(MAINLY FOR BARBARA AND CRAIG)
I just didn’t have time to write my usual main Blog yesterday. I was caught in the middle of sorting out a load of letters and legal papers, and didn’t really want to get too distracted. I managed a quick reply (or was it two?) and that’s about all.
Its good to see a couple of people have ’returned’ to the sixties; which is an interesting subject. Bit complicated to cover, but still interesting. I see also Cat is being discussed again (albeit indirectly under his Internet name), mainly by Craig and Barbara. He’s a bit ‘of a handful’ to deal with at the best of times as he always asks questions which (he hopes) are too embarrassing to answer. While this usually applies directly to myself, sometimes the dear animal has a tendency to involve others in his ‘micky taking’, as Barbara and her recent ‘side-kick’ well know!
But the point is right that Craig makes now: the ‘cat thing’ is a joke about an event that never happened; a supposed event from 35 years ago in the past we should remember. If anybody is on the receiving end of this cruel joke frequently being revived in the present by only one sad individual (well, two now he’s been joined by another person who apparent prefers darkness and deceit to truth and light); it is myself. Myself, and myself alone, let us remember.
When people are seen to support such untrue and cruel statements (as you were, Barbara), you can hardly be surprised when people react to such malicious statements accordingly. I can accept that the ‘true originator‘ here was not yourself, Barbara. You probably went along with most of it for ‘fun’ or to humour the perpetrator (probably a bit of both!); but the point is the perpetrator’s motivations were entirely malicious, hence all the reaction this caused. I can accept that you were to some extent ‘caught in the middle’ of it at the time, and were not in this respect harbouring undiluted hatred against myself. I have already said as much elsewhere, and I hope you have also been aware of this when we have spoken on the phone.
I can take your point that jokes about Cat going to the vet to be psycho analysed (or have died and now ‘speaking from heaven’ or such-like), could be seen in bad taste. But ONLY if they were intended to relate to events as you see them, which they in fact did not. Nobody is supporting animal cruelty here, Barbara (I would not allow it for one thing), and the standing joke about Long John Baldry’s cat (which died naturally of old age incidentally), relates only to a ‘joke event’ that never even happened. THAT, if anything, is the only ‘joke’. The funny thing arising from it I suppose, is that there are actually people around who would try and make none existent fact out of sheer fantasy. If anything is ‘sick’ at all, I would say that is!
Not the sort of thing we would ever hear ‘preached from the pulpit’, I hope. Even from a liberally-minded 1960’s one!
I may write a little more for Tuesday tonight. See how the work goes. I just thought I should clarify this issue for the moment,