. They then might fear unreasonable persecution themselves – should they be misunderstood. This is the way in which fear can spread. This is the way in which Islamophobia can spread.

Please read the article again and think about whether you are advancing or damaging the cause of British Muslims.

18 August 2006 at 18:51  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Ernest,

His Grace welcomes you to his blog, and is appreciative of your long post, which fulfils all the criteria for this venerable blog - ie, that it is intelligent and erudite.

18 August 2006 at 18:56  
Blogger Fruning Graplecard said...

Well done, Earnest, it is a lucid and well-tempered contribution. The fact that it has not appeared on the website is indicative of the problems we face, i.e. that all proper debate is stifled and hysterical anti-everything non-Islamic is welcomed. If we needed to be convinced just how serious the situation is, and how important this "test case" is, we can be no longer in any doubt.

18 August 2006 at 19:09  
Anonymous Ernest said...

It does suggest that rational debate is not high on their list of priorities. I also noticed an interesting signiature line that one of the posters used:

"Hadhrat Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiallahu anhu) said:

"The o*ne whom I fear most for this Ummah is a man who is an aalim (learned) with his tongue, but a jaahil (ignoramus) in his heart."

This description fits the modernists .Their hearts are blind and their intellect deranged "

But then knowledge through faith may well be admired here too.

18 August 2006 at 19:40  
Blogger Curly said...

Your Grace,

I find your words consoling in this world of sedition and religious bigotry, however, as both know, sometime making use of one's freedom of expression can come with a heavy price. Perhaps Mr. Wilson would have been better advised to have penned his remarks with a pseudonym, rather than his own name. He could have confessed in the box later of course.

Curly's Corner Sho, the blog!

18 August 2006 at 21:18  
Anonymous Rick said...

Ernest, I think you will find that the posts on MPACUK are in fact fictitious - the fat thet yours like mine did not appear is clear evidence that fabrications from such persons as "Englishman" are the stock in trade of a lunatic fringe group who present their own lunacy online

18 August 2006 at 22:11  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Curly's a fine specimen of blogger, as a a well-intentioned loiter in any of his multiple blogs will demonstrate to one and all. But Curly, forgive me for asking, how exactly do you manage to rear children, stay married, run a business and blog so prolifically? Sir, I doff my cap to you. My better half (and the kids) took a decidely dim view of my blogging (which has long since been curtailed under duress).....

18 August 2006 at 22:12  
Anonymous Rick said...

The domain name is managed by RegistryWeb. Here is the detailed output for this domain name as obtained from our WHOIS database:

Domain Name:
Registered For: A Bukhari
Ilford ig1 3lm

Name: A Bukhari




Record created: January 1, 2002
Record expires: January 1, 2014


Date and Time: Friday, August 18, 2006 15:36:35

18 August 2006 at 22:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Asghar Bukhari, aged 35, lives in Ilford, east London, and is chair of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee,

18 August 2006 at 22:20  
Blogger istanbultory said...

And how exactly does the MPAC finance its operations? By donations alone? Such a high degree of activism demands regular cash infusions....

18 August 2006 at 22:36  
Anonymous vikki said...

His Grace is surely not confined to history.Are you? The MPAC are not just debating they are acting!!! What would the muslims do if Rageh Omaar were a christian and he presented his "facts" on lslam....

18 August 2006 at 22:49  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

vikki ... I believe this is the second time you have called for an end to talking, and the beginning of action. Be patient, the action will begin when it is predestined to begin. There remains a few too many stubborn oases of ignorance that we must first tackle.

Elsewhere, the far-left have already installed their stooges to block normal discourse and pragmatic reaction. It will take some time, effort, and persistence to expose them.

ernest ... I admire your pluck and determination to present a constructive argument to MPAC. But, I could have told you at the outset, it would not "register" with them.

I think one of the challenges many of you face, is trying to rationalize the Muslim mind from your sittings rooms in British suburbia. I would say, that is almost impossible, without internalizing assumptions and expectations that only exist in your own mind, and are not reflected in the behaviour of Muslims anywhere (except for highly evolved types, such as the Rushies of this world).

People who have lived and worked in Arab nations are endlessly amused at the efforts our domesticated cousins make to afford Arabs / Pakistanis / Bangladeshis with the kind of respect we might automatically wish to give the Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, or Maltese, etc.

I doubt there is anyone at MPAC who can interpret the learned English you have employed to make your point. There is also the "them & us" syndrome which is deeply ingrained in all Muslims. Furthermore, Cult members are not open to dissuasion, especially when the Cult to which they belong has been enjoying successes by the bucketload for over 35 years.

Some of these MPAC devotees may be highly trained in computer science, or law, or social science, but that does not guarantee they will have the ability to reason, in our classical sense, nor show the requisite sincerity needed to consider another's augument.

I know it is difficult, but please understand Muslims are prohibitied from deviating from those immutable instructions laid down by the Qu'ran and the Hadiths. That realization may help you to realize you cannot reason or negotiate with Muslims, including their leaders. Even attempting to do so with exceptional men, such as King Abdullah of Jordan, would be difficult as he too would be constrained by the rigours of his faith. This simple fact helps (I hope) to explain a very simple historical fact: every time Islam crosses a line of demarcation into a non-Islamic faith / culture / society there is conflict, usually violent (both physical and political). Compromise is only employed by Islamic governance as a temporary truce, called 'hudna.'

{According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi'i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).}
++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++

Mr Wilson ridicules the suggestion that people should be treated according to race.

I am quite certain this attempt to assuage your MPAC audience would have either fallen on deaf ears, or would have been fundamentally misunderstood. Muslims are trained not to think in terms of race ... which is one reason why the Cult of Islam is, in many respects, a race to the lowest common denominator.

An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races

Think about this topic, if you can, in a purely rational light. When you do, you may realize that equality across all ethnic groups and all cultures is simply not possible. Nature does not work like that. If someone had "engineered" the world from the beginning, then perhaps so. But evolution insists that inequalities will exist. They must, and they do.

Of course, their exists a huge mass of communistic literature, employing the modern social sciences, that even seeks to outlaw stereotyping, despite the fact we all instinctively do it, and that stereotyping proves to be far more accurate at predicting behaviour than chance or environment.

19 August 2006 at 05:57  
Anonymous Rick said...

I shall append a commentary by George Young, former MI6 Station Chief in the Middle East whose comments appear in Stephen Dorril's book "MI6"........they are not complimentary:

no matter whatever wealth or material welfare they may acquire, either by their own acute intelligence or by the fruits of Western development and commerce, a point will always come when the discrepancy between their dreams and the reality becomes too great to bear, and there will be a desperate effort to find relief in a new focus of hate…………………

The Arab’s chief characteristic is a simple joy in destruction which has to be experienced to be believed….There is no gladder sound to the Arab ear than the crunch of glass, and his favourite spectacle is that of human suffering…..While the European has been building, the Arab has looted and torn down.

This is the basis of the problem because it is rooted in the Arab mindset which produced Islam itself

19 August 2006 at 06:54  
Anonymous vikki said...

Dear mission impossible,l was not advocating an end to talking. Far be it from me! In intellectual circles exposition is the norm and rightly so! However there comes a time when the word 'discourse' is simply not enough and then the word 'proactive' starts looking very attractive! l have no cause to believe Cranmer was a passive man! Dare I ask what Martin Luther did with the 95 thesis....?

19 August 2006 at 11:06  
Anonymous Rick said...

l have no cause to believe Cranmer was a passive man! Dare I ask what Martin Luther did with the 95 Theses....?

We should remember that Luther nailed them to the Church Door in Wittenberg, I fear if you were to do so at Canterbury you would be ignored as the incumbent composed his next Guardian article.

The situation today is somewhat worse in that the Church has been co-opted into the politicial nebula.

What i have found most interesting is to read Mr Schwartz' article in this week's Spectator, then the article in The New Statesman, and then the article in today's Guardian..............the overlap is quite fascinating............the piece by Denis MacShane (not normally one with whom I have any affinity) in The New Statesman reinforces the notion that authority has abdicated and the rabbit is fixated on the car headlights

19 August 2006 at 12:00  
Anonymous Rick said...

For your consideration............

19 August 2006 at 18:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

19 August 2006 at 22:27  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Thank you so much for sharing that wonderful speech of Solzhenitsyn's with us. I have already quoted Solzhenitsyn in my book, but I was not aware of this particular (and moving) speech [I fear it was wasted at Harvard]. I don't know how else I could have chanced upon it.

At the time of finding the URL and then reading the text, I was listening to Johann Sebastian Bach, and in the final chapter of the speech, a small bird settled outside to sing its own tune "in harmony" with Bach.

Perhaps that was meant to be a pleasant omen for eventual happy outcomes.

20 August 2006 at 04:55  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

The English have created their very own race problem from scratch — possibly the greatest act of self-destructive folly perpetrated by any civilized nation in the twentieth century.

20 August 2006 at 05:29  
Anonymous Eick said...

I was listening to Johann Sebastian Bach,

you were very lucky to get him, I understand he has been booked out for years rather likle our friend Cranmer.......

20 August 2006 at 07:16  
Anonymous Lena Mouse said...

Any news yet Cranmer? What has happened to Inigo Wilson?

23 August 2006 at 12:28  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Ms Lena Mouse,

No, His Grace has not yet heard anything on Mr Wilson's fate. It is not now sow 'immediate' a news story, but he is not about to let the matter drop.

24 August 2006 at 08:31  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older