Levy guns for Brown

Pedant

The cover of his book says "Lord Michael Levy". He's the son of an earl?

John

Why 'below the belt'? It's perfectly reasonable to expose members of this gang for the defective personalities they are. It is relevant to their destruction of this country over the past 11 years.

Pedant Mark II

No - it suggests that he is the younger son of a duke or a marquess. The (younger) son of an earl would be known as "the Honourable Michael Levy".

James Forsyth

Frank and Max, Apologies but I fea that our learned friends might comment on your comments if you see what I mean. James

Dennis

Given the debate it's stirred among the local pedantry, 'A Question of Honour' is certainly an apt title.

Of course, it's a jolly clever title anyway, bubbling with all sorts of ironic resonances.

But I wonder whether Levy realizes quite how many people still share Commander Yates's suspicions about his own honour?

Or is he simply brazen?

And where's this "top-floor restaurant in Millbank" Levy cites? All the smart eateries round there are in basements. Surely he can't mean the MPs' caff on the 6th floor of No.7?

Must have been MacPrudence's treat.

Maybe, if he'd forked out for a decent lunch, Levy wouldn't be knifing him now.

...Or maybe not.

Frank Pulley

Well, I'm glad that it is legal sensitivity that spikes my somewhat inoccuous remarks, rather than ... well, personal proclivities towards this or that. Anyway John above has expressed my sentiments within the bounds of legality, apparently, even asking the same basic question. And don't you think an answer to that question might assist in this debate James? Why below the belt? What goes on below the belt (as discussed by a Lord of the Realm and a fund raiser for the government) is of great importance to the vast majority and less sensitive sector of the electorate, particularly when the activity involved was punishable by five years of imprisonment, under certain circumstances, for the greater part of my lifetime, and rightly so IMHO. Considering the fact that it has now become a passport to privilege and an insidious device in the life of our political system and institutions and, through promiscuous homosexual and bisexual behaviour a vast burden the NHS, I am disappointed that the Spectator censors free speech on the subject.

And as I said in another comment on the "should Boris endorse Paddick as second choice"; just imagine the hideous Gherkin bedecked in pink curtains! On reflection, perhaps the remark about police truncheons was a little beyond the pale.

Max Kaye

James - thanks for the acknowledgment that my comment was received but deemed too, um, problematic for publication.

I'll try again, in a more cryptic manner.

1) This is a highly amusing and ironic case of an 'honourable' Lord claiming that the 'Rt Honourable' ex-PM thinks that our serving dithering PM is a loser.

2) I'd trust the Machiavellian Mendelson's perceptions on certain intimate subjects over the outraged protestations of the 'offended party'. James Whistler's verbal sparring partner's lifestyle being a good example of a possibly contradictory existence.

Verity

John writes: "Why below the belt?" Maybe because he's a belted earl now and above the salt?

Dennis: "Or is he simply brazen?" Hmmmmmm ... He fought his way to the top of the pop music industry, so we know he's not shy. Funny post, BTW.

Max Kaye - Now it's a bit too cryptic. Can't you find a middle way?

John

I would rather not have agreement from the likes of Frank, who clearly believes in his divine right to send people to prison based on their sexual preferences, a position I regard with contempt. He also reveals his ignorance and bias by implying that heterosexuals do not contract STD, which is nonsense to put it mildly.

Frank Pulley

Max

Don't let Verity seduce you into the 'middle way', too many young people are being sucked into that vortex, it can't all be genetic, despite what Ann asserts on another thread. Sorry Verity - that WAS below the belt. :-)

Max Kaye

Sorry Verity. The clues are all here (and, of course, in James's post above). Perhaps someone else can assist by providing a bowlderised version.

Dennis

Max Kay

I'd trust the Machiavellian Mendelson's perceptions on certain intimate subjects over the outraged protestations of the 'offended party'.

I wouldn’t. Machiavelli clearly needs his gaydar re-calibrated.

On the offended party’s side there’s plenty of evidence over the years for a preference for skirt – as various lovelies from PR, broadcasting, and even Romanian royalty can attest.

Frank Pulley

I would defend to the death your right to call me an ignorant bigot - and your wish not to be associated with my opinions. It's just that I posed the very same question in my own censored comment. I can now accept that you were referring to other elements of their 'defective personalities' rather than what James was implying when he suggested that Lord Levy's exposure of Gordon's chagrin was a bit below the belt. Obviously Gordon was not happy at being acccused of having an exotic 'sexual preference' - if indeed he did so complain.

Incidentally, no one had a divine right to send anybody to prison for their 'sexual preferences', even in the good old days. Buggers occasionally got porridge for grossly perverted sexual behaviour, usually involving corruption of the young, and under normal legal statutes, rather than God given imperatives. Most offenders dealt with under the Sexual Offences Act got a slap on their limp wrists for 'cottaging' and unless you've had unwanted help
with your zip in a public urinal, you've no idea how much of a nuisance that entails.

As for your final sentence, as you well know I implied no such thing, but I won't haggle as obviously you're very upset and I'm sure that you're not implying either that, on the other hand, the spread of HIV/AIDS has nothing to do with promiscuous homosexual/ bisexual behaviour. You would have to be ignorant and biased to believe that and that cannot be so, as you are a reader of the Spectator. Try not to be so pompous - a little Angostura bitters in the Champagne for the Brain makes it a little more .... interesting. Some of the tepid stuff served from between these covers can be a bit like Aste Spumante - or diet coke, even, at times.

John

Frank lecturing people on pomposity - now I really have seen everything.
The idea that homosexuals are 'limp-wristed' tells us all we need to know about your bigotry.
The laws against homosexuality were based on religious dogma, therefore I stand by what I said.

Peter Davidson

Truth is Levy's stuff has failed to move the market. no interest from the TV bulletins. Waste of time and money and the immediate on the record denial from Blair about the main "Brown can't win allegation" didn't help!

Frank Pulley.

John: slagging me off about my aversion to arse banditry still doesn't get an answer to your (and my) question, "Why 'below the belt'?"

Perhaps James meant that it was a breach of confidence; but as
the Govern Gargoyle allegedly shouted the denial at the top of his voice in a crowded restaurant, it was hardly confidential - it sounded like he fervently wanted it to be known. So in one way Levy could be doing him a favour, even though Max still suspects that the gentleman doth protest too much.

But, Peter Davidson, you're right about it being a storm in a teacup. The Brown v Blair teams have been at each other's throats for over ten years now -nothing new there then - and the sad fact is that regardless of the squabbling, the electorate have voted them in three times on the trot. At the next election we shall see whether they were voting for President Blair or the Labour Party. It all depends on whether Brown and his Treasury proxy can pull another spurious 'economic miracle' out of the bag by sleight of hand; doubtful I would have thought - seems the cat's out of the bag as the big banks row for the shore after telling Batman and Robin that they'll accept the £50billion guarantee, but sorry - no deal for the poor punters with repayment difficulties. On that issue Lord Levy's insider gossip is irrelevant to yer average citizen. The price of food, fuel and mortgages will swing the deal, even though the Tories won't be able to do much about that supposing they win. It's time for a change isn't it? It's a racing certainty that the Cameroons couldn't make a worse fist of it than this bunch of buffoons, regardless of 'sexual orientation' (as fudge-packing it is quaintly known these days).