Category: Comment

Matthew Steeples suggests that though people should have the right to protest they and the police also must exercise the responsibility of restraint – especially in the context of the rotten rabid ratbag Prince Andrew

Yesterday in Parliament Square, Westminster a protestor held up a blank sheet of paper. He got short shrift from a clearly over zealous policeman who demanded his details for potentially “offending somebody.” Of this, on Twitter, The Guardian’s recently appointed political editor Pippa Crerar observed: “Just mad.” She was clearly right.

 

Meanwhile on Edinburgh’s Royal Mile at around 2.50pm as the Queen’s funeral cortège progressed, a 22-year-old named Rory “heckled” a plain-clothed Prince Andrew as he passed and yelled out: “Prince Andrew – Andrew: You’re a sick old man.” He was pushed to the floor and then arrested by police for a breach of the peace as members of the public immediately shouted him down by responding with cheers of “God Save The King.” The rights and wrongs of this were clearly a greyer area.

 

Analysing reaction, Sky News host Niall Paterson shared: “I am feeling very uneasy about people being arrested for shouting at *Prince Andrew*” whilst trade unionist Howard Beckett described what occurred as “anti-democratic.” Former Chief Crown Prosecutor for the North West of England Nazir Afzal went further and concluded: “There are 12 million reasons why [Rory] did what he did” referencing the alleged settlement between the late Queen’s second son and the woman he allegedly never met, Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Others argued contrary points including: “Right words, wrong place” and “Arresting hecklers is grotesque.”

 

Whilst the no-longer-so-grand Duke of York – a man, after all, who has never actually been convicted of a crime in a court of law – is most definitely entitled to mourn the loss of his beloved mother, the presence anywhere of a man who paid a sum estimated as high as £12 million to Epstein-Maxwell victim Roberts Giuffre will always clearly upset many members of the public.

 

Tact and understanding is indeed required at this time and though public sentiment rightly has sometimes turned to outrage against an entitled individual whose moral compass is clearly beyond warped, it is also time for some restraint to be shown also by both the police and public also. Dignity and decency must be upheld, but that does not mean that we should ever forget that Prince Andrew opted to stay in the home of a convicted paedophile just weeks after he got out of jail in 2010.

 

Next, in the weeks to come, as our national period of mourning concludes and King Charles III’s reign truly comes into fruition, it is time for one thing; it is time for the rotten ratbag Prince Andrew to be consigned to history and sent away into permanent exile. This vile piece of toerag must never hold public office of any form ever again.

 

As the Queen’s cortège moved up the Royal Mile, a member of public shouted at Prince Andrew -‘Andrew you’re a sick old man’, as he walked next to King Charles, Prince Edward & Princess Anne, behind their mother’s hearse. Immediately people shouted ‘God Save the King’ pic.twitter.com/pJAHnjSou4

— Victoria Derbyshire (@vicderbyshire) September 12, 2022

https://twitter.com/chrismarshll/status/1569323294716829700

Spoke to the protestor who was arrested on the Royal Mile today for shouting abuse at Prince Andrew during the Queen’s procession – his name is Rory, here’s what he had to say: pic.twitter.com/8GTwnVGLF7

— Joseph Anderson (@janderson_news) September 12, 2022

There's more. Police talking to a protestor for holding up a *blank* piece of paper. Just mad. https://t.co/pJ2N3Qw1fH

— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) September 12, 2022

This is Andrew's Daughter, right? pic.twitter.com/thItwFHfTn

— Michael Walsh (@thatbloodyMikey) September 11, 2022

Responses on social media to the Westminster and Edinburgh incidents:

Matthew Steeples suggests that the crazy conspiracy claptrap that has followed in the wake of the death of Her Majesty The Queen and the ongoing nonsense that circulates online about Jeffrey Epstein is exactly that; crazy claptrap

The death of Her Majesty The Queen has shockingly been accompanied by trolls – surprisingly amongst them a Carnegie Mellon University professor named Uju Anya – making vile comments on Twitter suggesting the otherwise much loved by everyone else monarch to be head of a “genocidal empire” and someone who deserved an “excruciating” death.

 

Whilst this poison was deservedly condemned by amongst others billionaire Jeff Bezos with one word “wow,” that the footballer turned radio pundit Trevor Sinclair thought it appropriate to follow up with: “Why should black and brown mourn?” was beyond shocking. Who on earth do these people – and people with platforms also – think they are and why on earth would they use such a moment to seek to behave like David Icke, for example?

 

On Facebook it was even worse. Crackpot crazy conspiracy theorists reveled at the news and some even suggested that the “bloodsucking” Queen never actually met Liz Truss (as they believe she died months ago and also questioned the respective heights of King Charles’s mother and the new Prime Minister) at Balmoral last Tuesday. Here, at a moment when most of the world grieved a glorious and remarkable lady, the laughable became lunatics but thankfully their vile nonsense was subsequently called out for what it truly is; nothing but vile and nothing but nonsensical.

 

“We ALL know the QUEEN’S been dead for a while now… [They] are preparing/Staging for Operation London Bridge is Falling down. There are other Darker schemes inside the Death of one of the world’s most powerful Deep State royal placed systems to COLLAPSE” claimed one Facebook user on 8^th September 2022. The same QAnon conspiracy theorist user ludicrously referenced the conspiracy theorist favourite term “white hats” also unsurprisingly. Of it Politifact – which operates with the agenda “we stand up for the facts” – sensibly surmised: “We rate this claim Pants on Fire!”

 

Elsewhere last week, Lisa Hagen wrote for NPR – the independent, non-profit media organisation that aims to “create a more informed public” – about how “conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein keep flourishing” in spite of his death three years ago in 2019. “His ghost still wanders the dark halls of the Internet,” she opined before turning to theories about “Epstein-related yarn-spinning” that tie in amongst other things Donald Trump, anti-Semitism and “imagined satanic cabals.”

 

For some Epstein is still alive (highly unlikely), for others he was “suicided” (quite possible and more likely) and for others (if you believe the established narrative) this mendacious monster simply killed himself knowing his days were numbered.

 

As I have myself repeatedly said, Epstein was an evil man and it was inevitable that he met a sticky end. There is possible conspiracy in that, but that not a single person he and his mucky madam cohort Maxwell sex trafficked women to has not been brought to justice is not a conspiracy, it is, in fact, an outrage and one that still must be corrected.

 

Whilst the truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction and the handling of the sordid sagas of Epstein and Maxwell most definitely has resulted in many questioning how powerful elites can and are protected, the claptrap that has followed the end of the life of ‘the grandmother to the nation if not the world’ must be treated with the very disdain it truly deserves.

 

Long live the truth and God save the King.

 

Pictured top – The late, great Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at a cabin on her Balmoral estate in Soctland (left) and the late, anything but great Jeffrey Epstein and his wicked wastrel cohort Ghislaine Maxwell sitting on the deck at the same cabin on a separate occasion. Naturally, crackpots have all sorts of stupid theories about this pure coincidence.

 

As inept Met Police unsurprisingly shelves investigation into UK activities of croaked paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, Matthew Steeples reminds that they shockingly did same with their 1994 investigation into now convicted sex fiend Ghislaine Maxwell

In 1994, yes, you read it right, in 1994, the Metropolitan Police investigated the activities of Ghislaine Maxwell in London. To do so, they took over a bedroom in a residence opposite the South Kensington mews house where the mucky madam lived between 1989 and 1997 and for two weeks watched the comings and goings from an alleged brothel operated there.

 

Unsurprisingly, given this pension pot plunderer’s daughter’s powerful connections with amongst others the subsequent Met Police chief Dame Cressida Dick – with whom she both went to school and the same Oxford college – they did absolutely diddly squat.

 

Last night, in another connected development relating to allegations that Maxwell’s coconspirator Jeffrey Epstein abused young women in London circa 2001, MailOnline trainee reporter Eirian Jane Prosser equally unsurprisingly revealed: “The Metropolitan Police has said it will be taking no further action over allegations made against the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.”

 

In a statement shared by Prosser, the Metropolitan Police predictably excused themselves and pathetically observed:

 

“The Metropolitan Police Service has been liaising with other law enforcement agencies who led the investigation into matters related to Jeffrey Epstein. Detectives have thoroughly reviewed information provided to it and in the public domain.”

 

“In the absence of any further information we will be taking no further action. As with any other matter, should new and relevant information be brought to our attention we will assess it.”

 

Featured as a world exclusive in The Steeple Times in December 2020, we shared the story of the very lady whose house was used for the 1994 surveillance of 69 Stanhope Mews East in South Kensington, SW7 – the then London residence of none other than Ghislaine Maxwell. At that time, the businesswoman concerned told us:

 

“I was visited by officers from the Met Police in 1994 whom asked to use a bedroom in my property and to install a camera at the window to monitor the house diagonally opposite, 69 Stanhope Mews East.”

 

“I was not told at the time who the person concerned was, but I now realise it was Ghislaine Maxwell who was the owner of that house. I recall seeing very young girls coming and going from that building very often.”

 

“The officers remained for a week and then I heard no more about what happened next. All I knew was that a brothel was being operated from there and that the police wanted to close it down. They could have caught this evil woman then, but maybe her friendships with powerful people like Prince Andrew helped ensure her criminality was swept under the carpet.”

 

Again today, we join those asking: “Why was the 1994 investigation swept under the carpet?” and “why has the more recent Met Police investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s London activities gone the same way?” Who, indeed, are the nation’s most powerful police force protecting and why – in the wake of their very many recent scandals including their handling of the cases of the murders of Sarah Everard and Daniel Morgan – are they so conveniently trying to close down investigations into these clearly very, very murky matters involving very, very powerful people?

 

Pictured top – Since dead sex fiend Jeffrey Epstein and his since incarcerated co-collaborator sex fiend Ghislaine Maxwell (left), one-time alleged brothel 69 Stanhope Mews East (centre) and Maxwell’s former schoolmate and now former Met Police chief Dame Cressida Dick (right).

 

As it is announced that ITV are to air a documentary on the Aussie abuser Rolf Harris titled ‘Hiding in Plain Sight,’ Matthew Steeples reminds readers of how evil this nonagenarian nonce truly is

Rightly stripped of honours including an AO and a CBE in 2015, Rolf Harris rightly remains someone who’ll only be remembered as an evil sexual abuser of underage girls.

 

Now 92, sadly still alive and known for pestering children in school playgrounds in Maidenhead, Berkshire, this former ‘entertainer’ turned convicted sex predator is to be the subject of a forthcoming ITV documentary titled Hiding In Plain Sight.

 

Featuring “interviews with his victims, the police who investigated him and colleagues who worked alongside him” according to WalesOnline and made by a TV production company named Optomen, the programme will supposedly “question whether [Harris’s] crimes would have been uncovered had it not been for the Jimmy Savile scandal.” It will document the “public persona of a [supposedly] non-threatening eccentric who was devoted to his wife while revealing that actually, within the industry, Harris was increasingly known as a creep”

 

Of the programme, Kate Teckman, commissioner and head of development for factual entertainment at ITV remarked:

 

“There are few stories as shocking as Rolf Harris. These films give a voice to Harris’s accusers and will reveal just how the seemingly wholesome ‘national treasure’ was able to molest and abuse his victims in plain sight.”

 

Given this rotten ratbag’s clear lack of remorse for what he did to his innocent victims, we hope that – unhidden and in plain sight – this documentary will chuck the book at this evil piece of toerag.

 

Pictured top – Father-of-an-unknown-quantity-of-children Prime Minister Boris Johnson giggling alongside abuser-of-an-unknown-quantity-of-children Rolf Harris during a television appearance.

 

Will new @ITV @optomen documentary 'Hiding In Plain Sight' about the audacious Aussie abuser Rolf Harris reveal anything new about this evil sex offender and the famous people he associated with? #RolfHarris #abuse #sexualabuse #MaxClifford #StuartHall #CillaBlack #CliffRichard

— Matthew Steeples (@M_Steeples) August 5, 2022

‘Gutter Girls’ by Rolf Harris

In 2015, this audacious Australian abuser penned a sordid ‘song’ in which he described his multiple victims as “slimy little woodworms.” It should have been banned on grounds of obscenity and was sickly titled Gutter Girls.

 

It outrageously went as follows:

 

Climb up out of the woodwork babe

From forty years ago,

The climate’s great in Britain now

For making loads of dough

You’ve festered down there long enough,

Time’s right to grab your chance

Clap eyes on a rich celebrity

And make the bastard dance

 

Chorus

Make him squirm, slimy little woodworm

Make him squirm, squirm, squirm

Sink your claws right in to the hilt, don’t let him go

 

(Group) NO! NO!

 

Make him burn, burn, burn

Slimy little woodworm, make him burn

Get your fifty-years-old hooks into his dough

 

(Group) GO BABY GO

 

That old bandwagon you crawled out of

(rotten to the core)

Conceals a host of foul accusers,

Twenty maybe more

My guess is they’ll slide after you

All following your stench,

Perhaps you believe you’re pretty still

Some perfumed sultry wench

 

Chorus

“Make him squirm”,

I can hear you singing

“Make him squirm, squirm, squirm:

Just imagine all of the money waiting there”

 

(Group) OH YEAH!

Make him burn, burn, burn

Come and join the feeding frenzy girls,

Don’t miss out, come on and join me for your share

 

(Group) PUT IT THERE!

 

Matthew Steeples asks: “Is brazen Simon Cowell wannabe Sir Frederick Barclay really broke or is he pulling the other one in an attempt not to pay his ex-wife Hiroko?”

Sir Frederick Hugh Barclay (born along with his late twin brother Sir David Rowat Barclay on 27^th October 1934) in Hammersmith, London turned up at the Royal Courts of Justice yesterday sporting a pair of radiant red pants that were higher up his waist than anything even Simon Cowell would dare.

 

Aside from being mocked on Twitter for his unmitigated “fashion disaster” as he headed for yet another telling off from judge Sir Jonathan Cohen over his not having paid a £100 million ($121 million, €119 million or درهم446 million) settlement to his ex-wife Lady Hiroko, the 87-year-old got told that was in contempt of court and now faces potentially being jailed at a further hearing on the 11^th August.

 

Known as “notoriously private” and until 2019 very close to his twin, Sir Frederick claims he is broke whilst his ex-wife, Lady Barclay, previously told the court:

 

“Frederick says he cannot pay. He says he has no money. I do not believe him. It is not that he cannot pay, but that he will not pay… He’s not allowed to have a bank account because he’s not paying tax in the UK.”

 

Going further the Japanese born 79-year-old claimed via her lawyers that her ex-husband was trying “to string things out” by hiding “behind a web of complex structures” as part of an attempt “to get out of paying the settlement before either she or Frederick dies.”

 

Complicating matters further, Lady Hiroko – whom the judge highlighted has come out of “a very long marriage” with “next to nothing” thus far – accuses her very own daughter, Amanda, of “conspiring [to] stop her receiving any money” and threatening her “with a move to social housing.” Of her child, Lady Hiroko went as far to ludicrously remark: “She was telling me you have to go and live in a council flat… You don’t have any money, so please stop this divorce procedure.”

 

Analysing the clearly very acromonious situation that is rather akin to the battle between the late dead-by-impaling-on-railings tycoon Scott Young and his off-her-not-so-merry rocker ex-wife, Sir Jonathan concluded:

 

“The wife’s suspicions are understandable. The husband totally excluded his wife from any knowledge, let alone discussion of, financial affairs and kept her in the dark… [This is a] put-up sham designed by the husband to ensure she is kept out of her money.”

 

“It is consistent with his approach to minimise tax and keep control himself. For only a short period of time in their very long marriage did the wife have a hold on property assets of any sort, other than her own bank account containing modest savings.”

 

Former co-owner of The Ritz hotel and the Telegraph Media Group Sir Frederick responded that he is “highly motivated to comply with the orders because of his abject fear of prison.” Though concluded: “I’ve never had as much stress as this divorce since I was a boy,” it is clear that Mr Justice Cohen is quite right – here’s a case of the ultimate audacity in asset hiding.

 

Pictured top – Clearly modelling himself on Simon Cowell (right), Sir Frederick Barclay (left) turned up at court yesterday in a velvet jacket and red pants that nearly hit his ‘man boobs’ to face his ex-wife Hiroko (centre). Where did the supposedly broke tycoon think he was going? A camped-up fancy dress party with Sir Noël Coward?

 

Amazing that supposedly penniless Sir Fred Barclay managed to avoid jail yesterday. Even more amazing was that he tries to outdo Simon Cowell in the trousers-upto-his-man-boobs department. He may be sporting the look in the clink in 2 weeks, however. #FredBarclay #SimonCowell pic.twitter.com/5XvRNMFfsa

— Matthew Steeples (@M_Steeples) July 29, 2022

Matthew Steeples asks: Is British plc chairman Dickie Bingham having a laugh in offering a reward of £1 million reward for a crocodile skin briefcase he left on a tram that contained amongst other things a letter from the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe?

At CrimeCon London 2021, I met a perfectly affable gentleman named Mark Austin. He told me that he had been made the next of kin of the Bacardi rum loving serial killer Dennis Nilsen in 2009. Furthermore, on his death in 2018, he inherited his belongings and the copyright of his rambling 3.5 million word autobiography, collectively titled Epic Nobody. He told me had several storage units full from this inheritance whilst his wife added something to the effect: “He could be utterly charming.”

 

At CrimeCon London 2022, I met a delightful lady from Kensington named Lindsay Siviter. She told me that amongst the true crime memorabilia in her 5,000 item Siviter True Crime Library are Lady Lucan’s tiny corset and the last cheque book of her husband Lord Lucan, undoubtedly the most famous British missing person ever.

 

This week, providing proof that true crime memorabilia collectors truly do value their possession of items from the most notorious criminals, a “publicity shy” 72-year-old former criminologist named Dickie Bingham has offered a reward of £1 million ($1.19 million, €1.18 million or درهم4.39 million) for a black crocodile-skin briefcase containing amongst other things a letter from the evil-to-his-core serial killing monster Peter Sutcliffe.

 

Mr Bingham, originally from Writtle, Essex and the chairman of British plc – which describes itself as “one of Scotland’s oldest companies” and which claims to be involved in artificial intelligence, extended reality, distributed ledger technology, quantum technology and solar-powered engineering – supposedly lost his case on Monday after a breakfast meeting at the University of Edinburgh whilst travelling on a tram. One can only wonder if he’d been on the whisky.

 

The businessman now claims that the case also contains documents that could bring “vast amounts of wealth to Scotland” and of it, he bizarrely told the Mirror:

 

“This is potentially Nobel Prize-winning documentation. It basically shows how the universe works – we think we may have cracked it. It was lost by my own stupidity.”

 

“The briefcase just looks like one a barrister or advocate will use but the contents is priceless.”

 

“It is a theory of everything that covers the sub-atomic world.”

 

“That is why it is crucially important – £1 million sounds a lot but it is petty cash compared to the value of what this could be, it is crucial to the Scottish economy.”

 

“I’m a criminologist and worked with Peter Sutcliffe, and that’s why there’s a letter from him, there are also some diaries which have sentimental value.”

 

“It is the most expensive tram ride I will ever take… It’s like a James Bond film.”

 

Now, come on ‘Nicola Sturgeon-fish,’ get your Jimmy Krankie-like arse into gear and get it found! Nicola: Your desperate to be independent country clearly needs Mr Bingham’s wealth!

 

As mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell’s judgment day arrives, it is time now for her co-collaborators to be brought to justice suggests Matthew Steeples

Judgment day for Ghislaine Maxwell has finally and very deservedly arrived. In a New York courtroom at 11am local time, Judge Alison J. Nathan will hammer down sentence on this decidedly deviant daughter of a pension pot plunderer and likely send her off to a place where she’ll finish her rotten days.

Having encouraged her lawyers to use the word “victim” only four times (and four times to describe herself) in their 77-page submission in which she requested just 4 years as opposed to the 55 years sought by prosecutors, this arrogant to her core mucky madam will finally be forced to face up to reality.

Though her siblings – who now face further shame through the exposure of their links to their having used dodgy La Hogue and Panamanian trusts to likely hide assets to which they were never even entitled – continue to bleat about her conditions, the fact that croaked paedophile Jefffey Epstein’s one-time lover has been shown as a liar is evident of the fact that she deserves a prison term in the upper limit of the guidelines suggested.

Miss Maxwell participated in the forging of photographs whilst on the run and used fake names also, she lied about her assets and wealth when arrested and didn’t even bother to tell her so-called beloved brothers and sisters about her 2016 marriage to Scott Borgerson. She lied also when claiming to be suffering from malnutrition – she weighed 146 pounds when first incarcerated, she weighs 144.5 pounds now – and she lied in suggesting her hair had fallen out.

Today represents a chance for victims to have their voices heard and today, though the grubby groper will most definitely appeal, should be the last time that Ghislaine Maxwell is ever heard. This evil piece of toerag should but won’t realise that she’s done the crime; it is now time for her to do the time and it is now time for her co-collaborators to be brought in.

Is describing the likes of bungling billionaires like Bernie Ecclestone and Rupert Murdoch as ‘coffin dodgers’ or ‘codgers’ acceptable? Matthew Steeples says MOST DEFINITELY YES

Titty feeding twerp Tamara Ecclestone once charged at me as I sat minding my own business at the bar of a Pavilion Road, Chelsea restaurant enjoying a glass of vino. This modern-day Bet Lynch lookalike, clad in some kind of especially louche leopard skin number, screamed like a banshee and demanded: “Why do you call my dad a ‘coffin dodger’?”

 

Clearly surprised at this awkward ambush by a birdbrained bimbo, I simply responded: “Because that’s just what he is” and of this most unpleasant encouter I was reminded in recent days when somebody told me off on Twitter for using the very same description of the soon to be divorced for a fourth time old ‘codger’ Rupert Murdoch.

 

Said to be an alternative way of describing an “elderly person” or “crinkly” and sometimes abbreviated to ‘codger,’ this is a somewhat derogatory description that is representative of someone “good at avoiding death” but also is the name of an alcoholic beverage that is “sometimes drunk as a hangover cure.”

 

With even a beer named in its honour also, here is a phrase that should be used more widely and today we invite readers to suggest the names of other famous antique beings who quite frankly live on forever in the hope of simply annoying the rest of the bloody planet for as long as they possibly can.

 

Pictured top – Ultimate “coffin dodgers” Putin loving Bernie Ecclestone and maniacal media mogul Rupert Murdoch; here is a pair of very rich, very miserable, very tempestuous men who think they can do and say whatever they want. The vast majority of the planet most definitely won’t miss this pair of rotten toerags when they thankfully pass.

 

Is the description "coffin dodger" (sometimes abbreviated to "codger") offensive to you? For example describing beings such as Bernie Ecclestone and Rupert Murdoch.

— Matthew Steeples (@M_Steeples) June 24, 2022

Tamara Ecclestone once confronted me in a restaurant screaming: "Why do you keep calling my father a coffin dodger?" My curt answer: "Because he is" sent this mad cow even more apoplectic.

— Matthew Steeples (@M_Steeples) June 23, 2022

Matthew Steeples enthuses about telling online trolls supporting Ghislaine Maxwell and the Duchess of Sussex to “bog off” given their intense dislike for such

This week, aside from bizarrely being informed that Ghislaine Maxwell is to be lauded as “a God” on Twitter and then trolled by the suggestor, yesterday another user got het up when I told them to “bog off” when they bombarded me with nonsense telling me off for not being supportive of the mendacious menace formerly known as Meghan Markle.

 

Responding with a poll on social media, I decided to ask the Twitterati what they viewed as an acceptable alternative to this way of saying “go away” this morning. Thus far, whilst the majority of the 100 plus respondents have suggested sticking with my favoured option, others have plumped for the more offensive “f**k off” as the way to answer these nuisances.

 

“Go away,” itself and “do one” have been joined by the truly, in my humble opinion, ghastly and grubby “jog on.” I examined what we called “a phrase that should be consigned to history” in August 2011 and pointed to it having first become prominent in The Football Factory film about football hooliganism.

 

Going further, at that time, I added:

 

“This awful insult got wider use in recent days after a mother from Salford used it in response to someone who criticised her defence of rioters looting stores in a BBC interview. This oik-ish woman and her Kappa clad son are unfortunately not alone in their use of this dreadful way of telling someone to ‘f*** off.’”

 

“On a trailer for another BBC show this morning I heard a dwarf utter it when describing how he responds when people look at him. It appears that there aren’t many places that this choice phrase of the underclass is not now used. In this vein, that Sally Bercow, the speaker’s wife, applies it when replying to negative tweets about her husband is not at all surprising.”

 

“’Jog on’ even gets abbreviated sometimes to ‘JTFO,’ which according to urbandictionary.com ‘adds an element of gusto and offence, for those times when the simplicity of the original phrase just don’t relay your feelings as fully and emphatically as they could.’”

 

“Those using the insult are even given notes actions to accompany it on one site: ‘The phrase mentioned must be preceded by raising the fore finger and middle finger to create a ‘V’ sign to the recipient. This should be followed by a movement to the side with a clenched fist and thumb extended in the direction of the movement.’”

 

“On Facebook there is even a group named ‘The ‘Jog On’ Appreciation Society.’ Fortunately, it only has 15 members and thankfully their aim to ‘get the phrase into the Oxford English’ doesn’t seem to have garnered much support.”

 

“I very much hope the phrase ‘jogs off’ into oblivion. Sadly, though, I suspect it’ll still be jogging around for some time yet.”

 

What’s your view? Should trolls be told to “bog off,” “go away,” “f**k off” or “jog on”? I welcome your views in the comments section below and your votes in our Twitter poll.

 

After a troll told me it was "unacceptable" to use the term "bog off" to ask them to go on their not-so-merry way, what is an acceptable alternative?

— Matthew Steeples (@M_Steeples) June 19, 2022

Matthew Steeples joins those demanding attention seeking rapist-serial killer Levi Bellfield isn’t granted the right to have a sham marriage in prison; this maniacal monster deserves punitive punishment not privileges

Levi Bellfield (born Levi Rabetts and also known as Yusuf Rahim) wants to get married. Naturally, in response to this sick beyond belief rapist and serial killer’s latest nothing but another attention seeking stunt, outrage has followed. Rightly, the former Justice Secretary Robert Buckland summed up the views of the majority in arguing that the proposed prison nuptials “beggars belief.”

 

As Nikolay Kalinin pointed out in his July 2021 article for this publication in which he condemned the double child killer Colin Pitchfork being released – the “inhuman swine” was subsequently recalled for breaching parole conditions – there are certain monsters-not-men who do not deserve to be treated as anything but the subhuman specimens that they well and truly are. Pitchfork and Bellfield are exactly such and in their cases, life truly should mean life and with that should come punitive punishment and utterly no privileges.

 

A father of eleven children by three women – none of whom he tellingly got around to bother marrying – Bellfield, as Buckland also added, ensured “Milly [Dowler] never got to see her wedding day, it cannot be right he gets to have his.”

 

At a time when he stands accused also of having confessed to the 1996 murders of Lin and Meghan Russell – for which Michael Stone remains incarcerated and still professes his innocence of – “cunning” Bellfield has plainly conned a woman with less than half a brain into helping him cause further pain and suffering to the families of his deceased victims Milly Dowler, Marsha McDonnell and Amélie Delagrange and his still living victims Kate Sheedy and Anna-Maria Rennie.

 

Of this deranged deviant’s attempt to marry a “besotted blonde visitor” said to be in her 40s, Victoria Atkins MP rightly added that she will “do ‘everything in her power’ to stop the ‘evil monster’ tying the knot and has urged an urgent review,” according to The Sun. Having known Victoria and her delightful and especially sensible parents, ex-MP and ex-MEP Sir Robert Atkins and his good lady wife Lady Atkins, since my youth, I salute the current Prisons Minister for her wise words.

 

Though the 53-year-old’s application is “still being processed” and “is not [yet] at any further advanced stage,” today we join those calling for the governor of HMP Frankland in County Durham to veto permission for this clear sham marriage. Clear maniac Levi Bellfield is supposedly “cock-a-hoop” about the media attention he is yet again getting, but this “bus stop beast” deserves only to rot in hell.