The ‘ gay dog’ disputed in the Court case the other day was named as Biscuit… the defence lawyer must have mentioned the dog about 30 times, presumably to try to tug on the heart strings of the magistrates, who she presumably thought were dog loving types. That’s the thing about dog lovers – they just can’t imagine that other people aren’t as moved as much as they are about canines. As I am indifferent to dogs completely, I didn’t see that losing a share of the gay dog justified the breaking of Swedish modular furniture, and if presiding as the Mag I’d have said ‘ please refrain from using dog loving psychology in my court, or I’ll send you down for attempting to pervert the course of Justice’ … or something.

Anyway, I told Wendy about the case, deliberately mentioning Biscuit several times to see what happened to her… foreseeably she was completely sidetracked by the fate of the dog, rather than the right sentence being passed. See what I mean?!

She stayed the night last night, and soon started talking in her sleep….

‘ No, that’s NOT a good idea!’ was the first thing. Then ‘ put him on your lap!’ Then ‘ put him on your lap’ again.

Then …. ‘ c’mon Biscuit, up you get!’

Obviously I try to steer her sleep conversation… I said ‘ Biscuit bit my fingers off!’ … which got no response from the sleeping Wendy.

So I tried ‘ Biscuit savaged the baby!’ ….

Yes, I know, a tad bad of me, but hey, it’s not actually true!

I think there’s a solution to the Biscuit issue. Half a Biscuit each, surely? Can’t say fairer than that..