Justin here, readily admitting that my topic for today is one I would far rather not address because of its distasteful nature. The young man with the wire in his ear finds the subject hilarious, but I feel that it is, well, distasteful, dealing as it does with matters sexual. So I asked myself, what would Jesus have done? Our Lord would have grasped the nettle – that’s what! And so must I. I must put behind me the strictures of middle class respectability and fearlessly address the frightful mess facing the LidDems.
The young man with the wire in his ear remarked only yesterday that a once great political party is now “in the **** and no mistake”. I may not approve of his terminology, but I do rather see his point.
Despite my regular attendance at the House of Lords, I know little of the peer at the centre of this storm, beyond a smile and a nod in passing. However, he is accused by a number of ladies of inappropriate touching. Like you, I find this difficult to believe. After all, his status was conferred by no less than Her Majesty the Queen, who, as far as I know is not in the habit of condoning gropery. My lady wife is similarly puzzled and upset. I can only surmise that these “inappropriate touchings” were the results of some sort of nervously induced physical spasm brought on by overwork and dedication to duty. Why, I remember the comedian Jack Douglas making this sort of unfortunate disability part of his act. When approached from behind by say, Benny Hill, Douglas would convulse and shout, “Phwheyyy!”, causing gales of laughter. Indeed, Benny Hill himself was often the victim of a misinterpreted pat on the bottom. I put this theory to the young man with the wire in his ear. He muttered, “Bo**ocks!” But then he is far too young to appreciate the innocence of those far off days.
As might be expected, the nobleman at the centre of this furore is denying any wrongdoing and refuses to apologise for knee-trembling he maintains never took place. So perhaps the hapless must attack the problem from a different angle and Mr Clegg might consider, for the greater good, one of two options. He and his lady wife are very wealthy. Arrangements might be made for considerable sums to be paid into the offended ladies’ bank accounts in return for them taking the affair no further. By way of balance, the peer in question could be persuaded to wear stiffened mittens and lengths of four by two down his sleeves. It's an old trick, but it might just work.
The other way is far riskier. Young Mr Clegg could wheel out the old “pot and kettle” routine and suggest that the accused nobleman’s alleged indiscretions are no worse than our devil-may-care Prime Minister hacking out on a horse provided by a lady presently the accused in a criminal trial, and signing his text messages to her, “LOL”. As the young man with the wire in his ear might say, "’Nuff said."
Yours in fellowship and ladyship,