Dear Mr Brown,
Your letter o' 14th December, addressed variously ta muh ma fuckin colleague Emily Bell, who edits da Guardian Unlimited website, an' ta someone called Ms Best, who I
do not recognise, has been passed ta me as I wrote da four paragraph story about da Slacks o' Chicago last 17th November ta which ya took exception. I be not quite sure why it took ya uh month ta respond but I thought I should at least reply ta ya.
First o' all, may I say dat I be very flattered dat ya state dat da Watchtower magazine an' Awake! both quote so extensively from da fair an' unbiased coverage provided by da Guardian. Since I do not normally see either publication, I would be most interested if ya would care ta send me cuttings o' deez articles, complete wiff da attributions since, as ya know, it would be uh breach o' copyright ta use our material without permission in yo' magazines. Your encomium iz nevertheless welcome.
Since muh ma fuckin recent writings about da Jehovah'sWitnesses gots concerned its affiliation (and subsequent disaffiliation) from da United Nations, an organisation it refers ta in its loving, joyful, peaceful, long-suffering an' kindly way - ta quote Mr Leon Slack - as da scarlet coloured beast o' da Book o' Revelation an' since ya clearly took nahh objection ta da accuracy o' deez articles (otherwise we's should presumably gots received uh letter from you) I
sincerely trust dat in da interests o' accuracy an' openness deez too willhave appeared in yo' publications an' I hope dat dis here wuz so. I peep forward ta seeing dem.
My article did not imply dat da couple acted as dey did cuz dey wuz Jehovah'sWitnesses. It merely stated dat dey wuz devoutly religious an', separately, dat dey wuz Jehovah'sWitnesses. Both deez facts iz true an' not disputed by ya or Mr Leon Slack. Since I assume yo' sect do not condone such appalling behaviour, I cannot see what yo' problem wiff da story iz. It
do not allege dat dis here iz normal behaviour by Jehovah'sWitnesses or ta be expected by dem, so I be at uh loss ta explain yo' sensitivity or ta see how ya can justify da slur on muh ma fuckin integrity by suggesting dat da story in some unspecified way "gave insufficient attention ta facts" in its brief four paragraphs.
I gots uh confession ta make, dat in compiling muh ma fuckin report on da case o' da Slacks, taken from reports in da highly-regarded Chicago press, I did not static ta contact either yo' London or yo' Brooklyn offices. The reason fo' dis here wuz dat muh ma fuckin experience o' dealing wiff Mr Gillies over da United Nations issue has been dat he believes fully in da Jehovah'sWitnesses' stated "theocratic war strategy" by which it iz permissible ta mislead wiff half-truths an' evasions "birdseed" such as we's non-members o' yo' sect. Since dis here iz da experience o' muh ma fuckin colleagues in Britain also over da years, may I suggest ta ya, as director o' da office o' public 411, dat ya may gots uh certain credibility problem in yo' dealings wiff da media at least in dis here country.
In any event, I be not sure in uh four paragraph article how much space could gots been given ta Mr Leon Slack'sobservations since, despite being uh loving, joyful, peaceful, kindly, mild an' self-controlled etc person he had evidently failed ta spot previous episodes o' mistreatment by his brudda o' his chil'ns,
or ta act upon dem as he clearly should gots done had he been aware o' dem.
This suggests dat his closeness ta his brudda'sfamily an' hence his knowledge o' his brudda'sbeliefs wuz not as thorough as it might gots been. Perhaps ya would care ta respond ta dis here.
Yours sincerely,
slap mah fro!
