Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lord Orsam's Blog

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Hi Kattrup,

    At the point where Martin Earl described the diary as being for the year 1891, anyone seriously hoping to use it for Maybrick's diary for 1888-1889 would have realised this might just be a bit of an obstacle. If you can't even admit that much, I don't know what would make you stop and reconsider your argument. At that point Mike could have said thanks but no thanks, and told Martin he didn't want it. End of story. No obligation, no transaction. Mike decided he still wanted to see it, and made a special request to do so without committing himself to buying it. Martin's usual practice was to get the customer's payment up front, before ordering the item and paying the supplier for it. So in this case Martin agreed to pay his supplier up front and send out the item on approval, which means giving the customer the option to return it, or retain it and pay for it. It was in Martin's interests, more so than usual, to talk through what Mike could expect to receive if he went ahead, so there was less chance of him being dissatisfied. And Martin always talked through items in this way, regardless of the payment arrangements.

    There was no question of Martin having to return any money to Anne or Mike - it was Martin's money that paid for the 1891 diary initially, so he had to chase up the £25 he was owed by Mike, which is another reason why he particularly remembered this 'unusual' transaction. People usually paid him in advance, but on the few occasions an item was sent on approval and then retained by the customer, he very rarely had to chase for their payment. This stood out in Martin's memory, more than it would have done if the diary had simply been returned unwanted.

    Do you have any idea how funny your argument sounds, whether the diary was fully and fairly described or not? What kind of moral or legal obligation do you imagine Anne would have felt, to sign that cheque for £25, for a tiny genuine Victorian diary they didn't want and couldn't use, so a bookseller wouldn't be out of pocket? According to you, the Barretts were meant to be about to launch an audacious fraud on the world's book buying public with their fake Victorian diary, in the hope of making Mike a millionaire.

    But these same fraudsters were also, according to you, not quite dishonest enough, or quite crafty enough, to try and get out of paying for a useless genuine one Mike need never have ordered, which created a complete record of the transaction, from his enquiry and the incriminating advert to payment received?

    So when Martin chased Mike for payment, neither Barrett could quite bring themselves to lie:

    "Sorry, Mr Earl, the diary never arrived, it must have got lost in the post."

    Or: "Sorry, Mr Earl, but your description, in that [unrecorded] phone call, misled us, so I returned the diary to you and it must have got lost in the post."

    Or: "Sorry, Mr Earl, but the description was misleading, so I'll return the diary to you straight away."

    Or the Barretts could have had other ideas where an extra diary or extra Victorian-age paper could come in handy - perhaps claiming to find the JtR-diary in a stash of similar volumes at an anonymous garage sale, for instance.
    I'm not sure how they could have used the 1891 diary as you suggest, because it didn't arrive until after Mike had already told Doreen he'd been given JtR's diary. He didn't claim to have found it in some sale, along with other similar volumes. If I recall, Doreen said something to him along the lines of: "Finds like this don't come along every day", which may have led to him wondering yet again if he was being hoodwinked, and wanting to find out how easy or difficult it would have been for some joker to find a diary of the right period - the 1880s - which had enough surviving blank pages for such a prank.

    If I'm right, Mike at that time had no clue it was meant to be Maybrick's diary, or that he was dead by May 1889. So the year 1891 would have meant nothing to him, and the nature of the unused pages would have been irrelevant. On receiving the little red diary in the post, he'd merely have realised it wouldn't have been so easy for a joker to find what he'd have needed, and been reassured enough by that to go ahead with his original plan to take JtR's "diary" to London. By the time Martin Earl chased the late payment, Mike had probably forgotten all about it, and Anne felt obligated to do the right thing and settle the bill.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

    Hi Caz. To be honest, such observations are barely worth addressing.

    Being a bookdealer, Martin Earl must have heard the flap about "Jack the Ripper's Diary." Did he come forward anytime between 1993 and 1995 and tell the world that a man named Barrett (or a woman named Graham) tried to buy from him a blank Victorian Diary in the weeks before the Ripper Diary first surfaced? Nope.
    I'm not sure how that helps your argument. If even Martin Earl saw no connection between a pocket appointments diary for the year 1891, which he sold to a Mr Barrett in 1992, and the JtR diary causing a flap when it was published the following year, maybe that should be telling you something. Who on earth would have ordered the former, if they were intent on faking the latter?

    So we can debate how much risk was actually involved. We can also simply acknowledge that when someone decides to create a hoax, risk comes with the territory.
    It depends what they plan to do with it. No risk whatsoever if the hoaxer plans to remain anonymous and to have this diary emerge from the old bedroom of the person who is meant to have written it.

    Risks right left and centre for anyone taking their own fake diary to market, handwritten by the wife over the previous 11 days or so, no resemblance to Maybrick's handwriting and with a totally unsupported 'provenance', only taking it back to 1991.

    If you can just bring yourself to imagine Mike seeing the diary for the first time on 9th March 1992, and being told zilch about its history, you could perhaps then see that he'd have been obliged to make one up for it. Not knowing from the 1889 date if it could genuinely be more than 100 years old, or could have been written much more recently by someone playing a practical joke on "Bongo", his safest bet was to say he got it in good faith a few months back, from a pal who had since died without answering any of his questions. If it then turned out to be the work of a prankster, at least he hadn't claimed to know it was decades old.

    Meanwhile, none of your above objections are meaningful to me. I can see an emotionally distressed wife helping her husband create a hoax, regardless of the risks, especially if, deep down, she didn't really think it was going to go anywhere. That the hoax was simply going to explode in Barrett's face anyway, and would-be publishers would laugh him out of the room.

    And, as I pointed out before, a seemingly bemused Anne Graham later admitted this very thing. She was floored to learn that Crew Literary Agents were actually interested.

    How much care would a hoaxer make if they figured they would never get to 2nd base?
    What, you mean in the wake of the recent flap over the Hitler Diaries, which resulted in a prison sentence for the hoaxer? However 'emotionally distressed' you need Anne to have been, to help Mike to commit fraud in this way, you don't think that distress would have been as nothing compared to the stress of wondering if the scrapbook he had supposedly just brought home from auction could be post-Victorian, and be identifiable as such by any book or paper expert worth their salt? Or that a document examiner might identify the handwriting as her own, from certain tell-tale characteristics which she might be unable to disguise effectively enough? How much previous practice had she had in deceiving an expert in that way? How could she have known if the scrapbook was genuinely of the right period or not? What a tangled web could she have been weaving for herself?

    Your argument might sound more convincing if you made Anne so hard-boiled that emotional distress of any sort was not in her vocabulary or part of her makeup - a bit like so many people chose to look at Lindy Chamberlain, when she insisted a dingo had killed her baby in Australia, or Kate McCann, when she claimed her daughter had been abducted in Portugal. In the latter case, I fully admit I was one of those who saw her body language as damaging and rushed to judgement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post

    Customers could always return items if they were not as described.
    Let´s hold that thought. As David Orsam has pointed out, what this means is: Customers could not return items if they were as described.

    So far so simple. But you seem confused, since you first explain the process Martin Earl went through to ensure the customer's acceptance based on the supplier's description, and then later claim that it didn't matter, the customer could always return the item anyway.

    Perhaps you should return to Mr. Earl and go through it once more.

    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post

    Suppliers provided full descriptions, and if needed Martin Earl would go back to his supplier for any additional information needed or asked for.

    As a reminder for Mr Earl, he was sent images in May this year of the 1891 diary now in Keith Skinner's possession, and a copy of the original advert he placed in March 1992 on Mike's behalf.

    Mr Earl also said there was no way Mike would have been unaware that the diary was for the year 1891 when it was sent out to him.

    Whichever way you cut it, the diary could have been returned and Anne could have saved herself £25.
    That does not follow. As you said, we don't know how the description was, so there is no way of claiming that the diary could have been returned. As has been explained before, a diary from 1891 might have suited MB fine, so the fact that he knew the red diary was from that year is not noteworthy.

    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    It did not have 20 'blank' pages and was outside the 1880-1890 years specified. It was for 1891 and had 3 or 4 printed dates to a page. If the supplier had misdescribed the item to such an extent that Mike assumed he was ordering what he needed: a diary of the right date, and with enough blank pages, for the fake musings of James Maybrick, who died in May 1889, he'd have been under no obligation whatsoever to purchase what was actually sent to him.
    Again, if the diary was misdescribed, then presumably MB could have returned it. That's not very helpful, since we don't know how it was described. You simply assume on no basis that the description would have made it clear to MB that the diary would not serve his purpose. That is not at all supported or even likely.

    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    Similarly, if we allow that the item was described fully and accurately, by people who were in business to turn a profit, by selling books to satisfied customers, Mike could simply have said it was not what he had asked for and would not be ordering it. Still no obligation to buy.
    Hmm, that does not seem in line with the proces described by Mr. Earl. Perhaps you should ask him again whether that was the case.
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post

    Assuming even Mike would have seen the problem with a diary for 1891, two years too late for Maybrick, he could have asked Martin Earl for more information from the seller about the date and how it appeared on or inside the diary. It was a two-way conversation. He didn't have to imagine if the year would be a deal breaker; he only had to ask. He'd have been told that the days/dates of the year were printed on the pages. The pages were unused for noting down any appointments, but the dates made them of no use at all for prose and poetry supposedly written in 1888 and 1889.
    If and if and if - MB could have and he would have and he should have - it's s easy to come up with spurious arguments, but much harder to show empirical support for them. MB could have asked for a more detailed description, but is there any reason to assume that he would have done so? He could have been perfectly happy with the description and only realised afterwards that the diary would not serve.

    "Hello Mr. Barrett, I've been unable to locate a diary that fits your specifications, but I did find one from 1891, would that be acceptable? Yes, it's completely blank. My supplier describes it as: unused red diary from the year 1891. Ok, so I'll go ahead and order it for you based on that."

    Seems like yet another case of MB being considered a bumbling buffoon, except when he is considered an arch-criminal who would have foreseen everything and asked all the right questions.

    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    If Mike wasn't given that information, then the description wasn't detailed enough for his needs.
    Again, a false or misconstrued argument. If MB was not given the information that would enable him to realise that the diary did not fit, that does not mean that the diary was misdescribed. He might afterwards realise that he should have specified something else, or asked for more details, but the fact that the description was not detailed enough was not necessarily Martin Earl's problem.
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post

    The fact that Martin Earl let him see the item before committing himself, shows that he could have returned it if he considered the description to be inadequate or misleading.
    How is this a fact? This claim seems to be based on the idea of Martin Earl not receiving payment up front. It shows nothing of the sort.


    All in all, it should perhaps be noted that the idea that MB/AG were entitled to return the diary is of no great importance, although you've placed undue emphasis on it, since you think not returning it shows they did not order it to fake a diary, but for some other reason.

    However, even if they were entitled to return it, which has so far not been demonstrated, it does not follow that they would absolutely have done so.

    Many people fail to return unwanted Christmas gifts, for instance, even relatively poor people. Or the Barretts could have had other ideas where an extra diary or extra Victorian-age paper could come in handy - perhaps claiming to find the JtR-diary in a stash of similar volumes at an anonymous garage sale, for instance.
    Or we could use your method of argument and have AG worry excessively about creating a paper trail "Oh dear, if I send back this useless diary, it will be a fuss and a bother for that nice Mr. Earl, if he will even let me return it. He'll have to return the money to me. Hmm, that will be noted in his records. And it will make it seem like it's very important to me and probably stick out in his mind. Best to just keep it, maybe I can sell it later, it's only going to get more valuable as it ages, after all."


    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post

    Who was likely to become a millionaire, from Anne's point of view in March 1992? Did she really expect Mike to make a fortune out of this old book when he told Doreen he'd been given it by some old boy who had then popped his clogs? This is the point I'm talking about, when nobody could possibly have predicted the future. If it was Anne's handwriting in that book, and nothing like James Maybrick's, Mike was very likely to have found himself stuck with a worthless Jack the Ripper diary, which nobody would take seriously or want to touch with a barge pole. If he bought it from some bloke in the pub for £25, the same thing was likely to happen. Maybe, if Anne thought the thing was bound to make her husband a millionaire overnight, she might have been well advised to insist on a joint account for all the filthy lucre, instead of sitting back while Mike opened his own account. They'd been married since 1975, and he liked his drink, so was she completely clueless by 1992 that he might not be very sensible with money, or use it for their mutual benefit? He was an unemployed house husband, who had to come to her for money. How would he behave when her handiwork began earning him large amounts in his own right and his own name?
    All of this to try and avoid admitting the extremely obvious: MB potentially making money off the diary was a financial incentive for AG as well. The fact that nobody knew if it would work does not mean that there was NO financial incentive. It would seem rather obvious that if AG was in on the hoax, it would in part have been for the chance of them (her included) earning money.

    Whether MB and AG handled the subsequent gravy train maturely or not is another matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • R. J. Palmer
    replied
    Final thought. I'm not even entirely convinced that it has been shown that Mike Barrett attempted to commit a crime. Maybe, but it seems kind of gray to me. He didn't try to sell a forgery to an auction house. He peddled a hoax Ripper theory to a publisher, dressed up in the gimmick of a mysterious diary.

    I don't think that puts him in a unique class. Would it have been different if Donald McCormick actually came forward with a physical copy of the diary of Dr. Dutton? Would that have made him a criminal instead of a bullshit artist?

    Particularly if he didn't try to sell the physical object, but was just selling a claim?

    A rhetorical question only. As long as McCormick didn't peddle the diary, I think he would have avoided any serious fallout, except scorn.

    Leave a comment:


  • R. J. Palmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    It would actually be nice if anyone could be bothered to address the observations I made about Anne having to trust Mike not to leave an incriminating record of the book he was trying to obtain for their funny little joint enterprise.
    Hi Caz. To be honest, such observations are barely worth addressing.

    Being a bookdealer, Martin Earl must have heard the flap about "Jack the Ripper's Diary." Did he come forward anytime between 1993 and 1995 and tell the world that a man named Barrett (or a woman named Graham) tried to buy from him a blank Victorian Diary in the weeks before the Ripper Diary first surfaced? Nope.

    So we can debate how much risk was actually involved. We can also simply acknowledge that when someone decides to create a hoax, risk comes with the territory.

    Meanwhile, none of your above objections are meaningful to me. I can see an emotionally distressed wife helping her husband create a hoax, regardless of the risks, especially if, deep down, she didn't really think it was going to go anywhere. That the hoax was simply going to explode in Barrett's face anyway, and would-be publishers would laugh him out of the room.

    And, as I pointed out before, a seemingly bemused Anne Graham later admitted this very thing. She was floored to learn that Crew Literary Agents were actually interested.

    How much care would a hoaxer make if they figured they would never get to 2nd base?

    And when did that wrestling match between Graham and Barrett take place on the kitchen floor? 'Pre Doreen' or after she agreed to seek a publisher?

    Anyway, you're not interested in my opinion, which is fine, so I'll leave it at that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    It would actually be nice if anyone could be bothered to address the observations I made about Anne having to trust Mike not to leave an incriminating record of the book he was trying to obtain for their funny little joint enterprise.

    The evidence Mike created with the 1891 diary amply demonstrates that if this really had been intended for Anne to turn into Maybrick's diary, then he certainly could not have been trusted to leave nothing that could connect him to a scrapbook bought at auction a few days later.

    How could Anne not know this about the man she had been married to for so long? Did he suddenly change character and become a complete idiot, without her knowing, just when they both needed him to keep his head?

    And how lucky did she turn out to be, when Mike wanted to connect himself to that auction, and claimed to have the evidence but never actually produced any? Was she worried sick that the auction house would be able to produce a record of the purchase, even if Mike didn't? Or did she also trust him to completely screw up the dates and put the auction back to January 1990, so no such record would ever be found?

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
    This will sound harsh---but if I'm trying to understand what the famous con man George C. Parker was or was not capable of doing, I'm not particularly interested in the insights of those who had purchased the Brooklyn Bridge.
    Don't be so harsh on yourself. I'm sure there must be some who are still interested in your insights, despite the fact that you bought into the con man Mike Barrett's fake confessions hook, line and sinker, and appear incapable of seeing it to this day.

    Or is this your attempt to be more convincing, by sticking with your belief in this hopeless liar's stories, rather than admit, or even consider, that you were conned by his creation fantasies?

    Your previous comment left the impression that you favoured this method, which would make it pretty pointless to continue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
    They would have been more convincing if they had stuck with her original provenance story, rather than admit she is a liar, and now twist pretzels of logic trying to explain why this doesn't make her capable of being a con woman.
    Interesting. So it's better to be convincing, and to stick with a story you believe to be untrue, than to be honest and open about a change of mind and the reasons for it?

    Did you learn that at Orsam's knee? Is that what makes him convincing in your book, because he sticks with stories he doesn't actually believe himself? Not very flattering is it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    you state that AG would have been entitled to return the diary if it was not what MB wanted. That doesn't really sound like what you've posted earlier about Martin Earl's business practice.

    Then you state you don't know how it was described. So it's unknown whether MB would have known it was useless beforehand.
    Season's greetings to you too, I'm sure.

    Customers could always return items if they were not as described.

    Suppliers provided full descriptions, and if needed Martin Earl would go back to his supplier for any additional information needed or asked for.

    As a reminder for Mr Earl, he was sent images in May this year of the 1891 diary now in Keith Skinner's possession, and a copy of the original advert he placed in March 1992 on Mike's behalf.

    Mr Earl also said there was no way Mike would have been unaware that the diary was for the year 1891 when it was sent out to him.

    Whichever way you cut it, the diary could have been returned and Anne could have saved herself £25.

    It did not have 20 'blank' pages and was outside the 1880-1890 years specified. It was for 1891 and had 3 or 4 printed dates to a page. If the supplier had misdescribed the item to such an extent that Mike assumed he was ordering what he needed: a diary of the right date, and with enough blank pages, for the fake musings of James Maybrick, who died in May 1889, he'd have been under no obligation whatsoever to purchase what was actually sent to him.

    Similarly, if we allow that the item was described fully and accurately, by people who were in business to turn a profit, by selling books to satisfied customers, Mike could simply have said it was not what he had asked for and would not be ordering it. Still no obligation to buy. Assuming even Mike would have seen the problem with a diary for 1891, two years too late for Maybrick, he could have asked Martin Earl for more information from the seller about the date and how it appeared on or inside the diary. It was a two-way conversation. He didn't have to imagine if the year would be a deal breaker; he only had to ask. He'd have been told that the days/dates of the year were printed on the pages. The pages were unused for noting down any appointments, but the dates made them of no use at all for prose and poetry supposedly written in 1888 and 1889. If Mike wasn't given that information, then the description wasn't detailed enough for his needs. The fact that Martin Earl let him see the item before committing himself, shows that he could have returned it if he considered the description to be inadequate or misleading.

    It would help if you considered that a person's spouse becoming a millionaire is in fact a financial incentive for that person, too.
    Perhaps you're considering things in light of their subsequent divorce.
    Who was likely to become a millionaire, from Anne's point of view in March 1992? Did she really expect Mike to make a fortune out of this old book when he told Doreen he'd been given it by some old boy who had then popped his clogs? This is the point I'm talking about, when nobody could possibly have predicted the future. If it was Anne's handwriting in that book, and nothing like James Maybrick's, Mike was very likely to have found himself stuck with a worthless Jack the Ripper diary, which nobody would take seriously or want to touch with a barge pole. If he bought it from some bloke in the pub for £25, the same thing was likely to happen. Maybe, if Anne thought the thing was bound to make her husband a millionaire overnight, she might have been well advised to insist on a joint account for all the filthy lucre, instead of sitting back while Mike opened his own account. They'd been married since 1975, and he liked his drink, so was she completely clueless by 1992 that he might not be very sensible with money, or use it for their mutual benefit? He was an unemployed house husband, who had to come to her for money. How would he behave when her handiwork began earning him large amounts in his own right and his own name?

    Maybe it would help if you considered that this marriage was not strong enough to survive beyond the next two years, and Mike proved himself to be anything but the kind of responsible, selfless family man, who would consider his wife and daughter's health, wealth and happiness of equal importance to his own.

    Easy to see Anne and Mike how you need them to have been in 1992, creating a hoax like this together in perfect domestic harmony.

    Leave a comment:


  • R. J. Palmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    **12 Days Of Battlecrease
    Sung to the tune of "11 days on Goldie Street"

    Leave a comment:


  • R. J. Palmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    It would help if you considered that a person's spouse becoming a millionaire is in fact a financial incentive for that person, too.
    ya think?

    "I told my wife Anne Barrett, I said, "Anne I'll write a best seller here, we can't fail"

    Graham's behavior between 1995-2003 looks remarkably cold-blooded in hindsight. I can't imagine becoming close to a research team and then standing by while they spent time and money chasing down bogus genealogical leads based on her false story--month after month, and year after year---all the time knowing full-well they would embarrass themselves further by publishing it.

    Was Joe Sickert that cold-blooded?

    Supposedly Graham initially turned down her royalty checks. That's a frequent mantra of those who no longer believe her wild stories anymore than we do. But innocent people who have been conned by manipulative people often recount such details. "I swear officer, the man is not a car thief. I practically had to BEG him to take my keys and borrow it."

    This will sound harsh---but if I'm trying to understand what the famous con man George C. Parker was or was not capable of doing, I'm not particularly interested in the insights of those who had purchased the Brooklyn Bridge.

    The same ones who now argue Graham was intellectually/morally incapable of taking part in a scam are the same ones who have to sheepishly admit that they were once taken in by her bogus provenance story.

    They would have been more convincing if they had stuck with her original provenance story, rather than admit she is a liar, and now twist pretzels of logic trying to explain why this doesn't make her capable of being a con woman.






    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Caz:

    I guess that means you won't be purchasing the Christmas album featuring some classic traditional songs.....

    ** O' Ye Little Poste House of Bethlehem
    **Silent Mike
    ** Hark, The Herald Devereaux Sing
    **The Little Barrett Boy
    **All I Want For Christmas Is A Iron Gall Test
    **Joy To The Diary Believers
    **Good King Feldman
    **O Come All Ye Omlors
    **12 Days Of Battlecrease
    Goodness me, that man has a sad obsession with Carols.

    He's jolly lucky he doesn't let fake diaries get to him too. When would he sleep?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied

    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    On the grounds Martin Earl described earlier this year - that if it was not what Mr Barrett wanted, it could be returned without payment. If it had been correctly and fully described [and we don't know how Martin's supplier described it] it would have been obvious to Mike at the point of ordering it that it was of no possible use, if he was planning to fake the diary with it.
    you state that AG would have been entitled to return the diary if it was not what MB wanted. That doesn't really sound like what you've posted earlier about Martin Earl's business practice.

    Then you state you don't know how it was described. So it's unknown whether MB would have known it was useless beforehand.
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    It would help if you read to the end of that sentence, Kattrup:

    There was nothing in it for Anne, financially or commercially, when Doreen was first fed Mike’s ‘dead pal’ story.

    The story Mike told gave him sole control over the diary to begin with. It was Doreen who later arranged for Anne to have a share, without Anne ever requesting one.
    It would help if you considered that a person's spouse becoming a millionaire is in fact a financial incentive for that person, too.
    Perhaps you're considering things in light of their subsequent divorce.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Thank you, Gary,

    I needed a laugh to round out this awful year we have all been going though.

    A safe, warm Christmas to you and yours, and a very Happy New Year.

    Simon
    You’re welcome, Simon.

    Ditto to you and yours.




    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Thank you, Gary,

    I needed a laugh to round out this awful year we have all been going though.

    A safe, warm Christmas to you and yours, and a very Happy New Year.

    Simon

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X