Tag Archives: politics

Our best chance

FOR AT LEAST A GENERATION

Vote to LeaveFinally, we the British people will get to choose. Do we stay in the European Union, continuing to be ruled from continental Europe – and paying a small fortune for that privilege, or do we take back control of our country, our borders and our laws?

For years David Cameron has bowed down to dominant EU leaders like Angela Merkel & her French counterpart, while at the same time screwing every last penny out of the British people (to send to other nations!). Now we have the chance to end all that for good.

The case for leaving the EU is overwhelming and is well presented here. Many prominent government ministers are set to defy the prime minister and vote to leave, with more joining daily. It’s likely to be the only chance we’ll get to break free from EU rule, certainly for a generation at least, and we must take the opportunity!

Advertisements

French want rid of migrants

THE PERFECT SOLUTION

Calais chaosThe migrant chaos in Calais is out of control, everyone – apart from politicians – can see it!

It’s also common knowledge that the French want rid of those migrants, and the obvious way is through the channel tunnel in to the UK! Thing is, they can’t openly say that, though the distinct lack of effective preventative action speaks volumes. There is another way though.

As EU members, both France & the UK are bound by the “free movement” EU principle. So, if France issues the migrants with passports it effectively makes them EU citizens and, as such, they can simply walk in to the UK – quite legally! David Cameron is powerless to stop it.

There are already “help points” within the migrant camps giving advice on how to get in to Britain. How soon before we see the first French passport office too?

So much for UK border control. As EU members it’s non-existent!!!!

What’s wrong with society?

ANSWERS ON A POSTCARD!

CrimeSocietyI won’t attempt to provide a definitive response to that question, what I will do is put forward my thoughts on how things can be improved in at least one or two areas.

Take for example Crime. The government wants to save money, so public sector resources such as police are logical targets. The police are continually under pressure to solve more & more crimes with fewer & fewer officers. Why are there more crimes? Because there are fewer officers to prevent them!

There are various levels of crime though, ranging from the petty right up to, well, anything you care to name. Clearly the major crimes such as murder, robbery etc attract most police resources, which necessarily means that there are fewer officers to deal with the lower level crimes.

However, with very few exceptions, most criminals begin small & work up. What starts out as stealing a bar of chocolate from a supermarket can easily progress to street muggings and even on to armed robbery. Obviously not every criminal develops that way but the point I’m making is that if they get away with small crimes then the temptation is there to go for bigger rewards. 

The same thing can be seen on our roads. Someone gets away with parking where they shouldn’t; others see it and do the same. Then having got away with that one, it’s only a small step to not wearing a seat belt, or speeding, or using a mobile while driving. All relatively low-level offences in isolation but what if everyone drove around ignoring the rules? There’d be chaos & devastation.

It’s easy for police to say “we don’t have enough officers to deal with minor crimes”, but those are exactly the crimes they should be focusing on. Punish the minor crimes and deter the progression to anything bigger. Nip it in the bud, as the saying goes.

Clearly though it’s not as simple as that. In order to bring about such radical policing policies there’d need to be changes in other areas of law too, like the way offenders are dealt with (courts, prisons etc.), and that would then have a knock-on effect for other sectors. A massive undertaking.

I’ve hardly scratched the surface on this subject and it’s already becoming complicated, so to imaging any politician would have the will to embark on such changes is wishful thinking at best. That doesn’t alter the fact that the theory is sound. As a former Prime Minister once said, we must get “back to basics”, get the foundations right & the rest will follow just fine.

So “Mr Policeman”, the next time you see someone breaking the law don’t look the other way because it’s too much trouble. Make a start at doing your bit. ACT!

 

With friends like this…

…WHO NEEDS ENEMIES!

CalaisScenes like these were commonplace at the port of Calais over recent days. Hundreds (?) of migrants from across Europe, and beyond, hijacking lorries bound for Dover, and what were the French police doing about it? Nothing!

In fact, in some cases they were actively encouraging it!

Migrants have travelled the length and breadth of Europe, through many counties, all with one aim, to get to the UK. Why didn’t they settle in one of the countries through which they passed? Two reasons; one, the authorities in those countries make it perfectly clear immigrants are not wanted, and will get no help. Two, it’s almost universally known that the UK is a soft touch, offering hand-outs to anyone who can get here (by whatever means) – at the expense of the British taxpayer!

Is this the “freedom of movement” the EU is always banging on about?

Why aren’t the French doing more to stop this criminal activity? Simple, it’s in French interests to get those migrants on to lorries and out of France, then it becomes someone else’s problem. In this case the UK – again!

The French are showing a real “spirit of co-operation” between EU partners. Total c***!

When are UK politicians going to adopt the same “look after No.1” attitude that other countries display? We need two things in the UK; a change of government to one who puts UK people first, and out of the EU! Then, and only then, can we control our borders and stop scenes like the ones above.

Election Time

WHO KNOWS HOW YOU VOTE?

Ballot PaperVoting in any election is supposed to be secret, no-one should know how you’ve voted. That’s the theory anyway, so why are postal voting slips (ballot papers) numbered?

Each ballot paper has a serial number printed on the back. Along with that ballot paper is a form each voter has to complete to confirm his/her identity, a Postal Voting Statement, which contains a matching serial number. It therefore follows that by comparing the serial numbers it’s possible to know exactly how a particular person voted. The secrecy is blown wide open!

Of course there needs to be checks to prevent fraud, but there must be a better, more secure and private, way of doing it.

I’m not alone in feeling that such a system is open to abuse. Perhaps someone from the Electoral Commission or other regulatory body would reassure me of the anonymity of our voting system.

Update 27/04/15“Ask, and it shall be given”, & so the Electoral Commission responded as follows…

“It is a requirement of the election rules that the elector number is written against the number of the ballot papers issued to a particular elector on the corresponding number list. This system is essentially an updated version of a system that dates from the Ballot Act 1872, which was introduced to avoid the possibility of counterfeit ballot papers being used and to assist with the detection of alleged fraud. Clearly, if the ballot papers are numbered, it is far more difficult for an unscrupulous person to introduce copies of official ballot papers into the ballot box. If a fraudulent act has occurred, it would be possible to detect the offence by reference to the corresponding number list. There is a safeguard to prevent the ballot paper numbers on the corresponding list being linked with the marked ballot papers. At the close poll, the corresponding number list is placed in a sealed envelope by the Presiding Officer at the polling station. The sealed envelope is then taken to the Returning Officer. The only occasion when the sealed packets can be opened is on the order of a judge as a result of an election petition or in furtherance of an investigation into an alleged election offence. Even then, it is very rare for the documents to be examined except in cases where fraud or personation (i.e. someone voting illegally on someone else’s behalf) are being investigated. Because of these safeguards, it is virtually impossible for any person to be in a position to marry up an elector to a particular ballot paper. For that reason, electors can be confident that the ballot remains secret. Electors have no grounds to fear that the way in which they voted could be detected, except under the very special circumstances outlined above.”

So, there you have it. Decide for yourself how safe your vote is.

Energy Saving?

SO WHY NO HOT-FILLS?

No hot fillIn this day & age of energy saving one everyday item seems to have been ignored. The washing machine, common in virtually every household, is a substantial consumer of that precious energy, but why must it consume so much – when there’s a solution.

Apart from the actual washing action, energy is also used to heat the water going into the machine. Surely if that heating process could be reduced or even eliminated then energy would be saved.

Time was when all such appliances came with two hoses, hot and cold, and the user could then choose whether to use hot or cold water. Naturally the use of hot water would save both time & energy, so why have manufacturers removed the “hot” option?

There are various “reasons” given by manufactures and service people as to why hot fills are unnecessary, but common sense says otherwise. The water must be heated to perform a proper wash, so not to use already hot water is simply wasteful. One thing’s for sure, cold-only machines takes far longer to complete a wash, thus using more energy!

Maybe the real reason lies in finance. Maybe it’s cheaper to manufacture cold-only machines, thus increasing profits. Maybe common-sense isn’t that common after all!

 

Life Means Life

But DOES IT… & WHY?

Life imprisonmentLife imprisonment. Most people take this term to mean that the prisoner will spend the rest of his/her days behind bars, but not so. After a minimum term has been served the prisoner is eligible for parole. A “whole life” sentence however is a different matter. In this case the prisoner will never be released from prison! It’s this “whole life” sentence I will concentrate on here.

Ever since the death penalty was abolished in the UK there’s been controversy about “life” sentences. Recently the ECHR ruled that it was a breach of human rights, inhumane, to lock someone up for life, with no chance of ever being released. However, the Court of Appeal here in the UK overruled that decision (for once standing up to the EU) and said that British courts could sentence people to whole life terms, in the most severe cases.

That now begs the question “why lock someone up for ever?”

What happens when someone is locked up with the knowledge that they will eventually die in prison? To begin with, the victims family may feel a sense of justice, knowing that the criminal is serving a similar sentence to them, and that this person will never be free to walk the streets and commit other heinous crimes. But what about the prisoner? He/she knows that whatever they do in prison they can’t be punished more (leaving aside for now prison rules/discipline). Someone with nothing to lose makes for a very dangerous person! Dangerous to other prisoners and to prison staff. This situation makes an already dangerous work environment even worse. Also, there’s the cost. Keeping someone in prison, often for many many years, is very expensive; a cost that has to be borne by the British public.

So what’s the alternative?

Reintroduce the death penalty for such prisoners! This would take away the long-term dangers, save a small fortune, provide the justice many victims seek – “an eye for an eye” – and it would give the prisoner a closure point. Indeed many life prisoners do commit suicide (either because they can’t face the years ahead or because they feel deserving of such a punishment), and many others require special, long-term, attention to prevent such actions, which is itself a drain on prison resources.

This, I realise, is a very emotive subject, and there will be people out there with many reasons to disagree with me. However, as is my right, I am putting forward a point of view shared by vast numbers of the British public. So far politicians have shied away when it comes to this debate, but with large swathes of the world still having, & using, the death penalty how long can British MPs keep their heads in the sand?