Jailbird Salaries

[Guest Orj]

I'm don't recall reading the answer to this anywhere so, aside from having already paid their fines, does anybody know whether the jailbirds are having their salaries paid to them while they are in self-inflicted exile?

[Guest midlandno2]

If it's any help I work for the Prison Service and our wing cleaners get about £8 a week.

They have to work a week in hand though so those three wont have any pocket money this week!

[Guest Orj]

Self-inflicted exile ??????!!!!!!!

The corrupt Police and their toff/snob Crown Prosecution Service puppet masters cannot catch and convict the real criminals so they prosecute and jail the easy targets such as our footballers.

Quote from the Bristol Evening Post 02 September 2006........

"Mr Partridge ended up on the ground and at one point he was kicked to the head on the ground by a bouncer. The bouncer was charged with common assault but it was dropped before this case, and another bouncer was charged with assault but that was dropped."

I'm not sure whether the bouncers belong to the same Masonic lodge as the judge and Bristol Crown Prosecution Service lawyers or not but this case stinks of serious corruption.

Yes, 'self-inflicted'. They are in prison as a result of their own unlawful actions. That is self-inflicted.

Quote from the Bristol Evening Post 02 September 2006........

"When passer-by Andrew Rowley tried to help Partridge and talked to police arriving at the scene, said Mr Davies, Partridge gave him an "upper cut" to his chin, fracturing a tooth."

[Guest Orj]

I just found the following article on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) suggesting that CPS lawyers earn up to £800 per week that is 100x more than the wing cleaners at £8 per week. ..........

Crown prosecutors work in England and Wales for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). As qualified solicitors and barristers, they are responsible for prosecuting people charged with a criminal offence. This means they take forward the prosecution of all cases both in the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court.

Prosecutors are responsible for reviewing and, where appropriate, prosecuting cases following investigation by the police. They also advise the police on whether there is sufficient evidence and, if so, whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

Their work includes:

reviewing cases and evidence submitted by police

giving legal opinions and advising on appropriate charges

reading evidence and statements from witnesses

conducting the prosecution of criminal cases in court.

Crown prosecutors generally work a 37-hour week, Monday to Friday. Weekend and bank holiday cover is organised on a voluntary rota basis. Although there may be some travel, this is confined to one county.

A CPS trainee starts on £17,888 a year. Once qualified, crown prosecutors earn between £25,648 and £40,744 a year, depending on their grade.

Source: http://www.connexions-direct.com/jobs4u/jo...33&pid=1760

So, the lesson to be learned here is, qualify as a CPS lawyer rather than smashing people in the face outside nightclubs. For once, we're in agreement.

[Guest midlandno2]

Wow! Sounds like they deserve 100x the pay of a wing cleaner!

[Guest MaloneFM]

So thats a 'no' then? Or a 'yes'? Or a smash the government?

Oh and RG try not to use the phrase 'toffs' as often it just weakens your otherwise well researched arguments. You may as well use phrases like 'gor blimey guvnor' and 'I should coco my old china'. The tabloid press think we still talk like Arthur Askey in the 1930's.

With our 'pals'.

And when did kicking someone in the head, getting caught and being banged up for it make then an easy target?

[Guest Orj]

Back on topic after yet another yawn-inducing piece of irrelevant political tubthumping, does anyone know the answer? I am genuinely interested to know.

[Guest midlandno2]

Sorry for the humour! I guess that if they aren't available for work then they shouldn't expect to get paid. Fottball is a funny old game though so who knows?

That wasn't much help really was it?!

[Robbored]

I don't know the answer to the original question of this thread but as the club have already fined the players a maximum two weeks wages there might be PFA or FA regulations that prevent players being fined twice for the same offence - which by withholding thier wages whilst they are serving time would pretty much amount to.

That said - its an interesting question.

[Ian M]

I don't know the answer to the original question of this thread but as the club have already fined the players a maximum two weeks wages there might be PFA or FA regulations that prevent players being fined twice for the same offence - which by withholding thier wages whilst they are serving time would pretty much amount to.

That said - its an interesting question.

I've heard this "maximum 2 week fine" before but how come Man City fined Ben Thatcher 6 weeks' wages?

[RedZepperin]

...does anyone know the answer? I am genuinely interested to know.

It would help if you phrased the question properly. I started to read your original post: "I'm don't recall reading the answer to this anywhere so, aside from having already paid their fines, does anybody know whether..." and it didn't make sense so I gave up.

[Guest Grandad48]

It seems to me that you are all never happy unless you are sticking the knife further into the backs of the lads in prison, the way you are all talking they have actually committed murder or something.

I am sure that will be paid, after all how many times have they got te be punished for the same crime, I know that they were a little worried going in to prison for the first time.

They will be home by Friday so get behind them after all they are City players and we need them, Playing and not in prison and bear in mind this short sharp shock maybe has taught them a lesson.

[Maesknoll Red]

I don't know the answer to the original question of this thread but as the club have already fined the players a maximum two weeks wages there might be PFA or FA regulations that prevent players being fined twice for the same offence - which by withholding thier wages whilst they are serving time would pretty much amount to.

That said - its an interesting question.

Any employer is entitled to withold salary if the employee is unavailable for work - even sick pay - employers only have to pay SSP, anything over that is at the employers discretion.

[Robbored]

Any employer is entitled to withold salary if the employee is unavailable for work - even sick pay - employers only have to pay SSP, anything over that is at the employers discretion.

I know that but the PFA have thier own rules and regulations.

The other point is that you or any of us went out on the lash and were arrested and charged with affray/assault,would our fine employer us?

[Red Cloud]

2 things -

in the Police force CPS is known (for obvious reasons), as the "Criminal Protection Service" - spot on!

when all this kicked off, all of them except Brooker were fined 2 weeks wages immediately. Brooker was called in several weeks after the incident but to my knowledge nothing was ever made public as to whether or not he was fined also - anybody know if he was?

[Guest CTID Ryback]

Train wreck!

So, to answer the lads question, does anyone know if the three get paid their salary whilst inside?

[Steve Watts]

I've heard this "maximum 2 week fine" before but how come Man City fined Ben Thatcher 6 weeks' wages?

I think it was two weeks wages and a six match suspension... though the reports do seem to differ between 2 weeks and 4... in which case, the point remains, i guess if the latter is correct.

[Red Cloud]

Lee Bowyer was fined 6 weeks as well!

[Blagdon red]

I know that but the PFA have thier own rules and regulations.

The other point is that you or any of us went out on the lash and were arrested and charged with affray/assault,would our fine employer us?

No, we'd get the sack.

The reason they don't is because - unlike us - they have a significant monetary value to their employer over and above the services they render, i.e. transfer value. Thus their contracts of employment will have clauses relating to misconduct and a scale of fines / bans in the event of misconduct in order to give their employer a means of punishing such behaviour without having to cut off its own nose by firing them.

As the players are currently 'unavailable for work', the club almost certainly has the contractual right not only not to pay them but also to terminate their employment. Any action to the contrary will be at the club's discretion. Personally, if I was SL, I would not pay them, but I wouldn't sack them either.

[Robbored]

No, we'd get the sack.

We would not get the sack before we were convicted unless the offence was work related and seen as 'gross professional misconduct'.

[Portland Bill]

To me the lesson learned is that the criminal justice system is farcical considering that the two bouncers have got away with not being charged for violent assault when our footballers have been prosecuted and jailed.

Yep, qualify as a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer and work as a prosecutor for a criminal justice system with a growing reputation as being the most corrupt and class based in Western Europe.

Case example: CIIR v Oliver Cromwell 1660 - the CPS prosecuted the corpse of Oliver Cromwell. The CPS couldn't prosecute Cromwell while alive so the CPS royalist low-lifes prosecuted his corpse instead.......

Oliver Cromwell died of natural causes in 1658, and was buried with great ceremony at Westminster Abbey, but was not left to rest in peace. With the restoration of the royalist tyranny the ghouls of the Crown Prosecution Service decided to 'try' the corpse of Cromwell. Cromwell's remains were thus moved from Westminster Abbey for this trial, along with those of two others implicated in the execution of the tyrant traitor King Charles I. After a macabre hanging the heads of Cromwell and Co were placed on poles on Westminster Hall as a warning to others not to challenge the recently restored royalist tyranny.

Why do you post on here? there must be a forum somewhere where you can spout off about things that happened 400 years ago Or perhaps you could make yourself a time machine and go back and find out what REALLY happened .

Our players admitted guilt, two had previous and obviously hadnt learned about there actions. So why should they not go to jail? suppose you would have fined them a LITTLE bit of there MASSIVE wage and sent them out for another 10 HOUR BENDER

[Nibor]

The maximum fine for disciplinary specified in most contracts as per PFA guidelines is 4 weeks. Players can be fined more with their consent, in Thatcher's case he will have consented to it because he knows doing so will mitigate any ban. Fines are pretty irrelevant to footballers because they're not exactly short of cash.

Brooker, Orr and Partridge will certainly not be being paid while they're inside and unavailable, this is not a fine it just a consequence of them not fulfilling their contracts. If not being paid is all that happens to them I think they'll be thanking their lucky stars. Being unavailable for work due to being imprisoned would get me and I think most other people fired (not that I think the club should fire them at all).

[Guest Ashton Kate]

It seems to me that you are all never happy unless you are sticking the knife further into the backs of the lads in prison, the way you are all talking they have actually committed murder or something.

I am sure that will be paid, after all how many times have they got te be punished for the same crime, I know that they were a little worried going in to prison for the first time.

They will be home by Friday so get behind them after all they are City players and we need them, Playing and not in prison and bear in mind this short sharp shock maybe has taught them a lesson.

Well said Grandad 48! I could not have put it better myself. Just remember that todays headlines are tomorrows chip papers. Get behind the boys when they return as I am sure that the away fans will have a field day. Come on your reds.

[bucksred]

English law works on precedent - what happened even almost 350 years ago is therefore, in law, relevant in trials today. The case CIIR (Charles II) versus Oliver Cromwell (deceased) 1660 is relevant today as a means of illustrating the often utter farcical nature of this country's hopelessly corrupt criminal justice system. Why exactly have Brooker and Orr been jailed? Why were the bouncers not prosecuted? What's the point in publically hanging and then chopping the head off a long dead corpse?

Lack of evidence, dear boy, lack of evidence. Three lashed up football players who couldnt behave against sober monkey suits, bit of a no brainer. People SAW the players misbehaving, but didnt see gorillas in action.

Precedent being set is statements of said players aint enough. Them grainey CCTV pics don't clarify it either.

only n me know they handed out a kicking, however in time honoured fashion the gorillas made sure no one saw em do it, and that royalist toff at all. The Yank bouncers are worse.

[Guest Orj]

It would help if you phrased the question properly. I started to read your original post: "I'm don't recall reading the answer to this anywhere so, aside from having already paid their fines, does anybody know whether..." and it didn't make sense so I gave up.

Well, you tried, that's the main thing.

[RedZepperin]

Well, you tried, that's the main thing.

I'm don't know that it is but thanks all the same. Good luck with your little investigation into just how bad a time (financially and otherwise) these people who play for the football team you support are having.

[Guest Orj]

I'm don't know that it is but thanks all the same. Good luck with your little investigation into just how bad a time (financially and otherwise) these people who play for the football team you support are having.

Cheers, RZ. And good luck to you with your continued attempts to draw people into petty arguments rather than contribute anything of substance.

Back on topic once more. While I can understand the sentiment being expressed by some people with regard to 'sticking the knife in', I don't think it can be considered 'punishing the players for the same crime again' to withhold their salary while they are in self-imposed exile.

Put another way: Supposing it transpires that they have received their salaries while banged up, I certainly will not be comfortable with them receiving a small proportion of the money that I pay to get through the turnstile. I don't see why I should contribute to their wages for the duration of the time that they aren't able to keep their side of the bargain by playing and training. Once they are available again, that is a different story.

[WTFiGO!?!]

Put another way: Supposing it transpires that they have received their salaries while banged up, I certainly will not be comfortable with them receiving a small proportion of the money that I pay to get through the turnstile. I don't see why I should contribute to their wages for the duration of the time that they aren't able to keep their side of the bargain by playing and training. Once they are available again, that is a different story.

Been meaning to ask you this since the thread began:

Supposing the salaried manager in the pub where you are a regular customer (therefore paying their wages) was banged up for two weeks would it bother you if they were being payed or not? Infact, would you have any right to know whether they were being payed or not? Personally, I think not.

[Guest Orj]

Been meaning to ask you this since the thread began:

Supposing the salaried manager in the pub where you are a regular customer (therefore paying their wages) was banged up for two weeks would it bother you if they were being payed or not? Infact, would you have any right to know whether they were being payed or not? Personally, I think not.

The 2 are not analogous. If the manager of my local were to get himself banged up for 2 weeks, a replacement would be put in his place and the quality of the product I am paying for would not suffer. Furthermore, he would lose his job so I would implicitly know how much he was being paid.

[WTFiGO!?!]

The 2 are not analogous. If the manager of my local were to get himself banged up for 2 weeks, a replacement would be put in his place and the quality of the product I am paying for would not suffer. Furthermore, he would lose his job so I would implicitly know how much he was being paid.

Chances are a replacement of the same quality would not be put in temporary charge and therefore the quality of the product may suffer. In terms of our players, how exactly does Dave Partridge need replacing anyway? Btw, he may not necessarily lose his job .

[Guest Orj]

Chances are a replacement of the same quality would not be put in temporary charge and therefore the quality of the product may suffer. In terms of our players, how exactly does Dave Partridge need replacing anyway? Btw, he may not necessarily lose his job .

I disagree - pub managers aren't in nearly as short supply as competent League One forwards. Your analogy is contrived and inappropriate on several levels.

Were it not for the fact that I know him, I probably wouldn't even notice if the manager of my local were gone for 2 weeks. And besides, surely the analogy would work slightly better if GJ were the manager of my local. SB would be head barman, while BO would be a regular barman and DP doesn't really have an equivalent.

If the head barman and another regular barman were unavailable for 2 weeks at my local, the quality of the product certainly wouldn't suffer. Furthermore, their absence wouldn't hinder the chances of my local achieving promotion next year.

Partridge doesn't need replacing because he is out of the manager's plans but I still would not be happy to be contributing to his salary while he is unavailable to meet his contractual obligation.

[WTFiGO!?!]

I disagree - pub managers aren't in nearly as short supply as competent League One forwards. Your analogy is contrived and inappropriate on several levels.

Were it not for the fact that I know him, I probably wouldn't even notice if the manager of my local were gone for 2 weeks. And besides, surely the analogy would work slightly better if GJ were the manager of my local. SB would be head barman, while BO would be a regular barman and DP doesn't really have an equivalent.

If the head barman and another regular barman were unavailable for 2 weeks at my local, the quality of the product certainly wouldn't suffer. Furthermore, their absence wouldn't hinder the chances of my local achieving promotion next year.

Partridge doesn't need replacing because he is out of the manager's plans but I still would not be happy to be contributing to his salary while he is unavailable to meet his contractual obligation.

Fair do's, most analogies only work to a certain extent, didn't mean it to be taken that far, I would have devised a rather more complexed one if so. Still don't think you have any more paticular right to know whether the players are being payed or not as you would anyone else you are a customer to (who has kept their job).

So, you're either genuinely not happy about this which leaves the question: What are you going to do?

Or, you get off on trying to wind up people over an internet forum, not only that, people who you profess to support the same Club as.

[Guest Ralph Milne]

Fair do's, most analogies only work to a certain extent, didn't mean it to be taken that far, I would have devised a rather more complexed one if so. Still don't think you have any more paticular right to know whether the players are being payed or not as you would anyone else you are a customer to (who has kept their job).

So, you're either genuinely not happy about this which leaves the question: What are you going to do?

Or, you get off on trying to wind up people over an internet forum, not only that, people who you profess to support the same Club as.

spot on mate

[Guest Orj]

Fair do's, most analogies only work to a certain extent, didn't mean it to be taken that far, I would have devised a rather more complexed one if so. Still don't think you have any more paticular right to know whether the players are being payed or not as you would anyone else you are a customer to (who has kept their job).

So, you're either genuinely not happy about this which leaves the question: What are you going to do?

Or, you get off on trying to wind up people over an internet forum, not only that, people who you profess to support the same Club as.

I never said I had a right to know, which is why I was asking if anyone on here knew the answer. If I had the right to know, I'd invoke that right.

What I am going to do is what I have already done, ask the people I know who might possibly know the answer. Other than that, there isn't a lot else I can do.

I'm not trying to wind anybody up. On the contrary, I would argue that by taking an interest in this I am considering what I believe to be the best interests of the club, myself and the rest of its fans. I don't particularly enjoy being taken for a mug and if I am contributing to the players' salaries while they are in jail, they are taking me for one.

Are you claiming that you are a better fan than I?

[WTFiGO!?!]

I never said I had a right to know, which is why I was asking if anyone on here knew the answer. If I had the right to know, I'd invoke that right.

What I am going to do is what I have already done, ask the people I know who might possibly know the answer. Other than that, there isn't a lot else I can do.

I'm not trying to wind anybody up. On the contrary, I would argue that by taking an interest in this I am considering what I believe to be the best interests of the club, myself and the rest of its fans. I don't particularly enjoy being taken for a mug and if I am contributing to the players' salaries while they are in jail, they are taking me for one.

Are you claiming that you are a better fan than I?

Well no one so far has come up with the answer for sure so if you're that interested perhaps ring the Club. I hope and suspect that they will as they should imo keep the matter confidential.

I don't think the players set out with a deliberate attempt to make a mug of you. If they are being paid in their absense (which I suspect not) then surely that is the Club making the perceived mug of you and not the individuals concerned.

If however either party are making a mug of you, my trusty old question remains: What are you going to do?

Also, how is any of us knowing the answer in the best interest of the Club? Surely if the answer is yes, this will only breed contempt and further negativety.

I don't believe in all this 'better fan' nonsense so no or even n/a is the answer to that one.

[Guest Orj]

Well no one so far has come up with the answer for sure so if you're that interested perhaps ring the Club. I hope and suspect that they will as they should imo keep the matter confidential.

I don't think the players set out with a deliberate attempt to make a mug of you. If they are being paid in their absense (which I suspect not) then surely that is the Club making the perceived mug of you and not the individuals concerned.

If however either party are making a mug of you, my trusty old question remains: What are you going to do?

If I find out the answer, I'll decide what, if anything, to do about it then.

Also, how is any of us knowing the answer in the best interest of the Club? Surely if the answer is yes, this will only breed contempt and further negativety.

If the answer is no then it is in the interests of the club as it demonstrates that they are acting responsibly towards their customers. If the answer is yes, it is in the interests of the club as it allows the paying customers to hold them to account for their behaviour which, in turn, may force them to behave in a more honourable way in future - something which is in everybody's interests.

I don't believe in all this 'better fan' nonsense so no or even n/a is the answer to that one.

Me neither which is why I posed the question as my way registering my exception at you saying that I "purport" to support to the club.

[WTFiGO!?!]

If I find out the answer, I'll decide what, if anything, to do about it then.

If the answer is no then it is in the interests of the club as it demonstrates that they are acting responsibly towards their customers. If the answer is yes, it is in the interests of the club as it allows the paying customers to hold them to account for their behaviour which, in turn, may force them to behave in a more honourable way in future - something which is in everybody's interests.

Me neither which is why I posed the question as my way registering my exception at you saying that I "purport" to support to the club.

''Profess'' was the used word, bear in mind it was used in the same post as the one suggesting you may be looking to wind up City fans - an action I find strange from a City fan. Been denighed anyway.

Hope you get to the bottom of this paticular issue but the board being heald to account by the paying customer is not an issue they take seriously. It's a 'vote with your feet' situation hence my questioning ''what are you going to do?''.

[Guest Orj]

''Profess'' was the used word, bear in mind it was used in the same post as the one suggesting you may be looking to wind up City fans - an action I find strange from a City fan. Been denighed anyway.

Hope you get to the bottom of this paticular issue but the board being heald to account by the paying customer is not an issue they take seriously. It's a 'vote with your feet' situation hence my questioning ''what are you going to do?''.

Fair enough, and apologies for the misquote.

I agree that the simplest course of action if I find an answer I don't like is to vote with my feet. Time will tell if that proves to be necessary.

It's certainly been an interesting discussion and I'm grateful to you for opposing my views and causing me to consider them more deeply.

Out of interest, as a matter of principle, would you object to the players being paid while they are in jail?

[WTFiGO!?!]

Fair enough, and apologies for the misquote.

I agree that the simplest course of action if I find an answer I don't like is to vote with my feet. Time will tell if that proves to be necessary.

It's certainly been an interesting discussion and I'm grateful to you for opposing my views and causing me to consider them more deeply.

Out of interest, as a matter of principle, would you object to the players being paid while they are in jail?

I found it a rather engaging discussion myself.

The Marcus Stewart debacle amongst several other issues that I'd rather not raise here have had me far more peeved with the Club than what that would. Not for a minute do I imagine that they will be payed due to the breach of contract as previously mentioned or that the business will reveal the answer to it's customers anyway (it's the business's money - they can do what they like with it and do it confidentially) so as you've inferred, the question really is academic.

[Guest DrFaustus]

Orj, that is the biggest pile of sanctmonious nonsense since the last time you posted. The players did wrong, got punished and have been released. Get over it and yourself.

[Guest Orj]

Orj, that is the biggest pile of sanctmonious nonsense since the last time you posted. The players did wrong, got punished and have been released. Get over it and yourself.

An interesting point of view. At least, it would be if you were able to articulate it like a grown up.

If you want to discuss this properly then I'm quite happy to do so but if you just want to have a slanging match then you may as well pick your fights elsewhere because I don't intend wasting any more of my time on you.

[Guest DrFaustus]

An interesting point of view. At least, it would be if you were able to articulate it like a grown up.

If you want to discuss this properly then I'm quite happy to do so but if you just want to have a slanging match then you may as well pick your fights elsewhere because I don't intend wasting any more of my time on you.

Like a grown up? hahahaha. One day when you are..

OK, I'll articulate, God save me. Personally, I thought your players got harshly treated. The judge admitted that they were given their various punishments because of who they are. As a free born citizen of this great country, I find it offensive that individuals get treated differently by the judiciary based on circumstance. It goes against the liberal (small l) values on which I was personally 'schooled' and on which this country is based.

One rule for one etc.

Patronise me some more Orj, it's always fun to read yours and your alter ego's posts.

[Seend Red]

DrFaustus, you're spot on Sir. The bouncers had absolutely no legal right to assault the players and continue the fight in the street outside. One law for bouncers and another law for the players makes a complete joke of the Crown Prosecution Service for pressing charges against the players and not the bouncers.

God save us from the royalist tyranny that is this country's hopelessly corrupt and toff/snob led criminal justice system.

My post stating the facts to what actually happened on the night have been deleted by the powers that be

But why? people should know the truth and know exactly what started the whole episode at RB. If people knew the truth then people wouldnt feel so sorry for the jailed 3.

[Seend Red]

DrFaustus, you're spot on Sir. The bouncers had absolutely no legal right to assault the players and continue the fight in the street outside. One law for bouncers and another law for the players makes a complete joke of the Crown Prosecution Service for pressing charges against the players and not the bouncers.

God save us from the royalist tyranny that is this country's hopelessly corrupt and toff/snob led criminal justice system.

The more you say the more I cringe-If you knew the facts to what Partridge actually did I'm sure you wouldnt defend his actions.

As for the bouncers they were cleared simply becasuse the City players were advised to plead guilty hence the bouncers could not be at fault- so blame the players advisors not the CPS.

[Guest Orj]

Like a grown up? hahahaha. One day when you are..

OK, I'll articulate, God save me. Personally, I thought your players got harshly treated. The judge admitted that they were given their various punishments because of who they are. As a free born citizen of this great country, I find it offensive that individuals get treated differently by the judiciary based on circumstance. It goes against the liberal (small l) values on which I was personally 'schooled' and on which this country is based.

One rule for one etc.

Patronise me some more Orj, it's always fun to read yours and your alter ego's posts.

Ah well, you had your chance.

[Guest DrFaustus]

Ah well, you had your chance.

So did you honey, but yet again you had no back up.

Love you and hope we can hook up soon.

[Guest MaloneFM]

Gobblers old thing, not that a chap tends to pay much attention to your class war cobblers but are you saying that the bouncers contimued this scrap in the street, off the premises, and walked away Scott Murray Free?

And I think the last time a person to have the word snob or toff used against them in anger other than in a tabloid rag was in the 1930's.

I know becuase it was probably me.

[Guest MaloneFM]

My point eactly old thing.

Snobbish and snooty? Aside from the tabloids who also think 'Wills' has 'pals' and insist on calling his half bred brother 'Harry' a 'toff' this kind of thing was normally seen before the second world war being esposed by the very people you despise.

The Sun believe we actually talk like this? Cor blimey guvnor and no mistake, what a right pickle!

[Guest MaloneFM]

God save us from the royalist tyranny that is this country's hopelessly corrupt and toff/snob ridden and Cherie Blair contaminated criminal justice system.

Cor blimey guvnor what a right pickle and no mistake. Them toffs eh? And their pals! Much better than the likes of you and me chummy!