This is the UK and an article about the UK (although I know Americans attribute a strange and unusual meaning to the word).

.

Well said George.

.

The article I mean, not the comment

I agree with much of this, in particular about criminalising squatting which seems to me to be outrageous. But it badly misrepresents the role of the police.

The job of the police is to apply the law as it is. There may well be things wrong with the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, but that is a matter for the legislature not the police.

The rule of law requires them to act according to the law as it is, not in the way I would prefer, you or George Monbiot. The claim that the police themselves favour the super-rich and the undermining of democracy is, unsurprisingly, unfootnoted on Monbiot's website.

And thank God for that.

Don't undermine the important and sensible things you have to say with silly hyperbole.

I wish that were true, but as I've documented elsewhere - here, for example - the police often appear to be working for corporations against the public interest, and drag up whatever law is required to discharge that function. Or do it anyway. We saw it too at Kingsnorth and Ratcliffe, and I was made especially aware of it when I was hospitalised by the security guards working for a major road-building firm, and the police refused to take a statement from me or issue a crime number - until Amnesty International intervened. Impartial policing my left foot.

In fact it was my right foot: they impaled it on a fencing spike, smashing the middle bone.

Toryism 101: if you can pay for the legislation you want, you'll get it. Maybe the poor should stop wasting their money on food and public transport and start filling the coffers of major political parties...

(By the way, now that the "goodwill to all men" holiday season is over, City of Edinburgh Council wants Occupy to clear St Andrew Square.)

@Anti-Mysogyny Would you prefer if he had said "don't vagina about"?

George,

Your anger that the taxpayer will have to foot the bill for a landlord's greed is noted and noteworthy. That you are happy for the landlord to foot the bill for the feckless is also noted and just as noteworthy, but obviously for different reasons

I used the term feckless instead of your term 'poor' because 'poor' would suggest that they were on the wrong end of the economic struggle. Feckless suggests that one has no intention of applying oneself to that struggle within the system, which being the case, it is only fair to suggest that they are not and cannot claim to have been abused by it.

Compassion is a valiant trait, but being generous with the fruits of another's labour is at best a misunderstanding of men, at worst a misunderstanding of one's self.

Seriously George, grow up and get a life.

I quite like George today, the main point is when it comes to crushing the ordinary person who'd got the hump, they waste no time, but if that person is making more money than many sensible people can imagine without an astrophysics degree, he's got his time to get his affairs in order and buy a new yacht before he gets to make slightly less money than the current amount which if all piled up in one place would probably cause earthquakes.

With the greatest of respect, bankers don't defecate in carrier bags.

In fairness, we're not in much danger of another crash any time soon. The time you need the regulation in place is when things start getting overheated and everything starts getting hideously overleveraged. There's little danger of that any time soon, right?

The bigger issue for me is whether the Vickers reforms will be implemented at all.

Just shows the priority Cameron places on banking reform, but why are you surprised George? One whiff of insurrection and Dave's all over the media like a rash proposing a review of social networking sites, the Met are discussing the use of water canon, rubber bullets - even live ammunition. With the Olympics and the Jubilee a few months ago I'm expecting him to announce martial law.

You might not have noticed, but we have a structural housing crisis. In other words, there just aren't enough homes for the people who need them. So however feckful people are - or whatever the opposite of feckless is (and for the benefit of AntMysogyny I am not in this case making a reference to the sexual act) - there won't be enough homes for everyone, and some will end up homeless in one way or another.

It's not limited to humans. A poodle felching a hippopotamus sums up the relationship between our leaders and the financial sector. If poodles didn't have spines that is.

No disrespect to the nobble poodle, who is seeming too dignified for all of this by the second. lets replace the government with a selection of dogs.

The most important words in this article?

it isn't a democracy

Good article! It would be more useful published in the tabloids though.

How 'often' is often George? You cite one instance, from three years ago, of a police unit making a mistake. Bad, yes. Enough to support the claim that "the police" are in the business of defending the super rich and undermining democracy (as you do here)?

Obviously not.

Again, I would urge you to refrain from ridiculous hyperbole. The criminalising of squatting is very serious, and should be your focus. You undermine yourself (again) by larding on top of this the silly claim that the police are systematically guilty of undermining democracy and favouring the super rich.

That just does not reflect the views of the police officers I have met.

You can be outraged without being surprised. And I think it's good to expect and demand something better from politics, however many times experience triumphs over hope.

Sorry, 'ago' should have been 'away', my excuse is 'flu :((

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Fair enough, but this is another example of how the Tory's are introducing last minute amendments or ignoring consultation as in the Welfare Reform Bill.

Police officers can have "views", but those are superceded by "orders".

Yippee !! Squatters are parasites. They have no right to treat other people's property as their own.

he doesn't want any untidy civil disobedience during the london lympics.

With the greatest of respect, bankers don't defecate in carrier bags.

Well bully for them. But what have bankers' toilet habits got to do with our democracy, or lack of it?

A brilliant article.

You, Mr Monbiot, are quickly becoming a favourite of mine on here.

George,

"The Great Property Scandal" would be a worthy Google search

There are plenty of homes available for those that can, and for those that can't afford them. The answer for the latter group, is for government to stop propping up the housing market.

I admire your railing against the injustices from the left and the right, but I can't understand why you wont plant yourself firmly in the middle! Liberty would be a wonderful thing. See Twitter for details.

See ClockworkPenguin 9 January 2012 9:02PM

George

The "fanny" in question refers to a Royal Navy mess tin introduced in the 1860s.

It was very small, and at the time a little girl called Fanny Adams was murdered in Hampshire. The sailors, known for their subtle humour, started calling the mess tins "Fanny's" due to their size - they couldn't hold much food, or, they held "sweet Fanny Adams".

"To fanny about" likewise comes from the Navy - stop mucking about in the mess hall (with your tin of food) and get back to work.

So I suppose the logical conclusion of the poor will be: Well if we can't live in empty houses, we may as well burn them down, since they only act as a standing offence to our poverty.

Strong logic for buying a box of matches if you are dirt poor and abused.

Thanks. This is what I love about CiF. I learn something unexpected every time. It also drives me mad sometimes. Madder, I mean.

George

Back on topic - what is your view on a jubilee/debt forgiveness for every natural person?

Speaking to the Commons liaison committee in November, he claimed that "the right of people to protest is fundamental" but that "you shouldn't be able to erect tents all over the place".

Mr Cameron must surely understand that "all over the place" is rather nebulous where rights are being defined or denied. What places is he referring to, specifically? Could he not be asked to list them?

Allegedly this man studied Philosophy at Oxford. On what philosophical or ethical basis would he contend that "you shouldn't be able to erect tents" in the places that he specified, or, more accurately, in the places that he would specifiy if he were in the habit of answering a question directly and manfully?

thnx george.

more of the same...however, what goes around, comes around .... sometime

When governments seek to protect the rich from the poor, they act swiftly and decisively. When they undertake to protect the poor from the rich, they fanny about for years until the moment has passed.

This concept is resonant and travels well but it is too simplistic .

They are protecting those placed beyond accountability from those held increasingly accountable. Those who don't mind how they make their money from those that fundamentally do.Those inside the Tory tent pissing out from those outside without a pot to piss in.

On Tuesday afternoon the House of Lords will consider a bill containing a cruel and unnecessary clause, whose purpose is to protect landlords who keep their houses empty.

I agree - doubling council tax on empty properties would be a good remedy.

Bankers predilections are infinitely more offensive and disgusting.

The article really just points out how the establishment works to protect itself.

The establishment tend to like acting all responsible by having an 'inquiry', of some description, in order to reach conclusions (no convictions tho) on very important matters that need to be thoroughly examined over an extended period of time until the crux of the issue can be conveniently disappeared from public conciousness.

Even the inquiry into hacking is just facade - a piece of panto to placate the public and give the impression something is being done.

Mps expenses - since the 'scandal' they've simply quietly restructured the system and are still hogging at the trough....just grunting a little quieter and at a further distance from the electorate.

Haven't yet read Aditya's article. Is that what he's saying? Here's my view on the subject.

Apologies for being off-topic Mr Monbiot but if you've been following the #spartacusreport on Twitter, you can see the government did some very similar stuff with the consultation on the plans to change Disability Living Allowance.

The reference to 'fanny about' epitomises the low populism of the article. The poor do not need defenders like this.

Rather than bleating about the evils of being rich, while presenting the poor as helpless victims, I wonder if we'd all be doing society a favour by giving the poor a good kick in the arse and asking them why they too aren't wealthy ?

After all, they have, in most cases, the same tools at their disposal as those people who have risen from humble backgrounds to become millionaires . They just haven't chosen, or can't be bothered to use them.

Self made people rise through a combination of hard work, intelligence, business instinct and entrepreneurial flare. Why castigate them for using these wonderful talents ? Their efforts benefits society and those around them.

Wouldn't it be better instead to regard poverty as a subject of shame and criticism, because in many cases, it is self inflicted ?

By all means help the needy. Indeed, we have a duty to do so. But as long as you regard poor people as helpless souls, able only to collect huge wads of benefits, stripped form workers via taxation, then poverty in Britain will never ever be eradicated.

Houses will fall back into disuse, and the government's housing bill will rise: by between £35m and £90m, according to the campaign group Squash.

I'm a bit confused by this, what is the government's interest in pushing this through if the above is the case?

Incidentally if everybody who thought AntiMisogyny was making something out of nothing proceeded to ignore him/her the problem would conveniently remove itself..

George,

"The Great Property Scandal" would be a worthy Google search

There are plenty of homes available for those that can, and for those that can't afford them. The answer for the latter group, is for government to stop propping up the housing market.

I admire your railing against the injustices from the left and the right, but I can't understand why you wont plant yourself firmly in the middle! Liberty would be a wonderful thing. See Twitter for details.

Private landlords are allowed to discriminate against people in receipt of benefits. Surely this is illegal discrimination against the disabled,as well as a human rights abuse. It is high time that Clegg got rid of this discrimination.Similarly councils and housing associations are going to be allowed to prioritise people in work with regards to who gets a property. Once again this is discrimination against the disabled and people on benefits and the unemployed.High time discrimination was instituted against the rich,but lovely Labour subsidised them with Family Tax credits. Crazy country !

Cameron's obsession with protectionism of the worst forms of capitalist exploitation appears to be growing.

Worse still, the new law will help unscrupulous landlords to evict tenants where there is no written contract, by declaring them squatters and calling the police.

There was an interview last month where a tenant living close to the Olympic Park explained she has to move as her landlord is raising her rent based on demand for tourist accommodation. I wonder how many others are affected and how this 'new law' will erode any rights they currently have?

If someone owns a property then it's their business what they do with it, not yours.

By all means tweak the council tax laws to encourage occupancy but this obsession of yours with allowing bloody squatters to just take up residence at no cost, when they feel like it, causing god knows what damage in other people's property is not only wrong, but communism.

You may not agree with vacant properties, but allowing squatters to do what they want when the rest of us have to work bloody hard to pay for our homes is an affront to hard working taxpayers like me.

Articles like this just reinforce how out of touch with public opinion The Guardian and the likes of George Monbiot are. (Although, this shouldn't be a surprise given how few people choose to read/buy it and how much it has to be subsidised in order to exist.)

Ideologues like George and his fellow travellers in relatively miniscule left wing activist circles may think that strengthening squatters' rights makes a lot of sense but most normal people you would find in the high street would be horrified. They know that this would not be natural justice.

Good article George. This government beggars belief, which is part of its modus operandi. Attack on all fronts, confuse us, divide us, try and wear us into submission. Let's show them it won't work.

You haven' been to some of the parties I've been to.