That was a splendid call from the gun lobby in America, to insist the only problem with gun ownership is even more people should have them. This means supporters of Bush have only once pursued anyone for possessing weapons, and then it turned out he didn’t have any.
But whereas American politicians demand everyone should be armed, when our politicians announce they’re going to deal with antisocial behaviour, they say they’ll stop people being rude. So David Cameron has declared we’re becoming “de-civilised”, because “we all have experience of swearing in public, road rage, Tube rage, never mind what is said if you ask someone not to drop litter or cycle on the pavement”. He’s certainly found the answer to the cycling problem, because when he cycled he only went from one side of the road to the other, never making it as far as the pavement. If all cyclists did that, maybe they wouldn’t be tempted.
Politicians love a war on rudeness, as it makes them sound ordinary, exasperated by surly youngsters with no respect. But when would David Cameron come across anyone like that? Unless when he’s playing tennis the ball boy says: “That return was well out, blood; it’s true dat sick serve, man, innit. Thirty-all, you get me.”
And what he’s missed is that the rudest people are often not the hoodies and kids hanging around council estates, but the rich. You rarely come across anyone as “de-civilised” as the city dealer types, snarling: “Come on, hurry up,” at flustered barmaids, and taking delight in intimidating a waiter with complaints about the wine. Whereas you’d rarely hear a youth from an FE college summoning a waiter in Pizza Hut and saying: “For goodness sake, this lager’s absolutely awful – fetch me another.”
Anyone who’s worked in hotels or restaurants will say the richer the clients, the more likely they’ll be despicably rude, hurling food about and dropping their trousers. And if David Cameron’s mates from Eton never leave litter, it’s probably because they’ve each got a little Egyptian boy to follow them around picking it up.
But there’s now also a modern rudeness, of greedy corporations, which disguise their insolence as politeness. So British Gas will happily leave you on the phone for 50 minutes, as you try to find out why no one came again, as promised, which is rude – except they’ll periodically tell you: “Although we deeply, deeply value your esteemed majestic custom, and, indeed, rarely have we encountered one so fair and noble as your eloquent, nay, holy self, we are currently unable to envisage any time ever when we’ll ever be able to answer your call, so you’d best try again in October, oh most hallowed enquirer to our humble gaseous service.”
Politeness has become corporate, so companies force their staff to repeat phrases deemed as polite. For example, air stewardesses have to stand at the exit of an aircraft and beam to everyone who leaves: “Thank you for flying with us, we hope you enjoy your stay. Thank you for flying with us, we hope you enjoy your stay.” But it’s so obviously forced it fools no one. It would be friendlier if they were allowed to say what they really think and go: “Here, I bet you shat yourself in the turbulence.”
For anyone in authority, it’s easy to appear smugly polite. That’s why a stroppy ticket collector on a train can appear reasonable if he says: “I’m sorry, sir, I’m afraid this ticket is inexplicably invalid. Therefore I must request you pay for a full single fare which is £11,000.” Then if you say: “Bloody hell, mate, that can’t be right”, they’ll reply: “I’ve asked you politely, sir, now if you’re going to swear I’ll be forced to call the East London Armed Response Unit.”
The current culture makes this sort of rudeness almost compulsory. Last week on the television programme The Apprentice, a woman was kicked off in disgrace because she thought it was unethical to sell lollipops to kids for £1 when they’d cost only 10p to make. That’s where we’re at, a nation that goes: “What do you mean, you won’t rob children of their pound? With that sort of attitude how will we build a nation fit for our children?”
The amazing thing is, in spite of this acceptance that nothing can work unless it offers someone a vast profit – whether it’s a school, hospital, Olympic Games or lollipop – society still functions, because millions of people contribute their efforts for free. People run children’s sports clubs and centres for old people and make cakes for schools. And despite conditions on London Underground, there’s little “Tube rage”, as most people simply place themselves in a convenient trance, like one of these people in India who sit for days up a pole.
Parents with buggies usually do find someone to help them up the stairs, and they don’‘t often say: “But why should I help when there’s no fiscal incentive? I know, I’ll set up a company that charges three quid a carry, then make it illegal for any passer-by to do it for nothing, as this will undermine free trade under an agreement ratified by the World Bank.”
Maybe Cameron’s approach should be to combine traditional British politeness with an American approach to weapons. So under the Tories, when we invade someone for no apparent reason, at least we’ll send a letter that says: “We cordially inform you that on the 14th instance we shall be depositing upon you an unprecedented barrage of weaponry with the aim of blowing you to shit (sorry about the swearing).”
That was a splendid call from the gun lobby in America, to insist the only problem with gun ownership is even more people should have them. This means supporters of Bush have only once pursued anyone for possessing weapons, and then it turned out he didn’t have any.
But whereas American politicians demand everyone should be armed, when our politicians announce they’re going to deal with antisocial behaviour, they say they’ll stop people being rude. So David Cameron has declared we’re becoming “de-civilised”, because “we all have experience of swearing in public, road rage, Tube rage, never mind what is said if you ask someone not to drop litter or cycle on the pavement”. He’s certainly found the answer to the cycling problem, because when he cycled he only went from one side of the road to the other, never making it as far as the pavement. If all cyclists did that, maybe they wouldn’t be tempted.
Politicians love a war on rudeness, as it makes them sound ordinary, exasperated by surly youngsters with no respect. But when would David Cameron come across anyone like that? Unless when he’s playing tennis the ball boy says: “That return was well out, blood; it’s true dat sick serve, man, innit. Thirty-all, you get me.”
And what he’s missed is that the rudest people are often not the hoodies and kids hanging around council estates, but the rich. You rarely come across anyone as “de-civilised” as the city dealer types, snarling: “Come on, hurry up,” at flustered barmaids, and taking delight in intimidating a waiter with complaints about the wine. Whereas you’d rarely hear a youth from an FE college summoning a waiter in Pizza Hut and saying: “For goodness sake, this lager’s absolutely awful – fetch me another.”
Anyone who’s worked in hotels or restaurants will say the richer the clients, the more likely they’ll be despicably rude, hurling food about and dropping their trousers. And if David Cameron’s mates from Eton never leave litter, it’s probably because they’ve each got a little Egyptian boy to follow them around picking it up.
But there’s now also a modern rudeness, of greedy corporations, which disguise their insolence as politeness. So British Gas will happily leave you on the phone for 50 minutes, as you try to find out why no one came again, as promised, which is rude – except they’ll periodically tell you: “Although we deeply, deeply value your esteemed majestic custom, and, indeed, rarely have we encountered one so fair and noble as your eloquent, nay, holy self, we are currently unable to envisage any time ever when we’ll ever be able to answer your call, so you’d best try again in October, oh most hallowed enquirer to our humble gaseous service.”
Politeness has become corporate, so companies force their staff to repeat phrases deemed as polite. For example, air stewardesses have to stand at the exit of an aircraft and beam to everyone who leaves: “Thank you for flying with us, we hope you enjoy your stay. Thank you for flying with us, we hope you enjoy your stay.” But it’s so obviously forced it fools no one. It would be friendlier if they were allowed to say what they really think and go: “Here, I bet you shat yourself in the turbulence.”
For anyone in authority, it’s easy to appear smugly polite. That’s why a stroppy ticket collector on a train can appear reasonable if he says: “I’m sorry, sir, I’m afraid this ticket is inexplicably invalid. Therefore I must request you pay for a full single fare which is £11,000.” Then if you say: “Bloody hell, mate, that can’t be right”, they’ll reply: “I’ve asked you politely, sir, now if you’re going to swear I’ll be forced to call the East London Armed Response Unit.”
The current culture makes this sort of rudeness almost compulsory. Last week on the television programme The Apprentice, a woman was kicked off in disgrace because she thought it was unethical to sell lollipops to kids for £1 when they’d cost only 10p to make. That’s where we’re at, a nation that goes: “What do you mean, you won’t rob children of their pound? With that sort of attitude how will we build a nation fit for our children?”
The amazing thing is, in spite of this acceptance that nothing can work unless it offers someone a vast profit – whether it’s a school, hospital, Olympic Games or lollipop – society still functions, because millions of people contribute their efforts for free. People run children’s sports clubs and centres for old people and make cakes for schools. And despite conditions on London Underground, there’s little “Tube rage”, as most people simply place themselves in a convenient trance, like one of these people in India who sit for days up a pole.
Parents with buggies usually do find someone to help them up the stairs, and they don’‘t often say: “But why should I help when there’s no fiscal incentive? I know, I’ll set up a company that charges three quid a carry, then make it illegal for any passer-by to do it for nothing, as this will undermine free trade under an agreement ratified by the World Bank.”
Maybe Cameron’s approach should be to combine traditional British politeness with an American approach to weapons. So under the Tories, when we invade someone for no apparent reason, at least we’ll send a letter that says: “We cordially inform you that on the 14th instance we shall be depositing upon you an unprecedented barrage of weaponry with the aim of blowing you to shit (sorry about the swearing).”