Friday, 31 August 2012

Independent Councillor Bernard La Roche exposes Rough Justice from Council Standards Committee


A number of complaints have been made against Councillor John Worrow by members of Thanet Conservatives and their supporters that are very questionable. Councillor Worrow was a victim of a homophobic hate voice mail from North Thanet Conservative member Councillor Ken Gregory saying "WITH A BIT OF LUCK YOU'LL GET AIDS" the standards committee at Thanet council decided that Gregory was off duty when he committed the hate crime. BUT the committee made Councillor Worrow apologise to a former councillor despite the fact Cllr Worrow was in the right. Councillor La Roche speaks about this. A number of other questionable complaints have be made by Thanet Conservative Councillors against Cllr Worrow since he dared to expose their actions

84 comments:

  1. The Tories in Thanet are really good at shooting themselves in the feet!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I love the way he looks back at the end and smiles, you can't help but admire the man, he has had a number of strokes and he still has the energy to speak up and expose bullies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rather strange that the collegues of shamed councillor Ken Gregory should make so many complaints (costing £1000s)against his victim. And of course they are not homophobic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. They can't be allowed to get away with that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No they must not. So what are you going to do about it, hero.

      Delete
  5. I was amazed at Cllr Worrow's evident grasp of local and international affairs from his letter to the Gazette wherein, at a stroke, he solved the problems of Folk Week by bringing the troops back from Afghanistan. The mind boggles at the thought of SAS abseiling from the roof of The Dolphin to catch the underage drinkers in the car park behind it or marines using unarmed combat on the rowdy element down Harbour Street. Surely this man is worth more than Diversity Champion when capable of such swift and decisive solutions. Move over Hart for we have a real leader in our midst.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But surely Mr Worrow wouldn't approve of the use of the military in Thanet as they are not ALL properly trained in political correctness, and it's application at ALL times and in ALL circumstances, and how to whine about a comment made in a private communication, to anyone who will listen for months, and probably YEARS after the event....

      Delete
  6. Oh dear Beranrd, if you felt so stongly why did you not speak out earlier, after all Worrow's Standards case is old news,since then he has managed to gather a slack hand full more, it is not the Tories that are at fault, if Worrow conducted himself properly and stopped causing offence, the complaints would stop simple really.Still your appearing on Video like Worrow does at frequent intervals would seem to suggest TIG sympathies when you claim to be a true independent

    ReplyDelete
  7. All 7 comments above were written by me!

    ReplyDelete
  8. 15:33 either you think Bernard and his whole committee are a liars or you quietly support the hate campaign. If you think the outside world and the police are just going to stand by and let the hate continue you are wrong, just as Gregory was wrong in thinking he could not be found out !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you, 15:57, think that what Worrow claims is hate crime is going to excite the attentions of the police, you must live in cloud cuckoo land. They do not even turn out when undersirables are selling drink and drugs to school kids which, one might suggest, is a bit more serious than ruffling the feathers of the over sensitive Worrow.

      Delete
    2. Here, here, Anon, for Worrow claims in the paper that policing is down because of government cuts. In fact, it is much more likely to be due to the time they have to waste on his constant claims of homophobia.

      Delete
    3. Its Hear Hear not here here bright spark!

      Delete
    4. Aren't we the smartarse, 19:53. Bet you must be popular in the Worrow world.

      Delete
  9. EACH complaint against John is from either a colleague of shamed councillor Gregory or a North Thanet Con supporter. John showed me the papers!

    ReplyDelete
  10. 15:55 I don't know how you worked that out as two were from me... weird person!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Roche and Worrow are clearly cut from the same cloth. Blame everything and anyone else for Worrow's bad behaviour and throw around dirt and accusations of homophobia against anyone who dares to raise a doubt against Worrow or anything TIG related. Remember the ugly pig monster slurs? No mention of that but I suppose abusing a lady member of the public is ok....disgraceful.

    ReplyDelete
  12. First of all no member of the public was mentioned in the pig monster story; if someone wishes to identify themselves with a "Pig Monster" its up to them to prove that they look like one etc. Secondly many animal lovers think pigs are cute, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you think that the vanity of a person that CHOOSES to identify themselves with such a lovely animal is the same as offending 1000s of people that have HIV AIDS it says more about you then it does anyone else! Also there have been at least two proven cases of Homophobic councillors so I guess the accusation were very well founded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes and one of them was a Labour councillor who escaped sanction of any serious kind. An d whoever you are perhaps you'd like to speak to the lady in question - you are kidding yourself if you think it wasn't offensive - or perhaps you're John the offender himself...

      Delete
    2. 17.32 not sure if you were trying to be pathetically funny but you are not - you are a disgusting apologist for abusive behaviour

      Delete
    3. There is only one councillor that has committed a crime and that IS KEN GREGORY.
      Next you're be telling us that Simon Moores is realy Paul Carter - in fact prove that he is not, and prove they don't live together?

      Delete
    4. Now who's being a bully? Vendettas are so unattractive

      Delete
    5. Don't think any name was mentioned in the telephone answer service message, so on your basis that must be OK as well. The target of the offensicve TIG blog was clearly identifiable and, if not guilty, why did they go through the charade of sacking their fictional blogmaster. You folk are not slow to accuse others of defending Gregory, but you are just as guilty of defending the indefensible.

      Delete
    6. I live in Birchington and see the TIG lot at first hand. They and their rag tag supporters stand for nothing apart from their own self interest. They seek to condemn and abuse anyone who does not kow tow to them and accuse everyone of homophobia apart from their labour lap dogs. The only good thing is that they will be a one term flop and then everyone can forget they ever existed.

      Delete
    7. Tom Clarke is not very bright, Gregory dialed his victims personal mobile phone number. As for the other nonsense its just a matter of opinion, and accusations

      Delete
    8. Unproven accusations and claims about TIG are just the opinions of a small group of bigots.
      But GREGORY admitted that he broke the law!

      Delete
    9. Bet I'd outsmart you any day, my friend, but be that as it may, if Gregory had chosen to claim somebody else had used his phone it would have been nigh on impossible to prove otherwise. Unlikely Harrison, he did not try to wriggle but coughed when challenged. That does not excuse what he did and I do not defend it whereas you seem to think it is OK to call a well known local lady a pig. Strange standards but then you are very probably a Labour supporter so some allowances have to be made for your lack of good manners.

      Delete
    10. You are pretty thick Tom, Gregory didnt have a choice, as for Harrison he did not commit a crime. Gregory is the councillor that broke the law. LGBT people hear offensive comments like Harrison's on a weekly basis, but its not every day a person dials their personal number and makes a death wishes against them. As for the other nonsense its about opinions not facts! The fact that you bring party politics into this tells us a lot about you!

      Delete
    11. Your knowledge of the law is pretty limited. To use offensive language towards gay people is a criminal offence if the person at whom it is directed so finds it and makes a complaint. Ian Driver did and Harrison was warned by the police though without formal caution. As for party politics, surely the guilty people here are those who seek to make more of Gregory's offence than that of Harrison. Isn't that based on party and hasn't this whole Worrow saga been about accusing Conservatives of homophobia regardless of whether or not they are.

      Worrow was not offered the exalted position he felt his talents deserved by the Conservatives so he threw his toys out of his pram and has constantly attacked the party ever since. If that is the company you wish to associate yourself with, good luck to you for you have my deepest sympathy.

      Delete
    12. Making prejudicial comments seems to be part of your nature Tom Clarke.

      You make jugements about Mr Worrow when you can't possibly know his motives as you have not lived in the shoes of an LGBT person.

      And if you really think making a death wish on someone,in the form of a phone call, is the same as a standard homophobic insult in the eyes of the law, you are wrong. To suggest that Mr Worrow left a Gregory's group in order to get a committee place just shows how short sighted you are. The attitude that you show is probably why Gregory's group lost prower. Same old nasty "section 28" mind set

      Delete
    13. Even if Tom Clarke was right, it does not excuse the actions of the haters. A campaign against Mr Worrow could of been of a non-homopbic nature using the word "cancer" in the death wish instead of AIDS; Why would "AIDS" be chosen as the subject to torment him if a hate campaign is of a non-homophobic nature?

      Delete
    14. Perhaps for the same reason Elton John wished cancer of the clitoris on a group of female photographers. Basically he attacked their gender or sexuality with his comment. It happens and if you wear your sexuality like a badge don't be surprised if someone refers to it. Mind you, I am confused why you seem to think aids should be associated with homosexuality for are not more hetrosexuals supposed to suffer from it now.

      In all honesty I think John Worrow would be attacked for his personality even if he was not gay, or did he say bisexual. His track record of Grey Party to Conservative to TIG, and probably Labour next, is hardly that which inspires long term support or friendship from any quarter. Add his tendency to accuse all and sundry of homophobia and you have a recipe for making more enemies than friends. Even Labour only just about tolerate him as he keeps them in power, which may explain why Standards, having a Labour majority, do not always come down on his side. Some of them, like Harrison who was brave enough to speak it, cannot stand the little creep.

      Delete
    15. John has not accused all and sundry of homophobia far from it - your sun readers mind set and hared towards someone you dont really know shows you up for what you are.. if the hat fits ;)

      Delete
    16. Why to John's ultra right wing tormentors keep going on about party politics and gay stuff, its enough to give you fits!

      Delete
  13. I really wish people would use names (even if it's not their real ones). Reading the above has totally confused me!

    ReplyDelete
  14. If the Thanet Independent Group was serious about the way Standards operated, Driver and Worrow would have persisted with their motion to Full Council a couple of months ago rather than withdrawing it the week before.

    As for La Roche's piece, I have little idea what happened at that meeting because the video lacks so much detail. However, when you consider Driver's push for greater openness of Council meetings, you'd think TIG would be on the side of the member of the public, which perhaps indicates that this member of the public isnt a friend of theirs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to let facts get in the way councillor Maskell but it was not a council meeting or a meeting of a tax funded committee, the members of that committee had a right to discuss some things in private. You should know that being a councillor. The so-called member of the public was also a hasbin councillor as well if you listen.

      Delete
    2. Is Tom Clarke giving you lessons on how to make prejudicial remarks Cllr Maskell or do blackhearted thoughts come natural to you?

      Delete
  15. Who was this "hasbin" councillor? Or are you all going to continue talking in riddles?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your confused, Peter, so join the club. I follow the blogs fairly regularly, but the postings of some of the contributors leave me mystified. Like you I have no idea who the 'hasbin' councillor is in the same way that I don't know why James is suddenly being addressed as Councillor Maskell. We now also have reference to 'prejudicial' remarks even when stating facts and, in any event, what are they supposed to be prejudging?

      Would also like to pick you up on your comment about using names. I do so, but once identified by the anonymous masses as a Tory, or at least you must be in their eyes if you are not Labour, you become an instant target for attack. That gets tiresome, not that I object to debate, but to be always accused of some devious motive even when one comments on the mundane is likely to push you back to anonymity.

      Like you, I wish everyone who commented on a blog used a name, but it is not going to happen I am afraid. Far to many nasty little trolls and snipers out there.

      Delete
    2. So-called Tom Clarke is petty and makes things up as he goes along, its just a silly game to him (

      Delete
    3. So what is it to you, Einstein. Some version of master mind I guess, Mr. So Called Anonymous.

      Delete
  16. I am surprised that Cllr LaRoche has raised this issue as it happened over five months ago on 4th April, when I was asked to attend his meeting my Cllr Bruve in his absence. I was invited by two prominent shop keepers in the village to go into the meetin and one even offered me a seat. At this moment, Cllr LaRoche said it was a private meeting - then all hell broke loose, with Cllr Worrow shouting at me, calling me a homophobic, threatening me with the Police and telling me to get out of the room. He even opened the door and shouted "Get out" again. All this happened whilst Cllr LaRoche was talking to me. Cllr Worrow shot out of the room and as I left he came back past me and called me a four letter word beginning with C.

    The following day, I informed Cllr Bruce of the situation; he said he would telephone Cllr LaRoche to find out what had happened and Cllr LaRoche confirmed the above statement and also stated that he was surprised at how calm I stayed. Hence the reason I took Cllr Worrow to the Standards Board.

    Cllr Worrow was instructedto write me a letter of apology, which I will quote in full:-

    "Dear Mr White
    Further to your complaint concerning the meeting of Birchington Community Partnership on 4 April 2012, I was at the time uner the impression, that it was a private meeting and attendance was by invitation only.
    Nevertheless, I have since learnt that it eas also, possibly inadvertently, advertisef as a publivc meeting so it appears I stand somewhat misinformed.
    Under these circumstances, I offer my regrets and unreserved apologies for saying anything that in any way deterred your intention to attend.
    I remain
    Yours sincerely,

    Cllr John Worrow"
    There is no apology for calling me a homophobic, threatening me with the Police, and for using a four letter word.

    If anyone wishes to verify any of the above, they are most welcome to come and see the correspondence.

    Just for interest, all this happened long before the incident with Cllr. Gregory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well all you doubters, there you have it straight from the horses mouth. John Worrow flips, loses all reasonable control and insults members of the public. As Mr White has pointed out, this happened long before the Cllr Gregory incident. Similarly, I was witness to his sweaty faced performance in the Broadstairs Pavilion where he tried to get Nigel Farage to state his views on same sex marriage. Everything with Worrow goes back to sex and this attempt by him to brand everyone who isn't LGBT as homophobic. If most gay people were like him, which thankfully they are not, he might just get his wish by turning the whole hetrosexual community homophobic.

      Delete
    2. It is very obvious that the letter above has been changed and edited

      Delete
    3. Why is it obvious. Give us one piece of proof or is it you can't handle the truth!

      Delete
    4. Anyone with half a brain cell can see whats going on here. If these people are so gay friendly why are they being so defensive, and editing letters, why is Cllr gregory still a member of the same organistation as John's tormentor? Everything above about John is unproven and prejudicial and exposes the Gregory mind set in his organisation. One thing is sure, we can clearly see that there were nasty things going on towards Mr Worrow even before Gregory slipped up and exposed the mind set. Since Gregory slipped up it has been smear overdrive - all nasty unproven childish nonsense from a small group of people that say they are not bigots ... The smear about Mr Worrow is UNPROVEN AND PREJUDICIAL.. where as the abuse against him is on criminal record and FACT!

      Delete
    5. To Anonymouse 11:05 Even a ten year old can see that so-called letter has been edited!
      SMEAR OVERDIVE OR WHAT?

      Delete
    6. One things I know about John he does not like swearing. I have heard him say "Nasty Person" but he never swears!
      John is actually a good and kind person, one of the reasons they feel threated by him I guess.

      Delete
    7. One things! Either it is one thing or several things. Come now and you thought you were so smart putting down all these thick homophobes. Oh, and for the record, I feel as threatened by John as I would by the average toddler. He is a real hard case I'm sure.

      Delete
    8. If a person can be SO offended by so little, worrow has no place in the world of politics! Man up, or get a job where your sensibilities can be more easily pandered to!

      Delete
  17. Bernard I thought you said you don't tell "porkies" Cllr Worrows letter seems to state otherwise, oh dear what a tangled web we weave....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I was at the time uner the impression, that it was a private meeting and attendance was by invitation only" (from the letter that they say John wrote*)

      Delete
    2. Yes its a tangled web that Gregory thought he could get out of - so smear to your hearts content Mr Angry... the beach is sandy in Thanet as you know

      Delete
  18. Clears things up considerably, thanks Brian for posting that. I see La Roche extended an invitation to future meetings of BCP at the June Parish Council meeting and this incident was reported on Thanet Life "On Royal Sands" on the 6th April. Oddly enough this video is hosted at John Worrow's own Youtube channel!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It clears nothing up Councillor Maskell. It was eye opening to see on your blog that you said you look forward to Cllr Ken Gregory coming back to the council meeting? For a bunch of people that think they are so bright - you lot expose your true mind set all the time!

      Delete
    2. Bernard could go on the pink youtube channel for all open minded people care - how narrow minded you can be!

      Delete
  19. Bernard on John Worrows you tube channel you cant be serious Bernard is an independentm and althiough the tIG website welcomed him to be a "Tiggywinkle" he got very cross and maintained his "independent"status think 09:05 you may have a point

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anyone with half a brain cell can see whats going on here. If these people are so gay friendly why are they being so defensive, and editing letters, why is Cllr gregory still a member of the same organistation as John's tormentor? Everything above about John is unproven and prejudicial and exposes the Gregory mind set in his organisation. One thing is sure, we can clearly see that there were nasty things going on towards Mr Worrow even before Gregory slipped up and exposed the mind set. Since Gregory slipped up it has been smear overdrive - all nasty unproven childish nonsense from a small group of people that say they are not bigots ... The smear about Mr Worrow is UNPROVEN AND PREJUDICIAL.. where as the abuse against him is on criminal record and FACT!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nasty things, like wow. This is real playground stuff now, but right down at reception year level in the infants. I think he is a sweaty faced nasty bloke, so there. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it you sad specimen.

      Delete
  21. TIG are all independents anyway - T-Iindependet-G members are not whipped - how childish and petty to suggest otherwise Mr Angry!

    ReplyDelete
  22. 11:22 who is this Mr Angry that has now appeared, In Birchington South Mr Angry could be anyone of the 800 plus that voted for Cllr Worrow as a Conservative , to represent them as a Conservative in a Conservative administration. TIG may not be whipped and dont need to be as they all vote with Labour on all key issues. For the record he does swear as Mr White has recorded above, it is perfectly clear that most of the anonymous comments are written by Worrow trying to justify his actions. If as was said above he behaved as he should and represented those people who voted for him he would not be subject to Standards complaints, the remedy is in his own hands for the good of Thanet and Birchington he should resign as his conduct at the moment is unacceptable and for Cllr Bernard La Roche to defend the indefensible is also of concern

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One or more of the comments may or may not be have come from Cllr Worrow or even Cllr Moores come to that, or any of the 72 councillors. But thats not the point its all unproven anonymus heresay and childish nonsense. Everything that has been written by Anonymous Sunday 2 Sep 12:58 above and his chums is only opinion driven by hatred - its an an incorrect opinion!

      Delete
  23. One or more of the comments may or may not be have come from Cllr Worrow or even Cllr Moores come to that, or any of the 72 councillors. But thats not the point its all unproven anonymus heresay and childish nonsense. Everything that has been written by Anonymous Sunday 2 Sep 12:58 above and his chums is only opinion driven by hatred - its anincorrect opinion from a sad person with outdated views about life!

    Delete

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think people in Birchington are aware of the Gregory mind-set and most of them understand why John could need stand by and listen to the way they talk about people that are different!

    ReplyDelete
  25. John listen to the people of Birchington or even care! you are having a laugh, he is totally without scruples

    ReplyDelete
  26. As Cllr La Roche started this issue perhaps he would like to comment as it is clear from all comments that Worrow is not regarded very highly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe most people have a life and can't be bothered lol

      Delete
  27. I would just like to say that as a political Liberal and a gay man, it is not just extreme right wing homophobes who find John Worrow's behaviour distasteful. I think he has done considerable harm to the image of the LGBT community in Thanet and there was no need for it. Apart from the odd twit like Gregory, most people I encounter are not bothered about my life style choice and it should be remembered that many Conservative councillors turned out and supported Margates Gay Pride event. Incidentally, whatever happened to Worrow's proposed Minnis Bay shindig.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its easy to say that about anyone, that comment proves nothing, it was not even signed by a real uncle Tom- the token minority person is about as outdated as the fools themselves!

      Delete
    2. Oh well if one non-conservive gay person thinks that he must be right, its that simple. Its like me, I can't be racist because I went to a party once where there were real non-white people! and the year after!

      Delete
    3. I am an Alien and I don't like John because he does nothing for my Solar System - and I can't be anti-gay because I went to an Elton John Concert once! ...oh and I'm a liberal Alien as and that means I've got more cred when I talk out of my Antena

      Delete
    4. As a fairly ignorant hetrosexual Tory, do the three preceeding comments mean that you can only be gay if you support John Worrow?

      Delete
  28. From John Worrow, by email.

    Dear Mr White, former Chairman of Birchington Parish Council

    I write in my personal and private capacity to strongly object to the apology that I sent you being leaked onto the internet and appearing to be used as political propaganda against me and an elderly parish councillor.

    With reference to your latest and very questionable standards complaint against me that was recieved on the 26th April 2012, facts since have shown me however, that you were not speaking in good faith about the matter. And since the new facts have come to light, I no longer believe I was wrong by asking you to leave a meeting that was not public, therefore I withdraw my apology and return to supporting what I said before my apology.

    Mr John Worrow

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well this guy is all charm. Presumably the fact he was asked to apologise by Standards is now forgotten and why shouldn't a demanded apology be published anyway? Then wasn't some Worrow supporter saying the letter was an obvious fraud. Seemingly it was not.

      The other little mystery is why pass this comment through Michael Child. Surely Mr Worrow is capable of responding to Mr. White directly or making the comment on this blog himself. He makes enough anonymous ones already in support of himself.

      Delete
    2. Interesting that worrow doesn't claim his letter was edited, how interesting, he should let his apologists know what his position is in future.

      Delete
  29. Ref Mr Childs' comments above, I did receive an Email from Mr Worrow (Cllr) withdrawing his apology in a personal and private capacity. I wonder why he did not use Cllr! Could it be that he cannot overrule the Standrds Board. If Cllr Worrow does not wish to have matters beting leaked onto the internet, then perhaps he will not use the internet for his own purposes and I quote: "AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST I AM MAKING THIS LETTER PUBLIC. It seems that £1000s of council taypayers money is being wasted on false complaints against me since I exposed COUNCILLOR KEN GREGORY's hate crime."where comments were made about many people, but not actually naming them.
    I would like to inform Cllr Worrow that I do not belong to any political party and never have been. I vote with my conscience. It is strange how his Email was leaked to the internet, as I did not do it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ref Mr Child's comments, I did receive the above Email from Mr Worrow (Cllr) stting that he was withdrawing his apology. I do note however, that he has done it as a Mr not as a Councillor. The reason I put it on the web was to try to clear matters up. If he does not wish, in future, for matters to be put on the web, then he should not publish hs matters on the web i.e. "AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST I AM MAKING THIS LETTER PUBLIC. It seems that £10000s of council taxpayers money is being wasted on false complaints agaoinst me since I exposed COUCILLOR KEN GREGORY'S hate crime."

    ReplyDelete
  31. Note the similarity of many of the comments in this thread which explode into capital letters such as the extract above from the email from Cllr Worrow - ie. he is persistently on this thread commenting anonomously. It really is pathetic to see. Do not assume that he has widespread support. Just as his 'webmaster' David Fox does not exist, nor do many of the 'commentators' on this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The ducking stool mentality of of Anoymous 2012 and co is all about opinion and prejdice. They can't get away from the fact that the only crime that was committed was by their colleague not by ,Martin, John Bernard or any LGBT team member

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the local political scene, who exactly are the LGBT team? Seems to me that opinion on John Worrow's behaviour is as divided amongst the Thanet LGBT community as anywhere else. Who exactly are the 'their' in the term 'their colleague' and surely crime, as you quaintly put it, is only part of the way a councillor should conduct themselves. There are other things like good manners, respect for colleagues and the electorate and councillors working as a team. Not wasting public time and money perpetually complaining about others.

      JW needs to move on, do the jub he was elected to do, if not for the people who actually elected him as a Conservative, and to put a stop to this homophobic nonsense. Yes, there is homophobia still out there, but it is not unique to anyone party, as Harrison and Gregory have shown, so time he stopped beating the nasty Tory homophobes drum. He has probably driven more people homophobic than was the case before he came on the scene.

      Delete
  33. I have to agree. What has JW done as TDC's Diversity Champion? Not a lot it appears.

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive and anonymous derogatory comments about real people will be deleted. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.