Nick Griffin to appear on Question Time - 22nd October 2009

[danny]

As for the list you posted. Some of them are very valid points. But others are questionable crime for one labour have been very good at spin so i dont know if you can believe the figures.

And the thing about hard working familys is a joke. My step sister recently had a baby and bassically she is better off not going back to work after her leave as she will get more on benefits and there is no incentive for her to go back. Beside the fact she dosent want to live off benefits. Also i dont get paid a vast ammount and if me and my girlfriend had a baby now i would really strugle to live. Where as some chav scumbag who has never worked a day in his life would be well looked after. (dont say this dosent happen i went to school with loads of them)

 

Don't be so sure

 

Care to place a £10 donation to help for heros bet?

[Pyxis]

Let's not debate about who's wasting their time the most, eh?

 

http://www.elthamlabour.org.uk/whats_the_labour_government_ever_done_for_us

 

Yes, it's a labour website so they're going to be picky with which facts they want to present, but honestly it's quite an impressive list of things (which you won't read).

 

What I'm most unhappy with (besides the war-o) is the reduction of civil liberties. How about you?

 

To be fair, all that talk of record investment goes hand in hand with our huge public spending deficit. The amount that we have to spend each year servicing our national debt is set to hit £63 billion a year... That is more than we are spending on education and transport. That is 63 billion pounds of our tax money vanishing into thin air every year!

 

This level of debt will have the same effect on us that it had on all of those African countries that went tits up because of their debt repayments. They couldn't invest in their economies because they had to spend all of their money servicing debt and this made their economies worse and worse every year, meaning that the amount of tax revenue decreased year on year, increasing the need to borrow even more.

 

A lot of government spending (like on the NHS) is wasteful and a substantial investment of money doesn't necessarily equate to a substantial increase in performance due to inefficiencies and resources being wasted.

[danny]

To be fair, all that talk of record investment goes hand in hand with our huge public spending deficit. The amount that we have to spend each year servicing our national debt is set to hit £63 billion a year... That is more than we are spending on education and transport. That is 63 billion pounds of our tax money vanishing into thin air every year!

 

This level of debt will have the same effect on us that it had on all of those African countries that went tits up because of their debt repayments. They couldn't invest in their economies because they had to spend all of their money servicing debt and this made their economies worse and worse every year, meaning that the amount of tax revenue decreased year on year, increasing the need to borrow even more.

 

A lot of government spending (like on the NHS) is wasteful and a substantial investment of money doesn't necessarily equate to a substantial increase in performance due to inefficiencies and resources being wasted.

 

What he said

Edited September 29, 2009 by danny
cos im an idiot

[jayseven]

Well clearly my main concerns are with the wars. Not the fact we went to war. Just the fact they feel fit to send lads to die in equipment not fit for purpose.

And probably even more so than that the shit treatment lads get when they come back with bits missing etc. Although a lot of this has been put right due to the charity of the general public. Just the fact help for heros exists is a joke and the labour pargty should hang there head sin shame.

Also the compleate failure to make any real decissions after the one to go to war. And just to plod along as its easier than to either pull out or commit properly.

 

Away from the wars. The fact they have totally failed to get a grip on chav scum. Both in the fact that benefits are out of control and the fact that the courts are way to easy on council estate scum bags who constanly commit crime.

Also the country is far far far to PC.

The falklands were ok for you, then? I don't really think you can ever say any war goes easy, or that any government makes all the right decisions. Simply by going to war you're signing the death certificates for any number of individuals.

As for the list you posted. Some of them are very valid points. But others are questionable crime for one labour have been very good at spin so i dont know if you can believe the figures.

And the thing about hard working familys is a joke. My step sister recently had a baby and bassically she is better off not going back to work after her leave as she will get more on benefits and there is no incentive for her to go back. Beside the fact she dosent want to live off benefits. Also i dont get paid a vast ammount and if me and my girlfriend had a baby now i would really strugle to live. Where as some chav scumbag who has never worked a day in his life would be well looked after. (dont say this dosent happen i went to school with loads of them)

 

 

 

Care to place a £10 donation to help for heros bet?

 

No amount of spin changes the figures. They're still true. Crime is down. Chavs have always existed in some form or other. *shrugs*

 

How recently did your step-sister have a baby? Surely any encouragement for a mother to stay at home with the child is a positive thing? The family unit is a crucial element to a perfect society, so why not?

 

Conversely, if labour weren't supporting new mothers enough, you might be here saying "my step-sister has just had a baby and already she is forced back into work because the government aren't supporting her enough." It's not easy to say.

 

As for an incentive to go back to work; there's more to life than money. Friends in the workplace, the feeling of earning ones way, heck even getting away from teh bawling little ball of baby! Similariy, you say you're not getting paid enough? Then get a different job! That's just the way it is.

 

As for 'well looked after' -- council flats aren't pretty places. Children aren't cheap, that's just the way it is, too.

 

I'd honestly say I'd rather live in a society where the poorer 'scum' are helped out. Charity is more than just-deserves, it's about increasing the average quality of life; offering these children born into these situations a chance to get out of it.

 

Chavs are going to have babies, just like anyone else. I'd not like to be in a world where we turn a blind eye and just let them brew in filth when we can give them a chance.

 

Of course, nothing is simple, and there are holes in this argument -- but the ethos remains. The grass is greener on the other side, life is unfair, you can never make everyone happy, and we'll complain about the next government just as much as this one.

 

You look at the list and admit 'defeat' on some points, but that's clearly not enough to change your mind. You speak about opinions based on facts, but are unwilling to let your will be changed. You are selective about what you think is important, and therefore the best government for you simply does not and cannot exist. By dismissing everything a government has done, you're not losing the right to your opinion, just lowering its worth to anyone who cares to listen - and no matter how much we disagree, you ought to remember that I am at least listening.

[Fierce_LiNk]

To be fair, all that talk of record investment goes hand in hand with our huge public spending deficit. The amount that we have to spend each year servicing our national debt is set to hit £63 billion a year... That is more than we are spending on education and transport. That is 63 billion pounds of our tax money vanishing into thin air every year!

 

This level of debt will have the same effect on us that it had on all of those African countries that went tits up because of their debt repayments. They couldn't invest in their economies because they had to spend all of their money servicing debt and this made their economies worse and worse every year, meaning that the amount of tax revenue decreased year on year, increasing the need to borrow even more.

 

A lot of government spending (like on the NHS) is wasteful and a substantial investment of money doesn't necessarily equate to a substantial increase in performance due to inefficiencies and resources being wasted.

 

I'd say that this is one thing that is worrying me. Particularly that last paragraph. You're never entirely sure if the money you put in is getting used in the right way. I think this kind of mis-management is one reason why people may be tempted to not vote for Labour.

 

There are different problems that mean various things to different people. Like, Danny for instance, the war is one aspect that he is paying particular focus to. It seems that there are "holes" all over the place. As a member of the public, all you really want is a solution or some kind of re/assurance that things are getting done. With Gordon Brown, I just don't think that people have a lot of confidence in the man to do that. Saying that, I also don't trust Cameron. Not entirely sure why, but just a feeling, heh.

[jayseven]

To be fair, all that talk of record investment goes hand in hand with our huge public spending deficit. The amount that we have to spend each year servicing our national debt is set to hit £63 billion a year... That is more than we are spending on education and transport. That is 63 billion pounds of our tax money vanishing into thin air every year!

 

This level of debt will have the same effect on us that it had on all of those African countries that went tits up because of their debt repayments. They couldn't invest in their economies because they had to spend all of their money servicing debt and this made their economies worse and worse every year, meaning that the amount of tax revenue decreased year on year, increasing the need to borrow even more.

 

A lot of government spending (like on the NHS) is wasteful and a substantial investment of money doesn't necessarily equate to a substantial increase in performance due to inefficiencies and resources being wasted.

I agree that there are inefficiencies and wastes. But...

 

National debt is not a new thing. The entire planet is 'borrowing' all this invisible money. It's why we're having this recession at the moment. Why does it not bother me? Because any andevery government in power would be, or is, in debt, and because it's the fault of capitalism, not one party or another.

[danny]

The falklands were ok for you, then? I don't really think you can ever say any war goes easy, or that any government makes all the right decisions. Simply by going to war you're signing the death certificates for any number of individuals.

 

 

No amount of spin changes the figures. They're still true. Crime is down. Chavs have always existed in some form or other. *shrugs*

 

How recently did your step-sister have a baby? Surely any encouragement for a mother to stay at home with the child is a positive thing? The family unit is a crucial element to a perfect society, so why not?

 

Dont get me wrong my eyes are very wide open about the cost of war and the fact people will always die.

The Falklands was not ideal but you cant really compare it to what we have now. The Falklands conflict although predictable was forced upon us. It took place over several months not 8 years as in this case. Also good old maggie (for whatever flaws she had elsewhere) commited us to an all out win. And we got a win. At the moment we are just treading water which when it is costing lives is a stupid situation the govenment needs to either want t owin or just pull out all together.

There were equipment failings in the falklands but it happened over a couple of months so there wasnt much scope to improve things. There has been plenty of time to change things in this conflict more than enough. Hell world war two didnt last as long as this has.

And the Torys didnt close the last of the millitary hospitals at the same time it was commiting more and more troops to front line combat.

 

My step sister has only had the baby recently. But its crazy that the benefit system is so flawed as to make her better of to just claim benefits.

 

As for your shrugs comment about chavs and saying poor need to be helped. Does it not bother you record numbers of people are making a career out of benefits? In recent years we have had record numbers of eastern europeans coming here to do unskilled manual jobs. While brits have just sat on there arse and collected there giros. The poor do need help, but only if they are not capable of helping themselves.

Council flats are not that bad or they arnt where i live, the worst thing about them is a lot (not all) of the people who live in them.

The govenment shoudnt be allowing these people to just sponge. Some people deserve benefits a lot just milk the system.

[Haden]

Just to weigh in on this point have to say the Falklands War was well handled by Thatcher did my dissertation on it and I went in with an anti Thatcher Bias.

 

And while I still think some of her domestic policies were no good. Foreign policy wise and especially the Falklands she did good.

[jayseven]

Dont get me wrong my eyes are very wide open about the cost of war and the fact people will always die.

The Falklands was not ideal but you cant really compare it to what we have now. The Falklands conflict although predictable was forced upon us. It took place over several months not 8 years as in this case. Also good old maggie (for whatever flaws she had elsewhere) commited us to an all out win. And we got a win. At the moment we are just treading water which when it is costing lives is a stupid situation the govenment needs to either want t owin or just pull out all together.

There were equipment failings in the falklands but it happened over a couple of months so there wasnt much scope to improve things. There has been plenty of time to change things in this conflict more than enough. Hell world war two didnt last as long as this has.

And the Torys didnt close the last of the millitary hospitals at the same time it was commiting more and more troops to front line combat.

I agree, the current conflict never had an outright goal that could reasonably be ensured. It's all too hazy and ridiculous.

My step sister has only had the baby recently. But its crazy that the benefit system is so flawed as to make her better of to just claim benefits.

I don't like how you say 'so flawed' simply because she is being payed to stay at home with her kid. There's an element of melodrama to your arguments, and that's why I find it hard to sympathise with your opinion, let alone immediately agree with you.

 

As for your shrugs comment about chavs and saying poor need to be helped. Does it not bother you record numbers of people are making a career out of benefits? In recent years we have had record numbers of eastern europeans coming here to do unskilled manual jobs. While brits have just sat on there arse and collected there giros. The poor do need help, but only if they are not capable of helping themselves.

This 'record number of people' coincides with the recent recession; this is 'officially' the worst year to graduate for something like 70+ years, and it's not uncommon for students to sign on after uni as an interim act. I did this, for about 2 months. In the end, the job centre got me my job. I wanted a job, I got one. People who don't want jobs will have a poorer quality life, so that's their punishment for being lazy.

 

I don't mind eastern europeans coming here to work at all. My brother in law is eastern european and he often worked 18-hour days with no days off just to make ends meet. He would've been better off on benefits but he understood the cultural eyes upon him, and chose instead to create a living hell for himself. That we are willing to sit on our arses goes beyond the government - there's a sense of 'pride' - a sense of some sort of entitlement to success that we brits have. We think we deserve a rich fulfilled life regardless of how much we work. This needs to be adressed on many levels, and it's far too harsh to focus that blame on the current government considering this pride stems from hundreds of years ago.

 

So what sort of help do you think would benefit the 'poor' then? It's all well and good saying they get too many benefits (even though I still argue the country would be much worse off, and much more crime-ridden if we did things a certain different way) without contributing towards progressive thinking. No matter what you say, a serious investment is needed in sustaining their lives, in improving their lives.ETC. GETTING LATE.

 

Council flats are not that bad or they arnt where i live, the worst thing about them is a lot (not all) of the people who live in them.

The govenment shoudnt be allowing these people to just sponge. Some people deserve benefits a lot just milk the system.

As I say, it's all well and good saying what is wrong, but what are the alternatives? Council flats are worthless. The areas are more crime ridden (chavs tend to commit more crime on other chavs than us poncy folk) and farther away from teh good schools (and vice-versa). If you really think they're alright then you can easily claim a council flat. That's the joy of it all - if you're jealous of a chav's life then it's readily available to you. If they're jealous of your life then... well it don't come as easy

 

Better argument tomorrow, i promise.

[danny]

This 'record number of people' coincides with the recent recession; this is 'officially' the worst year to graduate for something like 70+ years, and it's not uncommon for students to sign on after uni as an interim act. I did this, for about 2 months. In the end, the job centre got me my job. I wanted a job, I got one. People who don't want jobs will have a poorer quality life, so that's their punishment for being lazy.

 

I don't mind eastern europeans coming here to work at all. My brother in law is eastern european and he often worked 18-hour days with no days off just to make ends meet. He would've been better off on benefits but he understood the cultural eyes upon him, and chose instead to create a living hell for himself. That we are willing to sit on our arses goes beyond the government - there's a sense of 'pride' - a sense of some sort of entitlement to success that we brits have. We think we deserve a rich fulfilled life regardless of how much we work. This needs to be adressed on many levels, and it's far too harsh to focus that blame on the current government considering this pride stems from hundreds of years ago.

 

So what sort of help do you think would benefit the 'poor' then? It's all well and good saying they get too many benefits (even though I still argue the country would be much worse off, and much more crime-ridden if we did things a certain different way) without contributing towards progressive thinking. No matter what you say, a serious investment is needed in sustaining their lives, in improving their lives.ETC. GETTING LATE.

 

 

As I say, it's all well and good saying what is wrong, but what are the alternatives? Council flats are worthless. The areas are more crime ridden (chavs tend to commit more crime on other chavs than us poncy folk) and farther away from teh good schools (and vice-versa). If you really think they're alright then you can easily claim a council flat. That's the joy of it all - if you're jealous of a chav's life then it's readily available to you. If they're jealous of your life then... well it don't come as easy

 

Better argument tomorrow, i promise.

 

I do understand there are many people on benefits at the moment due to the economic situation, thats a different matter.

I was talking about the long term benefit claimers who have no intention of getting jobs, these are also in record numbers. The people you can see on ITV at about 10 o'clock every morning. There good be a million jobs going and many of these people stil lwoudnt bother if they knew they could just get there benefits.

Im not syaing i mind easter europeans coming here. They move where the work is. Its not there fault we have a shed load of lazy gits who wont get jobs.

Im not sure about this thing you say about us brits expecting a rich filled life that been drilled in to us for hundreds of years. I know none of my grandparents had fuck all when they were younger. Some parts of britain have been rich. But the working class certanly wernt. And yes true British people do tend to be very proud. But i would suggest that the people spending there lives living on benefits arnt the same people.

How should we help the poor. Well im not sure the state should help them. Let them help themselves. Sorry to mention Jk in the same post twice but there was some chav scum bag on there summed it up if he didnt get his benefits he would have to go and get a job.

There may be more crime. But then they should just increase jail time. I dont think its right that to bring crime down. Hard working people should subsadise peoples lives.

Im not jelous far from it. I just leaves a bad taste in my mouth to think that i pay for these people to live while lads i know are being blown up and killed/injured because there isnt enough money to give them proper protection.

[jayseven]

I do understand there are many people on benefits at the moment due to the economic situation, thats a different matter.

I was talking about the long term benefit claimers who have no intention of getting jobs, these are also in record numbers. The people you can see on ITV at about 10 o'clock every morning. There good be a million jobs going and many of these people stil lwoudnt bother if they knew they could just get there benefits.

Im not syaing i mind easter europeans coming here. They move where the work is. Its not there fault we have a shed load of lazy gits who wont get jobs.

No, it's our fault. As for long-term benefits claimers - I wish I could find a citation - but there are various obstacles that prevent people from doing this (back to work seminars, CV workshops, whatever), as well as 'back to work' schemes which people can be forced onto, and if they fail to attend then they are not awarded their dole money. I don't really think your argument is all that great because you're just generalising, not really sure yourself of any number, just that somewhere there are surely people who behave in this way.

 

Im not sure about this thing you say about us brits expecting a rich filled life that been drilled in to us for hundreds of years. I know none of my grandparents had fuck all when they were younger. Some parts of britain have been rich. But the working class certanly wernt. And yes true British people do tend to be very proud. But i would suggest that the people spending there lives living on benefits arnt the same people.

 

Rich, fulfilled life doesn't just mean lots of money. We expect to have the top-tier lifestyle in the world, we think we're the best nation on the planet, and we can't be arsed to even learn a second language effectively. The working class only exist because of industrialism, which also spurred on colonialism - twinned together made britain the greatest empire the world has ever seen. We still feel like we deserve a comfortable life.

 

People living off benefits always feel hard-done by, feel like they are somehow owed a certain standard of life. I personally think that such a class of people can't be changed just by removing their benefits (crime would surely rise?), but through better education and information.

 

How should we help the poor. Well im not sure the state should help them. Let them help themselves. Sorry to mention Jk in the same post twice but there was some chav scum bag on there summed it up if he didnt get his benefits he would have to go and get a job.

Education. Provide them with the means to help themselves. How do you think they should help themselves?

 

There may be more crime. But then they should just increase jail time. I dont think its right that to bring crime down. Hard working people should subsadise peoples lives.

Jail time just means the tax payer pays more to look after these individuals. Jail does not solve anything.

 

Im not jelous far from it. I just leaves a bad taste in my mouth to think that i pay for these people to live while lads i know are being blown up and killed/injured because there isnt enough money to give them proper protection.

No amount of money given, no amount of protection would save all lives. People would still die, and in my eyes those people's lives are wasted by the pure existence of a war. I really don't think you can ever dissuade me on that. I think the money we spend on military is money that could be better spent elsewhere - and if it was, then none of these lads you speak of would've ever died.

 

Again, what's your solution? Raise taxes, or cut investment in which sector?

 

This isn't a well argued post because I think our debate is becoming more and more vague.

[danny]

Well i was going to do some reaserch to give you but all the results were from the daily mail, the sun and the telegraph and if i posted any of those people would just label me in to a group i dont want to be in.

I know people cant stay on the dole forever and i dont claim that they do. The dole is clearly not enough for anyone to live in. But people do live on a variety of benefits and many combined. Incapacity is fairly well abused.

I know loads of young lads who havent worked a day in there life not because there are no jobs just because they are lazy and make up fake conditions. I know one who bassically pretends he has some sort of mental disorder which makes him flip out and be violent. But it is puerly an act. I live in a fairly rough northen area. You see the droves of people who live on benefits that thye dont deserve. So dont say its a genralisation because its really not.

Well i would rather pay for them to be in jail than paying for them to be out here reproducing and using the word 'sorted'. Were paying for them any way at least they wont make the place look untidy wearing fake burberry and shit.

Im not syaing any ammount of money would save all lives. BUT more money would save some and would have saved quite a lot of the lads which have been killed due to equipment shortages.

Lives are wasted by the existance of law but it does exist. And we just have to try and minimise our loses due to it.

I would propose cutting benefits and being tougher on crime. These might not go hand in hand but i would like to think the cuts in benefits could go towards paying for jails etc. Also making jails less cushty might deter people a bit more.

[jayseven]

Well this is where you have to understand that as a democracy we, the majority, don't want to see more of our taxes doing just that, because we, the majority, believe the money is better spent in other ways. By offering education, training and work trials then there's at least a chance a percentage of the layabouts will end up co-existing within society, therefore contributing and paying their own taxes. Your method does nothing but drain our society, further reducing any such spare resources that could go towards the military as you intend.

 

A better solution, that I'm surprised you didn't mention, would be forced enscription. Do the jail time then for community service go and serve in the armed forces. Maybe do what our grandfathers did, and what many european countries still do, and have it so all youths have a compulsory year or two of community services. That would not only show them discipline but also provide a cost-effective release of fiscal pressure on the benefits (and jail) side of things, as well as busying the youth so they cannot commit crime/laze about all day.

 

Interestingly, I just looked at a few costs and such;

 

Each inmate costs over £32,000 a year to keep at Her Majesty's pleasure (yes, that's a scottish prison system, but it's not going to differ hugely!), 3 years ago there were 77,640 people in prison, which is approx. £2,484,480,000 a year.

 

However, there are reportedly 6 million on benefits, costing £17,000,000 a year.

 

Now at first glance you'd think that means prisons are cheaper -- but if you sent all those on benefits to prison it would cost £192 billion! Even if you only sent 1 in 12 to prison, then the combined cost of benefits and jail would double for the government (and therefore, us!).

 

So you're effectively saying you'd be willing to pay more than double teh tax you are currently paying for something that does nothing to solve the problem. The current benefits system offers work trials, seminars and volunteering. By removing this system you also remove the chance that an individual may one day learn to exist within society, and therefore paying their own taxes.

 

Just sending them to jail... well it solves nothing! At all! It's also completely disregarding legitimate circumstantual reasons for... well, anything. Even chavs were born innocent. They aren't pre-programmed to be dicks. Don't you see that? Don't you see how, with the right intervention at the right time, they could turn out to be just like me or, god forbid, you?

 

(that last bit is definitely a joke :P)

 

Basically, Danny, I can't really argue with you when your argument is generalising everything. You need to prove that jails are "cutsy", and try and substantiate the elements to your argument otherwise you're never going to get me to retract anything at all, and your general arguing style will just end up making people annoyed at the way you debate rather than what you say.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I have just gained massive amounts of respect for you, jayseven.

[jayseven]

Why the fuck didn't you have massive amounts of respect for me in the first place, is all I'm wondering.

 

INFRACTION ISSUED.

[Nicktendo]

I have just gained massive amounts of respect for you, jayseven.

 

Agreed <3

 

It's like one of those Jesus situations.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Nicktendo

[danny]

A better solution, that I'm surprised you didn't mention, would be forced enscription. Do the jail time then for community service go and serve in the armed forces. Maybe do what our grandfathers did, and what many european countries still do, and have it so all youths have a compulsory year or two of community services. That would not only show them discipline but also provide a cost-effective release of fiscal pressure on the benefits (and jail) side of things, as well as busying the youth so they cannot commit crime/laze about all day.

 

Because its not a better solution its that simple. Britain does not have the largest armed forces. But it is regarded as having one fo the best. Not in terms of the equipment but in terms of the people in it. This isnt something i have just made up either to make us all sound better than we are.

Conscription only works to make up numbers. It is a very costly way of making up numbers. Which is why we did away with national service and went to an all voulenteer system. The cost of putting people in jail would be virtually nothing when compared to millitary training.

Also if you are suggesting we just start putting criminals in to the millitary this will just make decent people less likely to join up making our armed forces even worse off. As the criminals would still be criminals in the millitary. Would you want to live in an 8 man room knowing 4 of them are only there because the court sent them? Would you trust these people.

Also becaus eof human rights conscription woudnt work. Back when our grandads did it, you did what you were told because if you didnt the NCO/officer would batter you if you didnt. This is not allowed any more so you need people to actually want to be there otherwise it jsut wont work.

I also suspect that the millitay prisons would have to be expanded massivley to cope with this.

 

And yes this is a democracy and luckily i think labour are going to be reminded of this next eyar.

[jayseven]

I'm tired of arguing with you. It would be better if you actually said how much military training costs per person rather than saying simply that it costs more. How am I meant to argue with that? And you say you'd not trust criminals, but 'criminals' covers a wide and diverse range of crime. I'd not be too bothered about benefits cheats in my lot compared to a murderer. You use human rights as a reason to reject national service but overlook it when it comes to the standard of prisons?

 

You didn't retort to the part about the cost of sending benefits cheats to prison. You do that a lot. It's really annoying. You may as well say "hmmm yes i see your point, you're right on that. I didn't think of it that way" rather than just ignoring those chunks of my posts. It kinda makes me think I may as well not reply at all. Lolirony.

[danny]

I'm tired of arguing with you. It would be better if you actually said how much military training costs per person rather than saying simply that it costs more. How am I meant to argue with that? And you say you'd not trust criminals, but 'criminals' covers a wide and diverse range of crime. I'd not be too bothered about benefits cheats in my lot compared to a murderer. You use human rights as a reason to reject national service but overlook it when it comes to the standard of prisons?

 

You didn't retort to the part about the cost of sending benefits cheats to prison. You do that a lot. It's really annoying. You may as well say "hmmm yes i see your point, you're right on that. I didn't think of it that way" rather than just ignoring those chunks of my posts. It kinda makes me think I may as well not reply at all. Lolirony.

 

Feel free not to argue with me then.

 

Its hard to give you a figure for millitary training. I mean theres probably a couple of hundred different jobs. Which all have differnet training. I was told my 8 week basic training cost around £25000. But then royal marine basic training is at least 32 weeks and they need helicopters and landing craft involved so im sure the figures soon get very scary.

Im looking in to a side entry branch as an aircrewman which takes around 2 years training. Thats 2 years with a lot of hooning around in military helicopters so im guessing that will probably cost a hell of a lot.

Also training does not end there. Training is ongoing. Excercises must cost a fortune the ammount of rescources involved in moving 100 and in many cases 1000s of people, vehicles, equipment, aircraft and supplys around the country. Or in many cases to another country often not in europe. If the navy are on excersie it must cost literally a fortune to put a ship to sea and keep it there. Also you need more than one ship at sea to excercise with.

I really have no idea how much the RAF must spend on training the costs will be eye watering

In a military setting i would not want a benefit cheat working with me. A lot of the ethos in the military is about integraty criminals do not have any thats why there criminals. Many countrys do have conscription but very few now have it as a punishment. Even the french foreign legion will no longer take people with not overly bad criminal records.

How would you suggest that these people who do not want to be there would be made to do what is needed of them? Im not saying that peoples human rights should be reversed. But thats the only real way conscription works.

 

I think crimianls should surrender many of there rights. Im not syaing they should live in south american style jails. But neither do i think they should live in cells with all the mod cons they wish. Prison should be tough it shoudnt be a nice place it should be living hell. It should be so bad that people think twice about commiting crime so that they dont want to go back.

Edited October 1, 2009 by danny

[navarre]

Griffin on Question Time is surely a good thing. Everyone is entitled to free speech, irregardless of how wrong or bigoted those views may be. I just wish he'd stop deficating on Christianity by trying to give his party a Christian image. The cringeworthy 'What would Jesus do? He'd vote for a racist, bigoted, homophobic facist!' campaign is actually rather offending to practising Catholics like myself. The idea that Jesus, perhaps the embodiment of morality and good actions, would give even a second thought to the BNP is blasphemous.

[ipaul]

I would propose cutting benefits and being tougher on crime. These might not go hand in hand but i would like to think the cuts in benefits could go towards paying for jails etc. Also making jails less cushty might deter people a bit more.

 

Jobseekers Allowance:

 

Age 16 - 25: £50.95

 

Age 25 or over: £64.30

 

 

You would want to reduce that? It's hardly much to begin with.

 

Nick Griffin should make for an interesting question time. I do hope the panel properly criticizing him rather than just shouting 'RACIST' over and over again, even if it is undeniably true.

[Pyxis]

Conscription is a bad idea and it is pointless. Our military exists to defend our country, not to babysit young offenders.

 

Some countries might still have conscription, but they are all either 3rd world countries or have totally useless armies that can't project force outside of their own borders.

 

Map of countries with conscription:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg

 

The finest armed forces really stand out, like the US, Japan and India.

 

Anyway, Danny, you do complain a hell of a lot about the groups of people you despise! It's fine to think that you are better than these groups, but it is like you are bragging about it and taking pleasure in complaining about them, like a snob. I don't think many people would disagree that chavs and benefit cheats are scum, but I think people are going to act adversely to what you say sometimes because of the inherent snobbery and self righteousness of it all.

 

It is easy to complain about things, but it is a lot harder to think of workable solutions to society's problems without making a mess of it all. Opposition parties have an easy time complaining about this and promising that, without having the actual responsibility that the ruling party has. All politicians are scum and I wouldn't have faith in any of them. Politicians are like gold diggers and only care about votes and their own careers.

 

Prisoners definitely get treated too well these days. When I worked for Gameplay, we did a lot of business with prisons. The funny thing was that they weren't allowed any console that could go online, so were limited mainly to playing on the GameCube due to the staffs' ignorance about connectivity! haha, there was still reason to feel sorry for them.. It's probably changed now and I can't see why they wouldn't be allowed to have Xbox 360s.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Pyxis

[navarre]

Some countries might still have conscription, but they are all either 3rd world countries or have totally useless armies that can't project force outside of their own borders.

 

Russia? Germany?

[Mundi]

Conscription is a bad idea and it is pointless. Our military exists to defend our country, not to babysit young offenders.

 

Some countries might still have conscription, but they are all either 3rd world countries or have totally useless armies that can't project force outside of their own borders.

 

Map of countries with conscription:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg

 

The finest armed forces really stand out, like the US, Japan and India.

Japan?

ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

 

The only "armed" forces is the voluntary self-defense forces and the members are considered as civil-servants.

One of their policies is to NOT grow into a major military power.

 

I´m not saying this as a bad, it´s great that a major nationhas a policy like that.

 

Also, those nations in green look like a bunch of pretty cool guys.

[MoogleViper]

Russia? Germany?

 

You missed off China. A major force.