Discussion Areas:



Join the Debate...

Sign up and start posting your comments today...

Crime

Q. Too Soft on Crime? Tell us your thoughts.

Any survey taken from the British Public would tell the politicians that they are far too soft on criminals. The liberal do-gooders have had their day. The public want to be protected. The NDP will implement all of the above.

It should be said right now that the NDP is against the death penalty; apart for the fact that it is totally immoral to take anyone’s life there have been far too many cases where people have been convicted of murder who have subsequently been found innocent years later. Under a death penalty law most of these people would have been wrongly executed.

What the NDP does say is that anyone who commits murder should receive life imprisonment, which should mean a minimum sentence of 30 years without parole. Prison life should not be easy. It’s not necessary to go back to the days of hard labour; however, it can’t be right that some prisons have a higher standard of living than some poorer housing estates.

The NDP will tackle drug-related crime. Much of the opium produced in Afghanistan ends up on our streets causing misery and crime. Instead of trying to bomb the cultivators of the poppies from which Opium is produced, why don’t we just buy it all up and then either destroy it or use it for many of the medical conditions this drug apparently can help cure.

There is an argument, which we believe is very valid, that the police have become completely politicised. It appears too many people that the police appear to be deciding to interpret the law. Their job is to implement the law not to decide what the law means.

The decision by the Chief Police Officers Association to make major road accidents crime scenes is exactly the type of decision, which emphasises the point.

The police are afraid of upsetting any ethnic minority. This is apparent for all to see. The law itself hasn’t helped; the Human Rights Act introduced by the labour government has constricted the police and the courts. The police allow ethnic minorities to espouse extremely violently speeches without taking any action at all. A number of so-called Muslim clerics have consistently advocated to their followers that to kill and maim “westerners” is perfectly acceptable and is to be encouraged. Many right-minded people see these sorts of speeches as racist, seditious, inflammatory and intended to disrupt our normal way of life.

The police invariably stand by and do nothing and on the odd occasion when action is taken and someone is prosecuted the courts refuse to return the purveyor of this hate, if convicted, to their home country because they might get arrested and not receive a fair trial. What pomposity for a British court to decide that any democratic country’s legal system doesn’t have the same safeguards as ours.

Is it is time to make the most radical move of all and instigate a policy, which will bring all police force’s under one umbrella; is it time for a national police force?

At the moment we have 43 separate police authorities in England & Wales. Each authority, with the exception of London, consists of 17 members; London has 23 because of its size. Nine members have to be local councillors, the other 8 are lay members, who are recruited by advertising locally; one of these eight must be a magistrate. Each has its own chief constable and deputy chief constable and a considerable bureaucracy. A strong argument can be made that by first regionalising and then nationalising the police force it should create a body that would be fast, efficient, and provide a much better service for the public than the one we currently enjoy.

The NDP believes that if we are to take the politics out of policing and to try and get the police back to the respect levels, that so many of the police deserve then a national police force deserves to be looked at very carefully.

Everyone should have the right to stand up and make a statement about anything that is happening anywhere in the world; however no one has the right in to incite murder and mayhem.

Free Speech

Unfortunately this government has failed abysmally to protect free speech. You may recall the police, on instructions from the Home Secretary, blocking off from the view of the Chinese Premier, when he visited recently, all the protestors behind very large vehicle, which meant, of course, that they were out of view.

You will also remember the lady that was arrested by police, only 10 officers involved in this farce, for standing at the cenotaph in London reciting out loud the names of all the British soldiers who have lost their lives in the Gulf and Afghanistan. She was arrested because she was protesting with one kilometre of the House of Parliament without permission.

Virtually every form we now have to fill in demands answers to very personal questions.

Identity cards are the next imposition. These cards, which will cost the taxpayer something like 20 billion pounds to provide, will be the final step this government takes to control every bit and stage of your life.

See Damian Green and the Labour Party Conference for more examples.


Post a Comment

Please Login or Register to post a comment.

 

Discussion Topics