The riots were not political, they were envy and greed. You have what I want, so I will take it. If I cannot have what you have, I will destroy it. You have given me every opportunity to have what you have, but you have also given me every opportunity to not bother. You paid me to go to school and fail. You paid me to stay at home on the sofa all day and fail. You will pay for my housing, my taxes, my heating and my beer. I will repay you with spite and destruction. It is my right. I am equal to you. You cannot touch me because I have chosen to be “deprived” but I can threaten, rob and steal from you because you gave me a label that says I can have anything I damn well like.More from me in due course.
So, the much lauded “equality” that we have built over the past 50 years is nothing more than an excuse to be feckless and lawless and have others rebuild what you have torn down in a fit of jealous rage. And it’s my fault, of course.
Here’s the plan. You get nothing. You want it, go and get it with hard work, application, self discipline, ambition, pride and self respect. You will not get a “certificate” for trying, you will not have your bills paid by me “to get you started”. You are entitled to nothing from me. You will stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for your own life. You will not rely on the endless handouts of hardworking taxpayers, you will not beg Politicians for a bigger slice of the cake you refuse to help bake and you will not cling to the apron strings of the State whilst throwing tantrums because others might have what you do not.
It’s time to tell our children of the State to grow up and get on with it. Kindergarten is now closed. And that includes the fucking bankers.
Showing posts with label anarchy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anarchy. Show all posts
Thursday, 11 August 2011
OH gets it
I know it's lazy to copy other people's stuff, but I am busy and this was just too good to pass by. Old Holborn on why it's time to grow up:
Sunday, 1 May 2011
Anarchy In Action
Last post about Royal Wedding Day, promise.
Yesterday, after watching all the celebratory guff on the TV, we went off to a street party. It was 'organised' (if that is the word) in a village near here. It was a simple thing: no-one actually was in charge, but there was a general agreement to bring some food and drink, a couple of chairs and whatever took your fancy. There is a village green next to the church, but it is a bit too uneven to put tables and chairs on; but the road there is wide and the traffic slight, so the street party was really a bus-stop-and-half-the-road party.
It was great. We sat in the sun, ate other people's food (while they ate ours), had a drink and chatted to people we had never met before. There were babes-in-arms, children, teenagers, young mums and dads, grannies and grandads. No-one was in charge, no-one was taking money (unless you count one villager who generously put an urn and some tea, coffee and milk on a table with a box marked 'donations for charity'), no-one had filled in any forms, no-one had to be inspected, no risks were assessed, and I doubt very much if the County Council even knew about it, never mind give 'permission'.
After a while, the kids got bored and moved a few yards away to the village green, where an impromptu game of rounders was started. A child climbed a tree unsupervised! ...
... and then fell out if it.
Her friend picked her up and they carried on playing.
It was great fun, and very life-affirming. I am normally a fairly solitary creature, but yesterday I was glad to be a social animal and meet lots of different people. It brings out my good side.
No organisers, no rules, no Big Society, no commissars from the local people's soviet coming down with instructions and targets and inclusivity quotas and helpful 'suggestions'.
Anarchy in Action. And it was great.
Yesterday, after watching all the celebratory guff on the TV, we went off to a street party. It was 'organised' (if that is the word) in a village near here. It was a simple thing: no-one actually was in charge, but there was a general agreement to bring some food and drink, a couple of chairs and whatever took your fancy. There is a village green next to the church, but it is a bit too uneven to put tables and chairs on; but the road there is wide and the traffic slight, so the street party was really a bus-stop-and-half-the-road party.
It was great. We sat in the sun, ate other people's food (while they ate ours), had a drink and chatted to people we had never met before. There were babes-in-arms, children, teenagers, young mums and dads, grannies and grandads. No-one was in charge, no-one was taking money (unless you count one villager who generously put an urn and some tea, coffee and milk on a table with a box marked 'donations for charity'), no-one had filled in any forms, no-one had to be inspected, no risks were assessed, and I doubt very much if the County Council even knew about it, never mind give 'permission'.
After a while, the kids got bored and moved a few yards away to the village green, where an impromptu game of rounders was started. A child climbed a tree unsupervised! ...
... and then fell out if it.
Her friend picked her up and they carried on playing.
It was great fun, and very life-affirming. I am normally a fairly solitary creature, but yesterday I was glad to be a social animal and meet lots of different people. It brings out my good side.
No organisers, no rules, no Big Society, no commissars from the local people's soviet coming down with instructions and targets and inclusivity quotas and helpful 'suggestions'.
Anarchy in Action. And it was great.
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Anarchy
Polaris has a post over on her blog, in which she finally comes out as a kind of uncertain anarchist.
In my period of sixth-form philosophy, I was an anarchist. Down with laws, down with Government, let the people be free, let the people work out their own ways of interacting and behaving. I still retain a bit of that, as I have never been much of a conformist, but I gradually moved away from an anarchist position as I felt it was naive. The world is much more complex than it allows for. The killer argument for me is that anarchy means, essentially, the rule of the strongest. Without laws, who protects the weak? Who ensures justice?
I'm a great believer in freedom, and I think we could cope with a lot more than our current masters allow us. But I don't think anarchy is the solution. Some compromises have to be made if we want our society to be better than the law of the jungle.
To be fair, Polaris admits she doesn't have many answers, and the piece is more of a rant than a considered judgement. But I have a strong feeling that, whatever the question was, anarchy is not the answer.
I am reminded of a passage from Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons. Sir Thomas More is arguing with William Roper about the use of the law:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
In my period of sixth-form philosophy, I was an anarchist. Down with laws, down with Government, let the people be free, let the people work out their own ways of interacting and behaving. I still retain a bit of that, as I have never been much of a conformist, but I gradually moved away from an anarchist position as I felt it was naive. The world is much more complex than it allows for. The killer argument for me is that anarchy means, essentially, the rule of the strongest. Without laws, who protects the weak? Who ensures justice?
I'm a great believer in freedom, and I think we could cope with a lot more than our current masters allow us. But I don't think anarchy is the solution. Some compromises have to be made if we want our society to be better than the law of the jungle.
To be fair, Polaris admits she doesn't have many answers, and the piece is more of a rant than a considered judgement. But I have a strong feeling that, whatever the question was, anarchy is not the answer.
I am reminded of a passage from Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons. Sir Thomas More is arguing with William Roper about the use of the law:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Sunday, 27 September 2009
A country of criminals
No, not Government Ministers - I mean the rest of us. I was struck by a comment on this article on The Times website:
This government has created so many new criminal offences and civil penalties that it is delightful to see the Attorney General become a victim of its legislation. As a lawyer practising criminal defence I've been saying for years that it will in due course become the accepted norm in society to have a conviction or two. By 'criminalising' so many people (and in particular children), the rule of law is severely weakened and morality, good character and integrity become less and less important.
In reckon that only about 20% of the pressure to obey the law comes from the consideration of penalties for breaking it. The other 80% comes from the desire not to be seen to be a lawbreaker. In other words, when I think about what is stopping me robbing a post office and retiring on the takings, it is only partly about the prison that might follow (let's face it, without a criminal record, I reckon the chances of being caught would be small). Far more is the idea of having a criminal conviction to my name, and the prospect of that old-fashioned idea that we don't hear much about today - shame. (I am talking about deterrents here, before you leap in - I wouldn't rob a post office because in the first case it is immoral and wrong. I am talking only about the deterrent sanctions that society has to regulate itself.)
I think 'Chris the Brief' has it about right. While laws were few and generally agreed to be 'right' (such as those against murder, rape, robbery or fraud), comparatively few people were convicted of breaking them, and the majority of the population behaved itself, keeping well on the side of the law-abiding. The level of compliance is very high. But when laws multiply exponentially, as they seem to have done in the last ten years, more and more people will commit some kind of offence, even unwittingly, and the value of being in the innocent majority will be lost. Add to that the fact that a lot of the laws passed recently do not necessarily have the support of the majority of the public (such as the 'hate speech' laws or the smoking and hunting bans), and you have a recipe for a gradual decline in the general unspoken support for the rule of law that we once had.
When I was 18, and had been driving a car for a whole six weeks, I was caught speeding by a policeman with a speed detector gun. I was fined and got an 'endorsement', as we used to call them, on my licence. I had to deal with explaining it to my Dad, whose car it was, and the insurers, and so on. It was difficult, and I felt that I had transgressed in quite a serious way. I got another endorsement four years later, this time on a motorbike (biking readers will choke with laughter when I reveal that my only speeding conviction on two wheels was on a Jawa). This had to be declared every time I took out motor insurance, and there was a faint sucking of teeth at the other end whenever I mentioned it.
And after that - nothing. I held a clean licence for the next 26 years, and it was a source of pride. I used to enjoy the tiny little buzz that came whenever I had to tick a box for 'convictions' on things like insurance applications, and could tick the box marked 'none'. I passed my car and bike tests for the IAM and felt that I was a sensible and responsible motorist - one of the law-abiding majority. There was a certain sense of security in this, and also an internal pressure to keep it that way.
Then one night I was caught by a Gatso. I was driving up the A15 in Lincolnshire, returning my daughters to their Mum after a weekend away. We had stopped for a Big Mac in Lincoln, and were a bit behind schedule. There is a stretch of the A15 going past Waddingham airfield which had been reduced to 50 mph because the Red Arrows were based there, and there were a number of accidents through people looking at the sky rather than where they were going. The Red Arrows were long gone, but the speed limit remained (no-one should be surprised at this). And I broke it that night, recorded by a camera that didn't understand that 60 was quite safe on an empty road in good weather, in the way that a proper policeman might have done.
I didn't contest it, as I was sure I was guilty, but I was mightily pissed off by it - not because of the fine, but because I no longer had a clean licence. That was important to me. And then, a revelation. A couple of years later, I was invited by Saga to apply for their car insurance (yes, I had reached that milestone). I confessed my sins, and the girl on the other end of the phone dismissed it. "Don't worry at all." she said. "Most of our customers have at least one conviction. We don't bother about three points - start worrying when you get to nine."
That got me thinking. If everyone has three points, what't the problem? It's no longer seen as unacceptable, or a mark of anti-social behaviour - it's just something that everyone has, like underarm hair. So when those points passed away and I almost immediately got three more (which I contested, as I was certain I was not guilty*), it wasn't so much of a problem. In fact, my attitude now is - as long as it doesn't cost me money in increased premiums, I really don't care. Three points, six points, we've all got them, welcome to the club. Now it takes a drink-driving conviction to get people tut-tutting - but if the blood alcohol levels are reduced even further, how long before people are saying "Oh, drink-driving, yes everyone's got one of those."
If you extrapolate this experience onto the wider world of social order and the rule of law, I think it's pretty disturbing. Keeping a clean sheet is a massive incentive to stay on the right side of the law. So is the disapproval of other people when you transgress. If we pass so many laws that no-one can obey them all, then no-one can keep a clean sheet, and no-one minds when other people get caught out. Add to this the way that a lot of new laws are contentious, partisan or simply vindictive, and you have a recipe for anarchy.
An urgent task for the next Government (asuming it is not Labour) is to have a review of all the laws and regulations that have been enacted since 1997, and a bonfire of all those that are stupid, petty, vindictive or unfair. Hopeful? I'm not.
* How's this for justice? I was fined £60 for an SP30, if I didn't argue and paid up quickly. I genuinely believed that the machine was faulty (the date was right, but the time of the offence was a time when I was several miles away in a meeting, and also I was certain my speedometer read 31 mph at the time I was seen) and I contested it. They still found me guilty, but increased the fine to £90 and added £150 costs on top. So that's £60 for speeding, and £180 for having the bare-faced cheek to challenge the system. Imagine that in a 'developing' country - a system where you are given a punishment without any due process, and told it will be quadrupled if you protest your innocence. We'd be invading them to 'liberate' their people and 'give them the benefits of democracy' before you could say knife.
This government has created so many new criminal offences and civil penalties that it is delightful to see the Attorney General become a victim of its legislation. As a lawyer practising criminal defence I've been saying for years that it will in due course become the accepted norm in society to have a conviction or two. By 'criminalising' so many people (and in particular children), the rule of law is severely weakened and morality, good character and integrity become less and less important.
In reckon that only about 20% of the pressure to obey the law comes from the consideration of penalties for breaking it. The other 80% comes from the desire not to be seen to be a lawbreaker. In other words, when I think about what is stopping me robbing a post office and retiring on the takings, it is only partly about the prison that might follow (let's face it, without a criminal record, I reckon the chances of being caught would be small). Far more is the idea of having a criminal conviction to my name, and the prospect of that old-fashioned idea that we don't hear much about today - shame. (I am talking about deterrents here, before you leap in - I wouldn't rob a post office because in the first case it is immoral and wrong. I am talking only about the deterrent sanctions that society has to regulate itself.)
I think 'Chris the Brief' has it about right. While laws were few and generally agreed to be 'right' (such as those against murder, rape, robbery or fraud), comparatively few people were convicted of breaking them, and the majority of the population behaved itself, keeping well on the side of the law-abiding. The level of compliance is very high. But when laws multiply exponentially, as they seem to have done in the last ten years, more and more people will commit some kind of offence, even unwittingly, and the value of being in the innocent majority will be lost. Add to that the fact that a lot of the laws passed recently do not necessarily have the support of the majority of the public (such as the 'hate speech' laws or the smoking and hunting bans), and you have a recipe for a gradual decline in the general unspoken support for the rule of law that we once had.
When I was 18, and had been driving a car for a whole six weeks, I was caught speeding by a policeman with a speed detector gun. I was fined and got an 'endorsement', as we used to call them, on my licence. I had to deal with explaining it to my Dad, whose car it was, and the insurers, and so on. It was difficult, and I felt that I had transgressed in quite a serious way. I got another endorsement four years later, this time on a motorbike (biking readers will choke with laughter when I reveal that my only speeding conviction on two wheels was on a Jawa). This had to be declared every time I took out motor insurance, and there was a faint sucking of teeth at the other end whenever I mentioned it.
And after that - nothing. I held a clean licence for the next 26 years, and it was a source of pride. I used to enjoy the tiny little buzz that came whenever I had to tick a box for 'convictions' on things like insurance applications, and could tick the box marked 'none'. I passed my car and bike tests for the IAM and felt that I was a sensible and responsible motorist - one of the law-abiding majority. There was a certain sense of security in this, and also an internal pressure to keep it that way.
Then one night I was caught by a Gatso. I was driving up the A15 in Lincolnshire, returning my daughters to their Mum after a weekend away. We had stopped for a Big Mac in Lincoln, and were a bit behind schedule. There is a stretch of the A15 going past Waddingham airfield which had been reduced to 50 mph because the Red Arrows were based there, and there were a number of accidents through people looking at the sky rather than where they were going. The Red Arrows were long gone, but the speed limit remained (no-one should be surprised at this). And I broke it that night, recorded by a camera that didn't understand that 60 was quite safe on an empty road in good weather, in the way that a proper policeman might have done.
I didn't contest it, as I was sure I was guilty, but I was mightily pissed off by it - not because of the fine, but because I no longer had a clean licence. That was important to me. And then, a revelation. A couple of years later, I was invited by Saga to apply for their car insurance (yes, I had reached that milestone). I confessed my sins, and the girl on the other end of the phone dismissed it. "Don't worry at all." she said. "Most of our customers have at least one conviction. We don't bother about three points - start worrying when you get to nine."
That got me thinking. If everyone has three points, what't the problem? It's no longer seen as unacceptable, or a mark of anti-social behaviour - it's just something that everyone has, like underarm hair. So when those points passed away and I almost immediately got three more (which I contested, as I was certain I was not guilty*), it wasn't so much of a problem. In fact, my attitude now is - as long as it doesn't cost me money in increased premiums, I really don't care. Three points, six points, we've all got them, welcome to the club. Now it takes a drink-driving conviction to get people tut-tutting - but if the blood alcohol levels are reduced even further, how long before people are saying "Oh, drink-driving, yes everyone's got one of those."
If you extrapolate this experience onto the wider world of social order and the rule of law, I think it's pretty disturbing. Keeping a clean sheet is a massive incentive to stay on the right side of the law. So is the disapproval of other people when you transgress. If we pass so many laws that no-one can obey them all, then no-one can keep a clean sheet, and no-one minds when other people get caught out. Add to this the way that a lot of new laws are contentious, partisan or simply vindictive, and you have a recipe for anarchy.
An urgent task for the next Government (asuming it is not Labour) is to have a review of all the laws and regulations that have been enacted since 1997, and a bonfire of all those that are stupid, petty, vindictive or unfair. Hopeful? I'm not.
* How's this for justice? I was fined £60 for an SP30, if I didn't argue and paid up quickly. I genuinely believed that the machine was faulty (the date was right, but the time of the offence was a time when I was several miles away in a meeting, and also I was certain my speedometer read 31 mph at the time I was seen) and I contested it. They still found me guilty, but increased the fine to £90 and added £150 costs on top. So that's £60 for speeding, and £180 for having the bare-faced cheek to challenge the system. Imagine that in a 'developing' country - a system where you are given a punishment without any due process, and told it will be quadrupled if you protest your innocence. We'd be invading them to 'liberate' their people and 'give them the benefits of democracy' before you could say knife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
