Rants and Revelations: Columns from the Whitstable Times

Following are a selection of my Whitstable Times columns. There's a contact address at the end if you want to write to the editor. That would surprise him.

Tom Lehrer: Send the Marines

"As if Dr No and Ernst Blofeld had got together with Osama bin Laden to launch this fiendish attack...."
"As if Dr No and Ernst Blofeld had got together with Osama bin Laden to launch this fiendish attack...."

June 2007

1.

Tom Lehrer, that great American humorist once wrote, "political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize".

Tom Lehrer had no idea. International diplomacy became political satire the minute Tony Blair landing the job as the Middle East Peace Envoy. Is this someone's idea of a joke?

Of course, coming in the wake of the terror-attack in Glasgow and the on-going climate of fear, this may not appear so funny; except that I‘ve been screaming with laughter ever since. It wasn't the attack itself, of course: it was the political commentary afterwards.

"Al Qaeda has imported the tactics of Baghdad and Bali to the streets of the UK," said Lord Stevens, a former London police chief and Gordon Brown's terrorism adviser.

Pardon?

Al Qaeda, remember, were the guys who hijacked four planes and blew out the heart of New York. So now they have changed their tactics it seems. No longer satisfied with ruthless efficiency, they've decided to try stupidity instead.

Let's get this right. Two guys in a jeep charge at full pelt into the entrance doors of Glasgow airport while simultaneously trying to set light to themselves with a cigarette lighter. In what way is this "importing the tactics of Baghdad and Bali to the streets of the UK"?

The people who made the bomb in Bali knew what they were doing. They made a bomb. You don't have to sympathise with the bombers to know the difference. A bomb is something that blows up, not something that just catches alight. Bombers in Baghdad regularly blow up US army convoys using a variety of methods. What they don't do: they don't douse themselves with petrol to act as a slow-burning fuse, setting light to themselves with a cigarette lighter, shouting "Allah! Allah!" while driving a jeep into a stationary building.

These people weren't terrorists, they were idiots.

But there's worse. The front page of the Guardian a few days later said this:

"Mastermind Based Abroad Suspected Of Guiding Plot."

Mastermind?

As if Dr No and Ernst Blofeld had got together with Osama bin Laden to launch this fiendish attack. I can see them right now, sat up there in their mountain fortress, surrounded by armed guards, thinking up ways to bring down the West. "We've tried ruthless precision. We've tried diabolical efficiency. We've tried flying planes into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Now let's try stupidity as a tactic. They won't be expecting that."

The whole thing defies satire, it really does. These people were desperate, that's for sure. Desperate enough to want to kill themselves. But the idea that there can possibly have been a link to Al Qaeda or that there was any training involved is just another one of those bad jokes.

"Knock, knock."

"Who's there?"

"Al Qaeda."

"Al who?"

"Al-set-light-to-myself-while-driving-into-a-stationary-building-in-a-jeep-shouting-Allah-Allah!"

OK, so it's not a very funny joke.

Try this one instead. Have you heard the one about the new Middle East Peace Envoy? It's Tony Blair!

Ha! Now that is funny.

July 2007

2.

Have you noticed that members of the insurgency in Iraq are now almost universally referred to as "al-Qaeda" on your evening news? Also, almost any act of terrorism anywhere in the world is generally attributed to al-Qaeda, as in the following quote by Gordon Brown.

Mr Brown told Andrew Marr on BBC One's Sunday AM programme, it was "clear that we are dealing, in general terms, with people who are associated with al-Qaeda".

This is ironical for several reasons.

Firstly because al-Qaeda were never in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Secondly, because the insurgency also contains large numbers of groups who are, and always were, opposed to al-Qaeda. In fact, the US administration can't have it both ways: either the Iraq insurgency is being run by al-Qaeda, or it is being secretly funded by Iran - one or the other - because the regime in Iran and the leadership of al-Qaeda have always been enemies.

Thirdly because al-Qaeda were a virtually moribund organisation before the so-called "war-on-terror" gave them the justification they needed to continue their barbarous campaign of murder.

Fourthly because most of the time it's simply not true. Al-Qaeda as we perceive them are as much a creation of the United States government and the media as they ever were of Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahri. Al-Qaeda needs an enemy, and so does the United States. It's like a marriage of convenience, each giving the other justification for its actions.

We need to get a little perspective. On the day of the botched attack in Glasgow - in which no one died - more than 100 Afghan civilians were killed in a three-hour air raid on a village in Helmund province. Real and effective bombs as opposed to improvised and useless ones.

No one knows how many people died in Iraq on that day.

Or to put it another way: in order to protect us from a conspiracy that doesn't exist, we kill innocent people, thus creating more bloodshed and more mayhem, and more resentment leading, almost certainly, to more attacks.

This is not a war on terrorism: it is a war on decency and human values.

Finally, and most ironical of all, as we heard in the recent National Intelligence Estimate coming from the Bush administration, al-Qaeda are now better positioned to strike the West than it has been since September 11th 2001.

Al-Qaeda is "operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," we were told. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States...."

In other words, despite over six years of bombings and tactics designed to dismantle it, despite the war on terror and the attacks on our civil liberties, despite Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, despite extraordinary rendition and the torture that certainly accompanies it, despite more than 655,000 dead (most of them Moslems): despite all of this, al-Qaeda are stronger than ever.

Kind of makes you wonder what the last six years have been for doesn't it?

February 2008

3.

You will have seen the photographs. Prince Harry in a baseball cap. Prince Harry on a motorbike. Prince Harry kicking a football made of rolled up toilet paper. Prince Harry having a laugh with his mates.

Prince Harry fighting the good fight for justice and democracy in Afghanistan.

On a single day there were 56 pages of coverage in eight national newspapers, with booming headlines like "Harry the Brave" and "Harry the Secret Hero." The Sun included a glamorous poster of the prince out on patrol.

Meanwhile it's been Afghanistan week on the ITV news: a number of short films looking at army conditions in Helmand Province in the South of the country, where most of the British troops are stationed.

Well I‘m a cynic about these matters. Even if, as the news reports stated, Prince Harry's presence in Afghanistan was a closely-guarded secret for a while, it was always a set-up for future propaganda purposes. How many readers actually believed those images? Do you really think that the British army would put him in a position where anyone would get a chance of firing live bullets at him?

As for the ITV reports, I watched with increasing irritation as the week went by. How are we supposed to understand such a complex set of issues on the back of a few grainy bits of one-sided footage, the reporter addressing us in a portentous tone while perched on top of a flat-roofed building in the middle of Kabul, a relatively safe city?

The implication was clear. "British troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan to keep terrorism off our streets."

Hang on now. These are Afghan tribesmen, not international terrorists. They are fierce, wily, savage mountain people fighting with home-made guns, essentially nationalistic peasants. They probably have no idea of where Britain is, and still less care. Their passions are inflamed at the sight of foreign troops on their soil. If there weren't British troops in Helmand no one would be firing at them.

I must be one of the few people in the whole of North Kent who has ever been to Afghanistan, so at least I have some idea who these people are. This was back in the 70s, when the famous hippie-trail to India passed through that mountainous, desert land of warring tribes.

This was before the Russian invasion, but during the time of the communist government. Even then it was like the wild west. The Afghans are good at copying things and I was told that there were gun factories dotted about in secret locations. But then you'd see them riding into town on horseback, with a rifle slung across their shoulders, only it was a flint-lock not a machine gun.

It was the Americans who gave them Stinger missiles to fire at the Russian helicopter gun-ships. It was the Americans who trained them in modern warfare and who brought Osama bin Laden in to whip up their Islamic fervour.

Everybody knows by now that the war in Iraq was conducted for the venality and greed of the oil magnates in charge of the White House, so they are repackaging the Afghan war as somehow more "just."

But Osama bin Laden left many years ago - left to escape while the US engaged in its plunder of Iraq.

Don't you think its time we left the Afghan people to their own devices?

April 2008

4.

"The camera never lies," they say. Well it does, and it does so with increasing frequency on your TV news these days.

There were a number of occasions when this became particularly clear to me. One was an image of a reporter on the front-line in Afghanistan during the invasion in 2002. He was ducked behind a line of troops in a trench. But there was something wrong with the set-up; the "troops" were Afghan - supposedly members of the Northern Alliance - but their uniforms were brand new.

Since when have you seen Afghan fighters wearing uniforms even, let along brand new ones?

It was so obviously a fake. It was clear from the looks on their faces and the general air of dishevelment and lack of discipline that these weren't troops at all, but just a bunch of guys off the street dressed up to look like troops, straight from the prop department of the Pentagon.

I wish I had that bit of film to show to you. It was hilarious. There was the reporter with his serious face reeling out all this portentous nonsense, with his flak jacket and his helmet, clutching his microphone, making out that the Taliban were just over the other side, while behind him a bunch of scruffy Afghan peasants were lying in a ditch pretending to be troops, picking their noses and having a laugh.

Another was a shot of the "rebel" army in Haiti in 2004. They were overthrowing President Aristide, the democratically elected leader at the time.

But while the news reports were all making out that this was an internal matter - rebels vs government - it was so obvious from the look of them that this was no ordinary rebel army.

They were too well dressed and too well fed. They were toned and muscled, with tight tee-shirts showing off their abs, with back-to-front baseball caps, clutching the latest in US-made high tech weaponry.

They were so obviously Western-trained mercenaries in the pay of the US government, a point made clear when Aristide was later escorted from the country at gunpoint by the CIA.

This at a time when we were supposed to be promoting world-democracy.

Saddam's statue

The most famous example however is the one where they pulled down Saddam's statue in Baghdad.

It looked like a large crowd of ordinary Iraqis celebrating the end of the dictatorship. If you remember they made a great to-do about explaining the insult of people banging the statue's face with a shoe. But any perspective would have told a different story.

The "crowd" consisted of 150 selected individuals, while the square itself was nearly empty. The shot was a set-up, as later independent photographs made clear.

So you have to beware. Nothing is quite what it seems. Most of the real news is being hidden from us, while, in it's place, we have fakery and deception, smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand.

You have to watch the news very carefully these days; not to find out the truth: to find out the lies.

James Keir Hardie or the Heart of the Labour Party

August 2008

5.

Poor old Gordon Brown. To have spent the greater part of his life wanting to become the Prime Minister, only to discover when he gets the job that, actually, he isn't very good at it.

As if this isn't bad enough, to know that his arch rival and predecessor is looking on from a sceptical distance, pretty certain to go down in history as one of the most successful holders of the position in recent years. You can almost feel the scorn as the ex Prime Minister watches his one-time partner writhing around helplessly in a succession of increasingly horrible messes.

What's a well-brought up Presbyterian to do? Gordon clearly works hard at the job. Unfortunately hard work isn't enough these days.

When I say that Blair is likely to down in history as one of the most successful Prime Ministers in recent years, that's not my personal assessment you understand. If you want my opinion, the man should be tried alongside Radovan Karadzic in the Hague for crimes against humanity.

No: what I mean is, that Blair has all the qualities a good Prime Minister requires in this day and age.

He's an actor first of all, and knows how to work the media. He is clearly without morals or scruples, ruthless and cold-blooded, but quick on his feet and able to read the signs. He certainly got out in the nick of time. Or maybe he was warned.

Brown, on the other hand, looks like a man who once had principles. There's a kind of dogged persistence about him. He may even have made a good Prime Minister once, a few years back, before the upstart Blair oiled his way into the Labour Party's good graces and stole the job from under him.

But then, he, along with Mr Blair, is responsible for the New Labour project: that is, with removing the heart of the Labour Party in order to make it merely into a successful electoral machine.

So it's a question of what you think electoral success is for. A follower of Keir Hardie would say that the only point of election is to increase public ownership and the redistribution of wealth. A Labour Party that gets elected and doesn't do those things is not really a Labour Party.

It's an empty shell, a brand name, like an ice-cream sundae without any ice-cream in it, or Coca Cola without the cocaine.

Which is what Gordon Brown is left with: an electoral machine without any policies, a Prime Ministerial position without any power.

Do you remember that strange smile he unleashed upon the world a while back? He looked like he'd just been caught performing an unnatural act with a horse in a back room in number 10 Downing Street and was trying to think up some excuse.

It was obvious that he'd never actually smiled before and that he'd been having smiling lessons. Maybe he'd been practising in front of a mirror.

So it's a measure of the lack of power of the British Prime Minister these days, that in the midst of the credit crisis, with energy prices going through the roof, and the private energy companies rolling around in their windfall profits, that smiling - something he finds very difficult - is all that he has left to do.

Poor old Gordon Brown.

Contact the Whitstable Times

More by this Author


Comments 28 comments

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 8 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal

Great work as always Chris, but it's not surprising they called you an "anarchist" writing like this! lol It's good to see you back here!


CJStone profile image

CJStone 8 years ago from Whitstable, UK Author

Hi Steve, yes I've been busy trying to earn some money as you know. This is all part of the strategy: creating a show case for editors to look at. Mind you, this sort of stuff probably won't please the proprietors.


Jerry G2 profile image

Jerry G2 8 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

Great hub. Thanks for bringing the blatant media propoganda to attention - I keep trying to convince my friends of this but somehow they seem to find it odd taht multi-billionaires paying politicians would want to for some reason distort the "truth" for their own profit. Add Bradbury as one who's laughing bitterly.


robie2 profile image

robie2 8 years ago from Central New Jersey

Ahhh CJ you bring back fond memories of Tom Lehrer--sadly he is as on the money today as he was in the sixties! Thanks for a great read, as usual. Go have a listen :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHhZF66C1Dc

oh yes and then there is my personal favorite--this one written during the Cold War but still relevant today ( unfortunately)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs


CJStone profile image

CJStone 8 years ago from Whitstable, UK Author

Hello Jerry, well I think laughter is all we've got left when things get as blatant as they are now. I'm trying to find a Tom Lehrer track to go with this hub so we can laugh through the tears.


CJStone profile image

CJStone 8 years ago from Whitstable, UK Author

My God robie2 that was spooky. I was just listening to that Send the Marines track, probably while you were posting your comment. I'll definitely add it to the hub now.


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 8 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

Yes, good stuff. The media has earned its bad name in recent years, but - there's still a lot of very fine reportage going on. The 'trick' is not to rely on any single news service, but to compare them. And to think of course. That always helps.


CJStone profile image

CJStone 8 years ago from Whitstable, UK Author

You're right, of course Paraglider, but the band of opinion within the media is getting narrower by the day. It's also getting harder, as a independent writer, to find an outlet for this kind of critical material.


pgrundy 8 years ago

CJ Stone, it is so good to see you back here. I've missed you. Reading these columns, distressing as they are, made me want to turn back the clock to when things were just totally f*cked up and evil instead of totally out-of-control f*cked up and evil like they are now. I don't believe ANYTHING I see on the news anymore. In fact, I am seriously worried we may at some point have to flee the country--to where, I have no clue (the Canadian Great North Woods?)

I too have been trying to create a "web presence" to up my $$$$ and to that end have purchased my own domain and am trying to learn how to create a website and so forth--lots of piddly freelance copy writing work right now but it all adds up to subsistence living. I guess I should be glad and quit whining. We're not hungry.

Great work as usual. I'm afraid the US (and Bush's poodle, the fawning little pansy) have us in so deep now we may never recover. I like Brown better. At least he's appropriately cranky.


CJStone profile image

CJStone 8 years ago from Whitstable, UK Author

Hi pgrundy, yes I've missed you too. I just decided I needed some time off as it was distracting me somewhat. I was spending all my time worrying about hits on my Hub and not enough time working on my finances. Brown's ok, but I can't feel sorry for him in his present dilemma, given that he showed a marked lack of integrity over the years in failing to stand up to Blair. My feeling is he's a decent man lost to the vaguaries of the media led political system, but it's all much too late now.


Jonno.Norton 8 years ago

CJ, excellent hub. I enjoy your writing style a lot, and the subject material is right up my alley. I especially loved the piece about the Saddam statue-toppling farce. I knew right when that happened that it was completely contrived, and I had fierce arguments with so many of my fellow US citizens about it. People here are so happy to be ignorant, you have no idea. Even when I showed them the pictures of the event, nobody would change their mind about it.

I think you could have done a better job explaining that situation in your article. Having been an insider at the time, I know exactly what you were talking about. But from the perspective of somebody that doesn't know, and might not be convinced easily, it's a little uninformative. Also, there's a box you can check in your picture widget next to that article which will allow the reader to click the picture and see the original size. I can't make out what's going on at all in the images you posted, but I doubt the originals are that low quality, HP just resizes them for you. You might consider checking that box, it would help out to show exactly what you're talking about.


CJStone profile image

CJStone 8 years ago from Whitstable, UK Author

Jonno, you're probably right. Maybe I should write a separate hub about the statue. I've written about it before and actually there is a wealth of proof out there to show that it was a set-up. Don't quite understand what a picture widget is, however. Explain.


ColdWarBaby 8 years ago

“In other words, despite over six years of bombings and tactics designed to dismantle it, despite the war on terror and the attacks on our civil liberties, despite Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, despite extraordinary rendition and the torture that certainly accompanies it, despite more than 655,000 dead (most of them Moslems): despite all of this, al-Qaeda are stronger than ever.”  

It’s a bit reminiscent of the “war on drugs”, a lot of time and money wasted and a lot of innocent people hurt or killed and the “drug problem” is worse than ever.  Ah well, that’s amerika.  We like war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDkhzHQO7jY&feature...

It’s very true that amerika created al-Qaeda and the Mujahideen and Taliban as well.  All to give the ussr it’s very own vietnam.  Who knew that it would come in so handy when we needed a new boogey man after the cold war?

Excellent work CJS but I’m beginning to worry about you.  I fear I’m beginning to detect the slightest hint of socialism creeping into your discourse.  Shame, shame, you know we simply can’t allow that.  If you keep it up I’m afraid I’ll be forced to report you to DHS.  You do have a version of that over there don’t you?


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 8 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

Hi CJ - you could come and join me at Al Jazeera? About this idea of not believing anything on the news - all news channels receive the same agency feeds, Reuters, AP, AFP etc, and the pictures that come in are mostly real. All too real, in many cases. Channels also have their own journalists in the field, but only in those 'fields' where things are happening or likely to happen. When something breaks, they dispatch their nearest teams. So, the first news you see is usually Agency, and the available pictures are the same to everyone. The first big difference is then in selection, and the second is in voicing over. The third is in analysis - the pundit level. Another recent change is with mobile phone/camera technology. You can now have 'sleepers' almost anywhere in the world, on a small retainer, doing 'day jobs', who can be turned on at very short notice if something happens. We're seeing a lot of good immediate coverage from this route now, and unlike the Agencies, it is unique to the channel. So, yes, the put up jobs and photoshoots we have to live with, but it's usually still possible to glean the truth, or something close to it. Having said that, there are disinformation channels too, like Fox.


Marian Swift profile image

Marian Swift 8 years ago from San Francisco Bay Area

Thank you, CJ. This is excellently written, unpleasant and necessary.


Ananta65 8 years ago

Great hub, CJ. And it's not just with international matters. At a national level the media also seem to go for the common denominator and the easy stuff. Looking at things from more than just one point of view is more an exception than a rule.


CJStone profile image

CJStone 8 years ago from Whitstable, UK Author

Socialism Cold War Baby? What's that? Never heard of such a thing.

But in a war zone, Paraglider, it's more difficult to find the truth, especially when the belligerent parties target journalists, as the US have been known to do at times. Several Freelancers have been killed in Iraq, despite obvious indications that they were press, plus Al Jazeera were specifically targetted as I remember, in a hotel room in Bagdhad. Funny how those precision bombs go astray every so often.


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 8 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

One little thing I am grateful to Tony Blair for is that he persuaded George Bush that bombing Al Jazeera HQ in Qatar would be a bad idea.


CJStone profile image

CJStone 8 years ago from Whitstable, UK Author

The fact that it was even considered is a measure of the state of the world these days, and Tony never managed to dissuade them from any other bombing sortie.


Marian Swift profile image

Marian Swift 8 years ago from San Francisco Bay Area

I remember the targeting of Al Jazeera as well.  Crocodile tears were shed in lieu of apologies.

On the subject of journalists detained by U.S. Forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Mid-East, Africa and Asia ... here's a short San Francisco Chronicle article (had to Tiny-fy it):

http://tinyurl.com/59ntpr


Paraglider profile image

Paraglider 8 years ago from Kyle, Scotland

The time I'm talking about was during the 'shock and awe' episode - the curtain raiser for the Iraq invasion. At that time Al Jazeera English had not been launched, and we had just re-launched the Arabic channel from a new Newsroom. (It was a re-branding, to mark 10 years on air). Had the bombing taken place, it would have made corpses or cripples out of Nepalese cleaners, Filipina canteen girls, Sri Lankan gardeners, just as a bi-product of murdering the journalists and editors from many Arabic-speaking countries who had spoken out against the assault on Iraq. Maybe me as well, if I'd been on site. But the Bush babies never think about people, their lives, their loved ones. They just bomb.


CJStone profile image

CJStone 8 years ago from Whitstable, UK Author

Yes I remember that episode too. It would have been totally illegal had they carried it out: but since when has that stopped them?

BTW Cold War Baby, my favourite quote from Chavez: "Socialism is love."


Sterling Sage profile image

Sterling Sage 8 years ago from California


Amanda Severn profile image

Amanda Severn 8 years ago from UK

Hi CJ Stone. This is the first time I've read any of your writing on Hubpages, as I've only been dabbling for the last four weeks, and there's no doubt plenty of treasure as yet unmined. I was drawn in by the magic word 'Whitstable'. My grandparents lived along the coast at Westgate when I was a child, and I've spent many a happy holiday exploring the Kent coastal towns. In fact my first ever boyfriend came from Whitstable.

I can't tell you how much I enjoyed reading this item, especially the piece about poor old Gordon. That poor man can't know whether he's on his head or his heels half the time. I can't feel too sorry for him though. After all he was responsible for leaving the cupboard bare and the freezer unstocked as we sleepwalked into recession. Working in Estate Agency gives me plenty of time to keep up with Hubpages though, so it can't be all bad.......


CJStone profile image

CJStone 8 years ago from Whitstable, UK Author

Hi Amanda, yes I'm the columnist for the Whitstable and Herne Bay Times as you have no doubt gathered by now. When was the last time you were here? I expect there will have been plenty of changes by now. It's definitely gone up-market. But Westgate is a fine town too. I'm planning to write a Whitstable hub when I have time, maybe in a week or two.


Amanda Severn profile image

Amanda Severn 8 years ago from UK

I haven't been back to that part of Kent since the old folks died nearly twenty years ago. I'm on the coast myself, but down in Sussex, at Shoreham. I'd heard that Whitstable had gone more up-market. I remember sitting outside the Pearson Arms as a teenager nursing half a shandy, and I've always intended to visit Whitstable again, and introduce my own children to some of my favourite haunts. My Dad had friends at Beltinge that we sometimes stayed with. Their house was just off the clifftop path along to Reculver, and I've often wondered whether it's still there, or whether the cliff had fallen into the sea, taking the house with it.

I'll look out for the Whitstable hub.

Cheers for now, Mandy


marisuewrites profile image

marisuewrites 8 years ago from USA

Hi CJ - you've been gone!! glad to see you back...I know what you mean about having to take a break...I write, I work, I write, I work....lol

still don't be gone long; I missed ya. This series of articles is great and upsetting, but I think You've hit important observations. I've long since forgotten why we're still in Afghanistan or Iraq -- it never did make much sense...we're chasing shadows and only Bush / Cheney know why...filling oil pockets I suppose. Keeping our troops messed up. they don't have a life or family hardly anymore..it makes no sense to spread them out like this it has weakened us!! All US citizens wonder why we're spending $$$ out the wahzoo for war expenses but can't tighten the borders which is more sensible. Why have us chase every thing that wiggles all over the world...when it makes us targets right in their neighborhoods? Makes more sense to keep 'em outta here since this is where we were struck.

god save us all from such stupidity.

Interesting writing CJ!! =)


redman 7 years ago

What-ho,C.J.!-How about coercing Joe Fen the stonershaman to write a peice on the Whitstable Ley Line?-and give him my love!chin-up,what?!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working