Suppose a married couple were isolating separately. It can happen. I’m gonna MAKE it happen! He’s living with his 92 year-old mum and she’s with her 108 year-old dad, polishing his WW2 medals, keeping him fed, ahhhh, sweet. And suppose the husband and wife chose to meet up because… for reasons of… intimacy. Would that be wrong?

It’s a crime against Covid 19. It’s a crime against lockdown. But those aren’t really ‘laws’ in any strict sense. Otherwise all those tossers who brush past you on the pavement because they’re looking at their phones and ‘meandering!!!’ (a new crime too) would be serving 18 months in Pentonville. Along with most people who shop in Waitrose. And most cyclists. Just because.

But if a-nother couple choose to hook up, for the same reason, it is basically the same thing. Unless one of them is married to another person. Then it’s still the same Covid crime, but there is now a moral element to it as well. Plus, more people involved. As party number 2, let’s say, is a mother of children and will be taking… bits… of party number one (eeeeuuuuwww) back home with her. Particles. Microbes. VIRUSES!!!

And to be honest, all that would be funny enough, all by itself and on its own. But when that same party number 1 happens to be the head of the entire Coronavirus advisory team (SAGE, as its known), the organisation who made us lock down, who virtually invented ‘social distancing’ in a world where it had previously meant ‘no actual penetration when meeting on the street, everything else is fine’ then it adds hypocrisy to the crimes of Covid-measure-avoidance and shaggin’ a married bird.

Three strikes and you’re generally ‘out’, so Professor Neil Ferguson ‘resigned’, calmly and, I’m sure, with no pressure at all from the Conservative government. Which would normally have distinct moral issues about such things… but its Boris. Whose only ‘moral compass’ lives in his underpants. And when it points north; GET THE FUCK AWAY!!!!

One columnist was concerned in reporting the above matter that the word ‘mistress’ in such a context was discriminatory, prejudicial and anachronistic. Which it emphatically is. Which is why I love to use it. You can offend three lots of people with one horrible, patronising, Victorian word. The reporter bemoaned that there is no male equivalent to the word. Well she’s wrong. The male equivalent is ‘a hotpoint’. Hotpoint fridge-freezer = geezer. Simple. Woss’er problem?

Happy Day 97 since the last count of the first incidence of the second wave of the third lockdown for the second virus.

A xxxx