Sunday, 2 July 2017

PRIEST'S UNJUST EMPLOYMENT STATUS / CONDITIONS




THE TOPIC OF PRIESTS BEING "SELF EMPLOYED" AND BEING AT THE MERCY OF A BISHOP HAS ARISEN ON THIS BLOG.

Let's have some clarity.

Let me explain it by telling you of my own case.

I was ordained in 1976 and I was told by my bishop and parish priest that I was regarded in law - and by the tax man as "SELF EMPLOYED".

This meant that I had to pay a National Insurance Self Employed stamp.

When I was in an ordinary diocese and parish this stamp was paid for me by the diocese / parish.


When Cahal Daly "sacked" me in 1986 I regarded my sacking as as unjust. I believed that I was "UNFAIRLY DISMISSED".

So obviously I wanted to appeal. I think that most people would agree that any person, in justice, should be able to appeal their dismissal?

At first Daly refused to countenance any appeal. He quoted Saint Ignatius of Antioch at me - "THE VOICE OF THE BISHOP IS THE VOICE OF GOD".

I asked Cahal if that meant that when he farted God farted :-) 

I then launched a massive media campaign over my sacking and even protested outside Cahal's palace.

He then offered me a panel. These were it's conditions:

1. He would choose ALL the priests on the panel with the exception of ONE - which I could choose - FROM A LIST HE WOULD GIVE ME !!!

2. He could meet the panel but I could not!

3. The panel could see my file but I could not !

4. I could not know the charges or witnesses against me !

5. The panel and I would be bound to secrecy under pain of mortal sin !

6. There would be no further appeal !


I told Cahal to put his panel where the monkey put his nuts and told him I would prefer an IRA kangaroo court to what he was offering.

DALY - STILL IN PURGATORY - WHERE GOD SENT HIM FOR BEING A LITTLE HITLER


INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL:

I then applied to the Belfast Industrial Tribunal for an unfair dismissal hearing.

The tribunal said that I was "A SELF EMPLOYED SUBCONTRACTOR" and they could not hear my case. They referred me to the HIGH COURT!

I left it a long time hoping that Cahal and I would be reconciled.

But the statutes of limitation were running out.

I brought Cahal to the Belfast High Court before Lord Justice Campbell.

Cahal had to sit for FIVE DAYS as a "DEFENDANT". At least I got him before a judge.

I was cross examined by Cahal's barrister vigorously.

When Cahal's turn came to take the stand - HE BACKED OUT. Coward!

Mr Justice Campbell told me that the Catholic Church - in civil law - had the same status as a golf club. In order to win I had to prove that in sacking me that Cahal had broken the Catholic Rule Book - ie: Canon Law.

In canon law the only right a curate has is the right to a Christian burial! Bishops have all the rights. 

So Cahal won on a technicality. And he was purring like a Pussy Cat.

On the way out of court there was a wonderful moment when a man approached Daly in front of us all and said:

"MR DALY. i AM A PROTESTANT. I HAVE SAT IN ON THE FIVE DAYS OF THIS CASE AND ALL I HAVE TO SAY TO YOU IS - I'M FUCKING GLAD THE REFORMATION TOOK PLACE".



Cahal scurried off with his little purple tail between his knobby legs.


CONCLUSION:

Priest are controlled 24.7/365 by the bishop. The bishop has control over the priest's place of residence, his salary, his car insurance, his sexuality, the roof over his head, his temporal future and indeed his eternal future.

The priest is not "self employed". He is a virtual slave and serf.

The bishop is a medieval lord over the priest. The only right the bishop has lost since 1500 AD is that he cannot put a priest to death.

Priests should be regarded as full employees of the church - with full employee rights - working hours, salary, holiday pay, sick pay and the right to challenge the bishop before an industrial tribunal.

Priests need to form a UNION!  Let them call it: "THE CLERICAL WORKERS UNION" :-)

Image result for a priests trade union


They should be able to strike.

They should have the right to whistle blow.

AND they should be PROTECTED from their UNJUST EMPLOYERS!





89 comments:

  1. Buckley, are you for real? priests at the picket line? employees rights? ah come off it!

    My vocation is for life. my bishop is a great support. He doesn't move anyone without consent and he meets with me once a month. I have access to a house. I pay for my car and insurance. I am given 360euro a week and It pays my cable bill, eircom, the coal man, the esb, the shopping, my credit union loan and diesel for the car.

    I'm happy with the simple things in life as are most people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @0.50

      Honesty and contentment from you! What a breath of fresh air.(You realised in good time, in your life and your dealings with others, that mature co-operation pays off in the end-) God bless.

      Delete
    2. You seem to have a lovely bishop.

      Delete
  2. Pat, why were you dismissed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was given two reasons:

      1. My overinvolvement in my parishioners social issues - housing, car theft, trouble with police etc.

      2. My public criticism of the Church.

      Delete
    2. You should have been a good little priest who never strayed from the sacristy.

      Delete
    3. And of course that last comment was meant in jest. What you did is exactly what a good pastor should do.

      Delete
    4. You were a friggin' hero, a true Christ-man...and look how you were treated.

      Delete
  3. MourneManMichael2 July 2017 at 01:10

    In my then naivety of 50 years ago I would have said to you Pat that you're talking rubbish. I emphasise the then naivety perspective.
    Given what I know now; what has been revealed in this blog's comments; and powerfully the words to me of an ex seminarian colleague now a PP I am obliged to agree with much of what you have critically said about the highly dependent position of a diocesan priest here in Ireland.
    My former colleague's words were to the effect that: "Oh it's fine if you have a decent and sensible bishop, like mine, but far too many of them simply haven't a clue and are 'yes-men' characterised by unquestioned subservience to the hierarchical status quo. They're so out of touch with modern day reality and that parishoners simply won't put up with the limitations and banality of the current RC church functioning. His comments were much influenced by what he knew about the oppressive position some of his clerical colleagues in adjacent dioceses were enduring with much less enabling enlightened bishops.
    MMM

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Pat You said in the previous blog that a Rev ? ? left his diocese to be in a relationship with a Meath priest. May I ask if the Meath priest is currently in situ in the diocese or abroad? If the Meath priest is in the diocese, has this Rev ?? joined Meath diocese or has Rev ?? left the priesthood? Or has Rev ?? come to Ireland from another country?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We will scandalised soon enough I'm sure.

      Delete
  5. Pat you have commented before on the lack of balls in the clergy and this is why. However it will not change because they won't want to endanger their standing and lifestyle.
    I have no sympathy for priests because they knew full well what they were signing up to.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If St Ignatious of Antioch was correct the Daly should have known it would not matter who sat on the panel. He clearly didn't believe in it himself.

    South of the border a priest might first claim his constitutional right to due process but the defense remains that the constitution also guarantees that the State will not interfere with the administration of a religious entity (good auld De Valera)... might be an expensive day in court to see which right trumps which, but if hassard that, if on appeal, the European Courts would support due process. It's a shame you were not in a position to argue that at the time. A priest may have no rights, except for a Christian burial, but as a citizen you have many.

    As that protestant was grateful for the reformation I am grateful for your Larne reformation.

    Peace and blessings to you Bishop Pat.

    CR.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We've heard all this before and we're very sorry.

    The last comment on yesterday blog seems a more interesting subject.

    "Pat, I was recently told of a certain Rev. Xxxcc xxxxxxx who left his diocese to be in a relationship with a Meath priest. Can this be true?"

    ReplyDelete
  8. At least in a golf club one would find balls. The church should be subject to the rule of civil law. Priests are workers and not technically members as they are paid a wage and not technically a dividend for their involvement in the church

    ReplyDelete
  9. The present system is loaded entirely in the favour of the Bishops. Sure, priests take a promise of obedience to the Bishop, but that is based on absolute good faith, and where this is absent all bets are off.
    DM in Dublin is contemptuous of his clergy. This is exemplified in the manner of appointments in recent years. He abolished the appointments board which had a broad representation of clergy and now makes the appointments himself in 'consultation' with the Diocesan council.
    Prior consultations with those due for change have been abandoned.
    When he attends gatherings of priests it usually means talking at them, followed by a hasty departure to something which must be must more engaging. He NEVER takes questions or comments from the floor.
    He, and others like him, can do this because of the fiction of the priest as 'self-employed'. If priests had the full protection of law they could not be treated in such a cavalier fashion. It is a throwback to the days of overlords and serfdom.
    Priests tend to be quiescent, rich in verbal revolt but lily-livered when faced with doing anything about their situation.
    DM stated that he never wanted to come to Dublin as Archbishop and his never ending absences from the diocese would certainly seem to reinforce that statement.
    He almost never speaks on vocations and the few ordinations there are are a hush-hush affair with no press release or circulars to the parishes. The number of seminarians would also seem a secret matter in Dublin.
    We can only thank the Almighty that his time is coming to an end - he's 72. I know that the system of choosing his successor is a deeply flawed one, and the likelihood is for another self-serving careerist to replace him. We can only hope and pray.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Come on, Arlene2 July 2017 at 10:11

    It's not true that priests know what they are signing up to. When I was in Maynooth we were never told what the stipend would be, and it was considered vulgar to ask. Also, even if it was known what the terms and conditions would be at the point of ordination, does that mean that clergy thereafter cannot ask for changes and improvements?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am the poster who commented on priests knowing what they were signing up to. I think you had the wool pulled over your eyes at Maynoorh. I have been a religious novice but never a seminarian, yet I understood the way the priests were treated. I think the vow of obedience says it all!
      Perhaps it is a national or even diocesan thing - my home diocese is Birmingham. I actually applied to the diocese when Vinnie was archbishop. I was accepted -but for the following year. After repeatedly asking why and what they wanted me to do in the intervening year I eventually got the answer that I would have difficulty with the 'institutional aspects of seminary life'. At this point I recognised that they didn't want me and were making things more awkward than necessary. I remain very proud that I told Vinnie this to his face and didn't pursue the diocese.
      His answer was very interesting: (remember this was after several weeks of being redirected from person to person and nobody knowing why this decision had been made). He said that he wanted to see obedience in his clergy and he wasn't seeing it in me.
      Of course you're right - nothing wrong in asking for changes. They won't get them, but they can ask for them.

      Delete
  11. From what little I know, priest make a promise to respect the bishop and his successors. You can make promise to a humane intelligent man, only to find he is replaced by an unintelligent tyrant. You have made the promise and you can't get out it. This must be very damaging. At work I was expected to treat the bosses with respect, but at work that respect was earned. They were highly intelligent, humane people. If they hadn't been, they would have replaced. I think bishops should have terms of office like the president of the USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed:
      The only proof needed to prove your post is, Dermot Clifford

      Delete
  12. I agree that bishops should have terms of Office---Every person in authority should have as this clearly sets down what the expectations, duties and power s held by that person are----and are not.
    Another thing, a few weeks ago on a blog that was hugely in favour of Church and State being separated, I went to quite a lot of trouble to explain why there were always going to be difficulties with that division. I gave several reasons why, in the real world, it simply doesn't work that way.
    I don't want to open that long drawn out blog debate again but I will --as it's relevant to today's discussion - - mention one of my previous arguments which is - -

    It is a safeguard to people like priests that the Church and its clergy are NOT regarded as being separate from the protections of presentday good employment practice and law etc
    If the Church is regarded as being a
    "law unto itself" then anything goes! We would find ourselves in situations where in dispute tribunals, Court rooms - - places like that - - priests would have no redress (like another profession would hopefully have) and would find themselves being quoted the old "It's like a golf club in your case - -" cliché, which is a cop out. So my argument is the Church is part of society, enmeshed with the State and therefore NOT ABOVE THE LAW. This would include good employment and recruitment law and good tenancy rights.
    So the good side for priests would be that yes, bishops would naturally have the authority to organise and run things in their Diocese but never in a way that became an infringement of someone else's employment rights.
    It is difficult to fully explain this in the constraints of here but I have tried to.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the Church is under the illusion that it ethically far superior to the secular world. It may have been very many years ago. It isn't now. The world has moved on and it now needs to catch up.

      Delete
  13. 'The voice of the bishop is the voice of God'. So God covered up sex crimes against children? God refused those children justice and compensation?

    I agree with Daly: the voice of the bishop is indeed the voice of God...the God of the Underworld.

    I, too, am thankful for the Reformation. It stands as a reminder to ordinary Catholics that bishops are not always the voice of God, that they do disobey him and that they must be opposed when they do...especially the Bishop of Rome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The basis for "the voice of the bishop is the voice of God" is our Lord's own words to the apostles - "whoever hears you hears me and whoever rejects you rejects me".

      Of course, these words apply to the true bishops and priests - not to the hirelings the Lord warned us about, who have inveigled their way among the good pastors since the very beginning.

      St Ignatius of Antioch could speak these words because he was a true bishop and he wrote them on his way to martyrdom. They are applicable to the true and good shepherds after the Lord's own heart, whom He promised would always be present in His Church until the end of the world.

      Cahal Daly was a pompous little fusspot who would have shat his pants at the mention of martyrdom.

      Delete
    2. 15:18, I don't agree with you that these words apply only to bishops and priests.

      In terms of synoptical texts, they are spoken in the context of Jesus' sending out at least seventy disciples, in pairs, to prepare towns and villages along the route to Jerusalem for a personal visit by Jesus himself. This group is, obviously, much broader than the Apostles.

      In theological and practical terms, it means that such authority is given to ALL genuine disciples of Christ, not just to those who claim apostolic succession.

      Delete
    3. The seventy two disciples were still a specified group. So the authority wa not given to all - that would have spelt utter chaos in human terms.

      Also, there are the words addressed by Jesus to Peter alone - the keys of the Kingdom were given only to him; and to him alone Jesus said three times 'feed my lambs, look after my sheep'

      Delete
    4. 'A specified group'? Your remark suggests that there were others who were not given this authority. How do you know that there were others?

      And spelling 'chaos'? What of the chaos in today's Church from the misuse of authority? 'Chaos' doesn't depend on numbers.

      My point (which you missed) was that such authority clearly was not confined to the Apostles, something the patriarchal Roman Catholic Church has opposed for centuries. This opposition has included the exclusion of women as a gender from exercise of such authority. However, it is entirely possible that the 'seventy' included women among their number.

      Delete
    5. 20:31, sorry, but I overlooked your second paragraph.

      Jesus MAY have spoken these words to Simon Peter. If they were (and it's a big 'if'), they were spoken to him and no one else.

      Yes, feed MY lambs. Jesus makes it clear that he (and he alone) is the 'shepherd'.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. He is, of course, the Good Shepherd; but he shares his ministry of shepherd with the apostles - primarily Peter.

      Delete
    8. Does he? Does he REALLY share his ministry of 'shepherding' with the Apostles, primarily Peter'? Where, oh fuckin' where, in Scripture does Jesus tell a listening world that he and Peter save humankind from their sins. Sweet fuckin' Jesus, I'm eager for your answer!

      Delete
    9. Nah. You know what? You're not worth it. You're a twisted and foul human being. God will have to sort you out. He said: "do not give to dogs what is Holy, or cast your pearls before swine ...." I'm taking his advice in relation to you, Madame.

      Delete
    10. I'm afraid your patriarchal, mysoginistic nonsense does not constitute a pearl, not even the cheaper, cultivated variety.

      Delete
    11. Meh, Mrs Carter. Whatever. Have your pathetic little last word if you like.

      Delete
    12. Er, it was YOU who had the last word, dearie...until I posted this comment.😅😆

      Delete
    13. Er, whatever ...... Fool.

      Delete
  14. I hear quite a lot about the conditions of retired priests - far from idyllic and living on a pittance. Even in their eighties they are called in to say Masses possibly twenty miles away.
    Perhaps the good Bishop could take an interest in this and find out how exactly various Dioceses care for these men.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Eh hello, What's this Meath priest thing? Did the Rev xxxx xxxx leave a diocese in Ireland or abroad to come to Meath to be with this Meath priest? Also what vintage is the Meath priest?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Surely a priest leaving a diocese to be with a Meath priest is newsworthy? It's one of the most Conservative dioceses in the country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're a bit of a voyeur, aren't you?

      Delete
  17. Does anyon know the whereabouts of James McInerney who was a Cloyne Seminarian who studied in Thurles in the early 1990's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a high profile Professor of Genetics in Manchester University called James Mc Inerney who was originally a student - or from - Galway himself. He had some connection with Maynooth I think??
      Don't know if that's the one you mean, or not.. (Let me know if this helped)

      Delete
    2. Joined the Conventual Franciscans and is living in a Fairview Dublin. He is their vocations director

      Delete
    3. Many thanks for that very helpful info.

      Delete
    4. You are welcome! (re/your asking for help in contacting James Mc Inerney.
      If you are still having problems,ask for forwarding details in an email to
      gregfriarvocation@gmail.com

      or contact help at 07426839577

      Perhaps he is still in Fairview, Dublin but MAY be now vocational director in Church Farm House, Wheatley, Oxon. England OX33 IPR available at the email etc I have given. Hope you find him.

      Delete
  18. @ Poster 12.!1 further above--

    Thank you for that - - excellent clear point and spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Don't know about the person you're talking about from Cloyne, but Patrick Relihan was the best looking priest from any diocese in the country. He appears to be gone from Cloyne, which is just as well since people couldn't say a prayer looking at him. He was truly GORGEOUS (apologies for the caps but if anyone ever required them, he does).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. are you mister Relihan?

      Delete
    2. @14:35. No. I am not him. If I were, I'd just look in the mirror all day.

      Delete
    3. @ 16.14

      Try to practise the skills of adult functioning.
      This will mean giving up your immature tendency to what is known "pedestalise" another person..*You may also have noticed that you tend to hero worship your chosen others in the same way as adolescents do when they pedestalise eg pop stars or professional footballers. This hero worship can be based on the chosen object's appearance or his behaviour or even on both.

      *It can often be the case that others around you will be more aware of these traits in you than you are yourself!This would be because you are likely to engage in what is known as "denial" and is a very common defence mechanism.

      Delete
  20. Patrick Relihan has got himself a churchy job: CEO of Matt Talbot Addiction Services. Presumably the vacancy was advertised and he was the best qualified candidate. He must have been a priest for five minutes. So many young priests leave within a few years of ordination. What a waste of the at least £100k spent on their training, and an indictment of their formators who presented them for ordination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should the seminary students not be like other University students? They could get a loan per year but all to be re - paid on taking up employment of ANY kind.

      Delete
  21. Jim Daly the new Junior Minister in Government used to be Cloyne diocese or perhaps he was Cork and Ross. He stayed until he completed his degree, not sure if he went on to do 1st Divine afterwards. He laft in the late 90s. Was quite goodlooking always in fashionable knitted jumpers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only people who can (genuinely)look good in "fashionable knitted jumpers" are persons in the first
      three years of their life! After that, best avoided.

      Delete
    2. Jim Daly was a seminarian of the diocese of Cork and Ross from 1991 to 1995. He makes no mention of being a seminarian on his website and says his BA is from NUI Maynooth. It was in fact awarded by St Patrick's College, Maynooth. NUI Maynooth did not come into existence until 1997. He also says that his Higher Diploma in education was awarded by Mary I, Limerick. I think he means Mary Immaculate, Limerick though such a name would induce pearls-clutching in the Dail nowadays.

      Delete
    3. degrees awarded by St Pats prior to 1997 are now recognised as being from NUI Maynooth. Its written in the Kalendarium; odd I know. so technically hes not being deceitful.

      Delete
    4. Still though he doesn't mention that he was a Seminarian. Another Cork TD, Jerry Buttimer, never shuts up about having been one.

      Delete
    5. Thanks @20:56, I am the poster @20:04. You are correct - the Universities Act, 1997, section 48 states at degrees awarded by the Recognised College at Maynooth (ie the part that split off to form NUI Maynooth shall be regarded as NUI Maynooth degrees. Very odd, particularly as I thought statute did not act retrospectively.

      Delete
    6. Lots of people in various professions were seminarians.

      I got a degree as a seminarian, and first year of theology... I wasn't looking for free education, rather my departure from seminary coincided with my conclusion that I could not live as a priest within such a contradictory and dysfunctional Church. Had I stayed longer I would have wasted finances and support. Had I stayed for a shorter period I would not have discerned properly.

      A person getting their degree and leaving is not necessarily a bad mark against them. It simply is.

      Delete
  22. Can anyone expand on the Meath comment made yesterday and today? A priest has left his diocese and is in a relationship with a Meath priest apparently. Did the priest who left leave an Irish diocese?

    ReplyDelete
  23. By all accounts Cardinal Muller seems to have been (unfairly?) dismissed. What would you advise him to do about it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfairly dismissed? How? Muëller's term of office was for five years, and he served this. Francis was under no obligation to extend this term.

      Delete
    2. I agree. Fixed term appointment.

      At 69 he can have a diocese or retire?

      Either was he will want for nothing.

      Delete
  24. To be fair he was at the end of his term. They just did not renew it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. ".. end of his term." -?
    More likely, the end of his tether..

    ReplyDelete
  26. Auld Letterkenny Catholic2 July 2017 at 18:59

    Yes . Pope Francie needs spineless yes men to promote his deconstruction of catholicism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Deconstruction of Catholicism'? 'Yes men'? Are you another here that's brain dead? Both Müller and his replacement were appointed by the ex-Nazi pope, Benedict. None of these could claim a deconstructionist pedigree; quite the reverse.

      Francis belongs very much in the conservative camp. He's oily, says words that charm gullible idiots, but which don't amount to a hill of beans.

      Time to leave the fantasy land you call your 'imagination'.

      Delete
    2. Pope Benedict was 14 years old when he was in Hitler Youth - a child! It was compulsory. To describe him as an ex-Nazi says far more about your own Naziesque personality, Ms Carter.

      Delete
    3. Is that the tedious Catholic voice again?

      There's nothing unfair about replacing someone when their term of office had expired. It happens all the time in the secular world. And has happened frequently in the church.

      Delete
    4. No one can accuse MC of saying words that charm.

      Delete
    5. At poster 00.17
      You made my late night cornflakes go down the wrong way but I don't blame you at all! - How were you to know that I'd catch sight of your post "No one can accuse MC of saying words that charm." just as I had spoon poised and that you would cause such paroxysms of laughter!

      Delete
    6. 21:33, a 14-year-old isn't a child and Josef Ratzinger was highly intelligent. He knew what Nazism was. He knew the filth of its violent and murderous anti-semitism.

      Ratzinger is a moral coward. Even now, with death for him not too far away, he won't admit the full extent of his moral culpability.

      You are just as bad as Ratzinger, defending the indefensible. And you're just as pathetic!

      Delete
    7. To attempt to blame a 14 year old boy - even one who would become a future Pope - for being in any way culpable towards Nazism, in Germany in the 1930's, is utterly utterly unreasonable.

      This wildly irrational stance illustrates well (if such an illustration were even necessary) the agenda of the troll that calls itself "Magna Carta" on this blog.

      Delete
  27. Pat is it true you've been interviewed for Channel 4 News programme?

    ReplyDelete
  28. What became of Dominican JC who ministered briefly in Meath??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. he hands out tickets now on the log float at Alton towers

      Delete
    2. There was a hint of mint.

      Delete
    3. 20:54, good for him! He is living a more useful existence than most Roman Catholic priests.

      Delete
    4. He returned to the Doms. Now living in their Dublin City centre priory.

      Delete
    5. Hint of mint?

      Delete
    6. He's definitely leading a more "useful existence" than internet troll Margaret Bastardo Carter lol

      Delete
  29. Pat were you ever interviewed for EWTN. There's a Meath priest who broadcasts on EWTN. Will that channel cover the Meath story you're referring to? Or would that be more likely to be Channel 4?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mama Angelica would do somersaults in her grave at the idea of a renegade bishop on EWTN. It must be channel 4

    ReplyDelete
  31. Do you mean the Podge and Rodge of the clerican world? A Fr. Eoin and a Father John two dickheads!

    ReplyDelete
  32. That would be the kiss of death!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The kiss of death". A bit like you on this blog then, Ma Carter, you nasty old troll.

      Delete