Anti-Ents
Where Your Challenge Is Met
Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting unwinnable or futile battles. The word “tilt”, in this context, comes from jousting.
Tilting At Windmills
Tilting at Windmills harks at the raison-d’être of this website and challenges those weighty items of bureaucracy and pomposity which, bearing down upon mankind, frustrate his progress through life.
Hopefully most turn out to be successful, allowing him to exercise rebellion and bathe in satire and cynicism!
BRING IT ON!
PERSONA NON GRATA
This ‘tilt’ harks back to the story of the 12 year old boy who told his 10 year old brother that to be adult they would have to start swearing, because that’s what adults do. They agreed that the younger one would start to use the word bugger and the older. fuck. Next morning with a twinkle and a nod from the eldest the younger, when asked what breakfast he wanted, thought for a while and said to his father “Bugger me, I think I’ll have coco-pops”. The father flew into a rage and slapped his young son to the floor where he wept. Regaining his composure he quietly asked the eldest what he would like for breakfast. Looking bemused and thinking what to reply he said, “I won’t fucking have coco-pops then” !
In the autumn of 2009 a major event was held for the Atholl Association which took the format of a QuestionTime. All the hierarchy were there as the panel answering questions and the event went very well and was deemed a success. The festive board was impressive with complimentary speeches about the organising and the host lodge. It came to a conclusion with the usual ‘toast to the visitors’ which was given by the principal organiser. He with the aid of a manikin dummy did a 5 minute piece about arab jihad followed by a dig at the pomposity of Grand Officers. It was edgy, humorous and in the best tradition of cynicism and satire.
The gods were not impressed and the brother concerned narrowly escaped being expelled from the Craft. He has since been sidelined, ignored, unwelcome and like the little boy is now, persona non grata.
NO RIGHT TURN
The day the army were encountered at the Bassingbourne Barracks Open Day event was amusing and almost beyond belief. Many school coaches and buses were expected and those Westbound were to pass the gate and travel a further 8 miles to a roundabout so they could return Eastbound and thereby turn left into the grounds. But there had been an accident and the traffic was controlled down to one alternate lane passing the gate. Hence the Westbound was passing the gate on the right-hand side of the carriageway. So the bus turned right IN.
It was stopped and the Major-General (or some such gink) shouting at the top of his voice that the rules had not been obeyed and the police would have to be involved. He was told that no response would be made until he stopped shouting and composed himself as he was not dealing with one of his squaddies. And ‘where’ were the police, as this was on the public highway and he had no authority over road control outside his barracks. This made him more hyper and more shouting followed. It eventually settled down and later in the day the one and only local bobby was directed to the driver. He clearly didn’t know what to do and satisfied himself that he had been seen to do something to plicate the Army Officer. One wonders what world skills these Army types have in dealing with situations abroad in hotspots. Bullshit and Shouting seem to be their only tools. It’s a good job they have guns !
THE PROTOCOL WINDMILL
The contemporaneous sad sad account of a resignation of a brother from a Lodge:
Brother - I am sorry you feel the need to resign - I will give notice of your resignation at the November meeting - May I wish you well in the future and hope you can find solace in another Lodge.
You comment about sending future summons becomes eroneous as hereafter - given your resignation - you will no longer be a member - but leaving as paid-up and in good standing.
With my personal best wishes - Paul
11/11/08 [To Lodge Officers]
Guys - sorry to be so tiresome but having called his bluff he is now retracting [slightly] - he now says that as he has paid his current dues he wants his resignation to take effect from Sept 09 - he wondered why I didn't understand this in a reply email - obviously my crystal ball was not receiving
SO - he is 'resigned in waiting' - I have made it clear to him that he is welcome to reconsider but if he does so it must be before the Sept 09 meeting as the Lodge's year end at 30th Sept - Thereafter either the resignation stands or he pays for 09/10
17/11/08[Lodge SummonsItem]
AOB: The Secretary reported that a brother [RM] had now resigned and this would take effect from September 2009
15/03/09 [To DepProvGM – West Kent]
Can you advise on a potentially 'tricky' situation I can foresee happening in Vale of Beck [the Lodge by-Laws do not cover it]
We had difficulty with a member who was holding the joint positions of DC and Charity Steward - He got very discontented and eventually decided not to turn up at meetings and the LoI Festival [where he was Dep Preceptor] - Whatever we did could not appease him although many tried - It became quite problematic with his claiming he wasn't receiving summons and the like. In actuality I think he was suffering a minor nervous breakdown having lost his mother and his sister suffering from cancer - with this in mind he was given a considerable length of rope - It all came to an end with him asking to go on the country list and [after another blow-up] resigning shortly thereafter by email communication - and that was an end to it. But there was a quirk - He claimed [quite erroneously] through a 3rd party that he again had not received a summons and as he 'had paid his dues' he was in fact still a member until the end of the following year [Sept 09] and was entitled to receive summons' - I still send him summons' and recorded his resignation in minutes - I then submitted a WK90 to the Province
Now you can guess what's coming - He seems to have mellowed and is in contact with a couple of the brethren [I also think still does some charity work for the Prov under the Prov G Ch Stwd] and he is making noises about returning to the fold - how do we stand ?
I note from Rule 183 BoC a resignation can be withdrawn within 21 days but that obviously does not apply - but there is a suggestion therein whereby a member can "...resign...at a later date specified by him" - In fact I don't have written request for such - It was only by word of mouth
I have inadvertently found myself in a bit of a muddle with this one - of course he may not ask to come back - and if he does I suspect there will be more 'unhappiness' to come - But I suppose we are all Masons and need to look after each other - Lastly how will I stand with the WK90 - do I just re-submit another with explanatory notes ?
16/03/09 [from DepProvGM]
As I understand it, when someone resigns they usually say in the letter from what date i.e with immediate effect or at the end of the current financial year. If nothing is said that I would assume the resignation would be with immediate effect. In those circumstances and once you have recorded his resignation and communicated the same to the Province and Grand Lodge the resignation cannot be rescinded. An application to rejoin should be made and the brother would then take ranking in the Lodge from the new date. All the requirements of the BoC must be taken. However, it may be that the Lodge does not charge any fees for rejoining, but subscriptions must be paid.
I would suggest you make sure that the person concerned does want to rejoin and then check with the Prov. office to make ensure you are dealing with the application correctly.
21/08/09
[to Asst GS West Kent]
Now - I am in a bit of difficulty [likely] - I think I submitted with the annual returns last November a WK90 for [RM] stating he had resigned - can you check this for me - and remind me of the reason I listed - I am dealing with a difficult situation with this brother that involves [I believe] some mental instability - and as such I don't think he intended to resign albeit he was having some issues - as it unfolds over the next few weeks can I 'bend your ear' as to how to untangle this should it be necessary [is it possible to retract the WK90 if I admit to being in error]
24/08/09 [Reply]
Further to your email below, please refer to the attachment to this email for a copy of the back page of the WK90 you refer to - Further feel free to contact me with regard to any advice you need - If you wish to retract the resignation you will have to take this up with Grand Lodge as there is nothing I can do about it from this end
25/08/09 [To Asst GS UGLE]
I need some guidance on procedure regarding a brother who 'resigned' but likely 'in error' - can I explain.
Last year we had a Brother in The Vale of Beck No 6283 who was very active but became disillusioned - I suspect this was exacerbated by the death of his Mother and illness of his Sister - after much heart searching and offers of help the situation deteriorated and he first went on the non-dining list and then resigned - both items reported to the Lodge and minuted [15/9/08 and 17/11/08 respectively] - He was fully paid up to the end of the Lodge's financial year [30th Sept 09] and when he didn't receive a summons for the January 09 meeting made the point that being paid up he was entitled to do so - Therefore I kept him on the mailing list and he will receive summons etc up to and including the September meeting this year - I sought a view from the Dep PGM of West Kent who thought when a member resigned it took effect from the date of notification and not some time in the future [unless specifically stated] - However to keep the peace he has been in receipt of lodge mailings - To further complicate this matter I accepted the 'resignation' via email which has subsequently been ruled inadmissible at 1/4 comms 10th June 09 [unless followed by a hard copy with a proper signature] which it was not.
Now I find myself in a delicate situation - the Brother via another member has shown a desire to return and is 'distressed' that he is no longer a member of the Lodge - I have a personal view that this is related to a mental breakdown and signs of mental instability were evident throughout the course of events - I am now told he is a 'different' character and his old bright self again probably due to medication - To date I have made it known that He needs to communicate with me and spell out his wishes and if that includes a request to retract his resignation I would see if that was possible and what procedures would need to be followed - West Kent have a system for notification of changes via a form WK90 - this was completed and included with the annual returns last November/December - Thereafter I believe it finds its way to UGLE - West Kent tell me that any issues I have with changes or retractions will need to be dealt with by yourselves.
So I guess I am asking how to proceed with this matter should [as I anticipate] it come to the fore over the next few weeks - I would appreciate your advice
25/08/09 [Reply]
There’s an interesting question! The DepProvGM’s interpretation of Rule 183 is quite right, as you will see from the attached excerpt from my new book. A ruling by the Board of General Purposes, even when converted into an edict of the Grand Lodge, is not quite like a change to the Rules in the Book of Constitutions. The latter clearly cannot take effect until it has been passed in accordance with Rule 40 (unless it is expressed to be retrospective in its effect); the former is declaratory of the interpretation to be put on the Rule(s) in question, and is therefore potentially retrospective in its effect. Suppose that it had been your question about Vale of Beck that had brought forth the Board’s ruling; in that event you would be relying on the e-mail point – which far from complicating matters has actually here saved the situation. While this sort of case was not quite what the Board had in mind when it produced the paragraphs for its Report, it does afford another ground to justify the view that the Board took.
You should, nonetheless, pursue the matter through the ProvGSec, and I am therefore copying this reply to Stephen Chappell. (I hope, too, that, as a matter of common sense, Lodges are not going to start jobbing backwards on the strength of the Board’s Report and unpicking resignations that have up till now been regarded on both sides as effective – any more than they have hitherto done with those where the communication has been to the Treasurer rather than to the Secretary.)
25/08/09 [Copy to DepProvGM]
I am copying you in on this correspondence with the Asst Grand Secretary as a matter of politeness as I mentioned you in the pre-amble .
It now seems our Prov G Sec will get involved and I guess it will have to run on a bit - But [by happenstance] I seem to have a way around this 'retraction' [of a resignation] should I need one - Well that's how I read His response - all I need now is for the Brother to make up his mind. Let me know what you think.
28/08/08 [Response]
I have tried to reply to your e-mail in the normal way but something is going wrong and you have probably received two replies without anything being said by me. However, having said that I am quite surprised at the content of the email and that you wrote direct to the Asst Grand Secretary about the brother's resignation.
When you sought my view on Rule 183 I thought this was private between you and me and that you would make the correct enquiries through the proper channels. I had no idea you were contemplating going direct to THE Asst Grand Secretary and this was certainly not indicated by you when you raised the query. By going direct to Him you have left me in a very embarrassing position as he is fully aware that I know the rules governing contact with GL and the avenues of communication which must be adhered to.
As a secretary in West Kent I'm sure you are fully aware that NO DIRECT CONTACT should be made with Grand Lodge and that any queries you may have on the running of a Lodge MUST be made through the Provincial Grand Secretary. If contact with GL is necessary then this will be done by the Provincial Grand Secretary.
I trust the correct procedure will be adopted in future.
26/08/09 [Reply]
I had no intention of putting you in an embarrassing position and would not wish to do so - The reference to you in the Redman communication was merely to show that I had previously sought a view on the matter of resignations
However there is a mis-communication here - I have raised the matter with the Provincial Office [I will forward you the email] - Initially to check that they had received the WK90 and what procedure was needed if a retraction was needed - I quote form the response
"If you wish to retract the resignation you will have to take this up with Grand Lodge as there is nothing I can do about it from this end"
I hope this clarifies the matters but nonetheless would offer my apology if any embarrassment has been caused
30/08/09 [To Asst GS West Kent]
Thank you for your guidance - I emailed the Asst Grand Sec and received a somewhat circuitous response but I think saying that the resignation should not stand as it was submitted by email and should have been followed up by a written and signed communication [which it was not] as per the ruling of the Board of GP on 10th June 09 which is deemed retrospective – He has copied the Prov GS in on this and I am not sure if I await a reply from him to clarify the retraction procedure - I assume I send in.
another WK90 stating the resignation as 'in error' - If this is so [and the Brother involved confirms his intentions] I would need to do this by the end of Sept when the financial year of the Lodge ends as it will impact on the annual returns
Lastly will you re-assure the Dep ProvGM that I had sought your advice on this matter and you directed me towards UGLE if a retraction was needed - He regrettably got the idea that I had written to GL without authority - I had many months ago sought his interpretation on Rule 183 and specifically 'when' a resignation became operative - His guidance was obviously correct but he stated I should contact you if it needed to be pursued - which I did
04/09/09 [Final Response from Asst Prov GS]
What a "journey" you have had recently email wise!
Not to labour the point, but theoretically you should not make direct contact with GL, but it makes no sense to involve a third party such as Province when you wish to obtain specific advice on how to obtain a resignation retraction or some similar matter as the facts generally get "twisted", however if contact is to be made it should only be made to Registration and then only by phone on 020 7831 9811 and then of course only after first consulting Province and being advised to do so, as you rightly did on this occasion. It only fell over when you contacted the Assistant Grand Secretary and not Registration.
!!Oh Dear Smacked Hand!!
[but it would be interesting to see where this appears in the Secretary’s Handbook]
Anyhow back to the matter in hand - Please let me know if Bro R M
definitely does not wish to resign and if so I will sort it out
04/09/09 [Acknowledgement]
Thank's - I await communication from the miscreant Brother soonest - Protocol - Who'd have it !
04/09/09 [Appeasement to DepProvGM]
Dear Bro DepPGM
The 'resignation retraction' matter now seems to be behind us and the Prov Asst GS has agreed to deal with the matter when it comes to the fore - protocol and authorisations duly noted
05/09/09 [Response]
PS, I understand you are still worrying about my e-mail to you regarding going straight to GL. Please don't worry - I was making a point which is now finished and done by. I do not hold any grudges and everything is now forgotten. [from DepPGM]
And so it has transpired ….almost another trip to the Tower for me….with nothing but bread and water and a copy of the BoC for succour !!!
It is hard to believe that the needs of a Brother can be superseded by Protocol but this windmill is apparently not for tilting.
Paul Gardner [Secretary under duress 6283] – Sept 2009
PostScript - The Brother in question was ‘allowed’ to continue his membership to the lodge following email communication from him and a vote at the regular meeting of the Lodge on 21st September 2009. The Brother was not present. By March 2010 the Brother still had not shown his face !
BRIDLEWAY No 35 – FINAL – WENTWORTH DRIVE
WELL ! The end has arrived and the Bridleway has been re-routed – success !- and it has only taken from August 2006 [TWO YEARS]. The offending extant bridleway has been running through the front gardens of 12 houses since 1975 even though a new bridleway was established on the opposite side of the road some years ago – the original remained having never legally been ‘stopped-up’.
I would advise that you keep the relevant paperwork regarding this matter in a safe place or better with the deeds of your property. I have no doubt you will need it when you come to sell.
The blight [with its financial consequences on property values] has been lifted. After 30 years. Anomaly of the highest order.
I thank you for your support and I trust you feel the exercise has been worth the effort. For my part it was something I bumped into accidentally. And it, albeit only an anomaly, needed correcting. After all ‘we’ pay for these Councils and for my part I see no reason why the officers they employ should have an easy life. They are public servants !
THE WENTWORTH DRIVE RAT-RUN
You will see from the copy email that following the recent successful campaign to get Bridleway No35 stopped-up and moved to the north side of Wentworth Drive I have picked up on concerns about the amount of heavy lorries using Wentworth Drive as a rat-run.
There are no politics involved in this other than the Lib-Dems currently holding the councillor seats for the Putnoe Ward on the Borough Council. Therefore the focus for this campaign needs to be them.
Since the email they have made contact and asked if the residents will sign a petition. I have offered to coordinate the responses for the immediate part of Wentworth Drive as shown in the header. To this end I will call at each house and ‘ask’ if you wish to sign the petition. The choice is yours. It is completely voluntary. I will call over the period of: 14th – 21st September [probably in the evenings]
This petition is to be the first step in trying to rectify this matter and I assume a campaign letter will follow, or something more sophisticated than a petition. I trust we will be guided by the Councillors.
LORRY BAN – 7.5 TONNE WEIGHT LIMIT NEEDED
The issues in this matter as I see them are: - SAFETY - SAFETY – SAFETY.
However you wrap it up the safety issues are paramount. Be it the School/Speed of traffic/Vehicle Parking/Noise/Foundation shake/Cycle lanes/Crossing points/Pedestrians etc etc etc.
I will keep you informed of any responses or progress that is made.
Paul Gardner [No 39 Wentworth Drive] – 10/9/07
[Nil progress by March 2010 although Lib-Dems now hold unitary power]
REDUNDANCY
Picking the lowest hanging fruit; as its call in management jargoneese. Pernicious it is and for whatever reason it happens, and there are many, the effect on the individual can be devastating. In this case it was a matter saving management costs and brought to an end a 30 year career in the public sector. There can never be an amicable parting of the ways under the circumstances of redundancy but certainly when contractual matters become the root cause of dispute and in this case a legal dimension of interpreting contract requirements the air is clearly soured. Initially the anger prompts a fight, to the bitter end, but when dirty tricks come into ply and the whole issue begins to wear the individual down, against the real question of loss of confidence and challenging the ability to be able to start a new career, or even get another job, the results can be telling. All this is set against the background of trying to keep busy and pushing to apply for new positions in the vain hope that there might be one and age wont be the downfall. It is amazing how long days can become when you do not have the structure of a job to go to and what is more amazing is that the idea of being at home and getting all those odd jobs finished, itself becomes a bit of a downward pull.
However, the fight for compensation was on and the fight had to be won. But as reasonable as the case was, there was always the reality of fighting a large organisation and, eventually, the cost of the whole action would probably be the deciding factor. To weigh against this the whole situation of worry, bordering on depression, with the lack of sleep and a non existent appetite bringing on relentless weight loss. Reassessment had to be made and at this point, several months on and without any payments, health cracks and the end is accepted, scampering away to lick wounds.
The bit that gnawed was the fact that with the nine months pay it was only six weeks away from the 50th birthday and the opportunity to claim a pension, albeit a reduced one. The management wouldn’t even listen and parting on fractious terms the outcome. Public service sector was a no-no as the publicity from the case would scar potential chances for life but with resolve the world was to be the oyster. The only problem being confidence, it was shot to pieces and the painful process of unemployment, sorry, ‘job-seeker’ allowance and red tape was to make matter worse. However, they try, and they do, within their limits, the officialdom of the Government agencies never ceases to depress the will and drag the individual down further. Fortunately that ended in the six months allowance period and shortly after a job was found in the transport industry, with a group of independent schools. All that was needed was to prove the ability to do the job, not only to the new employer, but to the individual. And proof came about, and two years on the job came to an end as it was really only on a project basis. The search now reconvenes but with a different outlook, as partly retired, and undertaking part-time work. Happiness may await in the world of self-employed.
But the issue remained the shock of losing the job and the effects it has, no doubt in common with everyone, on the mind and self esteem. This stays with the individual for ever and frequent recall of the horrendous situation, and fight, gone through. The ray of light is that, at the age of 50+ the option maybe to be retired or semi-retired and, finances allowing, consider working at what work interests the individual. This is a glorious idea but in reality may not be achievable as the work out there in the real world, may not be all that accommodating and, first step, you actually have to find it. What, of course, went with the loss of a permanent position was the stability of income which now has to be made up on a less reliable basis. But, the challenge is on, for those who can achieve it. There is a totally new mind set which says, get out there and “duck and dive” and earn a living in a piecemeal fashion. Sure, it takes organising and the first thing needed is to demonstrate is reliability but once established links are sourced with one or two employers or companies the world is truly an oyster. And what they say about oysters, after one or two they lead to better things and that is the case, and can be the case for all those with the initiative and willpower to press on. The secret is clearly to rebuild the confidence levels and avoid looking backwards at what might have been. It is a truism to say that there is no future in looking backwards and once the new mindset has been achieved the future can only be rosy. Everyone has but one chance to live on this world, for what there is left of it, is not to be a rehearsal. So get out there and take risks and be Quixotic !
THE CRIME & PUNISHMENT WHAMMY
Each sentence handed down by a court has a ‘tariff’ according to its seriousness. For example minor offences against the Theft Act are usually dealt with by fine and carry 5 years. This means the conviction is ‘spent’ after this time period.
However, there is an inequity that means this is now prolonged to ‘life’. This issue revolves around the Police National Computer [PNC] and the big brother State that retains details on most aspects of the individual, regardless of the Human Rights Act. The Association of Chief Police Offices arbitrarily decided that the PNC should retain details for 10 years. Then this was upped to 12 years. At the 12th anniversary such details would be eligible for ‘stepping-down’ [erasure].
The whammy comes into play when an individual with a previous ‘spent’ conviction applies for employment which needs a Criminal Records Bureau check [CRB]. These checks show up the conviction within a twelve year period, even though it is spent.
Now for the double whammy! In October 2009 a judgment by the Court of Appeal in London supported retention of convictions for policing purposes [which includes CRB disclosure] and the stepping down process therefore was no longer applicable. So what does this mean in reality? It means records will be held on the PNC and made available to for disclosure to other parties until the individuals 100th birth date.
Clearly a matter for the Office of Data Protection [ICO]. Everyone is now a ‘lifer’.
IN YOUR PRIME
What does ‘in your prime’ mean for a man. Is it a forerunner to the mid-life crisis ? One thing is evident, it is not an age thing, as this clearly happens to different men at different times. It is tempting to speculate that it is that realisation that about half the time on this mortal coil has elapsed. Add to this ‘I haven’t done anything with my life’ and ‘if I don’t do something now, I never will’ syndrome and you have all the makings of a primetime mid-life crisis. This will play out in different ways depending on whether the individual actually does something about it, and what. For most nothing is done because it is easier to do nothing and let life take its toll. This aspect is usually further exacerbated by the realisation one day that sight is going and its time for specs, even if only for reading. Yes, the run up to old age had begun; so get ‘tilting’.
DISPENSATION
It is likely the predominant use of ‘dispensations’ is in Freemasonry. Their Book of Constitution (BoC), running to 280 rules is full of them. Added to is the Guidance for Members book with even more can and can’t do’s. It seems if you need to blow the nose at a meeting, a dispensation is needed. The best example of utter daftness was the guidance that due consideration had been given as to whether Secretaries could use ball point pens ! The advent of word processing really brought on the pains.
In 2000 a Brother was about to go in the Chair of a London lodge when it was realised he was the reigning the Master of another. This is not permitted, unless by dispensation and that takes up to four weeks to get. Being the actual day a major problem was evident. However, it was Grand Lodge Quarterly Communications day and Freemasons Hall was buzzing. An arm was chanced and the bastion of bureaucracy that underpins the United Grand Lodge of England was approach via their general enquiries office on the lower floor of the building. The situation was explained and a kindly lady said “that will be £32 please”. A cheque was quickly handed over and she disappeared for some ten minutes, returning with a piece of paper; the dispensation. It was almost in the Brother’s hand when a voice from behind him said “who signed that ?”. The answer being unsatisfactory the ‘inquisitor’ stated that it was, only ‘he’, who could sign such documents so it was spirited away again. Pleasingly though within another ten minutes it was returned, retyped and bearing the signature of the Assistant Grand Secretary; success. The Brother took the Chair of Kent Lodge No15 with due aplomb. The system bucked !
SMALL CLAIMS COURTS
The Judgement Debtor, has evaded all methods of settling this debt and has on most occasions eluded the Court. Please see previous correspondence.
The original debt was for £1400 [see copy Judgement] to which there has been added administrative court fees of £230 to date.
Having secured information regarding property of the Judgement Debtor I now wish to pursue an ‘Application for charging order on land or property’ [see Land Registry title enclosed]
However as almost two years have passed from the date of the original Judgement I would also like to add Interest to cover my loss in the value of the amount owed, as per leaflet EX302:
The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% a year, from 23rd December 2005 [the date of the judgement] to 23rd November 2007 [the date of this order for charging] of £215 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of 8%.
This application has an administrative fee of £55 which also needs to be added, Thus the total amount in Section 2 of the Application form is £1900. [1400 debt + 230 prior fees + 55 new fee + 215 interest]
The debtor NEVER turned up for court at any of the hearings. Two years on he is being pursued by another finance house who are also levying a charge on his property. Hopefully he will eventually fall foul of the system which clearly favours the debtor and not the claimant. Small Claims and the Law. Who’d have it !
The FINAL TILT - R.I.P.
PAUL GARDNER
1947 - 20??
ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS
MANTRA
Life is not a rehearsal...so exercise rebellion!
