I’m back in the doghouse, comrades. “Oh no!” I hear you say. “Not again.” Sadly so. It’s the barking up the nearest (and probably the wrong) tree that does it. The charge? “Insulting and unprofessional” behaviour. And the plea? Well, somewhat guilty to the first bit, I s’pose, but “unprofessional”? I am a volunteer, not a professional, and I’ve never heard of a professional site secretary before. So not guilty to that bit.
This little scuffle is, I hope, the final bone to be picked in a spat that is now several months old – the subject of a post back in September in which we Hillbillies found ourselves on the wrong end of certain anonymous and equally spurious allegations concerning the ill-treatment of Mr and Mrs Nutkin (i.e grey squirrels). Aficionados may recall a visit from the police and the RSPCA, followed by several emails from the head honcho at the People’s Republic.
The latest development was an email last week from said head honcho who, having covered his arse nicely, dismissed the complaint but in doing so, let slip who was behind it. A somewhat rash thing to do, some would say, but in my view, and unless I am much mistaken, if someone wishes to level a charge at you, surely it is only fair and just that one should know who the complainant is. I do not believe that it is OK for anyone to be able to make accusations without putting their heads above the parapet. That way lies the refuge of many a vexatious scoundrel/malicious litigant.
And who would this complainant be, I hear you ask? The head honcho let slip that it was an organisation called Animal Aid. Righto, I thought. Let’s take a look at this lot and then fire off a somewhat snotty (emailed) broadside in their general direction (the subject line was “will you kindly go away now?” That was the polite bit. They didn’t take at all kindly, for example, to be called a bunch of spineless bunny-huggers).
Uh huh. “Was that wise?” my dear wife inquired. Probably not. But we won’t be hearing from them again, will we? I responded.
All went quiet for a few days but then, blow me down, a reply landed in which our friends at Animal Aid denied that they were the source of the initial complaint at all, claiming that all they were doing was following up a complaint that was made to them, and all they did was to make an innocuous enquiry of the head honcho at the republic.
And what else did they do? They only copied the reply, accompanied by my earlier blast, to the head honcho himself, presumably with a view to getting me disciplined or sacked.
There is one small snag here, my friends. As you know, I have no boss. I do not do “bosses”. The republic didn’t appoint me, and they don’t sack me either. The head honcho may well be holding his head in his hands, wondering what the Dangerous Dogs Act has to say about this sort of thing – and the answer is, laugh or weep. Preferably the former.
And as to the true source of last September’s campaign. Surprisingly, she is continuing to lie doggo.