Saturday, 27 March 2010

Labour's Soviet Britain


A New Labour Anti-Social Behaviour Victim's Champion

Labour are wittering about their latest "pledge card" which will detail the promises they're most likely to break if they ever get a sniff at power again. It's the usual airy-fairy meaningless stuff that no one will ever be able to prove one way or another. But one aspect caught my eye -

In an attempt to empower victims of antisocial behaviour, the prime minister says they will be entitled to take out civil injunctions, funded by the local public authority, if the police are not taking action within a set time.

"People have got to know if they have a real complaint they will get a fast response, and ultimately if they feel they have not been given satisfaction, they will be able to take a civil injunction themselves and that will be paid for by the authority."


Right, so let me see if I've got that right. Some local neds pan your window in and you report it to the police. They come round, investigate it, compile a report for the CPS or the Procurator Fiscal who evaluate it and decide if a conviction is likely etc etc. But, if you get bored of waiting, you can launch a civil case paid for by council tax payers. Or if the police point out that you never saw who broke your window and they can't arrest the ned across the road just because "he looks well shifty innit" you can launch your own prosecution.

Lovely. Expect the courts to be stuffed full of "He said, but she said and I said" cases in no time. Which will result in greater backlogs of cases, more people getting fed up and launching civil cases. All paid for by Council Tax Payers.

Then there's this little gem -
Labour is also planning to install champions for victims of antisocial behaviour in every local authority.
What? Is that like Block Wardens then? Is this a fancy pc term for the old babushkas who kept an eye on tenement blocks in Soviet Russia, reporting anti-party behaviour to the State?

Tell you what, here's a better idea Gordon. Use the police we have. Let them do their jobs of patrolling the streets and deterring by their presence, instead of being used as personal bodyguards by politicians terrified of their own constituents and keeping a permanent thin blue line around Westminster.

Link


Jury Team are calling for the public to be given a referendum on introducing army-style punishments for offenders. I daresay that will have far more of an effect on anti social behaviour than Gordon's intention to bankrupt councils and logjam the courts.

Referendum Link

Saturday, 20 March 2010

Salmond - a national embarrassment


Ye can tak oor dignity, but ye canna tak oor subsidies


I see Alex Salmond has been shooting off at the lip prior to the SNP conference in Aviemore. The forthcoming General Election does indeed offer opportunities for Scotland. A hung parliament means a disproportionate amount of influence falls to smaller parties. As the Ulster Unionists demonstrated, such power can reap great rewards for constituents.

So it really made me cringe to see what Salmond intends to do in selling Scotland's influence. He wants MORE public funding and geegaws. For a pocketful of gold he'll bend in the wind to his English paymaster and ever perpetuate the image in English eyes of Scots being grasping, avaricious and shallow. It's not a nation stepping forward to grasp independence that Salmond wants, (the SNP have shown they are unable to motivate enough Scots to support the cause), he wants to stir up resentment and disgust of Scots in England to the point that Scotland is repelled into Independence, a pariah state on the British mainland.

At a time of belt-tightening and cutbacks, when all but the most moronic socialist simpleton knows spending must be cut, it is truly abhorrent to see a Scottish First Minister with the begging bowl out demanding "MORE".

BBC LINK

Tuesday, 9 March 2010

Jury Team - The Immigration Question

One of the anomalies of having something great is that you may want everyone to know you’ve got it, but if everyone knows about it then they may want a part of it. And if this happens too much then the real value can become rather seriously diluted.

Such is the case with the enormous privileges granted to us by our being British citizens. It is worth being proud about what this affords us. Little wonder that such privilege has attracted the attention of the rest of the world. Advertise a bargain sale on the television and the queues stretch around the corner for that store the next day. And so it is becoming with the offer of British Citizenship for immigrants entering Britain. Result: services get stretched to their limit and what was once valued and valuable to the 60 million or so people of this country, now cannot cope with the excessive demands placed upon its diminishing resources.

With that in mind, and considering that official figures show that immigrants being granted British Citizenship has increased by a colossal 200,000 in the past year under this Labour government, has the prized possession of citizenship and all it affords in this country become tarnished and poorer because of this?

In light of this pressure on diminishing resources, the Jury Team proposes the amount of time adult immigrants must be resident in the UK before they can claim an entitlement to full British citizenship (and therein those rights granted to every citizen) should increase from the 3-5 year as it is now, up to 10 years. Rather than being an easy result, an applicant with a genuine wish to achieve British citizenship would be tested to properly ascertain the required education and be required to prove their record is void of any crimes (http://tinyurl.com/Citizenship-10).

According to Migration Watch, a respected calculator of these numbers, the levels of migration have increased by a colossal 58% from the previous year (http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/)!

The Jury team believes this ‘open-door immigration’ policy has become a revolving door of issues under the current Labour government, scared to address an issue until it (typically) becomes too late to do anything about it. The Jury Team consider this as another form of Westminster ignorance, failing to acknowledge the incumbent issue of immigrants viewing the short-term qualification (as little as just 24 months) as a platform to live in Britain as they choose and receive automatic government benefits. The UK is the only EU country providing automatic, free medical healthcare; our European counterparts present a cogent policy of acquiring sufficient medical insurance before entry. This seems wholly sensible and therefore the Jury Team suggests making private medical insurance mandatory for non-EU citizens obtaining visas intending to be in the UK for a period of more than three months (http://tinyurl.com/Non-EU-Medical). The resultant saving to the NHS of £4billion a year could be spent better on those who are already the good citizens of Britain, and the value returned to that cherished position that it provides everyone.

My Blog List

Referendum Poll

Donations Welcome

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter