Sleep with dogs, you get fleas...
As more becomes known about Oleg Deripaska, the Russian oligarch at the centre of the current political convulsions, it becomes ever clearer that both Labour and the Tories are irreparably compromised by the association of their senior politicians with this man.
The US authorities will not allow Deripaska into the country. Maybe this has something to do with the revelations today by Keith Dovkants in the Evening Standard. The story claims that another Russian businessman, Mikhail Gutseriev, has been forced to flee Russia and seek sanctuary in Britain after being hounded by the Kremlin to sell his oil firm to Deripaska. Weeks after fleeing Moscow to escape charges that he says were trumped up, his son Chingis was killed in a mysterious car crash. Dovkants writes:
The Gutseriev affair was known about in business circles in London and Moscow and although Mr Osborne may not have been aware of the case, Lord Mandelson, as a former EU trade commissioner almost certainly did... The Gutseriev affair could prove especially embarrassing for the Government. Gordon Brown may not enjoy having one Cabinet member, Lord Mandelson, defending his friendship with Mr Deripaska, while the department of another, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, has moved to safeguard a man who claims he is a casualty of activities by the Kremlin from which Mr Deripaska is likely to benefit.
Despite Deripaska’s dubious record, it appears that as EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson had far more extensive links with him than he has let on. First we were told he had met Deripaska when he had been invited to a drinks party on his yacht last summer. Then it turned out he had been staying there. Yesterday it was revealed that he had actually known Deripaska since 2005, and that as the EU’s Trade Commissioner he reduced the tariff on aluminium as a result of which Deripaska netted tens of millions of dollars. Yet his EU spokesman not only denied any conflict of interest but even apparently misrepresented the chronology. As David Robertson reported in the Times:
Lord Mandelson signed off a decision to remove the 14.9 per cent tariff in December 2005 and it was ratified by the Council of Ministers the following month. Lord Mandelson's former spokesman in Brussels told The Times that there could have been no conflict of interest in the decision to drop the tariff because the two men had not met. Asked by The Times to clarify when Lord Mandelson first met Mr Deripaska, his press officer at the European Commission, Michael Jennings, replied on his behalf: ‘Mr Mandelson has met Mr Deripaska at a few social gatherings in 2006 and 2007. He has never had a conversation with Mr Deripaska about aluminium.’
However, two reliable sources have confirmed that Lord Mandelson and Mr Deripaska had dinner at Cantinetta Antinori in Moscow in late January 2005. Lord Mandelson is thought to have flown to Moscow with Nathaniel Rothschild, the financier, after the 2005 World Economic Forum in Davos.
Yes, the same Nathaniel Rothschild who has just torpedoed George Osborne’s career.
Although the Tories may not have known about Gutseriev – although they jolly well should have done – they should still have had nothing to do with Deripaska. You would think that a British politician would automatically clock any Russian oligarch as potential trouble and hasten in the opposite direction. But Osborne met him no fewer than four times during that weekend in Corfu. Why? Was he such scintillating company? And regardless of who initiated the fateful discussion about his possibly donating to the Conservative party and whether Deripaska was ever personally involved in such discussion, the fact is that it did take place between his intermediary Nat Rothschild, Osborne and the Tory party’s Chief Executive Andrew Feldman.
Feldman is, if anything, even more significant than Osborne in this saga. For after Osborne had met Deripaska Feldman was brought to meet him from his neighbouring holiday villa. More significant still is what, according to the Tories’ own statement yesterday, Feldman said when the possibility was raised that Deripaska might contribute to the party:
There was a discussion about British and American politics and in the course of which Mr Rothschild suggested to Mr Feldman that his friend, Mr Deripaska could be interested in making a party donation. Mr Feldman had not met Mr Deripaska previously and was not aware who he was.
Mr Feldman made clear that there are very strict rules on donations to political parties in the UK. He explained that there are only two ways of giving a political donation. Firstly, if you appear as an individual on the UK electoral roll. Secondly, if the donation comes from a legitimate UK trading company. This is an explanation Mr Feldman gives regularly when asked about donations both privately and publicly. At this point Mr Rothschild said that Mr Deripaska owned UK trading companies including Leyland Daf.
There was no discussion about how a donation by Mr Deripaska could be concealed or channelled. At no point did Mr Osborne or Mr Feldman solicit or ask for a donation, suggest ways of channelling a donation or express any wish to meet with Mr Deripaska to discuss donations.
Rothschild has claimed that Feldman suggested that the money could be channelled through Leyland Daf, a British firm owned by Deripaska. The Tories claim that Feldman did no such thing and was merely setting out the law. This is frankly incredible. The proper response to any suggested donation would have been to terminate the conversation abruptly and to leave. To reply, as the Tories say Feldman did, by actually laying out the conditions under which such a donation can be made through a UK trading company – prompting the reply that, by an amazing coincidence, Deripaska just happened to own just such a company -- and then to say that
At no point did Mr Osborne or Mr Feldman...suggest ways of channelling a donation
is just risible. They didn’t need to suggest it in such explicit terms; all they had to do was lay out how it could be done. And then, having done precisely this, they actually went back onto Deripaska’s yacht. If they had inexplicably blundered into a compromising position, they would surely have been so horrified they would never have gone near the wretched boat again. As Lord Tebbit has so gnomically observed:
If you sleep with dogs, you will get fleas.
As I said yesterday, there is no question but that this is a big story. At the very least – and there is doubtless more that we do not yet know -- Osborne and Feldman displayed appalling judgment in having anything to do with this man at all. Nevertheless, it is also the case that the party did not take his money. By contrast, Mandelson’s association with Deripaska is potentially a much more serious matter. The question over whether Mandelson was guilty of a conflict of interest concerns a period when he was a paid official of the EU. He is now – as he doesn’t cease to remind us – a Cabinet minister in the British government with a responsibility for business, a position in which he may be of value once again to Oleg Deripaska, a man with a highly dubious record with whom the Business Secretary has enjoyed close links which he has sought to obfuscate. Next week Mandelson flies to Moscow at the head of a delegation of top British corporate figures, where he is expected to meet Russian tycoons and Kremlin ministers.
Baffling even his own Labour benches, Gordon Brown said today there should be an official inquiry into Osborne’s dealings with Deripaska -- even though as Labour MP Tony Wright protested:
We are not talking about corruption here. We are not talking about law-breaking. What there is, as someone said, is a twerp and a massive misjudgment.
Indeed. Twerpdom and misjudgments, however colossal, may be career-breakers but are not in the same league as possible conflicts of interest by the Secretary of State for Business and former EU Trade Commissioner. Surely if there is to be a corruption inquiry it should be into Lord Mandelson’s dealings with Deripaska. Er, hang on a minute – Brown actually removed responsibility for tackling corruption from the Business Secretary’s brief when he appointed Mandelson to the job. Did he know something we don’t know??
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (40)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Britain’s AWOL ally - Fraser Nelson
2 A phonecall to Kelly looks better than not mentioning expenses - Peter Hoskin
3 Fatal inexperience - Humphrey Carpenter
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
GASCONY
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
BIG SAND STEEL BAND
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, Tarn et Garonne.
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Worried of Windsor
October 22nd, 2008 5:33pmJust need to get the tapes from the NSA. Or the FSB.
jennywren
October 22nd, 2008 5:45pmDeripaska, like all Russian oligarchs is bent, Mandelson is bent, Osborne,it seems, is a naive fool.
Unfortunately you can lose your job for being a naive fool more easily than for being bent
Steve Mink
October 22nd, 2008 5:50pmYour attempts to smear Mandelson with a corruption charge seems even more desperate than your campaign to smear Obama as a crypto-communist.
Ronnie
October 22nd, 2008 6:10pmEh, Steve Mink, you can't honestly have such a short memory?
Lord Mandelson has only been back a few weeks and look what's happened already. He's just trouble with a capital T and I doubt that Gordon Brown can control him any more than the tories could control Jeffrey Archer.
David Lindsay
October 22nd, 2008 6:24pmThe company through which Oleg Deripaska was planning to funnel his donation to the Tories was Leyland Daf. Which he owns.
That company used to be called British Leyland. And you used to own it.
Whether against sharp practice, or in defence of national sovereignty, wasn't privatisation great, eh, Maggie? And Tony? And Gordon?
hadrian
October 22nd, 2008 7:19pm'Frankly, m'dear, I don't give a damn' must be the response of millions of UK patriots to this screaming hysteria. Yes, one deplores little George's evident idiocy but all the more does one recoil from the evidently blase attitude to charges of conflict of interests on the part of Mandelson when an actual official of the E.U. gravy train. His slithery influence on the already battered reputation of British politics is all too obvious. We await with eager delight the day Brown himself comes to rue having ever taken this snake back on board.Brown- the man of fresh start and new, moral directions!! How even more hollow all that sounds now!
Geoff M
October 22nd, 2008 7:20pmOh Melanie, how could you.
Surely none of this can be true otherwise we would have heard it on the oh so impartial and professional BBC.
Even that creep Peston (Labour Peer father notwithstanding) wouldnt have overlooked the major story on Mandelson.
Surely...........
Hayward Maberley
October 22nd, 2008 7:33pmMs Phillips,
As a journalist who so often rails about the current poor knowledge and use of the English language you got it wrong concerning trolling in you blog on Boris the Boofhead on trolling. Now, the saying is"If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas"
Pete, Scotland
October 22nd, 2008 8:25pmWe have a saying here (Scotland):
Fly with crows and you will get shot with them!
Osbourne flew into the media crosswires, crowed, and has just been shot!
Whether you come from the top of the social tree or the bottom, the principle is the same. Don't betray a confidence!
Nick Kaplan
October 22nd, 2008 9:13pmDavid Lindsay are you seriously suggesting it was a mistake to privatise British Leyland?
Verity
October 22nd, 2008 9:54pmHow interesting that Peter Mandelson will get off Scott free and George Osborne will probably lose his job for committing a lesser offence.
Britain is utterly corrupt.
hadrian
October 22nd, 2008 10:49pmYou are absolutely right, Verity: our national life IS sadly corrupt. Back stabbing, filthy lucre, greed, and no sense of even the concept of honour. What can one expect from a de-Christianised society, however?
For a little light relief, Fromthe unlikely source of Bertrand Barere, one of the leaders of the French Revolution(!!) said about English:
'As for English, , a great and free language on the day it mastered the words, 'The power of the people', English is now no more than the dialect of a tyrannous and despicable government, the dialect of banks and letters of credit.' !!!!
Hayward Maberley
October 23rd, 2008 12:51amHadrian,
...Back stabbing, filthy lucre, greed, and no sense of even the concept of honour. What can one expect from a de-Christianised society, however?...
Well they were up to lots of the above in 11-17 centuries. Just look at the machinations around the English throne and land ownership, in France the massacre of the Huegenots and other incidents, in Italy all the internecine strife between the various Princes not forgeting the Popes of the time.
I left out the major wars.
This was when every nation professed a belief in Christ?
And
D. smith
October 23rd, 2008 1:21amMaybe this is a warning to us peasants. The new style Tories are as infatuated with the rich as Newlabour ever was.
What is it with these people?
Does the possession of wealth make the rich think they can own peoples and nations? Can we not have men and women to represent us who will have nothing to do with the tyranny of mere wealth.
Osborne has let us all down. He should go.
As for Mandelson he is what he was always going to be and will have to live with it.
Now Cameron has a real problem for as my son said to me if this is what the Conservatives will be like then then it is time to look for other men and women who will truly serve the nation and deserve our trust.
Dave M
October 23rd, 2008 2:13amThe fact is Russia has become a big player again on the global, political scene. There are business men and politicians in Moscow who now have a lot of money, a lot of power and a lot of influence. Although the media would have us believe Russia is some kind of backward society where there is no democracy and freedom, the truth is otherwise. Moscow's economy now has something in common with Tokyo in the eighties - very expensive, very rich and a real business capital.
Verity
October 23rd, 2008 5:13amWell said, Hadrian!
Roy
October 23rd, 2008 7:24amWhy blame it on a de-Christianised society hadrian? More like it is a de-disciplined society, a non-corrective parenting, sloppy teaching, non authoritarian policing, and allowing big schools, big titles to take all the big jobs regardless of the chump’s ability. Jobs of state responsibility should go to ones who have a record of honest work. You don’t have to be a Christian to abide by some simple rules of etiquette.
Ronnie
October 23rd, 2008 8:16amOh, I have a saying too.
If you fall asleep under an elephant you'll be crushed.
Nice-but-dim Shadow Chancellors should keep well away from Russian oligarch's. The same goes for Lord Mandelson, as we shall see in the fullness of time.
Big Vinny
October 23rd, 2008 11:27amWhat was this article called? Sleep with dogs, you get fleas?
Melanie forgot to mention that John McCain is also an acquaintance of Oleg Deripaska:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012403383_pf.html
Here are some highlights:
“A top political adviser in Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign [Rick Davis] helped arrange an introduction in 2006 between McCain and a Russian billionaire whose suspected links to anti-democratic and organized-crime figures are so controversial that the U.S. government revoked his visa”.
“Mark Salter, a spokesman for McCain, said that meetings with Deripaska took place during official trips abroad by senators and that McCain did nothing improper. “Any contact between Mr. Deripaska and the senator was social and incidental,” he added. Salter said the contact between McCain and Deripaska did not constitute a ‘private meeting’; both men were part of larger gatherings”.
But this is what actually happened:
“He [McCain] and a small group of senators…met for a drink near Davos, Switzerland, at an apartment where they were greeted by Davis and Deripaska. The group then went to a dinner at the ski chalet of Peter Munk, founder of Barrick Gold, the world's largest gold-mining company, based in Toronto. Participants at the buffet dinner said Munk complimented his sometime business partner Deripaska during his brief remarks to the 40 or so guests”.
And Deripaska seemed pleased:
“Later that month, Deripaska wrote to Davis and his partner…to thank them for arranging the meeting. “Thank you so much for setting up everything in Klosters so spectacularly,” he wrote. “It was very interesting to meet Senators McCain, Chambliss and Sununu in such an intimate setting””.
“The letter went on to mention a business deal that Deripaska and the consultants had apparently been talking about. “Please will you send me the information on the metals trading company we discussed and would be happy to see if I can do anything to help,” Deripaska wrote”.
So while the meeting was not ‘private’ as such, it certainly gave McCain and Deripaska the opportunity to become acquainted, as planned.
And here’s what happened later:
“Seven months later, in August 2006, Davis was present again at a social gathering that was also attended by McCain and Deripaska, this time in Montenegro, another Eastern European country in which Davis's firm was working. The three were among a few dozen people dining at a restaurant during an official Senate trip…”
“Afterward, a group from the dinner took boats out to a nearby yacht moored in the Adriatic Sea, where champagne and pastries were served, partly in honor of McCain's 70th birthday”.
“Salter said neither McCain nor Davis recalls Deripaska being on the yacht after dinner”.
I suppose it is possible that “neither McCain nor Davis recalls Deripaska being on the yacht”, but this seems improbable, given that Davis had arranged the first meeting between McCain and Deripaska, and that he had also been working for a lobbying company seeking to do business with Deripaska.
How can Melanie continue to support McCain in the light of this shocking new development?
Water
October 23rd, 2008 11:36amSeems more a case of sleeping with a bear and feeling the claws. I doubt Mandelson will be going anywhere, he's not twerp enough to be usurped.
Frank P
October 23rd, 2008 1:41pmBig Vinny
"How can Melanie continue to support McCain in the light of this shocking new development?"
The lesser of two evils, perhaps? Anyway, from what I have read of Melanie's posts on the subject, I wouldn't classify her as a supporter of any of the contenders in the US election. From my reading, she appears to have been mainly pointing out the evident extreme Leftist links to Obama and the reluctance of the Big Media (until very recently and probably too late) to report these connections and their pedigrees.
As for her defence of Sarah Palin, given the tsunami of lies and personal ridicule piled on the Alaskan Governor by the Obamaphiles and the Big Media, Melanie is entirely justified in batting for Sarah, in my opinion.
But the link you cite is very interesting and once again highlights the dangers of Communist infiltration of Western culture, politics, commerce and finance and why Western politicians should look every gift horse in the mouth, particularly our own puerile pols.
But it certainly won't help Democracy, freedom and the free market economy in the West if Obama is shoe-horned into the White House by the crooks and dangerous ideologues who have played such an important part in shaping his career. And the sheer hatred that emanates from the physiognomy of his spouse, as she stands in for him while he visits his sick granny, is a signal that we should all heed. Behind every successful man ....
Despite the shortcomings of McCain, if I were a Yank I would still consider it a no- brainer that, given the current state of geopolitics, the next four years behind the aegis
of a patriotic hero would be preferable to the defeatist and clueless policies of The One who has clearly (from his own words and scribbling) been influenced by traitors to US interests and ideals. But Hey! Cous, it's your shout; even though our future is in the pot, we hold no cards in this hand. But it's only fair to point out to you that one of the players appears to have had his pasteboards marked on the left hand edge. If your side bet is on him, then of course you protestation is understandable.
Verity
October 23rd, 2008 1:42pmBig Vinny - See, we are discussing two British political figures, one of them known to be utterly corrupt and malign. We are discussing them in the context of British public life.
Those are the unwritten boundaries to this discussion. If you want to be a small, yappy dog that scampers in barking importantly, nipping at people's ankles and growling as you try to drag the subject away from the adults, you may do as you please, but you are not strong enough to deflect the topic.
We are discussing a venal individual dripping toxins onto British public life and a foolish British politician who has poisoned his own chalice.
It is a big enough subject not to try to drag the entire American president election into the room.
hadrian
October 23rd, 2008 2:53pmRoy,
I applaud most of your comments on what's glaringly lacking or wrong in our society today, However I disagree with you that these values you yearn for just spring out of nowhere and from any old world view. Discipline, Respect for Persons, Punishment etc- they all are rooted in our Personal Creator and Redeemer. Reject Him, you get the outflowing of amoral nihilism that now see around us. As Christ says, there are blind leaders of the blind, sheep without a shepherd.
Hayward,the operative word in your text is 'profess'; it is perfectly easy to give a false profession; and the Church of Rome is no friend of Biblical Christianity. Mankind in his natural state is fallen; from that disaster proceed all other calamities and perplexities. If we refuse to admit this we can either lurch to one form or other of self righteous fanaticism or just sink into embittered cynicism. Our nation's largely in the grip of both. You cannot avoid the spiritual war.
Verity
October 23rd, 2008 3:23pmFrank P - My comment above was written before your excellent defence of Melanie's post. I do get tired, though, of people who, if the subject is, let's say, immigration, race in screaming "Bush Cheyney illegal war UN resolution Halliburton Rumsfeld lefty boilerplate lefty boilerplate...".
Speaking of Obama's dear grandmother who he is so fond of, when he found out she'd broken her hip, announced two days in advance that he would be making a visit to Hawaii. So you have a tiny old granny who breaks her hip and you don't get straight on one of the planes at your immediate disposal? You make an annoucement that you'll be going over in a couple of days?
Also, I read that his visit coincides not just with his granny's broken hip, but one of the court cases being tried to force him to produce his birth certificate (the records of which, if it exists, would be in Hawaii) is due to be decided.
Gosh, isn't life just full of coincidences?
Laura
October 23rd, 2008 5:35pmWhat are you talking about, Big Vinny?
The issue is not meeting people, shaking hands and drinking with them. It's dealing with them.
The issue with Osborne is that he should have cut short any chats about donations. There was nothing wrong with Osborne merely meeting the oligarch at all.
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with Mandelson meeting this oligarch. The issue is trying to understand why Mandelson ditched EU tariffs on alumnium - that this oligarch has massively benefitted from.
There is no suggestion that there was deal struck behind closed doors.
We must, though, get to the bottom of Mr Mandelson's reasoning behind dropping this tariff so that we can know there was never any conflict of interest in his taking this decision while at the same time being a close acquaintance of someone who stood to benefit from it massively.
Frank P
October 23rd, 2008 6:18pmVerity.
"Gosh, isn't life just full of coincidences?"
Not in the Great Scheme of Things, gal. Every train crash has it's cause and the one I see coming has many.
But wouldn't it be wonderful if the American Electorate indicated that they, rather than the Elite Media, decide on who will be the President. Still time for them to make the blue rimmers eat their words, though, and what a feast it would be.
Dave
October 23rd, 2008 6:53pmOh Vherity you right-wingers do like your rules!
Sadly I guess internal consistency isn't one of them
Worried of Windsor
October 23rd, 2008 7:35pmIs aluminium likely to be the story here - seems too obvious. Bit historic, too. Aluminium prices are well down these days.
Perhaps you should be looking at something more topical? More 'financial'. Fast moving situations, that sort of thing.
Paul Hill
October 23rd, 2008 8:20pmNever thought I'd post this
Well done Mel!
Facts correct
Judgement impeccable
Conclusion unavoidable
First rate journalism
More please
RODEST
October 23rd, 2008 9:41pmConsidering the associates involved in this political game, entrapment comes to mind. Mandelson drips poison about Brown Osbourne responds with a little about Davis then Rothschild suggests a party donation from his friend.
Could it be that Mandelson was looking for a scapegoat to deflect his recent dealings with the Russians?
It may be the case that Osbourne had an initial interest in a donation (suggested by a so called friend), but when Feldman had clarified the situation he (Osbourne) decided not to pursue it without actually telling Rothschild.
On the other hand, they may have all been so full of booze nobody knows exactly what was said and when or by who.
If it is true that Mandelson met Deripaska before he reduced the EU tariff on aluminium, then he should be strped of his title and prosecuted for corruption.
RODEST
October 23rd, 2008 9:43pmConsidering the associates involved in this political game, entrapment comes to mind. Mandelson drips poison about Brown Osbourne responds with a little about Davis then Rothschild suggests a party donation from his friend.
Could it be that Mandelson was looking for a scapegoat to deflect his recent dealings with the Russians?
It may be the case that Osbourne had an initial interest in a donation (suggested by a so called friend), but when Feldman had clarified the situation he (Osbourne) decided not to pursue it without actually telling Rothschild.
On the other hand, they may have all been so full of booze nobody knows exactly what was said and when or by who.
If it is true that Mandelson met Deripaska before he reduced the EU tariff on aluminium, then he should be strped of his title and prosecuted for corruption.
Byron in Wahroonga
October 23rd, 2008 11:23pm***there are business men and politicians in Moscow who now have a lot of money, a lot of power and a lot of influence***
Yes. Google 'Barbary Pirates' for a previous incarnation.
Hayward Maberley
October 24th, 2008 3:09amHadrian,
So are we to understand it is "Biblical Christianity" that is the correct profession of faith.
The Bible which has some strange admonitions, encouragements & penalties in the OT. Below is an extract from a well known set of questions sent to Dr Laura Schlessinger who was a conservative talk show host. She had expressed very negative opinions about homosexuality and a range of other matters, while firmly supporing & advocating biblical morality. The questions are tongue-in-cheek seeking advice in applying biblical morality and religious duties in today's world. Probably for reasons of brevity, the author left out many other passages in the OT that are profoundly immoral by today's standards, well let us say to most rational people. Examples are obligations to exterminate non-combatants during wartime, torture of prisoners, burning some prostitutes alive, denying disabled persons access to the temple, stoning non-virgin brides to death, etc. What would be your position on these particular aspects of "Biblical Christianity"?
If I were to slaughter a bull, sprinkle the blood around and burn it on an altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They may claim all the odours are not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish and shrimp is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Hayward Maberley
October 24th, 2008 4:49amHadrian,
An interesting name, is it your own or a nom de la poste?
I have only met one Hadrian in my life and I had to come to Australia from the UK to do so.
Following the humour of my earlier post, I now address a more serious matter, for you say “Mankind in his natural state is fallen; from that disaster proceed all other calamities and perplexities”.
However first mention of the fall is in the NT by Paul, so that is very late in the historiography of the Bible. Paul, originally Saul, who probably fell from his horse on the road to Damascus. This when, on a mission to persecute the Jewish followers of Jesus. He cracked his head, came to with the loss of sight and what is probably a bad case of concussion, possibly brain damage.
Changed his name to Paul then took over the very movement, the followers of Jesus, that he had been persecuting. He rebadges it as “Christianity” and places himself as the leader, chief theoretician and pamphleteer, in opposition to Peter, who, so the story goes, was picked by Jesus to take over when Jesus ”left” The followers of Jesus are then admonished, browbeaten, harassed and threatened with damnation into subscribing to what in fact is “Paulinity” a rather nasty and misogynistic update of the OT wrapped in the guise of the words and deeds of the NT Jesus.
Interestingly Paul had never seen Jesus, let alone met him.
For there was no mention of the fall as such by Jesus neither did the fall as such get a mention in the OT.
The fall was worked up by Iraeneus, finally throgh to the ideas that Augustine turned into the Doctrine of Original Sin.
Augustine taught that Original Sin was transmitted through the concupiscence that accompanied sexual reproduction. Interesting when one considers how Augustine spent his youth!
One of the few things that the Protestants took over with no problems from the Papists was OS. Both Luther and Calvin both were very keen on OS.
OS plays a big part in keeping the Christian franchise of whatever denomination growing. For if you are born with the stain of sin, it needs to be washed away by baptism. Then to continue, the franchiseess preach hellfire and damnation because that, as you say Hadrian is the outcome of the fallen state . Unless you repent, mend your ways etc.etc.
James
October 24th, 2008 11:07amA couple of fantastic pieces in the Mail today on this. Wonderful ananlysis piece:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1080171/The-Mafia-paradise-holds-secret-tycoons-alliance.html
And then an Agatha Christie lampoon by Uncle Rich:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1080087/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-cast-list-The-Corfu-Connection-reads-like-Agatha-Christie-novel-Now-enter-Hercule-Poirot--.html
Do you know, the first time I read that letter in The Times from Nat Rothschild I just knew this former wild child was absolutely justified in his outrage.
Of course it was simple bad manners that had upset him.
I feel sure he wanders around his yacht like Hyacinth Bucket simply obsessing over ‘manners’.
Whoever heard the name Rothschild and didn’t think: ‘Ah, yes, that family famed the world over for their manners’?
What else could preoccupy this Nat Rothschild other than the way the doilies are folded?
What a delicate soul he is. I hope it’s not all proving too traumatic for him.
Verity
October 24th, 2008 3:47pmJames - Funny!
(Although doilies are not part of the Rothschild home environment... I think you meant napkins.) But funny post.
hadrian
October 24th, 2008 8:54pmHayward,
You ask for explanation of Biblical Law and its current application and deny the concept of The Fall is integral to the whole of Scripture.
On the second point, let me refer you to Psalm 130 v.1-3, the third in particular-'If thou, O Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who should stand?'
How about Psalm51? V 5-'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.'
Again look at the whole of Psalm 14, repeated in Psalm 51.
Try Psalm 143v2-'Enter not into judgement with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.'
Just a mere smattering of O.T. verses that bluntly state man's depravity. There are umpteen more but if you refuse to see them in these verses, I doubt you'll accept them from elsewhere.
As for the O.T. civil code, it breaks down into three categories- ceremonial/cultic, prior to christ; moral; civil&penal.
The ceremonial is fulfilled in Christ as the N.T. emphatically insists and is now obsolete; the moral law which is the law of life itself remains eternally; and the civil-penal apply in their general equity to the N.T. age. Don't try to drive a wedge between Christ and Paul- it won't work. Christ personally endorsed every jot and tittle of the Law, recoded in Matthew 5 v.17-18.
On our natural fallen depraved nature He couldn't be blunter-'Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God..' John3v1-8
As for the Apostle Paul, I go with what is recoded of him in the Scriptures, not your silly imaginary lampoon. And he most definitely did meet the Resurrected Christ on that road.
Incidentally, so far as judging the morality of O.T. Scripture injunctions go, you can be sure His decrees are unquestionably just if awful. And if no God, no absolute morality, anyway- nothing matters, no 'oughts' in an impersonal chance universe.
Here endeth the lesson....
Or the Book of Job. Turn to
David Lindsay
October 25th, 2008 12:15pmNick Kaplan, are you honestly saying that you are glad to see British Leyland as was in the hands of Oleg Deripaska?
What with the falling pound (good for unionised manufacturing industry in the Old Labour heartlands) and the public stake in the banks, the Revolution is being reversed in reverse.
First the turn of the century assault on the Constitution (the neutering of the Lords, the only logical end to the "process" of Scottish devolution, such economic case as there ever really was for a United Ireland) and on civilliberites.
Now the underlying 1980s assault on economic responsibility.
And before long that which underlay (and was entrenched by) Thatcherism, namely the 1960s assault on moral and social responsibility.
Hayward Maberley
October 27th, 2008 2:05amHadrian,
Than you for your reply,will get back to you after I have seriously read through De Profundis, Miserere mei, Deus and the others to which you refer. But at first reading they seem to be just allusions and allegory, the stuff of great poetry but not convincing argument.
As to your name is it yours or just for use up on a blog site?
Regards,
Hayward
PS. Were you there on the road to Damascus with Paul, you seem so sure?
hadrian
October 29th, 2008 11:00pmThe Psalms indeed are sublime poems but they record repeatedly the theme of man's sinfulness- Ps 14&53 could hardly be more devastating an assessment of the human condition; Paul uses it in his Epistle to the Romans to ram home this very truth 'and conclude all under sin'.
If these poems mean anything, they mean exactly what they say-not a single person can measure up to God's standard of perfect righteousness before Him. 'Who should stand?' Forgive me but if the poetic form makes it mean something I'd like to know! Of course there are plenty of plain prose passages to the same effect. Try Genesis Chap 6v1-13; verses 5 and 11-13 in particular.
Scripture is insistent on humbling our innate pride- ALL have sinned and FALL short...
I am Hadrian by choice, by the way..but was thinking on becoming 'Cromwell' or 'John Knox' as more apposite!