nightrider Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 So I wonder how Rolf Harris is getting on in jail? be a bit of a change from his former life then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I'm sure it's a big change to his former life Malcolm but my guess is he will be for his own safety kept away from the main thrust of cons Whatever the conditions they won't be harsh enough for me.....one thing that might of hurt more would of been his daughter and wife disowning the pervert but unfortunately they seem to believe his word against many others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 knight of the road - 2014-07-09 12:45 AM So I wonder how Rolf Harris is getting on in jail? be a bit of a change from his former life then? Well, Malcolm, he's apparently in Wandsworth gaol at present, a harsh old Victorian establishment where he will be likely to receive a pretty 'warm welcome' from the 'screws', let alone the other inmates -- if he comes into contact with them. Press speculation says that he is to be transferred to Leyhill Open Prison - on the outskirts of Bristol - in a month's time. That will be a lot 'cushier' than Wandsworth. I spent three months at Leyhill in 1976 - as a trainee social worker I hasten to add! At that time it specialised in 'white collar' criminals - fraudsters etc., who were not expected to pose any danger to the public, other prisoners or prison staff, nor were they thought to be an escape risk -- they would soon be back in 'closed conditions' -- with a longer sentence and loss of remission -- if they did. The most notorious inmate that I met there was T.'Dan' Smith of the Poulson case fame. I played bowls with him! Leyhill used to have a large market gardening operation to keep the younger and fitter inmates usefully occupied -- it may still have for all that I know --and supplied veg. to HMP establishments across the south of England. When I was there, during the 'long hot summer' of '76, chaps had to be taken out of the polytunnels after 1/2 an hour or so and given iced water to drink to prevent collapse with heatstroke -- some of them did -- the temperature in those growhouses was over 100 F! Another prisoner there at that time was the famous rose grower/breeder Le Grice ( in for fiddling his taxes, I think), whose gardening expertise was often sought by the supervisors! He, like Harris, was over 80, so wasn't expected to work and could vitually do what he pleased, within the confines of the prison regime. As far as Rolf Harris is concerned, had he been younger on admission to prison, he might well have been assigned to a 'nonces' (i.e. sex offenders) wing, separate from other 'cons', in a traditional prison -- if there are still such places -- there was one at my old 'local' prison at Gloucester -- but the whole establishment has recently been closed down. So, his next three years (for that is what he is likely to serve before being released 'on licence') are likely to be spent in relative comfort, in a room of an old 'pre-fab' ex-services building, rather than a traditional prison cell. He will have acess to a well-stocked library, and, under certain restrictions, acess to a T.V. set. It's not the incarceration that is the punishment so much as the disgrace etc., separation from family and so forth. It could well be that he will die in prison,with most of the accumulated wealth from his former illustrious career being used to pay legal fees etc., not to mention a series of civil damages claims that are being stacked against him! So, 'yes' Malcolm, all in all, a bit of a change from his former life! Cheers, Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 It's a bit of a shock 8-).............. I doubt I'll ever listen "Tie me Kangaroo down sport" or play with me didgeridoo again :-S................ Well not in public :D................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candapack Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 pelmetman - 2014-07-09 10:15 AM It's a bit of a shock 8-).............. I doubt I'll ever listen "Tie me Kangaroo down sport" or play with me didgeridoo again :-S................ Well not in public :D................. It's got me wondering what he wanted a kangaroo tied down for in the first place!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 candapack - 2014-07-09 2:03 PM pelmetman - 2014-07-09 10:15 AM It's a bit of a shock 8-).............. I doubt I'll ever listen "Tie me Kangaroo down sport" or play with me didgeridoo again :-S................ Well not in public :D................. It's got me wondering what he wanted a kangaroo tied down for in the first place!! Working on a row of garage flat roofs some years ago we gave all the owners plenty of written notice to remove all vehicles and goodies inside to prevent damage to them while we repaired the roofs One owner had not taken our warning and left his jag inside ..... Bitumen ( like tar ) runs like water through any crack or hole in roof timbers and unfortunately had run all over his jags roof The reason for my story ... On opening the garage and discovering the damage one of the lads with the owner quick as a flash broke into song .... Tar me car roof down sport ... Tar me car roof down Funny at the time ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Collings Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Prisoners deemed to be at risk from other inmates of HMP used to be housed in a Vurnerable Prisoner Unit ( VPU) or whetever trendy name they have for it now. Its all part of the duty of care malarky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 George Collings - 2014-07-10 8:53 AM Prisoners deemed to be at risk from other inmates of HMP used to be housed in a Vurnerable Prisoner Unit ( VPU) or whetever trendy name they have for it now. Its all part of the duty of care malarky. That's what I meant by a 'nonces' wing', George,( I couldn't remember the 'correct' term for it after all these years!) although of course, the brief for such units included all prisoners thought to be in danger of bullying/violence from other inmates. Another category of 'vulnerable' inmates would be ex-police officers jailed for various offences. In an 'open' prison (such as Leyhill) there would appear to be no need for such separation as any bullying or violent behaviour would immediately result in the offender being removed/returned to 'closed conditions' with a subsequent removal of 'privileges' of various sorts. Are you saying that prison regimes don't have a 'duty of care', George? I see that, only today, the Howard League for criminal Reform ( and the Chief Inspector of Prisons) are both commenting on the deterioration of conditions in U.K. prisons, plus a serious increase in the number of suicides in prison last year. See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28233294 I don't think that that is 'malarky', George, -- certainly not for the inmates concerned, or their family and friends! Cheers, Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Symbol Owner - 2014-07-10 9:43 AM Are you saying that prison regimes don't have a 'duty of care', George? I see that, only today, the Howard League for criminal Reform ( and the Chief Inspector of Prisons) are both commenting on the deterioration of conditions in U.K. prisons, plus a serious increase in the number of suicides in prison last year. See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28233294 I don't think that that is 'malarky', George, -- certainly not for the inmates concerned, or their family and friends! Cheers, Colin. It appears societies duty of care now days is to the criminal and not the victim *-).............. If the poor unfortunate creatures don't like being in jail, they should not commit the crime :-|........... Alternatively just move them to an open prison and they can walk out when they like ;-).......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 "It appears societies duty of care now days is to the criminal and not the victim" - No, Dave, a 'civilised ' society owes a duty of care to both -- but -- if victims feel unable to come forward -- for whatever reason -- there ain't much that can be done in that regard, is there? "If the poor unfortunate creatures don't like being in jail, they should not commit the crime" That is so obvious -- in most cases, that it doesn't need saying -- however, for many 'gropers', etc. of the sub-Rolf Harris type, our society has only just begun to recognise them as crimes -- and increase the available punishments accordingly. "Alternatively just move them to an open prison and they can walk out when they like ." That's just a rubbish comment, Dave, I've already covered what would happen if they did. The majority of inmates who 'walk out' do so in a misguided attempt to try to sort out something which is happening on the 'outside' -- after recieving a 'Dear John' letter, for example. It seems to me that those of you who argue for harsher treatments:- a).Have little or no understanding of human nature -- they used to hang enormous numbers of petty thieves and other 'minor' offenders in Vicorian times (and earlier) but it did little to restrict the number of such crimes committed. b).Would seem to want the introduction of something like Sharia Law, yet (rightly) condemn those cultures that implement it -- particularly if they talk of introducing it to our 'civilised' state! c).Cheerfully forget that large numbers of British and American servicemen were frightfully mistreated in Japanese prisoner-of war camps and yet would seem to wish something like those conditions upon those of your fellow citizens who have strayed from the 'straight and narrow' -- seems highly illogical and punitive to me! Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Symbol Owner - 2014-07-10 10:53 AM "It appears societies duty of care now days is to the criminal and not the victim" - No, Dave, a 'civilised ' society owes a duty of care to both -- but -- if victims feel unable to come forward -- for whatever reason -- there ain't much that can be done in that regard, is there? "If the poor unfortunate creatures don't like being in jail, they should not commit the crime" That is so obvious -- in most cases, that it doesn't need saying -- however, for many 'gropers', etc. of the sub-Rolf Harris type, our society has only just begun to recognise them as crimes -- and increase the available punishments accordingly. "Alternatively just move them to an open prison and they can walk out when they like ." That's just a rubbish comment, Dave, I've already covered what would happen if they did. The majority of inmates who 'walk out' do so in a misguided attempt to try to sort out something which is happening on the 'outside' -- after recieving a 'Dear John' letter, for example. It seems to me that those of you who argue for harsher treatments:- a).Have little or no understanding of human nature -- they used to hang enormous numbers of petty thieves and other 'minor' offenders in Vicorian times (and earlier) but it did little to restrict the number of such crimes committed. b).Would seem to want the introduction of something like Sharia Law, yet (rightly) condemn those cultures that implement it -- particularly if they talk of introducing it to our 'civilised' state! c).Cheerfully forget that large numbers of British and American servicemen were frightfully mistreated in Japanese prisoner-of war camps and yet would seem to wish something like those conditions upon those of your fellow citizens who have strayed from the 'straight and narrow' -- seems highly illogical and punitive to me! Colin. This is more like the Chatterbox we all know and love :D................ But to get back to our hard done by criminals.........Have you not noticed that prison regimes have got softer by the decade............and the numbers of criminals who re offend has increased correspondingly?..........could it possibly be that they don't see prison as a reason not to offend? *-)................. it was clear from a recent fly on the wall program about prisoners................the often see themselves as the victim 8-).......... Maybe a little less tea and sympathy and a bit more boot camp would be the way to go................coupled with longer sentences ;-)..................it might not cure their ways but it'll mean a few less real victims :-|....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 pelmetman - 2014-07-10 11:54 AM But to get back to our hard done by criminals........."Have you not noticed that prison regimes have got softer by the decade". As usual Dave, you are making unsupported statements -- there is absolutely no evidence for that, in fact, the reverse is probably true -- as my quoted 'link' earlier in this thread, would have shewn -- if you had read it! "and the numbers of criminals who re offend has increased correspondingly?" NO!! I have just looked at the Home Offices' (very complicated) statistics on this subject, and, as far as I can discern, the figures go up and down, but the latest year for which they have figures (2009) shows a significant decrease. "could it possibly be that they don't see prison as a reason not to offend? it was clear from a recent fly on the wall program about prisoners................they often see themselves as the victim " Nothing new in either of those comments -- as I said earlier, even the most terrifying of punishments, e.g. death by burning in the case of female counterfeiters in the 18th.& 19th. centuries, didn't seem to deter people from attempting it -- it was the smell of burning bodies ( and the screams!) which caused the House of commons to change the sentencing practices! And, of course, we all paint ourselves as victims if given the opportunity to present ourselves that way! "Maybe a little less tea and sympathy" Where does that come from? just not true -- anyway, your above comments would show that the receivers of it don't see it that way! "and a bit more boot camp would be the way to go" NO!! again -- when used, (indicriminately) on juvenile offenders it did two things: 1.) upped the suicide rate in those institutions dramatically, and -- 2.)did nothing to reduce re-offending, in fact the rate went up for violent juvenile crime and drug-related offences for which it was prescribed! "coupled with longer sentences" Now, here I might just agree with you a bit, Dave, but 'real' sentences have become significantly shorter because of the increased 'remission' which long-term convictions are subject to -- up from 2/3rds maximum to 50%nowadays -- why? and why 'remission' at all? why isn't Harris' 5 years & 9 months just that , instead of 3 years? (for example) The best answer to that which I know, is because, in general, if you don't offer any incentive for good behaviour 'inside' the management of prisoners would become impossible ( and highly dangerous). So, with the reduction in prison staff, the longer remission and, sometimes, reduced sentences, has little to do with any theories about criminal behaviour and everything to do with keeping costs, and the prison population down, plus the administration of these 'total institutions' as somebody once described them. Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Symbol Owner - 2014-07-10 1:14 PM pelmetman - 2014-07-10 11:54 AM But to get back to our hard done by criminals........."Have you not noticed that prison regimes have got softer by the decade". As usual Dave, you are making unsupported statements -- there is absolutely no evidence for that, in fact, the reverse is probably true -- as my quoted 'link' earlier in this thread, would have shewn -- if you had read it! "and the numbers of criminals who re offend has increased correspondingly?" NO!! I have just looked at the Home Offices' (very complicated) statistics on this subject, and, as far as I can discern, the figures go up and down, but the latest year for which they have figures (2009) shows a significant decrease. "could it possibly be that they don't see prison as a reason not to offend? it was clear from a recent fly on the wall program about prisoners................they often see themselves as the victim " Nothing new in either of those comments -- as I said earlier, even the most terrifying of punishments, e.g. death by burning in the case of female counterfeiters in the 18th.& 19th. centuries, didn't seem to deter people from attempting it -- it was the smell of burning bodies ( and the screams!) which caused the House of commons to change the sentencing practices! And, of course, we all paint ourselves as victims if given the opportunity to present ourselves that way! "Maybe a little less tea and sympathy" Where does that come from? just not true -- anyway, your above comments would show that the receivers of it don't see it that way! "and a bit more boot camp would be the way to go" NO!! again -- when used, (indicriminately) on juvenile offenders it did two things: 1.) upped the suicide rate in those institutions dramatically, and -- 2.)did nothing to reduce re-offending, in fact the rate went up for violent juvenile crime and drug-related offences for which it was prescribed! "coupled with longer sentences" Now, here I might just agree with you a bit, Dave, but 'real' sentences have become significantly shorter because of the increased 'remission' which long-term convictions are subject to -- up from 2/3rds maximum to 50%nowadays -- why? and why 'remission' at all? why isn't Harris' 5 years & 9 months just that , instead of 3 years? (for example) The best answer to that which I know, is because, in general, if you don't offer any incentive for good behaviour 'inside' the management of prisoners would become impossible ( and highly dangerous). So, with the reduction in prison staff, the longer remission and, sometimes, reduced sentences, has little to do with any theories about criminal behaviour and everything to do with keeping costs, and the prison population down, plus the administration of these 'total institutions' as somebody once described them. Colin. From the Independent Colin ;-).............. Reoffending rate increases JAMIE GRIERSON Thursday 31 January 2013 The challenge faced by the Government in tackling reoffending was underlined today by figures that revealed a further rise in the number of criminals returning to crime. More than one in four criminals reoffended within a year, according to the most recent Ministry of Justice (MoJ) figures, committing 500,000 offences between them. This equates to a reoffending rate of 26.8 per cent, up from 26.3 per cent in the previous set of figures. Around 280,000 offences were committed by criminals with 11 or more previous offences, while more than 50,000 of these were committed by nearly 11,000 criminals who had previously been jailed at least 11 times. There was also a notable rise in the proportion of criminals handed prison sentences of less than 12 months who reoffend, which increased from 56.6 per cent to 57.8 per cent. The figures for the period between April 2010 and March 2011 come after Justice Secretary Chris Grayling unveiled a major shake-up of rehabilitation. Lower-risk offenders are to be supervised by private firms and charities on a payment by results basis, while prisoners serving sentences under 12 months will be forced to undertake a period of rehabilitation upon release for the first time. Mr Grayling said: "These figures underline why transforming the way we rehabilitate offenders is now a big priority for us. Reoffending rates have barely changed in a decade, and are now rising. And from your favourite paper Colin :D...... Back in court, burglar of 700 properties who sparked national outcry when he was spared jail At the age of 19 Bradley Wernham burgled 700 properties in £1m crime wave Wernham sparked a national outcry when he was spared jail for the offences Started his life of crime aged 10 and is one of Britain's most prolific burglars Judge: A prolific and successful burglar whose crimes gave him a 'buzz' Now 23, he has admitted to new burglaries and is facing further jail time By CLAIRE ELLICOTT PUBLISHED: 23:22, 9 July 2014 | UPDATED: 09:50, 10 July 2014 Bradley Wernham started his life of crime at the age of 10 A man who burgled 700 properties in a £1 million crime wave and sparked a national outcry after a judge spared him jail has been caught red-handed yet again. Bradley Wernham, who was 19 at the time the judge took pity on him, is thought to be one of the country’s most prolific burglars. A judge decided to let him off if he participated in a ‘rehabilitation’ programme, but he was caught breaking into a house just three months later and sent to jail. Now 23, and with an 18 month jail stint behind him, he has appeared in court yet again and has admitted new burglary offences for which he is facing further time behind bars. News of the judge’s leniency caused a public row over soft justice after Wernham was spared jail, given a place on a taxpayer-funded rehabilitation scheme and handed a rent-free flat and training. Just three months later, he repaid the judge who gave him a ‘second chance’ by breaking into another property. He gave some indication of his intention to reform by posting the following message on Facebook just after he was jailed: ‘Be out in 18 months or before.. Yeeh is guna ride this s**t’.’ Wernham, originally from Harlow, Essex, started his life of crime aged ten and has since been branded one of Britain’s most prolific burglars. When he originally appeared at Chelmsford Crown Court in Essex in October 2009, he admitted 17 burglaries and thefts and asked for 645 others to be taken into account. The one man crimewave already had convictions for 26 other offences and he can now add at least four crimes to his tally, bringing his current tally to 672. He targeted luxury cars, regularly breaking into properties, stealing the keys and making off with vehicles. To avoid jail, he struck a deal with police that they would provide rehabilitation and he would identify the 645 properties that he had broken into in Harlow. So Judge Christopher Ball, QC, let him walk free from court in October 2009 with a curfew and 150 hours of community service. Wernham was also moved to Chelmsford where he was provided with a flat and training. Two months later, he was caught driving without insurance but ***wasn’t charged***. The following month, he broke into a home with a BMW parked on the drive. Police were nearby as they had him under surveillance, after the number of burglaries in the area increased dramatically when he moved to the area. Wernham admitted to his latest offending and will be sentenced at Chelmsford Crown Court today He appeared in front of the same judge, but this time Judge Ball dismissed his claims as ‘palpable nonsense’ and jailed him for five years, telling a smirking Wernham: ‘You cast yourself as a victim and you’re not. Until you are a man, or man enough to appreciate that fact, there will be little hope in you changing your conduct.’ He called Wernham a ‘prolific and successful burglar to which no shop, office, garden shed, garage, school or even house is safe’, adding: ‘Committing offences gives you a buzz, gives you an adrenaline rush, and you were pitting your wits against the police.’ Appearing at court yesterday, Wernham pleaded guilty via video link from prison to burglary, aggravated vehicle taking and attempted burglary. In the latest crimes, he took car keys and laptops in a burglary in Harlow in April, caused damage to a £35,000 Mercedes in Stocking Pelham, Hertfordshire, and attempted a burglary in Buntingford, also Hertfordshire, by entering a garden with intent to steal. Wernham was remanded in custody and will be sentenced tomorrow. No doubt he'll be out again within a few months costing us a lot more than when he's locked up *-)............but its not his fault :-|.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 On re-offending: it probably depends on who you listen to! My source, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-reoffending-statistics-quarterly-statistics-july-2011-to-june-2012 This would seem to show a small decrease in re-offending in recent years -- maybe more accurate than a journalist quoting the MoJ perhaps, but the rates have fluctuated hugely over the years for no apparent reason. On Bradley Wernam: Yes, there will always be some, who, whatever you try and do, will get a kick out of offending, time and time again - all prison does is keep them out of circulation for a while, and, probably, as has often been said, prove to be a: "University of Crime" but, hey Dave, what's new? Cheers, C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Collings Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 My use of malarky and duty of care in the same sentence may have been influenced by a recent incident locally. From memory it was HMP Dartmoor. Two prisoners escaped on to the roof. It was a sunny day and the management offered to supply sunblock least they got sunburn citing DOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Fair enough George, I'd forgotten that one! That might well have been taking DOC to extremes................. Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Collings Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Ronnie Barker would have had a field day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 antony1969 - 2014-07-09 6:55 AM ...one thing that might of hurt more would of been his daughter and wife disowning the pervert but unfortunately they seem to believe his word against many others Rolf Harris CBE (awarded Commander of the Order of the British Empire by Her Unelected Majesty the Queen) has about £11 million which his wife and daughter might be looking to inherit. Did that influence their decision to stand by him ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Peter James - 2014-07-11 8:31 PM antony1969 - 2014-07-09 6:55 AM ...one thing that might of hurt more would of been his daughter and wife disowning the pervert but unfortunately they seem to believe his word against many others Rolf Harris CBE (awarded Commander of the Order of the British Empire by Her Unelected Majesty the Queen) has about £11 million which his wife and daughter might be looking to inherit. Did that influence their decision to stand by him ? Good point ..... I'm sure it could well influence em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Peter James - 2014-07-11 8:31 PM antony1969 - 2014-07-09 6:55 AM ...one thing that might of hurt more would of been his daughter and wife disowning the pervert but unfortunately they seem to believe his word against many others Rolf Harris CBE (awarded Commander of the Order of the British Empire by Her Unelected Majesty the Queen) has about £11 million which his wife and daughter might be looking to inherit. Did that influence their decision to stand by him ? Good point ..... I'm sure it could well influence em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 antony1969 - 2014-07-12 7:01 AM Peter James - 2014-07-11 8:31 PM antony1969 - 2014-07-09 6:55 AM ...one thing that might of hurt more would of been his daughter and wife disowning the pervert but unfortunately they seem to believe his word against many others Rolf Harris CBE (awarded Commander of the Order of the British Empire by Her Unelected Majesty the Queen) has about £11 million which his wife and daughter might be looking to inherit. Did that influence their decision to stand by him ? Good point ..... I'm sure it could well influence em I'd have thought it would of made his wife and daughter want to divorce him, to ensure they get their share.......... before the compo lawyers pile in ;-).................I doubt they'll be much left of the 11 million once they've finished 8-).............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 pelmetman - 2014-07-12 10:04 AM ......I doubt they'll be much left of the 11 million once (the lawyers) have finished So do I, but if the wife and daughter had got him off they would have saved it all, and presumably he would have been very grateful to them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudders Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 SKIPPY the kangaroo has made it public this week that rolf harris did in deed tie him down some forty years ago, and has not stopped banging on about it ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJay Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 George Collings - 2014-07-11 9:15 AM Ronnie Barker would have had a field day. Why would he? His son was convicted of sex crime, and disappeared. I think it finished Ronnie off, a sad fact of life PJay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Collings Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I was thinking in terms of an episode of Porridge, The old saying about the best part of having kids is making them applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.