Blunkett, "Take those masks off please" (in te U.K.)

za | 21.07.2001 17:06

Unconfirmed reports have David Blunkett, notorious loony Methodist Minister, masquerading as a blues singer and national politician thereatening to bring new legislation to forbid the wearing of masks on demonstrations, with those found guilty subject to massive fines £1000. (The fines wil of course be passed onto Clare Short to use as part of her support fund for International development in developing countries.

Unconfirmed reports have David Blunkett notorious loony Methodist Minister, masquerading as a blues singer and national politician thereatening to bring new legislation to forbid the wearing of masks on demonstrations, with those found guilty subject to massive fines £1000. (The fines wil of course be passed onto Clare Short to use as part of her support fund for International development in developing countries. )
(He really did say this and is an example of the profound thinking going on behind the scenes in New Labour. "Tough on Crime Tough on the causes of crime" (masks)
It is not just a joke!)

Comments

Hide the following 5 comments

Mask Loophole

21.07.2001 20:59

Unlikely such a law could be passed - pure fantasy - a bit like taking drunks to the cashpoint for being naughty!?

Besides protest could then be switched to masked parades or carnivals. Then law against face painting? It won't happen, will it?

\^o^/ m

Michael L Smith
mail e-mail: michael.l.smith@excite.com

Blundering Blunkett

21.07.2001 21:06

Government too should remove their 'democratic' masks to reveal the fascists lurking beneath, then the reason for our resistance, would become transparant...

But there are more ways than one, to skin a cat. They can't make face-paint illegal, can they?

Krusty the Clown

EH ?

21.07.2001 23:00

SORRY TO BE UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE A FUCKING BIT OF DIFFERENCE TO THAT BLIND BASTARD BLUNKETT IS IT MAYBE THAT'S WHY HE'S SO INTO IT.

DELILAH

who's hiding?

22.07.2001 00:03

Funny that the govt seems so keen on the idea that protestors should not be able to conceal their identity. Why then does the reverse hold true when it involves shareholders of a company targeted because of its corporate activity? the govt has been bending over backwards to try and allow Huntingdon Life shareholders to remain anonymous.
I'm not an animal libber (like steak too much) and I think throwing rocks is a pretty sad excuse of a way of trying to change society. however it seems pretty obvious that someone smashing the windows of a bank is a much lesser crime than shareholders financially supporting (and making a profit from) a company like Exxon when it is involved in sabotaging an agreement on global warming.

Tom

I has that bad joke up my sleeve

22.07.2001 08:35

But couldn't bring myself to use it, glad someone else has...