Friday, 10 December 2010

not in my name

this is from David Aaronovitch's column in The Times yesterday: (behind Paywall of Death) or (£) which apparently is the blogosphere shorthand for that:

[T]he discussosphere resounds to the moaning of those who love the State to run everything, take responsibility for everything - except anything to do with policing, defence or foreign policy. When it comes to these, the default assumption is that government suddenly becomes de facto corrupt and that the people must be protected from it.

Yes, interesting.  Back in 2003 when all those people marched in London and other cities in support of Saddam Hussein's regime it was "Not In My Name" and Horrid Governments Must Leave Other Countries Alone and Not Be The World's Policeman, blah blah blah.  You had to wear a keffiyeh too.  Fashions have changed somewhat now, as they do, so not many keffiyehs in evidence in recent weeks, but plenty of balaclavas, and not just because it is colder at present than it was in March 2003.  So now it is Benefits For Middle-Class Young People And Stuff Everybody Else, and the demonstrators demand that the government do this for them.  Then, it was Governments - No Thanks.  I am not sure that David Aaronovitch is right in his contention that the "student" demonstrators want the State to run everything, except defence, policing and foreign policy.  I don't think most of them have thought that much about it.  They just want what they want.  And they want it now.  And what has changed is that they will break the windows of government buildings if they think that will  help, or just for the hell of it.  I remember the night of the Iraq vote, when there were indeed people outside Parliament, including some constituents of mine, who had come to say "Not In My Name" to me, and that was just fine.  They didn't try and break any windows though.  They could have done it if they had been minded to.  This is a new generation.  And they've got something to say.  With sticks and stones, mostly.

A thought - what on earth were the police thinking of, letting the demonstrators run across the green on Parliament Square?  They had had them quite safely kettled before.  After dark there is no-one much inside the government buildings on Whitehall (who left that window open, silly boy) which means (usually) more damage to property.  And what on EARTH were Charles and Camilla's security detail thinking of, letting their driver take the route originally planned to the theatre?  Someone's head should roll for that.  Motorcycle outriders prevent cars getting too close to the car they are protecting, but if people run between them on foot there is nothing the motorbike johnnies can do.  If the Sky coverage last night did not mislead (and it was taken on someone's mobile phone) Charles actually rolled down his window to talk to the protesters.  Bless.


Anonymous said...

Yup - agree totally with comments about the lamentable sceurity detail for Charles and Camilla. Of course he would pull down the window. I am, let me confess,quite a fan of HRH the Prince of Wales.
The Prince's Trust is a brilliant memorial, even if he had not done anything else and quite a lot of us have had lousy marriages, so let's not go there.

I will go 'David Aaronovitch' though. His words are not worth a stream of piss and never have been.

A big fat overgrown kid, yelling 'Look at me, look at me! I'm as good as my daddy'.

No - he is nothing like Sam Aaronovitch - not half the intelletcual weight and quality and his regular rants in The Times - opining excrement about things( and individuals) of which he knows nothing - are, in their way, another version of someone who stupidly attacks Charles's car or lobs a brick at the Treasury. Unthinking garbage. And just as pointless.
The Lesson for the Day.

Jane Griffiths said...

fan of HRH, me too, big stylee, and agree re the bad marriage, many of us have been there, and royals have less choice in the matter than most. David A. does attract opprobrium. doesn't he, have always thought, if you don't like a columnist's views or find them interesting then don't read them, hein?

Anonymous said...

I don't read Aaronovitch.

It was infrequently brought to my attention that he had made ignorant and ill-informed comments about me at a million miles removed - and every now and again - as today - his views are brought to my attention in another way - as reproduced in JITO for example.

For the record, Dave - you are a fat, charmless no-mark who has attempted for years to be a sub-Paxman with neither the wit, the style nor the intelligence. Or the earning power, Mister Man.

So there!!

Lesson Two of the Day!

dreamingspire said...

Just heard on BBC R4 News headlines at noon: the route that Charlie and Camilla were driven along had "been checked only a few minutes before". Oops!
I thought that the main reason for the Congestion Charge Zone was to enable the introduction of a myriad of CCTV cameras in order to assist with making it safe for important persons to be driven around without using armoured cars equipped with canons.

Jane Griffiths said...

well, this post contains my views not David A.'s - but how about it David?

Anonymous said...

Ooohhh and again - ooohhhh.
Would David Aaronovitch deign to comment on a blog - unless it was the blog of at least a Shadow Cabinet Minister - or one of the new blooms touted as future leaders of their party in about a million years - by the great and good?
He would, of course, need external direction as his braincell is not capable of independent function.

Well - MAYBE!!! I await with bated something.
Though I doubt it - slugs like Aaronovitch leave their slime only on tried and tested routes. Its safer that way.

Anonymous said...

Yeah - obscure passageways!

DON'T GO THERE!!!! (Ed).

Anonymous said...

Aaronovitch writes a lot of sense on those subjects he knows well - politics, socialism, racism, football. He attracts a lots of abuse because he exposes the nonsense of the pseudo left, because of his left heritage and because of his ancestry (although his Worcestershire background gets off lightly).

Charles is like a political fanatic - extreme and without balance. He does some good for the environment, but often ruins it with his opposite behaivor. His interest in old buildings goes too far in opposing even decent developments. There was no excuse for his continual adultery and promiscuity.

Anonymous said...

Left heritage and ancestry - rubbish! He attracts a lot of abuse because he launches personal, spiteful attacks on the basis of ignorance, prejudice and sheep following - not from any 'intelletcual' stance whatsoever. He also writes with a pumice stone rather than a pen.

Most people across the political spectrum admire Sam Aaronovitch. But having a right on Daddy doesn't make the children equally distinguished. Sam was a good friend of Doris Lessing. Dave is more likely to confuse her with Doris Day. Geddit?

As for HRH - oh we are wearing our morlaity boots today, aren't we? Is it Christine O'Donnell writing in, under the cloak of anonymity?
If we are about to start stoning people for adultery, we had better decamp to Iran right now.
Aaronovitch and all, sister!

Anonymous said...

Oh dear - the mention of Christine O'Donnell has got me into a tizz. I meant, of course, 'morality'.

Too much excitmeent for a Monday in dear old Blighty, what?