As the joy of Bliar being forced out ebbs away, I now face the prospect of life under Brown.
I never had any illusions in him - he is a right wing bastard who, as Chancellor, abolished the 10p tax rate and in doing so made poor people pay more tax so the middle class could pay less tax. He also supported Bliar on most issues, notably the murderous Iraq war. So I am not disappointed by his latest move - ie bringing "outsiders" into his government, rather than give an inch to the left within his own party.
The most sickening of these appointment is to award the job of Trade minister - the head of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform - to former CBI chief Sir Digby Jones.
In case you don't already know, the CBI - Confederation of British Industry (or should that be Capitalist Bastards Inc?) - is the organisation of the bosses of big business, the capitalist exploiters in the UK. Not that New Labour has ever given a $h!t about regulating the worst excesses of big business, allowing them to sack workers and move jobs abroad while giving themselves obscene pay rises and bonuses. But now the capitalist Establishment have one of their own in charge of them - er, not to mention a former CBI boss overseeing them - there's no chance of this government doing anything for the increasingly exploited workers.
If you ask me, "outsiders" is perhaps a misleading term. Rather than seeing them as outside the Labour Party, it proves how much the Labour Party is now inside the Capitalist Establishment of which Digby et al are fully paid up members!
The reasons for New Labore (typo) being so in bed with the Capitalist Establishment were made clearer than ever by an article in last week's Socialist Worker. An article about Private Equity Firms (the politically correct expression for Asset Strippers) describes how such firms and their current and former bosses have donated millions of pounds to New Labour. No wonder Brown reckons the Labour Farty can afford to reduce yet forther the (already pathetic) influence of the Trade Union bureaucracy within the party.
Financially, he probably can, with New Labour getting millions of pounds from capitalists - including those with the morals of a Great White. However, in terms of activism, and votes, he may yet regret dissing the millions of workers who put Labour into power in the first place.
The Respect Coalition is attracting an ever increasing number of workers disenchanted with the fake workers party that is New Labour, and has already unseated numerous Labour councillors - and at least one Labour MP - in working class areas. With your help, we can unseat more of these sell-outs!
What the working class needs is a party which will not sell out to a right-wing agenda to gain middle and ruling class votes.
What the working class needs is a party which will not kow tow to the bosses and the capitalist class.
What the working class needs is a party which is run by and for the working class.
The Respect Coalition is that party !!!!!
Friday, 29 June 2007
Monday, 11 June 2007
Lost in translation
So Ruth Kelly, the Blairite communities secretary, wants to cut translation (BBC News: Translation help 'should be cut'). This is touted as part of a drive to make all immigrants learn English, but it will in fact mean immigrants who do not speak good English are likely to be effectively denied help and access to many services. Especially when you consider that the funding for ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) classes has been cut (Socialist Worker: "Demonstrating for Esol: out to stop language cuts")
One area in which translation is especially valuable is in legal proceedings, such as police interviews and court cases. Coupled with institutionalised Islamophobia and institutional racism in general, a lack of translation facilities - and foreign defendants not properly understanding the proceedings - is likely to lead to more miscarriages of justice. Ah well, I suppose it means the Establishment can lock up more innocent people without having to extend the period of detention without trial ...
Forcing the English language on people, through international imperialism and by repressive behaviour at home, is not new. The whole push for immigrants to speak English (it has been suggested they even speak English, rather than their native language, at home!), has echoes of the hated Welsh Not which was common in 19th Century Wales. The Welsh Not was hung round the neck of school kids who spoke Welsh, and the last kid to still speak Welsh was beaten. (I sure hope the Establishment today don't go as far as using child abuse to force people to speak English ...). Personally, I'd love to see a Welsh "Knot" around the necks of Ruth Kelly and all the other xenophobic bastards in the government and in the Establishment in general!
As I've said before, if the Establishment really want us all to start using English, they can start using it themselves. Instead of confusing us all with jargon and soundbites - such as "modernisation" to mean "selling out", "rationalisation" to mean mass redundancies and cutbacks, and "integration" to mean cloning!
One area in which translation is especially valuable is in legal proceedings, such as police interviews and court cases. Coupled with institutionalised Islamophobia and institutional racism in general, a lack of translation facilities - and foreign defendants not properly understanding the proceedings - is likely to lead to more miscarriages of justice. Ah well, I suppose it means the Establishment can lock up more innocent people without having to extend the period of detention without trial ...
Forcing the English language on people, through international imperialism and by repressive behaviour at home, is not new. The whole push for immigrants to speak English (it has been suggested they even speak English, rather than their native language, at home!), has echoes of the hated Welsh Not which was common in 19th Century Wales. The Welsh Not was hung round the neck of school kids who spoke Welsh, and the last kid to still speak Welsh was beaten. (I sure hope the Establishment today don't go as far as using child abuse to force people to speak English ...). Personally, I'd love to see a Welsh "Knot" around the necks of Ruth Kelly and all the other xenophobic bastards in the government and in the Establishment in general!
As I've said before, if the Establishment really want us all to start using English, they can start using it themselves. Instead of confusing us all with jargon and soundbites - such as "modernisation" to mean "selling out", "rationalisation" to mean mass redundancies and cutbacks, and "integration" to mean cloning!
Thursday, 7 June 2007
Register of emotion
I see the Home Secretary John Reid wants to bring in a Terrorist Offenders Register, similar to the Sex Offenders Register (BBC News: Terror detention to be reviewed).
This isn't the only link between sex offences (notably paedophilia) and terrorism (notably terrorist bombings). Both are terrible crimes which horrify the vast majority of people, of all races and religions. At the same time, both are the subject of a moral panic, which in its wake has brought legislation and other measures which are rather more controversial.
Last week's Socialist Worker had on its front page, an article about an Asian muslim who was arrested in London for taking a photo which the Police thought was connected to terrorism ... a photo of Tower Bridge! (Socialist Worker: I took a picture of tower bridge and was arrested for terrorism). This has stark parallels with the moral panic over innocent photos of children (my views can be found on this web page).
As for the Offenders Register, the problems - as with the Sex Offenders Register - are not so much with the idea itself, as how it is likely to be implemented. Miscarriages of justice have occurred with the Sex Offenders Register, the Birmingham Sunday Mercury in 2004 reported the case of a 14 year old girl being forced to sign the Sex Offenders Register for a crime which she was later cleared of in court (Sunday Mercury: Little girl forced to sign sex offenders' register). In addition, a Liberty report from 2002 notes that "Only a fraction of the 18,500 names currently on it pose a real threat to children or the wider public. The Register should be cleared of (for example) people involved in consensual gay sex, so that the Register is properly focussed on people who pose a real danger, and so the authorities who use the Register and monitor those on it can concentrate on real dangers." (Sex Offences White Paper: Liberty Initial Response).
I have also heard about people being encouraged to accept Police cautions for offences such as child pornography, on rather flimsy evidence, and ending up on the Sex Offences Register, rather than see the alleged offence go to court. Not sure how true this is, but the worrying thing is, in these days when civil liberties are under constant attack, it sounds believable.
Would a Terrorist Offenders Register be much better? Well, we can really trust the same Police who killed the Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menzes on the London Underground, to never make a mistake in their identification of a terrorist, can't we?
Then again, some people really do deserve to be on the Terrorist Offences Register. Such as the British politician who took us into an illegal war in 2003 and masterminded the illegal bombing of Iraq. (Not that we need a register to know his whereabouts right now - his every movement and action, no matter how trivial, seems to be all over the media, >yawn<).
Also, why should it only be sex offenders and terrorists who are on a register? Just as the Sex Offenders Register and the Terrorist Offenders Register are to protect innocent people from sickos, I think there should also be a Hate Crime Offences Register. This would detail people convicted of hate offences such as racism, sexism, disablism and homophobia. In addition, people cautioned for crimes which would not necessarily reach court, such as verbal abuse or "making fun", would also be forced to sign the register so their activities would be monitored and they could be prevented from working where they may abuse members of minority groups. After all, it could be argued that racist language and name-calling leads in the end to racist murders.
This isn't the only link between sex offences (notably paedophilia) and terrorism (notably terrorist bombings). Both are terrible crimes which horrify the vast majority of people, of all races and religions. At the same time, both are the subject of a moral panic, which in its wake has brought legislation and other measures which are rather more controversial.
Last week's Socialist Worker had on its front page, an article about an Asian muslim who was arrested in London for taking a photo which the Police thought was connected to terrorism ... a photo of Tower Bridge! (Socialist Worker: I took a picture of tower bridge and was arrested for terrorism). This has stark parallels with the moral panic over innocent photos of children (my views can be found on this web page).
As for the Offenders Register, the problems - as with the Sex Offenders Register - are not so much with the idea itself, as how it is likely to be implemented. Miscarriages of justice have occurred with the Sex Offenders Register, the Birmingham Sunday Mercury in 2004 reported the case of a 14 year old girl being forced to sign the Sex Offenders Register for a crime which she was later cleared of in court (Sunday Mercury: Little girl forced to sign sex offenders' register). In addition, a Liberty report from 2002 notes that "Only a fraction of the 18,500 names currently on it pose a real threat to children or the wider public. The Register should be cleared of (for example) people involved in consensual gay sex, so that the Register is properly focussed on people who pose a real danger, and so the authorities who use the Register and monitor those on it can concentrate on real dangers." (Sex Offences White Paper: Liberty Initial Response).
I have also heard about people being encouraged to accept Police cautions for offences such as child pornography, on rather flimsy evidence, and ending up on the Sex Offences Register, rather than see the alleged offence go to court. Not sure how true this is, but the worrying thing is, in these days when civil liberties are under constant attack, it sounds believable.
Would a Terrorist Offenders Register be much better? Well, we can really trust the same Police who killed the Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menzes on the London Underground, to never make a mistake in their identification of a terrorist, can't we?
Then again, some people really do deserve to be on the Terrorist Offences Register. Such as the British politician who took us into an illegal war in 2003 and masterminded the illegal bombing of Iraq. (Not that we need a register to know his whereabouts right now - his every movement and action, no matter how trivial, seems to be all over the media, >yawn<).
Also, why should it only be sex offenders and terrorists who are on a register? Just as the Sex Offenders Register and the Terrorist Offenders Register are to protect innocent people from sickos, I think there should also be a Hate Crime Offences Register. This would detail people convicted of hate offences such as racism, sexism, disablism and homophobia. In addition, people cautioned for crimes which would not necessarily reach court, such as verbal abuse or "making fun", would also be forced to sign the register so their activities would be monitored and they could be prevented from working where they may abuse members of minority groups. After all, it could be argued that racist language and name-calling leads in the end to racist murders.
Sunday, 27 May 2007
Do your homework Hodge!
Government minister Margaret Hodge's poisoned views about immigrants and council houses really are extreme - even the Nazi BNP has said that her remarks "echo" theirs! (BBC News: Hodge views echo our policy - BNP)
The attitude of racists (and of many brainwashed morons) is that immigrants allegedly get preferential treatment when it comes to housing. This isn't the case, even with council housing. Most immigrants are immediately housed in private accommodation, often bed-and-breakfast or similar, while many refugees are housed in hostels or even detention centres like Campsfield. Immigrants have to, and always have had to, join the same queue for council housing as British nationals.
Occasionally, clusters (for want of a better word) of immigrants do become eligible for council housing. This is because they tend to arrive in the UK in clusters. This may be because they have fled their own country due to the onset of war, persecution by their regime, or natural disaster. Or it may be because they have come to fill a shortage of labour, especially if they have skills for which there is a shortage at the time. Either way, after a certain time, they eventually reach the front of the queue and are housed in council (or similar council-provided) housing.
In the case of private accommodation, immigrants certainly do not get preferential treatment - quite the reverse, in fact. Like any oppressed minority, they are more likely to experience prejudice and be turned down or given inferior treatment by private landlords. (As a person with disabilities, I have personally experienced prejudice when looking for accommodation in the past. Even, in one case, blatant disablist abuse!) It hardly seems fair to, when they eventually become eligible for a secure home, tell them they must go to the back of the queue again :-(
The answer is to invest in building more council houses and renovating the existing council houses, and stop the creeping privatisation of the council housing stock. Not to blame immigrants, or anyone else, for the shortage of decent affordable housing - when the blame lies entirely with this government and the previous Tory government, who started the sale of council houses.
It's not just in housing where New Labour politicians seem to be racing with racists! Within the past year, Tony Blair himself parroted the myth that gun crime is perpetuated by black youth. And for a number of years, Islamophobia in the name of "stopping terrorism" and attacks on asylum seekers seem to have been the norm for this government. Along with calls for immigrants and their families to speak English even at home.
Well, I sometimes wish politicians and the Establishment in general, would speak English. Rather than their first languages of soundbites, spin, gibberish, and increasingly right-wing nastiness!
The attitude of racists (and of many brainwashed morons) is that immigrants allegedly get preferential treatment when it comes to housing. This isn't the case, even with council housing. Most immigrants are immediately housed in private accommodation, often bed-and-breakfast or similar, while many refugees are housed in hostels or even detention centres like Campsfield. Immigrants have to, and always have had to, join the same queue for council housing as British nationals.
Occasionally, clusters (for want of a better word) of immigrants do become eligible for council housing. This is because they tend to arrive in the UK in clusters. This may be because they have fled their own country due to the onset of war, persecution by their regime, or natural disaster. Or it may be because they have come to fill a shortage of labour, especially if they have skills for which there is a shortage at the time. Either way, after a certain time, they eventually reach the front of the queue and are housed in council (or similar council-provided) housing.
In the case of private accommodation, immigrants certainly do not get preferential treatment - quite the reverse, in fact. Like any oppressed minority, they are more likely to experience prejudice and be turned down or given inferior treatment by private landlords. (As a person with disabilities, I have personally experienced prejudice when looking for accommodation in the past. Even, in one case, blatant disablist abuse!) It hardly seems fair to, when they eventually become eligible for a secure home, tell them they must go to the back of the queue again :-(
The answer is to invest in building more council houses and renovating the existing council houses, and stop the creeping privatisation of the council housing stock. Not to blame immigrants, or anyone else, for the shortage of decent affordable housing - when the blame lies entirely with this government and the previous Tory government, who started the sale of council houses.
It's not just in housing where New Labour politicians seem to be racing with racists! Within the past year, Tony Blair himself parroted the myth that gun crime is perpetuated by black youth. And for a number of years, Islamophobia in the name of "stopping terrorism" and attacks on asylum seekers seem to have been the norm for this government. Along with calls for immigrants and their families to speak English even at home.
Well, I sometimes wish politicians and the Establishment in general, would speak English. Rather than their first languages of soundbites, spin, gibberish, and increasingly right-wing nastiness!
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
Pimping an alternative
I notice the Home Office are now running radio adverts against kerb-crawling for prostitutes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of prostitution at all - it is degrading, exploitative and often dangerous work for the people (mostly women) involved. However, I am extremely sceptical about whether cracking down on prostitutes, or even their prospective clients, is really the answer.
Prostitution is hardly their first career choice. Rather, they are desperate people - according to the Home Office's own web page on the subject, "up to 95% of those involved in street-based prostitution are problem drug-users" (ie drug addicts) ", and many are homeless". Many are desperate for the income they receive from prostitution, and are unlikely to stop - rather, the problems will be driven underground.
The dangers associated with prostitution were highlighted in December last year, when 5 prostitutes were killed in Suffolk. Any crackdown will make prostitutes and their clients less likely to co-operate with Police and give information regarding violence (in the extreme case, murder) towards prostitutes. Indeed, it is often stated that in the Netherlands, where prostitution is tolerated, the incidence of violence towards prostitutes - and sex crimes in general - is much lower than in the UK.
The radio adverts emphasise the fact that kerb crawlers can be caught on CCTV. Now if we are to believe the propaganda in support of CCTV, it is supposed to make people safer. Surely, then, chasing prostitutes into relatively secluded or remote areas without CCTV, will make them more at risk!
What, then, is the answer? One possibility is for licenced brothels, preferably run as sex workers' co-operatives. In addition, regular health checks - notably STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) checks - and safe sex education, free condoms etc for prostitutes would greatly improve the welfare of prostitutes, as well as helping to reduce the incidence of STD's in the wider population.
I also think there should be efforts to bring sex workers (prostitutes included) into trade unions. This would not be unprecedented; in the USA in the 1910's and 1920's, the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, often known as the "Wobblies") was the first to organise prostitutes. (source: The Lucy Parsons Project - Women in Textiles)
Then again, when the current government sometimes seems nearly as hostile to trade unions taking industrial action as its Tory predecessor, I don't think they'll support that idea. They'll feel much more at home taking a moralising stance against prostitutes and their clients :-(
Prostitution is hardly their first career choice. Rather, they are desperate people - according to the Home Office's own web page on the subject, "up to 95% of those involved in street-based prostitution are problem drug-users" (ie drug addicts) ", and many are homeless". Many are desperate for the income they receive from prostitution, and are unlikely to stop - rather, the problems will be driven underground.
The dangers associated with prostitution were highlighted in December last year, when 5 prostitutes were killed in Suffolk. Any crackdown will make prostitutes and their clients less likely to co-operate with Police and give information regarding violence (in the extreme case, murder) towards prostitutes. Indeed, it is often stated that in the Netherlands, where prostitution is tolerated, the incidence of violence towards prostitutes - and sex crimes in general - is much lower than in the UK.
The radio adverts emphasise the fact that kerb crawlers can be caught on CCTV. Now if we are to believe the propaganda in support of CCTV, it is supposed to make people safer. Surely, then, chasing prostitutes into relatively secluded or remote areas without CCTV, will make them more at risk!
What, then, is the answer? One possibility is for licenced brothels, preferably run as sex workers' co-operatives. In addition, regular health checks - notably STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) checks - and safe sex education, free condoms etc for prostitutes would greatly improve the welfare of prostitutes, as well as helping to reduce the incidence of STD's in the wider population.
I also think there should be efforts to bring sex workers (prostitutes included) into trade unions. This would not be unprecedented; in the USA in the 1910's and 1920's, the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, often known as the "Wobblies") was the first to organise prostitutes. (source: The Lucy Parsons Project - Women in Textiles)
Then again, when the current government sometimes seems nearly as hostile to trade unions taking industrial action as its Tory predecessor, I don't think they'll support that idea. They'll feel much more at home taking a moralising stance against prostitutes and their clients :-(
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
Disability rights or capitalist wrongs?
Remploy, a company which employs workers with disabilities, has announced plans to close 43 factories (BBC News "Disability firm to close 43 sites") - leading to calls for strike action from a number of trade unions, notably the GMB, which represent Remploy workers (GMB website: "Unions move to national strike at Remploy").
A number of disability charities have supported the closures: the BBC News article reports "Mencap, Mind, Radar, Scope, Leonard Cheshire and the Royal National Institute of Deaf People have said disabled people were more likely to have fulfilling lives by working in an 'inclusive environment'." However, the Remploy Trade Union Consortium have criticised Remploy for planning to close factories in areas of already high unemployment, and the charities for acting against the wishes of disabled workers.
Ideally, I believe it would be better if disabled and non-disabled workers worked together in non-segregated workplaces, on equal wages and equal terms and conditions of employment. However, closing factories - of whatever nature - in areas of high unemployment is unlikely to achieve this. Especially when according to Scope's own Time To Get Equal website, "In summer 2003, only 49% of disabled people of working age were in work, compared to 81% of non-disabled people in work." More likely, the factory closures would make more people with disabilities equal to non-disabled unemployed people!
In my Red Disability article on charities, I have previously argued that disability charities have always tended to operate on behalf of, rather than for, people with disabilities. The charities involved seem to be proving that point, by ignoring the wishes of the Remploy workers themselves.
Meanwhile, Remploy themselves have admitted the real reason for the factory closures - cost cutting. Whatever their public image, Remploy are acting just like any capitalist company, obsessed by profit and loss with the workers ultimately paying the price.
In reality, the best way to create an inclusive environment is by comprehensive equal rights legislation (with no exemptions), and the creation of decently paid jobs for all workers by investment in public services. Not by sacking workers, whether disabled or not!
A number of disability charities have supported the closures: the BBC News article reports "Mencap, Mind, Radar, Scope, Leonard Cheshire and the Royal National Institute of Deaf People have said disabled people were more likely to have fulfilling lives by working in an 'inclusive environment'." However, the Remploy Trade Union Consortium have criticised Remploy for planning to close factories in areas of already high unemployment, and the charities for acting against the wishes of disabled workers.
Ideally, I believe it would be better if disabled and non-disabled workers worked together in non-segregated workplaces, on equal wages and equal terms and conditions of employment. However, closing factories - of whatever nature - in areas of high unemployment is unlikely to achieve this. Especially when according to Scope's own Time To Get Equal website, "In summer 2003, only 49% of disabled people of working age were in work, compared to 81% of non-disabled people in work." More likely, the factory closures would make more people with disabilities equal to non-disabled unemployed people!
In my Red Disability article on charities, I have previously argued that disability charities have always tended to operate on behalf of, rather than for, people with disabilities. The charities involved seem to be proving that point, by ignoring the wishes of the Remploy workers themselves.
Meanwhile, Remploy themselves have admitted the real reason for the factory closures - cost cutting. Whatever their public image, Remploy are acting just like any capitalist company, obsessed by profit and loss with the workers ultimately paying the price.
In reality, the best way to create an inclusive environment is by comprehensive equal rights legislation (with no exemptions), and the creation of decently paid jobs for all workers by investment in public services. Not by sacking workers, whether disabled or not!
Monday, 21 May 2007
Snooping plan doubleplusungood
The ridiculous authoritarian ideas just keep coming, it seems. The latest Home Office proposals are to make it compulsory for council workers, charity workers and doctors to tell Police when they suspect someone could (I emphasise could) commit a violent crime. (BBC News Staff asked to 'snoop' for police)
What's wrong with that? Where do I start? First of all, it would put working class council workers in danger of reprisals, at a time when their working conditions are already being eroded. Along with charity workers, some of whom are volunteers; a lot less people would be so happy to volunteer their time if they knew they were seen as potential grasses and treated accordingly by people they are hoping to help. As for expecting doctors to report their patients to Police, surely that breaches the doctors' oath of patient confidentiality!
As for the criteria for determining if someone is likely to commit a violent crime: "Possible warning signs could include heavy drinking, mental health problems or a violent family background."
The law seems to provide yet another means of hammering people with mental illnesses (most of whom are not dangerous), who have already been hammered a few years ago by the Mental Health Act. But it is the latter criteria that is the most pernicious, as it seems based on the flawed assumption that "the abused abuse". Besides, how will they define "violent family background"? Considering the $#!t that used to pass for "reasonable chastisement", a substantial percentage of the population of Airstrip One, sorry, the UK, possibly fall into that category!
Recently, even the Police themselves - hardly a bastion of left-wing liberalism! - bemoaned the situation where they were arresting people for minor offences, just to meet stupid targets. Just how creating a situation, where Police are to be informed of every possible tendency towards criminality, is likely to reduce the Police's workload, I fail to see! Rather, it is likely to create yet more miscarriages of justice.
Don't get me wrong, I am against all forms of violence, and would be happy to help the Police bring the perpetrators of violence to justice. So I have a few suggestions as to who should be investigated ...
In 2003, Tony Blair, a resident of 10 Downing Street, instigated a vicious, murderous, illegal war on Iraq in which thousands of civilians, men, women and children, were killed and maimed. A number of government ministers including Tony's next door neighbour, soon to move into Tony's current address, supported this act of violence in which offensive weapons such as cluster bombs were used. Another ringleader of this gang was George Dubya Bush, currently resident in the White House in the USA. It's time all involved were brought to justice!
What's wrong with that? Where do I start? First of all, it would put working class council workers in danger of reprisals, at a time when their working conditions are already being eroded. Along with charity workers, some of whom are volunteers; a lot less people would be so happy to volunteer their time if they knew they were seen as potential grasses and treated accordingly by people they are hoping to help. As for expecting doctors to report their patients to Police, surely that breaches the doctors' oath of patient confidentiality!
As for the criteria for determining if someone is likely to commit a violent crime: "Possible warning signs could include heavy drinking, mental health problems or a violent family background."
The law seems to provide yet another means of hammering people with mental illnesses (most of whom are not dangerous), who have already been hammered a few years ago by the Mental Health Act. But it is the latter criteria that is the most pernicious, as it seems based on the flawed assumption that "the abused abuse". Besides, how will they define "violent family background"? Considering the $#!t that used to pass for "reasonable chastisement", a substantial percentage of the population of Airstrip One, sorry, the UK, possibly fall into that category!
Recently, even the Police themselves - hardly a bastion of left-wing liberalism! - bemoaned the situation where they were arresting people for minor offences, just to meet stupid targets. Just how creating a situation, where Police are to be informed of every possible tendency towards criminality, is likely to reduce the Police's workload, I fail to see! Rather, it is likely to create yet more miscarriages of justice.
Don't get me wrong, I am against all forms of violence, and would be happy to help the Police bring the perpetrators of violence to justice. So I have a few suggestions as to who should be investigated ...
In 2003, Tony Blair, a resident of 10 Downing Street, instigated a vicious, murderous, illegal war on Iraq in which thousands of civilians, men, women and children, were killed and maimed. A number of government ministers including Tony's next door neighbour, soon to move into Tony's current address, supported this act of violence in which offensive weapons such as cluster bombs were used. Another ringleader of this gang was George Dubya Bush, currently resident in the White House in the USA. It's time all involved were brought to justice!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
