Why do we allow terrorists on our streets?

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

The G20 conference kicks off today, following a massive operation to protect businesses and property in the capital.

Companies in the capital have spent millions boarding up their buildings and putting in extra security measures to try and protect themselves against the anti-capitalist, anarchist and eco terrorists that are converging on London to terrorise the city in the name of whatever problem it is they have with the world.

The cost of policing the G20 is £7.5m with officers from neighbouring forces being drafted in to help out.  The police have given out official advice to civil servants and professionals in the city telling them not to wear ID, not to wear suits, to change their route into work if it’s near a protest site and even to stay at home if necessary.

We have a constitutional right to peaceful protest in England but we don’t have a right to terrorise the 5m people who live and work in London.  These terrorists are costing us tens of millions of pounds at a time when we can least afford it.  The police and local authorities abuse anti-terrorism laws on a daily basis for things like dog fouling and car parking offences yet they are quite prepared to allow thousands of terrorists roam around the streets of London.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,


  1. tbrrob (24 comments) says:

    I don’t agree with them but sadly the harmless hippies going for a peaceful protest are going to be tarnished with the same brush as the maniacs.

  2. M Anderson (47 comments) says:

    The question I want answered is WHY are a load of feeeloading hippy scum not banned from congregating like an English protest group would be? Also, why are the usual loudmouths not complaining about the cost of the protest? They would’nt be able to shout their mouths off quick enough if it was an English protest!

  3. axel (1214 comments) says:

    “WHY are a load of feeeloading hippy scum not banned from congregating like an English protest group would be?”

    …because the english protest group would do the right thing and register their protest, fill in all the forms etc

  4. karen (3 comments) says:

    I was at the G20 protests, Im neither a ‘freeloading hippie’ or ‘scum’ for that matter. Im English, Im a full time worker and taxpayer. im proud of our English tradition of protesting against tyrannical, corrupt, treasonous governments.And Ill defend my right to it vigourously.fill in forms? are you shitting me with this? why dont you sit down and have a cup of tea! and by the way, the only terrorists on the streets that day were jackie ‘jackboot’ smiths nazi brownshirt, thieving scumbag banker protecting, common purpose, EU worshipping steroid abusing police thugs! welcome to the new world order sheeple, you’ll fit right in.

  5. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Interesting. Not all people at the G20 protests were hippy terrorists but all capitalists are evil right wing kitten murderers?

  6. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Uh, where did Karen say that “all capitalists are evil right wing kitten murderers”, Wonko?

    Very few capitalists are likely to have been involved in murdering kittens, but most are right wing, it has to be said.

    I don’t have a problem with owner-operators of small businesses, but I do have a problem with a class of people who live by investment alone – and with the legal structures such as banks, trusts, and corporations which permit the rich to get richer at the expense of workers here in England and across the globe.

  7. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    She didn’t Charlie, that’s just the general perception amongst lefties. I was playing the unfounded generalisation game.

  8. axel (1214 comments) says:

    Charlie- are you saying that rich people should keep all their money under their beds and not use it, without the excess money sloshing about the system, the poor stay poor because there is no investment for new jobs or industry, the government is poorer because there is less money to tax and because the government is poorer, the poor bastards at the bottom of the pile get crushed into the shite

  9. axel (1214 comments) says:

    charlie-if you cashed in your pension plan and kept it under the bed and every month added the same amount of money you do now, how near the ceiling would you be?

  10. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Axel, the super-rich in England don’t invest in this country – for the most part, they invest overseas. And that’s the trend – for jobs to be “lost” in this country as firms relocate to poor countries where wages are lower.

  11. axel (1214 comments) says:

    yes, i agree with that but for the millions of ordinary people like us, with our trillions, in savings and pension plans, our money stays here and greases the wheels

    the ‘super rich’ money, is’nt really that much, in comparison with all us grubby workers bucks and if that moves out the banking system under our beds, we are screwed

  12. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Trouble for domestic manufacturing is the banks still aren’t lending – so even if we bank our savings, there’s no guarantee that farms and factories will see any of the cash.

    A big question is: do we have a banking system that tries to maximise profits, even if this means screwing over the domestic economy, or do we have a banking system that functions as a utility?

  13. axel (1214 comments) says:

    I think we should have both

    a banking system for our wages to go into and our bills to come out and maybe a seperate free booting system like was but certainly seperation of purpose

  14. axel (1214 comments) says:

    then again, instead of establishing the free booting profit led system, we should let it do its own thing, that is the best way for it to grow

  15. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    And you’ve come all the way back round to capitalism again, like most people do when they flirt with socialism. 🙂

  16. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    But there’s no getting away from this issue – there’s more profit to be made by exporting jobs than there is investing in new jobs here.

    You don’t have a problem with this, Wonko? It seems like a pretty intrinsic part of the capitalist system – along with a minority of people owning a majority of the productive assets…

Leave a Reply


Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.