Saturday, 26 March 2011

Make “anti-cuts” demonstrators pay to take part - that’d keep the numbers down

I despise every single, silly, selfish, delusional fool protesting in London today.

The vast majority of the self-righteous twerps bringing the capital to a standstill today are no doubt public money freeloaders (whether in work or not). They’ve been pilfering cash from law-abiding taxpayers’ wallets since 1997.

The fact that their rake-off might be slightly reduced in future or that they might be asked to pay for one or two items that the rest of us were formerly expected to stump up for has enraged them, because they have absolutely no conception of what it means to pay your own way in life (in this, they strongly resemble the bankers they so vehemently attack – both group expect middle-income private sector workers to pick up their tabs in perpetuity).

Ed Balls was at the march today. He said the government was cutting “too far and too fast”. This from one of the chief architects of this country’s economic misery. How this moronic, incompetent, economically illiterate, lying thug gets away with appearing in public without being strung up is beyond me. 

Ed Bollocks’ economic literacy is, of course, shared by everyone having a jolly day out today. For instance, the chief organiser, TUC leader, Len McCluskey displays his abysmal ignorance by saying “Our alternative is to concentrate on economic growth through tax fairness”. If, you idiot, you increase tax rates on the well off, the tax take goes down – this has been proved again and again. Closing a few tax avoidance loopholes makes for a good headline, but it doesn’t actually increase the amount of money available to governments to squander on McCluskey’s Marching Morons. So if you want more money to spend on Lesbian Outreach Task Forces and suchlike forget about the loopholes and bring the top rate of tax back down to 40% - 30%  would be even better (George Osbourne knows this, of course, but the LibDems’ warped view of “social justice” must be catered for - at least until they’re annihilated in local elections in May.)

The other Big Lie fuelling today’s ridiculous exercise in feel-good fantasy self-indulgence is that the present government is exaggerating the extent of Labour’s economic recklessness. If you want to hear a mendacious sewage-spreader being nailed by the truth, just watch this clip of arch-creep Ken Livingstone being pulverised by economic historian, Niall Ferguson – who doesn’t shrink from calling an outright  liar an outright liar.

Of course, today’s protests are a prime example of bad loserdom. All the Labour-supporting groups who’ve been sucking at a public teat engorged by our taxes and cosmic amounts of borrowing are throwing a massive hissy fit at having lost the last election – because it’s jolly well not fair!

But we live in a democracy and surely people have a right to protest, no matter how wrong-headed they might be? Up to a point. 

Later on, there will no doubt be reports of sporadic violence from the members of the myriad nihilistic sects of the Fascist Left (there is no other kind). These will be followed by the standard voxpops with outraged middle class, female local government workers or teachers claiming it was the fault of police “heavy-handedness” or that those committing the violence had nothing to do with the march.

Won’t wash, dear. You – in your little woolly bobble hat – aided and abetted the violence by taking to the streets in the first place: you acted as a human shield for the scummiest elements in society. And you should be made to pay for it, out of your own damned pocket.

Here’s a straightforward proposal: if you want to take part in a mass demonstration, you’ll be asked to pay £10 each for the privilege of doing so (this will pay for a heavy police presence and some of it could be used to compensate the businesses who lose out because of the shenanigans). In addition, you will have to pay a £10 deposit, which will be refunded in the event that the demo passes of peacefully. 

£20 for an exciting day out with your mates sounds dead reasonable to me.

Finally – and I’ve suggested this before – anyone who turns up wearing any form of face-covering will be arrested, because they’re evidently planning to commit a criminal act. Anyone who dons a balaclava during the demonstration will be deemed to be planning a terrorist act, and will be dealt with accordingly by police snipers deployed on rooftops in the area: and if a few well-meaning bobble-hatters get shot in the process, that really will be their own look-out – no one forced them to take to the streets.

In defence of these admittedly hard-line measures, I’d just say that we live in a democracy. If you don’t like what the government is doing, you’ll have a chance to vote them out in a few years’ time. If, at that stage, your chosen party doesn’t garner enough votes to get into power – tough, you stupid Nazi: that’s the way democracy works. In the meantime, respect the rights of your fellow-voters, who firmly rejected the Labour Party - or we might begin to suspect you don’t really believe in democracy. Well, do you?

And, because we’re still a democracy, the many people who’ve claimed that what’s taking place today is pretty much what we’ve been seeing in the Middle East over the past few months should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

God, I’m bored with these nincompoops!


  1. Told you!
    Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 11:18 AM

  2. And why are the police, the BBC and the government always so keen to tell us that the troublemakers formed a “tiny minority” and that the majority of the march “passed off peacefully”. Cause and effect – without those “peaceful” marchers giving them cover, there would have been no violent minority of left-wing fascists to smash up banks and shops. We really must stop shielding idiots from the consequences of their actions.
    Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 12:32 PM

  3. HARUMPHREY OF THE YARD16 October 2011 at 18:31

    As far as I remember we pay the police to protect property and people yet the news was full of pictures of Plod standing around watching property being vandalised…it feels like some big charade designed to allow the political equivalent of football hooligans to have some fun while boosting police overtime payments. I agree with you about the culpability of the demonstrators and about their stupidity…and the idea of snipers treating those who cover their faces as terrorists seems sensible. Last point, what about tasers and tear gas? Why do we pay for the police to have weapons to protect property if they’re too cowardly to use them?
    Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 03:24 PM

  4. I am taken aback by many of the comments. I suspect you would condone the actins of Brigadier Reginald Dyer and his company of Ghurkas at Amritsar in 1919 where they killed 379 rioters and wounded a further 1,500 and only stopped when the ammo ran out.

    I am following the case of Ian Tomlinson who died as a result of being slashed across the thigh by a police baton and then shoved to the ground at the G20 Riots in 2009. His only offence was to saunter [or "teeter", as he was an alcoholic and had been hitting the extra strong lager during his afternoon stint as a newspaper vendor] down the the polce lines in the middle of a full-blown riot offering helpful advice to the constabulary. His wife, a previously umarried mother of 5 children [Tomlinson had 4 children of his own - newspaper vending is obviously a lucrative business] says " he was the best thing that ever happened to me" in spite of them living "separately" but not "apart". The court is considering wether the police "perp" should face criminal charges and Max Clifford is on stand-by.

    The answer is quite simple and I am surprised that some rent-a-gob MP has not called for it. Ban the police from wielding batons during violent riots. They just cause injuries. Would it not be more productive if the police soothed the rioters by dressing up as Morriss Dancers or Cloggies and performed amusing dance routines.
    Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 10:21 AM

  5. Interesting, Watercannon boy. I made the point at the time to the Scarman Inquiry into the Brixton riots...sorry, uprisings, that the police strategy would have been more successful if based around community outreach activity such as poetry reading, ethnically-relevant crochet classes and how to establish a Bishop of Rastafari in the C of E, rather than the preferred tactic of heading petrol bombs, being stabbed and shield/missile-interface activity.

    I have never understood how it failed to make it into the list of recommendations.
    Saturday, April 2, 2011 - 03:35 PM

  6. An ex-KCS friend of mine and his writing partner once came up with a sketch for Not the Nine O’Clock News around the time that Community Police were being introduced (to reassure ethic communities that we had no intention of interfering with their right to smoke dope, mug, riot and loot at will). The sketch shows a Black Mariah marked “COMMUNITY POLICE” screeching to a halt beside a young black man. Community policeman pile out, grab him and throw him in the back of the van, which then rocks back and forth violently for 10”. The doors are flung open and he’s bundled out onto the road. As he gets dazedly to his feet we discover that they’ve given him a smiley clown face and an orange fright wig. No idea if it was ever filmed, but it seemed to sum up the silliness of a softly softly, “ethnically sensitive” approach to policing.
    Sunday, April 3, 2011 - 06:52 PM