BS: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary

Subject: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 08:24 AM

I was absolutely floored by Mary Archers' comment on the revelation of the affair between Edwina Currie and John Major. When asked to comment she said " I am a little surprised, not by Mrs Curries behaviour, but by John Majors' lapse of taste". What a snobbish and bitchy remark. My immediate response was that Mary had gone one better, inasmuch as she is married to her lapse of taste. Not only that but she has spent the last two days since her husbands demotion defending the indefensible. A more sensible woman would keep her mouth shut, knowing that public opinion would be against her. I also thought it spoke volumes that they wheeled out the stainless Jonathan Aitken to defend Jeffrey. Why do so many public figures regard themselves as above the law?
Failte.....Giok

Subject: RE: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: gnomad
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 01:36 PM

I am not floored by MA's comment, it merely reinforces my view of her, which I am too polite to type.

I too was concerned that Radio4 saw fit to consult Aitken, were they going out of their way to find another liar to make JA seem less of a rat?

Subject: RE: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 02:22 PM

Who are these people? Haven't heard their recordings.

Subject: RE: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 04:20 PM

Fear not dear guest, at least one of them has a record. Unfortunately it's not a long player.

Subject: RE: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 04:22 PM

I thought it was rather elegantly put. A stiletto rather than a club. I hope Eggwina's riposte matches up to it.

It's unkind of me, but I can't help enjoying seeing these people tear each other to tatters.

Subject: RE: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: GUEST,folkiedave
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 04:26 PM

Thank goodness they used some form of contraception. Can you imagine what a child of those two would have been like? It does not bear thinking about!!

folkiedave

Subject: RE: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: The Walrus
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 06:40 PM

folkiedave,

"...Can you imagine what a child of those two would have been like?..." Thank you very bloody much.... that vision is going to haunt me now.
You can really go off people, you know!

Walrus (shuddering at the thought)

Subject: RE: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 02 - 07:24 PM

Probably a very nice little kid. Why not? Plenty of good people with pillocks for parents.

Subject: RE: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 08:47 AM

That's unfair to certain members of the royal family Kevin

Subject: RE: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 09:14 AM

Can't follow your logic there, Giok.

Subject: RE: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 03:21 PM

Edwina, John and Logic? Those words in the same sentence? No!! NEVER!!!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: Gervase
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 02:29 AM

Archer, Major; all of them beyond the pale. Nevertheless, I thought his mealy-mouthed statement that this was the most shameful episode of his life took the biscuit.
Was he ashamed simply that it had come to light? He didn't seem ashamed for the four bloody years that he cuckolded his wife.
Mrs A should be a little more careful, I fear, lest too much light is shed on her own situation vis a vis a visting US professor of Chemistry at Cambrige. But, of course, she's now legally a saint, thanks to the onanistic ramblings of the late Mr Justice Caulfield.
Still, it all adds to the gaeity of nations!

Subject: RE: BS: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 03:02 AM

Gervase, don't mention gaeity, heaven only knows what skeletons THAT would drag out into the cruel light of day....

Well, as someone on the radio said today, at least it wasn't Ann Widdicombe!

I don't believe there is anyone in the Cabinet or Parliament that is elligible to throw stones.

Except possibly Ann Widdicombe.

And I bet if David Blunketts' dog could talk......

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 06:05 AM

Pedantic note - cuckold doesn't apply that way round, according to the dictionaries. Edwina was cuckolding her husband; John was betraying his wife. That's how the language works. (Maybe it's sexist - but I can't imagine a feminist demand for a woman's right to be called a cuckold.)

I think it's quite impressive really that Edwina held her tongue all these years, and only spilled the beans once it could no longer do any further real damage to the wreckage of the Tory party. I I was a Tory spn doctor I'd be making great play with that; or with the mesage that this showed how John Major was a man who would never give way to blackmail.

And I see that other rumours, this time about Wilson, are starting to attract attention.Wilson and Falkender claims resurface. She's opened a can of worms, and it's open season on politicians...

Subject: RE: BS: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 01:06 PM

I really wish we'd stop hearing about various and sundry person's sex lives. Isn't anything private? Who cares ? I don't understand what relevance any of this has to politics.

Subject: RE: BS: The FLAGRANT Lady Mary
From: Gervase
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 03:08 PM

Ah, the Lavender List - those of us who grew up in the Sixties always knew tht Marcia Forkbender was servicing "Our 'Arold", but it's nice to see it confirmed! As to what relevance it has to politics - harrumph!
Given that the major imperatives in life are food, shelter and reproduction, the shagging bit features fairly prominenty in the political process.
Obviously life would be more serene if we could adopt the French sang froidabout mistresses and the like, but as cold-blooded Anglo-Saxons we just have to get our rocks off vicariously on the pecadilloes of our supposed masters (and mistresses).
And, let's face it, we all love a bit of schadenfreude.