Criminal Class

“You know what makes my blood boil?” asks right-wing columnist and London Mayoral candidate Reginald Hink. “Well. like any self-respecting Englishman, I get extremely angry when I don’t see justice done. Just look at this recent case where a grandmother was mauled to death by two dogs that got into her garden – now we learn that the animals involved have been humanely destroyed. Humanely? It is just typical of the namby pamby liberalism that afflicts this modern world that these murderous canine delinquents are allowed the luxury of painless euthanasia while their victim died in terror and agony.” Hink has been outlining his policies on law and order in the run up to this year’s election for the capital’s mayor, coming down firmly in favour old fashioned punitive justice. “The bastards should have been given the most inhumane deaths imaginable – torn apart by hungry tigers, perhaps. At the very least, they should have been tied up, then beaten to death with pillow cases full of bricks – a suitably painful and lingering death for these homicidal hounds,” he opined during a radio phone-in. “Oh, I know what you bed-wetting snowflakes out there are saying, while wringing you hands, that it isn’t the fault of the dogs, but of their owner, that it is he who should be held to account. Well, fine – he should have his cock and balls cut off and fed to his dogs, then dangled upside on a rope in front of them, while they – having got a taste for the git – tear him to pieces. Then, of course, the dogs would have to beaten to death with pillow cases full of bricks because, you know, they’d have become man eaters with a dangerous taste for human flesh.”

According to the journalist turned would be politician, it is high time that Britain got back to basics and started making the punishment fit the crime. “Arsonists, for instance, should have petrol poured over them before being set alight,” he proclaimed. “Murderers should be executed in a similar manner to the way in which they killed their victims: stabbed, shot, strangled, bludgeoned or poisoned as appropriate. But where would you find the sort of people needed to execute criminals in such a grisly fashion, I hear the bed wetters cry. Well I, for one would be more than happy to perform this socially beneficial function. In fact, I would be honoured to dispatch a few anti-social murdering bastards – or even bugger a few rapists to within an inch of their lives. I would have absolutely no qualms about it.” In response to a caller to the phone-in asking whether he’d be prepared to execute anyone if there was a chance they were wrongfully convicted, Hink responded robustly. “You snowflakes always ask me this,” he snorted in derisory fashion. “Obviously I would – their conviction wouldn’t been down to me. My conscience would be clear. Besides, they are bound to be guilty of something – their type always is!”

Hink then found himself faced by the question of whether he would you be prepared to risk being wrongly convicted and horribly executed if his proposals on crime and punishment were to be implemented? “Well, that’s an utterly ridiculous question,” he told the caller. “People like me don’t go around committing such crimes. Or if they do, don’t get caught. I mean, people of my class are just far too clever for the police. That’s why we make out sure that all those PC Plods are recruited from the lower classes – to ensure that they are too thick to catch us, but are able to understand the criminal minds of their criminal brethren from the great unwashed!” Warming to his theme, Hink elaborated on his theories of criminal class. “Even if someone like me were to kill someone, say, I have sufficient connections with the right people to ensure that any court would see it, rightly, as self-defence,” he mused. “That’s the thing you see – crimes are only crimes because of the sort of people who commit them. It’s a matter of motivation and any legal professional will tell you that motive is key in establishing guilt. So, you see, if someone of my class were to commit what might be described as a crime, it would be for the right reasons: self defence, passion and so on. Whereas the lower orders are always motivated by greed, venality and crude sexual urges.”

Hink declared that the new system of justice he was proposing is fool proof. “Only the right sort of people would be convicted and punished,” he says. “Not decent, patriotic, types like us.” The mayoral candidate contends that everything is, ultimately, about social class. “That’s the problem with modern Britain – we’ve lost sight of the natural order of things,” he explains. “We need to renew our traditional class system – it is what made this country great: the belief that your social position makes you innately superior to those below you. From the Queen at the top, down to the lowliest scumbag on the street, everybody knew their place – of course, in the glorious days of Empire, even those scumbags could feel innately superior to foreigners by dint of being white and British scumbags.” Today, however, Hink contends, too many people seem confused as to where they fit into society. It is this sort of nonsensical lefty concepts of ‘classlessness’ which create so much social malaise – people are much happier when they know where they stand in the natural hierarchy of class.”

Not surprisingly, the phone in culminated with a number of callers labelling Hink a ‘Gammon’ – an insult used to describe the sort of red-faced, knee jerk reactionary Little Englanders who voted for Brexit and dominate the BBC Question Time audience. Hink remains unphased by such insults, instead attempting to embrace the term. “You see, these woke types just don’t seem to grasp that for chaps like me, being called a ‘Gammon’ simply isn’t an insult,” he chortles. “As I understand it, in reality gammon is a nicely cooked joint of prime British meat – who could possibly be offended by being compared to that?”