News today got me thinking about a quote from T.E Utley’s Lessons of Ulster which was first published in 1975. Below is a scan from my copy.
Click for full page.
For the uninitiated he is referring to the creation of a “no go” zone in Londonderry which lasted from 1969 to 1972.
Lessons of Ulster is a magnificent work. Flicking through it 30 years after having read it I was surprised how perceptive he was – more perceptive that I recall thinking at the time. But as you can see from the marginalia, I didn’t entirely agree with Utley and after hearing the news that the threat of Islamic violence has led to Israeli football fans being banned from attending a match in Birmingham I think I can claim that I was right and Utley wrong. Sure, we may not be seeing barricades but there can be little doubt that the British state lacks the will to face down mob violence.
Lest I am doing Utley a disservice, he did also have this to say:
It… seemed to me that, in some degree at least, the tragic conflict in Ulster might turn out to be a rehearsal for an even more devastating challenge to authority on this side of the Irish Sea.
Although – given that this was written in the 1970s – I think he was probably thinking more about communists and trade unions.
Update: Link fixed.
We have suddenly returned to a question which was very topical in the 1970s: who governs Britain? Is it the government in Downing Street, is it Parliament, or is it unelected and unaccountable Muslim community leaders who impose their will by the threat of mob violence? Just who governs Britain now?
In the same way Labour pandered to the terrorists of the IRA (and it is coming back to bite Starmer on his derriere personally), they have pandered to the Pali terrorists and are now reaping the fallout. I think it is morally abhorrent that the government of this country believes the only way to prevent an eruption of violence is to give in to the demands of the islamists. What happened to the ‘full force of the law’?
Is the link about the Islamic football violence broken? I get order-order’s 404 page.
I think this is the intended article.
“Kill the Jews, rape their daughters”.
https://metro.co.uk/2022/11/20/all-charges-over-convoy-who-shouted-rape-jewish-daughters-are-dropped-17793247/
“Not enough evidence to prosecute”.
I think that was the moment I realised which side the institutions of government had chosen.
“who governs Britain? Is it the government in Downing Street, is it Parliament, or is it unelected and unaccountable Muslim community leaders who impose their will by the threat of mob violence?”
I think a point was missed in this question. Where, if at all, do the wishes of the mass of people of britain [citizens/subjects] get involved with the governance? They elect Parliament who creates the government in Downing Street, but the choices presented to the people are by those who will be in power regardless as the actual policy differences between the parties are imperceptible.
The choices of the “institutions of government” are where the rubber meets the road and not the vote.
Subotai Bahadur
“The law” isn’t something that exists only in government rulebooks, or that is enforced only by government strength.
“The law” is the general morality of the society, and it must be supported and enforced daily by that society.
When a society is disarmed and left without power, it no longer matters what morality – what law – that society prefers. That society becomes feminine and weak, and rolls over and gives itself up to its authority figures.
Yes Patrick.
And in Londonderry (where I was a couple of months ago) it was the British state who (back then – and still right now) betrayed the Unionists – who had they been left alone, would have defeated their enemies. The British state always wants a Jeremy Bentham style “settlement” to keep things quiet – and it will sell out any principle, and any human beings, to get this quiet life. The British state has the same quiet-gentle-polite CONTEMPT for Constitutional principle that David “euthanasia of the constitution” Hume had.
John and the others – yes the institutions of government are despicable.
They will come for me (a lone individual who can not put up much of a fight) – but retake Birmingham and other towns and cities? Not a chance – they would not even dream of it.
Indeed they would lock up in prison anyone who even strongly suggested it.
The historian David Starkey said the only institution in Britain that was not “Woke” was Parliament. But, alas, Prime Minister Blair (and many others – going back a very long way) had given away the powers of Parliament to the officials and “experts”. It was not the differences in beliefs between, say Jacob Rees-Mogg and Sir Keir Starmer were “negligible” – on the contrary the differences are very large. The point is that people with good principles, whether ministers or even the Prime Minister (remember Liz Truss) HAD LITTLE POWER.
Many people still seem to think “we elect X and X rules” – well they do NOT. X does NOT rule – not if the officials and “experts” do not agree.
However, since the last General Election, Parliament is now “Woke” – as every other institution, including Crown and Church, is as well.
So it would not matter now if Members of Parliament got the power back – as they are now as despicable as the rest of the state.
bobby b – yes, and not just in Britain.
Remember a few years ago when a judge demanded that Property Taxes in New Hampshire (and New Hampshire is not the only case) be increased – in order to throw more money at government schools.
The people put up no resistance at all – so much for taxes must be decided by elected representatives, and so much for “live free or die”.
Once, if a judge (or judges) had behaved like this, the people of New Hampshire (once upon a time some quite independent minded men lived there) would have tarred and feathered them – and hung them from the nearest tree.
Ditto if a judge had said “your words require a custodial sentence” – the favorite praise of British judges.