Once upon a time there was a young man who I will call Thomas Yesterday. In his teens and twenty’s he was a skilled and successful footballer, he enjoyed a jar or two with the lads after the game and went on in later years to become a successful manager of a weekend league team.

Academically Tom was not so hot. Some how he managed to bluff his way through school without being able to read or write and despite all his disadvantages was able to secure full employment earning a fair return for his labours.

He married young and with his equally young wife they were able to obtain a mortgage and they set up home. Soon they had family responsibilities‘ both worked hard and life was fairly good. In a few years they were able to move to a larger house.

It did not last though, some twenty years later tragedy entered their lives, reorganisation at work left Tom displaced he was offered redundancy or a post at a new location some fifty miles from home. He went for the job but the long journeys each day to the new position brought with it additional stresses and he was not able to keep up the travelling and sought redundancy which was given.

Tom found other work, but it was poorly paid and financial difficulties piled up. He began to have anxiety attacks and his GP prescribed medication which helped a bit but did not make a great deal of difference. The young man was taken seriously ill and was at deaths door when admitted to hospital. Much to the surprise of the Doctor’s he survived and recovered.

After a long period off work and in his forties with money problems growing he returned to work as a driver when tragedy again pays a visit. Home off night work he is woken by the police who call him to ask if he has a key to his parents house.

Neighbours had became concerned as they had not seen the couple for a day or so and the milk was left on the door step they had called the police.

Going with them to the house Tom let them in they find both his parents dead in their bed a cruel blow. Tom collapsed with shock and the police called a doctor to assist, unfortunately the doctor doubled the dose of his medication! Clinical depression set in and there was a further long period of unemployment during which he turned to drink.

His parents estate enabled the marriage which was now in crises, to teeter on a little longer and they invested most of the proceeds in a holiday for the family and in a larger property with some for his children to use as a deposit for homes of their own. The eldest child marries and is able to get a mortgage on a house with a share from the estate as a deposit. But matters get worse and his wife could take no more and decides that they should separate sell their home and go their separate ways.

Tom found an apartment which he was able to buy so had a roof over his head, now back at work he was on a cock-tail of prescribed medication which he managed fairly badly. With help he started to reduce medication but was now drinking more than was good for him so he made mistakes and had a couple of over-dose occurrences.

Very lonely and depressed and turning more and more to alcohol he is on his way home from a meal just after Christmas 2004 when he is stopped by the police for driving while under the influence of alcohol. He pleaded guilty, and gave his employer his resignation as he lost his driving licence on which his employment depended he felt that was better than waiting to be sacked. Once more depression takes hold of him as the bills pile up and he is under the care of a doctor again.

Financial problems increase and he is forced to sell his apartment home and seek less expensive accommodation on the outskirts of a big city which may increase his chances of finding employment that did not require a driving licence, outstanding bills are cleared and for the time being there is a little in the bank after the sale.

Tom still very lonely goes to a dating agency to try to find a companion, unfortunately his lack of reading skills leads him into the hands of unscrupulous business persons who introduce him to a foreign lady who is three months pregnant and for whom he would become responsible to meet NHS bills for the confinement. He is extricated from the farcical situation by a family friend but much of his savings has been lost.

His eldest child now married makes him a grand-father and he is very proud of the new member of the family. Still very dependant on his prescribed medication he continues to drink.

One dark winter’s night Tom goes down to the local take-away to get a meal, he is under the influence of his medication and a few drinks, quiet merry, but not so drunk that he was unaware of what was going on around him.

As he approaches the shop he becomes aware of a large group of twenty to thirty young people outside the take-away nearly all have cans of lager in their hands and the air is heavy with a sweet scented fragrance he knows is not tobacco, as he passes through them there is some laughter and banter going on. More young people in the shop, he places his order and produces his debit card to pay, but the shopkeeper tells him to pay next time as he did not do cards and seemed in a bit of a hurry to get him on his way so he could shut shop.

Outside as Tom makes his way through the throng there is more banter, and one lad yells “F*** you” which he feels was aimed at him so he responds in like manner treating it rather jocularly in his inebriated state and accompanying the reply with a rude gesture pointing at his private parts. This is followed by another male youth yelling at him “Faggot”. Unwisely he turns to the voice and holding out his hands with his bag dangling from his wrist he turns to the three youths from whom it sounded as if the call had come and says “ I’m no faggot” he turns to make his way back to his flat.

Suddenly Tom felt a heavy blow to the side of his head followed by a futher sharp stabbing pain which causes intense pain like he had never felt before at the top of his nose. He is surrounded by the young people and hears a girl scream “O my God” he can feel a warm sticky substance flowing down his face and is surrounded by noise, somehow he remains on his feet and flees from the group across the car park and up the concrete staircase to his flat where he enters and realises that he is bleeding all over the place he dials 999 for an ambulance and the police.

Coming to in hospital he is told he has a broken nose and that his left eye had been punctured by a sharp instrument of some kind and that although the surgeons had been able to close up the wound he had lost the sight of that eye.

The police took his statements and had obtained some footage from CTV cameras in the area and were hopeful of fairly quickly being able to apprehend the assailants which they did. They had gathered evidence from some from within the group and submitted their case to the Crown Prosecution Service to process.

After further operations to his damaged eye it is secured and Tom becomes an outpatient with drops to insert into the eye to keep the damaged eyeball from drying up. He is told it will be some months before they will know for certain if they will be able to avoid having to fit an artificial eye.

During the following weeks in hospital he receives counselling and his mental health is assessed as the hospital is concerned about his well being. Tom admits to staff his dependency on his prescribed medication and alcohol and he is put in touch with AA (Alcoholics Anonymous).

Under their care and guidance he slowly begins to emerge from the cloud of alcohol in which he had been burying himself. A local Vicar takes an interest in him and gives encouragement, and the unbelievable happens, he is in church and attending worship and taking communion, those who knew him can see a marked change in the man.

As time passed the youths appeared at a juvenile court which referred the case for a hearing at the Crown Court because of the severity of the injuries inflicted.

In their wisdom the Crown Prosecution Service decided the case against youth “A” should be dropped as it was concerned with the lesser of the injury’s and because of the age of the offender would have to be heard at a juvenile court, which would involve the Solicitors, Barristers and witnesses for the prosecution and defence appearing twice which it was deemed would be a waste of court time and money and involve a lot of trouble for the witnesses or that’s what it seemed to Tom they were saying.


Some seven months after the unprovoked attack offender “B” flanked by his protective parents and solicitors appears at the Crown Court for trial by twelve honest and upright citizens of the city. The bewigged prosecution Barrister tells the court the substance of the case against the accused youth.

Tom is not present to hear this as he is waiting downstairs in the witness room waiting to be called by the prosecution Barrister. Prosecution counsel comes down to the witness room with the defence Barrister without even introducing himself to Tom and goes straight to the Senior medical witness who had supplied a statement to the police stating the nature of the injuries they had had to deal with. The two Barrister’s confer and agree that they will not require the Doctor to appear and that with the ‘out of court’ clarification the written evidence will be taken as read.

The court adjourns for lunch. Tom is told he will be called when they reconvene. On return Tom is called to the witness box and sworn in. The prosecution Barrister graphically takes him through the events of that winter’s night and gets him to tell the jury in his own words what happened as he remembered it which he does to the best of his abilty not being very articulate.

Then it is the turn of the bewigged defence Barrister he rises slowly from his bench adjusting his wig slightly and turns to face Tom. “You are an alcoholic aren’t you Mr Yesterday?” There is a pause, as Tom, visibly taken unawares by this unexpected question hesitates for a moment before responding “Yes” and continued, the Barrister with his hands holding the front of his gown as he stared across the court at Tom “You also have a drug problem, is that not so Mr Yesterday? Tom looks to his Barrister appealingly, and there is another pause following which Tom attempts to explain that he had a dependency problem with prescribed medication but is stopped by the Barrister saying “Just answer the question do you have a drug problem yes or no?” Tom answers in the affirmative looking badly shaken at this aggressive attack.

The Barrister continues with his attack “On the night in question, you were on your own in your flat and had been drinking, how much had you drunk?” Tom replies “One or two shots of whisky” “Are you sure about that Mr Yesterday? As that is not what you told the staff at the hospital they say you told them you had drunk about three pints of beer and spirits” the Barrister states giving a knowing look at the jury. Tom mutters “I can’t remember what I told staff at the hospital I was about done in” The Judge on the bench says “Please speak up Mr Yesterday so that every one in court can hear you” Tom repeats his reply a little louder.

“Mr Yesterday were you a little concerned as you approached the take-away shop when you saw this large group of school children gathered outside the shop” Tom “Just a bit, but they were all laughing and joking and had cans in their hands” Barrister, switching to another line of attack “Did you have any money on you, Mr Yesterday?” Tom “No, I had gone to the cash machine and had not been able to get any out” Barrister “ So you went into the shop to buy your supper knowing you had no money to pay for it, is that right Mr Yesterday?” Tom a little confused, as he could not see what this had to do with his being assaulted says “Yes, I was going to put it on my debit card”Barrister “ But you did not do so, did you Mr Yesterday?” said the bewigged and pompous Barrister again looking across at the jury. Tom struggling for a reply states “No, the shop-keeper said pay next time and hurried to get me out of the shop so he could close up”

“Mr Yesterday when one of this group of school-children said ‘F*** you’ did you see who it was?”
Tom “No” “Would you have been able to recognise who it was or any of the group?” Tom “No” Barrister “As a mature adult in his forty’s do you consider that your response to a school-child ‘ I will take you round the back and f*** you’ with a gesture to your private parts was a appropriate reply to a school-child?” Tom “That’s not what I said” “Are you saying you did not offer to take the child who said ’f*** you” round the back and have sex with them?” Tom “I did not”.

The Barrister went on “The fact is Mr Yesterday you were so drunk, that you did not know what you were saying or doing” Tom replies “No sir I was not that drunk, and I did not say what you are claiming” The Barrister asks aggressively “Mr Yesterday, are you aware that there is a youth club just across the road from the Kebab Shop” Tom “No sir” Barrister “The fact is that you were in the presence of a group of school children who had just come out of the youth club, could you not see that?” Tom “I saw a group of teenagers who had cans of beer in their hands, and my response was jocular and just ‘f*** you to’ pointing at my private parts, it was said in the same way that it had been said to me in fun”.

Barrister continues “You then turned and went to walk away and say as you did so a boy called in an accusative voice ‘faggot’” Tom “That is correct” “Did you see who it was?” “No sir, as I turned there were three youths standing on the edge of the crowd I walked towards them with my arms out and hands open and said ‘I’m no faggot’ as I turned to walk back to my flat I felt a blow on the back of my head from some hard object followed by one to my face then intense pain in the area of my eye which was the worst pain I had ever felt, something wet and sticky was running down my face, I heard a female voice cry out ‘O my God’ and I ran as fast as I could to my flat”


The defence Barrister then asked the judge if he could show the court part of a TV interview with Mr Yesterday that had been given to ABC TV network in which he tried to suggest a statement had been made that was deliberately misleading and made to show his assailants in the worst possible way. He went on to say Mr Yesterday had failed to indicate in the interview that he was drunk and suffering from mixing alcohol with illegal drugs. At which point both prosecution counsel and the judge intervene pointing out the question of the use of illegal drugs was never mentioned in any of the papers which after considering documents he agreed should have been prescribed medication. The TV interview was shown with graphic pictures showing the extent of the injuries that had been received by Mr Yesterday. The defence Barrister turned to the Judge and said he had no further question for the witness.

Mr Yesterday was told he would not be required anymore and was allowed to leave the court. He and I do not know what else occured or was said by the other witnesses for the prosecution nor by the defence witnesses as we were not there and they have not been reported in the press.

Three days later a phone call from the police liaison officer advised Tom that the jury after retiring to consider their verdict had come back to the court room and informed the judge they had not been able to agree a verdict. The defence Barrister had clearly done an outstanding hatchet job on the victim of this wicked crime,effectively discrediting him to such an extent that the jury were happy to let a vicious little school child go free into society believing that it was quite OK for him to poke out some-ones eye if he was a alcoholic and on medication.

The Crown Prosecution Barrister sat through all this character assassination of his witness and the victim of this crime without saying a word. I have no idea what he said in summing up his case to the jury it was clearly ineffectual. As was any guidance the judge may or may not have given them. Such is the calibre of British justice in the present day!

I hope the parents of all the youths in that group, know where there sweet well behaved little school-children are tonight and every night for the future, for every single one of them is guilty to a lesser or greater degree for the loss of Mr Yesterdays eye.

We are all lucky today that Mr Yesterday did not fall to the ground because in the same manner that the defence Barrister chose to crucify the victim by innuendo, I now chose to suggest to the parents and the irresolute jury that had he done so he would have probable like others in this country today, have been kicked to death and the crime would not have been one of GBH but of murder.

I hope all parents everywhere will stop and ponder on this sad tale and perhaps ask themselves where and what their little “A” and “B” have been doing tonight or will they sit smugly at home in front of the TV or down the pub not bothered until the next time!

Good has come from this wicked cruel incident because despite the loss of his eye Tom continues to move onward and upward following the principles of AA's twelve steps and the big book. He told me he remembers the youths that caused his injuries in his prayers and asks that the unseen deity we call Our Father in Heaven to forgive them and have mercy on them.

Want to comment on this Short Stories? Sign up to Edit Red and you will be able to comment on Short Stories and get access to: Upload your own stories and poems, get readers and their feedback, promote your work...