According to the Guardian the president of the Police Superintendents' Association is to tell ministers that police should be protected from public sector cuts because otherwise how can they ensure protection from civil unrest that arises from social and industrial tension?
Ensure protection for whom, exactly? The way the coalition is behaving, there won't be too many folk to protect against the mounting outrage. (Just as an aside, I spoke to a council worker today who had been told that their right to claim travel costs between council sites, which currently she manages judiciously by bus and train, is to be wiped out. So from now on it's 'I'm walking, I'll be about three and a half hours'. There's efficiency for you. The interesting question is, how much of this sort of treatment will people take? Will public sector workers soon have to pay for telephone calls and office furniture? Then the electricity, water and so on? The buildings? Should this principle be applied to members of parliament perhaps? No it shouldn't, it's nonsense).
Of course the police are there to protect our leaders, we mustn't forget that. But as one comment to the Guardian article notes,
'They can always get the army in to beat up the police if they protest.'
The police protesting is an entertaining prospect, and it may not all be posturing and positioning. Because we don't like to get excited in this country, this could all take a little time. We don't do rebellion, certainly not revolution; but we can get quite cross sometimes. Keep your eye on the few months leading up to the 2012 Olympics.
Recent Comments