I couldn’t resist this. Mainly because I have read all or most of the works of the Director’s dear and close friend Richard Blake. Blake writes in clear and disconcertingly-real and presently-verifiable ways, about the duplicitous political-classes of the various nations in his stories. Today’s subject is not really Clifford but the British-PoliticalEnemyClass, and how it views its servants and running-dogs and the like.
I wrote on facebook and in GUIDO:-
It’s interesting to have watched the slow-motion-traincrash of the BritishPolitical-EnemyClass, in the process of traincrashing one of their own creations in public.
Max Clifford’s “career” would not have existed in a classical-liberal-minimal-statist civilisation, in which was a high degree of citizen-curiosity and critical-analysis-ability of situations presented to them. Indeed, many such situations, such as “married footballist and “family-role-model” beds good-time-girl met in club” would not have _been_ presented to such a population: why? Because they would find it (a) unremarkable and (b) nobody else’s effing business, being a private matter between the footballist, his wife, and his pickup.
The pretty young woman, having had the footballist-family-man-and-role-model for-youth, for a little time, would have got nowhere in news terms, for nobody would give a stuff. Young footballist-males are chosen for their prowess on the “field”, which means also that, like Gladiators, they may well also have an insatiable appetite for pretty and submissive young women, to f***.
Islam may also have a take on this, but I cannot do it now here on this post, and that will wait for another time and an interpretation (carefully-guided by a “scholar” – I have one in tow for me to do it. He is a Hafiz, even – this one.) And it will be about what the Koran says about what gentlemen are allowed to do to ladies, and why, and under what conditions. (He’s memorised the entire Koran in at least one literary tradition: that is what “Hafiz” means.)
Therefore Clifford must have been created, as I argue on GUIDO (see paste below) to further the destroying-aims of the BritishPolitical-EnemyClass. To see them therefore trashing him is almost funny, if it was not terrifying. I think of the scene in the great arena in Constantinople, in which the Emperor augments the punishment by making some fella watch first while his wife and children and torn by lions. (Regrettably I’ll never forgive Blake for that one – it comes between me and my sleep sometimes.)
Do not become one of their servants. You will go the way he did.
_///David Davis says:
May 9, 2014 at 11:22 am
I’m not saying that he should have shagged people who were underage. That’s of course a crime, and remains so (for now) until the British-PoliticalEnemyClass need the votes of early teenagers and their shaggers.
But the British-PoliticalEnemyClass in its need to dumb-down-and-render-uncurious-and-prurient “the masses”, so that they’d continue to say “_but it said on the BBC that…_” needed to create people like Clifford: why?
They needed them in order for “individuals with a story to come forward bravely”.
You know the sort – here’s an example….Pretty young ladies of little ability but great appearance who’d – on purpose – pulled footballers in “clubs” (because they had pretty boobs and therefore they could) and despite the consequent money and the showered bling were regretting the experience a little time later. Relatively harmless stuff, “two young people have sex and then fall out” (oooops…)
The British-PoliticalEnemyClass probably began to think it ought to “take care of” Clifford as and when he began to find out more useful things about their own doings too. You know….new clients come through personal recommendation, and all that stuff. ///_