If I had to guess, since the second line is “…had a wife and couldn’t keep her…” it might be interpreted as impotence, not good in bed, his wife’s a slut, or who knows what else. “Peter” might have some innuendo if it weren’t for the fact the guy’s name was Peter. “Pumpkin eater” to me without outside input suggests an image of cunnilingus rather than fellatio (or else I have a dirty mind), so a guy who does that and still can’t satisfy his wife… has real problems.
Peter, Peter pumpkin eater,
Had a wife but couldn’t keep her;
He put her in a pumpkin shell
And there he kept her very well.
Sounds more like Peter’s been watching too much Silence of the Lambs or is into bondage.
Second verse:
Peter, Peter pumpkin eater,
Had another and didn’t love her;
Peter learned to read and spell,
And then he loved her very well.
OK, now we’re getting way to weird and kinky. At least now he’s satisfying his wife.
Maybe the judge needs to learn to read.
It’s a bit more specific than that. I figure it’s one of those made-up (I think-or at least Dan Savage told me so in a column many moons ago) sexual acts that riff on something that is a “thing” but add something ridiculous to it like The Dirty Sanchez or gerbilling or whatnot.
AFAICT, they two wrong’uns were inspecting on behalf of their union and - reading between the lines - the union seems to have a culture and practice of sending these guys or ones like them in to work sites specifically to harass managers and disrupt operations. The judge mentions that this isn’t the first time they’ve been in court - both of them turned up at some other site and planted themselves between a concrete mixer and the spot it was meant to be pouring concrete into, while one of them dared the workers they were inconveniencing to hit him. (I mean, what the fuck).
From the judge’s remarks about how financial penalties are meant to sting and can be accepted as the cost of doing business if they don’t, and by his specific order that the union may not pay the two dickheads’ fines for them - which fines are the absolute max he can impose - I think its clear that this is deliberate harassment and the union not only encourages these guys to go in and act like dicks, it also intends to pay their fines for them and has done in teh past. Which would suggest this is all part of a deliberate plan, not some temporary folie a deux.
What the union gets out of this is not clear - presumably this is negotation by extortion - but I imagine that one of the big unspoken attractions is that these clowns get to relive their glory days as high school bullies.
That makes sense–I was kind of wondering if they were union reps, but couldn’t quite tell from my quick reading of the case. For all the work I do with my union, I really freaking hate it when unions act the fool like this.
When it came to the crunch they admitted everything, which is kind of a shame because I would have loved to read a transcript of a cross-examination where they attempted to justify what they did. And what I would really love is to read the transcript of the planning meeting where these two bozos and their boss scripted this little show, haw-haws and backslaps included.
Nothing more infuriating, or more urgently in need of policing, than people who are ostensibly on your side doing unconsionable shit.
First I ever hear of such a thing. But from the context it seems the judge’s line of reasoning is along the lines of “I know y’all have been deliberately acting like dicks, so I am going to presume that when you used this expression that was not casual and you meant it in the most dickish sense, as well”.
Back to “had a wife and couldn’t keep her” - back in the days of Mother Goose, that did not mean he could not satisfy her. It meant that he couldn’t pay for her upkeep. Once he had free housing, “put her in a pumpkin shell”, he could afford to buy the rest of the things she needed: food, clothes, etc.
It was harder for the old woman who lived in a shoe.
OK, reading to the end - thre respondents were speaking Australian, not English.
But the full document is an interesting read, and the judge is determined to stick it to the respondents. The very end of the document provides a graphic description of the interpretation of the slur. I can’t unlearn that now.
Plus it was preceded by an accusation that they complained the person working for the contractor “tried to see his penis in the washroom” to provide context to the slur. And used his name “Pete” not “peter”.
Since the judge mentions the other union (CEPU) I wonder if this is the result of a fight between two unions seeking to represent the workers at a site?
Most interesting is ordering the union not to pay the instigators’ fine for them.
Basically, a judge doing what judges should do, and a direct slap-down.
Per the link in the OP, the judge found that the “second respondent” was guilty of “(e) walking towards a representative of the occupier on site with his chest puffed out in an aggressive stance”.
How do you determine aggressive chest puffing, as opposed to good posture? What is anatomically normal chest extension? Was the second respondent making puffing sounds like a locomotive?
No. The judge is basically saying their behaviour was deliberately provocative, and it seems they’ve done this before. What he lists is accepting the complaintants’ version of the confrontation (Which appears that after advice from their lawyers, the respondents changed their tune to agree with.
They went to the work site determined to be provocative, and the judge was showing them the cost of being serial provocateurs.
I suspect, given that there is a lot of dialogue quoted verbatim including specific terminology about permits, that one of the reasons the defendants didn’t contest the allegations was that there was video and audio recording. Which did indeed show one defendant adopting an aggressive posture as part of an attempt to physically intimidate people.
The judgement includes at the end a very graphic description of what the judge takes to be meant by “Pumpkin eater”. Presumably the judge got this from somewhere, unless he’s pulling the definition out of his ass. (sorry, couldn’t resist)
The question is, how widespread is this expression in that locale? Or is this a case of the judge finding the most egregious interpretation just to compound the reasons for throwiing the book at the defendants?
It’s mentioned towards the beginning of the thread. Urbandictionary has that definition, but note that the definition has 39 upvotes and 65 downvotes, which makes me think this is either a spurious definition or highly localized.
Cinderella and Prince Charming broke up and she became a poor girl again. One day the carnival came into town and she wanted to go but didn’t have anything to wear, so her Fairy Godmother made her a magic gown. But she warned Cinderella that if she wasn’t back home by midnight, her pussy would turn into a pumpkin. I don’t know. I didn’t make the joke up.
So she goes to the fair and ends up meeting this nice guy and they go up on the Ferris Wheel and she finally asks him what time it is.
“Ten till midnight,” he says.
“Oh no! I have to go right away!” she exclaims.
“Wait! At least tell me your name,” he pleads with her.
