The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

Who will you be voting for?

  • Tory

    Votes: 38 9.9%
  • Diet Tory (Labour)

    Votes: 132 34.3%
  • Tory Zero (Greens)

    Votes: 44 11.4%
  • Extra Tory with lemon (UKIP)

    Votes: 40 10.4%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 9 2.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 31 8.1%
  • Cheese on toast

    Votes: 91 23.6%

  • Total voters
    385
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course, and when the rainy day came they had sufficient borrowing power to support the banks and maintain investment in public services.

Brown led the response globally out of the credit crunch, that should never be forgotten.

You know, I am starting to question some of my thoughts on this. Hmmm.
 

Anyone with a serious criminal background less than 10 years preious should be refused entry and after that individual cases should be heard and discretion used. Anyone with a rape or a murder conviction should NEVER be allowed in.

It's common sense. Being in Europe means we can't control who he hell comes in and threatens the security of our population. As that poor girl is very likely to have found out along with countless others who have been the victim of European crime in some format.
So what about 'serious' British criminals? Should British murderers and rapists be let loose in British society?
 
So what about 'serious' British criminals? Should British murderers and rapists be let loose in British society?

Are you serious?!

That's what jail is for. We cant control who is born here, we CAN and SHOULD be able to control who comes in. Please stop being so stupid.
 
What a stupid point.

If im honest, I couldn't give one [Poor language removed] about thailand. I care about my country and what sort of a country my future children will grow up in.

Just checking, it's because you were banging on about crime and criminals. Now I can see you dont care at all about crime and criminals, its the being foreign part you are concerned about.

Thought so. Ta.
 

It's quite simple really - in a laissez faire system there would be no (or very little) regulation, no business taxes and no minimum wage - so 'big business' would have no reason to try and influence government policy.

This is how it (currently) works: Government imposes regulation and tax -> Businesses dislike this so lobby the government to lower regulation and tax -> Political parties need money to survive, so they do what big business want.

In a laissez faire system, the government doesn't impose regulation and tax, so there's no reason for businesses to lobby the government, so the whole sordid affair doesn't even start.

But again, we do not have a laissez faire economic system - that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

It isn't quite simple though is it? Unless you see it as a plain interpretation of definition. To usher in a revolution in society the easiest way is to do it quietly. The minimum wage isn't that is it? It has been used to drive down wages not to benefit workers, it has been circumvented by the use of zero hours, it's a complex gathering of business driven wants to serve business, painted as benefitting the ordinary person.

It is all stealth government by corporations. If it was an accepted and perceived reality by the masses there would be greater resistance.

You've pointed out a government wouldn't impose a business tax, how about impose one but avoid collecting it? Under Reagan GM tax bill went in the negative and they ended up receiving state rebates. In the UK we use tax avoidance as a means of maintaining the power structure, the bill for its maintenance being paid by the poorer members of society.

As I said earlier it's a Cartel. Choosing to label it as being neither one thing but another misses the point, it's just semantics, but the whole system is skewed so regardless who you vote for you end up with the same outcome, Einstein's accredited definition of lunacy.

Laissez faire, corporatism, whichever, whatever, but the existing system fits in with Mussolini's own definition of fascism. everyone has a place to serve, can't do it? don't like it? Tough there is no safety net, sick, poor, old, doesn't matter, you're expendable in the pursuit of profit. Abhorrent.
 
Are you serious?!

That's what jail is for. We cant control who is born here, we CAN and SHOULD be able to control who comes in. Please stop being so stupid.
So the British murderer / rapist has done his 10 years, should he be released back into society again?
 
So the British murderer / rapist has done his 10 years, should he be released back into society again?

If he is born here, and justice has been served and they are deemed to be ready for society again then yes. That's what the justice system does. I think in an ideal world these people would be strung up, but if a judge and court of law hands a sentence and then once that sentence is completed they decide that they have the ability to reintergrate then we must accept it as part of democracy. 95% of the time it is a good system where particullally dangerous criminals don't get let out. Unfortunately, the irony is if we keep letting foreign criminals come in unchecked then our already choca prison system gets full up, forcing more potentially dangerous criminals to be let out to make space.

What cant a few of you understand about not letting potentially dangerous foreign criminals in? We have a choice not to let these people come in and add to the low lifes we already have here. Unfortunatly low lifes born here we have to deal with, foreign low lives we shouldn't have to.

All Im calling for is checks. Its not that unreasonable to not want convicted murderers let in without a background check. If someone has a job to go to, money to support themselves, a clean criminal history and somewhere to live then fine. If not, then NO. Fact is we've just let a foreign convicted murderer into our country who has potentially murdered a British girl. How some of you are arguing FOR that to be allowed to happen baffles me. British convicted murderers/rapists/robbers etc are something British society HAS to deal with as does any society. That is why we have prisons, and courts and assessors. These resources should NOT have to be used dealing with certain foreign people who pose an obvious threat to our society. With this case in particular all it would have taken is one quick glance at his previous convictions. I mean Christ in heaven.

Is that unreasonable? Am I being racist or something?
 
Last edited:

If he is born here, and justice has been served and they are deemed to be ready for society again then yes.

What cant a few of you understand about not letting potentially dangerous foreign criminals in? We have a choice not to let these people come in and add to the low lifes we already have here. Unfortunatly low lifes born here we have to deal with, foreign low lives we shouldn't have to.

All Im calling for is checks. Its not that unreasonable to not want convicted murderers let in without a background check. If someone has a job to go to, money to support themselves, a clean criminal history and somewhere to live then fine. If not, then NO. Fact is we've just let a foreign convicted murderer into our country who has potentially murdered a British girl. How some of you are arguing FOR that to be allowed to happen baffles me. British convicted murderers/rapists/robbers etc are something British society HAS to deal with as does any society. That is why we have prisons, and courts and assessors. These resources should NOT have to be used dealing with certain foreign people who pose an obvious threat to our society. With this case in particular all it would have taken is one quick glance at his previous convictions. I mean Christ in heaven.

Is that unreasonable? Am I being racist or something?
So,

British murderer done his time and deemed ready for society = OK.

Foreign murderer done his time and deemed ready for society = not OK.

I see.
 
So,

British murderer done his time and deemed ready for society = OK.

Foreign murderer done his time and deemed ready for society = not OK.

I see.

We would have had no overseeing of the conviction in a country where corruption is at a much higher level. We would have had nothing to do with assessing of his readiness to reintergrate and these countries may or may not have the same standards that we do. Every case should be looked at individually, and his should have been thrown the hell out. 7 years for the plotting of the murder and burial of his wife?!

Surely youre on a wind up.
 
We would have had no overseeing of the conviction in a country where corruption is at a much higher level. We would have had nothing to do with assessing of his readiness to reintergrate and these countries may or may not have the same standards that we do. Every case should be looked at individually, and his should have been thrown the hell out. 7 years for the plotting of the murder and burial of his wife?!

Surely youre on a wind up.
I see, you don't trust foreign justice systems.

Should British and foreign criminals be judged by the same standards when determining their suitability to be integrated into our society i.e. British ones?
 
So,

British murderer done his time and deemed ready for society = not OK, but we can't just ship them off to France because they aren't French, they're British. They remain our problem.

Foreign murderer done his time and deemed ready for society = equally not OK, but they have no affiliation to this country whatsoever, so we have no need to let them in.

I see.

Fixed :)
 
I see, you don't trust foreign justice systems.

Should British and foreign criminals be judged by the same standards when determining their suitability to be integrated into our society i.e. British ones?

What are you even going on about. Just stop. Youre either on a wind up or, and I fear this to be more likely, typing absolute self hating left wing nonsense.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top