POLL RESULTS: 8% FOR SHOOTING PEASANTS!

Thanks to everyone who took the time to take part in the poll on the English police’s reaction to His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Duke of Rothesay, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Prince of Wales, Knight of the Thistle, Knight of the Garter, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Companion of the Queen's Service Order, Privy Counsellor, Aide-de-Camp, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Carrick* and his companion Her Royal Highness Mrs Parker-Bowles being disrupted on their way to the theatre in a Rolls Royce and provocatively bedecked with more bling that any of the rest of us are likely to see in our entire lives.

It had been suggested by the London police chief, Paul Stephenson, that his officers, specially attached to the royal personage, had only one duty, and that was to get their “principle” to where he was supposed to be going. Nothing else mattered. I remember listening to him and his mate Boris Johnston spluttering on about the outrage of the heir to the throne having to be delayed getting to the theatre, and Mrs Parker-Bowles frightened out of her life by ordinary but angry people. He was adamant that his men had behaved with restraint because they had the right to shoot people. ...And not one single soul had been shot! Goodness. Copngratualtions to the police for that excellent piece of work. And not a passing newspaper vendor killed either. Magical.

The argument then opened up beyond shooting peasants to the use of various and sundry other crowd control methods, such as tazers, tear gas and water cannon. Boris Johnston chuntered on in buffoonish fashion that we British peasants were lucky that, unlike these Europeans, OUR lovely rozers didn’t use these methods of crowd control. (Although that’s not entirely true, and they do in any, case kettle people for up to 12 hours without toilet facilities, charge at them on horseback, turn them out of their wheel chairs and drag them across the road, and of course kill the odd passerby on his way home from work (although clearly not if he is on his way to the theatrein a dinner jacket).

As they were talking, I was imagining what would have happened had the royal protection officers decided to kill a few people as examples to the rest, obviously in order that they complete successfully their mission of getting this "principle" to his night out. I had my ideas as to what would have followed, but I was interested to see how people, from a fairly wide political spectrum and an extremely wide geographical area, who read this blog, felt.

So, here we have the results:

83% felt that shooting the protesters would provoke much more severe problems including civil disobedience. (Personally I would be surprised if someone didn’t burn down Clarence House and then Scotland Yard and then the Houses of Parliament.)

14% felt that it would escalate crowd trouble.

I was actually quite surprised that only 5% thought it would be reasonable to use water cannon, tazers or tear gas, I’d have thought more might have been happy to see control brought back to the streets by these methods, used commonly elsewhere in Europe.

That 8% thought that the police should have shot people who were threatening a late arrival at the theatre of their Hallowednesses, was I thought, quite shocking.

But I suppose we should know that in this country, the value that is put on the life of a newspaper salesman is not necessarily the same as the value of the life of a son of the Queen.

Grateful thanks once again to all who took part.

(*PS: It seems to me like Charles Philip Arthur George has around 15 jobs there. Does the government not think that in these times of economic depression it is unreasonable that one man hole down 15 government funded jobs? Should he not lose 14 of them to other people about to be made redundant?)

HOW MUCH WILL PEOPLE TOLERATE FROM A DISCREDITED LEADERSHIP?

Following the disturbances in London on Thursday last and the fact that Charles was involved, Cameron has decided to get tough. He looked jolly cross when he was ticking everyone off the other day.

It is not, absolutely not on, to ruin other people’s things unless your father has enough money to put the whole show to rights the next day. And terrorising innocent bystanders is only alright if it’s in an upmarket restaurant, in Oxford, and only rich people are involved, and it must never involve a prince of the blood royal unless he was in your house, or at least another chap’s house at school.

More seriously the idiot who is paid to be in charge of policing in London told the protestors that they were lucky not to be shot. Apparently it is within the right of the police to shoot people who are threatening a “highness”. Kinky Boots May, the home secretary has hinted that she would not stand in the way of police using water cannon (which is a pity because I wouldn’t mind seeing her being blown down the Thames with a hose up her frock). So for the first time in Great Britian, water cannon could be used. (After old Boris banging on the other day about how jolly decent it was of us chaps not to use them, ooops.) Other people have suggested tazers and tear gas, and I think I heard rubber bullets proposed.

I wonder what effect that would have. OK. I know, people would get very wet, or teary or sore..., and if they shot people, I suppose they would get very dead.

I think people are angry at being treated badly, at being expected to pay back money the bankers lost them, and at being spoken down to by Cameron and his poodle Clegg, both looking very angry (or possibly frightened). It’s been a bad time recently for authority, or what passes for it. MPs have been found to be on the fiddle and lords too have had their snouts in the trough. In Yorkshire two senior police Officers are under investigation for fiddling recruitment so that their family would profit, and elsewhere senior police have been found wanting and in court. A police officer killed a passerby at a protest last year and got off with it. And the prince of Wales has defied the tenets of the church he will (perhaps) one day lead by marrying a woman with whom he had an adulterous affair whilst married to the Princess of Wales and who herself has a living spouse.

What’s to respect?

Just how much of a beating will people take from people whom they see as corrupt before the kick off properly?

If police shot someone because they poured paint on a car which happened to belong to Charles, what do you think people would do?

I’ve put up a poll... please give your opinions, and of course leave a comment if you wish. I’m interested to know what people think about this.

Opinions from foreigners are equally valid (Danny).... Les avis des étrangers sont également valides (Yves).

Sorry, all the pics are of Theresa May, because I just can’t get over what an old perv she appears to be with her kinky shoes, and there she is doing some dirty dancing with a row of men in police uniforms. Enjoy, I bet she did!

IS THE ESTABLISHMENT AND CLARENCE HOUSE OUT OF TOUCH?

Bruce Anderson, The Daily Telegraph, the paper of the establishment:

“....... Most of the students still do not understand the damage that Thursday’s riot did to their reputation and the extent to which they have alienated every decent person in this country....... The public is beginning to draw the obvious conclusion: if the police cannot even protect the Duchess of Cornwall, why should we believe that they will catch a burglar?....”

Of course being Scottish and having no need of any more qualifications may affect my views, but should this make my views so different from Anderson’s “decent people”? Will the Telegraph’s establishment move forward on this, based on what they fondly imagine “decent people” feel.

The riot was unfortunate, no doubt about that. There are people in hospital, one having had brain surgery. There are broken windows in the Supreme Court and some other government departments, and there is graffiti on some statues. Someone tore down the union flag.

Apart from the first one, none of these things really matter. I suspect that there are people working in Whitehall who will be relieved to know that their bombproof windows have been tested and found wanting, and hoping that the authorities will replace them with something that works. As for damaged statues and flags? Insulting to people’s memories, yes, maybe, but in the end they are stones and cloth. “Clarke’s Criminals” or “Smith’s Slackers” can repair the damage.

So am I out of line with “decent” people; am I an “indecent” person; or just a Scot? Or is Anderson’s, establishment coming at this from the wrong angle?

If they cannot protect Mrs Parker-Bowles how can they protect the masses from burglary?

Simples.

Clarence House sent the prince and his ‘wife’ out in a large-windowed Bentley or Rolls, her replete with jewels and clothes worth a fortune; him looking like a tailor’s dummy, and straight into the riots? I suppose they knew that there were such things as riots, and students, parents, lecturers, ordinary people? Yes?

Did it not occur to them that to rub this outrageous display of publicly funded wealth in the faces of people who were facing a struggle for the rest of their lives with the fees repayment, was a tad on the insensitive side? Do they not care, or are they just too stupid to understand? Or was there something more sinister?

Recent polls have shown an overwhelming majority of people don’t want Charles as king, or Mrs PB as queen. If Anderson and his like think that the days of “decent” people being repulsed by people standing up for their rights against a shower of lying, self serving MPs and an imperious, self important, relic of a prince, they are bang out of line.

It would be incredibly stupid of them to plan for future events, of which I’m sure there will be many, based on these suppositions. ‘Off with their heads’ was probably not really what the students, parents, lecturers and other people on Thursday’s protests had in mind. But it could easily come.

And Cameron-Clegg may wish to reflect that what happened to Charles the other day might spread to people who will promise anything to the public to gain power.... and once they have it discard their promises and pledges like Tesco carrier bags.

* I abridged Mr Anderson’s comments. He does question Stephenson’s management of the riots. Click on the quote or here for his piece.


Pics: Mr Anderson, who writes for David Cameron, wrote for Mrs Thatcher and who, according to Wikipedia, approves of torture, even of children in supposed ‘ticking bomb’ situations. (Wonder if he would do it himself, or who exactly he’d find who would.) together with scenes from the London protests

OUT OF THE WAY PEASANTS: HIGHNESSES COMING THROUGH

My jaw hit the floor this morning listening to the Today programme. Sarah Montague was interviewing Paul Stephenson the commissioner of the London’s Metropolitan Police, and Boris Johnson, mayor of London.

Boris has always seemed like a bit of a clown to me, a strange choice to have as the mayor of the capital of England, but a relatively harmless old thing. However this morning he came over as barking mad. His biggest concern, it seemed, about last night’s disturbances was the shock caused to Mrs Parker-Bowles. I’m not entirely sure where Boris is coming from on this. Many of the people who voted for him are those whose kids will be worst hit by the £9,000 fees. Yet in his outrage at the shock caused to Mrs Parker-Bowles he forgot all about them. We were lucky, he told Sarah; the authorities allow people to do this kind of thing in this democracy; there could be water cannon, but no. And still, for all that freedom he gives them, people have the audacity to frighten the life out of Mrs Parker-Bowles!

Is Mrs Parker-Bowles one of Boris’s paramours, I began to wonder as he ranted on about her.

And the “incredibly lucky to still have his job” Stephenson was no better. It was outrageous, he spluttered, that “the highnesses” (yes he actually said “THE highnesses”) had been so disturbed by what, presumably, he would call “the lownesses”.

He seemed not to respond to Sarah’s point that most half way sane people wouldn’t have driven through that part of London on a night when they knew that there were riots, inconvenient though that might be. He eventually replied that the situation changed very rapidly and they were caught unawares. Imagine being caught unawares with “highnesses” in the car ....Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

He would have no truck with the fact that it was idiotic for two people dressed up in theatrical costumes, paid for by us, costing many times the entire wardrobe of any of these students and all of their friends, in a car also provided by us, that probably none of them would ever aspire to owning, in a convoy of protection agents, again provided at our expense, drove straight into the middle of the riots.

Sarah asked him if it would not have been sensible for them at least to have been in a less conspicuous car, but no. He was having none of it. The “thugs” (yes he called them that), were at fault.

But I keep the best for last. He said that the protection officers had done a wonderful job and that they had acted with restraint. They were armed. He left it hanging in the air...

Clearly somewhat flabbergasted Sarah asked if he thought it would be reasonable in the situation for protection officers to shoot people, and he simply repeated that his officers had acted with restraint, that their job was to get what he called their “principles” to their destination safely by whatever means.

Sarah gave him several chances to disclaim the obvious inference to be drawn from that... that it would have been in order for them, if they thought there was a possibility of the “principles”, or “highnesses” (whichever, I was getting confused about who they were by now) not getting to the theatre on time, to simply mow down the “lownesses”.

Boris, was asked his opinion and declined to disagree with the commissioner. I fear he may have forgotten in dismissing the "thugs" with such disdain, that when he was their age his hobby was getting drunk and smashing up restaurants in company with the prime minster and the finance secretary.

I have to say that it must have been a frightening experience for these "highnesses", and I can feel sorry for them, but there are other issues here, and the idea that crowds could be shot at because "highnesses" are being threatened is simply ridiculous. They should not have been out in that situation. It's not like they were going to some important function on which the future of the state relied. THEY WERE GOING TO THE THEATRE.

Anyway, there you have it. Middle Class students and parents be warned.These “principles/highnesses” people must get to the theatre on time regardless of how many of you are sacrificed in the process.

You really would think that the theatre would just hold the curtain, wouldn’t you.

Post script: I read that no less an august and respected personage than the prime minister, Boris's wrecking mate, Camerclegg, has said that the mob which attacked the "royal" car must be punished with the full force of the law. What a prat.

1. Pics: (1) Sarah Montague in the 'Today' studio with John Humphries; (2) A highness looking a bit high, but then if I had to live with that idiot, even in a 200 room council house I'd get drunk too; (3) “I’m bored with all this election stuff; just appoint me Mayor for Life. quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. I was at Eton and Oxford you know.”; (4) Paul Stephenson in yet another one of the Met’s disasters; (5) “Do you think that this £9,000 dress was provocative to these lownesses?”

LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE ENGLISH STUDENTS: YOU'RE SUBSIDIZING OVERSEAS STUDENTS

Well, now we know the reason for the student fees increase in England

Mr Cameron admitted that the increase would mean that fees for foreign students wouldn’t rise so much. So, that should be a comfort to all the English students who are considering whether they care to leave university with debts of perhaps as much as £45,000 or £50,000.

Not all students just follow the 3 year degree course. Teachers, for example, have to go on after university to study for a further year for their PGD which allows them to teach, and doctors may be at university for 7 years before being qualified (£63,000 + living expenses. I’d expect they'll have to import doctors from abroad in the future.)

Doubtless this news cheered up the 50,000 or so students and lecturers who protested in London today with disastrous consequences when it all got out of control. Injuries were sustained by both protesters and police in what was described by the Commissioner of the Met (why can’t they have a chief constable like everyone else?) as embarrassing, and badly managed. Why does that not surprise me? Oh because everything they do is embarrassing and badly managed. Who on earth runs that organization? Oh yes SIR Paul Stephenson. That’s right, they get the Knighthood before they start the job and the seat in the Lords after they finish it, no matter what a cock up they make of it.

And in parliament Nick Clegg, standing in for David Cameron admitted that he and his party had broken their pledge on students’ fees. Never suspecting that they might be called upon to uphold it, they had argued in opposition for no increases. Harriet (nobody loves me) Harman accused him of hawking his way round campuses soliciting votes ahead of the election and then being led astray by the Tories. Hatty joked that we all knew what it was like in Freshers’ Week. “You meet a dodgy man and do things you regret.”

Er no Hatts old thing. You may, but we don’t.

Cleggy had to own up that because of the financial situation (which he, of course knew nothing about before the election?) and because of compromises in the coalition agreement (ie the Liberals folding their tents), they had had to put forward different policies (one diametrically opposed to the previous ones). Despite being quite sure that he was doing the right thing he declined an invitation to meet students’ representatives.

Back in China, having put the Chinese students’ minds at rest about English students subsidizing their degrees, Mr Cameron went on to explain that the way to economic success was by granting freedom and democracy. He seemed to miss the irony of his words: the prime minister of a country which will be lucky to see a growth rate of 0.3% this year, lecturing a country which is likely to see 10% growth.

I sure that Hu Jintao will be grateful for his advice, even if he is somewhat mystified by it... and for the subsidy to his students.