It is always embarrassing isn’t it? the uncritical unqualified eye-fluttering praise, offending the dignity not just of the praisor but the praisee and all the sickened witnesses.
Sadly Geeklawyer is one such (although not alone) praisor. If you haven’t read MysteryQC’s posts on Ruthieslaw you really really must. Geeklawyer confesses that he started the MysteryQC fan cub to wind Ruthie up. This notwithstanding Geeklawyer permitting Ruthie’s recent successful conciliation attempts to succeed.
MysteryQC’s postings really are a work of art. Attempting to provide a legally credible and coherent analysis in this style is quite hard. It works quite well for Geeklawyer even if it irritates others. He’s gotta be a pucka QC.
If only he could rid himself of the turgid scribblings of Ruthie he would surely soar to the heights of the blogsphere: a problem Geeklawyer knows only to well having recently cast Ruthie out himself.
The question is, are MysteryQC and Simon Myerson one and the same? Geeklawyer is in a pickle: by dint of superior intellect and cunning he has unravelled enough clues from Ruthie to be capable of beginning a definitive search that would almost certainly reveal MyteryQC’s identity. But should he?
What do you think dear reader?
It does seem to be more Mystery QC’s blog. I don’t think you should expose whoever it is although of course you should search and find it out and then look after the information in the mystery QC fanclub’s archives.
Why don’t you teach him how to link, as Ruthie does not seem to be able to support her co-bloggers with this techinical information
I think I would be a most disloyal fanboy if I revealed his identity. I remain suspicious of the coincidences between Myerson and him but I’m not utterly convinced.
If MysteryQC is suddenly able to do links it will be very very suspicious.
Fortunately I do not share Geeklawyers sensitivities when it comes to co-bloggers. If Mystery QC is successful and popular I am delighted. I would hope that he can write at least as well if not better than me, otherwise phone calls to the bar council would be merited.
By the way, thanks for your observation, I’ve sorted out the links.
Given the sycophancy, which I certainly agree is govelling, it would be nice to claim the credit. But I can’t. As you saw from my updated post, I trust Ruthie when she tells you that VM is a Silk and have thus developed certain ideas of my own; and could entertainingly speculate on which of my professional colleagues it is — but then no one would ever speak to me again.
VM makes me laugh and she seems to know everyone who is anyone, which points to London. And whoever it is knows a reasonable amount of criminal law, although I would be hurt were that the only reason for speculating that it might be me — as I would be by the thought that I am the only blogging silk anyone knows about. Further than that I can’t go I’m afraid.
Good luck though.
Dear Master Greeklawyer,
You seem to want to know altogether too much about a Lady. We soft, feminine, things are not minded to disclose our secrets: they are for us, Sir, and us alone.
So, whilst I blushingly accept your admiration I must ask you, Sir, to refrain from further speculation and allow me my modesty. I must make it clear that I expose myself only to Mistress Ruthie, the very custodian of my soul.
It is because of my essential femininity that I do not, as so many Silks do, go around crushing junior members of the Bar like so many grapes. Pray, Sir, let me retain my character intact for all our sakes.
Yours, most sincerely,
VM
If GL were to “out” the fair VM, assuming Simon’s denial is not a smokescreen, then if that were to cause embarrassment to Ruthie’s Mystery QC, it may seem to others that the GL felt the outing of legal bloggers was in the public interest now.
That of course would immediately lead to the personal dilemma of (who) whether and when to “out” geek lawyers and especially the GL.
Not exactly a Hobson’s Choice, but how sweet it may taste to those cruelly taunted, purportedly exposed and dumped in public by the anonymous, less than Gentlemanly, host.
My advice is enjoy the knowledge, for as we all know knowledge is power.
I am reminded of one of the few biblical quotes (King James version of course) that have stuck in my recallable memory — “Judge not, for with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged” — If however I have it wrong I should be delighted to be reminded of it exactly.
The other biblical quote was a reference the school chaplain made one Friday lunchtime in the dining hall with the ‘Fish and Chips lunch’, he just gave the reference, but on research it was “Jesus Christ. The same yesterday, today and forever”
But Ruthie is far too much the lady to out me. As for me, I’m far too excited to have two real QC’s on the blog at the same to care. If a real judge posted a comment too I swear I’d faint.
Faint away, my dear boy, faint away.
How badly…do we want this to post to be the real thing…
OMG, totally. I’d kill my dear mater for this to be true (the inheritance would be a mere sweetener, of course) instead of being some rotten academic with a cruel sense of humour
“Rotten”? How rude.
I was going to mask my IP address, but I couldn’t be bothered to go through the rigamarole. Still, it got Ruthie excited (although I’ve managed that before without undue effort.)
Rotten in the sense of being an awful fellow rather than a poor academic. I’m sure the latter is true too but I have no proof
It isn’t hard to get Ruthie excited, rather the reverse, if anything. Just say “Oooh, look, an available Judge/QC” — works every time. Just make sure you have some pepper spray to keep her under control subsequently. (boy, how many times did I make that mistake.)