LeazesMag 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Up to 74% want to bring back hanging. http://ukpollingrepo...g/archives/3802 Fortunately the tyranny of majority is not our way. the Death penalty is quite justified for certain offences In backward countries. yep, alternatively we let them free, or give them soft sentences, which is the intelligent thing to do. We have a duty to uphold law and order and protect the public from terrorists, muggers, drug dealers and other assorted scumbags. Edited January 24, 2012 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Course it wouldn't work, I said as much in a previous post. It's just that the current system leaves me cold, phlegmatic even. I'm sick of Larry Labour, so lets vote in Teddy Tory, oh look everything is pretty much the same but the worst off are a little worse off. and so on and so forth. With each politician striving so very hard not to offend anyone and to follow the country instead of leading it. Fish puffing out his chest and relishing this subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Hangings too good for muggers. NAIL SOME SENSE INTO THEM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 the Death penalty is quite justified for certain offences In backward countries. yep, alternatively we let them free, or give them soft sentences, which is the intelligent thing to do. We have a duty to uphold law and order and protect the public from terrorists, muggers, drug dealers and other assorted scumbags. Do you genuinely believe they're the only options? Either kill a mugger or release him, there's no middle ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Just a temporary diversion then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 In backward countries. yep, alternatively we let them free, or give them soft sentences, which is the intelligent thing to do. We have a duty to uphold law and order and protect the public from terrorists, muggers, drug dealers and other assorted scumbags. Do you genuinely believe they're the only options? Either kill a mugger or release him, there's no middle ground? which is ? Don't tell me you can "reform" him Besides, I didn't say kill a mugger........unless of course he kills his victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Do you genuinely believe they're the only options? Either kill a mugger or release him, there's no middle ground? which is ? Don't tell me you can "reform" him Besides, I didn't say kill a mugger........unless of course he kills his victim. Lock them up. Oh, and before you start, I'd make prisons tougher than they are now and try to keep young offenders away from Gen Pop to try and reduce the effects of lumping a bunch of criminals in together. Are you saying there are no muggers who could be reformed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Do you genuinely believe they're the only options? Either kill a mugger or release him, there's no middle ground? which is ? Don't tell me you can "reform" him Besides, I didn't say kill a mugger........unless of course he kills his victim. Lock them up. Oh, and before you start, I'd make prisons tougher than they are now and try to keep young offenders away from Gen Pop to try and reduce the effects of lumping a bunch of criminals in together. Are you saying there are no muggers who could be reformed? agree with the first point, how much tougher ? They should be breaking rocks for 16 hours a day and living on bread and water. Last line is absurd, that's the sort of thing the namby pambies jump on that creates soft conditions for all etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleeToonFan 1 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Of course muggers can be reformed. Let's say it's their first offence and they did it because they're poor and were led to it. Obviously the wrong thing to do but its about educating them and making sure they dont do it again. You don't kill a mugger. If you did you'd be a murderer... and would thus by your own rulings deserve to swing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2988 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 gurantee all of these hard up familys will still have a 40" tv and sky-hd on the go while the kids go without sadly I still like the idea of food stamps. This. Its the right blend of help and humiliation. We have the same thing in Australia where alot of the welfare bound scum have little to no interest in the well-being of their kids. And the parent buying 40" TVs is not the major concern for me, but the parents being hopeless smackheads is. Children deserve at least a fighting chance to beater themselves and sometimes governments have to step in and ensure that parents are doing the right thing. Big bugbear of mine after 2 horrible months of living next to the dwarf and his one-toothed welfare dependant scum wife with 4 kids that never went to school and played with wrenches and other presumably stolen tools in their backyard like it was somehow completely normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 2988 Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 How about we employ a Chinese style one-child policy on anybody with an IQ under say 135. And because I'm so impatient all those parents currently under the threshold with more than one child will have the opportunity (ie. be forced) to sign their additional children up for the brand new Sky1 shows, Child versus Vicious Beast, So You Think Your Kid is Smarter Than a Bear, Britain's Got Stonings, Who Wants To Be Buried In A Mass Grave, Gary Glitter Tonight and The Biggest Nooser. ☼ *Greys skies are gonna clearup* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 i think this benefits cap has been misheard some were thinking it was aimed at the disabled etc but i think its aimed at the ones at top having loads of kids and claiming child tax credits etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 i think this benefits cap has been misheard some were thinking it was aimed at the disabled etc but i think its aimed at the ones at top having loads of kids and claiming child tax credits etc. It's aimed at those claiming £26k benefits a year. The people that qualify for that amount are in the most extreme circumstances, the top 1% of claimants, who have been means tested and based on all the benefits available, each with a cap of it's own, still qualify for more assistance than the other 99%. Child Tax credits are people in work, so by definition, not lazy scroungers. 1 kid pulls in £20 a week Child benefit. that's the max. Which is £1040 a year. All subsequent kids get £13 a week child benefit, max, which is £676 a year. If it was aimed squarely at those knocking out too many sprogs you could simply cap this at, say, 5 kids. Nowt after that. As it is, it would be your 38th child that took you over the cap, if this was aimed squarely at those knocking out loads of kids to get the benefits. A ridiculous notion. Here's how the government paper said it broke down. Of all the families affected, percentages were... 5% - Single people with no kids 5% - Couples with up to 2 kids 5% - Singles with 3 kids 10% - Singles with up to 2 kids 10% - Singles with 4 kids 10% - Couples with 4 kids 10% - Couples with 5 or more kids 15% - Couples with 3 kids 35% - Singles with 5 or more kids So 40% of people affected have only 3 kids or less. 3,350 people without any kids at all would be affected. All water near a bridge now though. It got defeated :gerrin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 i think this benefits cap has been misheard some were thinking it was aimed at the disabled etc but i think its aimed at the ones at top having loads of kids and claiming child tax credits etc. It's aimed at those claiming £26k benefits a year. The people that qualify for that amount are in the most extreme circumstances, the top 1% of claimants, who have been means tested and based on all the benefits available, each with a cap of it's own, still qualify for more assistance than the other 99%. Child Tax credits are people in work, so by definition, not lazy scroungers. 1 kid pulls in £20 a week Child benefit. that's the max. Which is £1040 a year. All subsequent kids get £13 a week child benefit, max, which is £676 a year. If it was aimed squarely at those knocking out too many sprogs you could simply cap this at, say, 5 kids. Nowt after that. As it is, it would be your 38th child that took you over the cap, if this was aimed squarely at those knocking out loads of kids to get the benefits. A ridiculous notion. Here's how the government paper said it broke down. Of all the families affected, percentages were... 5% - Single people with no kids 5% - Couples with up to 2 kids 5% - Singles with 3 kids 10% - Singles with up to 2 kids 10% - Singles with 4 kids 10% - Couples with 4 kids 10% - Couples with 5 or more kids 15% - Couples with 3 kids 35% - Singles with 5 or more kids So 40% of people affected have only 3 kids or less. 3,350 people without any kids at all would be affected. All water near a bridge now though. It got defeated :gerrin: Only in the Lords. It has cross party support in the commons so will sail through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 This is a vote winner. Nothing more nothing less. Rather insulting to insinuate the government hands out 26k to every tom, dick and harry to spend on a 50" tv. They should stop wasting money on consultant fees / quangos..... and spend more money on initiatives like train2gain. I'd love to know how many people will be affected, and what the actual saving will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 This is a vote winner. Nothing more nothing less. Rather insulting to insinuate the government hands out 26k to every tom, dick and harry to spend on a 50" tv. They should stop wasting money on consultant fees / quangos..... and spend more money on initiatives like train2gain. I'd love to know how many people will be affected, and what the actual saving will be. 67000 households. Saving 290 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 This is a vote winner. Nothing more nothing less. Rather insulting to insinuate the government hands out 26k to every tom, dick and harry to spend on a 50" tv. They should stop wasting money on consultant fees / quangos..... and spend more money on initiatives like train2gain. I'd love to know how many people will be affected, and what the actual saving will be. 62 Billion. As its a vote winner and a good one at that, these are the sort of things that will ensure Red Ed stays well away from the controls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Ten times the world population affected by a move affecting 1% of British benefit claimants? what a dooley Edited January 26, 2012 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) they conducted a vote with the public and around 60 odd percent agreed for it to go through with it been labours policy ish Edited January 26, 2012 by DEADMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 This is a vote winner. Nothing more nothing less. Rather insulting to insinuate the government hands out 26k to every tom, dick and harry to spend on a 50" tv. They should stop wasting money on consultant fees / quangos..... and spend more money on initiatives like train2gain. I'd love to know how many people will be affected, and what the actual saving will be. 62 Billion. As its a vote winner and a good one at that, these are the sort of things that will ensure Red Ed stays well away from the controls. The sooner something is done about overpopulation the better tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Million, I meant million! But then again Labour fucked the UK last time, maybe next time they will take out the world!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 No one bites any more man, CT. Leave it be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 well who ever gets in power it makes no difference the country is in a right mess and labours idea spend spend which makes more debt debt debt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4729 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 No one bites any more man, CT. Leave it be My bite seeking days are long over Alex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 No one bites any more man, CT. Leave it be My bite seeking days are long over Alex. Your powers have wained Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now