倫敦騷亂

依家倫敦騷亂玩到失控地步,唔單只向南發展,連伯明翰都有騷亂事件,咁玩法遲早全國主要大城市人人有份永不落空。

David Cameron同Boris Johnson呢鋪都好大劑,我見到連Red Ken都敢出嚟抽水就知。成件事主要起因,係Spending Cut Cut出膠,大大削減社會服務嚟應付班炒嘢炒出膠嘅banker,但佢地又睇唔到前途喺邊,依家又暑假,除咗放火搶嘢仲有乜好做?

而首相更大劑係,依家玩到咁至急急由意大利返嚟英國,你估你係薩爾科齊,你以為你自已管緊法蘭西?法蘭西放火家常便飯,應付呢啲嘢,總理正常搞得掂,但我國唔係囉。所以保守黨同自由民主黨聯合政府,如果再搞唔掂騷亂,應該隨時暑假返嚟大家準備應戰大選都得。

如果呢劑處理不當,真係侷住大選嘅結果係,好可能工黨再度上台執政,講完。工黨係膠,但依家可以點?你David Cameron搞個Big Society不知所蹤,但繼續削減政府開支,結果咪玩出膠。



12 thoughts on “倫敦騷亂

  1. 關SPENDING CUT咩事, 根本就係LABOUR班仆街十幾年搞教育搞到膠晒,好多黑鬼區學校根本係零DISCIPLINE。班人渣慣左冇人管就越黎越無法無天。警察又戇撚鳩淨係識玩政治正確,連水砲都唔敢用,無能 !

  2. 歐洲國家全部行緊縮,大削開支。
    結果不是左翼保福利,
    就是右翼搞排外,
    到處都是動亂。

    金融界亂搞財技,不務正業,
    最後還是要普羅大眾承擔後果。

    且看何時美國又來一次暴動,
    好向茶黨一眾極右分子打一記耳光。

  3. they are thinking of shutting down Blackberry Messenger to help check the communications of rioters. This spark an intense controversy over civil liberties, as UK is not a country like China…

  4. @飛蚊導彈 茶黨只不過崇尚小政府﹑平衡預算﹑個人權利﹐如何「極右」﹐請賜教。

    Oh, by the way, 左仔暴動最叻就係擲石﹐頂多都係Molotov cocktail﹐右派大部分有鎗﹐左仔想喺美國搞事﹐隨便﹐到時又睇下係邊個打邊個耳光。茶黨人愛用Gadsden Flag 做茶黨標誌﹐唔係因為佢顏色鮮豔。

  5. 純粹幻想 —

    胡溫主動致電金馬倫 , 提出協助 , 派一連解放軍武警 , 帶同重型武器空降倫敦 , 果斷平亂 , 兩日內如仍有暴徒生還作亂 , 大可拆共鏟黨招牌 !

    惹人討厭都要說句 : 偽善左膠之所謂多元文化 , 濫收移民 , 任其放肆 , 若以為可長治久安 , 實屬自欺欺人 .

  6. @alvin

    左膠係咁, 只要諗法唔符合佢地先洗未來錢, 慷他人之慨既原則, 就為之「極右」。

  7. 唐英年唔敢薑話班英國窮家子弟”冇用” “車毁人亡”, 因為英國的年輕人一定唔會放過佢

  8. David Warren from Canada has written a good commentary:

    http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?id=1307

    Tale of two crises
    We are spoiled for choice of topics this morning. For, in addition to the usual acute crises, across the Middle East and so forth, the news is filled with two immediate mega-crises. The debt crisis has come home to roost in every Western capital (except Ottawa, for some reason), with accompanying stock market crashes and other indications of economic meltdown.

    That is definitely a big crisis. Yet it is being challenged for headline space by the riots which began in Tottenham, then spread across London, then urban England. These have already wreaked more destruction than anything to hit that island, since the Luftwaffe in the Second World War.

    Superficially, these two megacrises have nothing to do with each other. The initial Tottenham riot on the weekend was triggered by a local “issue.” A peaceful protest suddenly turned into a race riot, thanks apparently to malicious rumours spread through the social media.

    Everything happened very quickly after that; whereas the debt crisis has unfolded at a stately pace.

    Yet both proceed naturally from the normal operations of the Nanny State. They are end products of an historical process in which Western societies have been bureaucratized on a scale unimaginable in the human past.

    At one end, we have the universal bankruptcy that follows government spending beyond the means of any taxable economy to sustain.

    And at the other we have recipients of that material and spiritual largesse. We have huge numbers of people who were never under pressure to “get a life,” and were consistently excused for dishonourable behaviour.

    The good news, is that more and more people can see this clearly. The bad news is that there aren’t enough of us to make a difference. “Events” alone now determine the way in which the Nanny State comes down, and what will replace it.

    Blaming people – I have a very long list – is not going to help. The people who advocated the “progressive” policies that led to this general wreckage will not acknowledge the slightest responsibility for it. And they can anyway do nothing: for the option of throwing even more borrowed money at these problems is now gone.

    But those who say the behaviour of England’s rioting “underclass” is incomprehensible, are uncomprehending. Read, for instance, Anthony Daniels, a.k.a. Theodore Dalrymple (pen name), who has been patiently explaining the extraordinary irresponsibility and casual criminality of the British underclass, for decades now, from his direct experience as a prison psychiatrist, and at the tough end of the welfare system.

    Britain led the West in the expansion of “social democracy” after the last world war. It is where the moral rot from it goes deepest.

    When I was writing for this paper from England at the end of the last century (it now seems such a long time ago), I said that of all the countries I had ever revisited, England was the one most changed. The England where I had lived in the 1970s still had points of connection with previous Englands. Thanks to postwar socialism, it was largely dysfunctional. But it seemed that it had accumulated enough moral and material capital, over the centuries, to continue declining for another hundred years.

    I wasn’t present through most of the Thatcher period, during which the British economy recovered, almost miraculously. “Markets were freed,” but nothing was done to address the moral decay, compounded by massive immigration, and the segregating effects of “multiculturalism.” Returning after the Thatcher era, I was struck by the contrast of economic recovery, with continued moral dissolution.

    London itself, in the sense of the buildings, was still there, but it seemed the people had left, and been replaced by these incredibly wealthy savages, who were also fashionistas and foodies.

    The stunning change was in public manners. The English had been docile and polite; suddenly it seemed almost everyone – whether native or immigrant – was loud, boorish, pushy, vile. Most striking: people who (from their accents) had come up from the bottom of society, took ritual pleasure in bullying those who (from their more educated accents) had come down from the top. The class system – a powerful organic construction, of centuries – had been dramatically inverted.

    In following the riots, through many once-familiar neighbourhoods, I think back on this. To my mind, the basic attitudes of the underclass – a hardened, live-fortoday atheism; unconcealed envy and greed; inability to care about the consequences of one’s actions; indifference to any kind of social taboo – had tinctured the whole society. Those who flaunted their wealth, and those who intended to loot it, were united in a new kind of social compact, based on the purest materialism.

    “Free markets” can remove obstacles to the accumulation of wealth. But they cannot replace the glue that holds a society together, after it has been dissolved in the bureaucratic acids of that Nanny State.

    David Warren
    © Ottawa Citizen

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *