To Protect and to Serve

Now, as regular readers will know, I'm not the world's biggest fan of the occupy movement. I think there is much wrong in this world and much to protest about; trying to stigmatise the banking industry through spurious and clearly false claims to be representing the 99% strikes me as a pretty crass basis for a global protest movement, though. That said, those carrying out these protests should be allowed to do so. They certainly shouldn't be pepper sprayed in the face by a bovine, corpulent cop who either is too stupid to know or too ignorant to care that he is clearly going to be filmed by someone.

There's international outcry over this; and legtimately so in my not at all humble opinon. But there are a couple of points to make here. Firstly, let's tone down the hyperbole - this isn't, as I saw someone on Facebook stating, the moment when the revolution starts. Kent State - a far more terrifying example of police brutality - went past without provoking a revolution, as have similar actions by police on both sides of the Atlantic, so the actions of this pot-bellied pig are unlikely to provoke anything more than a very vocal but equally very fleeting furore. The second point is that the police across the world need to remember that their actions need to be proportional; thus, sitting back and letting rioting mobs tear up shitty parts of London is not an appropriate police response; nor is pepper spraying seated protestors in the face. And this sort of brutal, disportionate response does nothing other than increase the sympathies for the protestors among people like myself who are circumspect at best about these protestors.

The Church ♥ Occupy

When I heard yesterday afternoon about the Church's u-turn on the Occupy protests I couldn't help but think that it is pretty much perfect. It is effectively one bunch of increasingly irrelevant fantasists backing another bunch of increasingly irrelevant fantasists. And I can't help but think that real life is happening while these cretins engage in their useless and incoherent posturing.

I do sometimes wonder why the ongoing (and increasingly tedious) occupy protests garner such anger from those not involved. It isn't so much the inconvenience (after all, unless you live or work next to one of the sites, it can't really be impacting too much on the way you live) or the fact that these demos are fundamentally incoherent - scratch the surface of any supposedly reputable political party and you will find disparate people with very different motivations, views and objectives. No, I think there are other more fundamental reasons why people object so much to these protests.

The first is the naivete of them. As soon as we hear someone like Laurie Penny banging on about the soundtrack for a revolution, it becomes very difficult to take this sort of thing seriously. This isn't a revolution. Do you know how I can tell? Because no-one is seriously trying to take power or control away from the government here. Camping in the City of London could just be classed as civil disobedience if you really push it; revolutionary, it ain't.

Of course, it is a bit harsh to kick the young for being naive; it is pretty common when you're young to think that you're going to change the world. Then you grow up.

However, there is a second reason why I think these protests may be deriving such scorn from many people. It is the arrogance of those involved to claim that they speak on behalf of the 99%. Put simply, you don't. You don't speak on behalf of me, and I am neither a banker nor a politician - ergo, I am one of the supposed 99% you claim to represent. And I would guess that you don't speak for at least 85% of those including in your spurious figure of 99%. From what I can gather, the vast majority of people don't want radical change; they want to be allowed to get on with their lives - preferably with the bills (tax 'n' all) being considerably lower. They don't want to take to the streets to occupy financial districts, and even if they did then they couldn't as they have jobs to go to and families to provide for. They just want life to a be a bit easier. And to have urban campers claiming their voice to back up a shambolic act of civil disobedience is bound to stick in their throats a bit.

Now I fully realise that I can't claim to speak on the behalf of those 99% any more than Stinky and Son: Urban Protesters can. That may be true; the important difference is, though, that I'm not wallowing in media attention through making the claim about representing that 99%. I don't speak for anyone other than me; but I'm not camping in a financial district somewhere claiming otherwise.

Don't get me wrong; people have the right to protest and any claim that everything is not OK here in Britain today has some basic relevance to reality. But to believe that this is the start of a revolution is naive, and to claim to represent the vast majority of people in this country and elsewhere is simultaneously arrogant and utterly unconvincing

Occupy! Why?

I'd just like to point out that I'm doing my own little bit for the Occupy protests that are sweeping the world. I'm occupying my kitchen table, writing on my laptop, with a film on in the background. Yeah, it's not a lot, but I'm pretty sure that by the end of the day I will have acheived just as much as those protesting today.

It's not that I'm utterly hostile to the case being made by some of these protestors. I do think that there is something very wrong with some of the relationships between governments and certain financial institutions/companies. I certainly think it is a terrible idea for any government to spend billions bailing out failed banks. But I have a simple solution to this - a minimal government that is neither empowered or able to afford such actions. Whereas those in these protests don't seem to have any other plan other than tax the banks more to fund the state.

Which, of course, is nonsense because, as should be clear to everyone other than the terminally retarded, the state is a big part of the problem here. It shouldn't be given more money, just as in the same way a crack addict shouldn't be given more crack. Any solution to the problems that have befallen us should not include funding a big part of those problems.

Plus, what precisely are these protests going to achieve? In fact, there is something faintly pathetic about those occupying financial districts, not least because it is a Saturday and these districts will be largely unoccupied by those that work there. It seems to me to be a splendid symbol of absolute impotence that these people are stood on the streets, making the sort of demands that those targetted will simply shrug off if they ever get around to noticing them in the first place. It is a bit like that angry toddler demanding candy from the disinterested parent. Only one side is going to win, and its the side with the power.

Of course, people should be allowed to protest if they so wish, and I hope that these people enjoy their time trying to make a difference. But take any claims that this is some sort of worldwide revolution with a pinch of salt. Come Monday, these people will be back at the work so they can pay the(ever-increasing) bills, or signing on so someone else can pay them. If change is going to come, then it will be more radical than the sort of ersatz change demanded by many of these protestors. Because not only we will have to deal with the bloated, corporatist organisations who suckle at the teat of big government, but also tackle the big government that so willing offers itself to its preferred clients. So when Westminster is being occupied at the same time as the City, people might finally be getting it...

Now, I'm no expert on the situation in Egypt, as I've already said. I can see how the demise of Mubarak is a good thing, and I can see how those involved in the protests want to feel some pride in the fact that their nemesis has fallen. But, having watched the events relatively closely over the past 48 hours, I'd have to strike a note of caution here. I'm not so sure that Mubarak went because of the power of the people, but rather because the military decided he was a lost cause. And that's something for the people to bear in mind as they move forward - the military is clearly crucial to the change happening in that country, but I'd be surprised if they don't play a big part in Egypt's future...

Those Protestin' Blues

The usual caveat that students, like everyone in our increasingly limited democracy, applies to this post. That said...

...the latest protest against spending cuts in education/tuition fee rises left me wondering just what the hell those involved wished to achieve. If it managed to achieve anything, it was simply alienating even more people. You could, as the students protested again, hear the whole of Middle England tutting in unison as their preconceptions about students were reinforced. Hell, even I muttered something under my breath about that combined "workshy" and "students", and I'm one myself at the moment. Way to win support, ladies and gents. Next up, you should have someone punching an old woman to make your "point". That should work even better. Assuming, of course, that your objective is to alienate as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

I dare say that the point of these protests was to draw attention to their cause. Which, in a sense, meant that these protests worked. In the same way that the tramp on the bus on the way home who has pissed himself also gets attention. Another protest so soon after the last one and before any real negotiation with the government takes place is the clearly the best way to make all those protesting look like gargantuan tools. And in the long term, it will cease to even get them attention. Tedious people doing tedious things over and over again is never the best way to capture the national imagination.

Of course, I suspect that there is a sense in which this was not a protest to actually make a point, but rather because protesting has become (probably briefly) very fashionable again. It's what all the cool kids are doing, see? At least until they get bored and find some other way of posturing.

Sure, I sound cynical - but guess what? That cynicism is borne from experience. These protests will achieve nothing - and the more there are of them, the more self-indulgent the students will look and the more powerful the government will become in this matter. If you want to stop these rises in tuition fees, then you need to work out a much better way of doing so. The efficacy of protesting can always be questioned; continued protesting is just plain dumb.

Student Morons

Via the ever melodramatic Penny Red*, an interesting comment from one of those idiotic students who rioted last week:

"Look, we all saw what happened at the big anti-war protest back in 2003," says Tom, a postgraduate student from London. "Bugger all, that's what happened. Everyone turned up, listened to some speeches and then went home. It's sad that it's come to this, but..." he gestures behind him to the bonfires burning in front of the shattered windows of Tory HQ. "What else can we do?"

What else can you do? Well, perhaps you could try negotiating in the year or so before these fee and cuts rises come into effect before you resort to violence.

See, there is this thing you might have heard of called diplomacy. It allows for people to talk, to negotiate with each other and come up with a peaceful solution. It is what countries do when they don’t agree on things – a dispute between rival nations tends to lead to further talk, rather than sending in the bombers.

What else could you do, Tom? You could have talked – tried to persuade the government to change their plans, or persuaded the people to back you in your dispute with the government. Instead, you and your idiotic ilk have managed to alienate pretty much all moderate people in this country at the same time as making the government – and the Tory party – into the victim in this little drama. The riot, the broken windows, the possible attempted murder charge – what you and your friends did, Tom Not Nice And Dim, is pretty much the worse thing you could have done. Any sympathy most people may have had has gone – and it is your fault.

*As an aside, check this article out for some more jaw-dropping hyperbole from Ms Penny - where the student rioters are compared to the suffragettes.

The Student Protest(s)

So... the student protests. How did they work out for you, my student brethren? Well? Do you think you achieved something positive? Because if you do, then you're an idiot.

Before we start out on just why the protest/demonstration/second-rate riot was a shit idea, let me first declare categorically that it is the right of everyone in this country to protest on any issue they so wish. It is one of the few remaining privileges our increasingly misanthropic and patronisingly paternalistic leaders allow us. We should protest; it gives volume to our often muted and forgotten voices.

However, before anyone does protest they need to work out (a) what they are protesting about and (b) what they hope to achieve from the protests. And on both of these counts, the student protest(s) on Wednesday failed.

First up, let's look at what the protest was about (and in the process, what it wanted to achieve). It wanted to make a near bankrupt government (consisting mainly of Tories, with some Liberal Democrats thrown in for good measure) reverse its decision on tuition fees. Fair enough - self-interest has always been a big part of politics, and it always will be. The problem, though, lies in some of the messages being broadcast by the protestors. To claim that Nick Clegg was nicking the money of students, or carrying signs and shouting chants along the lines of "Tory scum" is hardly likely to get the incumbent government onside. But the fundamental question (and challenge) remains - what are you protesting about? The fact that tuition fees will go up in the future? Or that the incumbent government happens to be Tory and is propped up by an increasingly compromised Liberal Democrat party?

But there is another problem inherent in the protest(s) - the idea that students are in some way owed this money. If the money is coming from the government, then it isn't their money. It isn't even the government's. It is taken by the government from the taxpayer using inherently coercive measures. If you want the money supplied by the government, then you need to convince the person who ultimately parts with the case - the British taxpayer - that you deserve the money. And a lacklustre protest that occasionally flared into vandalism and violence is not the best way to do that.

The reality is that universities will get less money moving forward, and that fees will rise. Therefore, what students needs to do is convince the government (and, I'd humbly suggest, the taxpayer) that their courses, and their institutions, contribute something to society that warrants the cost incurred by that society - if, that is, they want to keep the fees down and the funds up. So guess what? You have to sell your course and your university. And yes, that will be easier if you are talking about PPE at Oxford than if you are talking about Media Studies as De Montfort. But it can still be done, even if you are studying the latter.

The point is this, though - you have a democratic right to protest. But if you want to get the government and the people of this country on your side then you need to do something a little more convincing that heading out on a midweek protest that descends into political point-scoring, anti-Tory chanting and pathetic vandalism. This protest will have set you back, Mr and Ms Student. It will have set you back one hell of a lot. You have come across as feckless, unthinking morons. And I say this both as a postgraduate student, and as someone who hopes before to long to teach at university level.

Student Radicalism

Or rather, the lack thereof.

Once upon a time, and for a fleeting moment, students were genuinely radical and – in the case of France – actually looked, for one fleeting moment, like they could have a real impact on political history. Indeed, some Marxists – such as Herbert Marcuse – began to see students as the impetus for revolution rather than the proletariat. But that faded… until now, in this day and age, we have the spectre of student protests again. Not over war or discrimination in society, however, but rather over the amount that they have to pay in order to get their university education.

I’d imagine that some of the potential protestors – such as the socialists shouting “Stop the Tory Axemen!” on campus last week – see themselves as radicals, taking direct action and “fightin’ the power”!

In a sense, of course, they are right. They are fighting the government, and the right to protest is something I absolutely support. But I do think that those involved in the protests should be under no illusion what they are doing. They are not being radical, they are being fundamentally conservative. By definition, conservatives resist change – and what are these protests about? Conserving the status quo. Resisting change. Nothing radical about that.

And what motivates these conservative protests? Self-interest. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with self-interest – it motivates vast swathes of politics, and always has done. But this is a world away of protesting to end the Vietnam War, or for civil rights.

Following on from this, you can see just how student radicalism is at least wasting away, if not a terminal case. Look at what has happened over the past few years – the police killing people, the attempts to bring in extended periods of detention, the bailing out of failed banks with public money (that could have been spent, among other things, further education) and so on – all met with nary a mutter from the majority of students in this country. Yet come a potential increase in the costs of education or a reduction in the amount of money some institutions have to spend, and the sleeping student behemoth awakens.

So by all means, have your protests, make your voices heard – that is your right as participants in a democracy. But please don’t pretend that you’re being anything other than self-interested conservatives.

The Vodafone Protest

So, you’re concerned about government spending cuts, and you believe that Vodafone has not given the tax man – or HMRC – what it should. So you decide to protest this apparent oversight at the source. The first flaw in your plan is that, well, HRMC actually aren’t asking for the money:

"We cannot comment on the detail of the settlement but we can confirm that it was reached by HMRC following a rigorous examination of the facts and an intensive process of negotiation that tested the arguments of both parties.

"As a result it was agreed that Vodafone’s liability was £1.25bn and at no point was a liability greater than that established.

"There is no question of Vodafone having an outstanding tax liability of £6bn. That number is an urban myth."

So you’re protesting over an urban myth. Nice. Good going there. Unfortunately it makes this protest anything other than legitimate – in fact, it turns it into a form of chugging: demanding donations from Vodafone for your favourite charity (in this case, the government).

And if we take the idea that paying as much tax as possible is good, at least in the eyes of these protestors, then surely you would want Vodafone to make as much money as possible so they can pay as much tax as possible in the future. Therefore, what is one of the last things you would want to do? Perhaps closing down their flagship store through protesting.

Far be it from me to say that this protest hasn't been thought through, but to protest about a non-existent tax bill in such a way that you may end up diminishing future tax revenues strikes me as the very definition of dumb.

Blair, Protest, and the BNP

Tony Blair doing his own little version of Godwin's Law*:

But Mr Blair, prime minister from 1997 to 2007, said: "I'm concerned that I don't want to put people through a lot of hassle at this Wednesday's signing."

He added that he had heard the British National Party "had wanted to get involved in the action".

Excellent stuff. A near textbook attempt to taint those who might protest against Blair for whatever the reason (being a profiligate war-mongering son of a bitch who allowed someone he thought was incompetent to succeed him would be my personal reasons for protesting) through an fake association with the knuckle-dragging Neo-Nazi louts of the BNP. This is just one small step above screaming "Nazis!" at his opponents and then running away.

Still, Blair is at least being consistent - even in retirement he is still spinning away and continuing to argue against the legitimate protests of those who might not agree with him. It's nice to have these occasional little reminders of why Blair was such a corrosive and damaging influence on British politics.

UPDATE:

And now he's cancelled it. Well, I guess the protestors have won this little battle. And Blair has reminded us of something else - he's a fucking coward.

*Before anyone says anything, yes, I know Godwin's Law actually relates to da interwebs - this is why I'm calling it a version of Godwin's Law.

Iain Dale: Against Protest, Against Democracy

It's a couple of days old now, but Iain Dale has another post up about those protestors who were in Parliament Square. And it shows him at his smuggest, illiberal and most insufferable worst:

Oh dear, I seem to have upset some people on Twitter this morning. Hey ho. I can't see why. What part of what I wrote can be disputed?

Let's see what Dale wrote on Twatter Twitter then:

Going past Parliament Sq on the 87 bus. Rejoice! The squatters have been evicted. Dirty, filthy layabouts.

Hmmm. I have real problems with his statement on Twittier, but let's see how he defends it:

They have indeed been evicted.

That doesn't make the eviction right, though. It may have been rubber-stamped by a judge (although only on appeal) but that doesn't automatically make the judge correct of the law correct. It is possible for the justice system to be unjust in its decisions.

And the fact that the whole site stinks of urine and faeces indicates the people who squatted their had issues regarding personal hygiene.

Well, my understanding of Parliament Square suggests that there are no toilets there. And my understanding of camping is that the longer you do it for, the more compromised your personal hygiene will become. It isn't pleasant - especially for those who have to clean up - but it seems to be a fact of life that those who camp in areas with no toilet or washing facilities will end up with some personal hygiene problems. Which, as an aside, is one of the reasons why I don't go camping.

And I hardly think the word layabout is going over the top to describe them. What else should I have called them? Fine, upstanding members of society? I think not.

Yep, but this is pure opinion, and the concept of what constitutes a layabout is both relative and very much in the eye of the beholder. Some would argue that these people are upstanding members of society since they are directly using their democratic right to protest. They might even argue that these people are contribute much more to our democracy that preening egotistical bloggers like Dale.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. This is not, as someone said "a sad day for democracy". It is the day when the silent majority fought back and said "enough".

Really? You're really going to do that? You're going to use one of Nixon's terms (the President when the Kent State Massacre took place) to justify your tweet? Now I've got to admit, that's bold.

But this isn't the day when the Silent Majority fought back. It is the day when the Mayor of London managed to stop protest from happening in front of the Houses of Parliament (which does make it a sad day for democracy, by the way) - to the applause of illiberal idiots like Dale. This is all about an elite dictating the terms of protest, and making sure that it does not happen in their line of view. It is not a victory by some sort of grassroots movement.

And while we're on the subject, I seem to remember reading once that many of the letters sent to Nixon from "the Silent Majority" were actually fabricated by Nixon's aides for political purposes. I suspect that Dale's "Silent Majority" is rather like Nixon's - all in his head.

Well done to Boris for carrying through on his promise.

Or to put it another way, well done to Boris for doing something that Dale agrees with.

I'm not going to rehearse the arguments about why backing a clampdown on protest in the very heart of democracy in this country is bad, but Dale's objections still mainly seem to be about the aesthetics of the protests and the fact that he thinks the people protesting smell. It just goes to show how paper-thin Dale's liberalism is, and how in reality he is socially conservative through and through.

Protest in Parliament Square - Why It Matters

Depressingly, police moved in this morning to deal with the Democracy Village on Parliament Square. Many people will welcome this, hiding behind the "oh, well, it was an illegal protest" line. Although judging by the comments at Dale's place - and Iain's clear delight at anything that makes life difficult for the protestors - this isn't so much about the protest, more that the dirty hippies in Parliament Square were ruining the view for everyone. Which is both pathetic and very short-sighted.

At the heart of this issue is the nature of protest in this country. If the protest on Parliament Square was illegal, then the law is an ass. And the law needs to be changed.

Yeah, the Square is very pretty and a tourist attraction. And yeah, a camp on the nice green bit in the middle of the Square is far from attractive. But the whole point of Parliament is that it is meant to be the heart of a thriving democracy - not a desiccated museum in a quiet part of town. And part of democracy means that people have a right to protest - so why not in front of the building where our MPs make our laws?

And there's more to it than just that. Our MPs, and in particular the senior ones, exist in a security bubble - one that does everything within its power to keep them from the ordinary people that they are supposed to represent. You want to know what was so great about the protest on Parliament Square? It was a constant reminder to those in power that there are people who feel passionately enough about what is happening in and to our country to stand up and shout about it. To move onto Parliament Square and protest about it. So of course MPs don't want protests within a mile of Parliament. Out of sight, out of mind.

This is the point - if you believe that people have a right to protest, then you have to support that right even if the protest isn't that photogenic and isn't in a location that is ideal for you. You should also want to change the law if it restricts the right to protest at the very heart of democracy in this country. So this is the litmus test - if you actually believe in the right to protest, and therefore in freedom, you should want to see this protest in Parliament Square go on until the people running it decide to stop it. If you don't agree, then that's fine - but you're no friend of freedom, and you may as well sod off and join the social conservatives like Dale, or the Nu Labourites with their intrinsic distrust of the people.

The Authoritarian Iain Dale

Iain Dale has gone all authoritarian on us, demanding that something is done about those Parliament Square protestors in an open letter to BoJo. Let's see what he has to say:

I'm sure that like me, you cherish our right to protest. But like me you also believe people should obey the law. And also like me, you will no doubt believe that those who have the power to enforce the law should do so.

Tomorrow, the State Opening of Parliament takes place. It will be a magnet for the many tourists who visit the Capital. They will line the route to watch the Queen as she proceeds from Buckingham Palace through Parliament Square.

And what faces her when she gets to Parliament Square? A mini hippy camp. Over the last few years a few tents have been allowed to go up on the edge of Parliament Square. But in recent weeks the whole of the grass of Parliament Square has been taken over by people who don't seem to be there to protest about anything in particular. They even drape the statue of Winston Churchill with their banners.

Right, where to begin... where to begin? I dislike so much about these three paragraphs that I genuinely don't know where to start with this. So let's just start with a random thing; let's start with the pointless royalism. I don't give a fuck what the Queen has to see in her journey from one palace to another. And as someone who used to live in Westminster, allow me to say that I found the tourists far more of a hassle than I ever did the protestors.

And the term "mini hippy camp" sounds like Nixon in his prime. If people are camping outside the Houses of Parliament, then it is always going to look like a campsite. I mean, what does Dale want? People to build houses there? Of course not! He just wants the filthy protestors sent away, so Queenie doesn't have to see the riff-raff on her way to open up the all-new Con-Dem parliament.

The whole Square is an embarrassment to our city and our nation.

Don't be bloody silly. You might find it embarrassing, but you don't have the right to speak on behalf of the city and/or the nation. Personally, I find it a point of pride for this nation that people still want to protest, but that is only my opinion. Like Dale, I don't have the right to speak for everyone in the country. I just don't pretend that I do.

What I don't understand is why you and the Metropolitan Police have done nothing to enforce the law. If you or I launched a one man protest in Parliament Sqaure or Whitehall we'd be swiftly moved on under anti terrorism laws. Why is the law different for these people who now inhabit the Square? I don't happen to agree with the anti terrorism laws, but there are other byelaws which are being blatantly transgressed too. You know that and so do I.

But all this is predicated on the assumption that those laws are just and right. That simply isn't the case. The anti-terrorism laws are not just, they are not right. The laws restricting protest around the Houses of Parliament are an egregious restriction of our right to protest, and a crude attempt on the part of the Nu Labour to remove those dirty hippy protestors from their eyesight when they arrive and leave work. And guess what? Now Nu Labour has been replaced, one of the top bloggers of the dominant party in the Commons now wants to restrict protest around Parliament. Is that the warm, pungent aroma of naked hypocrisy I smell in the air? Maybe not, maybe Dale's always wanted to restrict protest in Parliament Square. But I can't help but feel that the message is that it's alright to protest under Labour, but when Dale's party is in power, then you need to move along.

This is a great example of where we need to change the law. Rather than accept the law unquestioningly for the sake of the Queen and some tourists.

I'm all for a quiet life and am well aware that the people now residing (and that's the right word) in Parliament Square would not go quietly. But a line has to be drawn, and you should draw it now.

I'm not surprised that Dale doesn't care about the forced removal of protestors from Parliament Square provoking protests - after all, his entire post is about restricting protest at the supposed heart of British democracy.

Like most people I am am (sic) embarassed whenever I pass the site, and yet I should feel proud of a Square that is home to the Houses of Parliament, the Supreme Court, Westminster Abbey together with many historical statues.

Once again, Dale feels he can talk on behalf of "most people". Where's the evidence that most people feel that way when they walk past the site? And even if they do, does that makes the protest wrong?

The site outside of Parliament is not just about pretty buildings and pretty statues. It has also come to represent protest, and protest is a vital, essential part of British democracy. It might be unsightly, unseemly, but fuck it. To have a political voice someone doesn't have to be wearing a suit and working in Parliament. Those damned "hippies" in the square are participating in democracy, even if Dale sees them as an eyesore.

Please do something about it. The time for action is long overdue

The time for action is long overdue. We should all be in Parliament Square, demanding our right to protest in front of the so-called "Mother of all Parliaments". We should be protesting for this new government to overturn all the draconian policies of the last administration, and reinstating our right to make our voices heard in arguably the most political space in the whole country. Dale's pathetic post is an example of someone hiding behind the law not because the law is right, or good, but because the law happens to back up his deeply conservative, even reactionary, concerns for the aesthetics of the Queen's view as she comes to Parliament.

In the very first line, Dale states that he cherishes the right to protest. Unfortunately, his letter suggests that he actually cherishes the right of people to protest within the law - which means they have to protest out of his eyeline when he strolls through Parliament Square. I write a lot on this blog about how the Tories at heart are deeply socially conservative, and this is a great example of that. The right to protest is less important to Dale than the right to have your views of those nice old buildings around Parliament unimpeded by those dirty hippies.

Violent Protest

So. The protests ended (assuming that the nihilists aren't dumb enough to come back for another go today) with the worst case scenario. Someone died.

Lord alone knows what the cause of death was, but given the ugly scenes of violence yesterday, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what that will turn out to be. But what really gets to me, what I really struggle with, is this:

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said officers arrived on the scene to help and had to move the casualty away for urgent treatment after bottles were thrown at them by protesters.

And the same from a lefty rag, The Guardian:

"The officers took the decision to move him as during this time a number of missiles – believed to be bottles – were being thrown at them", said a police statement. The ambulance service took the man to hospital where he died.

The police come to the aid of a dying man, and are pelted with bottles. The protestors may well have assaulted police officers as they tried to save the life of one of their own.

Maybe those who pelted the police helping this man weren't typical of those protesting as a whole; maybe there were (as a lot of reports are suggesting) small groups within an otherwise peaceful protest that subverted it all and turned the whole thing towards violence. But fuck it, I don't care. What I am reading this morning is that the police tried to help a dying man, and were pelted with bottles for their trouble. Fucking outrageous. It just goes to show how hate filled, nihilistic and unthinking (some of) these protestors are.

There is so much wrong with our society today, so much to scream, shout and complain about and so much to fight against. But seriously, if anyone fucking thinks that fighting police officers, trashing RBS branches and pelting those who are helping a dying man with bottles is they way to change our country then they are truly moronic.

The Communists Are Coming!

Good morning, and welcome to G20 day and the anarchy that surrounds it. I'm The Nameless Libertarian, and I'll be live-blogging all the action as it happens, across Britain's Capital, today. All out riot or damp squib, I'll be here, bringing you the details minute by minute.

No, of course I won't really be live-blogging the bunch of guff that happens today. Partly because I suspect nothing will happen, but mainly because I have a job* and therefore don't have the time to waste on such things.

Still, the potential protests have had one great advantage. I'm able to come to work in dress down today. Fucking ace. God bless the hippies. Trixy wouldn't approve, and I'm not sure - given the massive police presence around and about today** - it is actually needed, but fuck it. I'll warmly embrace any opportunity for me not to have to wear a fucking suit.

However, one thing is worth pointing out today. That is what the protestors aren't. They aren't Communists - Marxism has little time for protest, seeing it as ultimately pointless and doing nothing to progress or hinder dialectical materialism and the inevitable revolution. They aren't anti-captialist - their fucking Che t-shirts are mass produced by capitalists. They aren't pacifists - that tag will die as soon as the first brick and/or punch is thrown.

If they are anything, then they are nihilists. They don't believe in anything. They don't have anything to fight for, they don't really believe in anything. They are just against *stuff*.

Many people accuse Libertarians of being negative, and having nothing to offer. They are, of course, morons. Libertarianism is the most liberating of all political ideologies, and offers a true, radical change for the world. These protestors are the ones who are just negative and have nothing to offer. They are against capitalism, they are against war, they are against climate change. And they have nothing to offer, except their impotent, ill-thought through rage.

Fuck 'em***.

*For the moment (crosses fingers)
**25 police vans parked on one street this morning on my route to work. 25. And not one of them was parked properly.
***Not literally, they won't have washed in ages.

G20: Pointless Protests

I ignored the protests about the G20. My life is too short to get worked up about them one way or another. I’m fairly sure that they will achieve precisely nothing, but that has never stopped a good protest. And, if you really want to find out how they went, it is always best to hear about these things from those actually on the streets during the protest. So, ladies and gents, let’s turn to Penny Red and her account of the protests:

My throat is raw. I'm screaming at the top of my lungs:

One, two, three, four -
Corporate bailouts no more!
Five, six, seven, eight -
Spend it on the welfare state!

Chants in protests aren’t known for being that wise; this one is one of the better ones*. However, it does beg the question of why the money has to be spent at all? Why do we need to spend billions on either corporate bailouts or the welfare state? They’ve both received billions of pounds, to very little effect. Throwing more money at them will achieve nothing, other than higher tax bills.

There's city dust in my eyes, and my legs feel like blocks of wood as we take the final mile down Picadilly towards Hyde Park. A painted banner flaps against my body, proclaiming us Anti-Capitalist Feminists. And I'm still chanting. I'm an animal, a tiny, burning ball of rage and justice, I've got all my sisters with me, it's been four hours since my last latte and I'm running on adrenaline and outrage. Me and thirty-five thousand others.

Anti-Capitalist Feminists? That must be quite a niche group. The sort of group that has about three members on your standard university campus. And each of those three members is the sort of ranting bore you would cross the street to avoid.

But for me the best line is the one about “my last latte”. Fucking hell, there is nothing more communist or feminist then quaffing lattes before going on a protest march. Lenin used to do that, you know. Just before he seized power in Russia, he was in Starbucks having a latte. Those miners in the miner’s strike of the mid-80’s, they were quaffing lattes too. It really is the drink of the working class revolutionaries. Assuming, of course, that you mean Guardian reading Nathan Barley types when you say working class revolutionaries.

And yet the Put People First march is still, somehow, suffused with an air of pessimism. The Troops Out Of Baghdad placards look especially mournful: because yes, we have been here before. The last time I marched down Picadilly in the cold March breeze with thousands upon thousands of angry fellow citizens, we wanted to stop the troops going in to Baghdad, and we were heard, and we were ignored. The samba players are overwhelmed by the thump and screech of a marching band from the end of the world, and the set-piece of the procession is a cheery twenty-foot tall rendering of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Thunderclouds are gathering.

It did thunder on Saturday in London! Wow, that’s not just hyperbole, it is also an accurate representation of the weather on Saturday! Accuracy from the left. Whatever next?

Valid point about the Baghdad thing, though. They didn’t listen back then. And aren’t listening right now. So maybe it is time to shut the fuck up about the Iraq War thing, eh? The countless deaths of hundreds of thousands, the failure to find WMDs, the realisation that this war was completely illegal have all failed to change the minds of those leading the Coalition of the Willing. So a few thousand crusty lefties and would-be hippies isn’t going to be a blind bit of fucking difference, now, is it?

A woman I'm marching with tells me that she doesn't think the G20 will change anything even if it's in their power to do so. Ahead of me, in front of the RMT banners, an old man is explaining to the just-walking little boy holding his hand about the protests in 1981. We've seen all this before. So why are we still here?

Good question. Why are you there? Why waste your time when you don’t think people are going to listen and when previous protests have been ignored?

We're here because we're fed up of being lied to. We're here because we've been royally screwed over, and now we're angry. We're here because even if we don't expect to be listened to, that doesn't mean we'll stop trying to be heard. Not ever.

Being heard is fine; but you can increase your chances of being heard by presenting your message in a palatable way. Truth is, in order to achieve real change in this country you need to get the middle classes on board. And you ain’t ever going to do that with this sort of protest. But more on that later. Take a look at the final paragraph:

On my way home through Green Park, tired beyond words, I pick a bunch of wilting daffodils that glow faintly in my grimy hands in the noonlight. Around the corner, the band are still playing, the people are still screaming, the dull rumble of thirty-five-thousand feet is still ringing down the thoroughfare. Dreamily, I give out the daffs to the rows of police officers standing in front of the Ritz. One of them even takes a lower, and pops it in his lapel.

And we danced all night on hippy moonbeams to the tunes of the Grateful Dead. Or perhaps Toploader instead. Yeah, that would work. Altogether now… one-two-three-four “It’s such a fine and natural sight/Everybody dancing in the noonlight…”

It is easy to sneer. And fun, too. Particularly when the group you are sneering at leave you with so many open fucking goals. See, I knew that this protest would achieve nothing. After all, those protesting couldn’t even agree on what they were protesting about. Capitalism? Iraq War? Feminism? The Welfare State? Any of the above? None of the above? What was the point? What the ruddy fuck did people forsake their lattes for? Unless you can agree on what you want to protest about, you aren’t going to really achieve anything. Protesting about vague, generic left-wing gripes indicates you are against everything that it is fashionable to be against. Which is my first point.

The second point is that protests just aren’t the right medium for getting things done. At best, they act as an inconvenience for the authorities and something for the middle class media to tut at. At worst, they are a forum for bellicose idiots. The only real protests that can potentially have an impact are those that turn violent. But then they tend to be called riots. And they tend to result in the participants getting their heads smashed in by the police, and being arrested for their troubles.

Protests are only worth going on if you have a romanticised vision of Paris in 1968. The truth is that was the exception, not the rule, and with this vague, leftie protests you alienate far more people that you win over. The government resents you for getting in their faces, the middle classes disapprove of you because they don’t get this protesting lark, and the media paints you as dangerous subversives with dangerous views that are going to undermine everything that the middle classes hold dear. Plus your placards generally look shit and your chants are normally wank.

I believe people have the right to protest, I really do. But owing to my position as a pragmatic stakeholder in the real world, I also know that an all-encompassing anti-war, anti-capitalist protest by a rag-bag mix of lefties and hippies is going to achieve about as much as a fart in a hurricane.

*Back in my wayward and misspent youth I attended a march against tuition fees. Yes, I was young and naïve. Even more flawed back then than I am now. And I soon realised that I did not want to be there. Because the chant the protesters came up with – and shouted across Durham – went like this: “One Two Three Cheese! We don’t want no top up fees.” Grammatically nonsensical and referencing cheese for no other reason than to create a crap rhyme. No wonder the protest was ignored by all the targets of the protest.

Expanding Heathrow

The protest about Heathrow airport rumbles on with typical tedium. This time, those scampish protestors have come up with a very different idea to highlight their concerns. Yes, in this recession* and at a time of crashing property prices, they've only gone and bought a ruddy piece of land:

Greenpeace director John Sauven said: "We've thrown a massive spanner in the engine driving Heathrow expansion."

Yep. In fairness, this may well piss of those expansion types no end. But no doubt they will find a way. Even given the reach of this, *ahem*, eclectic group of protestors and now land barons:

The campaigners - including actress Emma Thompson, Tory front bench spokeswoman Justine Greening, Lib Dem MP Susan Kramer and impressionist Alistair McGowan - bought the land for an undisclosed fee.

One of the most intriguing things for me is that two of the group named above are MPs. It really comes to something when MPs feel their best way to influence policy is to indulge in Greenpeace led campaigns. And I also find it it intriguing, and mildly irritating, that they have the money to (part) finance the purchase in West London.

I have a limited amount of sympathy for these protestors. Unsurprisingly, I am not that bought into their arguments about climate change - the problem of noise pollution would be more concerning for me (and, I suspect, a lot of the people who this campaign will need to win over in order to be successful). But there's something else that is worth highlighting, since most of the media coverage we see is about the protests and is effectively airing the views, opinions and theories of the protestors.

See, there is a reason why Heathrow airport needs to expand. It isn't coping with the volumes of air traffic it is expected to deal with, and something needs to be done. And this isn't purely about airlines and BAA making money, although they all will do so from any expansion to the airport. There will be a net gain to the whole of London by expanding the number of passengers that will come into Heathrow. It will create wealth and jobs in London. And given the economy is getting more and more horrific by the day, wealth and jobs coming into this nation's Capital City can only be a good thing.

Libertarian bloggers are often accused - sometimes with merit - with being long on complaints but short on actual solutions. Yet we could say exactly the same thing about these protestors. They are certainly vocal with their complaints, and they are taking direct action to stop Heathrow expansion. Yet they are not offering any alternative to the expansion of that airport - given the current economic climate and the implications of not expanding that airport, doing nothing is not an option.

Whilst the group quoted above are probably not typical of Greenpeace members, I find their professions quite telling: two are MPs, who can quite happily live off the public purse, and the other two are celebrities working in media. None of them are really going to be affected by the recession in any real way. And none of them are directly exposed to what, if I were to be scathing, might be called "the real world." Their protest is certainly eye-catching, but in reality is nothing more than a gimmick. And if they really want to win people over to their campaign, they need to offer an alternative, as well as headline grabbing stunts.

*Well, we will officially be in recession in a few days, but you have to be pretty fucking naive - or Chancellor of the Exchequer - to deny that right now regardless of whether the nation has hit certain criteria or not.

Plane Stupid: Getting Stuck In

Protests can, of course, take any format. And there have been some dramatic forms of protest in the past. Firebombing shops that sell fur, rioting over the poll tax in Central London, taking over Strangeways prison, throwing yourself in front of horse at the races - that is legendary, memorable and controversial protesting.

This, however, really isn't. But what else might you expect from the morons in Plane Stupid?

I mean, seriously, what sort of a plan is this? Gluing yourself to the PM? From the words of the protestor:

"My left hand was covered in superglue and I stuck it to his sleeve... I just glued myself to him and after 20 seconds he tore my hand off - it really hurt. He had to give it a couple of tugs before it came away."

Ok, worst case scenario, what would have happened? He'd have glued himself to the Prime Minister. And what do we think the Prime Minsiter would have done? Panicked, realised the error of his ways, and changed government policy? Or perhaps he would have just taken his jacket off.

The protestor also notes Brown's reaction:

"He was just grinning about it. He didn't seem to take me seriously."

I'm not surprised. This must have been one of the happiest moments Brown has had since he became PM. For the first time in months, he was the biggest, most moronic and incompetent fool in the room. Brown was actually face to face with a bigger fucktard than himself.

But the protestor, having not made enough of a tit of himself already, went on to further *protest*:

When he left the building he tried to glue himself to the gates of Downing Street but had his hand detached by a police officer.

And how was that police officer able to do that so easily? Again, in the words of the protestor:

"I didn't have much glue left by that point," he said.

*Sighs*.

Look. If you are going to protest through the medium of a moronic stunt, then at least prepare yourself adequately first. And the only thing this fucking chimp needed to remember to do was bring enough glue. And he failed at that.

There is a case to be made against a third runway at Heathrow. However, that case is undermined given it is so voraciously supported by such utter choppers as this lackwit. Seriously, what are people meant to do? Support the guy whose idea of revolutionary protesting is to try (and fail) to superglue himself to the PM? This is the antics of a drunk, retarded student - not of a serious campaigner.

Once again, Plane Stupid are living up to their name. In fact, they couldn't have picked a better title for their group. Unless it was "bunch of fucking morons."

Protesting at the Olympic Flame

As anyone who has even glanced at a news outlet over the past 24 hours will know, there has been a tad of controversy over the Olympic flame being brought through London and now through Paris. Can’t think what might be encouraging the attempts to grab and extinguish the Olympic flame. Except perhaps the utter subjugation of the Tibetan people.

Still, at least we have these comforting words from the IOC:

Speaking in Beijing earlier, IOC President Jacques Rogge said the IOC "called for a rapid, peaceful resolution of Tibet".

Presumably he means resolution of the Tibetan situation, or instigation of a Tibetan nation state. Because the Chinese arguably resolved Tibet many moons ago. When they invaded, and began to wipe out the indigenous culture. Semantics, I know, but words can be important.

However Rogge is quick to let slip what is really on his mind:

He also condemned attempts to disrupt the Olympic torch relay, saying violence "is not compatible with the values" of the Olympic Games.

Absolutely. I would imagine the protests aren’t compatible with the values of the Olympics. But the subjugation, and slow extermination, of the Tibetan people by the Chinese government won’t be compatible with the views of those protesting. At since human lives are at stake, then the protestors probably rank the values of the protests just a little higher than the values of the Olympic Games.

Now, I have serious issues with the Chinese government (a statement which, no doubt, fills the Chinese government with precisely no fear whatsoever). Ignoring for a moment the occupation of Tibet, this is also a totalitarian Communist/Maoist state. There is no democracy in China, and they liberally apply the death penalty and imprison supposed political dissidents. I understand the need for the likes of Rogge to defend China, and to criticise the actions of the protestors. However Rogge and the IOC should have anticipated these protests when they awarded the games to China, and should understand why so many people should attack the symbol of the Olympics as it traverses the globe. Because they are not attacking the Olympics, but rather the totalitarian government ruling the host of the games this year.