IN THE CRESS COUNTY COURT
Appeal against disqualification from Cress 2013
1. The appellant is a grown man with a wife and child.
2. On the 7th November 2013 he entered a competition to grow cress.
3. As a base for his cress he used a baby’s nappy.
4. His Polish cleaner expressed some concern that an apparently soiled nappy was being left lying around the house.
5. His cleaner has now been given a warning.
6. The appellant successfully negotiated the first round of the competition. He gained access to the second round.
7. At the start of the second round all competitors were provided with the same set of instructions. For completeness I reproduce them here.
“It is therefore the moment where you have to post your halfway photo. Here are your instructions. READ THEM CAREFULLY.
(1) You need to take a photograph of your cress, still in it’s saucer and next to the saucer must be a piece of paper with your Twitter name written on it.
(2) It’s a bit miserable at this time of year so I’ve decided to give you a treat instead of making you write out a codeword. Next to your saucer must be your favourite chocolate bar. After you’ve taken your photograph you can eat the chocolate bar. Be grateful, I was seriously considering one suggestion to make this the swimwear round. If you’re unable to eat chocolate then you’re disqualified.
(3) Tweet the picture to me at @biltawulf making sure you use the hashtag #Cress2013. Failure to get this right will result in disqualification.
(4) No more Mr Nice Guy.
(5) Enjoy that chocolate. Remember, after posting the picture, don’t send me any more pictures of your cress until I ask. *They’re really not that exciting.
(6) You have until midday on Wednesday (UK time) to post me that picture. Good luck.”
8. The appellant was disqualified from the competition as he failed to take a picture and post it himself. Instead he callously forced his wife, barely recovered from recent childbirth, to take the photograph and post it on his behalf.
9. The exchange between the appellant and his wife makes for grim reading.
@Lukemackaycooks: Hi @HappyBabyBlog can you buy a chocolate bar and take a photo of it with my cress before 12 noon- my plan has backfired #Cress2013
@Lukemackaycooks: .@HappyBabyBlog it needs to have my @ name, #cress2013 and a chocolate bar (which you can eat- YUM!) I’m sorry to drag you in to this mess.
@HappyBabyBlog: @Lukemackaycooks sure no problem darling! Murdo didn’t really want to go to that lovely baby class anyway!
@Lukemackaycooks: @HappyBabyBlog DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD AND DON’T BE CHEEKY.
10. This judge’s attention was drawn to the exchange and after quickly checking that the appellant had not invented a means of time travel back to the middle ages a decision was made to disqualify him. This decision was made on the following basis.
11. Rule 1 of the Second Round rules states that “You need to take a photograph of your cress, still in it’s saucer and next to the saucer must be a piece of paper with your Twitter name written on it.”
12. The appellant clearly did not take his own photograph. Indeed it was later posted from his wife’s account with the accompanying tweet.
Can I look after my child now? #Cress2013 @Lukemackaycooks @Biltawulf pic.twitter.com/AAeO4tLWZc”
13. Accordingly the appellant was disqualified. He now seeks leave to appeal against that decision.
14. Following the prescribed form the appellant submitted written grounds of appeal. In response to the first question on the form, “Did you post a picture with a bar of chocolate and use the hashtag #Cress2013 and direct it to @biltawulf?” the appellant responded as follows;
“YES I FUCKING DID”
15. In response to the second question on the form, “Did you post it by midday on the 13th November 2013?” the appellant responded as follows;
“YES I FUCKING DID”
16. The appellant’s response to the final question on the appeal form, “If you didn’t, what on earth are your grounds of appeal?” was, unsurprisingly;
“I FUCKING DID”
17. This tribunal is obliged to follow precedents set in the higher courts of England and Wales. Accordingly attempts were made to obtain guidance from existing case law. This tribunal closely studied R v Brown (1992) UKHL 7 though it must be conceded that difficulty was found in applying it to the present case.
18. The appellant’s inabilty to follow the most basic of rules has undoubtedly caused him a degree of embarrassment and humiliation. The only other competitors who failed to proceed through the second round did so because they hadn’t bothered to post their picture in time.
19. Moreover, the appellant has, through his tweets, demonstrated that he is a misogynist dinosaur who treats females with utter contempt simply to enhance his chances of winning a cress competition.
20. It is this behaviour, flying in the face of what society deems acceptable, that has convinced this tribunal that the appellant has a genuine, unquenchable desire to do his utmost to win this competition, no matter what harm it does to his own personal reputation.
21. The tribunal have therefore, on this occasion, decided to show mercy and allow the sad, pathetic wretch through to the final round.
20. It is further noted that the appellant is appearing in a public forum tomorrow at Borough Market running a demonstration kitchen. Perhaps appropriately, tomorrow’s demo is entitled “Slow food“. Feel free to attend and make things that little bit more challenging for him.
21. As this appeal was sought despite some clear rule breaches on the part of the appellant, costs are awarded against him.