Ben Vinkenhut hated school. He was bullied every day, and he usually ended up in the trash can. Ben looked like your average 13-year-old boy. He had long, light brown hair and bright blue eyes. He always wore a light brown hoodie. But Ben was about to find out that he was no ordinary boy. One warm spring day in mid-March, Ben was waiting at the bus stop with his friend Johnny Maken. Johnny was identified as tall with brownish hair and freckles with long, skinny arms and brown eyes. He wore a light brown hoodie that looked two sizes too big. Ben suspected that it was his older brother Fred’s. “UUUGGGHHH…” groaned Johnny, “It sure is hot out today!” “Yeah, I guess,” said Ben. He wore the same expression as he did every school day, mad and grumpy. “Are you okay dude?” asked Johnny, “You seem… weird this morning.” ” Well,” Ben explained; “I promised someone a snickers bar today, and I forgot to get it.” “Who wanted it?” asked Johnny. “James Jones,” answered Ben. James was the bully at Mountain Range Middle School. He bullied most of the students, but Ben was always his biggest target. “He’s gonna kill you for that, dude!” exclaimed Johnny, “He loves his snickers bars!” The Bus gently pulled up to where the two boys were standing. “Great,” said Ben in a sarcastic tone, “Another fun day at middle school.” As the bus pulled up, Ben couldn’t stop thinking about how James Jones would wedgie him in front of the whole class. James somehow knew how to do mean things when the teachers weren’t looking. Ben always got in trouble for making loud noises when the noises were not his fault. Most of the time, they were James’s banging Ben’s head on the wall. Or sometimes they would be Ben screaming from James giving him a wedgie.They got onto the bus. Ben sat beside Johnny. One of the one thousand things that Ben hated about the pool was the bus ride. He found it long and boring with no entertainment. After a half an hour bus ride, they got to school. Just as Ben was getting off the bus, he heard a voice say, “Hey Vinkenhut, where’s my snickers?” It was James Jones and his gang of two other boys, Dike Hardmasher and Wendle Bloodlust. James’ henchman had names quite scarier than James Jones, but it did not interfere with his ruthless bullying. The evil trio was known to the school as the gruesome gang. Ben didn’t know what to say. He decided to lie. “Uh…sorry James, but as I was waiting for the bus, a raven swooped down and… took the snickers bar from my open backpack.” “Stop right there, Vinkenhut, why was your backpack open?” Ben scrambled for an excuse before saying; “Weeellll… when I was buying the snickers, the shopkeeper asked for two dollars. I reached into my backpack for the money, and forgot to close it,” explained Ben.”You’re not that dumb,” snorted James, “Or maybe you are.” Dike and Wendle laughed along with James. “Well, I’ll be off.” said Ben sprinting away while yelling back; “Nice talking to you guys!” He sped down the hall. “Get back here!” shouted James before perusing Ben’s wake with his sidekicks. Ben ran into a classroom and locked himself in. Just then, Ben heard a jingling outside the door 19. He looked toward the door and to his horror; the lock was being picked by James. James took a short break from lock picking to peer at Ben through the window. “Hey everyone!” he jeered, “Look what Vinkenhut’s wearing!” Ben looked down and saw that he was wearing a pink sweater that was about two sizes too small for him. It belonged to his mom. Ben had done a lot of growing over the summer and winter break and was currently taller than her. Students began to look through the window and laugh at Ben. He darted around the room finding refuge behind a desk in the corner of the room, out of sight range from the window. “I wish I didn’t have to wear this sweater.” He said angrily. As he said this, the most unexpected thing happened. His pink sweater grew. Moments later, it had grown to be a perfect fit. Then it turned a bright shade of red and fake flames appeared around the sleeves. But confusment turned to horror in a heartbeat. James had almost gotten the lock and taunted Ben; “Your dead meat, Vinkenhut!” Ben quickly hid behind a stack of books on the teacher’s desk preparing for the worst. Just seconds later, James Jones had completely picked the lock and opened the door. Come out, Vinkenhut.” He said with a creepy singsong voice and an evil grin. Right on queue, Wendel found Ben crouched behind the books and called Dike over. They picked Ben up by the arms and held him suspended in place. Please don’t wedgie me!” yelled Ben,”I forgot to get the snickers bar, I’ll buy you three tomorrow.” But James wasn’t mad. He was staring with his mouth wide at Ben’s hoodie.”Where did you get one of those?” He asked in disbelief.” I guess it just appeared on me.” Ben could not answer. The shock of his hoodie transforming and James nearly beating him was too much. “Dude,” continued James, “That’s a fire blaster hoodie! I’ve heard that they cost thousands of dollars! The most expensive clothing brand in the world!” Just then a huge mean voice said; “Oi!” All the kids who were standing behind James, Dike and Wedel panicked and started running. Ben turned around and a giant man about nine feet tall was standing in the doorway. He was wearing sunglasses, and a giant cloak that had the letters M.H on it.”Ben Vinkenhut!” he shouted, “Come here son, we need to talk!”
The Israeli Government Put My Name At The Top Of An ‘Antisemite’ List
The Israeli Government Put My Name At The Top Of An ‘Antisemite’ List
My name appears at the top of a list in a document the Israeli government released earlier this month in order to draw false associations between the Bondi Beach shooting and online criticism of Israel and its atrocities.
The PowerPoint document, released by Israel’s Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, is titled “Delegitimization and Antisemitism in Australia — A Snapshot October — December 2025,” and its claims have been cited by Israeli media outlets like Ynet News.
Page five of the document is titled “Actors: Key generators of anti-Semitism and delegitimization in Australia,” where the name Caitlin Johnstone is listed at the top of a column titled “Active influencers and content creators” which is ranked by number of followers. Page seven describes me as an “Anti-Western blogger, promoting conspiracies and complete delegitimization of Israel.”
This word “delegitimization” appears throughout the document, which I personally find funny. They knew the “antisemitism” claim couldn’t stand on its own, so they had to tack on this weird extra complaint about people “delegitimizing” the state of Israel — as though that’s a bad thing. I’ll always deny harboring any hatred toward Jews or Judaism, but I’ll happily admit to trying to delegitimize a genocidal apartheid state that cannot exist without nonstop violence and abuse.
The document attempts to make the argument that in the two months leading up to the Bondi attack there was an epidemic of antisemitic “hate speech” online, absurdly insinuating that those of us who were criticizing Israel and its abuses during that time incited two ISIS guys to commit an act of terrorism. Like ISIS were just a bunch of cuddly wuddly snuggle bears until some Australian influencers tweeted mean things about Israel.
Page 14 of the document is captioned “Examples of recent hate speech in the two months leading up to the attack: Selected anti-Semitic tweets on X: Caitlin Johnstone,” and it consists of two tweets. You can tell whoever collected them was just doing advanced searches for specific keywords from the people on their list because the word “Jewish” is highlighted in one of their screenshotted tweets, which means they had to scroll past the many tweets I’ve made over the years which would contradict the antisemitism narrative they’re trying to build.
The first tweet is from August 6 of this year, and it features a screenshot from journalist Owen Jones noting that just 6.7 percent of Israeli Jews surveyed had told pollsters that they are “very troubled” by reports of starvation and suffering in Gaza. I captioned the screenshot as follows:
“Poll after poll after poll shows that Jewish Israelis are horrible people who are quantifiably much more cruel and immoral than pretty much any other population. At a certain point you have to stop thinking the polls might be mistaken and see that the only real mistake is Israel.”
Note that I didn’t say “Jews” but “Jewish Israelis”. Poll after poll after poll shows that Israeli Jews are indeed horrible people who hold sociopathic attitudes toward Palestinians, because that’s what happens when you’re the privileged group in an apartheid state. White South Africans were horrible people during South African apartheid too. You can’t have apartheid without indoctrinating your public to see the disempowered groups as less than the empowered group. It doesn’t say anything about Jews or Judaism that this is the case; that’s just how apartheid works.
The second tweet is from October 6 of this year, and it reads as follows:
“Someone who is truly and sincerely worried about a rise in antisemitism will oppose the mass slaughter of children under the Star of David banner by a state which claims to represent all Jews while Jewish billionaires buy up media to silence criticism of that state and Jewish oligarchs openly purchase the president of the world’s most powerful government to ensure the facilitation of that state’s atrocities.”
I guess this one might look antisemitic if you didn’t know that every single part of it is completely true. Israel has indeed been mass slaughtering children and does indeed have a Star of David on its flag. Israel is indeed claiming to represent all Jews when it argues that criticism of Israel is hateful toward everyone who is Jewish. Larry Ellison’s family has indeed been buying up media platforms like CBS where virulent Zionist Bari Weiss has been put in command, and purchasing control of TikTok after Congress forced its sale to stomp out criticism of Israel. President Donald Trump has indeed repeatedly admitted to being controlled by megadonor Miriam Adelson, the world’s richest Israeli. These dynamics are indeed likely to feed into antisemitism in a very real way. I didn’t create those dynamics. Zionists did.
This is the Israeli government’s best argument that Australians like myself incited the Bondi attack. I tweeted about genocide and apartheid and it violently radicalized a father and son in Sydney, who then apparently invented some kind of time machine and traveled back to 2019 to join ISIS. That’s their strongest case.
If you’ve been wondering why I’ve been writing so much about the Bondi Beach shooting, this is why. It’s being used to justify an aggressive assault on freedom of speech and assembly in Australia, and that assault is happening at the forceful urging of the Australian Israel lobby and the Israeli government, which is now going so far as to compile official public lists of Australians whom it deems guilty of dangerous wrongthink.

Israel’s Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism also put together a full-page profile on me and my work back in September in a release titled “Antisemitism & Anti-Zionism in Australia Key Influencers, Incidents, Groups, & Trends”, which I’ll just copy and paste here because it makes me look awesome:
Caitlin Johnstone, an Australian independent journalist and political commentator. Her writings frequently describe Israel as a “genocidal apartheid state” and a “settler-colonialist project” that perpetuates systemic violence and oppression. She argues that Israel’s actions are not isolated incidents but part of a broader strategy to maintain dominance over Palestinians.
On her social media platforms, Caitlin Johnstone frequently shares strongly anti-Israeli content in the context of the ongoing war in Gaza, while largely omitting criticism of Hamas. In a post dated April 15, 2025, she dismissed concerns about Israelis feeling unsafe, suggesting instead that their discomfort stems from a sense of guilt over what she described as the “genocide” in Gaza.
In an Instagram post dated April 7, 2025 Johnstone appeared to indirectly justify the October 7 Hamas attack, stating that “Hamas succeeded in exposing the true face of the empire.” She went on to highlight alleged Israeli actions in Gaza since the attack, while omitting any acknowledgment of the massacre carried out by Hamas.
The profile also includes some banger tweets I made like “Being a liberal Israel supporter these days probably feels like being a defense attorney for an accused murderer who won’t shut up about how much he loves murdering.”
I’m not going to lie, I do regard all this attention I’m getting from Israel as a compliment. Winding up at the top of an Israeli list of enemies is certainly more of an assurance that I’m doing the right thing than winning some shitty western “journalism” award like a Pulitzer would ever be.
But I’m also not going to act like miss tough girl and pretend it doesn’t creep me the hell out at the same time to have this murderous ethnostate keeping an eye on me. Israel is so intensely creepy.
Anyway, with that I guess I’ll just use this opportunity to remind everyone that I am an entirely crowd-funded writer, so if you enjoy seeing me piss off the Israeli government you can always toss a few coins in my hat to help fund my little operation here. Also a friendly reminder that the best way to make sure you see everything I publish is to get on my free mailing list, which will always be 100 percent free regardless of whether or not you become a paying patron.
Thanks for traveling along on this bizarre adventure with me.
________________
The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.
Bitcoin donations: 1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
B.C. Ferries Proposal for Soliciting Government Funding is Not Sustainable
*reprinted from the Victoria Times Colonist*
December 11, 2025
BC Ferries Threatens 30% Fare Hikes Unless Governments Dramatically Increase Funding
To increase funding by warding off fare hikes “well in excess of 30%” in two years, BC Ferries proposes forming a “sustainable partnership” with all levels of government—federal, provincial, and loca. Yet this partnership maintains the same governance model that enabled the Fast Ferries scandal in the 1990s and cost taxpayers $1 billion in avoidable expenses. The BC Auditor-General called for strong governance reform to prevent future vessel failures and wasted tax dollars. Three provincial governments, however, have ignored his unambiguous warning by keeping the same governance vacuum in which no one is held accountable for failures. The result: declining service performance, a ballooning budget, and a history of deploying unreliable vessels. Now BC Ferries solicits an assured flow of funding to avoid catastrophic fare hikes—without any oversight.
Twenty-six years after the Fast Ferries scandal, the corporation remains accountable to no one for its failures. Despite its pattern of deploying seriously flawed vessels, Premier Eby’s public refusal to “intervene” in BC Ferries’ decisions involving the Chinese vessel procurement exemplifies his hands-off approach to overseeing how the corporation spends tax dollars. Nor has he strengthened governance by reintroducing tabled Bill 7, which amends the Coastal Ferry Act, or create a fully independent, accountable board as recommended in the 2001 Wright Review.
This continuing governance vacuum accounts for all three recent procurements having have design failures, causing frequent breakdowns, lengthy service interruptions, and misery to ferry-dependent communities. The Coastal vessels will need new motors at an undisclosed enormous cost to taxpayers. The Island Class Hybrids are slated to be replaced or rerouted. BC Ferries even admits it lacks “the vessel resilience” to keep Island Class vessels in service year-round. And the Baynes Sound cable ferry, promised at $230,000 annually to save tax dollars while providing service equal to conventional vessels, costs $5.9 million annually and has the worst breakdown rate in the fleet. Freedom of Information documents from 2016-2019 show 80 pages of breakdowns that the corporation dismissed as “teething issues.”
Without genuine governance reform, why should federal, provincial, and local governments increase funding by forming a “sustainable partnership” with BC Ferries? For taxpayers and ferry-dependent communities stuck with chronically unreliable vessels, such a proposal is not sustainable.
A Denman Appeal
A Denman Appeal
Hello Denman! As Christmas is coming I wonder if you think at times of how lucky we are. How grateful we feel.
With that in mind, I would like to tell you about Ruth Toussaint Kirwin and her Haitian community in the Dominican Republic and how they would thank you for some very needed help.
There are hundreds of thousands of Haitian refugees in the Dominican Republic now and the stresses on that country are enormous. Similar to the U.S. and Mexico but perhaps worse, there is growing resentment and strife of a people who speak Creole, not Spanish, people who fled from a failed country to find they are not accepted, without basic services like health care, their children without education.

The problem really is that the scores of children Ruth provides for are caught between two countries, and having a home in neither. So they will need to have Haitian citizenship bought to obtiain Dominican Visa!
The worst thing that could happen is that they are sent back to Haiti. A pregnant refugee could go to a Dominican hospital to give birth and be deported from there, back to a place where she is no one and has nothing…

So we are encouraging you please to help Ruth and the Haitian children by a donation of any size at all. With lower material costs in the Dominican Republic a little of your kindness will go a long way.
Ruth will have a donation jar at the General Store and the Guesthouse. We are asking for the gifts before she goes back there on Jan.16th.
Ruth’s email is:
Her phone number: 250-650-2353
Shucking Oysters: And the Survey Says…
Shucking Oysters: And the Survey Says…
By Alex Allen
Did you know that half of Canadians and over half of British Columbians support the new bitumen pipeline project between Alberta and BC? When I heard these stats, my first reaction was one of surprise. My next, one of suspicion. Even with rising political tensions, environmental concerns, and Indigenous push back, polling firms, Leger and Angus Reid, still reported that 50% of Canadians and 54% British Columbians were favourable of the pipeline project? Immediately you should ask, 50% and 54% of what? De omnibus dubitandum est.
Despite all of our technological advances, we haven’t even come close to inventing some device that could read our messy, little minds. Instead, we resort to what seems to be the next best thing: ask people about what they believe and value – surveys and polls. Except we humans often lie about ourselves, which raises the question of whether surveys are even accurate. Talk is cheap and in surveys, there are no consequences in misrepresenting ourselves.
Today, more news media are incorporating polling data in their news feeds than ever. Along with an increase in the number of polling companies and polls, the sampling methods have also changed over the years. Many polling companies, including Angus Reid, Nanos and Leger, have abandoned random probability sampling and have chosen to employ opt-in sampling methods.
With opt-in sampling, people are invited to volunteer their time. The downside of this approach is that a margin of error, which is calculated for the whole population being surveyed, does not apply. In essence, without a margin of error, one has to be cautious about how representative the figure is in relation to a larger “true” population value. The result might be “an estimate based on intuition, convenience, or a flawed methodology, rather than a statistically robust one.” Many news outlets, including the CBC, are overlooking this fact. And it’s not enough to tell readers about a comparative margin of error when most of us have no clue what that even means, let alone how it differs from a normal margin of error.
Canadian pollster and political pundit, Allan R. Gregg, said in a recent interview that when pollsters started back in the 80s, everyone had a landline and the response rates were in the 75% range. While not perfect, everyone had an equal chance to be selected for a survey and, as a result, the responses reflected the population from which they were drawn. Weighting and “rejigging the sample” was rarely necessary. Today, it’s a lot harder to develop a methodology that will guarantee a reliable result.
Recently, there have been renewed concerns about the quality of opt-in sampling. Response rates today already tend to be low, highlighting that those who actually choose to participate in a survey have a “propensity-bias” for completing surveys. What’s more, many opt-in panels have “career respondents” who collect rewards for every survey they complete and may be motivated to lie in their screening or qualifying questions, so they can complete as many surveys as possible.
So let’s dive into the Leger pipeline poll, which was conducted among 1,548 Canadian residents, aged 18 or older, who were randomly recruited through an online panel. That’s 1,548 responses out of a population of 41,494,132 people – a response rate of 0.003875%. This is an exceptionally low metric, representing roughly one response for every 25,806 attempts. In terms of data collection, the figure is far below industry standards. Half of 1,548 responses = 774 Canadians in favour of the pipeline out of over 41 million.
What you don’t read…Support for the pipeline was strongest among Albertan men, over the age of 55, who voted Conservative. Those who viewed the pipeline as essential to national growth, once again strongest among old Alberta men who voted Conservative. Fast-tracking environmental reviews under Bill C-5 for projects in the “national interest,” including the controversial pipeline project? Again, the most support, old Conservative Albertan men.
Across the country however, 68% said it was important to obtain the consent of Indigenous communities before construction. Highest support came from Quebec, older Canadians, Green Party voters, closely followed by NDP and Liberal voters. Not old Conservative farts from Alberta.
The Angus Reid poll showed a slim majority of British Columbians (54%) in favour, conditional on Indigenous ownership, environmental protections and the tanker ban. Once again a red flag on the methodology. First, the survey was conducted among a randomized sample of 1,851 Canadian adults who were recruited from an opt-in Angus Reid Forum. And second, only 517 BC respondents were surveyed out of a population of 5.7 million, a response rate of 0.00907%, below even the lowest benchmarks.
Typically, pollsters ask questions that will elicit yes or no answers. In his book The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Neil Postman asks: “Is it necessary to point out that such answers do not give a robust meaning to the phrase public opinion?” Postman writes that the technique of polling promotes the assumption that an opinion is a thing inside people that can be extracted by questions. But an opinion is not a momentary thing; it is a process of thinking, “shaped by the continuous acquisition of knowledge and the activity of questioning, discussion, and debate.” We don’t really “have” opinions, rather, we are involved in what Postman termed “opinioning” which tells us nothing really. Polling essentially ignores what people know about subjects.
In an open letter in The Walrus in December, “Mr. Carney, about That Pipeline Deal – We Need to Talk,” Julian Brave NoiseCat wrote: “Reconciliation is, in a way, kind of a perfect encapsulation of Canada’s proclivity to say ‘sorry.’ One of the most important human qualities that Canada has to offer its citizens and the world: integrity. Otherwise, what is this country really?”
As NoiseCat reminds us: “Reconciliation rooted in truth, backed by action – that is the path Canada vowed to walk. And not as long as public opinion supported it, but in perpetuity.”
An Alternate Ending to Lord of the Flies (Denman Island Version)
An Alternate Ending to Lord of the Flies (Denman Island Version)
by Cylon2036 we/us Pseudopod Certified
The rock that Roger had loosened did not strike Piggy. It skidded past him, and instead it tore a white scar through the cliff face before plunging into the sea. The conch slipped from Piggy’s hands and struck the ground, but it did not shatter.
It rolled once, hollow and intact, and came to rest at Ralph’s feet. For a moment, the boys stood frozen. Even Jack seemed startled, as though the violence he had summoned had arrived incomplete, uncertain of its task.
Piggy’s breath came in sharp gasps, as he looked at the conch. “You see?” he said, his voice trembling but loud enough to carry. “You see what almost happened? We nearly killed one another, over nothing but fear and control”
Roger shifted, suddenly aware of the cliff beneath his feet. The power he had felt drained away, leaving only the sickening realization of how close he had come. Ralph lifted the conch. “We can still choose. This doesn’t have to end this way.”
Jack laughed once, harshly. “Choose? You think we can stop what’s coming?” Piggy turned toward him, squinting. “Rules didn’t fail us, Jack. We failed each other. There’s a difference.”
Something in Piggy’s voice, its honesty, caught the others off guard. The littluns huddled together, staring between the two older boys. The others hesitated, dry skin peeling on their faces as the afternoon sun bore down.
“There is no beast,” Piggy went on. “Not on this island. There’s nothing to fear in the dark. The only thing we’re scared of is each other.” The words hung in the air. Jack opened his mouth to deny them, but no sound came.
Jack remembered the hollow claims of injustice, and how fear had twisted it. His grip on the spear loosened. Ralph held out the conch toward Jack. “We don’t have to be in control,” he said. Jack stared at the shell.
Piggy said quietly. “We can keep the fire going. Build shelters. Look after the littluns.” The fire burned steadily on the ridge-top. It was smaller, but it did not go out. The boys sat around it without spears, listening to the sound of the sea.
The Year of the Ice-Lipped Moon and the Incident with Mrs. Pettifore
Gabriel Jeroschewitz, November 17th, 2025, inspired. By Dylan Thomas, and his beautiful Christmas poem.
The Year of the Ice-Lipped Moon and the Incident with Mrs. Pettifore
It was a Christmas so much like the others that I cannot swear whether the snow came in six-day barrels when I was twelve, or in twelve-day rivers when I was six. All the Decembers of my early life were ladled from the same steaming pot of white nonsense — all tumbling down toward the edge of our sea-bound town like a drunken moon with frost-bitten cheeks.
There, at the rim of the fish-freezing shore, I would plunge my mittened hands into the memory-snow and pull out whatever my fingers could hook: a whiff of burnt plum pudding, a shriek from someone’s aunt, a cat with political ambitions. I have found many things in those snowdrifts over the years, but the finest discovery, and the one that holds its own particular corner in my brain, was Mrs. Pettifore and the firemen. It was on the afternoon before Christmas Eve — the hour when the world is between essential events and idle mischief — that I leaned against the frost-crusted wall of Mrs. Pettifore’s garden, waiting for cats with her son Gregory. We were equipped with socks on our hands (for stealth), fur hats pulled low over our eyes (for intimidation), and a bucket of ammunition in the form of compact, professionally produced snowballs.
These cats, mind you, were no ordinary Christmas cats — sleek as black-market otters, long as a council meeting, and with whiskers so bristled they could have been used to rouse an orchestra. Gregory and I were sure they were spies for the rival street, and thus deserving of a swift pummelling. We squatted like Hudson Bay trappers who had somehow been stationed for duty in Suburban Wales, our eyes narrowed to slits, our breath whispering steam into the muffling silence.
The wise cats, as wise cats do, never appeared. In that deep, hush-laden stillness, Mrs. Pettifore’s first cry did not carry to us as one would expect. To our ears, it sounded more like the distant braying of a feral seal — or possibly the taunting of the neighbour’s most obnoxious tabby. But the cry grew sharper.
“Fire!” she roared, with sufficient force to knock three icicles off the kitchen eaves. And, as if conducting an orchestra of calamity, she began walloping the dinner gong. The sound clanged across the garden like armour falling down a stairwell.
Gregory and I ran, arms full of snowballs, down the path toward the house. Smoke — grey as boiled socks, thick enough to be cut into slabs for winter fuel — poured from the dining room. Mrs. Pettifore was dancing in the hallway like the tragic heroine of an opera whose words nobody knew.
This was far. We lunged to the open door of the dining room, expecting flames, but found instead Mr. Pettifore standing in a cloud of smoke, slipper in hand, swiping at the air like a conductor leading an orchestra composed entirely of invisible trombones. He looked almost pleased.
“A fine Christmas!” he declared, in the voice of a man announcing the birth of a particularly stubborn child.
“Call the fire brigade!” Mrs. Pettifore insisted, belting the gong again.
“They won’t come. It’s Christmas,” Mr. Pettifore said, with the serenity of a man who has accepted that several rooms may burn before dessert.“Do something!” Mr. Pettifore bellowed, and we obeyed. We hurled our snowballs into the smoke, the dining table, and — I suspect — into a partially completed trifle. It didn’t help, but it made us feel heroically involved.
Then we raced to the red telephone box at the corner to summon the brigade. Gregory suggested calling the police, the ambulance, and “Old Benny Wilks, he loves a burnin’,” but we limited ourselves to the official channels.
The fire engine arrived in a roar of brass and hose, three helmeted titans tumbling out to wrestle the incident into submission. Water was sprayed. Mr. Pettifore escaped just in time, muttering something about the “state of British engineering.”And that is when she arrived — Miss Caroline Pettifore, who was Gregory’s cousin, my own senior by three years, and possessed of hair like molten chestnut polished under winter light. She was visiting from Cardiff for the holidays, the sort of visitor who made even the milkman wear his clean cap.
She appeared on the stairs in her dressing gown, blinking through the smoke. Everyone stopped — even the firefighters — for there was something about the way she held herself, chin high, as if the entire situation were merely an overly dramatic prelude to tea.
“Would you gentlemen care for something to read?” she asked the firemen, her voice the sound of warm sherry being poured.
One of them coughed into his helmet.
I was smitten in the way only a boy can be smitten who has just seen someone offer Dickens to three men in smoke-stained uniforms.
The next day was one of those sprawling Christmases that seem to last forty-eight hours and involve at least fifteen varieties of alcoholic pudding. Uncles moved about like great woolly furniture, Aunt Dorothea wore three scarves simultaneously, and Mrs. Pettifore insisted the incident of the previous day was “good luck.”
The presents were distributed in the chaotic Pettifore method: someone shouted, someone rummaged, and someone inevitably unwrapped a gift meant for someone else. There were the practical presents: socks with a circumference fit for elephants, mufflers large enough to double as tents, mittens so ambitious they seemed to be auditioning for the role of glove for a giant. And there were the useless presents: a kazoo shaped like Napoleon, a bottle labelled “Instant Fog — For Romance and Misunderstandings,” two tins of biscuits that rattled suspiciously, and a small mechanical penguin whose job remained unclear.
It was among this chaos that Caroline and I found ourselves alone in the hallway, inspecting the contents of a box addressed to “Unknown Recipient.” Inside was a paper kite painted with the sort of colours that made the eyes wince — crimson, violent blue, and an orange that was almost morally wrong.
Caroline ran her fingers along its edge.
“This,” she said, “should be flown somewhere dangerous.”
I agreed instantly, though I had no plan in mind.
That afternoon, under the bruised winter sky, we carried the kite down to the frozen shore. The sea lay flat and sullen, the colour of tarnished spoons, the air sharp enough to shave an icicle. We stood side by side, our gloves brushing in a way that made a boy forget every previous ambition except for more brushing.
She held the string delicately, as if it might have a secret. The wind took the kite up, jerking it toward the horizon, and I stood behind her, keeping watch in case it decided to dive into the waves. The absurdity of the day — the firemen, the mufflers, the mechanical penguin — seemed to fold itself neatly under that moment.
Without looking at me, she said, “I’m glad the house didn’t burn down.”
“So am I,” I replied. “Or else… we might not be here.”
And then, in that cold, ridiculous setting — wearing a borrowed fur hat two sizes too big, holding a kite painted like a carnival crime — I kissed her. It was brief, soft, and filled with the kind of clumsy determination that comes with youth and mittens.
She didn’t laugh. She only smiled, and for an instant the wind seemed to hold its breath.
We returned to find the Pettifores in a whole digestive battle with the remnants of Christmas dinner — Mr. Pettifore carving something that might have been poultry, though it had the stubbornness of beef. Caroline slipped away to fetch more tea, and I sat watching the steam rise from the cups as if I might decode some meaning from it.
That year, that moment, fixed itself like a snowflake in amber. Every Christmas after, whether six nights of snow or twelve, whether cats appeared or not, whether fires broke out or only puddings, I found myself back on that icy shore in my mind — the wind, the kite, her smile, and my belief that time might, just for once, stand politely still.
Years later, I would hear she married a man from Bristol with a talent for building musical furniture. And I would smile, thinking, Yes, that makes perfect sense. But in my mind, she is still the girl who offered books to firefighters and held a screaming kite above a freezing sea on a day the moon slid drunkenly over our town.















