The EU debate - Part III

OK, I see what your saying and do agree to a certain extent. I personally think "money" has been to easy to come by over the last 25 years, with no real thought to how and when it's paid back.

 

My Sarah's Law example stands. It would be a vote winner.
If the Tories had included it in the last election, do you think that they would've lost?

 

It's been the entire focus of politics, in many ways.
The environment, education, healthcare and housing are all pushed to the back, while the rich get richer.
Large companies dominate governments and the average person can go **** themselves.
Bread and circuses for the peasants.

 

the killer was not a terrorist, but just a sad twat. also the radio presenter is a right tool

 

Terrorism: the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
It's literally the definition of it.

 

Nope, and then the people would choose. I'm not convinced that on it's own, including it would be a vote winner, or that there's a public demand for a referendum on it. I'm not sure what specifically about Sarah's Law you think the referendum would be on.

 

No, they just borrow another £122billion.

 

I said earlier that I was talking about extending Sarah's Law to the population as a whole.
You have to request the information for a specific reason now, IIRC.

I didn't suggest that there was a public demand for it.
Is there a public demand for the reintroduction of the death penalty in France?
Support for it is declining, isn't it?

 

If support for it is demanding, it'll lose them votes at the election, and they'll lose the referendum.

Politicians are hardly likely to open the can of worms that is Sarah's Law as a manifesto issue. It's far too sensitive an issue for that.

It surprises me that there's more talk of capital punishment than there is about corporal punishment. I'd be in favour of bringing that back for some offences.

 

People don't vote on one issue, so a party can propose a referendum that's unpopular and still win.
The Leave vote was behind at the time of the last UK election, for example.

Sarah's Law being extended would be up for discussion and become a manifesto issue if the media pushed it.
If they spent years stoking **** fears and blamed them for everything, then it would be on the table.
We've seen that demonstrated very clearly.

You'd bring back corporal punishment? For what and in what form?

 

The referendum was on one issue, although the reasons each person voted as they did was varied.

Corporal punishment? I'd have it as an option for judges for things like violence against the elderly or less able. There'd be checks and balances, and more emphasis on rehabilitation than punishment, and I'd include the stocks in a public square, but the prospect of being ridiculed by the public will hold more fear than the badge of honour fines and prison gives a section of community.

 

I didn't say that the referendum wasn't on one issue.
The party that proposed it didn't get elected on one issue.

How do you feel about capital punishment?

 

Both capitol and corporal punishment are outdated, antiquated methods of punishment. Both have proven totally ineffective as a deterrent, and morally they're both ridiculous.

So, you teach people that killing others is wrong by, er....killing them!...?

And you teach kids that violence is wrong by, er...beating them with a stick!?..

 

This.....^^^^^^
I'm not sure why this subject has dragged on for so many posts.

 

I'd have it as an option for judges.

It's not a deterrent, although it does cut down the rate murderers re-offend on release, it's more about vengeance, and I'd review the appeals procedure so that it was an economic option, particularly for those on a whole life tariff.

It doesn't teach that violence is wrong by using violence, any more than teaching that stealing is wrong by taking money of the offender or kidnap is wrong by locking up a kidnapper.

 

So you'd introduce a punishment that's about vengeance, by your own admission?
You'd also reduce the appeals and push through more flawed judgements, so more innocent people would die?

 

Saying that the rest of the World aren't in the EU so it'll be sound, isn't much of strategy is it?

As the rest of the World aren't in ****ing Europe

What's the Euro potentially failing at some point got to do with the single market? The single market existed way before the Euro, and would continue to exist if it ever was replaced.

 

I've no qualms about saying vengeance would be key factor for me.

You make big assumptions on the changes creating more risk, but innocents die under the current system when killers walk out to re-offend.

 

It's still a steaming pile of horse **** a day later Adolf, but you got another like from Dull, so that's probably enough for you to claim victory

 

It's nice to see a rational, results oriented look at the judicial system!

I didn't make any assumptions about the changes creating more risk.
Your changes would ensure that more innocent people were put to death by the state, as the number's currently 0.
As for killers reoffending, do you have any reliable figures for how often this happens?