It sadden 's me to see our great nation split, bickering and jockying for postition on the world stage, becuase were seen as a pawn of Armerica. We have a leadership to scared to lead, laws that are out of date and allow us as a nation to be ridiculed and our systems abused by anyone.
Enough! Take back our country, take back our laws and give the people back the pride that is sadly lacking from todays youth.

'The Common Sense Party' has arrived - but we need to build a manefesto. You choose the laws you want scrapped, ammended or introduced. It can be any law.
Here are a few just to wet your appitite.

1. Reintroduction of the death penalty for all Deliberate murders, drug dealers, rapists and child molestors. Death to be carried out within 48 hrs of sentencing.

2. CLose all borders and allow immigration based the country needing the work skills offered by the claimant.

3. London Underground forced to install Aircon in all tubes and stations

4. NHS to be scrapped - Abulance service will remain to give life saving treatment and move casualty to the nearest hospital.

5. Tax on fags and booze scrapped.

Well its your party - post your idea and be part of somthing!

None of the above laws are practical. The death penalty has never proved to be any use in stopping crime. We need to allow asylum migration as do most countries. Air con on the underground is not possible due to the cost. A combination of NHS and private might work. Tax on fags and booze are good things especially the fags. A small drop in tax on booze might be useful.

It all sounds like the UK Independence Party.

Your missing the point haystack - it doesnt matter if things are practical or not. Do you have a sense of humour?

add make a sense of humour compulsary.

Not sure about the death penalty argument. I keep hearing people say that it has no effect on crime rates, but search as I might, i struggle to find evidence of crimes not committed.
Alan

If for a moment were talking sensibly about the death penalty, then with a few alterations to the current system it could work. for example it is only for cases where there is no doubt ie, the waterman delivering your water enters your office, shoots your boss dead. You all see him. He runs out trips an knocks himself out. You all tie him up until the police arrive. He is arrested, charged and convicted. He should be sentenced to death.
It is important to state ' Where there is no doubt'. The fact that he never had a teddy bear as a child or his parents never loved him is irrelevant. He deliberately killed therefore he deserves to die.

I studied law, including crime and criminology and it is well established that removal or re-introduction of the death penalty has no real effect as a crime-deterrent.

My belief in both natural law and higher justice suggests to me that this does not automatically make the death penalty void per se, as deterrent is only one of the purposes of punishment.

It's also worth noting that if one is to make the punishment fit the crime then in some cases it can be a mistake to apply the death penalty even if the majority is in favour of it on retributive grounds. Islamic fundamentalists, for example, regard the death penalty for terrorism as martyrdom and therefore a victory rather than a punishment. It would therefore be better to imprison Islamic terrorists for life as this is less fuel to the flames of the terrorist cause.

MP for the breweries for me, please.
And can i be party Vice Chairman, so that all the vice has to be tried by me first??
bosley - 26 Jul 2006 12:20 - 4883 of 4884
could i be mp for music. then i could get a law passed so that all that loud, pounding shite played by wanker, 19 year old, corsa driving, hoodie wearing dickheads will be banned.
hewittalan6 - 26 Jul 2006 12:26 - 4884 of 4884
I commend that proposal to the house. Can I suggest a punishment for the offence of having a Sony walkman containing Barry Manilow and Des O'Conner - the complete works stapled to their ears.
Thread List Earlier Posts Page: 1 ... 243 244 245

Oh dear. We've gone all serious.
Point one. Nobody is convicted of anything unless beyond reasonable doubt.
Point two. Surely in a democracy, the arguments for and against are irrelevant. if it is the wish of the majority of the people (which it demonstrably is) that the death penalty be reintroduced, then so be it.
Discuss.

PS - Marc, can't agree your scrapping of the tax on fags and booze, as it's one of my princiapl beefs about the German health reforms: that they have failed to grasp the nettle and raise the funds to cover high-risk groups from the activities that lead to increased incidence of heart-attacks, cancer, etc. Under the recent reforms, everyone is obliged to pay a little extra (making the current health insurance contribution by each individual employee in Germany the equivalent of almost 15% of our pay packets, natch,), which means that I, as a non-smoker and moderate drinker am financing the heart-ops, cancer treatments and liver failures of the smokers and drinkers.

In the UK this is all very sensibly covered by taxes and this ensures that the damage is being "insured" at source.

To many people are hung up on the fact that this person will die. I firmly believe he deserves to die and loses any rights to this society when he takes another life.
The main reason for the example ive given is show the difference between the deliberate murder and accidental murder which should be life in prison (35 years min)

Al, "Surely in a democracy, the arguments for and against are irrelevant. if it is the wish of the majority of the people (which it demonstrably is) that the death penalty be reintroduced, then so be it."

That's my point about making the world a less confusing place - sometimes in a democracy, people don't know what's good for them or the country. Given that the average UK citizen these days is unable to read, lives in one of Her Majesty's holiday camps, wears Burberry and is a 17-year-old, unemployable mother of four, I don't know how far I trust democracy.

I therefore propose a Court of Common Sense to review democratic decisions and ensure that they promote the betterment of society as a whole. Jeremy Bentham's "the greatest good of the greatest number," etc.

Marc, I concur to a degree with your last point about murderers forfeiting the right to their own life.

However, there is no such thing as accidental murder. You mean either manslaughter or unlawful killing. Murder is "death resulting from the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm". At least it was when I studied it ten years ago.

Just realised that 17-year-old mothers of four can't vote. Nor can those who are serving time at Her Majesty's pleasure. Still, when she hits 18, completes her eight months' concurrent sentence for shoplifting, breaches of the peace and failure to comply with ASBOs and is a mother of seven, she'll be an enfranchised member of the electoral community and that is a scary prospect.

Especially given that she can't read and will therefore probably think that the ballot paper is a new form of National Lottery.

Ps - I love this thread - I haven't been so Jeremy-Clarkson right-wing in ages!! In Germany you have to be careful about speaking your mind, especially if you're possessed of a black sense of humour that none of the locals will understand.

Soul traders - your splitting hairs a little just like a laywer, the name of a crime is irrelevant, but i will give in to murder meaning deliberate and manslaughter meaning accidental.

Marc, you have me bang to rights - once a lawyer, always a pedant ! :o)

You have to be too careful here. And thats the point.
By virtually outlawing any comment that could possibly be construed as offensive, you stifle debate, rendering it a pointless talking shop, because the centre of the problem becomes off limits.
For example. A town close to me, Dewsbury, has a very high percentage Muslim population. Relationships are strained. Neither side is able to vocalise their own feelings on the subject properly. Many of the working class whites of the area feel their town has been hijacked, and the towns finances are being disproportionally used for muslim centres and Muslim celebrations. The Muslim population feels sidelined and not integrated. neither side can say this for fear of being branded racist.
We are left witha situation that is obviously volatile a la Bolton and Bradford, with very clear and obvious problems that no-one can do anything about, because to address them would be seen as a racist move!!!
My first law would be to scrap all racism laws. I am well aware of the social costs of this move, but I think the advantages would outweigh those costs.
Alan

Al, you have a good point. Political correctness is responsible for so much social paralysis. If people can actually be brought together to hear one another's views - and here's the rub - to actually listen rather than start threatening violence every time they hear a contrary opinion, then just maybe there's a chance of getting them to work together.

soul traders
I have also found that Germany is very PC about humour and comments that people may make. I have a gay friend in Frankfurt who lives in the Alta Gasse (not sure of spelling) area. He took me to a a lot of gay club one night. The music was very good and it was quite enjoyable (especially after he told his friends I was straight).

At about 3:00 am we were standing outside one of the clubs with around 50 or more people. A Mercedes sports car pulled up across the road and the driver shouted something. He quickly drove off and there was silence for quite a while. The club goers looked quite shocked. I asked what he had said that was so shocking. He replied that the driver had shouted "you should all be put in concentration camps". Apparantly this sort of thing is never said.

Thank you both - the point that got me to writing this thread in the first place. There are so many laws, which of the years have stiffled us, and are preventing us as a country fully ingrigating.
Laws orinally designed to help people are now having the reverse effect.

The real problem is that people have been hoodwinked into believing that anything that offends them should not be allowed. This has been the prime motivator behind racism, agism, homophobism and anti smoking laws. It is about time that our childish race grew up and realised that if you and your property are not harmed, lost or put in danger by something, then the fact that you are offended is legally irrelevant.
i am offended by many things. I am inconvenienced by many more, but to call for a ban on them all is ridiculous. Surely it is time to return the law to its basis of the Harm to others principle. To those who complain that a particular word, phrase or action hurts their feelings I deliver one message. Tough. Grow up. You left the nursery a long time ago.
Alan