On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:02:18PM +0100, Chris Read wrote:

If you're referring to the thread I started, a couple of weeks back, I'm
interested to know why you think this was 'thoroughly reactionary'. I made
it quite clear I was in favour of the right to free speech and lawful
demonstration, but that if this involved bringing central London to a
standstill most weekends, there were legitimate questions to be asked about
how the cost to London is borne. I gave my view as to who should bear that
cost, because someone has to pay.

If I'm not getting two threads confused, didn't someone say that the
demonstrators should pay? That, of course, makes certain parts of
political life the exclusive preserve of the well-off, which is a Really
Bad Idea. And I say that as someone who is in the top 10% of earners in
the country.

I'm quite happy to pay the costs of other people demonstrating, through
funding the police*, through my journeys occasionally taking longer, and
through infinitesimal extra costs passed on to me by businesses that are
affected. Even when I strongly disagree with the demonstrators I'm
willing to pay that cost. That's because democracy and holding the
state to account is important.

I'm even happy to pay the extra costs involved because of the tiny
minority who don't just protest peacefully - those costs being extra
policing, vandalism, court time, prisons, hospital treatment, etc.
Not that whether I'm happy matters or not - those who are willing to
break laws about things like vandalism and assault are presumably also
willing to break laws about paying cash in advance for their silliness!

* in the abstract - I certainly don't approve of their criminality,
incompetence and thuggery in recent years.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,
hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H. L. Mencken