(image via tribuneindia)
We vote "yes." Throw Osama Bin Laden's grotty terrorist ass out of White's on 37 James's Street. But we don't get a vote. And, exclusive 250-year old British clubs are ultraconservative to the point of wacky (They's say "eccentric").
How else does one explain a club that actually has to go actually through a procedure to evict a scoundrel of a member who killed 3,000 Americans and hundreds of Britishers and lives -- if still alive -- on the lam in an Afghani cave as a war criminal? How?! (And, to whomever picks up this story off the blog: You can quote me on that; in fact, The Corsair insists)
But British aristocrats value loyalty, it seems, over logic and decency. According to Taki in TheSpectator:
"... Things are coming to a head at White's this week. Yes, its the same old story, the fact that Osama bin Laden is a member and those who put him up are in trouble with other members who were never told about him. Harry Laden, as we all call him, was originally sponsored by Sonny Marlborough and David Metcalf, not David Beaufort and Nicholas Soames as I wrote at the time. Metcalfe also sold Harry a life-insurance policy at a great premium. Although I am not in league with them, some new members want Harry suspended, but people like Lord Halfax say once a member always a member unless you go broke and can't pay the fees. There is a meeting scheduled at the Khandahar room at White's this Friday, but my guess is that Harry stays as do Sonny and David."
WTF?! Khandahar room?! British royals sticking up for Osama Bin Laden?! Is this some kind of a British joke -- like Benny Hill -- that dies during trans-Atlantic translation?
From a web site on White's:
"No doubt, he wouldn't have been invited to White's at numbers. 37-38, St James's Street, with its elegant iron railings and entrance lamps. Founded in 1693 as a chocolate house, this is the oldest London club, and the most famous. Indeed, White's is considered to be the model for every other gentleman's club in London."
(Exaggerated cough suggesting feigned detachment)
No comments:
Post a Comment