Friday, March 21, 2008

Sleazy rider

Crime is rampant under Labour:

Conservative leader David Cameron has apologised after being photographed ignoring red lights and cycling the wrong way up a one-way street.

So now you can vote blue, go green, and jump red.

The Mirror has produced a lovely, if perhaps less than Earth-shatteringly important, video of these monstrous crimes.

"I know it is important to obey traffic laws - but I have obviously made mistakes on this occasion and I am sorry," Mr Cameron said in a statement.

It’s a small matter, but this explanation lacks a certain, well, explanation of why he made these “mistakes”. Any London pedestrian knows that plenty of cyclists seem to think that the rules of the road don’t apply to them. Cameron is clearly one, and he’s dutifully feigning regret when caught out. That’s not a mortal sin by any means, but it doesn’t speak too well of him. Imagine him as PM:

I know it is important to reduce child poverty - but I have obviously made mistakes on this occasion and I am sorry.

I know it is important to allocate some money for the NHS budget - but I have obviously made mistakes on this occasion and I am sorry.

I know it is important to prosecute serial killers rather than giving them ministerial jobs - but I have obviously made mistakes on this occasion and I am sorry.

I know it is important not to sell our nuclear launch codes to terrorists - but I have obviously made mistakes on this occasion and I am sorry.

Well, maybe not. But you see why his response was so poor.

5 comments:

m said...

Is his helmet just for show?

Perhaps it would be better if he offered to pay fines for rules he violated? (I know it’s been done in another English city for the red light issue)

On a side note, is child poverty a good term? I’m not faulting you for using it, it just sparked some curiosity. Surely children are typically provided for and don't have to work to support their standard of living. I should just ask a pedantic friend.

Tom Freeman said...

He's got a quite lovingly crafted quiff, and so wearing a helmet too much could inflict fatal damage on his image - far more serious than any mere crushing of the skull would.

Child poverty's the kind of term that can be either vaguely evocative or quite specifically defined. In UK political debate, it's usually taken in the relative sense of applying to children in households with under 60% of median income. It's actually more technical than that, but I reckon your appetite for tedium may be limited!

m said...

Thanks (genuinely), I do understand what it typically means in politics and when the information is collected. I just think the actual term is a bit silly but I understand it is short and to the point.

To explain further may make me sound like a Cameron supporter, but I imagine you get the gist of it.

Perhaps he only uses the helmet when taking his daughter, then slips it off afterwards? At some angles, it looks like he has a mini faux hawk (I'm wary of you using hair terms now).

Wolfie said...

In the Nu-Labour totalitarian state it is quite unacceptable to commit minor traffic offensives if you are a white old Etonian but beating a defenceless granny to death is quite forgiveable. Doubly so if you are black.

Tom Freeman said...

I may have missed the defenceless granny story. Somehow I doubt the comparison is quite as clear-cut as you're putting it.