Over at Anna Raccoon's place is an innocent looking collection of words that, when read in order, produce a very unpleasant message.
Our government intends to put armed military patrols on the streets of this country as a matter of routine. Why? Well, to combat terrorism, of course. If you Muslims thought racial profiling at airports was a terrible thing, wait until you are strip-searched in the street by men with guns.
It's not just the Muslims, naturally. Smokers, fat boys with burgers, anyone carrying a miniature of Famous Grouse, anyone who protests, anyone who looks a little odd and anyone wearing a St. George Cross is going to be investigated. But the Muslims will get the worst of it.
This 'terrorism' excuse just doesn't wash. The terrorists, what few exist, don't go around the streets being terrifying. They build bombs, but can't work out how to set a timer so they find a dope with no future and tell him to press the button when the big hand is on the nine. No amount of patrolling the streets will have any effect on this whatsoever. They aren't on the streets.
The only way to catch these terrorists is if law-abiding Muslims get to hear about them and pass the information to the police. Faced with the same military presence as their Afghan and Iraqi co-religionists, are they going to feel more or less comfortable with going to the authorities?
Army patrols on the streets will see the flow of information stop dead. Army patrols will give the terrorists all the recruits they could ever need. Army patrols are entirely the wrong thing to do for every reason you can think of. Except one. The small matter of keeping the population scared.
There's also the small matter of these soldiers being sent into wars without equipment. From the Chilcot blatherings, it emerged that the Tiny Blur wanted a quick victory in Iraq, but the Brown Gorgon was concerned that a quick victory would make the Blur powerful enough to oust him from the Treasury. The Gorgon held the finances. Would he have deliberately held back those finances so that Tiny's quick victory could not happen?
He's still cutting the military budget. He's building two aircraft carriers but being very cagey about whether he's buying any aircraft for them. They could end up being used as floating football fields.
Labour now say that no country could be expected to defend itself even though most countries have been managing to do that for a long time. We are to have a joint army with the French. Considering our history, the French would not have been top of my list. They haven't forgiven us for Agincourt yet. Nor for sinking all their ships in the last war. It's just the first stage of an EU army, of course, and the aircraft carriers won't be carrying British aircraft at all.
And yet he expects the military to be unswervingly loyal to him. To shoot the people who cheer them home, and to defend those who are responsible for the deaths and disfigurements they have witnessed. There might be a flaw in the politician's plan here.
This has nothing to do with terrorism. This is preparation for civil unrest. They know it's coming because they've been trying to provoke it for a very long time. That civil contingencies act is just waiting for the first brick to be thrown.
The thing is, when it comes to the crunch, whose side will the army be on?