Tom's Table

Back in September 2022, Diary Defender Tom Mitchell, then secretly posting on Casebook in the name of "Iconoclast", due to having been permanently banned from that forum, emailed me a list of 16 articles published under the byline of Michael Barrett in the national magazine Celebrity between 1986 and 1988. He did so because he had been informed by Roger Palmer that I had only found 11 articles (although, as I mentioned to Tom at the time, the correct number was 12) and, out of an overwhelming desire to be helpful/lord it over Lord Orsam (delete as applicable), he sent me the full list.

Now, that document is not, as those diary defenders like to say, "mine to share" having, apparently, been created with blood, sweat and tears at enormous expense by Mr Mitchell, who had to travel some miles through England, yeah even unto the freezing godforsaken wilderness of Scotland, in order to compile it, but I am going to share it anyway. My reason for doing so is not, as some might think, to somehow aggravate Tom (quite the contrary) and will surprise some people. I'm pretty sure it's not a state secret but just a mundane list of articles.

Here is the list Tom sent me:

The reason I want you to see this is to compliment and, indeed, praise Tom. All I knew of Tom Mitchell in September 2022 was derived from his silly posts on Casebook defending the diary (frequently based on things he'd misremembered) and his shabby essay, "Society's Pillar", which was a motley collection of random daft arguments supporting the authenticity of the diary taken from many dark places, albeit mainly Feldman's book, which he clearly hadn't checked or even thought about properly and which collapsed under the mildest scrutiny. As the person who wrote the debunking article "Pillar of Sand" on my old website, it was a debunker's dream because pretty much every single loopy argument fell apart instantly once checked against the facts. Tom Mitchell, in other words, struck me as an incompetent clown.

I was, therefore, most surprised and, I will say without hesitation impressed, to see the amount of work and level of organization that went into creating Tom's excel spreadsheet list. I mean look at it, fucking columns and everything. Beautifully set out with the edition number, the page number, the title, the theme (or subject) and even distinguishing between the bylines of Michael and Mike Barrett.

If you think that I had wasted my time preparing anything similar you would be completely wrong.

When I say "wasted" my time, that is not in any way to disparage Tom's work, it was genuinely impressive. I was impressed and I still am. There is, it has to be said, a typo in it (Gary Skynner's surname is wrongly spelt as "Skyner") but the disparity between the disaster that is "Society's Pillar" and this fantastically set out and arranged list was striking. It struck me in this way at the time I saw it, and has remained on my mind ever since, due to the disparity of the poor quality of Tom's written work and the high quality of the table. At the same time, of course, it is nothing more than a list of articles but, for sure, a very well done list.

Even more that this, if we look at the below post in which Tom was writing under his secret, unguessable identity of "Iconoclast", it would seem that he had done the same thing for the 81 articles by someone called Tom Barrett (apparently no relation). Now THAT I would say was a complete waste of time but it's entirely up to him what he did with his precious time in Edinburgh.

For myself, when I first reviewed the back issues of Celebrity in September 2017, under some time pressure, I was only really interested in the visuals for my own article about Robert Smith's recently published book in which I was intending to show some images of Barrett's pieces. In other words, I wanted images of Michael Barrett's name in the byline and, once I saw that such a thing existed, was especially keen to capture those which said "Exclusive". I also wanted to show that Celebrity was a magazine for adults considering that Robert Smith had said that Barrett had only written a few puzzles for a children's magazine (following the lead from the error-strewn Inside Story which wrongly referred to Celebrity as "the children's magazine"). It was quickly apparent from the bland style of the articles, usually full of quotes, that I wasn't going to be finding mentions of "frequented my club" or other similar turns of phrase from the diary.

In my article entitled "Robert Smith and the Maybrick Diary - The False Facts Exposed!", published on 23 September 2017, I wrote this:

"Another false fact peddled by Robert Smith is that Mike Barrett was never a proper writer. According to Smith (p.13):

'Hadn’t he been an author? No, actually, he had only written a few puzzles for a children’s weekly magazine, Look-in, which centred on ITV’s television programmes'.

So how does Mr Smith explain this:

For it is the by-line of an article by Mike Barrett in Celebrity magazine.

There is no secret that Barrett had articles published in Celebrity magazine for it is mentioned in the 2003 book 'Inside Story', although the impression is also unfortunately given on page 172 that Celebrity was a children's magazine. It was not. It was a magazine for adults. Here is an example of a cover:

The article about Stan Boardman, as shown on the cover, in the bottom right hand corner, was written by Mike Barrett and has the 'EXCLUSIVE' by-line shown above.

Here is another of Mike's interviews in full:

This is an interview with Bonnie Langford.

Celebrity Magazine came into existence on 30 January 1986 and most of its articles during 1986 were uncredited so it's not possible to say with any degree of certainty when Mike Barrett started writing for this publication but, according to Inside Story (p.172), one of Barrett's articles featured an interview with Kenneth Williams and the only interview with Mr Williams in Celebrity is in its 5 June 1986 issue.  This suggests that Mike started submitting pieces during early 1986 and this start of a journalistic career would certainly be consistent not only with his supposed acquisition of a word processor in March 1986 but also with his apparent access in 1992 to a copy of the 1986 Writers' and Artists' Yearbook, as claimed in his confession affidavit of 5 January 1995.

Mike's first credited article appeared in the Christmas 1986 issue of Celebrity, being an interview with a Liverpool comedian called Gary Skynner.  Occasional credited articles articles followed during 1987 and 1988 until the magazine folded in the summer of 1988.

So it is simply untrue to say that Mike Barrett only contributed some puzzles to Look-In.

It has been mentioned that Mike's wife 'tidied up' his articles (although whether this means she simply corrected his spellings or actually re-wrote them is far from clear).  But it makes no difference to the argument that the Diary is a forgery because, in his confession affidavit of 5 January 1995, Mike Barrett stated that the Diary was written jointly by himself and his wife and, as she was supposedly holding the pen, Ann would have had the final say on anything included in the text.

When one speaks of coincidence therefore it just so happens that the person producing the Jack the Ripper diary was either a professional writer or one half of a professional writing team!  And the other half of that team was his wife who is alleged to have been involved in creating the diary.

The number of articles was never of much interest to me and, as can be seen, wasn't mentioned. I only referred to "Occasional credited articles" during 1987 and 1988. The reason for this is that I could quickly perceive that the number wasn't much to write home about.

All I had was a folder of images that I'd taken in the library. I never prepared a list at this time. There was no need. I posted a few selected images and that was all I wanted to do. I must have known there were more than nine articles because I'm pretty sure I later mentioned somewhere that the number ran into double figures but obviously not by much.

The other reason I wasn't focused on the number was because it was likely that Mike had written more articles or pieces which hadn't been credited to him. For the first few months of the life of Celebrity, the names of the journalists who wrote the articles weren't usually stated. There were, on the whole, no bylines. This is the case with the Kenneth Williams interview which isn't credited. We only know that it was done by Mike because he mentioned Williams as one of the people he interviewed.

Tom, on the other hand, did have a particular interest in the precise number of articles. For he had a plan.

TOM'S PLAN

During the Cloak & Dagger interview in April 1999, Mike had said this:

" I interviewed Kenneth Williams, Bonnie Langford, various people… and I do all the interviews, so I come back and I write it on a word processor. Right. And I’m only making about £120 if I’m lucky."

It's ironic that although diary defenders normally refuse to believe a single word Michael Barrett ever said, when he mentioned the sum of £120 from off the top of his head during the interview session, more than a decade after he would have received his last payment for his Celebrity articles, they take it as the gospel truth. An accurate figure which can be entirely relied upon.

Tom's plan, therefore, was to multiply £120 by 16 (although 17 would have been a better multiplier, on the basis that he wrote the Kenneth Williams article in addition to the known credited articles) to arrive at total fees earned by Mike of £2560 (or £2720). For Tom, that isn't much money.

Now you might ask, what does it matter how much money Mike earned? To which I would reply "Exactly!". It really doesn't matter at all. He was, for a few years, a professional freelance journalist writing articles for a national magazine for which he was being paid. Not necessarily a fortune but that's irrelevant.

We might also wonder if the £120 figure is correct. It so happens that I have a copy of an invoice received by Mike in 1991 from IPC Magazines for five puzzles he supplied to Look-in (an additional source of income which Tom would need to factor in but never does) and, perhaps by coincidence, it totals £120.

Was this why the figure of £120 popped into Mike's head in April 1999? Who knows?

But the £2,000-plus sum seems to be what Tom has taken from the entire exercise because, after all, one does have to wonder why he had even bothered to make the journey from Derbyshire to Edinburgh to spend what must have been some considerable time in the National Library of Scotland. What on earth did he think was in it for him? Not much diary defending fun to be had in going through articles written by Mike Barrett in a national magazine, each one proving him to have been a journalist. It could only realistically have been that, armed with the existing knowledge, or assumed knowledge, of £120 per article, he wanted to carefully establish the exact number of articles that Mike had had published in Celebrity. After all, I had, to the best of my recollection, never stated a total number of articles in Mike's name in any of my online pieces, so Tom was very much in the dark as to how many there were. He needed a precise figure for the calculation to work.

That surely must be the main reason for the trip. He didn't need to confirm that anything I had said was correct. The existence of the articles had already been confirmed in "Inside Story". I had never claimed that any of the language of the articles reflected the diary language although Tom might, of course, have wanted to confirm this for himself (but a bit unlikely).

What I'm saying, therefore, is that, for Tom, the overriding reason for his visit, and the point of most importance to him, was calculating the exact number of articles in Mike's name. This is why his table was so important to him.

TOM'S OTHER PLANS

In the event, there were three other things that Tom tried to take from the exercise, all of which failed miserably.

The first was to substantiate the utterly bizarre notion that because some of the articles were by-lined "Michael Barrett" while others were by-lined "Mike Barrett" this might reflect that there were two different people called M. Barrett writing for Celebrity magazine at the time! In which case, in Tom's mind, Mike earned even less money! The whole thing was a non-starter, even though it was floated on Casebook. We can see that on 6th September 2022, Tom posted:

"I suppose it is possible that there were three Barrett contributors. I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure".

What a lot of nonsense! Adding "I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure" to create an element of some kind of impossible-to-solve mystery as to whether there was a Celebrity journalist called Mike Barrett and another called Michael Barrett. But it's all a sham. When interviewed by Bob Azurdia in 1995, Mike had said:

"And the type of people I was interviewing such as Kenneth Williams, Stan Boardman, Mick Miller, erm some quite famous celebrities at the time,"

We can see from Tom's own table that the Stan Boardman interview was published under the name "Michael Barrett" while the Mick Miller one was published under the name "Mike Barrett". It's an open and shut case! Same bloody person. Obviously.

And just look further at Tom's table. Barrett interviewed Dorothy Wright for the 31st December 1987 edition of Celebrity and then again a few months later for the 7th April 1988 edition under the headline "Wright Again!" Was the magazine playing games with the woman, sending two different journalists to speak to her both called Mike/Michael Barrett? Of course not. What utter rubbish. Furthermore, Michael Barrett interviewed Dorothy Wright for the 1 January 1987 issue to get her predictions for 1987 and Mike Barrett reported on the success or otherwise of those predictions in the 31 December 1987 issue. Of course it was the same person! But I suppose Tom had been all the way to Edinburgh so needed something to justify the trip.

Tom's second failure was his attempt to pretend that another journalist might have been responsible for the infamous (geddit? infamy! oh please yourself) Kenneth Williams article in the 5 June 1986 issue of Celebrity. Hence, in a post dated 8th September 2022, he said of Celebrity's interview with Kenneth Williams:

"Personally, I suspect it would have been written by James Green..."

This is more Tom Mitchell nonsense of the highest order.

There is no evidence that James Green worked for Celebrity prior to November 1986. Even if it's true that after that time he conducted "most of Celebrity's London-based interviews" (and Tom provides no analysis to back this up), we find that Tom Barrett interviewed Benny Hill, who lived in London, for the 31 July 1986 issue of Celebrity, so there's no reason why Mike Barrett couldn't have interviewed Kenneth Williams, who also lived in London, in June 1986. James Green was an experienced journalist of some forty years standing for London evening newspapers. There wouldn't have been any point in hiring someone of his experience not to include his name on the by-line. Hence, he almost certainly wasn't employed by Celebrity until November 1986. In any case, Mike Barrett tells us that he interviewed Kenneth Williams. His claims check out in respect of Bonnie Langford, Stan Boardman, Mick Miller and others. Why would he have felt the need to invent Kenneth Williams? It makes no sense.

Tom's third failure was only revealed recently when, on 7th May 2026, he posted on JTR Forums a list of all contributors to Celebrity magazine during its lifetime showing the number of articles credited to each contributor. The list is so long, consisting of 141 names that I can't fit it all into one image but here are the first 65 names:

Now THAT really is a complete waste of time. What Tom thinks it proves I've no idea. In fact, he seems to have both shot himself in the foot and scored an own goal at the same time by demonstrating that Michael Barrett was in the Top Ten of credited journalists for the entire life of Celebrity magazine.

But Tom's list is flawed. As mentioned, during most of 1986 many of the articles in Celebrity were not credited. We can see at number 29 in the list that Tom claims there were five "unattributed" articles but this is rubbish. There were far more unattributed articles than this in Celebrity. Even during 1987 and 1988 not all its pieces were credited. For all we know, Mike Barrett was contributing material for every single issue (and being paid).

When Tom posted the list, he made this strange comment:

"Personally, I don't believe that anyone in the list below - based on this evidence alone - could be classed as a professional"

If that were true (which it isn't), all this demonstrates is the worthlessness of the list because James Green was undoubtedly an experienced journalist having worked as one since the Second World War and for over 20 years for the London Evening News. He then retired during the 1980s but continued to work as a freelance journalist, not only for Celebrity but also for the Daily Mail and Independent newspapers.

From a search of the British Newspaper Archive, women by the names of Nora Warner and Judy Byrne can be found as journalists for various newspapers during the 1980s. In the Hertford Mercury of 2 April 1982, we find reference to the publication of a book called Hertfordshire Brasses "by freelance journalist Mary Rensten". In the issue of the same newspaper dated 28 May 1982, Rensten is described as "a part time teacher, freelance journalist and chairman of the Verulan Writers Circle in St Albans". On 11 March 1983, she is referred to as "journalist and author" after she wrote a play called The Yellow Wallpaper which was staged at three London theatres (Soho Poly Theatre,, the Duke of York Theatre and the King's Head Theatre) during 1983. In The Stage of 20 December 1984 she is described as "Author Mary Rensten". I can't say for sure but it seems very likely that she is the same journalist who had 18 credited articles published in Celebrity, according to Tom's list.

During 1981, Tim Ewbank was a film critic for The Sun newspaper. In 1982 he was writing The Sun's gossip column with Kay Goddard.

In February 1985, he was writing TV pieces for The Sun such as "20 THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT DOCTOR WHO":

Ewbank now writes celebrity/showbiz books including a 2006 biography of David Jason. His biography on hachette.co.uk states: "Tim Ewbank writes regularly on show business for Now magazine, as well as for national newspapers like the Daily Express and Mail on Sunday. He is the author of a number of successful show business biographies, including ones on Rod Stewart, Tom Jones and Roy Keane."

You can't be much more of a journalist than this but, oh dear, only 15 credited articles for Celebrity, according to Tom's list, one less than Mike Barrett!

MICHAEL BARRETT AS A JOURNALIST

As part of his delusional state of denial when it comes to Mike Barrett's career as a journalist, on 30th April 2025 (#40 of "The Maybrick Thread (For All Things Maybrick)" on Casebook, Tom wrote:

'Evidently, Barrett didn't think of himself as a journalist"

He then followed up this this ludicrous statement in the same post, saying:

"Honestly, there is no evidence that Mike Barrett ever thought of himself as a journalist and therefore felt he had something to hide".

Tom's silly claims are easily disproven.

In the 27 June 1994 issue of the Liverpool Daily Post, it is stated by Harold Brough based on what Mike had told him:

"Barrett said that he had written material for Dundee publisher D.C. Thomson"

DC Thomson was the publisher of Celebrity magazine.

In the July 1994 issue of Ripperologist, based on information from Devereux's daughter it was stated that:

"Mr Devereux understood that Barrett was a journalist...."

This information can only have come from Mike Barrett himself.

In November 1994, Mike told Alan Gray, on tape:

"David Burness, David Burness…magazine… in 1987 I was the chief writer, ,..he will confirm that, he will confirm I was the chief writer, 1987… Stan Boardman …..Bonnie Langford… Dorothy Wright…she was a girl in Liverpool…I’m going back to 1987…"

He told Bob Azurdia on Liverpool local radio in September 1995

"I was working for, freelancing for a magazine called Celebrity magazine."

In the 1998 edition of her book, Shirley Harrison wrote:

"Michael....had always had dreams of being a writer.....He liked to call himself a journalist".

On 10 April 1999, at the Cloak & Dagger Club, Mike said:

"I've been writing for David Burness, Celebrity magazine, I've been writing for Chat magazine, I've been writing for Look-In magazine. I've been writing for all these magazines."

Naturally, there was no a hint of any of this from Mike between 9th March 1992 and his June 1994 confession. But, before that period, and after it, Mike insisted he was a journalist, a freelance writer for magazines. The point here is that up until the summer of 1994, both Mike and Anne had kept this fact a closely guarded secret from Mike's own literary agent, Doreen Montgomery, and from his co-author of the Maybrick Diary, Shirley Harrison. They also did not tell Keith Skinner, Martin Howells, Martin Fido, Paul Begg, Paul Feldman, Sally Evemy, Robert Smith or anyone else.

Bang in the middle of that period, we find Harold Brough reporting this, in the Liverpool Daily Post of 28 September 1993 (bold added):

"He [Barrett]...joined the Merchant Navy at 15 and later held several jobs before going to work at a scrap metal business at Vauxhall, Liverpool. There he was the 'scales' man, the buyer. About 12 years ago [i.e. 1981], he collapsed at work. He was diagnosed as having kidney failure which was perhaps connected with a road accident as a child. He has not worked since that time and lives on his benefit income and Anne's wage as a secretary".

As can be seen, despite Barrett having obviously provided Brough with a detailed account of his life, there was no mention whatsoever of the things he would later boast about (including to Brough himself in June 1994), like having been the chief writer for Celebrity and "working for, freelancing for a magazine". He was keeping it all secret, claiming never to have worked after 1981. Why? Because if it was known he was had been a professional writer instead of a scrap metal worker, it would have blown the scam wide open.

There was also an issue with Mike's Amstrad word processor. This had been purchased on 3 April 1986, shortly before Mike's first known article was published in Chat magazine of 24 May 1986 (and a few months after the launch of Celebrity magazine at the end of January 1986). This word processor was undoubtedly purchased by Mike for the sole purpose of assisting him with his journalistic work. Yet, he told Shirley Harrison et al that he bought it much later (in about 1991 or 1992), after he obtained the diary, because he wanted to use it to write the story of the diary. That is what Shirley Harrison told the world in her 1993 book, which must have been read in draft, and left uncorrected, by both Mike and Anne. That book also said that Mike had been a scrap metal dealer but omitted any mention of Mike's journalism (because neither Mike nor Anne had mentioned it to Shirley, or anyone else connected with the diary).

That Tom doesn't think any of this is in any way suspicious, and even tries to pretend that Mike didn't think of himself as a journalist, is an example of self-delusion beyond compare.

MIKE'S CELEBRITY ARTICLES

Here, for the first time, is the full set of reproductions of Mike Barrett's 16 credited Celebrity articles:

25 December 1986 issue of Celebrity, Mike's first credited article in that publication

1 January 1987 issue of Celebrity

15 January 1987 issue of Celebrity

16 April 1987 issue of Celebrity

30 April 1987 issue of Celebrity

6 August 1987 issue of Celebrity

13 August 1987 issue of Celebrity

27 August 1987 issue of Celebrity

29 October 1987 issue of Celebrity

24 December 1987 issue of Celebrity

31 December 1987 issue of Celebrity (note reference to "Celebrity's Mike Barrett")

31 December 1987 issue of Celebrity

28 January 1888 issue of Celebrity

7 April 1888 issue of Celebrity

16 June 1988 issue of Celebrity

11 August 1988 issue of Celebrity (the competition winner had had to give a reason why she wanted to meet Dorothy Wright which probably mentioned her illness - what are the chances that Michael Barrett was being truthful when he said that "Dorothy knew absolutely nothing about our prize-winner"?

UNCREDITED CELEBRITY

There is only one known uncredited article by Mike Barrett in Celebrity magazine, his interview of Kenneth Williams, but there were almost certainly more. This is the Williams interview:

5 June 1986 issue of Celebrity

CHAT

To complete the entire set, Mike's credited articles in Chat magazine are below (two in the name of Mike Barrett, one in the name of Michael Barrett but all the same person!)

22 May 1986 issue of Chat

31 May 1986 issue of Chat

16 August 1986 issue of Chat

FOOTNOTE

As a notorious visitor to this website called "Blackpool Brian" seemed to think that my overriding focus with this issue was to cover up some kind of embarrassment that I hadn't spotted four of Mike's articles during my initial review of Celebrity's back issues, I asked my assistant, David Barrat, to conduct a full independent inquiry into my review of Celebrity from 2017 to establish what went so catastrophically and fundamentally wrong.

Taking information from the metadata of the images, he discovered that I visited the British Library on Saturday 9th September 2017 and spent 2 hours and 49 minutes during the afternoon of that day turning the pages of the 1987 and 1988 volumes of Celebrity and making photographic copies of certain pages. As I mentioned in my testimony for the inquiry, my time spent on the review before the library closed would have been curtailed somewhat by the fact that the 1986 volumes of Celebrity which I had ordered online, had apparently, gone missing, having been wrongly catalogued. This would have entailed discussions about those volumes with the Newsroom staff prior to the library closing. In fact, I well remember that I had worked out what must have gone wrong with the catalogue (as was later proven to be the case) but a somewhat annoying member librarian stubbornly refused to accept what I was telling her and I just couldn't convince her that what I was saying must be true.

It took over a week for the British Library to locate and send through the missing volumes but, when I turned up specially in the Newsroom to review them, I was presented with a bound volume of issues of Yorkshire and Farming News from 1997. You can imagine my surprise and delight (not).

I must have complained about this because I note that I received the below email from the Newsroom manager on 20th September 2017 (three days before I published my article about Robert Smith's book). You can get an idea from it of the catalogue (excuse pun) of errors that I'd faced at the time:

Delivery of Celebrity Magazine 1986 at British Library

"I am the Reading Room Manager for the Newsroom and was informed yesterday afternoon about the issues that you have been experiencing with the above title.

I believe that there was initially a cataloguing problem which has been resolved and then the item was mis-picked by the delivery team at our automated building in Yorkshire and Farming News from 1997 was picked instead.

Unfortunately, we are unable to send the correct volume down from that building until the wrong item has been returned and I would like to apologise wholeheartedly for this and the other delays that you have experienced.

However, I have had an Email from one of the storage managers this morning informing me that your item should be with us tomorrow.

I am working a late shift tomorrow, so won’t be available in the morning. I believe you have already been talking to [Librarian's name redacted] from the Reference Team about this matter so please ask to speak to her if there are any issues before then. If the matter remains unresolved when I arrive I will pick it up again then.

Once again, my sincere apologies for the difficulties that have occurred relating to this order.

I received a further email on 21st September informing me that the relevant volumes had finally been delivered to the library. I visited the British Library that evening after work. The image metadata shows that I spent 1 hour and 4 minutes with these volumes.

I returned to look again at the 1987-88 volumes a few weeks after I'd published my article, on 14th October 2017, but only spent 59 minutes doing so. There must have been a few things I wanted to check due to what had been a fairly hasty initial review.

After corresponding with Tom in September 2022, I visited the British Library again on 8 October 2022 at which time I re-reviewed all volumes of Celebrity from 1986-87 and then went back once more on 15 October 2022 to re-review the 1988 volumes. This time the review was much more thorough. I was there from 10.20am - 3.01pm on 8 October and from 9:47am to 10:36pm on 15 October making a total of around 5 hours and 30 minutes although there would have been a small amount time taken for lunch on the 8th so the actual time on the volumes would have been closer to 5 hours. One reason for this was that I was now checking all of James Green's articles too, as Tom had raised his daft point that Green might have written the Kenneth Williams article and claimed that he had conducted the majority of London interviews. When I wrote to Tom in September 2022 I had thought that issue 101 was missing due but in fact the British Library did have a copy of it.

The results of Mr Barrat's independent inquiry are, of course, strictly private and confidential but I feel that it is important that I should squash the scandalous rumour floating around in some circles that he made a finding of gross negligence on my part with a recommendation that my title of "Lord" be stripped from me and that I be banished from Orsam Towers. Such a finding is hardly likely in circumstances where he knows that he'd be sacked immediately if he even contemplated it. I trust this finally puts an end to all the fanciful speculation going on in Blackpool and other northern seaside resorts.

LORD ORSAM

8 May 2026