Yes, you read that correctly.

The draft law states:

“Any person who vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the public to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.”

A laudible attempt to promote public decency and I applaud it wholeheartedly.

But I do worry about the practical application of the new law. Just how do they intend to apportion blame?

I consulted a lawyer friend of mine, who gamely attempted to pin down some guiding principles:

1. The ancient legal convention of ‘he who smelt it dealt it’ should apply as the standard means of apportioning blame.

2. Punishment should be graduated according to the ferocity of the offending smell. For example, a ‘room clearer’ would incur the maximum penalty, whereas a simple squeak that is only noticeable for a mere fraction of a second should be treated far more leniently.

3. Levels of punishment should further take into account the intent of the offender. For example, a man sitting on a bus who subtly lifts his left arse check and seeks to release in a controlled manner something which he knows will cause violence to the nose should be dealt with more harshly than, say, a little old lady who quite suddenly pops one out without releasing. There also needs to be some consideration of those who positively revel in finding new and amusing ways to drop their nasty surprises. For example, a young man who stands stock still in the street, strikes a Jonny Wilkinson pose before letting rip to his own self evident amusement is clearly not only breaking the law, but holding it in some contempt.

4. There should also be an element of self-regulation. Practitioners will note that it is often the case that an over enthusiastic performance will often to lead the dreaded follow through. This is, of course, nature’s way of enforcing the new law and should be recognised as such.

5. There needs to be some protection of makers of spicy food and strong lager, for it is quite concievable that offenders may seek compensation following their own defenestration. This could spawn a whole new breed of lawyer; ‘arse chasers’.

Ever since his previous one resigned, I’ve noticed my own spin doctor – Gary –  nervously check his phone more often and sneak off for clandestine conversations. He never admitted it openly, but I think he seriously thought he was in with a chance. So this morning, I thought I would check how he’s feeling….

From: Leonard Cartwright
Sent: 03 February 2011 07:46
To: Gary Joseph
Subject: Broken dreams

Gary,

Now that the PM has appointed a new spin doctor do you think you could stop staring wistfully out of the window and checking your phone every 3 minutes like a lovesick teenager? Why the PM of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would appoint someone who can be found most Saturday nights at some God awful club in Romford, leering at scrubbers and vomiting on bouncers was always beyond me. The idea, the very idea of you getting the call from No.10 made me laugh so hard the other day that I had to excuse myself from the dinner table for fear of vacating my bowels.

Yours ever,

Leonard

From: Gary Joseph
Sent: 03 February 2011 07:53
To: Leonard Cartwright
Subject: RE: Broken dreams

Leonard,

Or should I say Lennie. Len Laden. Or with your comic skills, Les Dennis.

As it happens I am told by a very senior source that I was in the running right up until the last-minute. Apparently they felt that I had not worked for a senior enough figure. I can’t think what they might mean by that. To be honest, it was a major surprise to me too, given that I work for such a colossus. A political giant, some might say. A towering inferno of talent, righteousness and purity. An inspiration. More than a man, a saint, humbling himself to walk among the mortal.

As for your last comment, I am pleasantly surprised you had the foresight to excuse yourself from the table before shitting yourself.

Gary

In a Spock like session totally devoid of emotion, the House of Commons sat in bored silence as the Prime Minister came under no pressure whatsoever to confirm his stance on the said warm, cuddly notion and fruit based pastry.

At least five Honourable Members could be seen in the throws of sleep/almost sleep. One commentator observed: “It was like when a grizzled commuter’s head lolls from side to side on the last train home, cranium descending left before jerking back up, and then descending right….”

Miliband also repeatedly pressed the Prime Minister to give a clear, unequivocal statement of support for oxygen as Labour backbenchers browsed Ebay on their iphones. At one stage the Speaker had to intervene and ask Honourable Members where their “fucking balls had gone.”

After the session, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson said that he felt the session had gone well: “If it is true that people really are bored with politics, then where is the harm in absolutely confirming their expectations? It’s called democracy and yes, this is something the Prime Minister thinks is a jolly good idea.”

I do.

Well I say that’s tosh. A survey released the other day showed a steadily declining number of people who saw voting as a civic duty, over a number of years. Bottom line- fewer and fewer of us feel obligated to participate.

And why is this?

The truth is that we no longer get new ideas from anyone. It’s not that they sometimes lie (we knew that) or that they sometimes don’t answer the question (we knew that too), it’s that they have become so monotonous, so identikit that they have simply failed to inspire us.

They seem to think they’re like the ‘compare the market/ compare the meerkat’ adverts- superficially the same but at root quite different.

Actually, they’re more like the Chuckle Brothers. And as annoying too.

I asked my spin doctor, Gary for his verdict….

From: Leonard Cartwright
To: Gary Joseph
Date: Monday 8th February 2010 09:34
Subject: Crying

Gary,

I was thinking, in my next interview, maybe I should find a moment to strategically cry? Could be a winner with a British public who are growing increasingly wet and soppy.

LC

From: Gary Joseph
To: Leonard Cartwright
Date: Monday 8th February 2010 09:56
Subject: RE: Crying

Leonard,

Firstly, try not to think too much. It only leads to complications which I inevitably have to deal with.

Secondly, no I don’t think you should cry- strategically or otherwise. Principally this is because you have no emotions to speak of. In my opinion you would end up looking like you had hemorrhoids.

Also, what would you cry about? The time you met Maggie Thatcher and she remembered your name doesn’t really count in the eyes of most voters.

And the time you gave yourself a papercut probably wouldn’t work either.

Yours ever,
Gary

Well, that would be the obvious inference from this quote;

“Tony has a major role to play in the election”

Now most people would take the Prime Minister at his word at this point and stop writing (and thinking). However, I read the rest of his quote and detected something quite different.

Let me explain;

“Tony has a major role to play in the election. We are party that is renewing itself after ten very successful years.”

This is what is now a widely acknowledged occurrence; Brown’s ability to give a clear statement that he then goes on to directly contradict in thought and deed.

“I think you will find Tony Blair has a role,”

The backtrack begins, with the omission of the word ‘major’ and the defensive tone. Brown is particularly good at answering a straight question as if he has been accused of murder.

“I think you will find that many people in Labour who are no longer in Government but who have been part of the ‘project’ for years will have a role.”

Backtrack continues. As his Scottish mind whirs, he realises that his initial statement made it sound like Blair would be star of the show. Obviously, he couldn’t have that. So he puts Blair on the same level as Alastair Campbell et al. Nice.

“Tony will have to explain, when he wishes, what he can do.”

And there we have it. Within three sentences he has completely shot down his original statement. Surely, if Blair was to play a ‘major role’, the precise nature of that role would have already been worked out? Instead, he will ‘have to explain, when he wishes, what he can do’. Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?

“I think the whole report has been unsatisfactory. It was important that it be accurate, and I’m afraid that Legg in so many cases wasn’t. Everybody has been tarnished. The frontbenchers were pretty well forbidden from putting in appeals because the leaders were in competition to wear the hairiest shirt.”

“Everybody in the land, whether high or low, is entitled to proper justice and just as I fought for it on behalf of constituents for 23 years so now have I taken up the cudgel on behalf of MPs.”

I say, “Good evening young man, are your parents home?” He stares at me blankly, before someone from the bowels of the residence shrieks; “Who is it?” He continues to offer nothing by way of facial recognition. So I, kind spirit I am, offer him a life raft; “Tell her I’m here to talk to her about the election.”

He turns his head and yells; “Politician!”

The yell bounces back; “It’s about bloody time!” Before I know it, a whale of a woman is bounding towards me waving a sheet of paper. Before I can gather my senses, she has launched into a tirade about how we’re all crooks, liars and how I should be locked up for having the temerity to ask for her vote. She then presents the sheet of paper to me and asks for her money back. The paper is an invoice she has purposefully prepared for just such an encounter as this. It had a neat breakdown of some of the more tasty expense claims.

I calmly studied the sheet, before looking up at her and saying; “My dear, think what you will of the rest- but I am worth every penny.”

But that closeness can get too much, as the recent email exchange between me, Gary and my wife Susan demonstrates….

From: Leonard Cartwright
Sent: 03 February 2010 09:06
To: Gary Joseph; Susan Cartwright
Subject: Housekeeping

Gary,

Susan and I have been meaning to raise this with you for some time. You’ve been staying at our house rather a lot recently. Now I encourage a cohesive team, but what I thought was a temporary arrangement following your argument with Tina (or whatever her name is, frankly they’re all ghastly, forgettable, shrieking hyenas) has now turned into something more permanent- and not wholly desired by either of us.

If you are going to be a lodger, then should you contribute as a lodger does.

And all I’ll say further is I looked at the internet history the other day. I think you know what I mean.

Yours ever,

Leonard

From: Gary Joseph
Sent: 03 February 2010 10: 15
To: Leonard Cartwright; Susan Cartwright
Subject: RE: Housekeeping

Leonard,

You know as well as I do that I only stay over for work reasons. Following your decision to start your own party you will appreciate that workload has increased. Perhaps if you paid me better I would be able to contribute in the manner in which you suggest.

And her name is Tanya.

Perhaps if Susan’s cooking less resembled an abortion, and more resembled Gordon Ramsay then I might be inclined to be more cooperative.

And I looked at your expense account the other day. I think you know what I mean.

Gary

From: Susan Cartwright
Sent: 03 February 2010 10:16
To: Gary Joseph; Leonard Cartwright
Subject: RE: Housekeeping

F**k off Gary.