Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic surgery and assume a false name

30 Apr 2008 19:31:04

Robert Henderson

NB I have scanned in the entire chapter of Frith's autobiography dealing
with the case plus the full coverage in the August 1995 WCM. If anyone
wants thse just send me an email and I will post it to you privately

1. The importance Frith gave to the subject can be seen from the fact
that he published the article very near the front of the July edition
1995 of WCM - the only things which cam before it were the standard
features of Letters and the editorial plus an article by Ashley Mallett.

2. The tremendous effect the response to the article had on Frith can be
seen from the fact that he devoted the first 5 pages of the August 1995
issue to the matter: two page sof letters (all hostile despite the fact
that Frith said publicly on R5 before the August issue was out that his
postbag was 50/50 for and against what I had said), Frith's apology and
editorial plus articles by Brearley and Gower. He refused me any
opportunity to reply. Here are Frith's apolgy and editorial from the
August 1995 edition:

EDIT0IAL
NEVER IN ITS HISTORY HAS WCM
HAD SUCH A VIGOROUS RESPONSE
TO A FEATURE AS TO ROBERT
HENDERSON’S ARTICLE LAST
MONTH. A REPRESENTATIVE
SAMPLE OF THE HUGE MAILBAG
APPEARS ON PAGES 4 AND 6.

STATEMENT BY THE EDITOR OF WCM
(Circularised by the Press Association on July 7)

Re the article by Robert Henderson (‘Is It In the Blood?’) in the
July edition of Wisden Cricket Monthly:

After a week of intensive media and public interest, much of it
expressing condemnation both of the content of the article and at the
fact that it was published in the first place, I now acknowledge that it
was an error of judgment on my part to have accepted it for publication.

I tried all along to make it clear that I did not support the majority
of the sentiments expressed by Mr Henderson (and a paragraph on page 1
of each issue of the magazine supports this). But I also believed that
it was an editor’s responsibility to tackle difficult issues, to bring
them into the open so that solutions might be found. My particular hope
in respect of this article was that the plight of foreign-born
cricketers in this country and those with immigrant parents — whether
from West Indies, Australasia, southern Africa or Asia — might be
better understood when their difficulties were considered. Publication
of this particular article was, I now realise, not the best way to have
gone about it. The national-identity element was drowned out.

I had hoped that the article would be a springboard for beneficial
debate, but have been deeply disappointed at distortions in certain
sections of the media. To that end, Wisden’s legal advisors continue
to monitor the position.

My unreserved apologies are extended to all whose sensibilities have
been offended by the article. I cannot be held responsible, however, for
coverage of the matter elsewhere. I wish to make it clear that no member
of the Editorial Board (except my deputy editor) of Wisden Cricket
Monthly was aware, prior to publication, of the article’s inclusion.
Who needs ancestors? ONE OF AN EDITOR’S key duties is to confront
issues that matter. Another is to honour Voltaire’s famous ‘I may
not agree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right
to say it.’

Another of that peerlessly perceptive Frenchman’s remarks — never
more topical than now — was: ‘Whoever serves his country well has no
need of ancestors.’

Robert Henderson’s article ‘Is It In the Blood?’ (WCM July) did
not place a question-mark beside foreign-born England cricketers. It was
already there. Reservations have rumbled around the cricket grounds and
in the sports columns of the newspapers for several years. It was time
to spotlight these misgivings and wherever possible to dismiss them, so
that cricketers, and other sportsmen, could be cleansed of suspicion
about commitment.

Among the otiose but nonetheless widespread reactions to the Henderson
article were the strident challenges to anybody to deny that this or
that foreign-born player was giving anything other than ‘110 per cent’
when he batted for hours against a fiery West Indian attack or took 9
for 57 against South Africa. Who, in his right mind, could ever have
entertained doubts about such performances?

The aim was to launch a constructive debate. Instead, a whirlwind was
generated, perhaps caused almost as much by the somewhat cold nature of
Mr Henderson’s language as by the fact that many of his suppositions
caused outrage. Much of the outrage was unquestionably sincere and some
of it was of the kind that scarcely warranted serious consideration:
like the outburst on BBC Radio 5’s phone-in by a man who began by
saying, ‘I haven’t read this rubbish, but. . .‘ Elsewhere, there
was distortion in certain areas of the media.

Eventually, the hysteria made way for the intended sensible discussion
in some sections of the media in the UK and elsewhere. Were some
foreign-born cricketers occasionally afflicted by emotional conflict? It
began to be recognised as a compassionate question.

A letter in The Guardian from a black English-born lawyer spoke volumes:

‘I have no significant connections with any other country and yet I do
not feel that I belong here,’ he wrote, before outlining the causes of
this feeling of non- acceptance. Public anger should be focused on the
fact that a devoted citizen of this country has always been made to feel
like an alien. The letter’s heading refers unerringly to ‘a nation
ill at ease’.

The correspondent concludes: ‘Unlike the US and South Africa, where
all inhabitants (black or white) feel a sense of belonging, this country
is still tainted by the effects of its colonial history. White
immigrants gain instantaneous acceptance; British-born descendants of
black immigrants never will.’

His pessimism is the challenge that cricket can pick up and address.
Cricket was a catalyst for reform in South Africa. Why not here?

Why, then, the apology (see alongside) by WCM’s Editor? It was issued
because so many readers have been genuinely upset by the Henderson
article. Beyond those who specifically reject the Henderson claims and
questions are those who have been upset by Press comment, much of which
shifted the grounds for debate from national identity exclusively to
race. Many of these people have to this day not read the original
article either carefully or at all. Their views are as unsound as those
of the spectators who jump to the conclusion that when an overseas-born
England cricketer has a bad day in the field it can only be because he
is burdened by the distractions of divided loyalties and background.

Among the wiser words that followed the initial storm came these from
Lord Deedes: ‘It is cosmopolitanism, not colour, which dilutes
loyalty.’ And Mike Brearley: ‘Someone who feels excluded may have
stronger (our italics) motivation to prove himself in a host (and
sometimes hostile) society. The chIp on the shoulder may enhance as well
as hinder performance.’
Worthy of Voltaire.
August 1995 WISDEN Cricket Monthly

3. Here is the paragraph quoted previously from a letter Frith sent me ?
March 1994:

"Let me just assure you that I was one of the earliest to
feel a sense of unease at the number of foreign players
piling into the England XI. It's hard to separate oneself
from the personal side of it all I know all of them -
even the reclusive Caddick - and like them almost without
exception. But the principle seems wrong, and I think
that their has been some sort of dislocation in the
national psyche. How can a true Englishman ever see this
as his representative side despite all the chat about the
commitment of the immigrant?"

This was in response to this letter:

22-March 1994

David Frith (Editor) Tel: 071/387/5018
Wisden Cricket Monthly
6 Beech Lane
Guildown
Guildford
Surrey GU2 5ES

Dear Mr Frith,

The present humiliating shambles in the West Indies prompts
me to try once more to get you to publish 'The trouble with
England'. I will make any amendments you think necessary.

Never think that I am insensible of the difficulties
confronting an editor in the current climate when broaching a
subject which can be represented as racist or that I under
value your courage in publishing 'A fundamental malaise'. But
if no one addresses this matter forthrightly in public,
county cricket will continue to be littered with interlopers
and England teams will continue to make a mockery of the
idea of national sides whilst losing horribly, and that, I
suspect, will sadden you as much as it does me, because you
have so much of the game's history in your head. Ask yourself
how you would view an Australian side largely comprised of
South Africans, Asians, West Indians and New Zealanders.

What I find especially depressing is that England are losing
consistently when the general standard of Test cricket is
low. Who amongst current Test players is great in the sense
that, for example, Sobers, Truman, Miller and Laker were
great? Ambrose and Waqar undoubtedly but who else? Crowe and
Wasim perhaps. Warne, Lara and Tendulkar in the future?
Possibly, but that's about it.

The West Indies illustrate the poverty of talent well. Only
four current players - Haynes, Richardson, Lara and Ambrose -
would probably have made the great West Indies sides from
1976 to 1984. The rest are no more than journeymen. Yet
England look beaten before they take the field. Dear God, if
they cannot play mediocrities like the Benjamins, who can
they play? As for Walsh being a fire-breathing fast bowling
terror, one does not know whether to laugh or cry. The man
was never a genuine express and at the age of thirty one is
not as consistently quick as he was. But even at his fastest,
I would not put his pace as greater than, say, Alan Brown or
Butch White. What on earth would these be-helmeted,
bumperbra-ed, forearm guarded and generally padded gentry
have done if they had had to face Adcock and Heine in 1955,
Hall and Griffith in 1963 or Roberts, Holding and Daniel in
1976, equipped with no more than pads, gloves, a box and
thigh pads? (Probably a good deal better than they do against
the present pace bowling, actually. Protective clothing,
especially helmets, makes batsmen careless about being hit.
I also have the impression that a helmet changes the stance
and movements of a batsman. It may also affect their field of
vision).

Colin Croft put the matter in perspective after Hick's second
innings dismissal in Guyana. What, he asked, was a man
batting at number five for England doing backing away to
square leg (from fear of being hit) after being struck once
by a fast medium bowler? Effectively, England's tail begins
after Atherton, Stewart and Smith. (It reminds me
irresistibly of Leicestershire in the early sixties when
their tail began after Hallam, Wharton and Watson). Worse,
this was entirely predictable before the team left England.
Hick's selection I can only describe as cretinous. Not only
did the selectors have the evidence of the previous two years
that he cannot play the short pitched ball, he gave ample
indication of this in the Oval Test just prior to the touring
side's selection.

Weak as English cricket is at the moment, I think a
considerably stronger touring side could have been selected
from unequivocally English players. Try these seventeen for
size. Atherton, Stewart, Broad, Gower, John Morris, John
Crawley, Alistair Brown (the most naturally talented English
batsman since Gower, I think), Peter Johnson (remember his
success in the West Indies with the A team), Keith Brown (a
much improved keeper who has the advantage of keeping
regularly to two good spinners and a genuine middle order
bat. I am no Russell fan. He persistently has horrendous
lapses of concentration), Salisbury, Udal (a more attacking
bowler than Such, with bounce coming from his height and a
high action, good powers of spin and plenty of variety. He
looks consistently difficult), Jarvis, Millns, Gough (these
three to provide pace), Fraser, Cork, Ilott (had I been
selecting last September I should have chosen Bicknell
instead of Ilott).

Lastly, I send you a piece prompted by Frank Tyson's 'English
cricket's Adverse balance of trade'. From the sounds made by
the TCCB one might imagine that there is some legal barrier
to tightening the rules. In fact there is precious little if
any legal reason to prevent such action. (The only possible
problem might arise with EEC citizens if the British
government failed to make it a matter of policy. However, as
failure to do so would affect not only cricket but all other
representative groups, I think it unlikely).

My best wishes

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

?
The interesting thing to note is the fact that he was responding to my
article The trouble with England - this I have posted in a separate
thread. This made the same points as Is it in the blood? Which was based
on the article and dealt in greater detail and more explicitly with the
racial question. Frith can have been in no doubt what my views were.

You will also see that that I flagged the risk of shouts of racism in
my letter and despite this Frith went ahead. Ergo, he was extremely keen
to have the subject aired.

4. It was more than two years before I began to be critical of Frith .
He had behaved contemptibly towards me by committing the greatest crime
an editor can commit, namely, disowning one of his contributors after
material which he had decided to print caused uproar. I refrained from
attacking him because he had become genuinely frightened and had lost
his job, which I know meant the world to him. Then he published his
autobiography Caught England Bowled Australia when he not only repeated
the lie that he had not supported my views but attempted to give the
impression that I had hidden from the media when the storm broke, viz:
.
"Robert Henderson,, the author (who had previously had letters published
in the Sunday Telegraph and, this very month, in The Cricketer, was all
but invisible and inaudible through all the uproar. It would have been
so different had a leading and accessible writer penned the article.
Instead, I, as editor, was taking a double blast, and the perception
eventually became so ludicrously blurred that I was considered by some
of the more careless as having been the actual author. "

Of course, Frith knew that I had made the most strenuous attempts to
gain a public voice and had been thwarted by a blanket censorship, a
censorship in which he contemptibly joined by refusing to publish my
reply to the criticism in the August 1995 WCM. My unpublished reply is
in a separate thread.

He also, quite absurdly in view of the response the article generated,
attempted to represent my article as boring, viz:

"I was subsequently told by many readers that this next article, in the
July issue, was ‘boring’ or ‘unattractive’; some of them gave up
on it halfway. "

Interestingly, he wrote this about the claims of racism:

"It seemed preposterous. No-one who had seen the article prior to
publication had questioned it. My deputy editor, Steven Lynch, had
included an article by Henderson in the February WCM while I was in
Australia. Now, Steven rang me merely to discuss which illustrations
should accompany the piece, since he was now making up the pages. Who
got a mention in the article? Geoff Greenidge. Right. I had a picture of
him here. Phillip DeFreitas: Steven had a good Eagar of him on his desk.
OK. Let’s use that. Room for any others? Seemingly not.

"The general manager, Chris Lane, customarily looked at the page-proofs
as each edition built up. But he made no attempt now to query anything.
And, not least significantly, there was no objection or query from the
printers, who had been quick to object to the contents of a letter from
the writer Geoffrey Moorhouse, which was due for inclusion in our
November 1994 edition, headed ‘Pompous Benaud’. The managing
director of the printers felt it needed diluting, and revised wording
was agreed — to the subsequent fury of the author of the letter.

"For over 20 years I had been fully aware that among my countless no
responsibilities was the need to guard against libelling anybody.
Perhaps as only those who have undertaken similar duties could fully
understand the weight of this when balanced against the desire to
protect freedom of expression in an apparently ‘free’ country. The
outcome of this Henderson article was absolutely beyond prediction, and
suggests quite forcibly that free speech in Britain is being driven
underground. "

As can be seen from my letter of 22 3 1994, this was nonsense because I
had warned him of the danger.

RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

01 May 2008 07:38:00

Richard Dixon

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic surgery and assume a false name

Robert Henderson <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk > wrote in
news:6mcuM8ZorLGIFw$9@anywhere.demon.co.uk:

> NB I have scanned in the entire chapter of Frith's autobiography
> dealing with the case plus the full coverage in the August 1995 WCM.
> If anyone wants thse just send me an email and I will post it to you
> privately

A sad lifetime of obsession. Move on, Robert.

Richard

01 May 2008 10:21:48

Robert Henderson

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic surgery and assume a false name

In message <Xns9A9157D76A0DArdngemailyahoocouk@62.253.170.163 >, Richard
Dixon <rdngemail@yahoo.co.uk > writes
>Robert Henderson <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:6mcuM8ZorLGIFw$9@anywhere.demon.co.uk:
>
>> NB I have scanned in the entire chapter of Frith's autobiography
>> dealing with the case plus the full coverage in the August 1995 WCM.
>> If anyone wants thse just send me an email and I will post it to you
>> privately
>
>A sad lifetime of obsession. Move on, Robert.
>
>Richard

Bigoted refusal to address the scandal noted. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

01 May 2008 11:34:02

Toby

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic

Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message <Xns9A9157D76A0DArdngemailyahoocouk@62.253.170.163>, Richard
> Dixon <rdngemail@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> Robert Henderson <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:6mcuM8ZorLGIFw$9@anywhere.demon.co.uk:
>>
>>> NB I have scanned in the entire chapter of Frith's autobiography
>>> dealing with the case plus the full coverage in the August 1995 WCM.
>>> If anyone wants thse just send me an email and I will post it to you
>>> privately
>>
>> A sad lifetime of obsession. Move on, Robert.
>>
>> Richard
>
> Bigoted refusal to address the scandal noted. RH

You must have the largest pile of "notes" in the world Robert - surely
you in your old age can't remember ALL of this comments <inserts
sarcastic wink > ;-) </inserts sarcastic wink>

01 May 2008 04:12:58

Richard Dixon

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic

On 1 May, 10:21, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk > wrote:

> >A sad lifetime of obsession. Move on, Robert.
>
> >Richard
>
> Bigoted refusal to address the scandal noted. RH

Self-styled "Scandal" - guffaw! So sad.

Richard

01 May 2008 14:03:41

Robert Henderson

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic surgery and assume a false name

In message
<68435d8b-2c43-4d91-ac46-6044b1274258@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Richard Dixon <rdngemail@yahoo.co.uk > writes
>On 1 May, 10:21, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >A sad lifetime of obsession. Move on, Robert.
>>
>> >Richard
>>
>> Bigoted refusal to address the scandal noted. RH
>
>Self-styled "Scandal" - guffaw! So sad.
>
>Richard
>
Status quo. RH

--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

01 May 2008 08:26:25

Richard Dixon

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic

On 1 May, 14:03, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk > wrote:

> Status quo. RH

Says the man who has posted the same article 4 times on here.

Richard

01 May 2008 17:30:15

Robert Henderson

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic surgery and assume a false name

In message
<5c1621e8-9956-498f-93f7-07385ab00b31@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
Richard Dixon <rdngemail@yahoo.co.uk > writes
>On 1 May, 14:03, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Status quo. RH
>
>Says the man who has posted the same article 4 times on here.
>
Translation: unable to understand the need to post an article which is
cited. RH

>Richard

--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

01 May 2008 19:28:01

Richard Dixon

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic surgery and assume a false name

Robert Henderson <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk > wrote in
news:dNjX2PlXAfGIFwYG@anywhere.demon.co.uk:

>>Says the man who has posted the same article 4 times on here.
>>
> Translation: unable to understand the need to post an article which is
> cited. RH

Err no, do a little google groups search for "The trouble with England" and
you'll find uk.sport.cricket littered with your desperate bedsit polemic.
How sad.

Richard

02 May 2008 05:57:20

Robert Henderson

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic surgery and assume a false name

In message <Xns9A91D11D3300Drdngemailyahoocouk@80.5.182.99 >, Richard
Dixon <rdngemail@yahoo.co.uk > writes
>Robert Henderson <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:dNjX2PlXAfGIFwYG@anywhere.demon.co.uk:
>
>>>Says the man who has posted the same article 4 times on here.
>>>
>> Translation: unable to understand the need to post an article which is
>> cited. RH
>
>Err no, do a little google groups search for "The trouble with England"

Bab manners to expect people to Google in response to something one has
posted. Rh

> and you'll find uk.sport.cricket littered with your desperate bedsit
>polemic. How sad.

Bigoted refusal to address the real issue continues to be noted. Rh
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

02 May 2008 09:28:20

Toby

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic

Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message <Xns9A91D11D3300Drdngemailyahoocouk@80.5.182.99>, Richard
> Dixon <rdngemail@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> Robert Henderson <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:dNjX2PlXAfGIFwYG@anywhere.demon.co.uk:
>>
>>>> Says the man who has posted the same article 4 times on here.
>>>>
>>> Translation: unable to understand the need to post an article which is
>>> cited. RH
>>
>> Err no, do a little google groups search for "The trouble with England"
>
>
> Bab manners to expect people to Google in response to something one has
> posted. Rh
>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - and yet you sent me googling yourself with regards the
thread where you confused Scotty Newman and Michael Carberry!!!

02 May 2008 02:49:03

Richard Dixon

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic

On 2 May, 05:57, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk > wrote:

> >Err no, do a little google groups search for "The trouble with England"
>
> Bab manners to expect people to Google in response to something one has
> posted. Rh

Bad manners? Hilarious. Why have you kept posting the same articles
all the time? I'd call that Bad Manners. Mixed with attention-seeking.

> > and you'll find uk.sport.cricket littered with your desperate bedsit
> >polemic. How sad.
>
> Bigoted refusal =A0to address the real issue continues to be noted. Rh

No - *your* real issue. Not *the* real issue. A small but very obvious
difference.

Richard

02 May 2008 10:14:55

Robert Henderson

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic surgery and assume a false name

In message <SZednWCsl-04TYfVnZ2dnUVZ8s_inZ2d@giganews.com >, Toby
<toby.briggs@gmail.com > writes
>>>
>>> Err no, do a little google groups search for "The trouble with England"
>> Bab manners to expect people to Google in response to something one
>>has posted. Rh
>>
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - and yet you sent me googling yourself with regards the
>thread where you confused Scotty Newman and Michael Carberry!!!

Sigh. That was because I was not the one who cited the Google post,
young BLF. RH

--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

02 May 2008 12:12:08

Toby

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic

Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message <SZednWCsl-04TYfVnZ2dnUVZ8s_inZ2d@giganews.com>, Toby
> <toby.briggs@gmail.com> writes
>>>>
>>>> Err no, do a little google groups search for "The trouble with England"
>>> Bab manners to expect people to Google in response to something one
>>> has posted. Rh
>>>
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - and yet you sent me googling yourself with regards
>> the thread where you confused Scotty Newman and Michael Carberry!!!
>
>
> Sigh. That was because I was not the one who cited the Google post,
> young BLF. RH
>

But I still went googling that thread, and still found absolutely NO
post from you regarding Scotty's parentage and upbringing! Sigh, poor
old deluded SOF.

02 May 2008 12:17:05

Robert Henderson

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic surgery and assume a false name

In message
<b28e3499-63ff-4d20-bdf2-1e1a7eab5114@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
Richard Dixon <rdngemail@yahoo.co.uk > writes
>
>Bad manners? Hilarious. Why have you kept posting the same articles all
>the time? I'd call that Bad Manners. Mixed with attention-seeking.
>
>> > and you'll find uk.sport.cricket littered with your desperate bedsit
>> >polemic. How sad.
>>
>> Bigoted refusal �to address the real issue continues to be noted. Rh
>
>No - *your* real issue. Not *the* real issue. A small but very obvious
>difference.
>
>Richard

Bigoted refusal to address the real issue continues to be noted. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

02 May 2008 23:05:13

Colin Reed

Re: Frith and Is it in the blood? - Time for Rodney to have plastic surgery and assume a false name

"Toby" <toby.briggs@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:trSdndbDspEGAYTVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Robert Henderson wrote:
>> In message <Xns9A9157D76A0DArdngemailyahoocouk@62.253.170.163>, Richard
>> Dixon <rdngemail@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> Robert Henderson <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:6mcuM8ZorLGIFw$9@anywhere.demon.co.uk:
>>>
>>>> NB I have scanned in the entire chapter of Frith's autobiography
>>>> dealing with the case plus the full coverage in the August 1995 WCM.
>>>> If anyone wants thse just send me an email and I will post it to you
>>>> privately
>>>
>>> A sad lifetime of obsession. Move on, Robert.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>> Bigoted refusal to address the scandal noted. RH
>
> You must have the largest pile of "notes" in the world Robert - surely you
> in your old age can't remember ALL of this comments <inserts sarcastic
> wink> ;-) </inserts sarcastic wink>

"Your name is also going on the list. Vot is it?"
"Don't tell him, Pike!"