The Diary

07 February 2004: Pre-Preston Ponderings

Well, Hughie?s moment in Coventry Crown Court finally came and went this morning, and pretty much everything panned out as I?d expected. Lee pleaded not guilty to causing death by dangerous driving, and the other matter regarding leaving the scene of an accident was remitted until such a time as the more serious charge is dealt with. I strongly suspect Lee is going to hold his hands up to that one once the more serious matter has been sorted one way or another. The hearing was a brief one, apparently; as I said last night, when someone pleads not guilty, it?s literally a five minute job for the judge (he?s a recorder, not a full-blown Crown Court judge, by the way, which is about the bottom rung on the judicial ladder at that level), to make the appropriate pronouncements, then adjourn the thing for a date to be fixed.

At least Lee has had the conditions of his bail varied, insofar as he doesn?t have to report to the plods twice a week any more, it?s now down to turning up on Sundays only. This is normal in cases where someone has been given bail with conditions, and they?ve religiously adhered to them; it also has the additional bonus of saving the plods some unnecessary paperwork. According to the stuff I?ve read so far, it looks as though the prosecution are still awaiting additional forensic evidence from both the scene of the collision, and from Lee?s car, which should be completed within 28 days, judging from what the Crown brief said in court. Presumably, this will be presented in the form of a written report, plus supporting photographs of the scene of the accident, Hughsie?s car, and the other vehicle involved in the collision. As today?s proceedings were so swiftly dealt with, I?m assuming Lee travelled to Preston with the rest of his team-mates, and will be in contention for a place in the side tomorrow as per normal. Personally, I don?t think there will be any hassle for Lee regarding the court case; where there might be animosity, however, is the circumstances of Jonathan Gould?s dismissal during the corresponding Hawthorns fixture, and the penalty, which Lee took and banged in the back of the net with great aplomb, of course.

Thoughts of Preston bring me to a much more light-hearted section of my regular tome, and that?s my ?historical? ? a detention for the person who said ?hysterical?! ? bit. According to my researches, it all started for the Lancashire town in 1066, when the place was given to a bloke called Roger de Poitu after the Battle Of Hastings. ?Jobs for the boys?, presumably, courtesy of a grateful William The Conqueror ? oh, and Preston got a mention in the Domesday Book not long afterwards. The place was granted a royal charter the following century, and that?s how their market came about. In 1322 ? now here?s a turn up for the books ? Robert The Bruce took time off from his normal leisure pursuit of watching spiders climb up and down walls to set fire to the place. Why? I?ve no idea; perhaps some mediaeval incarnation of Tom Finney upset the bloke!

In 1644, the first postal service between Preston and London came into being; roads being little more than dirt tracks then, letters must have taken a hell of a time to get there and back ? and no shouts of ?things haven?t changed all that much, then!? from the back, please! In 1648, the royalists were defeated at the Battle of Preston, which must have pleased Oliver Cromwell no end. Not that you could please him much, mind; he was a most miserable sod by all accounts. 1768 was a year to remember for the borough; that was the year Prestonian Richard Arkwright invented the first powered spinning wheel, and his discovery pretty much kicked off the wool industry in the town. 1794 was a bad year for lovers of strong liquor living in those parts, though; Joseph Livesy, the founder of The Temperance Movement, was born there. All together, now ? BOO!!!

Come the start of the19th century, come the opening of what was called ?The Institution For The Diffusion Of Knowledge?, which now goes by the less-cumbersome and more practical title of the University Of Lancashire. Just as well for the students, really; imagine having to come up with that little lot when applying for a student loan? 1842 saw some industrial unrest in the town; in a microcosm of what later came to be known to Manchester as the Peterloo Massacre, four locals were killed by the military; a statue commemorating the fallen still stands outside the Corn Exchange Building to this day. In 1888, Preston North End became one of the founder members of the Football League, of course (the Football Museum next to the ground?s worth a visit, by the way, and it?s now free!) and just 4 years later, the Albert Edward Dock was opened for business, which meant quite large ships could navigate right up the River Ribble, on which the town stands. At one time, the place was the largest dock basin of its kind in Europe, but it?s now closed and ? yes, you?ve guessed it ? the site has since been redeveloped and ?yuppified?. Oh, and one other historical bit of note. In 1965, the very first Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet in the country was opened in Preston!

Famous Prestonians? Victoria Wood, comedian and writer. Aw, you know, the one who wrote ?Dinnerladies?! Then there?s ?rugger bugger? Bill Beaumont, who has the dubious distinction of being the longest-serving panellist on The Beeb?s ?A Question Of Sport?. If your bent happens to be animation films, then Preston can cater for you handsomely. Nick Park, the bloke who put together the hilarious Wallace And Gromit films and box-office hit ?Chicken Run? was dragged into the world, bawling and mewling, in the town. And, going from the sublime to the ridiculous, so was Syd Little, of Little And Large ?fame?. Er, yes.

Me being me, I?ve also dragged up a couple of oddball ones for you. Anyone any idea what the term ?paracide? means? Well, until I compiled this piece, I didn?t know either; it?s murder of both husband and wife, their daughter being the one responsible for the evil deed in this case! In this case, the lady in question was someone called Jane Scott, who was well known in the town as something of a bad lot. In 1827, she stood accused of having bumped off her parents. The ?murder weapon?? Porridge, liberally laced with arsenic. (Don?t try this at home, by the way, forensic science has come on in leaps and bounds since then!) There were two separate court cases; the first was thrown out on what might be regarded as a technicality these days, but the second of the charges stood. Eventually, the jury retired and deliberated for some twenty minutes (they dispensed justice extremely quickly in those days!) before returning to pronounce a "Guilty" verdict.

Although she pleaded for her life, the judge then addressed her stating it was out of his power to alter the sentence of the law fixed as a punishment for the crime. He then announced that she "be taken to he place from where she came and from there to the place of execution on Saturday next, and there hang by the neck until dead, and afterwards the body to be taken down, dissected and anatomised". Not exactly community service, is it? She wept in ?great agony? while the judge addressed her, and with a ?slow and tottering pace? left the bar ? judicial, that is, not the ?public? variety. In view of her ultimate fate, was she also a bit ?cut up? about it, I wonder?

During the final week of her life, she finally confessed to the murder of both her parents and her two children (there had been suspicions, and in one instance, it actually came to a trial, but nothing was really proven until she finally decided to confess all). Many from Preston witnessed her execution - public hangings were by far the most popular spectator 'sport', at this time; these days, people simply watch ?reality shows? on TV! ? and on March 22nd, 1828 many set off for Lancaster (the scene of the ?topping?) in the middle of the night. Why? To get a good seat, like we do when following the Baggies, that?s why! The churchyard and every place which afforded a view of the scaffold packed ?em in like sardines. Indeed, according to the oldest farts in Lancaster, the crowd was greater than on any similar occasion they could remember. At midnight, the execution party appeared, and positioned themselves around the scaffold. Shortly afterwards the condemned woman appeared and walked to the gallows supported by two female attendants. To all appearances, she seemed more dead than alive, and opened her eyes only as she reached the outside of the castle.

Once on the scaffold, the executioner slipped the noose around her neck and drew the cap over her face. The Chaplain read part of the burial service as the two women supported her. She then ?fell back to the extremity of the rope, with her face to the crowd and was launched into eternity?. The execution of Jane Scott was carried out by Edward Barlow commonly called ?Old Ned'.

Which brings me neatly to the tale of the old sod himself! Edward Barlow, commonly known as "Old Ned" was said to be a greater villain than many he "turned off" as hangman at Lancaster Castle. Barlow led a wretched life. Rumour had it he?d been sentenced to death for horse stealing, then a capital offence, and was twice sentenced to transportation as well. Instead of getting an ?assisted passage? to the Antipodes, in a forerunner of what would now be described as ?community service?, he received paroles for his various crimes and was allowed to continue as a hangman. On 19th April, 1887, he officiated as executioner to nine poor sods all at the same time. Five of the victims were under 20 years of age. They all hung so close together that they jostled one another on the drop - a sight "harrowing to the last degree".

He was described as a man who had little consideration and sympathy for his victims and was on occasions pelted with various foul missiles. There were few homes in which he was permitted to enter. For all this, he maintained his position as hangman for a period of 30 years, during which time he "turned off" 131 victims ? was he on ?commission?, I wonder? Surprisingly, in view of the great animosity shown towards him, he lived to be an old man, and died in Lancaster Castle, but I can?t help feeling that when he did finally pop his clogs, there were an awful lot of souls with elongated necks waiting for him to turn up outside the Pearly Gates, and every single one of ?em wanting ?a sharp word? with him!

That?s that, then, and now for what?s likely to happen tomorrow ? or, more to the point, what I hope will happen, etc.! After the Watford win last Saturday, I?m feeling far more optimistic we?ll get a result. We haven?t won there for 45 years, apparently ? even The Fart can?t remember it! - so it?s about time the odds finally turn for us, then. Our main problem will be in containing Ricardo Fuller. Albion should know an awful lot about him because he came to our place on trial three seasons ago, and despite the fact he banged in quite a few goals for us at reserve team level, he wasn?t considered worthy of a contract at the time. According to the blurb I?ve just read, it was considered that as we had two strikers (Jason Roberts and Lee) performing well, he wouldn?t get much of a look-in. Let?s hope that decision doesn?t blow up in our faces tomorrow. One thing, though ? it looks as though Son Of Barmy Bobby won?t be taking part in the proceedings; he?s currently injured, and if he isn?t fit, then his understudy, Andrew Lonergan, should be stepping into the breech instead. Michael Jackson ? ooer! ? has now finished his suspension, so he might be in with a shout. Brian O?Neill is suspended, and their captain, Chris Lucketti, is doubtful; apparently, he?s done something unspeakable to his toe. Never mind, perhaps we?ll send Big Dave to kiss it better?

For our part, it?s now looking as though we?ll have Jason Koumas back, but only on the bench, more than likely. As I said earlier, Lee Hughes will probably be partnering The Horse up front, despite that court case, but new-bugs Delroy Facey and Morten Skoubo are also in the squad; one of them might be needed should it be felt the stress of the judicial proceedings has affected Hughsie?s concentration unduly. Rob Hulse (suspended) and Scott Dobie (injured) will be absent from the line-up, of course. It?s also quite an occasion for Greegs; tomorrow?s game will be the first time he?s been to Deepdale since his transfer. He?s still thought of very highly in those parts; the Preston unofficial website describes him as ?one of the most successful captains in the club?s history?. Praise indeed; what more can I say?

Turning to another matter entirely, I?m currently doing a compilation of ?horror stories? culled from motorists encountering difficulties getting away from The Hawthorns after home games. The object of the exercise is to collate evidence that post-match policing leaves much to be desired ? we?ve heard some awful horror stories, to date, and that?s not counting what we?ve encountered ourselves post-match ? and then send it, plus a formal letter of complaint from yours truly, to our good buddies at West Midlands Police HQ. To date, I?ve only advertised this via the mailing-list, but if anyone else out there reading this can contribute their own tales of woe, I?d be more than grateful. Anyone wishing to help, they can get me on dick@football4sale.com, so get those fingers clicking on those keyboards ASAP.

And finally?.One. My, The Dingles really are resorting to desperate measures to get them out of the mess they currently find themselves in! Last night, when journeying to Kiddy, who did we hear on Tony Butler?s phone-in show? The Bishop Of Wolverhampton, no less! Not that I knew Wolverhampton rated a bishop, mind you, but in his wisdom, Butler came up with the spiffing wheeze of getting that clerical gentleman to ?bless? our dysfunctional neighbours for the struggle ahead. Any Satanists out there, please feel free to ?gazump? the bugger at any time!

Two. On a slightly related note, one of the pressies I gave my other half for his birthday earlier this week was a copy of a computer game called ?The Sims?. Most of you will have heard of it, but some may not, so here?s a brief description. The idea is, you take a virtual ?family?, give them a house etc. then run their lives in any way you see fit, within the constraints of the game. And, if you?re of a malicious bent, make a complete mucking fuddle of their entire existence. I?ve never played it, personally, but ?Im Indoors tells me it completely satisfies the malicious streak he?s got buried deep within his soul, somewhere. That?s what comes of being a civil servant, of course! The latest news, as of this evening, is that he?s now ?created? three separate households, they?ve all got names ? and yes, he?s taking enormous pleasure in ruining their entire day for them. As far as the first two are concerned, it?s perhaps diplomatic of me not to mention what he?s called them; my sister may be tiny, but she can?t half throw a mean punch! The third? Why, The Dingle Family, of course ? what else did you expect?

 - Glynis Wright

Contact the Author

Diary Index