99 YEARS OLD AND STILL TOTALLY UNPREJUDICED...

DESPITE the suspension of a number of activists and other leading figures, accusations of antisemitism in the Labour party refuse to go away and have now even spread to include perhaps the most famous name of all.

The 452- year- old chronicler and playwright, Mr William Shakespeare, however, not only denies all the charges laid against him and stands by all he has said on the subject but also denies ever having had anything to do with the Labour Party anyway.

The allegations surround his comments relating to a Venetian money- lender, Shylock ( surname unknown), who entered into a pay- day loan arrangement with a man referred to only as Antonio, who was subsequently unable to return the loan.

According to the terms of the agreement relating to repayment default, Mr Antonio then became liable under contract law to forfeit a pound of his “fair flesh to be cut off” and delivered to Shylock.

Many critics of Mr Shakespeare claim that the playwright’s account of the arrangement and the subsequent breach of contract law case make great play of Mr Shylock’s religion and race, suggesting that they are responsible for his reprehensible and bloodthirsty nature. Mr Shakespeare, however, totally rebuffs such charges.

“The words I wrote are true and honest fact,” he said in a perfect iambic pentameter. “I never did imply that Shylock’s race was in the slightest way responsible for that distasteful contract which you quote. I firmly stand by ev’rything I wrote.”

So saying, he produced a copy of a printed version of his original speech which led to these accusations. “This folio before you now I place, which details the events of which you speak. Your words are dipped in venom as you’ll see, for never did I blacken Shylock’s name. The real villain of my play is clear: it is the judge who ruled on this dispute.

“According to the contract there’s no doubt Antonio must pay his pound of flesh. Instead, the judge decreed that Shylock must himself hack off the payment he demands. Contractually though the law is clear: Antonio himself must cut the flesh and if he spills some blood while doing so, that’s what the law describes as rotten luck.”

Mr Shakespeare went on to claim that his play The Merchant Of Venice was originally intended only as the first part of the story, to be followed by Merchant II: Shylock’s Revenge in which the Court of Appeal unanimously overturns the decision of the lower court and orders Antonio to abide by the terms of the original contract.

“And if perchance the sequel did do well, Part Three would take it to the House of Lords,” Mr Shakespeare said.

When asked why he had never got round to writing this planned trilogy, he became agitated and insisted that commuting between Stratford-upon-Avon and London was time- consuming and exhausting, and what with a theatre company to run as well, he hadn’t time to write as many plays as he’d like. “And I’ve been dead these past four hundred years.”