Andrew Mitchell, the arrogance of the Tory Party

The problem with the outburst of Andrew Mitchell, and why the left make big thing of him allegedly calling a Police Officer ‘a f*cking Pleb’ is not one of class, though class is obviously a big factor, it is the fact of equality.

Simply put if I had sworn at a Police Officer I would have been arrested on a Public Order Charge for a ‘breach of the peace’ but because it a member of the Government he has got away with it. It is grossly unfair that there is one law for the ‘haves’ and another one for the ‘have not’s

The remark was more shocking that the remarks were made in the week that two Police Women were killed in Manchester, underlining that the Police force is very much at the front line.

A week previously we had the report on the Hillsborough Disaster, and I have mentioned how I was affected not only about that, but the ‘Battle of Orgreave’ and the Police brutality evident. During the 80’s the Tory Government realised that they had to have the Police on their side to enforce their policies, but times have changed. In 2011 Theresa May was publicly humiliated at the Police Federation Conference, as the Home Secretary was invited to speak, she was met with silence, then heckled, and then booed whilst stood in front of a sign which read ‘20% Police Cuts are Criminal’.

This Government is not only at war with its people, it is at war with the Police as well.

It is not only that Government should be supporting ‘law and order’ it is also that it should be setting the example.

There is also the ‘Caesars wife must be beyond reproach’ if we are to continue with the fiction that Government ‘serves’ the people it must demonstrate a fitness to do by placing itself under the law, not above it as so many Ministers seem to think. There must be an example from the Government that it is leading behaviour, not creating a class sees itself as unaccountable.

The Pink Agendist wrote a blog asking if rich people lie more than poor people, that is a good point to ask, but one thing that has been shown is that people in power tend to arrogance and, it is a truism, do not know how to serve, but demand deference in how they are treated. I rarely link to other people’s blog, but I think it is so relevant that I have done – here.

Mitchell, Cameron, and Osborne are prime exemplars of how a privileged education and upbringing have led to arrogance and, to use an old-fashioned word, rudeness. One has only to look at Cameron’s condescending attitude towards Parliamentarians and Parliament, one has only to watch Osborne treat his opposition with unashamed contempt. His moniker at Eton was ‘Thrasher’ – known for this contempt of those he deemed inferior to himself, an upper class bully.

What he is alleged to have said sounds such much like something a overprivilaged Etonian would say, the alledged words were:

‘Best you learn your f****** place … you don’t run this f******* government … You’re f******* plebs

The contempt that the Eton ‘bully boys’ treat this country is beyond belief, any decent Minister would have resigned, but this a Government of bullies who think they have a right to the power they have grasped – just listen to PMQ’s and see how Etonian Cameron is.

Advertisements

A Straight Answer on Equal Marriage

Getting a straight answer on Equal Marriage – I have to change the wording as basically ‘gay marriage’ is discriminatory and I have to learn a new way of thinking, that I am not a special case anymore – is fairly problematical. because I have to talk to politicians who don’t like giving a ‘straight answer’, or perhaps incapable.

Currently the Government is consulting on, and the wording is again significant, how to introduce equal marriage. The Government is not considering introducing equal marriage it is just wondering how to do so, therefore it is a done deal.  I wonder if President Johnson considered how to introduce Black Rights, or consulted if he should.  Human Rights are nonnegotiable, they are absolute.  The current Home Secretary said so when she went on record as saying:

 Our proposals are motivated by the desire to strengthen our society by extending the right to marry. Marriage is one of the most important institutions we have. It binds us together, brings stability and makes us stronger. So I don’t believe that the State should stop people getting married unless there are very good reasons — and being gay isn’t one of them. If we believe that commitment, fidelity and marriage are good things then we should not restrict them, we should let them flourish.

The legislation is suppoed to be introduced by the Equality Minister  Mrs Lynne Featherstone and Rt Hon Mrs Theresa May, MP the Home Secretary.

At the moment they are ‘consulting’ which is fine, to an extent, but they are not proposing legislation this year.  Why?

The Bill would have Cross Party support, even Yvette Cooper, Shadow Home Secretary, agrees with the Home Secretary.  It would be a relatively simple Bill to introduce and would be a win-win scenario, brownie points for an embattled Tory Party and Human Rights for LGBT people. There is a slight problem of Local Elections, for the Tories the Local Elections were a nightmare, it was to be expected, but an inability to blame their very unpopular taxes and stripping people of benefits they had to blame something else. Equal Marriage has been a good scapegoat, Eric Pickles saying that was the cause, and that they had no Mandate for Marriage Reform.  The Tories have no Mandate to be in Government, let alone the wholesale privatisation of the National Health Service but they did anyhow – and, Mr Pickles, every Government has a right to enhance equality.

The opposition from the Right-Wing of the Church has also been a factor, trying desperately to cling on to some political function, the Church sees the inability for LGBT people to marry in Church – more on that later – as a waxing for their monopoly.Marriage is a sacrement for many, but for people who do not go to church it is a function of State and the Church performs marriage under licence from the State.

It is likely that the Bill when it is passed will preclude Equal Marriage in Church – which is really upsetting the Methodists and the Unitarians who would actually like to marry Gay People in their Churches; I appreciate that Equal Marriage may not be a part of the creed of some religions and as such could be excused to from performing a Gay Marriage, but other churches are far more charitable and should be able to.

I feel awkward talking about the possible charge of discrimination by the Church, but I think they have a valid argument, to a point that some of them do not want to perfrom Equal Marriage, though I wonder if that arguement could be extended to ethnic minorities?

Time to end it, what I would suggest is that you make your views known to the Home Office via their Online questionnaire and write to your MP and them if they support Equal Marriage, and if not ask them why not.

The important point is that Government is committed to introducing Equal Marriage – I asked the Home Office.

Human Rights & Plastic Bags

I am not quite what disturbs me more about Theresa May’s statement on the start of the Conservative Party Conference, whether the fact that a ‘mainstream’ political party can seriously consider scrapping the Human Rights Act, or that a Minster could publicly announce it.

Human Rights are pout in place for one important reason – stop the government from doing what it wants, yes it does make Theresa May’s job difficult, it is supposed to do that; and every other government in Europe works by the same rules, so why do the Conservatives want special treatment in the modern world?

The other worrying thing about this idea is that this government does not have a democratic mandate for such drastic changes to our democracy; it was elected under the preferred voting system of the Conservatives (first past the post – which is an archaic and un-undemocratic system to start of with) and was forced to go into a coalition (which the country did not vote for) to continue-, but no-one got an overall majority and no-one voted for radical change.

Arguably because of the extreme economic circumstances the State feels justified in a radical overhaul as IF it had won a majority, but it is not morally or, in my view , legally for radical change. The coalition, which not only provides political shielding for the the Tories, is far too ‘tightly knit’ to be democratic – it is acting as IF it has a democratic mandate.

In my view, and remember the right-wing knee jerk reaction to the UK Riots a few months ago, this government is using the current crisis a cover to fundamentally shift British Society to the far right in way that Thatcher did, though Thatcher did have a democratic mandate.

Theresa May has said she would replace the Human Rights Act with the Bill of Rights, but apart from the fact the Human Rights Acts is very fit for purpose and is document which defines how civilised society work, what would happen if the Bill of Rights became inconvenient – would that get revoked.

The Human Rights Act must not be repealed, Madam Home Secretary you cannot change democracy to suit your needs, this is what fascists do.