Anarchists Riot in Hamburg

Far-Left political violence is on the rise throughout Europe, but in Germany it has been identified by the government as particularly dangerous. This was demonstrated in the city of Hamburg last night, when roughly 1,000 anarchists infiltrated a festival and battled the police, injuring 27 officers and burning a police vehicle in the process.

From The Local:

Anarchists from Hamburg’s autonomous scene battled police for six hours late Saturday and early Sunday in the trendy Schanzenviertel neighbourhood after a street fair. At least 67 rioters were arrested and 27 police officers injured.

Over 10,000 visitors visited the Schanzenfest street fair, but once it turned dark, over 1,000 young, masked anarchists came out to do battle, police said. The rioters threw bottles, stones and fireworks at police.

“The fusillade was extremely massive,” police spokesman Ralf Meyer told the daily Hamburger Abendblatt, who said the anarchists were more aggressive than in past years. For years, the Schanzenfest has often concluded with clashes between police and the left-wing, anti-fascist Autonomen, or “Black Bloc.”

Over 1,800 police officers were on duty at the event and deployed water cannons and riot sticks against the rioters. Many of the rioters were injured, though no specific numbers were available.

One police vehicle was torched by rioters, who also ignited trash cans and street barriers.
Two of the arrested rioters traveled to Hamburg from Berlin to take part. They were taken into custody after pulling out a backpack that contained a timing device that looked like it could set off explosives.

Police around Germany have warned in recent months that the ultra-left-wing anarchist scene appears to be becoming more violent. On June 21, thousands of anarchists tried to forcibly occupy Berlin’s Tempelhof airport. Police said rioters at this year’s annual May 1 riots in Berlin used Molotov cocktails against police, an escalation from recent years.

Dismantling the Borders by the Back Door

Last week there was a large demonstration in Calais against the fact that migrants sleeping rough there can't simply enter Britain at will.

Many of the protesters were hardcore anarchists, and French riot police arrested around 47 people, finding weapons such as metal poles, machetes and pepper spray.

Many of the anarchists' threats, such as tearing down the border, leading migrants to Britain through the Channel Tunnel and burning symbols of capitalism and authority never came to pass, however.

This is a situation which has been going on for years now. The migrants live in Calais, daily trying to illegally sneak into Britain so they can claim asylum here and enjoy a range of benefits simply not on offer in France, plus the knowledge that only a minute fraction of them will ever be kicked out, even if their claims are turned down.

Since the Red Cross reception centre at Sangatte was closed in 2002, it is estimated that 2,000 illegal immigrants live rough in Calais.

Many in the town are sick of the situation, claiming that women are harassed, businesses are affected and hygiene is a problem.

The solution which is most often put forward by the French government involves the United Kingdom joining the Schengen Agreement, which would abolish border controls between this country and the other signatories (members of the EU an EEA).

Well, that won't happen any time soon, but it seems that the French government and the anarchists will get their wish in some form or another; on Wednesday the UN High Commissioner for Refugees opened its first full-time unit in Calais since Sangatte was closed.

It will now begin advising thousands of migrants on the steps they should take to come to Britain and claim asylum.

This is simply tearing down the borders by the back door - by legally subverting them.

Anti-Islamisation Marchers Attacked in Norway

Øyvind Heian, the head of Norway Patriots (Norgespatriotene) organised a small demonstration in the centre of Oslo against the Islamisation of Norway on Saturday.

He found himself pelted with eggs, kicked and spat at as 15-20 counter-demonstrators attacked his group of 10-15 people.

The police used this altercation as an excuse to call off the demonstration.

When asked who had attacked the group, the police said that it had been disrupted by individuals with 'completely different views on the subject', and stressed that those responsible for the violence would be treated as just that - individuals without group affiliation.

Islam in Europe has more:

The police were notified in advance of the legal demonstration that was organized by SIAN, which wants to "stop the Islamization of Norway", but a fight broke out on Egertorget already half an hour before the event was supposed to start.

Police inspector Johan Fredriksen of the Oslo police told VG Nett that the group was attacked by 15-20 people who had a completely different view on the issue, but a more primitive way of communicating.

He didn't want to say which groups the attackers belong to, and says that the police sees the counter-demonstrators as individuals. One person was lightly injured in the fight, and one person was arrested. Fredriksen says that though many disagree with the group's ideas, it was a legal demonstration.

The demonstration was called off after the attack against the 10-15 anti-Islam protesters. Øyvind Heian, head of Norway Patriots (Norgespatriotene) told Dagbladet.no that eggs were thrown at him, he was spat on and kicked.

Police intervened after he was pushed into a police car and the Blitz activists (anarchist-communist youth movement) surrounded the car.

In recent days the Blitz movement and Red party organized an SMS campaign against the demonstration. According to one of the organizers of the counter-demonstration Norway Patriots are Nazis whose motives go further than to just show their opposition to Islam.

Both SIAN and Norway Patriots deny they are racist organizations and describe themselves as organizations against immigration to Norway.

Sounds like a little more than a few disgruntled individuals, does it not?

Interesting how we hear all about the alleged motives of Norgespatriotene, but nothing at all about the alleged and actual motives of 'Blitz' and 'Red Party'.

The Left's Democracy in Action

Today newly-elected MEP Nick Griffin, the Chairman of the British National Party, was forced to abandon a press conference after being pelted with eggs by anti-fascism protesters.

This event took place outside the Houses of Parliament. Despite the fact that protests outside Parliament are illegal without prior planning, and as you would imagine it is quite well-guarded, the police were nowhere to be seen.

Griffin was chased down the street by the thugs, and only escaped when his own bodyguards managed to bundle him into a car.

The Mail reports:

A crowd of angry demonstrators rounded on his car as he arrived, shouting: 'Off our streets, Nazi scum' and then hurled eggs at him when he started talking.

Smashed eggs were clearly visible on his suit and he appeared distressed as he was manhandled by security back towards the car.

A jubilant Mr Griffin, 49, had only been speaking for a few minutes today when the protesters started chanting and waving banners declaring: 'Stop the fascist BNP.'

When they began throwing eggs, the leader's burly security guards bundled him away through the crowd.

The demonstrators kicked and hit at his car with their placards then cheered as the father of four was driven off.

Protest organiser Weyman Bennett, national secretary of Unite Against Fascism, said people had to stand up to the neo-fascist party.

He said: 'The majority of people did not vote for the BNP, they did not vote at all. The BNP was able to dupe them into saying that they had an answer to people's problems.

'They presented themselves as a mainstream party. The reality was because the turnout was so low, they actually got elected.'

Mr Bennett compared the BNP leader to serial killer Harold Shipman, claiming he might appear friendly on the surface but was in fact a neo-Nazi.

'I think you have to look beneath the mask, you have to look beneath the surface,' he said.

'We cannot allow the politics of scapegoating to become the common currency of this country.'

Another protester, Sarah Kavanagh, added: 'Britain in two places has sent the far right to be with Europe. They clearly don't speak on behalf of the community and their views are abhorrent.'

Unite Against Fascism are an extreme and violent organisation. Logic should dictate that if the BNP have no place on the streets, they do not either.

It was people acting at the behest of this organisation which smashed a man over the head with a hammer in Manchester simply because of his political beliefs. They act far more like the fascists and Nazis they claim to despise than anyone else does.

You might notice their barely coherent ramblings. Was serial killer Harold Shipman a neo-Nazi, as Mr Bennett seems to be suggesting? I don't think he was, but if so would that be all that made him a bad person?

He also implies that because voter turn out was not 100%, the election of the BNP is somehow illegitimate. Why is this only true for them?

Why not UKIP, Labour or the Greens?

Take this statement from Sarah Kavanagh, masterful in how it manages to contradict itself in just two sentences:

'Britain in two places has sent the far right to be with Europe. They clearly don't speak on behalf of the community and their views are abhorrent.'

Well, if Britain has 'sent the far Right to be with Europe' in two places, then surely that does represent the views of the 'community', does it not?

I was under the impression that was how democracy worked. Their views may well be abhorrent - but the views of Sarah Kavanagh are pretty abhorrent to me. So what?

Does that give me the right to harass, assault and intimidate her, or prevent her from doing her job?

Of course not.

This is the problem with those on the Left. Democracy is only legitimate when they agree with the results. The rest of us have to put up or shut up either way.

The election of Barack Obama? TRIUMPH for democracy. The other potential outcome would have been an insult to democracy - despite the fact that either way, the majority of people had spoken.

When the other candidates stormed off stage in protest as Mr Griffin made his victory speech on Monday morning, they were not insulting him - they were insulting the people who voted for him, either because they support what he stands for or have nowhere else to turn.

But then, if the mainstream politicians cared about Britain and its people, presumably the BNP would not exist.

The mainstream parties need to wake up now - not to 'fight the BNP', but to actually listen to what people want.

A comment at the article nailed it:

Although ideologically opposed to the BNP in a political sense, I can certainly see the attraction they hold for many people in a practical sense, especially when compared to the corrupt, unrepresentative and incompetent cartel that have ruled this country for far too long.
Certainly, having the establishment tell you not to do something, especially in this climate, is likely to have the opposite effect.
Like it or not the BNP, on limited resources, managed to get nearly a million votes. Due to the low turnout, the dominant Conservatives only got just over four times as many votes cast.
I heard/saw interviews with the new BNP MEP's on both BBC Radio 4 and Channel Four News. Unfortunately both interviews were very noticeably biased against them - I expect more from both of these organisations.
If the BNP really are as bad as we are led to believe, engage in an unbiased, open and honest debate with them and they will discredit themselves more than their opponents ever could. - Trevor, Birmingham, England, 9/6/2009 16:44

Exactly. It' about time this country's elite started treating it as a mature democracy rather than a banana republic.

For all those who rant that Hitler was a democratically elected politician, and he managed to seize power, and abolish all other parties - I say actually objectively study the history of the period.

Hitler and the Nazis seized power because the zeitgeist was flowing their way. When Nazi thugs beat up Communists, Wilhelmine judges fearful of the consequences of Socialism and Communism declared 'boys will be boys' and were lenient.

They were scared of Communists and were much harsher. Of course, they were right to be scared, as like Nazism, Communism was an abomination - but at that time Nazism did not carry the historical baggage it does now.

But in the modern era, the zeitgeist flows away from Mr Griffin.

That's why he can be egged at a press conference and no one is arrested and many laugh, despite the fact nearly a million British people voted for him.

That is why he's celebrating the breakthrough of winning just two seats in the European Parliament, whilst newspapers ask their readers whether or not his party should be 'allowed' to take them.

The really dangerous people in this country today all identify with the Left - because that is where the power is.

What's more likely? Griffin becoming Prime Minister or otherwise seizing power, or Gordon Brown declaring a state of emergency under the terrifying (and very, very 'fascist') Civil Contingencies Act 2004 due to the BNP's breakthrough?

Maybe he'll be aided by his heroic, ideologically pure Antifa thugs; after all, we know he is determined to cling on to power at all costs.

Double Standards in Germany

The mainstream media in Germany is already crowing about victory over the 'racists' who attended yesterday's Pro-Köln rally.

It is being spun as a flop, with many claiming only 300 turned up and the majority of speakers were drowned out by whistles and jeers from the Leftist antifa.

In reality, the rally was a peaceful affair attended by up to 800 middle-class Germans who wished to express their disdain at the construction of a 'mega-mosque' in the ancient Christian city of Cologne, their concern over the Islamisation of their city and their country, and in many cases their solidarity with Israel.

KGS over at Tundra Tabloids has a full account of the rally.

My main concern is how this event is being spun in the German media, and how out of touch with reality that view is.

The Local, an English-language German news source, trumpeted:

Thousands turn up to boo racists in Cologne -
Several thousand people turned up in Cologne to protest racism and xenophobia at a far-right extremist rally in the city on Saturday.

So to be against Islamisation and mass immigration, you must be a racist xenophobe?

Last time such a rally was held, in September 2008, German and other European far-Left groups shut the city down, even going so far as to vandalise the rail network.

Anyone who was suspected of wishing to attend the Pro-Köln rally was harassed or attacked. At one point, these paragons of anti-racist virtue pushed an elderly Jewish man to the floor whilst screaming 'Nazi' at him.

Apparently this time police presence was more pronounced and the Leftists were not given full control of the streets.

Socialist mayor Fritz Schramma was delighted with the way things had gone:

Cologne’s ruling mayor Fritz Schramma spoke at the main liberal rally, under the motto "Cologne stands in the way," which had gathered church groups, mainstream political parties and trade unions. He said Cologne was a city of tolerance and diversity and that it was an act of insolence and audacity for people to hold a racist event there.

On Saturday evening, Schramma said he was happy with the way the day had gone, saying, “Cologne has delivered a clear and sovereign answer to all far-right extremists and agitators who believed they could conduct their cheap election campaign on the backs of foreigners here.”He said the demonstrators had helped to “underpin the reputation of Cologne as a cosmopolitan, liberal and peace-loving city.”

There is so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to begin. Church groups defending the right to build a huge mosque which will assert Muslim dominance and change the historic city's skyline?

The question also remains - how long will Cologne and the rest of Germany remain 'liberal and peace-loving' if the radical Islamists get their way?

Intelligence reports suggest that 1,000 or more 'Germans' are radicalised and have attended Taliban training camps. Just down the road in Dusseldorf, four men, two Turks and two German converts, are on trial for a huge bomb plot against German citizens.

In early 2006, Muslims made a failed attempt to blow up trains heading into Cologne's Hauptbahnhof.

A report by a Palestinian psychologist which I highlighted yesterday reveals that up to 30% of young Muslim men in Germany are prone to violence, something which my own personal experience can attest to.

In January 2008, hundreds of violent immigrant youths took to the streets of Cologne. As one journalist put it;

'We are sitting on a huge powder keg.'

The reason? A Moroccan youth called Salih had tried to mug a 20 year old German man in the street. The German had fought back, and with an unlucky stab, plunged a pocket-knife into Salih's heart.

The police said it was self-defence and let the man go.

The audacity of the German man in not submitting to a violent robbery was a clear affront to the 'youths' of Cologne, and further proof of their 'second class status'. That was all it took for a protracted campaign of vandalism and violence to be called for and carried out.

Many asked what if we had killed one of them (a German), completely overlooking the fact that mugging people is not obligatory - the young criminal chose his path and paid the price.

The Spiegel article I link to does its very best to blame Germany and the Germans for the 'immigrant situation' 0 rather overlooking the fact that pretty much every other country on earth with a significant population of Muslim 'youths' has similar problems.

But in any case, are these events which occur in a 'peaceful, tolerant, liberal' city?

No. In tolerant, liberal cities, everyone expects to adhere to the law without special treatment for certain groups.

It seems to me the immigrants and their descendants want it every which way; if they are ever attacked then it is a racist hate crime and must be dealt with far more severely than if they attack a native - but if they do attack a native and he fights back, then there must also be severe consequences.

Now, many assert that Pro-Köln is a Right-wing organisation with unpleasant past associations. All I profess to know is that they stand up for something I personally agree with, and they are often harassed and suppressed by their enemies, not least the liberal state - Deutsche Post even refused to handle their post at one stage.

Have a look at the following video, and tell me - do things like this happen in peaceful, tolerant, liberal cities?

Well, they did and they do. But only, it seems to enemies of the liberal, multicultural agenda.

Here is what happened in the video above:

In August 2008 several young people with a clear immigrant background, one of them with a fighting dog, attacked a Pro Köln information stand in the middle of downtown Cologne.

The 67-year-old alderman Hans-Martin Breninek was beaten down and remained unconscious on the ground. He had to be taken to the hospital in an ambulance. After the turn of the year a shocking [new] video appeared of this brutal assault, which actually made a rapid identification of the perpetrators possible.

I wonder what Mayor Schramma would like to tell us if beating a 67 year old man unconscious because you disagree with his political beliefs says anything about Cologne - and just who such tactics are reminiscent of.

The G20 Chaos in London - for Justice, Equality & Palestine?

The second day of G20 protests were not as violent as the first, and the trouble has subsequently fizzled out, but a debate still rages about these protesters - who were they, exactly, and what did they want?

The first school of thought says that these people were 'crusties', 'scum', 'dole-scroungers', 'Lefties' - basically just misfits seizing upon an opportunity to cause trouble and have it noticed on a grand scale. The sort of people who have always dogged G20, G7, G8 and other such summits, and who used to cause quite a bit of trouble on May Day.

The second says that these people are ordinary members of the public infuriated with the way the Government has failed; many would be graduates who can't get jobs, people who have been made redundant, and a plethora of others angry at all the injustice in the world.

I must admit, I'm more inclined to accept a middle ground between the two. It seems that some ordinary people did march for reasons I support and understand - the criminal incompetence of the current Government, the increasing schism between the ordinary people and the elite, as well as the increase in repressive legislation and measures the Government uses to control us.

The vast majority of protesters did seem to have an agenda I fundamentally disagree with, however - trouble, violence, degrading Capitalism, 'world revolution' and giving yet more money to the Third World, all in the name of vague concepts such as 'peace', 'equality' and 'social justice'.

To put this into some context, I will now quote parts of a letter written to 'The London Paper' by 'Kia' Kielty (presumably no relation to the Korean car company), a 23 year old manager from London.

'The G20 demonstration was to protest about lots of things; most of which affect everyone, whether now or in the future, so I was shocked by some of the negative reactions being published.'

Were you? Why? It doesn't matter how wrong you think the Government's bail out of the banks is, is smashing up a bank the public now own in the midst of a £20 million police operation likely to help matters?

Apparently, she was a 'peaceful demonstrator', and we mustn't criticise her because she actually 'did something' - although again, I fail to see how shouting 'our streets' at the police and burning effigies of bankers really helps matters.

She goes on to list her (frighteningly predictable) grievances. Number one?

Palestine: 'I have read a lot on this subject and consider myself well-informed. You just need to see a map of Palestine in 1946, and compare it to what it is now - that sums up what Israel is doing. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other black South Africans who lived under apartheid, have been to Gaza and the West Bank and said it's worse than what they went through. For the record, I'm not [sic] anti-Semite.

Firstly, my burning question is just what does this have to do with the economic crisis or the G20?

But that aside, I'm not sure the sources she has become 'well-informed' from are entirely accurate. Was there any such thing as 'Palestine' in 1946? Not in the sense that we now understand the term, no. The British Mandate of Palestine, a demarcation inherited from the regional government of the Ottoman Empire, consisted of present day Jordan, Israel and the 'Palestinian territories'.

Israel did not even directly control these two territories, the West Bank and the Gaza strip, until after they defeated the Arab belligerents in the Six Day war - that is 21 years after the date she mentions. Why was no concept of an independent 'Palestinian' nationality mentioned when both of these territories were under Muslim Arab control?

Similarly, why did the Muslim Arab countries not simply use their vast space and wealth to resettle these people if they were so concerned about the conditions in which they were living? Why did they instead actually restrict their movement and right to settle in other Arab lands?

Could it be because 'Palestine' is a political and social concept invented when the Arabs realised they could not defeat the Jews in war?

I don't call this cause just, I call it what it is - a large stick with which to repeatedly beat the West. The sad truth is the worse the 'Palestinian's' conditions are, the better it is for the Arab cause, and yet the vast majority of the world have fallen hook, line and sinker. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic - and dangerous.

As for Desmond Tutu, who cares about his opinion on this issue? I'd have thought he'd have had far more important things to worry about closer to home - or is he aiming to spread the love, joy and peace enjoyed by post-apartheid South Africa to Israel?

Anyway, 'Kia' goes on with her tedious list - I won't reproduce any more here, suffice to say they're all one-sided nonsense, especially the part where she lists 'money given by America to Israel' - seemingly oblivious to the fact that, for example Egypt receives more financial aid from the US than Israel in order to keep up the 'cold peace' that exists between them and the latter.

Is oiling Egypt's brutally repressive regime not a concern for Kia? She insists that all protesters are 'passionate humanitarians who care about humanity', so surely it should be?

To get an idea of just how passionate and humanitarian many of them were, I leave you with this excellent undercover report from the Daily Mail.

The journalist describes how many of the protesters were hardened thugs who enjoyed the violence, and they'd been looking forward to beating up policemen and smashing up banks for so long many actually shrugged off their injuries to carry on fighting until they were dragged off kicking and screaming.

Read the following excerpt:

Martin revealed with some delight that he is a veteran of the May Day riots that caused mayhem in central London over the past decade. 'I got arrested and did some time for it,' he said. 'This year will be chaotic - it will get messy.'

His aims are simple. Target anyone or any building linked to authority. All are fair game.

The types of anarchist appear to be split into two distinct categories. Some have a genuine - albeit offbeat - desire to challenge the political structure in the UK.

Others are simply drawn by their willingness to use violence. Their priority, they say, is to leave a calling card - a smashed window, an injured police officer.

'If a copper has to die to get our point across then so be it,' an anarchist known as Seth said. 'I'm happy if the filth get sent crashing to the floor and don't get up - then we've had a good day out.'

Quite. I find the seeping of the Palestinian cause into domestic politics increasingly frightening. Not only because if its links to terrorism and radical Islam, but because all ideologies which espouse or excuse violence tend to be profoundly self-righteous, and this cause is more so than most.

With so much emotionally charged rhetoric used to strangle facts and reality, and more and more people believing the whitewashed, 'Robin Hood' version, and anti-Semitic attacks and rhetoric increasing on the back of it, I fear this situation can only get worse.

The NATO Summit

As Gordon Brown lauded sending 900 extra British troops to Afghanistan and wrangling almost 4,000 more from other European nations for 'Overseas Contingency Operation' as a 'success', Leftist and Anarchist protesters tore the city of Strasbourg apart.

The security operation apparently cost £100 million, and riots which started on the evening of 3rd April are down to minor clashes and a huge clean-up bill today.

In the violence, a customs house, a pharmacy and a hotel were stormed and burnt to the ground, at least 300 people were arrested and 10 hurt.

Police estimate that up to 10,000 demonstrators joined the melee on Saturday, but protest organisers put the figure closer to 30,000.

There seemed to be a slightly more sinister element among the protesters, however - radical Islamists. Certainly, many engaging in the violence were carrying Palestinian flags or wearing Kaffiyeh over their faces - observe the following video from Saturday:

Right at the very beginning you can see a hooded man carrying the flag of 'Palestine' smashing a shop front.

G20 Riots in London: Day One

As expected, there was a lot of trouble in London today as climate, anarchist and anti-capitalist protesters hit the streets en masse.

It didn't take long for violence to flare; paint, glass bottles, smoke bombs and metal barriers were thrown at police; one officer was injured when hit on the head by a masked anarchist wielding a pole.

Demonstrators were penned in for hours when they attempted to riot outside the Bank of England - and it's reported on some routes City workers leaned out of their windows, shouting taunts and waving £10 notes.

Hard-core Leftists stormed a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland in Threadneedle street, looting furniture, breaking windows and starting a small fire.

It was reported that at least 33 arrests were made, several police and protesters were injured, and at least one protester died.

The death apparently occurred at a 'climate camp' and was not related to scuffles with the police or other violence, although Sky News reported that police were pelted with bottles as they removed the man.

First, a couple of videos:



Here are some photographs of the day's events - the first from the Bank of England riot:













These are from the RBS riot on Threadneedle Street - more good pictures can be found here:

Anger & Anarchy

The campaign to blame bankers for the Government's incompetence is stepping up a gear, with the enthusiastic support of the British public and far-Left anarchist groups.

Earlier this week the home of Sir Fred Goodwin, Gordon Brown's favourite scapegoat, was attacked. Windows were smashed at the £3 million mansion, and a Mercedes S600 Saloon parked outside was damaged.

The tabloids are now complaining that one of those greedy fat-cat bankers who ruined our lives with their greed, the Capitalist, probably Tory-voting scum has a personal police guard sitting outside his house.

Well if you target a man's home and family for wrongs you perceive he committed in his working life, then that will probably happen. The idiots who vandalised his house and car have cost the public that money, not Sir Fred.

I must say I personally resent paying for Gordon Brown and the rest of the Government to live in their bubble of ignorance and privilege far more.

Because ultimately, Gordon, the buck stops with you. You were Chancellor for 10 years, and have been Prime Minister for nearly 2. You wanted the top job, and you were quite happy to use any dirty trick to get it, including pretending the largely stable economic conditions your Government inherited were your doing.

You told shameless lies - remember 'boom, and an end to the days of bust'?

Whilst you were telling these lies, you were busy spending like a drunken sailor and pillaging this country's assets like some Mongol-in-Chief.

How much would all that gold you took and sold off cheap to fund god-knows-what be worth now? Yeah, about 3 times as much.

You economic genius, you. I probably know more about Quantum Physics than I do Economics, and I know nothing of the former.

Yet I do know a loan isn't the solution to debt and you can't spend your way solvent.

Now, Gordon, it's time to take some responsibility. You signed off the pension payments for Sir Fred when you thought no one was looking - before it was convenient to pin your woes and failings on the man.

Let's be clear here; unlike you, Sir Fred did his job. Your responsibility should be to this country as a whole; his was only to RBS.

RBS may have lost £25 billion on his watch, but he got the Government to invest, perhaps making the bank as stable as it ever will be. So he did what he was paid for and contracted for - he got people to shore up his bank with large sums of cash.

Gordon, your job is undoubtedly more complex. But you can make up for your failings by suppressing your inner-Socialist and not letting this crisis be an excuse for the radical Left to rise in influence.

We have violent groups of extremists threatening to attack the homes of more people, a violent anarchist professor who lives in a £1 million home threatening to storm any building which does not turn off its lights during Saturday's 'Earth Hour', as well as urging people to attack the G20 and storm banks.

Let's just hope you're not looking the other way this time, Gordon, or our future does indeed look bleak.