Tuesday 27 March 2012 by Waylandsmithy

Cameron insists ‘nothing new’ about using army to secure fuel supplies


David Cameron has defended proposals to use soldiers to drive petrol tankers, pointing out that the army ‘is well used’ to being sent to places just because it has some fuel we want access to.

With tanker drivers unhappy about earning a mere £45k a year to eat pasties and twiddle with hoses, Britain’s armed forces have once again been called in to put their cholesterol levels on the line, and have a bit of a go on the air horns.

“Britain’s servicemen have a lot of experience in running around after our fuel requirements”, explained Cameron.

“Kuwait, Iraq, Libya. And next month, the Falklands.”

But union leaders hoping to improve society by bringing it to a standstill, claim that it isn’t safe to use poorly paid soldiers to stand in for their members.

“It’s a skilled job, with many dangers. You need to know your way around a tank”, explained Unite union leader Len McCluskey.

“But that doesn’t mean that soldiers can stand in for our lorry drivers.”

Fuel driver strike

McCluskey is trying to win the hearts and minds of the British public, by explaining why a pre-emptive strike is necessary.

“Some of our brave lads are scraping by on less than £44.5k a year, while the fat cats at other privately-owned tanker companies are swanning around on £45.5k. It’s disgusting”, he declared from his ivory helicopter.

“Look! Those ones are even getting subsidised Yorkies!”

Having invaded the staff rooms of the seven major tanker companies and persuaded them to lay down their ignition keys, McCluskey hopes to bring parity to public and private sector workers.

“By making it impossible to get anywhere without a great deal of stress and frustration, we’re hoping to drag everyone down to our level.”

McCluskey refused to comment on suggestions that he was only interested in regime change.

There are currently witterings below - why not add your own?

Previous post:

Next post: