All slaves, but Better Together!

Since the beginning of this blog, I have been warning how the governmental elite in this country are introducing new forms of slavery and how this is the future of work unless we do something about it.

Throughout the education system, but particularly in further and higher education, full-time and permanent staff have been, since the last election, getting increasingly replaced by part-time and temporary staff, increasingly on zero-hours contracts. This government brought in the concept of free schools where anything goes with respect to working conditions and salaries. In London the STEM Academy Tech City in Islington, north London, has just managed to avert strike action by its staff over intolerable working conditions. With no unions, and no organized negotiating machinery, after reducing maternity leave to six months, the Academy announced that it

"reserves the right to temporarily lay you off from work without normal contractual pay or to reduce your normal working hours and reduce your pay proportionately. The school will give you as much notice as it can reasonably give of its need to take such action."

Thus, this government has allowed free schools to dismiss their entire teaching staff during the holidays and then rehire them in August at the start of a new term. This of course means that any member of staff is now on a ten month contract of employment and so lose all of their employment rights. It is no surprise that this Academy has a chairman who is an adviser to the appalling Boris Johnson. This announcement comes on the same day that David Cameron again refused to deny that his government were planning to cut the top rate of tax for the wealthiest people in Britain.

Most of the people who work in education of that sort are graduates. If this is the way that the British are prepared to treat their graduates, what chance has any ordinary working person got of fairness and dignity in the workplace? I genuinely despair of the callousness and couldn't care less attitude of the British public towards their neighbours. Nobody seems to either care, or even notice the relentless attacks from our government and its managerial class against its own people. To say that our government has a deep seated hatred and loathing for working people and the poor does not adequately describe these people. Thus, whilst working people and the poor are the victims of cuts, lower wages, slavelike conditions in the workplace, removal of civil and political rights, the wealthy are going to get another lift in the form of tax cuts.

I say again, if this is what you want, then by all means vote that we are Better Together. Indeed if you wish to describe such conditions as being better together, then I am afraid that I do not speak the same language as you. You have been warned

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

 

Tony Blair, God's modern representative

I have been reading the latest pearls of wisdom from our esteemed past Prime Minister Tony Blair and am reminded of the quote from Albert Einstein who told us that the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Telling us that the problems of conflict today have their genesis in religious extremism he says  that "there is one thing self-evidently in common: the acts of terrorism are perpetrated by people motivated by an abuse of religion. It is a perversion of faith."

There is no limit to this person's capacity for self-delusion. He is an object lesson in how quite mad and dangerous people can climb to the pinnacles of power and endanger the security of the whole world, while looking like a 'pretty straight guy' as he frequently described himself. What Blair was guilty of was perpetrating acts of terrorism on whole societies motivated by an abuse of economics and political power. Blair is the personification of the abuse of power and of perverting politics and economics in the pursuit of personal gain. His perversions are much more subtle than the religious extremist, because they are cloaked in a veneer of respectability. It has never penetrated this person's consciousness that the religious extremism we see all around us was generated by him and his hero in Washington. Their unjust and illegal actions unleashed a tidal wave of religious extremism that are having their effects in Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc. and are being witnessed on our television on a nightly basis. I remind you their were no acts of terrorism from Islamic sources on either Britain or America until Britain and America unleashed terrorism on Islamic nations.

As for religious extremism, he and his fellow war criminal in America persistently describe themselves as Christians, and on national television Blair told the British people that God had told him to declare war on Iraq. In this he was only telling people what Bush had already told the Americans. Now, I have no problem when people talk to their god, but I have a serious problem when their god replies to them. Confessions of being instructed by god on any matter are normally proof of insanity in this society. What I have issue with is that no-one in the Christian community seems to have any issues with either the fact that their god supposedly converses with both Blair and Bush, or that these people claim to be fellow believers and have launched illegal and unjust wars against other people in their name, an activity they profess to deeply object to. Never in my lifetime has any Christian leader, whether Pope, archbishop, minister or moderator etc. ever claimed that god had spoken to them, yet this god evidently speaks to Blair and Bush. How great and favoured they must be! My other serious concern is that the British people can listen to someone telling them that god speaks to them and then vote this imbecile back into office when he should be being sectioned. That says a lot for the intelligence and political savvy of the average British voter. However, I accept that I may be wrong and missing something very important. I will now indulge in a protracted bout of soul searching with a view to reaching out to the prophet Tony.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

Whose Law and Whose Rights are being Protected?

I have been growing increasingly alarmed over the requests by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and the Mayor Of London, the appalling Boris Johnson, to be equipped with water cannon. What is particularly alarming is the justification they are giving for such requests, " the need to control continued protests from ongoing and potential future austerity measures" In other words, regardless of the justice of the protests, regardless of the hardship caused by government policies, regardless of the fundamental human rights embedded in the rights of protest, the police are going to mindlessly utilise a measure that is potentially lethal on the citizens of this country who are exercising a fundamental human right. So, regardless of the criminality of government, of bankers, of the people who have inflicted immense damage on our society, who have reduced large sections of the population to depend on foodbanks, we had better not protest or complain or we will feel the full force of the fury and rage of our police, who presumably feel that we have no right to complain or protest.

I am afraid that the police in this country are getting out of control. A report this week has confirmed that in Scotland, Police Scotland have carried out more than double the amount of stop and searches than the police in London over the past year, and London has a larger population than Scotland.
As you all know, I am a supporter of Independence, but not necessarily of the SNP and I have come to the conclusion that the SNP Minister for Justice, or whatever his title is, Kenny McCaskill, is a halfwit, and is hindering the prospect of an equal and fair independent Scotland. The concept of one centralised police force is anathema to a democratic society and a precursor of a police state. This only confirms my suspicions about the nature of the British state and the continual militarisation of the police, because it confirms that the British government and its agencies are in an actual state of war against their own people. I mean, think about it, what possible reason can there be for the police to use water cannon on British streets? We now have armed police openly parading on the streets in certain areas of the country, and they have demonstrated that they are not slow to use them, whether justified or not, and now they plan to use a weapon that must be the most indiscriminate they could possibly use. Make no mistake, a water cannon can do serious injury and can kill, and their purpose is the prevention of one of our most fundamental rights, the right of protest. The Report of the Association of Chief Police Officers itself warns that the full pressure from a jet from a water cannon is capable of killing and causing serious injury, and also warns about the dangers to the public from 'street furniture or other debris' that will be indiscriminately blown about if caught in such jets.

 There is therefore no justification for these at all. Indeed it would suggest that the government and the police regard the public as scum to be washed off the streets if they clutter it up too much. I have continually warned in this blog that the British establishment will tolerate no constraints on their activities and have no respect for democracy, the rule of law or human rights. In their determination to be completely unaccountable, they will brook neither protest about nor resistance to, their policies and they will be aided and abetted mindlessly by the very forces of law and order that are supposed to protect us. It would also suggest that the Association of Chief  Police Officers are in complete agreement with the governments austerity measures. You have been warned, this is the future under Westminster.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

Don't Believe Me?? Just ask Oxfam!!!

Well, now we have it officially, what I have been telling you since the beginning of this blog is confirmed by the Oxfam Report on poverty and inequality that has been published. This report tells us that eighty five people own as much wealth as 50% of the entire world's population. These 85 people share as much wealth as 3.5 billion people combined. This is wealth that can have no kind of justification, that cannot be spent, and is of no particular benefit to the people that own it in terms of their standard of living. The only benefit it gives them is power, the type of power that should only reside with governments. These are the real masters of the universe.

However, what I wish to highlight is that this transfer of wealth from the people of the world to a very tiny minority of persons has been quite deliberate and is the logical conclusion of the process of enriching the elite at the expense of the rest of a society that began with Margaret Thatcher. This is one of her enduring legacies, and it has been achieved because of the deliberate policy making of all governments in the western world since then. However, what I am concerned about is what is happening in the UK and that this is what you are voting for in September if you vote that we are Better Together, because all Westminster parties have signed up to this policy agenda and are committed to its maintenance and indeed its extension. This is where the money cut from our benefits is going to, where the cuts in the NHS are going to. Remember, below these 85 people is a whole army of politicians and financiers, bankers etc. and the owners of the corporations that are profiting from the privatisation of all of our national assets, all of the gangsters who are systematically robbing us on a daily basis and reducing the rest of us to modern forms of slavery.

Today we have Labour's resident Nazi, Rachel Reeves, telling us that people on benefits will have to pass English and arithmetic tests or lose their benefits. Their country and successive governments have failed them, destroyed the education system, destroyed the jobs market and taken away any hope of success, but the poor and the disadvantaged must be punished and persecuted further. This is Labour buying into the Tories scapegoat mentality. Its not the bankers, the financiers or the 85 multibillionaires that are to blame for our woes, its the benefit scroungers that are to blame, it's the skivers, the feckless. I wonder how Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling will sell that to the Scottish people. Britain's Westminster political elite are beneath contempt, they are morally bankrupt and inherently corrupt, selling their souls for a price. This system cannot continue because it is rotten to its core. I am writing a book to explain this in detail, and why, and how, it is happening, however, for the moment I remind you that you have been warned.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

There is a moral case for Independence

Let me be clear about something I have spoken about before, governments do not have rights, corporations do not have rights, only people have rights. In a democracy, governments and corporations operate within an environment that arises from the consent of the population of the country. Now, I know that in Britain democracy is a farce and both Parliament and the electorate are considered as completely irrelevant by government and the elite who control it, but if we wish to remedy the appalling economic and political mess we are in then we must begin to address some fundamentals, because the British government is now claiming that it has rights, such as the right to access your phone and your emails, to take away all your employment rights, in short, to do whatever they want regardless of public opinion, and most importantly, regardless of centuries old rights. I remind you of the old proverb

The Law is hard on man and woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But lets the greater felon loose
Who steals the common off the goose.

In a proper democracy, the people are sovereign and elect a Parliament to represent them and provide a government. That government, appointed by the Parliament must then be answerable to, and subject to the Parliament, who, in their turn are answerable to and accountable to, the electorate. If the government refuses to be accountable to the elected Parliament, then the Parliament must get rid of it. If both institutions refuse to be answerable or accountable to the electorate, then that electorate have the right to remove or replace them, by force if necessary. The modern argument that there is never an excuse to break the law is not only wrong, it is stupid. It was St Thomas Aquinas who told us that an unjust law is no law at all, and in modern Britain, justice has been abandoned in favour of class and elite interests. A government that refuses to answer to Parliament and the people is a tyranny, and this is the situation we are now confronting in the UK. Not only is government successfully out of control and accountability, so are most of their political agencies, particularly the security services who seriously demand the right to know absolutely everything about everybody. The newly privatised utilities are out of control and Parliament itself is out of control. We are now in a situation where approximately 80% of the population have no trust in Parliament, government, or any politicians. The government now refuses to govern for the people and openly govern exclusively in the interests of the City of London and the financial class, and the police and the security services ensure that they can do so unhindered. In reward, the government lets bankers, the financial class, the police and the security services do practically whatever they want.

Human beings have fundamental rights that give rise to the need for government to protect such rights. Thus, governments are derivative, they derive their roles and functions, and therefore their powers out of the needs of the people they represent. Humans are social and moral animals, and, as a result, there must be moral restraints on power, all forms of power, particularly power that threatens the social and moral order. Thus, rulers have a responsibility to the communities over which they are granted rule, and that rule must be subordinate to the law. As a result, government and parliament, along with every political agency, such as the police and security services, are all responsible to the people from whom they derive their powers and authority, and who finance and sustain them. Their powers are limited by moral law and by the constitutional traditions and conventions inherent in the history of the realm. People possess natural rights that exist prior to government, and any exercise of state power that threatens such rights is by definition illegitimate

Thus, the executive power of the state must always be subordinate to the legislative and that is clearly not the case in the UK. Governments only gain their powers from the consent of the people, and, as this consent is the basis of all political obligation then the people of the society have the right to rid themselves of any form of rule that betrays their trust and the terms of their consent, and, it is no use trying to argue that this is radical socialism or Marxism, or any other form of totalitarianism, this was John Locke who told us these things. He tells us that in the last resort, 'there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them.' The executive power of the state, further, is clearly subordinated by Locke to the legislative, and he is even more explicit in contending that if there is a conflict between the two, the people have the right to reinstate the legislative by force if necessary. Rebellion in all cases of tyrannical government, he argues, 'is no offence before God, but that which He allows and countenances'.

The best form of rebellion we can indulge in is a vote for an Independent Scotland in September. The Westminster Parliament is beyond repair and is ethically, morally and politically corrupt. You have been warned.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

 

 

 

 

 

  

Vote for more poverty in September

If you think that we will be Better Together, tied to a union with the Westminster managed rest of the UK, I would ask you to consider the following. People are always telling us that we would be worse off if we declared Independence, and I ask you to consider how much worse off could we be than we are now? In November, for the first time since 1945 and the end of the Second World War, the Red Cross began collecting food from supermarkets and from shoppers for distribution to the needy. I remind you that this is the 7th wealthiest country in the world. According to the Red Cross, 5.5million people in the UK are struggling to afford essential items such as food. What is happening here is that Britain's problems of poverty and need are being recognised internationally whilst being completely ignored by the Westminster Parliament and the politicians that the Better Together campaign is asking us to put our faith for the future in.

Today the Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced in Parliament that he simply refuses to interfere with the grotesque bonus culture in our banking system and particularly in the state owned Royal Bank of Scotland. Thus, our bankers will continue to loot the national treasury with the government's blessing, whilst people in benefits will be penalised if they have a spare room and can only look forward to even deeper cuts in their income as the Chancellor told us this week. The NHS figures show us that they treated 6,000 cases of malnutrition last year. Malnutrition, in modern Britain, it is beyond farce. Relative poverty is defined by the government as being below 60% of the median income, and this accounts for 13million people, or 21% of all households, and the really scandalous figure is that 50% of these people live in a family where someone is working. As a result, under our wonderful Better Together modern Britain, working is no longer the route out of poverty. As I told you in another post average working incomes have fallen by 14% since the election, whilst the average millionaire's income has risen by 15%.

I sincerely await an explanation from some poor misguided patriot how they plan to remedy this situation. What is not an option however, is voting for the status quo. You have been warned.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat 

This Pope is too good to be a Christian

I have a new hero. I find myself with the most unlikely soul-mate in Pope Francis. I trust that the poor fellow is not too embarrassed to find himself being endorsed in this column. I have just been reading an Apostolic Exhortation published by Pope Francis, entitled Evangelii Gaudium in which he delivers a ringing denunciation of our dominant neoliberal ideology. This economic situation we find ourselves in is the real legacy of Margaret Thatcher and is described by the Pope as

" Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape. ....
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

I trust you will recognise that I am not jumping on any bandwagons here, and that such sentiments are what I have been publishing since I started this blog. Thus, what we have in this country is not just an economic and political problem, it is also a deeply moral and ethical problem. I have repeatedly warned that the British establishment are determined to reduce working people to a situation of modern slavery and that they remind me of the Nazis who considered the excluded to be ballastexistenzen and useless eaters. Here we have the Pope telling us that throughout the so-called civilised world, the poor and disadvantaged are leftovers, not even part of the society. The Pope goes on.

"While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules"

Well done the Pope, such sentiments on an international stage from a position of influence are long overdue, but remember, you heard it from the Doktor first. You have been warned

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

What on Earth have Labour got to offer?

Today we have the spectacle of senior figures from the last Labour administration being named as potential war criminals. Labour launched an illegal war against Iraq that caused chaos and has damaged that poor nation beyond belief. They justified the war by lying through their teeth to Parliament and the British people. They then invaded Afghanistan in an even more futile gesture than Iraq. Between these wars they have spent multiple billions of our money for no concrete result, other than to increase terrorism and hasten the financial collapse. They racked up a record national debt as a result, and their incompetence and lies brought us the misery of this Tory led coalition government.

The dossier submitted to the International Criminal Court states that human rights lawyers based it on the cases of more than 400 Iraqis, and reports "thousands of allegations of mistreatment amounting to war crimes of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" including hooding prisoners, burning, electric shocks, threats to kill and "cultural and religious humiliation".  The dossier says "those who bear the greatest responsibility" for alleged war crimes "include individuals at the highest levels" of the British Army and political system arguing that "civilian superiors knew or consciously disregarded information at their disposal, which clearly indicated that UK services personnel were committing war crimes in Iraq".

Labour presided over the financial system that led to the chaos and damage we are living though now. They are as much to blame as the Tories for the misery of the poor, the disabled, and working people in general who have seen their living standards fall by 14% since the present set of gangsters took office. They have dissociated themselves from the trades unions who support them and gave them birth. They stand for business and for sustaining the Tory spending plans after the next election if they win it, indeed they have told us they will be even harder on benefits than the Tories are. Today they stand exposed as supporting war, torture and kidnapping. They have displayed a contempt for the law and the Rule of Law, and stand for nothing but themselves and furthering their own individual careers. Labour in short, are a group of unprincipled chancers.

For all those who have their faith in the Labour Party and believe that we will be Better Together under the Westminster rule of Labour and the Tories, I would like you to explain to me what on earth we will be Better Together for? The Better Together campaign, up until now, has been based on nostalgia, misrepresentation, shameless patriotism, and character assassination of their opponents. If we will be Better Together, will that be in terms of job prospects, democracy, rights, a higher standard of living, freedom from surveillance? You have been warned

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

Tony Blair Mark 2?

In the early 1990's I identified a young ambitious Labour MP, Tony Blair, as a dangerous threat. I found him sinister and completely superficial with respect to any form of substance, other than ambition and a will to do whatever was necessary to get his way. When John Smith died, I was alarmed when Blair emerged as a genuine successor to the leadership of the Labour Party. Though I have never been a Labour supporter or voter, I recognised that if this person became leader of Labour he would almost certainly become a Prime Minister. Because of that I wrote to several leading Labour MPs outlining my fears about Blair and wrote to newspapers. I knew it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, but I could not stay silent. As Edmund Burke wrote, 'all it requires for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing.'

Now, I don't claim to be a good person, but I hope I will never be accused of doing nothing. Why am I writing this? because, I am afraid I am watching the rise of Blair mark 2. I have been watching the emergence of the young ambitious Labour MP Chuka Ummana, and I'm afraid I consider this person another quite sinister and unprincipled threat. I sincerely hope I am wrong because one Blair in anyone's lifetime is one too many, but I will be watching this young man's career with interest.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

Better Together's death wish

Well, that's the referendum result sorted. I was amused today to see a headline article in the Daily Telegraph telling us that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling are teaming up in order to save the Union. They are going to support the Better Together campaign and head off the independence challenge in the coming referendum, although Brown refuses to join Better Together because he won't associate with the Tories, so, I am puzzled, when does unity qualify as disunity?

We can all go home now, because who on earth can stand against such political Titans? These men are the very epitome of British politics. Alistair Darling is the man who wrote in his memoirs that Brown was a hopeless leader who behaved appallingly. Brown refused to speak to him for years. In a political context, these are the two financial geniuses who presided over Britain's financial collapse, and who are responsible for this coalition government. They are the two men who faithfully supported Blair in his illegal wars, in his destruction of our civil and human rights, who both supported rendition, torture, and the demonization of the Islamic community, the unemployed, the disabled etc. these are the men who refused to regulate the banks and the financial sector. In short, these are two of the worst personnel from the worst governments in living memory.

I wonder if the Better Together people have given thought to asking Nigel Farage to be their spokesman on immigration? That would actually make more sense than asking the two financial imbeciles who posed as Chancellors to tell us about the economic benefits of Union. Its a bit like asking the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan to be your spokesperson on race.

This is what you get when you argue for the Westminster brand of politics, incompetents who are totally out of touch with reality, preaching that what is so obviously a complete failure is in reality a success. You have been warned

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

The State of the British State

It never fails to amaze me how ignorant people are about the state. George Osborne and his Tory Party continually argue that the state is far too big and must be reduced, and continually portray the state as a bad thing. Karl Popper famously defined the state as 'a necessary evil that must not be allowed to grow greater than is absolutely necessary.' This is the lamentable level of political discourse in this sorry country today. How these people get into government, or even manage to find employment of any kind is a complete mystery.

The state is an administrative concept. It is the professional body of people who operate the day-to-day administration of the country and who are charged with implementing government policy at both national and local level. The state is not a thing with an existence independent of the people who make it up. If the state is evil as Popper says, then its evil is a reflection of the people who compose it and define its structures and strategies. The state cannot be evil, only people can be evil. The people who administer the state may be evil and may do evil things, but the state is simply a reflection of the personnel who design and administer it. Therefore, state agencies and state personnel can do evil things and utilise the state apparatus for their own agenda. However, as a result, if we wish it to, the state can be equally altruistic and beneficial, it can do good things if the people who determine its policies desire it to do so, it can have a new and different agenda.

If the present state is too big, then it is Osborne and his Tory cronies who have made it so, because the size, structure and functions of the state is determined by the government of the day. So, its no use simply blaming the state for all of our ills, we must blame the people who determine the policies that the state is implementing and administering. The real problem with the British state is that the personnel who compose it and administer it are all committed to the neoliberal nonsense that emanates from Westminster. They are bureaucrats with little intelligence and no imagination. Erich Schumacher made the wise observation that people who work in large bureaucratic organisations lose the ability for independent thought, and he was spot on. The British state is peopled with automatons who obey their masters voices with no thought other than their own careers.

What is striking about Popper's observations on the state is that, although he concludes that the state is evil, he still considers it necessary. That is a peculiar conclusion, I personally could not endorse as a necessity anything I considered as evil. The state, any state in any nation, is a necessary reflection of the human social nature. Human social living requires regulation and administration. However, the structure and functions of such administration can take whatever form the inhabitants of the country wish it to be. I personally believe that the nature and form of the state in modern Britain is indeed doing evil things, but that is as a result of being directed and administered by evil people, operating from a deeply evil set of ideological beliefs. That can change, but not under the present Westminster system of government, or through any of the Westminster parties. That is why it is a moral imperative that Scotland votes for independence this September, you have been warned

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat

I wonder if there are any lawyers on income support?

I have to apologise for not having posted for a week now, but I have been on my travels and haven't really had the opportunity.

I have also been pondering the cringing hypocrisy of the British, especially the so-called middle-class who persistently demand that the country is run solely for them and in their interests. We have the spectacle of the legal profession actually coming out on strike because of the cuts to legal aid which threatens their income. I have every sympathy with them and hope that their campaign of resistance is successful, what I cant stand is their selfish whinging and complaining when they have not a morsel of sympathy for anyone else. A gentleman called Nick Armstrong, who is a barrister at the Matrix Chambers law firm told the Independent newspaper that  “The government is imposing ideology under the guise of austerity and stripping away our fundamental protections. It is deeply sinister, and hugely dangerous.”

All I can say to that is, welcome to the real world Nick, I'm glad you've woken from your 30 year sleep. Suddenly, the legal profession have become alarmed at the threats to our human rights. Two things really irritate me about this

First, if those barristers and lawyers had been any other kind of worker, the papers would have been screaming about commie infiltrators, striking traitors holding the country to ransom, disruptors and lazy working class bastards, and the Daily Mail would have called them monsters as they did with the railway workers etc. etc. However, these people are the pillars of the legal establishment, graduates, middle class and respectable so their cause must be a righteous one and they mustn't be criticised. You see, that form of industrial action is not the same as that carried out by the labouring classes as trades unions never strike for genuine reasons, only the respectable workers do that. Working class strikes are just another form of terrorism, they are selfish and greedy, whilst middle class strikers have god on their side, it is self-evident.

Second, although Nick Armstrong hasn't noticed, the government has been imposing ideology under the guise of austerity and stripping away our fundamental protections since 1979, the difference is that it is now the Nick Armstrong's of the world who are at the receiving end. When it was the miners, the steel workers, when it was the trades union members, when it was the unemployed, immigrants, Muslims, the disabled and the disadvantaged, Nick Armstrong and all his middle class legal friends and their families all agreed with it and applauded. I wonder what Mr Armstrong voted in the last election? Indeed I wonder what he thinks about the systematic war against employment rights that has been waged since 1979, about benefit rights, about immigration rights when it is only when his profession is attacked that he wakens from his slumbers. You see, I am confident that I know the answer, which is, that all the rights we have lost in the past 30 years were justified because they were rights taken from the undeserving, from the skivers and the scroungers. He and his fellow legal officers are hardworking, taxpaying, patriotic, not like those working class Johnnies at all. I mean, zero-hours contracts are right and good for such people, they must be, because the legal profession has never once raised their voices in objection to any of the fundamental theft of our rights. However, I mustn't be too hard, a repentant is always welcome.

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat