Without Writing

The art of writing without writing… about fighting.

Tyler Fielding’s Attack on Victor King: Mainstream Media Uselessness

This poor man was badly assaulted. How can others avoid his fate? The press ain’t tellin’.

On the 22nd of December, a sixteen year old boy named Tyler Fielding of Redruth, Cornwall in the UK, was found guilty of  the attempted murder of Mr Victor King, a man in his fifties. Fielding, the court heard, kicked and stamped on Mr King, causing serious head injuries and damaging his trachea to the extent necessary to cause suffocation. Mr King was found lying unconscious in the street by a passer-by, and only survived because paramedics assisted his breathing at the scene. According to the press, the violent, murderous little thug will be sentenced in January 2012.

End of story,  one might think.  But no! This story reveals so much about the counter-productive nature of the mainstream press and their dismal, dismal role in contemporary society, that I simply couldn’t let it pass without comment. And, if the details of the crime published in the press are accurate (there’s no guarantee that anything the press publishes is correct), the case itself presents a simply excellent self-defence teaching opportunity.

Mr King was and is very much the wronged party in this story. But one thing the press hasn’t done (and never does) is ask the important questions about the circumstances surrounding the attack. Namely, how could Mr King have saved himself?

Perhaps this reticence is due- in part- to the unwillingness to critique or pick apart Mr King’s actions leading up to the attack. Perhaps reporters feel uncomfortable about potentially seeming to criticize the victim. But for anyone who is genuinely interested in avoiding being attacked, anyone who is interested in the questions surrounding the legal issue of self-defence at all, and anyone who cares about educating the public in how violence occurs and what can be done to truly protect oneself from it, the question must be posed: What could the victim, Mr King, have done differently?

In this case, the  answers are clear and incontestable.

In the more detailed reports on the incident and the court case as it unfolded, such as this article originating from the Western Morning News, the events on the night of the 15th of May 2011 unfolded as follows:

1. Fielding and three female youths, all 15 and 16 years old, tried to buy cider at a local off-licence, and verbally abused the shopkeeper when he refused to serve them.

2. A short time later, the youths were in a newsagents buying sweets, when they first encountered Mr King. Fielding has maintained that Mr King “barged into” one of the girls in the newsagents, and “queue jumped”. Since Fielding was by his own admission already drunk and high at the time, his account must be viewed with suspicion.

3. Another short time later, Mr King was sitting on a bench in the town centre, when Fielding and the three girls walked past. Fielding maintained that Mr King made an offensive remark about one of the girls as they passed him.

4. Fielding then set about Mr King, kicking and punching him. This was caught on CCTV.

5. Fielding then left the scene with the girls in tow.

6. Mr King then followed Fielding and the girls. This was also caught on CCTV. Why did he follow them? Perhaps he wished to remonstrate with Fielding further, perhaps he wished to physically revenge himself on Fielding for the physical attack that had just occurred, or perhaps he wished to keep them in sight before informing the police. The press have nothing to say on this question.

7. Fielding then assaulted Mr King in a much more brutal and definitive fashion. While Mr King was on the floor, Fielding kicked and stamped on his head and neck repeatedly, leading to severe injury and unconsciousness.

8. Fielding then left with the girls. According to the prosecution, he was in jubilant mood.

Mr King, sadly, has been left disabled by the attack. His speech has been affected, and he cannot walk unaided.

Justice has been done, no doubt. A severe attack, murderous in nature, occurred. And the perpetrator has been convicted of the most serious offence applicable, attempted murder. His sentence will no doubt reflect the seriousness of his crime.

Of course, none of this will sate the rabid and reprehensible members of the public that have been screaming in the comments section of the major news sites that have covered the story that we should “bring back hanging” in the UK and gloating at the idea that Fielding could be sexually assaulted in prison. I disapprove of such immature, savage and ridiculous sentiments, and I think anyone thinking such thoughts, let alone publicly airing them, should be ashamed of themselves.

And as stated before, nobody asks the question: What, if anything, could Mr King have done differently on that night?

Well the answer is obvious. If you’ve just been assaulted on the street, (as Mr King was,) and your attacker has left the scene (as his attacker DID)… don’t run after your attacker. This is simple common sense, and it’s advice that any policeman, bouncer, self-defence instructor or security professional would give.

Self defence is about safeguarding yourself from risk and injury. It is NOT self defence to pursue your attacker after the fact. Even if you beat your attacker to a pulp, instead of being beaten yourself, it is not self defence.

Make no mistake, it was without question the repeated stamping and kicking of Mr King on the floor that has led to Fielding’s conviction for  attempted murder. If he had merely knocked Mr King unconscious and left the scene, even if Mr King had then died (perhaps due to positional asphyxia), he would have had a reasonable self-defence plea available to him, and it’s doubtful he’d have been convicted of more than assault or grievous  bodily harm. He could have claimed (and in fact did) that Mr King had followed him with violent intent, and that his subsequent actions were defensive in nature. And he could have gotten away with that, true or not, because apparently there was no CCTV covering the location of the final assault.

Two lessons can be learned from this incident. One, don’t get angry and pursue someone you think has wronged you, even if you’re right. It could get you killed. Two, if you’re in a fight, don’t kick or stamp on the person you’re fighting when they’re on the ground and vulnerable, as that may constitute attempted murder… even if you were initially defending yourself.

If you wish to defend yourself, escape when you can. Anything else is based on ego, and may well result in either a visit to the hospital, or to jail… or to the morgue.

Those who are incapable of thinking in shades of grey may well be overheating at this point, and might accuse me of saying that Mr King in some way “deserved” his fate. Obviously such people are beyond mistaken. Mr King was undoubtedly the wronged party here. But could he have avoided his fate? Yes. And if the media had a conscience, every story associated with this case would have informed the public of how to avoid his fate.

Even worse, many of the recent reports on this case have simply left the circumstances surrounding the final assault unmentioned. This BBC report for instance manages to convey the erroneous impression that Mr King was assaulted once, and totally at random. In fact, according to the more detailed reports, Mr King was assaulted twice. The first assault might conceivably be called random… but the second assault occurred when Mr King pursued Fielding through the streets.

And why do the media deny the public the most useful information? Why do they not ask the most constructive questions? Because the mainstream media is at best a useless, at worst a counter productive, organism. This story, one of many, shows that the media are interested in informing people about crime and violence… but only in a way that makes people afraid and angry. They miss the opportunity to educate and inform. They increase fear and tension, and do nothing to increase safety through knowledge.

They do this when reporting on politics, on economics, and on crime and violence.

The organs of the mainstream media are part of the problem. They are not part of the solution.

Advertisements

12 responses to “Tyler Fielding’s Attack on Victor King: Mainstream Media Uselessness

  1. kelly 2012, January 2 at 2:06 pm

    i would like to leave a message for the person that has writen this and perhaps set the record straight and to say that unless you was in the court room when the evidence and facts was said i really think that u should keep ur opinions to urself.first i would like to say that to debate such an evil crime that was committed by a 15 year old child is just horrible.mr king was completly inoccent and and has now been left disabled so for u to debate how he could have prevented such a unprovoked attack is unbeliveable.

    This man fought for all of you and his country about learn self defence.how sick to debte such an evil crime.tyler feilding picked on a vulnerable drunk man.noone deserves this and he has changed his life forever. not only his life but has changed the life of his familys too.

    • withoutwriting 2012, January 2 at 11:35 pm

      Thank you for your comment. In the above article I said that:

      “Those who are incapable of thinking in shades of grey may well be overheating at this point, and might accuse me of saying that Mr King in some way “deserved” his fate. Obviously such people are beyond mistaken. Mr King was undoubtedly the wronged party here.”

      I suggest you are such a person, and I further suggest that you start making an effort to think in “shades of grey”.

      The question isn’t “was Mr King the victim?” Because *of course* he was the victim.

      The question isn’t “did Mr King deserve to be attacked?” Because *of course* he didn’t deserve to be attacked.

      The question is: How can people avoid being attacked in the way that Mr King was?

      Another question is: Why isn’t the media telling people how to avoid being attacked, when they have a responsibility to do so, and the ability to do so?

      These are the two questions that the above article addressed, and attempted to answer. If you have other answers, I’d be fascinated to read them. But if all you have is a kind of formless outrage that anyone would *dare* to discuss what victims like Mr King could have done to avoid being assaulted, then you too are merely part of the problem, rather than being part of the solution.

      After all, what do we want? Do we want to help people avoid being attacked? I suggest that we do.

  2. kelly 2012, January 3 at 12:43 pm

    no im sorry im not that kind of person.im the kind of person that knows mr king and know the facts about what happened on that night and i also know that there was no way that mr king could have prevented or even stopped such an attack by a 15 year old child that was out that night looking for trouble.when u see the repercussions of the actions of this child im sure that you would change your opinion.and im far from the problem the problem is that this child nearly killed mr king and showed no remorse what so ever for the devistation he caused.mr king was in the army and had extensive training but on that fatefull night there was no way he could have defended himself.mr king is a father and a grandad and in one night tyler fielding could have taken this loving man away from a loving family.i would like to hear how u would put a stop to all the violence that we see and how a 50 year old man could have defended himself against 4 youths when u have had a drink.

    and how do u defended youself when you are lieing on the floor unconsious and cant breath u tell me what you would do.

    why wasnt u at court if you are so for people and martial arts and you could have seen the devistation that tyler fielding has caused.and has certainly shown no remorse for.

    • withoutwriting 2012, January 3 at 2:04 pm

      Thanks once again for the comment.

      I’m afraid I disagree: you are exactly the kind of person I was describing when I wrote: “Those who are incapable of thinking in shades of grey may well be overheating at this point, and might accuse me of saying that Mr King in some way “deserved” his fate. Obviously such people are beyond mistaken. Mr King was undoubtedly the wronged party here.”, because you’re clearly unable to step back from the issue and outside your (entirely understandable) emotional reaction to the case.

      I appreciate your obvious outrage at the terrible, undeserved attack that left Mr King disabled, and I share that outrage. But I am now primarily interested in discussing the problems with the media and people’s psychology that stop us from effectively preventing similar things happening in the future, by educating people.

      You state that you were in the court and “know the facts”, so perhaps you can confirm whether the press were accurate when they reported the following points I outlined in the above article:

      “3. Another short time later, Mr King was sitting on a bench in the town centre, when Fielding and the three girls walked past. Fielding maintained that Mr King made an offensive remark about one of the girls as they passed him.

      4. Fielding then set about Mr King, kicking and punching him. This was caught on CCTV.

      5. Fielding then left the scene with the girls in tow.

      6. Mr King then followed Fielding and the girls.”

      Perhaps you can also use your knowledge of the facts to answer why- as described in point 6, Mr King followed Fielding and the girls after the initial assault took place. The press didn’t mention any reasons surrounding this perplexing point.

      As in the above article, I’m not saying the press were accurate. I’m asking whether they were.

      And if the press WAS accurate in this case, the answer to your most pertinent question is simple: How could Mr King have defended himself? By not following Fielding after the first attack.

      Does saying that imply that Mr King in some way “deserved” what he received? No, of course it doesn’t.

      And, with all due respect, you are wrong to react as though it does.

      PS: One other point, army training does not prepare you for urban self defence. Fighting wars and defending yourself on the street are two separate things, entirely different, and demanding different training and skills. Common misconception.

  3. kelly 2012, January 3 at 4:07 pm

    i understand that u agree when u say that mr king was the wronged victim in all this.but my point is why should anyone HAVE to learn self defence.why shouldnt anyone that has had a drink be allowed to sit on a bench.On the cctv that was shown to the court there was no evidence that mr king had engaged with tyler fielding or any of the people he was with.im all for self defence but do u honestly think mr king stood any chance against 4 youths of today especially considering that mr king had a drink.i dont really want to go into details but i know that mr king was like a lamb to the slaughter the night that tyler fielding nearly killed him.

    also there was no proof that mr king followed tyler fielding and the children that done this evil crime.they was hanging out at the part of town that mr king was was destined for.

    • withoutwriting 2012, January 5 at 6:16 pm

      Once again, the comment is appreciated. A very good question: Why should anyone have to learn self defence?

      Well the first thing to point out is that self defence has nothing to do with fighting or martial arts. Most of self defence is about awareness, reading of body language, general communication skills, knowledge of how crime and violence works and how assaults and other violent incidents develop. Also, knowledge of the law.

      Fighting? Last resort. I mean literally, the LAST resort.

      Hardly worth learning, in fact. It takes years to become a proficient fighter, and no fighter is immune to weapons or superior numbers. If you want to defend yourself, learn the “soft skills”.

      So is it a good idea for people to learn these things? Absolutely. The UK contains many scumbags like Tyler Fielding, sadly. Mostly because money that could be spent on more and better schools, smaller classes, better wages for teachers, more social care funding and police numbers… is instead being spent on bonuses for bankers, moats for fat politicians and illegal wars in places you’ve never visited. If we want to fix society, we need to fix that first. By campaigning, raising awareness, pressuring “our” politicians and electing local people rather than old etonians.

      Until we “fix society” in this way, we ARE going to have to learn self-defence skills.

      And as regards the last part of your comment; so your guess is that Mr King just happened to be walking the same way as his attackers? That’s certainly one of the possibilities, but it doesn’t alter the lesson to be learned:

      If you survive an attack, don’t follow your attackers, because you could get attacked again. Don’t walk the same way that they’ve walked, and if you see them in the distance, walk the other way.

      Some might say: “But he had a right to walk wherever he wanted”. Of course he had a right. But having the moral RIGHT to do something doesn’t make doing it a good idea. I for instance have the *right* to walk around town with my ipod poking out of my pocket… but it’s not a good idea, because some tea-leaf scumbag will nick it. People should learn this, and grasp the distinction. But the media doesn’t educate, on this point or any other.

  4. ... 2012, May 21 at 10:52 pm

    This happened in the town where I live, it is a very small, run down old mining town. A middle aged man isn’t used to being abused and physically assaulted by a youth here. He would have been very shocked and maddened by the attack. His natural, instinctive reaction would be to follow and give the youth a stern word or like you say phone the police, unknowing that youth was a violent, disrespectful and quite frankly murderous little boy. My ex girlfriends brother was the second person to come across Mr King as he was driving through the town at the time, he pulled over when he saw something was going on, there was already a person with Mr King. My ex girlfriends brother thought Mr King was black due to the extent of his injuries, he only realised he was white when he saw Mr King’s hands. I also know the people who run the news agents in the town and I can assure you there is no “queue jumping” by anyone of any age in that shop, they wouldn’t stand for it, something would have been said to Mr King by a member of staff if he had pushed in.

    • withoutwriting 2013, April 21 at 9:06 pm

      I think anyone would have been shocked and maddened by such an unprovoked attack. That’s an entirely understandable, and morally right reaction, and no-one of sense or decency would ever claim that Mr King was in the wrong, morally speaking.

      But if we’re all to survive an increasingly violent society which is rapidly becoming even more fractured, impoverished and disenfranchised by our awful, hyper-wealthy right-wing government (and the big, psychopathic businesses they serve)… we’re all going to have to learn that the strategically correct reaction after escaping an attack is not to follow our attackers and have a word with them.

      That might well get you killed, as it so nearly got Mr King killed.

  5. david stephenson 2013, October 26 at 5:35 am

    Ive known Tyler fielding for about 6 years as im a freind of his dads, before he moved down to cornwall Tyler lived in Rochdale with his dad, tyler spent a lot of time with his dad and with myself and so i got to know him very well.

    (1) In all the time tyler was in my our company and let make it clear that that was most of the time did he ever show one bit of violence i never saw him angry argumentative or violent, Infact as teenagers go Tyler has got to be one of the most peacefull and pleasent lad ive met and as ive got two lads at the ages of 19 and 25 one meets quite a few lads of this age.

    (2) As for the incident in question do the public know that Mr [deleted offensive epithet] King did confront and lunge for Tyler repaetedly and Tyler at one point hid in a senior citizens garden and the lady came out and actually took tyler in as she saw he was hiding from Mr King who was being aggresive and verbally abusive.
    Tyler later went back to the old ladys house with some flowers to say thanks to her(again not the actions of an teenager thug as you’ve made him out to be)
    It was on leaving the ladys house and walikng home home that Mr King once again confronted Tyler wich is when the altercation happened,

    (3) I’m not for one minute condoning Tylers actions, thugs and bullies are something society doesnt need and i’m telling anyone who wants to read this comment that Tyler Fielding is never not for one minute the mindless thug he’s been made out to be.

    [deleted a paragraph of moronic and pointless defamation of the victim’s character that has no bearing on the guilt of Tyler Fielding anyway]

    (4) Just one more thing i want everybody to know and wich im sure has to be illegal is that Tyler was at the age were he needed an appropiate adult and as the officers couldnt locate anyone Tyler knew the police assigned a local CPO as his appropiate adult, and at one stage in the interview actually told Tyler that Mr King was going to die and as anybody would Tyler broke down and signed a statement that he shouldnt of.

    • withoutwriting 2013, October 28 at 2:21 pm

      I have edited the above comment by “David Stephenson” to remove insulting, defamatory and irrelevant remarks about the victim in this case; my blog will not be a forum for malicious attacks on injured parties by those supporting the criminals who victimised them. I have also numbered the “points” for handy reference.

      Having said that, this is the internet, and Mr Stephenson could easily be a sock troll who has never met the murderous young thug Tyler Fielding in his life. With the strong possibility that Mr Stephenson is making all this up firmly in mind, here’s what my response would be if this were indeed a genuine comment:

      Point 1: It’s common for the friends and family of even the most despicable criminal scumbags to say what a good egg their friend/family member is, and how they’ve never hurt a fly and never would. In each case, this could either be an outright lie (the friends and family of scummy, lying, violent criminals will often be disgusting, amoral liars themselves after all), or a true reflection of how the accused behaves with their friends and family, or a combination of the two. In the latter case what people need to realise is that even the most horrible excuse for a human being can be nice to some people in their lives. This selective niceness does not make them a good person, and doesn’t even seriously reduce their evilness, to be honest. After all, our characters can’t be measured merely by how we treat the people we like and are close to… but by how we treat people in the wider world that we DON’T know and DON’T rely on. Being kind to strangers is at least as important as being kind to one’s friends, in other words.

      Point 2: Actually reports indicate that CCTV showed Tyler Fielding attacking Mr King when Mr King was not presenting a threat to Fielding. Fielding claimed that this unprovoked attack was because Mr King had called one of the girls he was with “a slag” and had bumped into him. Well here’s the deal, moron: You don’t get to punch someone in the head for calling you, your friend, your wife or anyone else in the world, “a slag”, nor for bumping into you or anyone else. If you physically attack someone for something so minor, you are a mindless thug. No amount of giving flowers to old ladies for any reason makes any difference to that. Not to mention that- according to the media- Fielding “was already the subject of a youth rehabilitation order for offences of burglary and theft committed in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, his home town.” Sounds like a right little charmer. And you sound like a right little charmer for defending him. Honestly. If you’re genuine, I really pity you and your alleged offspring; they’re certainly not getting the best example of morality from their (alleged) father.

      Point 3: This really winds me up, when people say “I’m not condoning his/her actions, but…” and then proceed to condone his/her actions. It’s not only dishonest and rhetorical… it’s also rather stupid.

      Point 4: I’m interested to hear your allegations of police misconduct, I really am. Except for the fact that I don’t really care whether a violent, ignorant, thieving, drunken little scrotum who nearly killed a man by crushing his trachea while he was down gets sentenced to eleven years when he could have gotten away with four if he had kept his mouth shut during questioning.

      There are plenty of genuinely good people- people who have never kicked anyone in the face in their lives- who have been convicted of crimes they didn’t commit, so I shan’t waste any of my precious time crying over an obviously guilty piece of faeces like Fielding, even if what you claim were true… which I have no reason to believe, frankly.

      Grade: F. Must try harder.

      As for what we real human beings can learn from “Stephenson”‘s comment? Why, one should look carefully at oneself when one makes excuses for the bad behaviour of others, of course. Not to mention one’s own bad behaviour.

      • William King 2013, November 4 at 11:58 am

        Firstly let me introduce myself, im William KING, degree student studying media and son of Victor King. i have read all of the above and would like to set a few things straight especially seeing i know the facts inside out. when i read the article a few things did indeed anger me and being a media student i think i am quite capable of thinking in “shades of grey” even though emotion may well blurr this. also you keep saying that my father should not of followed his attackers this angers me because i know that he did not follow them, he infact waited for them to disapear from sight then continued on to the train station where he was meant to catch the train to his duaghters where he would of spent the night, it is then when feilding and the others noticed my father walking up alma place and decided to brutally attack him again, this totally unknown to my father who thought the thugs had gone and that he was safe (which i feel you would agree was infact the correct thing to do). my father did spend time in the army and even boxed in competions whilst he was there, and i do agree that war and urban fights require different skills, but i can 100% say that my father knew how to defend him self on the street, as he brought up in london and had to deal with hardened criminals such as muggers, but was cuaght totally unaware on that day as he thought the youths had left the scene. at the time my father suffered from depression due to the dificulties he was having with his marriage, and unfortunatly found himself lost and turning to alcohol hence the reason he was drunk and in town buying his last drink before returning to where he was staying. i think i know my father and know that he would rather befriend anyone than make an enemy and he would do so with all my friends that i use to bring back to the house, so the accusation that he attacked or insulted the youths first sounds completly farfetched to me. as for the complete BULLS**T that Stephenson was saying about feilding hiding in a garden is completely untrue as the nearest garden is atleast 300 ft away and if he did hide in a far away garden where did the 3 girls disapear to? the truth is that feilding was trying to look big in front of his female companions and disturbingly decided to pick on an vunerable old man. i know this to be true because as a teenager i myself was insulted for being fat by feilding. feilding is nothing but a bully and as for companions who are just as bad as they stood at laughed at the horrific attack. so the answer to your question lies with the up bringing of our children and not with self defence information being placed within the media, as with this case i feel that sort of information would of been useless as the victim, being my father or not, was cuaght unaware and became completely helpless. i know that the answer lies with the up bringing as feilding himself blames his behaviour on that exact thing and stood in court to say this. he boasts that the time he spent living with his father in rochdale was spent following his father around stealing, commiting crimes and sleeping rough. he goes on to say that he moved away to escape this only discover his mother was no better. lastly i would like to thank you for fighting our corner against stephenson i really appreciate it and its nice to see that there is still an ounce of decentcy left in todays society.

      • withoutwriting 2013, November 4 at 10:51 pm

        As stated above relating to other comments, this is the internet, and anyone may claim to be anyone. With this in mind, here’s a response to the points raised, regardless of the identity of the poster.

        1. Another comment on this article also suggested that there was no evidence that Mr King followed the youths led by the murderous Fielding, but instead merely walked the same way that the youths had walked. I replied to the other comment to the effect that: Whether you’re deliberately following the people who just attacked you or merely walking the same way that they have walked, either is a tactical error in self-defence terms. A law-abiding, upstanding person may have a right to walk wherever they like without someone attempting to kill them, but that doesn’t mean that some utter scrotum like Fielding won’t attempt to murder you if you cross their path again following an earlier altercation.

        If it were the case that Fielding leaped out on Mr King from some concealed position, or in fact followed Mr King rather than being followed himself, that would be an entirely different matter, of course. But the media did not state that the prosecution in the case had made such a claim.

        2. Mr King may or may not have known how to fight. With all due respect that’s not relevant. Part of the point of the article above was to get people thinking about what self-defence actually is. Self-defence has precious little to do with boxing, or knife-fighting, or judo, or any kind of combative or physical art. 99.9% of self-defence in the real world is about anticipating, circumventing and defusing potential trouble, without a physical response. As an example, Lee Murray, of the greatest unarmed fighters our nation has ever produced, Was mortally injured by relatively untrained opponents when he violated the first rule of self-defence: after a confrontation, whether it be verbal or physical, leave the location and do not return to it. In this and every other case, the media paints a picture of self-defence as some kind of fighting, without educating people on the real issues of self-defence. Some basic rules that the media could publicize are:
        i. Don’t drink to excess.
        ii. If you have a minor confrontation, do not remain in the location… in fact, leave as soon as possible.
        iii. If attacked, don’t go the same way as your attackers, even if you were going that way beforehand.
        These rules among others, if publicized and heeded, will save lives.

        3. Fielding’s upbringing may or may not have been a factor in his becoming a ruthless, violent, murderous little thief. But what’s important to remember is that there will always be people like Fielding. And at the present time, with the current social and economic climate, there are an awful lot of people like Fielding. Saying that we have to “bring children up better” is all well and good, but it’s merely pie-in-the-sky. Until some utopian future appears where the children ARE actually brought up well, we will have Fieldings to deal with. And you don’t deal with Fieldings by learning boxing. You deal with Fieldings by avoiding them; by changing the way you behave in every day life to maximize your own personal safety. That’s the lesson that people should take home from ANY horrible story about someone being attacked by a psychopath, like this one. But the media ain’t teaching that lesson, though they have a responsibility to do so.

        4. You’re welcome regarding my treatment of the comment by the person calling themselves “Stephenson”. But I merely call them as I see them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: