But here on the edge of the Empyre we have persons of the right stuff.
To whit veteran New Zild gabbler Paul Holmes.
He thinks Churchill would be appalled, and that things were better when women have to have four changes of dress a day, oh and
perhaps the old ways were the right ways. Perhaps they should shoot the thugs in the city streets.because that has always worked in the past.
With so much flailing around it inevitable that some fleeting contact with reality would be made and here it is:
I mean, it is so catastrophically un-British. Or is it? They've lived for a long time with soccer hooliganism and lager louts in the UK.Yes, the English have a long and glorious history of rioting and Churchill's own history had it's far share disorder and shootings.
All of which goes to show that Paul Holmes is an idiot who gets paid quite a lot for this drivel to bolster the sad lives of other people who don't know anything. I guess everyone has a purpose in this life.
3 comments:
Paul Holmes is a profoundly stupid person who has never heard the phrase "read the Riot Act". The reason the English ruling classes needed a Riot Act (which needed to be read to a mob before its provisions took effect) was that PEOPLE WERE RIOTING.
If memory serves there was a lot of rioting during the Industrial Revolution, when whole groups of cottage-industry people failed to do the decent thing and die quietly out of sight when their existence was no longer required.
People who wish to repeat history must first go to a lot of effort to forget it.
Never been in a riot...
I am impressed how many pundits can write newspaper columns that cite "London's Burning" in the title and then go on to describe the riots as unprecedented.
Post a Comment