Trenton! Trenton! Jesus Christ, Trenton!

By skepticlawyer

With the awful inevitability of a dog chasing deer into oncoming traffic in Richmond Park, I present to you Trenton Oldfield (Hell’s bells, the names even rhyme), Australia’s shame.

Yesterday, Trenton Oldfield did this at the Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race:

First, Sir Matthew Pinsent, the former Olympic rower, thought he saw debris in the water.

Then, he and hundreds watching on the banks of the river thought it must be a dog, swimming towards the Oxford and Cambridge boats as they sped past Chiswick on a choppy Thames.

But when he realised that it was a bearded man in a wetsuit who was heading straight for Oxford’s vessel, he desperately signalled to stop the Boat Race, eight minutes after it had begun.

Staring from the water at Sir Matthew, the assistant umpire, was Trenton Oldfield, an Australian activist who had swum in to publicise his bizarre manifesto.

As the two crews stopped, the oars inches from Mr Oldfield’s head, officials dragged him out of the water and on to another launch.

Minutes later, wrapped in a blanket and grinning broadly, Mr Oldfield was led away by police, and was being held last night on suspicion of committing a public order offence.

Trenton Oldfield can thank Will Zeng, Oxford’s no 2, and Zoe de Toledo, Oxford’s cox, for their quick reflexes and presence of mind. Without both, he would have been decapitated. It appears that he doesn’t realise this, because during his arrest (after the rower-chasing exercise), he was smiling far more broadly than Fenton the Dog would have been when his owner caught up with him. Spectators, river police, RNLI rescuers and rowing crews alike were treated to victory gestures, ‘thumbs up’ signals and a look-at-me shiteating grin.

Elitism leads to tyranny, says trustafarian

It didn’t take long for information about Trenton Oldfield to emerge. The man has a master’s degree in ‘Contemporary Urbanism‘ from the London School of Economics (what is it with the LSE? First Gaddafi, now this numpty? And why do they have so many ‘qualifications’ in meaningless drivel?). He is also a fellow of the uber-posh Royal Society of Arseholes (sorry, Arts) and a trustafarian who boasts about his charitable sector work on his LinkedIn profile (some of those charities need their purposes reviewed as a matter of urgency, too. Charitable my foot; political more like). Also, his name is ‘Trenton’. Presumably his Boat Race adventures mean that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will soon be brought about by a bevy of Tarquins and Julias and Tristrams. I kid you not. Apparently (according to his hilarious RSA profile):

Trenton’s foremost preoccupations include unearthing the socio-political history of fences/railings – including when they shifted from keeping things in to keeping things out, the spaces in cities people have set out to make together, contemporary places of work, emotions in finance, the processes of creating and conceptualising ‘a home’ in a new city, the tension existing between danger & beauty embodied for example in aeroplanes and how social relations (dissolving of nation states and rise of cities) might change on earth with the colonisation of other planets [admin: full stop, inhale]. Trenton is also working on debates within inter-disciplinary urbanism around notions of ‘Darwinistic individual selfishness’ – or ‘Who Dares Wins Urbanism’ attempting to make apparent the predictable, though overlooked failures of individualism within and apparent across the ‘leadership’ of the centre, left and right [admin: full stop, inhale].

Trenton has worked for over a decade in non-governmental organisations specialising in urban renewal, cultural and environmental programmes. He was Coordinator of the Thames Strategy – Kew to Chelsea, Strategic Project Manager at Cityside Regeneration and a Community Development Worker in North Kensington [admin comment: Kensington needs Community Development Workers?]. Alongside his formal work he has continued to explore his questions about cities via his personal projects that have included installations in the public realm, film, guest editing and guest lecturing. Trenton has been active on the boards of the Westway Development Trust, London Citizens and Subtext. In 2007, with Deepa Naik, he formally established This Is Not A Gateway, a not-for-profit organisation that has set out to inject a criticality into discussions about cities via creating a platform for existing, though overlooked multi-disciplinary critical actors and provocateurs. In 2009 they established Myrdle Court Press to publish the work of critical urbanists from around the world. MCP’s first title was Critical Cities; Ideas, Knowledge & Agitation from Emerging Urbanists. Trenton is currently researching the socio-political history of fenced green spaces in London for a forthcoming book [admin comment: soon to be ‘prison yards I have known?’]. This research is part of his attempt to find a way to go beyond the agreement that exists around ownership, specifically land ownership in the 21st Century.

[I realise I should have edited that for length, but I just couldn’t bring… myself… to… excise… a… single… word.]

Why don’t you get a job? (with apologies to The Offspring)

Even worse, before his Boat Race adventures, he published a two thousand word ‘manifesto’ that is a wonderfully fitting and utterly hair-brained tribute to the wreckage that postmodernism has made of at least one of our universities. It is also littered with basic spelling and grammatical errors, and is generally poorly written. This man should not have been allowed anywhere near university, let alone a master’s qualification from a university still ranked (although Goddess knows how) in Britain’s top ten. Maybe it’s the LSE’s hard scientists who do all the heavy lifting.

Then again, it looks like Trenton is rich enough to pay the international student fees. Some of us have to get scholarships, you know. There was no way I was getting anywhere near Oxford without two of them (thank-you Clarendon, thank-you IHS).

[An aside: there was a moment there where the whole business made me think of that line from Yes Minister: ‘well, he’ll know how to behave if he went to an English university, even if it was the LSE.’ That confidence, it would appear, was misplaced.]

Here are a few selections from the more coherent bits of his ‘manifesto’:

When hasn’t elitism lead to tyranny? When hasn’t the belief of being ‘more’ than another person led to tragedy? Who benefits from elitism? One won’t be surprised to learn the etymology of the word ‘elite’ derives from ‘the elected’ … unfortunately not elected by democratic means, but rather, elected by god. Yup…‘elected’, ‘selected’, ‘chosen’ … by god … inherited. When has this understanding of oneself or by a group of people ever been a good thing? When has this understanding not resulted in tyranny? Is tyranny surely not the inevitable outcome? And in contrast, when hasn’t the pursuit of equality, not resulted in these long passages of tyranny being overcome, even if temporarily?  

I dunno, Trenton. Soviet Communism was rather taken up with equality, and so was Pol Pot as he suffocated all those eye-glass wearing intellectuals with plastic bags. Hey, it’s a form of recycling, at least…


My swim into the pathway of the two boats today (I hope) is a result of key guerrilla tactics; local knowledge, ambush, surprise, mobility and speed, detailed information and decisiveness. There is no choice but to be apprehended in this action. I know this area very well and have planned the swim as best as I can, taking into account all the local knowledge I have gained over the years. Guerrilla tactics could be summarised as; ‘preparation, creativity, daring and attrition’. The aim of employing these tactics is to shift from being a ‘victim’ … of having things done to one, to being the ones setting the agenda, placing elites more and more on the back foot, increasing their costs, causing confusion, fermenting internal mistrust, creating embarrassment (a Tory’s worst nightmare?), frustration and manifesting a vulnerability. [admin: full stop, inhale] This will provide the time and space for an ongoing development of post-elitism, post-capitalist thought and debate.

And, I must confess, the section that made me furious rather than merely amused or sad, where he likens himself to Emily Davison, the suffragette:

Our current disorganisation and indirection is an advantage. In the past, guerrilla tactics have been employed by small groups of people. Today there is the opportunity to also undertake this alone, as an individual. Part of my inspiration for today’s action comes from a protest action that took place 99 years ago – when Emily Davison ran into Epson Derby race [sic]. On the 4 June 1913 Emily ran into the horse that the king had entered. She died from the injuries sustained from action. She was demanding rights for women. It was an individual act born of a political and philosophical position. This action is also part inspired by the anti-imperialism activists and guerrillas. This includes trans-Atlantic slaves who not only forced their freedom by revolting but undertook tactics of breaking tools, working slowly, acts of sabotage, feigning illness and maintaining their cultures. They found ways to continually undermine [sic] the system in small and large ways.

Trenton, I’m looking  at you

Dear Trenton, I think you have a serious dose of what is known in the trade as ‘first world problems’. Emily Davison, by contrast, did not. She had real problems, and a real cause. You, it seems, hang around poor urban communities (I note that you’re a Frantz Fanon fan, always a bad sign) and by the end of your inept ministrations, I suspect a large number of them would like you to Fuck Off And Die. Or at least, get a real job. Oh, wait, you don’t need a real job. You’re rich. Bugger, makes it a bit awkward for the rest of us working stiffs.

The upshot

Then, of course, there’s what you did to the Oxford and Cambridge rowing crews, whose event you ruined, whose hard work you brought to naught, which lead Cambridge to ‘celebrate’ the hollowest of victories and Zoe de Toledo, in a moment of desperation, to plead for a re-row. Here is Will Zeng’s observation (via Twitter):

When I missed your head with my blade I knew only that you were a swimmer, and if you say you are a protester then, no matter what you say your cause may be, your action speaks too loudly for me to hear you. I know, with immediate emotion, exactly what you were protesting. You were protesting the right of seventeen young men and one woman to compete fairly and honorably, to demonstrate their hard work and desire in a proud tradition. You were protesting their right to devote years of their lives, their friendships, and their souls to the fair pursuit of the joys and the hardships of sport. You, who would make a mockery of their dedication and their courage, are a mockery of a man.

And then there’s British ‘fair play’…

You are Australian, and as a result I’ve already received some mild stick from Oxford friends about my Australianness, so I think two observations are in order. The first is from assistant umpire, Sir Matthew Pinsent:

“It seems to me,” Pinsent said, “there’s something peculiarly British about the fact that when a bloke deliberately ruins a classic sporting occasion, we’re the ones responsible for rescuing him and getting him to shore in one piece.”
The second is an observation about ‘fair play’, which Britons generally do better than Australians (look, for example, at the equanimity with which England accepted its losing cricketers for so long, or the Scots’ ability to bear their awful rugby team). Note how decently the English are behaving now their cricketers are winners, or the honour and humour displayed by the Welsh now that Welsh rugby is in the ascendant. It’s called being magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat.

I seriously wonder how Australian sporting organisers (and Australia is a country that blesses elitism in only one field, sport) would have reacted to your stunt, Mr Oldfield. I strongly suspect that you may well have finished up with an oar wrapped around your head, which, as Pinsent points out, would have been fatal. See the principle of leverage. And there would have been very little public sympathy.

Meanwhile, the Brits stopped the race, rescued you and took great care of you.

You may have spent a long time in the UK, but I don’t think you understand the country or her peoples very well. Maybe you should try to learn. A conversation with Sir Matthew Pinsent may be a good place to start. The startling thing is, Pinsent is so decent he would probably sit down with you and give you a few lessons on UK, plc.

A word on elitism

This last comment is mine, and probably political, but I think it needs to be said. Some people are better than others. Stronger, swifter, cleverer, lovelier to look at, more perspicacious, more disciplined. As the evidence rolls in, it is becoming increasingly clear that those attributes are doled out in a genetic lottery (it is though there really is a Venus up there deciding in advance who gets to be beautiful, a Mars deciding who gets to be brave, a Minerva deciding who gets to be clever). This makes your soul-destroying envy particularly pointless. People with great gifts may be persuaded to share them with the rest of us if we make a collective decision not to run them down just because they have been given something the rest of us have not. Being clever or sporty or beautiful is a bit like being gay. You are born that way.

Trenton Oldfield, your talents and attributes are more than half-chance. So are everybody else’s.

[Thanks to DeusExMacintosh for the graphics; she’s the one with the black belt in photoshop].


  1. Posted April 9, 2012 at 4:42 am | Permalink

    A teaching moment! Amazed visitor comments about British sense of fair play go back to at least the C18th. I have a theory about that, and it has to do with law.

    In England, only the holder of the title was noble, all other members of their family were commoners. (Hence a Duke/Earl/Marquis/Viscount/Baron’s son could, if elected, sit in the Commons.) This gave the nobility a deep interest in how law treated commoners.

    On the Continent, all members of a noble family were noble; they had no direct interest in how the law treated commoners, only in how it treated nobles.

    I submit the difference showed, right down to basic aspects of the culture.

    Of course, late medieval and early modern Continentals also thought the English brash, loud and vulgar. In other words, exactly how Europeans now see Americans. That the English were richer and more lived in a more individualist economy and culture than was the norm on the Continent may have had something to do with it. (As it does with how Europeans see Americans.)

  2. Posted April 9, 2012 at 5:33 am | Permalink

    An interesting, amusing and perspicacious essay. It’s a pity Trenton doesn’t “inject a criticality” into his personal philosophies.
    By the way, congratulations for earning not one, but two scholarships… you are indeed blessed by the gods.

  3. Posted April 9, 2012 at 5:49 am | Permalink

    I needed two to pay the bills, Rigby – there’s no magic involved. The Clarendon Fund paid the difference between the ‘home’ and international fees (the latter are huge, the former quite low), while the IHS paid my college and living costs. I tutored to make up the balance, plus did a bit of legal proof reading and devilling around the place.

  4. kvd
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 5:55 am | Permalink

    [email protected] this would be your unified (track and) field theory explaining why the French and Spanish can’t row for sh-t?

    Possibly a good thing, given their several attempts over the past few hundred years to conquer England 😉

  5. Posted April 9, 2012 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    Oh my god, what an embarrassing tool that Trenton is (great photoshoppery too DEM). This guy is protesting elitism, yet he IS elite, does he not have any idea??? What was he trying to do other than draw attention to himself? What did he achieve? Absolutely nothing. Some things are worth protesting about – women and the vote would be one of them – but he doesn’t sound like he had a coherent idea about anything. A serial pest. By god I’d be tempted to chase him down and clobber him with an oar.

  6. Posted April 9, 2012 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    And somewhere, someone has done their meme-ish duty:

  7. Posted April 9, 2012 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    [email protected] 🙂 On blessedly failed invasions, Elizabeth: the Golden Age is a particularly fine meditation on English-cum-Britishness. Entirely appropriately, it is by an Indian director.

    My favourite invasion story is a medieval one, and concerns King Louis I of England. (What, never heard of him? He was proclaimed king of England in St Paul’s cathedral.)

    The magnates of England were completely over John and offered the crown to Prince Louis. Leading to Louis’s entry into London and said proclamation as king. John then did the only thing he could do to save the Plantagenet dynasty. He died, leaving the throne to his 9 year old son. The magnates then told Louis his services were no longer required. After some dithering (mainly Louis trying to get binding promises that those who supported him would not be punished) Louis went back to France: he got to be King of France as consolation price.

    There is also the early C19th witticism about the enormous levels of British public debt (far greater than the current US debt, as a percentage of GDP) that half of it was accrued pushing the Bourbons off the throne of France and the other half putting them back on.

  8. kvd
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    Fascinating Lorenzo! You are correct – I’d never heard of him. Although there seems to be some sort of quibble about Louis’ status; he was apparently never crowned as the Archbishop was overseas at the time, visiting Pope Innocent (his name, not an adjective) and no Bishops could be found, so it seems the proper formalities were never concluded, as it were.

    Those Barons were certainly a fickle lot, btw

  9. Posted April 9, 2012 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    [email protected] No, not actually crowned. But, then, neither was Edward VIII, and we count him.

    As for the barons being fickle, John was enough to try anyone’s patience. His half-brother William Longspear (an illegitimate son of Henry II) stood by John through thick and thin. He successfully led his fleets, then got captured leading the king’s forces at the Battle of Bouvines. While being held for ransom, what did John do? Made a play for Longspear’s wife, of course. The ransomed William (Earl of Salisbury) promptly became one of Louis supporters.

  10. Posted April 9, 2012 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Back on topic, I have found Trenton (or, rather, TINAG’s) twitter feed. He is utterly unrepentant and completely hilarious. The argument he gets into with Owen Jones (a socialist with whom I disagree on just about everything, but who does at least have a few brain cells to bless himself with) is one for the ages.

    Cameron’s First Law Again, I’m afraid.!/NotAGateway

  11. kvd
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Yes I’m sorry for straying SL. You are quite right; what Trenton did was just oarful. He’s just a silly punt to have interrupted such a rollocking good tradition. I shall follow his further Twitterings immediately. Not.

    Still, that’s what you get when you export the worst of the worst to the landownunder. Like the Gurkhas, he maybe should have been denied entry. That seemed to work quite well.

  12. Posted April 9, 2012 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Oh, it’s worth going easy oars and reading for a bit, if only to be amused by his crab-catching capacities…

  13. Posted April 9, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    I think there is little doubt that Trenton thinks himself a member of the moral elite.

    Always one of those little conundrums; the more committed you are to equality, the more morally superior you are.

    And the more committed to equality of outcomes you are, the more you have to control other people’s behaviour, so the greater inequalities of power you set up. (Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot anyone?)

    Rum thing, this equality business.

  14. Patrick
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    I didn’t read the whole thing, I hate people like that with a passion and when I think of the work put in by the rowers (EIGHT minutes in!!) I wish they had decapitated the little shit.

  15. Posted April 9, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    [email protected]: On class issues, according to this study (pdf) in the UK the correlation/dependence of a son’s income on his father’s is 0.5, which is high. In Australia it is 0.17, which is very low.

    So, LE your observations are accurate 🙂

    Denmark (0.15), Norway (0.17), Finland (0.18) and Canada (0.19) also have high levels of generational mobility.

    Sweden (0.27), Germany (0.32) and Spain (0.32) have middling levels.

    France (0.42), the USA (0.47) and Italy (0.48), rather lower levels of generational mobility.

  16. kvd
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    That’s very interesting [email protected] These are stroke rates you are quoting?

    I must confess I did not dip a toe in his Twitterings; it was enough to read him quoted as being “100% behind myself”, which I think is pretty accurate.

    And never forget, without people such as this we’d have no such thing as a Bell curve. You inevitably have to have a few dumb as a fencepost outriders to provide the mathematical balance.

  17. Posted April 9, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    That is very interesting Lorenzo. The thing which always brought it home to me was the way in which people used to introduce themselves by saying what their father did. And I’d always think “Why does it matter?” – but clearly it DID, and that’s why it was being stated. I am glad Australia has rather greater mobility.

  18. Posted April 9, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    An Australian disrupting a sporting fixture like this? You could do him for treason, surely?

  19. Posted April 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    It gets even funnier (please follow this link, it really is an excellent giggle):

    Made of FAIL.

  20. kvd
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    Ha! What a cruel world. That’s priceless 😉

  21. Posted April 9, 2012 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Oh so made of fail!!!

  22. Posted April 9, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    SL, I just knew this would get you worked up given your Oxbridgean romance.

    LE @15, Oh yes, of course there is never a right moment or right way to upset the English class system, is there? But seriously, why have you such a set against attention-seeking protests?

    And back to SL, Pinsent’s comment which you quote strikes me as just so much humbug: I very much doubt that Trenton needed rescuing – he could swim, surely? They only needed to “rescue” him so they could arrest him. The spirit of fair play was primarily between the crews in allowing a fresh race, albeit one where every strategy was now skewiff.

    I suppose the libertarian alternative was to have just left things as they were. In which case I suppose Cambridge would have won the first time around, unless we are seriously suggesting that the Oxford eight was entitled just to knock Trenton’s head off in the pursuit of victory.

  23. Posted April 9, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    Marcellous, sometimes you really need to get over yourself. Do you have a problem with Oxbridge or people who went there because you didn’t get in?

    Enquiring minds.

  24. Posted April 9, 2012 at 8:28 pm | Permalink


    Yes, that must be it.

    Actually, no.

  25. Posted April 9, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    The trouble is Marcellous, if you want to take a pop at the British class system then Oxbridge is NOT the appropriate target! Yes the oxbridge conspiracy means virtually everyone who gets anywhere in the UK went there, but the colleges don’t have “legacy” spots like the Ivy League in the US for kids whose parents were graduates.

    The only people who get into Oxbridge are the ones who got the marks – it’s probably the closest thing to a pure meritocracy the western world achieves. Unfortunately there are so few places that only a few of those eligible will get in (applications to places varies between four to one up to nine to one depending on the year and specific course) and yes that means the privately educated and specially coached crew is more likely to get in than an insecure kid from a comp. simply because they do better in the interview. Four A’s at the most toilet-like of bog-standard comp will still beat two A’s and two B’s at Eton even if the Etonian is sixth generation Oxbridge.

    Being very old and very well funded means pupils from modest backgrounds have a better chance of completing their degree at Oxford or Cambridge (where there are plenty of bursaries) than the regional red-bricker where money is far tighter. In fact you’re not allowed to work while studying by either uni so the college bursaries are essential and mean you can concentrate on study in a way you probably couldn’t afford to elsewhere. You could still while away your time with drink and booze towards a “gentleman’s third” like normal students, but getting accepted is such a jackpot most people don’t – it’s quite depressing in a way.

    [Also, the Thames is full of lethal rips and undercurrents – as well as Wiels Disease from the rats pee – so rescued is definitely what he was. The RNLI is a voluntary body like Mountain Rescue, they have no arrest powers and no, it wasn’t a police launch he was dragged into.]

  26. JZ
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    I am a longtime lurker and LSE graduate who must come to the defence of my alma mater.

    I think this post misses the point, which is that Oldfield is a complete and utter tool. There is really not much else to say other than to express embarrassment at the way this Australian has made a “splash’ on the world stage.

    Unfortunately, the piece has now strayed into a discussion regarding the merits of Oxbridge. Any fair-minded person will of course agree that Oxbridge provides an outstanding education and its far more meritocratic than comparable US institutions.

    But, the suggestion that there is anything wrong with the LSE (or indeed, any other leading London college like UCL or Imperial) as a result of Oldfield’s conduct is an unfortunate distraction from the author’s main point and perhaps reflects spending too long under the Dreaming Spires.

    Of course, every institution has its fair share of embarrassing graduates.

  27. Posted April 10, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink


    I had a look at the footage and obviously TO got into the boat willingly and he probably assumed they’d be handing him over to the police at the end of it. Likely as not he might have needed protection wherever he chose to come to shore.


    Your response is a fair one (if I may say). Protests always look pretty silly and this one was definitely pretty foolhardy. I’m not comfortable with ruling protests totally out of order.

    What are your feelings about the fellows who painted “No War” on the outside of the Sydney Opera House back in 2003? It’s led to an escalation in unnecessary security and it didn’t stop Australia entering that war, but I can’t quite dismiss the perpetrators as self-important tools without many brains.

  28. kvd
    Posted April 10, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Marcellous more important than this fellow or your friend with the paintbrush is what seems almost a certainty to happen during the upcoming Olympics. I just feel very sorry for the people on the ground who will have to deal politely with those who seek to make a point, but are basically harmless.

    All in full view of the cameras; all in full knowledge that the ‘tool’ they are dealing with just might be a loaded dog.

  29. Posted April 10, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    [email protected]: Indeed

    Marcellous @29: Painting “no war” on the opera house wasn’t really a stunt though. It didn’t disrupt operations and was washed off quickly so no actual damage was caused. You are entirely correct that publicity-seeking through criminal damage or protest marches and the like can indeed bring useful light to serious social and political issues even if it doesn’t resolve them (a million-man march in Washington produced civil rights for black Americans, a two-million person march in London couldn’t stop a vanity war that hadn’t even started). What is “toolish” about Trenton – besides the post-modern [email protected] – is his deliberate choice of a “spoiler stunt”, in trying to ruin a sporting fixture for everyone else. Surely it’s a form of moral elitism to believe that your personal convictions are more important than the goals and activities of everyone around you? And a form of tyranny to then impose them on others?

  30. Posted April 11, 2012 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    DeusEx… That’s because you are intelligent and rational. From observation of popular culture, I’d suggest few others are, thus they like a bit of a show.

  31. Leah Betts
    Posted April 11, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    The tragedy of Emily Davison is that she achieved as little as this guy by getting herself killed. Most men and even many women were more appalled by the fact that she had interrupted the Derby and upset the King than gave a crap about the cause she cared about.

One Trackback

  1. […] of writing (Will Zeng’s comment on nearly clouting Trenton Oldfield in the head with his oar, see my earlier post) was very nearly destroyed simply because it was published on Twitter. Some kind soul at the OUBC […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *