Commentary on Previous Post

The following is a comment on my previous post by the indomitable Lord T. I thought it would be worthwhile to use it as a basis for a follow-up post incorporating my response. My follow-up comment should be received in the spirit of personal opinion and not criticism of the Lord's excellent comment.

I can understand the Queen helping with his legal fees. I would help my children and you want them to have the best. In this Mickey Mouse country, the process is the punishment. So it is not unknown for many people and companies to pay the fine, pay off the complainer, etc. to accept a compromise that makes life easier. Going to court, airing all the dirty laundry, and then facing a jury for a result. Jail has innocent people in it and injustices are made all the time.

Also speaking to Plod can get you in trouble even if you are totally innocent. There is a nice video on never speaking to the police on Youtube. So helping Plod with their enquiries isn't in your best interest.

I'm not paying that much attention tbh. But it seems to me that she is legal in the UK which is why they are prosecuting in the US despite them having some states where you have to be 21 and others where you can marry your sister at 13. I just can't make head nor tail of it and I ain't all that interested in him.

One thing I do know is that with Maxwell being convicted of 6 offenses, under appeal now, HRH is the only one I know of that is being pursued. What of the others involved? That I am interested in.

A great well-balanced comment my Lord. Yes, of course, if we are decent and loving parents, we will support our kids financially and otherwise. The problem for the Queen is that she is not your average citizen of the realm; she is the constitutional monarch. Her actions and moral direction have to be beyond reproach. Firstly, all her actions will be minutely analysed and commented upon. An unenviable position perhaps but that is the way it is. In part, this is due to the Queen's self-image fostered by herself and others. I do think she is wise to distance the royal family from beleaguered Andy. Her financial backing, I feel, is misjudged because of the perception of her impeccable moral stance, regardless of whether this has anything to do with reality. If the Queen is seen as morally impeccable then providing finances to her son in this sordid matter smacks of hypocrisy and undoubtedly the public will see the discrepancy between the projected image and actuality.

It is in certain respects advantageous for Andrew to settle and not go to court. It would cap his ongoing legal fees and prevent minute scrutiny of his life. How will he prove that 'over adrenaline' prevents sweating? From my medical knowledge adrenalin is likely to produce the opposite effect. Will he be able to prove he was in the Woking Pizza Express at the time and date he put forth in the interview? The opposing lawyers will be relentless and merciless in their pursuit of evidence. Let's be honest no one is totally squeaky clean. If my past peccadillos became thrust onto the world stage I would be mortified and perhaps vilified. O to be young and perfect! The sticking point may be miss Roberts. She has said she would require, in addition to financial 'damages' a written statement of apology- this would be tantamount to an admission of guilt by the Prince. This is something he cannot do for all the obvious reasons. Perhaps this is all subterfuge and a cunning ploy to wring out as much gelt as is possible from the Prince. She may forgo this claim if her palm is crossed/greased with an inordinate amount of silver. If she really insists then the Prince has no choice but to take the matter to a civil forum for adjudication. Of course, he could ultimately 'win' the case. In such a circumstance who pays for his legal fees?

I agree: speaking with plod is never a good idea. But in this case, he doesn't have to. All that he supposedly says is filtered and amended by his astute legal team. Any written statement submitted would be written by said team. It would be inconceivable to contemplate that he would travel to the US to give evidence. And as I understand the situation it is not a requirement in a civil case, in the US. It would be virtually impossible to incriminate himself under these circumstances. The only exception to this rule would be if he uttered an impromptu public remark (surely he is not that arrogant and dumb?). He is simply not smart enough to 'think on his feet'. This would be highly unlikely though as he is pursuing the wise course of laying low in one of mommy's many castles. As for a miscarriage of justice: Not likely considering his wealth and privilege. This sort of thing only happens to us 'little people'. If there was any miscarriage of justice, I suspect it would flow in the other direction.

You make a telling point: 'One thing I do know is that with Maxwell being convicted of 6 offenses, under appeal now, HRH is the only one I know of that is being pursued'. Very interesting. As miss Roberts has stated she was trafficked to other highly prominent men. Are they next to come under judicial scrutiny? Maxwell is facing about 60 years in the nick and her age means she will spend the rest of her natural life in the penitentiary. This sort of fate concentrates the mind, wonderfully. She has let it be known that she is willing to 'spill the beans' on other high-profile individuals. While not a 'get of gaol free card' her evidence may help to incriminate others and mayhap she will receive a certain degree of mitigation on her sentence. Could this be the beginning of a sordid sequence of scandals? Let's watch this space...... 

Breaking News: It has just been announced that Prince Andrew has responded to the allegations in an 11-page document. In essence, it states that Andrew: 'Wants a trial by jury'.  Whether this is just bluster on Andrew's part or represents his real intention we will have to await further developments. My money is still on a settlement for reasons already outlined.

Another Bloody Rant

                                                The Infamous Photo of Doom

I'm rightly known for my right-wing views; unlike my father, I'm not a socialist. Socialism encourages financial dependency and lassitude amongst a significant portion of society. This in turn drains the public purse which is maintained by taxing the folk that work. And the tax contribution for administering succour to those that will not/cannot work is astonishing. About 20% of Britain's GPD is spent on social services. Even so, there is much waste and even inappropriate appropriation. As a modern compassionate nation, we should help those less fortunate. Unfortunately, a side effect of this beneficence is the development of a significant 'Under Class' totally dependent on public handouts. We observe the ridiculous situation of multiple generations of families living entirely on the state and are proud of it.

Traditionally those of a right-wing ilk are supportive of the Monarchy. I do not support the Monarchy. Their bleating about living off their private income is patently unsupportable and absurd. Ultimately their vast wealth has come from the people. Now, I'm starting to sound like a Socialist. This has been going on for generations. I am not against private wealth obtained by the sweat of the brow, what I dislike is the fundamental mendacity of the Queen and the Royals as regards their assets and income.

The Queen has always preserved an air of high morality. This has been supported by certain 'Royal Watchers' and elements of the press. However, the fact that the Queen is financially supporting Andrew in his tribulations is highly revealing. We must keep in mind that, under law, an individual charged with a crime is deemed innocent until proven otherwise. And of course, in Andrew's case, the litigation is civil. I believe in this system wholeheartedly. The alleged crimes relating to Andrew's past are very grave. Regardless, of guilt or innocence, it is not a good look for the Queen to be paying his legal fees, which are exorbitant. Apparently, his solicitors charge $2,000 per hour for their professional guidance and advice. I'm unsure whether this is for the whole team, or as I suspect, for all individual members of the team taking part. There is also a PR firm furiously working behind the scenes to rectify the Prince's tarnished image. To date, to no avail. I'm sure they don't come cheap. The vast majority of civil cases are settled out of court. This is the likely outcome in this case. The settlement payment bandied about is in excess of $5,000,000. Nice work if you can get it, miss Roberts.

There is a point oft made by others: If you were accused of a heinous crime of which you are innocent, there would be no doubt that you would be indignant and use everything in your power to clear your name. If you hadn't committed the alleged act you would have nothing to fear. Andrew's reaction has been different. He has used a series of legal ' get-outs' in an attempt to quash the allegations. This has not gone unnoticed. This just looks bad, and if he had succeeded in his actions the viewing/paying public would come to their own unpleasant conclusions.   

I find it very difficult to believe that fabulously wealthy folk, especially those exposed to generational wealth, are free from negative effects on their moral qualities. The royals have been brought up in a system that enhances their supposed superiority over the rest of the populous. In recent times we have been able to peek behind the Palace curtains (wot not drapes). And what do we see? A group of very ordinary people. They exhibit all the tendencies of Man expect in mega-array. They exhibit prejudice, avarice, and other undesirable traits. In addition, most of them seem to be none too bright.

The Queen's image is being degraded by this circus. The fact that she is able and willing to financially support Andrew in this matter speaks volumes. It does not jibe with someone with high moral standards. In my opinion, it comes across as ill-judged. It doesn't matter if Andrew is ultimately found innocent on all charges. In the court of 'Public Opinion', the matter has been decided. The Queen's continued financial patronage will backfire, I'm sure. The stripping of the Prince of titles and pushing him into public limbo will not do and is perceived by the public as mere 'Window Dressing'. Regardless of the result, the Prince will still be able to live a highly privileged and wealthy lifestyle, albeit behind closed doors.

He has shown no willingness to comply with requests from the FBI concerning the case. He protests that he is willing to 'help with investigations' (great euphemism) but this has proved a sham. 'Look not to what a fellow says, contemplate his deeds'. Again this is bad for his reputation, and by implication, the Queen's reputation will not remain unsullied. The public is not stupid. Okay, I will qualify that: There is a substantial proportion of the population that can see through the tissue of lies- remember the interview? Andrew was arrogant and out of touch and had persuaded himself that he could bamboozle the proles with his charm and scintillating wit. This clearly did not work. C'mon Andrew, do you think we are all that thick; maybe he does. His insulated highly privileged lifestyle has protected him from the big bad world, until now.

The aged Queen will die soon and Prince Charles will ascend to the throne. Maybe at this juncture, it would be an appropriate opportunity to push for major constitutional reform and a review of the monarchy in general. I would hope, that someday, the royals will devolve most of their 'Royal Duties', whatever that means, and live a life like other foreign royal families. I see it as a public duty to strip the royals of much of their wealth and to return these riches to the public coffers. This would entail appropriation of all their private land which is substantial. It has not gone unnoticed that 'Good old Prince Charles' owns the whole of Cornwall.

This post is off the beaten track for the flaxen-haired one, however tis something that I feel quite strongly about. It seems the British press is more open these days to report the royals' foibles and faults. This is a good thing. Anyway, I would be interested in what my readership thinks on this controversial and important topic. Don't hold back. Arse.   

Bloody Useless Royals

More shock news for Prinz Andy, Randy, Pandy, Dandy, from the cosy principality of Tipton as a lawsuit brought by Miss Nubile Magumbo will be heard in a court of law, after all. It was hoped that the prince could weasel out of the case by pleading that he was very important and rich and the gel in question is just another grimy prole. This tactic has worked on previous occasions. This time, however, the court case will take place outside the metropolitan borough of Tipton where his baleful influence counts for fuck all. The prince alleged that the young lady in question, “is a flappy old trout and a lousy lay to boot”. The prince denies ever meeting Miss Tartybum. To recap: Miss Leggs Akinbo has accused the prince of repeatedly taking her womanhood on numerous occasions when she was a young maiden, unsullied.

The Prince was a confidant of a convicted rapist, Gottfried Epinephrine. Mr. Epicrichbastard tragically committed suicide before he could incriminate his esteemed clientele. As you will recall Mr. Epicanthic-Fold was found dead in his palatial cell after he killed himself by repeatedly berating himself about da bonce with a blunt Toblerone.

Prince Perjury has strenuously denied meeting Miss Gullible even after being shown a photo with his hand jammed into her moist pudenda. Prince Panderer has cast doubt as to the ownership of the errant hand. In an interview, he had this to say: “That can't be my hand as my hand at the time was resting in a wench of ill repute at the local brothel, er, I mean I was eating caviar on a bun at Tipton pizza el vomito ”.

Miss Mugumbo has claimed that the Prince, 'sweated like a cunt'. The Prince countered that he does not sweat as his pores are permanently occluded with bullshit.

And so the trial will commence. The formal charges are as follows: It is deemed that Prince Randy, Andy, Pandy, did on three occasions violate, despoil, ravage, defile, depredate and devirginate Miss Givemecash whilst she was below the age of lawful consent. The integrity of her maidenhead had been breached and sullied. Therefore, in order to assuage the outrage perpetrated on a young maiden, it is necessary that Prince Nonce pays the grand sum of 30,000,000 groats as compensation.

It is understood that the Prince's highly expensive/extensive legal costs are being covered by the taxpayers provided by his mother, the dowager, Queen Sharon of Tipton. She will also cover the punitive costs incurred, again provided by the willing and grateful citizens of Tipton. Thus the whole escapade will cost the Prince, absolutely fuck all.

God bless you maaaaam. The queen is 104.

I

Ferrets I have known....

 

Shagger in his prime

Time for a 'light-hearted' post, if there was ever one that could emerge from my strange and chaotic mind. Anyways, this is a tribute to a long-dead friend. Also tis a welcome change from my more intense and cerebral posts.  

I've owned a few ferrets in my time. When young I'd go out on the heath with gramps and Shagger, the ferret, grubbing for rabbits for the pot. Old grampa was a veteran of the Great War and said very little. He seemed to me, a towering giant, although my father attests that he only stood 6 foot 3 inches. As a young boy, I was in awe of my grandfather. He had a certain presence and spoke volumes by being silent. And grandfather was a very, very, silent man. However, if I talked out of turn or transgressed in any way I'd receive a swift clip to the head accompanied by a few terse words delivered in his thick black country accent.

We would go out and catch a few rabbits for the pot, and granddad would dispatch the poor buggers with a deft slap to the neck and the struggling would cease. I preferred my cony roasted. A deliciously, dark and dry meat. On occasion, old gramps would light a fire, in the field, and we would roast the rabbits after a day's hunting. One day, out and about, granddad's Staffordshire Brindle Bull Terrier got loose and killed Shagger with a growl and a flick. I was mortified as I truly loved that ferret. Even though the nasty bugger would bite and chew heartedly at my hands when handled. Even today, when my hands get a tan, I can still see the thin tracery scars left by Shagger's tender ministrations: Shagger's legacy. Did I mention that I loved that ferret?

I've owned a couple of ferrets since then, but none could remotely compare to the original, and best-loved ferret, called Shagger.  

Ressurection

Empty Tomb    

Ressurection Akimbo! 

Once more into the breach dear friends!

And so we come to the first post of the new year. A little late into January, tis true, but I'm a busy man and there is much that demands my attention.

Today I have chosen a highly controversial topic: 'The so-called Ressurection of a devout first-century Jew called Jesus. Jesus was undoubtedly an illiterate, but sharply intelligent individual, steeped and immersed in the Judaic beliefs, of his time. It is important to emphasise that Jesus was very much a product of his Jewish culture and history. His erroneous portrayal as a modern 'Western Man' is widely considered as true and sacrosanct, his Jewishness is completely overlain by later accretions of Western Christology. Consider the bible belt of America: here we see a blue-eyed, fair-skinned and fair-haired Jesus portrayed as the 'All American Boy'. This depiction is clearly ridiculous given Jesus' background and culture as a first century, law observant, Jew.

Jesus' supposed 'resurrection', as we understand it, from gospel sources is bedeviled with complexities, contradictions, and inconsistencies. Therefore, by necessity, it is necessary to wade through a certain amount of introductory material to provide contextual, historic, and theological context. Tis inevitable, if the subject is to receive the justice it deserves. Consequently, I make no apologies for stretching this topic over a series of interlocking posts. I hope my readers find my scribblings both informative and interesting, although perhaps not in equal measure.

Before I dive headfirst into this veritable nest of ferrets, it is important to state the usual caveats and provisos: I am not a biblical scholar; I have not trained as a historian. In fact, I have none of the necessary qualifications required to pontificate in a scholarly way about subjects historical and theological. Much of what I have to say is unfettered by acadaemic rigour or relevant scholarship. However, that said, I do have a deep interest in the matters in question and have read multiple books on the history of Christianity and its influence with regards to the shaping of subsequent Western, and hence world, history. Therefore, my effort should be viewed as that of an 'enthusiastic amateur' and nothing more. If you decide to read more into my writings, than is warranted, tis on your own head, not mine.

As previously mentioned, in this series of posts I'm going to tackle a highly controversial series of questions: Did Jesus die by crucifixion, was he 'buried for three days and then resurrected'? Every Christian, if they wish to remain within the faith, must answer these questions, with a clear affirmative. As the Apostle Paul makes clear in his famous declaration in his epistle to the Corinthians (1:15:17): “If Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain”. Belief in the resurrection is a testament to faith. As an atheist, I do not subscribe to this article of faith and therefore my focus and interest are whether this fundamental question can be tackled from a rationalist, historic perspective. There are those who would state that the resurrection cannot be interrogated according to rational rigour but lies firmly, securely, and solely within the province of religious doctrine. I would disagree. If we accept that Jesus existed, in history, as I do, then we should be asking historical questions. The problem faced by the budding historian is that the information available is based solely on Christian sources and is therefore biased. But this is the only data we have, and so it behooves the curious to work with and extract as much as we can from this intriguing set of books.

The resurrection is described in the books of the New Testament, Acts, and letters written by the Apostle, Paul. These texts are not concerned with history in any modern sense. The modern concept of 'writing history' is an attempt to provide an unbiased account (as far as it is possible and within the bounds of human fallibility) after scrutinising, and critically analysing the available data, from multiple sources and disciplines. The gospels fail in this respect. The accounts we have of the life of an itinerant Jewish preacher, are mainly concerned with projecting a theological agenda, all else is secondary to the Christian narrative. The authors of the four gospels are unknown, irrespective of the names assigned by later Christian zealots. The writings we have are not first-hand accounts. The earliest account is the letters of Paul written some 30 years after the crucifixion. The earliest gospel, Mark, according to rigorous scholarship was written circ. 70 AD, while the gospel of John, was likely written 80 years after Jesus' demise. The gospels were originally written in Greek, by native Greek speakers and were composed outside of Palestine. This accounts for the geographic and historic errors present. Fundamentalist Christians like to think that the New Testament is the inerrant word of God. But a cursory examination of the written material quickly reveals numerous errors of fact. Mayhap God was suffering from amnesia during the composition process. Anyway, the gospels are impossible to defend from the stance of being, error-free.

Before entering the foray and engaging the 'meat and potatoes' of the subject I need to mention an important point that is often ignored in most treatises concerning the resurrection and written work concerning ancient cultures in general. When dealing with the 'ancients' it is a good idea to keep in mind the intellectual background of the culture in question. We are dealing with pre-scientific people. Their mindset and mode of thinking are completely alien to the way we think today, at least amongst educated people. Also, like all ancient cultures, the Jewish population circ.100 AD, was essentially illiterate. Perhaps, at most, 10% of the population were literate, and I'm being rather generous in my assessment. The ability to read and write over and above basic ability was confined to the ruling elites and their associates. Thus a great swathe of the population was 'unsophisticated' with reference to their rational analytical skills. Primitive, supernatural beliefs were rampant. As an example disease was a reflection of demon possession or particular disfavour of the ONE true living God, Jehovah. To be fair, even literate folk shared such pre-scientific beliefs. The mindset therefore of Jewish society, at that time, would have been very strange and even outlandish to our modern mind shaped by the intellectual and technical wonders of the last four centuries.

Now I'm ready to delve deep into this profound and exceptionally intriguing subject. As always, I will base my analysis according to my atheistic and rational viewpoint. This series of posts will not be placed back to back but will be interlarded with posts unrelated to the theme presented here. Otherwise, myself and the readership will be rendered quite insane Please hold onto your hats, tis going to be a bumpy ride.

I would be interested in any committed Christian's opinion on the topic on hand- please don't hold back, I relish a good debate.