blonde poker forum

1. Give Scotland its independence also N.I and Wales if they wanted it.
2. Bring back the Death Penalty.
3. Open up the country to more migrants.
4. Lower the VAT threshold.
5. Nationalise  any industry that was a proven failure in private hands.

Just to kick it off.

instead of cutting taxes give out random lump sum cash payments to people.

do away with the notion of punishment from the criminal justice system

sever all links between church and state

randomise school entry, no more catchment areas.

do away with targets in public services

do not nationalise any failing industry

You may want to rethink the title of your thread

Geo

Not necessarily as Independence could create a kingdom that becomes united.

Privatise healthcare and pay health insurance for everyone.

Pretty sure you get a lot of health insurance for a grand and that the 60 billion it would cost is significantly less than the NHS spends per year.

The money squandered by the NHS must be obscene. The shit you read about them paying more for paracetemol than they cost at bloody Tesco is madness.

The procurement process is a disgrace. It's so big they just hand it over to huge corps like Carillion who then just sub it all out and make a killing but then fuck it up so bad they go bust.

Sooner it gets privatised the better but it needs to be done with no state subsidies to the Companies that run it.

Don't get me wrong if they can run it properly as a nationalised business then keep it going but as it stands it just doesn't work.

One small but real life example of NHS scandalous waste.

My Company carries out quite a lot of work for one of the NHS trusts.

A few years ago they changed the procurement process so that the Company had to be on a particular list to be able to provide services. Unfortunately my Company wasn't on that list so we could no longer carry out the work even though the Trust wanted us to.

The solution: Get us to do the work but invoice it through a third party who's on the list. The third party added 20% to our invoices just for the admin of raises an invoice once per month and also handling our monthly invoice to them.

Our invoices per year were about £150k so the third party was adding £30k for invoicing. The third party weren't even capable of providing the service that we offered.

That's one tiny example of the shower of shit that is the NHS as a business.

It isn't just the NHS it's all public sector procurement that's the problem.

My company looked at bidding for contracts to supply the public sector a while ago, but the amount of bureaucracy and jumping through hoops it required was just too time consuming and expensive to make it worth the while (when it still wouldn't guarantee you'd get any work at the end of it).

I'm a great believer in the free market and privatisation as a concept - but it has to be remembered that the concept of privatisation working better than the public sector is because the profit motive will make you cut waste. If it's an industry that doesn't naturally create a profit (like universal healthcare) - then there's going to be no profit motive because it's going to be subsidised by the government whatever you do.

But what you've put shows what the solution is - we don't need to privatise the NHS; if the problem is procurement we just need to sort out procurement.
 

The trouble is that it's all subbed out and other companies are milking it.   Another example of waste -   My Mrs works for Public Health England - if she needs to go somewhere that needs a train ticket, she has to use a procurement company that sorts out the train ticket for her.  It's about £100 for a trip to London or something stupid.  Buying it herself from the station would be a fraction of that.    I assume the company also get a % on top of the overpriced tickets too.  

Take it all in house.  If a company can bid for the work and make money on top of it then the NHS can employ it's own department to run it at cost.

Local councils are just as bad.  Ours has just leased it's three (I think) leisure facilities to a third party.  They've paid to be able to run them and as a company will aim to turn a profit - why can't the council just run them and employ someone to do it?  

Not quite sure how bringing back the death penalty will revive the UK.

It stops peadophilia. Are you pro nonce or summat?

Ban political parties (all MPs must be independent)

Rebalance taxation towards wealth instead of income

 ::) That's reviving the UK is it?

Not sure it would make any difference.

Wow! I didn't realise there was no peadophilia in the UK before 1964.

Wasn't he just mocking the idea of bringing back the death penalty? We best ask him I suppose?

Of course, there isn't a credible suggestion that the death penalty reduces crime.

We do have a government with an unprecedented record of failure. That seems like an opportunity for change that might bring about improvement.

i didnt think i needed sarcasm ellipses with that statement, but i'll add them AND a saftey wink just to be sure. belt and braces and all that...

it stops peadophilia. are you pro nonce or summat... ;)

On that occasion, I'm afraid I did need the safety wink. Sorry.  ;djinn;

There are currently around 90 lifers who will not be released and will die in prison. The average cost of keeping a lifer in prison is around £200,000 per annum, though government figures say it is much lower – they do not take into account the cost of the free rental space of the cell – heating and water – free food – free television – free Wi-Fi – free education – free counselling – free clothing and paying them a wage for making whatever.

So that’s a £18 million a year – which I am sure could be spent on better things. Does somebody like Peter Sutcliffe, deserve such good hospitality.

We are far too lenient IMO – in general with all crime committed – sure there can be exceptional circumstances, for example if I had caught the guys that had stolen my van in the act on my property and beaten them to death – I would expect to be exonerated as I was protecting my property on my property.

We need to bring in stronger tariffs and no parole – you do the crime and serve the time.

And yes there will be miscarriages of justice but that is life.

...or death in this case.

which is why you can never bring back the death penalty, and it never will be

" I would expect to be exonerated "


you should be expected to be found guilty of murder, and then killed...

You needed the safety wink there - for a minute I thought you were being serious.

Where do you draw the line with this philosophy? Stealing your van, stealing your bike, stealing your biro, stealing one of your chips?

OK, I'll admit the last one is a given but you know what I mean.

Actually your post does deserve a more considered response, especially as it is so far from my own views.

"There are currently around 90 lifers who will not be released and will die in prison. The average cost of keeping a lifer in prison is around £200,000 per annum, though government figures say it is much lower – they do not take into account the cost of the free rental space of the cell – heating and water – free food – free television – free Wi-Fi – free education – free counselling – free clothing and paying them a wage for making whatever."


"We need to bring in stronger tariffs and no parole – you do the crime and serve the time."


most if this doesnt happen. prisons are over populated and brutalising. if only there were free education. most live in an environment where violence, racketeering and sexual abuse is rife. if you dont go in with a drug habit, you will likely pick one up. overpopulation has some terrible side effects one is an increase in organised crime and even the formation of prison gangs - a phenomenon that has, so far, evaded our system. but maybe not for long: once prisons become too full it becomes difficult to track a person's reputation - so gangs are formed and a person can establish his bona fides through gang affiliation. and people can track reputations and police bahaviour that way. its a very clever response to overpopulation where guards cannot keep order. unfortunately it increases the efficiency and prevalence of crime inside and outside of prisons.

so be careful what you wish for when you talk about making prisons even more about punishment then they are now.

Easy solution. When a miscarriage is proven a name is picked from a hat from those that back the death penalty and they are hanged as well. That's life.

Having served time in my younger years for an offence that I am not sorry for committing – you can’t let people take liberties, I found my time inside to be quite fulfilling – I learnt to play chess, was given an education in some life skills which helped me in later years and still do today.

There was already overcrowding and so called gangs and drugs – even back then. But you make your own decisions as a man.
 
I wasn’t happy to be sent down as I felt that my act had been self-protection – but when sentenced I accepted it – by the second day I had lost any chance of an early release due to a minor scuffle with the so called gangs. You should accept responsibility for your own actions.
 
In my twenties, thirties and forties I use to have mates that were career villains – they excepted that if they robbed a bank and got caught they would do time – if they dealt drugs and got caught they would do time – the guys who dealt in drugs never touched drugs – nobody was in a gang it was just a loose collection of blokes who knew each other.

Most interesting if you asked any of them what they thought of the sentencing in this country they would all say it was too soft and their views on rapists and women beaters and serial murders were that they should be chucked behind bars for life or worse.

I am a strong believer that one has the rights to protect their own property and family within that property if this means someone’s demise so be it.

Interesting to see some people obviously think the likes of Peter Sutclifee should enjoy the rest of his life.

Forgot to add - legislation of all drugs as this would kill off a lot of petty crime and organised crime would have to come up with something else.

The problem with the cost argument is that it is based on the assumption that the death penalty would be cheaper.

In practice the average cost of keeping a lifer in prison is the total cost and not the marginal cost of doing so - i.e.you're double, triple, quadruple counting many parts of the cost which would be shared with other prisoners. So the actual cost is less than the headline figure for imprisonment.

On the other side if you had a death sentence every death sentence would be liable to dozens of appeals, and further investigations. Each one of which would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds - in which time you'd still be paying the cost of imprisonment. You might end up saving some money from the cost of imprisonment ending when the appeal process finally finished but it would be far outweighed by the additional costs involved in the failed appeals plus massively outweighed by all the appeals that were successful.

Also not wanting to be mean but the general idea and in particular the idea that a proportionate response to someone stealing your stuff should be to kill them seems awfully ... American; and that's rarely a good example to follow.

the legalisation of all drugs would be momumentally stupid. probably the single most destructive change to legislation proposed in this thread.

how would this legalisation work?

would you allow corner shops to sell anti-psychotic medication for example?

"Having served time in my younger years"

having served time in your younger years you served time in a holiday camp compared to today's prisons.

and when i talk of gangs, i am talking not of loose affiliations but the organised sort that sprang up in eg the california prison system. prison gangs only form under very specific circumstances and two of the key ingredients are an inability to track an individual's reputation due to overcrowding and an inability of the system to enforce rules due to overcrowding. a situation we are approaching now.

Don't think Mikey was planning on wasting money on appeals to be fair.

Possibly the stupidest thing you've ever said on this forum.

And it's not without some serious competition.....

<3

I am entitled to my opinion – whether you like it or not.
Plus Red Dog is correct – no appeal system – the trouble is people are quick to give opinion without in the majority of cases having experienced it.

1.   I have been inside and therefore I have experienced it fact

2.   Instead of saying there should be no death penalty say why you don’t think there should be.

3.   Someone explain the benefits of keeping mass murders locked up for 30 -40 years instead of terminating them.

4.   I have fought for my country, seen mate’s end up with no legs, no arms and other events that I won’t describe. Some of these guys are now in their late fifties and destitute. I would rather support them than keep mass murders in jail.

5.   I respect other people’s right to use free speech and to debate whether they are for and against something that I might strongly disagree with.

6.   Legalising drugs – the vast majority of drug users are not addicts they are recreational users (anybody who has worked in the City will know that) – even out in stickland there are many recreational users. Pharmacists already supply addicts with methadone so why not let them sell drugs such as cocaine and others to the recreational market. Smoking kills more people the drugs.

7.   The bottom line is I am trying to create debate  if the forum doesn’t like it I am sure you can ask Tikay to block my account.

Why are you assuming that we don't like it?

I do like it. I may not agree with you but I like to debate it.

And of course you are entitled to your opinion, but remember, so is everyone else.

If you do not think the death penalty should exist then it is a correct assumption that you agree mass murders should live, you cant have it both ways.

If you are going to assume what I think then you don't need me to take part.

If you killed those people who took your van you would be a mass murderer, but you would expect to be acquitted.

How come your own logic doesn't apply to you?

By the way, I come across a bit blunt sometimes when I'm debating. Please don't take offence.

Hugh Callaghan
Patrick Hill
Gerard Hunter
Richard McIlkenny
William Power
John Walker

You happy for you and your family names to go in the hat mikey?

1. Yes I probably would be as the odds of been picked are pretty good.

2. If I had killed the people that stole my van it would have been my right as they had no right to be on my land causing unnecessary danger to my family. If you come onto my property with the intent of doing wrong then be prepared to take the consequences.

Is there a threshold where they would escape death? What if they stole a small garden ornament valued at less than £1?

i would argue for the decriminalisation of all drugs at the user level and for the legalisation of most recreational drugs at supply level [under certain conditions]. but for some drugs the goal is abstinance as their effcts on the user and society are too deleterious to be tolerated.

again would you allow chemists to sell anti-psychotic medication to the general public, or general anesthetics in the supermarket?

by the same principle it would be moronic to open out eg crack cocaine to a wider market.

who would benefit from making crack cheaper and more readily available than it is now? no one in favour of legalising drugs has ever been able to answer that question.

I would imagine that most people who commit murder think it's justified.

I asked this question earlier. If I got a reply I must have missed it.

One I don't have any garden ornaments under a £1 so I cannot answer that question.

I shall however be going to renew my gun licence on Monday and whence it is done I shall have to purchase another shotgun as I gave up shooting sometime ago. I shall also be purchasing a hound dog and a rocking chair.

This little thread has sparked some debate so it will be interesting to see if those who have so far taken part will get off the fence and answer the following:

Should Peter Sutcliffe have been allowed to spend the rest of his life in prison or should his life have been terminated.

Its a simple Yes or No question

Interesting to see the response if any.

His life should have been terminated in my opinion. Now will you have the decency to answer my question?

If the theft of a van justifies mass murder, at the theft of what object do you draw the line?

PS- You don't actually have to own the item to have an opinion.

Yes.

A question for you, which of these justify your right to kill the offender:

1) 5 guys steal your van
2) 5 guys open the door of your van
3) a child opens the door of your van
4) a guy steals your wheelie bin
5) a child steals your wheelie bin
6) a child steals a flower from your garden

They're simple Yes or No questions

If you want to go down this route I think US style trespassing laws are suited better than the size of what you nick tbh.....

Strange that you frame it as controversial, in a country that rejected the death penalty so long ago. You haven't asked a yes or no question. He should live the rest of his life in prison.

About that threshold for murdering the van thieves, is there one? It's silly to avoid the question on the basis that you don't have an inexpensive garden ornament.

Sounds reasonable.

Further, uncultivated and unenclosed land with signs forbidding trespass “at intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior roads and trails entering the land” is also considered trespassing. Offenders of the same land or contiguous of the same landowner are fined $75, $250 and charged with a misdemeanor for first, second and third offenses respectively.

You can also shoot people in self defence if the threat to yourself is high enough....

I think that goes beyond trespass. I also think you can shoot people here if the threat to yourself is high enough.

It doesn't look like Mikey is going to answer this question no matter how we phrase it.

I don't think he wanted a debate, I just think he wanted to let us know what would happen if we touch his stuff.

C'mon Mikey, lighten up, I just know I would like you in real life.

I think the laws Woodsey is referring to are the States who have legalised shooting trespassers on the assumption that any trespasser may be armed and might harm you - regardless of whether they are armed, or whether they know you're there, or whether they do anything threatening or - as was the case that got it publicised - whether you you wait overnight in your outbuilding with a shotgun and open fire as soon as you see anyone no matter the reason why they were there.

It's similar to what I suggested - the idea that killing someone is a proportionate response to burglary (or vandalism, or theft) is a very American one and possibly relates somewhat to the gun problem they have.

Surely those can't be the laws that Woodsey thinks are better though?

There's a clear irony when people vote Conservative, with continued austerity in their election manifesto and then complain when crimes aren't investigated.

In certain states you don't have to believe there is a threat - if they're in yr house, exterminate

How does killing people revive the UK?

Should people with an urge to shoot people for some pretty minor crimes get a gun licence?

Not leaving the EU would be a start
A more progressive tax system
Higher taxes on home ownership, inheritances
Lower taxes/higher benefits for those at the bottom.
A new leader for the labour party?
Higher interest rates

I will give you straight answers mikey.

1. Do I think Peter Sutcliffe should be allowed to live his days?

Yes, yes I do, and the reason for this is not that I believe in a vacuum he does not deserve to die, it's part of a much bigger and much more complicated set of morale and ethical views, and as I'm sure you know as well as anyone given your experiences in life, that often things are not so cut and dry.

If I heard that someone in prison had killed Peter Sutcliffe, I would not be that bothered, and I think you could make a reasonable morale argument that he perhaps deserved it. What I believe though, and I believe this so passionately, is that life and death is not a decision to be made peer-to-peer. I think that life is such a precious, sacred thing and I personally do not trust that a system could ever be impartial and reasonable enough to handle decisions so massive and irreversible such as who lives and who dies.

The argument for "would only use it in cases where it is 100% certain" is not 1 I can accept either, because at the end of the day you are asking PEOPLE to make a decision about someone being executed, and I don't believe that is right. I just can't live in a country where a group of 12 random people aided by a man with a hammer can decide if someone dies. Does it not feel somewhat hypocritical to say - Murder is Wrong then murder them as a response.

You say we're spending ~£20m a year housing life-no-parole serial killers per year, I think we should look at it as we're paying £20m (very small amount in the grand scheme) to protect our society from individuals such as Peter Sutcliffe, and to me that is money spent wisely. Obviously in an ideal world there would be no serial killers and we could spend that £20m on better things, but we are where we are.

I think Mikey, you are treating a very, very complicated topic with some naive simplicity, people who do not support the death penalty are not sympathising with serial killers, nor are people who advocate for it taking a particularly hard stance against them, I don't think killing or not killing Peter Sutcliffe makes a great deal of difference to him at this point, and I certainly do not believe that he would have not committed his crimes were the consequences of being caught been death. I don't think the vast majority of murders are as rationally thought out as that. At the end of the day a world where some people who deserve to die are kept alive with no freedom, rather someone who doesn't deserve to die being killed.

Interesting guy if you never heard of him, Albert Pierrepoint - UK executioner who executed over 400 people, he became an opponent of capital punishment;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pierrepoint#Views_on_capital_punishment

It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young men and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.

A lot of people say his claims were just to be controversial to sell his book BTW, but interesting nonetheless.

He should have made this thread before the bastards nicked his van then they might have thought twice about it

Albert Pierrepoint played by Timothy Spall if I remember was he sorry for hanging 400 people – as he said he didn’t sleep badly.

Okay Red Dog – what you’re maybe really asking is what value I put on life and what punishment fits the crime.

On my own life zero – death comes to us all. On others it really depends.

On small children and teenagers and women – I would not carry out any form of violence you will be pleased to know – in fact the opposite – some thirty years ago when I lived in Bethnal Green some young lads stole my car, they didn’t get far as it had no fuel in it and they were unfortunately for them caught by the police – when I went to the police station they informed me that the little tykes were from the travelling family up the road.

The next day I walked onto site and had a word with the main man we had a bit of banter never friendly when there on their own territory – when I informed him I was born and raised in a caravan things lightened up – no trouble afterwards.

If it had kicked off so be it.

If I caught the blokes stealing my van and I know they were adults I would have had no hesitation in taking the biggest one down first and then laying into the rest with as much vigour as a bloke with a partial missing lung could muster aiming to do as much damage as possible – I really liked my van.

It is not the value of the object – they have no right to be on my land full stop.

If I killed the guy so be it – I would face the courts like everybody else and plead my case – but one thing would come out of it – don’t fuck about on my land.

It must me my persona – when I told two of my blokes who use to work for me that I had been diagnosed with cancer and had two weeks to live – they both said thank god – we thought you killed someone.

Life is not complicated it is people that make life complicated – bad things happen and good things happen but not necessarily to the right people.

Now can I get on with playing poker tonight.

Bet you've been to Elevenerife, Mikey ;D

Good luck with the poker tonight!

Some people will have to look that up - some people live a far more interesting life.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNxItIgX4AInLRh.jpg)

 :D

 :D

What about the James Bulger killers? Should they have been killed because of what they did?

Letting old people die with dignity.

We are currently overrun with old people; they are costing the tax payer a fortune. They get put in care homes and visited once in a while. In general their quality of life is quite poor – if you do the maths care homes and the staff numbers they employ – generally mean that the person been cared for gets less than 20 minutes a day of any form of personal care.

People are over staying there welcome mainly due the influx of drugs they are given which keeps them alive – on average you will die in less than two years when you are placed in a care home.

There surely comes a time when it is kinder to put them down than keep them in a vegetated state.

Would it not also be kinder to let people chose when they want to go –

Now before some liberals start banging on about how outrageous this seems and what a cold hearted bastard I must be – we put my aunt in a care home at 10k a month within three months she was going downhill (95 years old) so we brought her to live with us – one year on and she is thriving and enjoys her life – though it has curtailed ours somewhat.

I have also had this discussion with my own Mum who is 84 and fit and active but as she says – please don’t put me in a care home when I am older I would just rather die with dignity.

fwiw, the plural of ancedote is not data.

Agree with this but not for the reasons you state.

If the old person, or young person for that matter is capable of making a conscious decision to end their life with no outside interference or influence then I believe it should be their choice.

I don't think we should be making that choice for them because they're getting a bit expensive and we've decided their life isn't really worth living anymore because they don't get many visitors.

Sorry to be a pain Mikey, but what I'm really asking is what I really asked, but in case you are unclear I will ask yet again.

You say murder is justified for stealing a van, at what point is it not justified? A bike, a lawnmower, a pair of trousers from the line...?

That's the question. please don't interpret it again, just answer like I answered yours.

Of course you don't have to answer, it's a free country, but in the interest of debate.....


BTW- I would like to hear more about how you came to be born and brought up in a caravan.

I am not saying murder is justified for stealing a van - I am saying that murder is justified for stealing my van on my property. If you come onto my property with the intent to steal anything then you risk if you get caught a good is a good kicking if this leads to your demise so be it.

If you break into my house then your in big trouble if I catch you.

I do not condone murder but if you kill someone through protecting your goods or family so be it. Whether its a bit of scrap lead or a car.

There is no need to thieve - you can always make an honest living if you try.

I was raised in a caravan until I was seven travelling the country my family were thespians and put on plays at different venues. I left school at ten and went to work for Showground people who owned arcades on piers - calling out the bingo - fixing machines, that kind stuff. It was good really nice genuine people - then mysteriously the piers caught fire.

People often get confused between Gypsies, travelers and showground people and bunch them together but though there is a link they are different. This has been explained to me by a good mate who comes from the showground fraternity.

Hope this answers your question -

Now that's a proper answer, one I can't (and wouldn't want to) argue with.

 

Arguments make absolutely no sense to me.

Obviously people shouldn't steal stuff, but even more obviously, someone stealing something from you should not give you free license to kill them.

Revive the UK was the question, aspiration, prosperity, education these things will revive the UK, what exactly will capital punishment do to boost the nation? We can take kids of the street corners and give them jobs as executioners? As far as a national issue goes I would say serial murderers and how they're dealt with is pretty far down the list.