In just one and a half years, the coalition has wanted to use the military to "keep the peace" during the riots, has employed them to man immigration queues at airports when the unions were on strike and wants them to police the Olympics and other large events.
And this week, the government has floated the idea of privatising parts of the military.
It's because of the cuts, don't you know. Or for "security", of course.
Is May acclimatising us to being 'policed' by the military? Do she and the other freaking politicians temporarily in charge of our democracy realise what they're doing? If so, why are they doing it? If not, why why are the cretins still in charge?
The police, under the Peel doctrine, are there to keep the peace and to investigate criminal activity. The military are trained to kill, acting under martial law where civilians have no rights at all. Not even, it seems, those 'protected' under the Geneva Convention, as various sham inquiries have shown in recent years.
The US constitution is very clear about not allowing the army to 'police' civilians - for damned good reason: it inevitably leads to abuse of power and/or military dictatorship. Our military industrial complex* is far too powerful as it is.
We can assume that the coming depression will see mass unrest; heaven help us if government uses the military to quell it.
During Egypt's uprising, the corporate media was obsessed - nay, awed - by the apparent friendliness of the military towards the protestors. But after Libya's regime change, the military weren't quite so friendly, were they?
If we refuse to learn from history, can we please, at least, learn from events of the past year? Please?
* Isn't is peculiar that our most profitable products - financial derivatives and military equipment - are weapons of mass destruction which we deploy ceaselessly?
- Information and power - EU defense policy - Ian Parker-Joseph (hat tip: Mr Witterings)
- The Article 36 Committee - Ian Parker-Joseph