30 replies to this topic

[Dauth]

This is a collection of policies I would like to see implemented in the UK, the purpose of this thread is to get the ball rolling in the PA, please feel free to question any point raised.

Quote

Education System
1) Education system revisited, well there are 2 options depending on the amount of time overhauling.
a) Scrap a lot of the mickey mouse subjects, turn the polies back into polies not Universities and fund courses dependent on usefulness. Wipe out LEAs
b) Total overhaul and privatisation,
We spend £X on secondary education each year, X/# students = amount per student
Give each pupils' guardian a voucher that a school can redeem for one students worth of funding for one year.
Let anyone start a school
Scrap the national curriculum
Now if someone wants to teach intelligent design, they can, but they cannot expect the pupil to get a job in the Museum of Natural History
Good schools survive, bad ones fail
Of course special needs students get more like they do atm

Legal System
1) If you lose a court case you pay costs, (Divorces and suing cases etc) This has the added benefit of enabling the removal of a large number of claims against companies or hospitals and perhaps the Civil Service will no longer out populate Sheffield

2) Rights & Responsibilities, if you can't behave responsibly you don't have as many rights. Yes I mean criminals do not get protection of Human rights act (well not all of it) I will make prison hell.

3) We are secular, we thank the Church for their help developing the legal system and send them on their way. ArchBishops can continue to talk to the press, I will continue to ignore them.

4) Legalise all illegal drugs, except those proven to cause violence (Heroin + Cocaine + all derivatives), have dens where they are sold, so E-clubs etc, and hash pits. Tax it and now we stop funding the terrorists because we pay the state instead. Anyone found with a substance in an area where it is not allowed will be fined using tougher versions of current laws and tax evasion laws. This also frees up the jails since at least 60% of inmates are drug related. (Depending on the response I have a 336 page report to back me up)

5) Courts granted power of bailiff to recoup property of the value of a fine should a person not be able to pay up. This is apparently already the case, but I will take the shirt from a man's back to pay the debt.

6) Change benefits so it's not cash but tokens that can be spent on food/clothing etc. People are to reliant on the state, and that's wrong. Leave a portion of the money for luxury items be it a night out at the cinema or the price of a Sky Subscription.

7) Same sex marriage will be fully legalised and recognised. Any Church that refuses this will be tried under equality laws and fined.

8) Religion, there will be no legally binding religious ceremonies until the party involved is an adult, furthermore children are not '"Religion" children' they are 'Children of "Religion" parents'

9) Church's are not the charities, a Church which wants to set up a charity will have to create an entity called the 'Charity of the (Church)' the charity is taxed as a charity, the Church is taxed as a business.

International Relations
1)a) Withdraw from EU, we can bargain the same deal as the Swiss, we are a net importer so the trade barriers stay down or the EU hurts itself.
b) Or we stop paying until everyone else has the same level of implementation of EU directives as we do. (Last check, UK = 85%+, French = 55%)
[I do recognise that the EU is a bogeyman used by politicians but its worth that to save several £bn a year]

2) US policy on aid, you help us we help you, not we help you, you do nothing.

Road System
1) Driving test resits, 1yr after passing, each 3yrs from that point until 55, then every 2 years until 70, from that point every year (New jobs created)
Road tax abolished, this pays for it

2) Congestion charge based on size of vehicle not fuel source. I don't care that your Lexus SUV is hybrid, it's twice the size of a petrol mini and causes much more congestion.

3) All motorists must carry, Drivers license, MOT, Insurance documents whenever they drive.
All cars have disks for TAX (already in place), MOT, and primary insured driver.
If you are stopped and fail to produce you are locked up until someone comes with identification, if after 48hrs no ID you are charged for driving without Insurance/License etc
The car is scrapped for this offence too.

4) Speed camera fines changed, I only want to catch dangerous speeders, accidental speeders are people who are more likely to be watching the speedo and thus cause accidents that way. Firstly change the camera to capture at set speeds (not certain yet which speeds). First offence we send a letter and explain, second offence within 3 years is 6 points on the licence and £1000 fine.
This reduces revenue but the second offence carries a stiffer punishment so if it's just a mistake then you're OK, if you are dangerous then you get hurt in the wallet.

5) Speed limits altered for weather, as is done in France, IIRC orange lights above any road with different speed limit, if it's on you use wet speed (cameras rigged to change). Speeds to be decided after some thought.

Edited by Dauth, 12 October 2008 - 15:50.

[Rich19]

Dauth, on 12 Oct 2008, 14:18, said:

Education System
1) Education system revisited, well there are 2 options depending on the amount of time overhauling.
a) Scrap a lot of the mickey mouse subjects, turn the polies back into polies not Universities and fund courses dependent on usefulness. Wipe out LEAs

I partly agree with this. Many exams today aren't worth the paper they're printed on, and this needs to change. I'm not so sure about funding depending on how useful they are, mind you. Who decides how useful a subject is?

Dauth, on 12 Oct 2008, 14:18, said:

b) Total overhaul and privatisation,
We spend £X on secondary education each year, X/# students = amount per student
Give each pupils' guardian a voucher that a school can redeem for one students worth of funding for one year.
Let anyone start a school
Scrap the national curriculum
Now if someone wants to teach intelligent design, they can, but they cannot expect the pupil to get a job in the Museum of Natural History
Good schools survive, bad ones fail
Of course special needs students get more like they do atm

In my opinion, this is a very dangerous idea and I would not allow my children to be taught under such a system at all. What you're proposing is the "charter schools" idea first proposed by Friedman. A school run for profit does not have the children's best interests at heart - it puts it's own finances first. There would, for example, probably be a dramatic increase in the number of expulsions per year, as suddenly the yearly results would be a lot more important. I would imagine such a school would jump at any trivial opportunity to expel a pupil who could bring down the average grade.

The charter schools idea was actually implemented in New Orleans with lighting speed after the hurricane (a contrast to the glacial pace the levies were repaired...). Teachers in new Orleans used to be represented by a very strong union - this was entirely dissolved after the new system was put in place and most of the 4700 members were fired from their jobs. Many African-American parents view the scheme as a reversal of the gains made by the civil rights movement, as well.

For more information on this and other things, I'd suggest you read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

Dauth, on 12 Oct 2008, 14:18, said:

Legal System
2) Rights & Responsibilities, if you can't behave responsibly you don't have as many rights. Yes I mean criminals do not get protection of Human rights act (well not all of it) I will make prison hell.

I agree that something needs to be done about the prison system, but resorting to violation of human rights is a bit far if you ask me. What if someone is later found to be innocent? It could be argued that the government itself should then be punished under it's own laws about human rights. By all means put the prisoners to work and make them do something useful to help pay back the cost of their incarceration, but let's not resort to brutality.

Dauth, on 12 Oct 2008, 14:18, said:

6) Change benefits so it's not cash but tokens that can be spent on food/clothing etc. People are to reliant on the state, and that's wrong. Leave a portion of the money for luxury items be it a night out at the cinema or the price of a Sky Subscription.

This is an interesting idea. Tokens for children's clothing/food might make it harder for adults to abuse the child benefit system.

There are some more nice ideas that I agree with (most of the road system ideas, for example) and some more that I disagree with (EU policy and international relations), but I'm running short of time now.

Edited by Rich19, 12 October 2008 - 16:48.

[Ion Cannon!]

Rich19, on 12 Oct 2008, 17:47, said:

Dauth, on 12 Oct 2008, 14:18, said:

b) Total overhaul and privatisation,
We spend £X on secondary education each year, X/# students = amount per student
Give each pupils' guardian a voucher that a school can redeem for one students worth of funding for one year.
Let anyone start a school
Scrap the national curriculum
Now if someone wants to teach intelligent design, they can, but they cannot expect the pupil to get a job in the Museum of Natural History
Good schools survive, bad ones fail
Of course special needs students get more like they do atm

In my opinion, this is a very dangerous idea and I would not allow my children to be taught under such a system at all. What you're proposing is the "charter schools" idea first proposed by Friedman. A school run for profit does not have the children's best interests at heart - it puts it's own finances first. There would, for example, probably be a dramatic increase in the number of expulsions per year, as suddenly the yearly results would be a lot more important. I would imagine such a school would jump at any trivial opportunity to expel a pupil who could bring down the average grade.

The charter schools idea was actually implemented in New Orleans with lighting speed after the hurricane (a contrast to the glacial pace the levies were repaired...). Teachers in new Orleans used to be represented by a very strong union - this was entirely dissolved after the new system was put in place and most of the 4700 members were fired from their jobs. Many African-American parents view the scheme as a reversal of the gains made by the civil rights movement, as well.

For more information on this and other things, I'd suggest you read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

While I can see your point of view with more pupils being expelled, this is if anything, a good thing. Currently its utterly ridiculous how much a student can do before they are expelled.

This system means lost cases are exactly that, lost. Its plain wrong that a kid who doesn't want to learn should be allowed to disrupt the learning of others just because of the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy involved to get rid of them. Case in point would be my school, my brother isn't stupid, he's a bright kid. But his lessons are generally only 45-50mins because the teachers have to spend their time dealing with the problem kids. Idiots failing because they want to fail is one thing, idiots causing brighter students to fail is unacceptable. Teachers are paid to teach, not to deal with scum who don't care about education and know they can get away with everything.

However I am more in favour of option A, with the above included so that its alot easier to get rid of problem students. Now you might say " Well where will they go? What will they do?" My answer is this ; They should have thought about that before they decided they didn't care about their own, or others learning.

[Libains]

Dauth, on 12 Oct 2008, 14:18, said:

Legal System
1) If you lose a court case you pay costs, (Divorces and suing cases etc) This has the added benefit of enabling the removal of a large number of claims against companies or hospitals and perhaps the Civil Service will no longer out populate Sheffield

I think this is certainly something that could be easily implemented - it would prevent a lot of ridiculous court cases that we do hear a lot of at the moment - and would likely crack down on the number of injury lawyers. However, the state of the nation at the moment is such that people do this almost as a matter of course of something goes wrong, and as such would be suitably solved by having them have to account for the stupidity of their actions if proven wrong.

Dauth, on 12 Oct 2008, 14:18, said:

4) Legalise all illegal drugs, except those proven to cause violence (Heroin + Cocaine + all derivatives), have dens where they are sold, so E-clubs etc, and hash pits. Tax it and now we stop funding the terrorists because we pay the state instead. Anyone found with a substance in an area where it is not allowed will be fined using tougher versions of current laws and tax evasion laws. This also frees up the jails since at least 60% of inmates are drug related. (Depending on the response I have a 336 page report to back me up)

While everyone is entitled to their own opinion on drugs, I myself do not find drugs enticing/cool/needed in society at all. However, I respect the fact that a lot of people wish to experiment with them. As such, legalising certain areas for weak drug use, as well as providing sellers' licenses to authorized dealers, would probably not be a bad thing for much of the population including the current demographic that I find myself within - Freshers at university, branching out for the first time and experimenting like mad. I do wonder though, where this would get people in the long run, as drugs are as addictive as nicotine in cigarettes, and would result in people clamouring for harder drugs to feed that need. At this point, the situation becomes dangerous, as people can quite easily die from hard drugs, or from consequences of hard drug use by others (your point of violence). By legalising something, even if taxed, does not always make it a good thing - Cigarettes are greatly taxed to the point of being almost unaffordable, as well as bearing very obviously the fact that they kill people, and yet people still smoke an awful lot. If drugs were legalised in the same sense, and available in certain areas, I am sure we would see the number of recreational user rise dramatically overnight, and certainly see more drug related problems in the country. By keeping them illegal they prevent the spread somewhat. I don't quite know where to place my final verdict on this, but from a personal perspective, without taking into account the rest of the country, I'd say no.

Dauth, on 12 Oct 2008, 14:18, said:

7) Same sex marriage will be fully legalised and recognised. Any Church that refuses this will be tried under equality laws and fined.

Agreed - the Church cannot dictate the law, and as such, equity laws state that everyone is free to do as they see fit when it comes to finding one single partner - it doesn't matter whether they are of the same sex or not.

Dauth, on 12 Oct 2008, 14:18, said:

8) Religion, there will be no legally binding religious ceremonies until the party involved is an adult, furthermore children are not '"Religion" children' they are 'Children of "Religion" parents'

In my view, the Parents can perform whatever service they like upon the child - say a Christening - but that deed cannot be completed and absolve the child into that practice until they have come of a legal age. I was Christened when I was four months old, yet my parents are not religious. I accept religion, and understand it, and would agree to my Christening if it were performed upon me again - but there are certainly other children who would wake up on their 18th Birthday and reject everything religion-wise that their parents had planned out for them. I don't feel this is so much a means of restricting the parents, more a means of giving the choice to the Child.

Dauth, on 12 Oct 2008, 14:18, said:

2) US policy on aid, you help us we help you, not we help you, you do nothing.

And that does not include sending in soldiers to help our forces in a war that they created. Our international policy with America at the moment seems to be 'Yes Sir, no Sir, three-bags full Sir'. It would take a Prime Minister with backbone to disengage our current policy and shift it so that we are equally as respected by America as we respect them as a military superpower.

I have nothing to say on the Road System as I don't yet drive.

[Dauth]

Subjects that are useful. Well since I'm getting rid of the old polies, why don't we look at the subject list that Real Universities take into account. A Levels that are useful.
Sciences
Analytical Humanities
Languages
Not Arts, having a certificate is lower down the scale than having a good portfolio of previous work.
I never said run the school for profit, the school must be a 0 profit entity, this chops out a lot of the issues.

I'm not advocating torture, what I am advocating is making the idea of being in prison intolerable, I want prisoners to pay for their stay at Her Majesties pleasure.

For families with Children I have discussed (in RL) the idea of having tokens for children's items too we'd also make sure they were non transferable.

Ion has summed up my approach about pupils to be expelled very nicely. Thanks Ion.

Edit: Ninja'd by AJ
Study prohibition, also if people die from drug use the Government will of course be legally protected and it will be entirely their fault, we will also happily sell to minors, (give no room for illegal trading). In this I'd also treat alcohol in a European manner, none of this do you look 97 nonsense.

The parent by telling someone they are a Christian Child, removes some of the child's freedom, that child is a Child of Christian Lineage and I do take offence to the Christening performed on me before I was old enough to decide for myself. If a child decides to reject religion then good for them, they have shown the ability to make a choice, we have millions of young men and women who have died for freedom, yet we don't applaud people who utilize this freedom?

The concept we get nothing from the US-UK relationship is laughable, we don't get enough I'll concede that.

Edited by Dauth, 12 October 2008 - 17:59.

[Ion Cannon!]

Dauth, on 12 Oct 2008, 18:51, said:

I'm not advocating torture, what I am advocating is making the idea of being in prison intolerable, I want prisoners to pay for their stay at Her Majesties pleasure.

Agreed. It costs the taxpayer £27,320 to keep one person in prison for one year. Prisons as they stand are currently to comfy, some people reoffend deliberately because prison is better than their current standard of living, this is ridiculous. Taxpayers should not be paying money to keep criminals comfy. These are the people that have broken laws and are a danger to society, hence them being in prison. Why should honest hard working citizens pay for their pleasure. I am also in favour of the death penalty in some cases. Such as serial killers or those who just display disregard for human life. Some people really are sick and twisted and they have no place on this earth.

Edited by Insomniac!, 12 October 2008 - 18:12.

[Dauth]

The amount of money it costs to kill someone legally is more than the cost of keeping them alive for 20 years. The Death penalty is financially unsound and is an almost reactionary response. I would offer prisoners the opportunity to work off a debt, or even invest in expanding their CV (Only works for first 2 years of incarceration, beyond that people take advantage).

Prisoners could earn money to pay for their board (obv not the 27k since we'll be dropping that price). They can volunteer for labour tasks (if suitable), or even drug trials.

[logical2u]

I'm a bit scared to comment here given the level of opinion that is (by necessity) present in a manifesto. However, let me try and draw out a few points...

If you let anyone start a school, and yet you want to prevent creationists from teaching evolution courses, (or at the very least, disrupting them in university), then you need to have some sort of universal inspection scheme for every school. If everyone can start a school, it means every school would have to be inspected. Not only to see what sort of quality of education the kids are getting, but also to make sure it's not just some lazy parent taking their educational voucher and using it on beer.

In order for the bad ones to fail, there has to be public interest in them. And if it's a one-kid school house (or one for those a particular educational orientation, eg: creationist or the like) then it won't be likely that there will be complaints about it to draw out investigators. Which means the investigators would have to go to the schools. Which, in the end, would probably mean a huge team of investigators, paper work, etc.

If you lose a court case, you pay the costs - but what if you were going to court over say a chipped tooth. Let's say your dentist hires the most expensive law firm in the country, and then you lose. Then you have to pay for the their expenses - which let's be honest, you probably don't have the money for if you're going to a dentist that chips teeth >>

Treat the prisoners like crap and they'll treat your country like back in exchange. If you treat the citizens like crap for jaywalking, expect to get an angry subset of humanity on your case.

Isn't the claim of violence inducing drugs also partially related to the psychology of the user? You can be a mean drunk, would alcohol be banned?

Anyways I don't want to get into the religion stuff, or the road stuff (since I can't really... drive at the moment), but those are a few of my concerns.

[Libains]

logical2u, on 12 Oct 2008, 19:53, said:

If you lose a court case, you pay the costs - but what if you were going to court over say a chipped tooth. Let's say your dentist hires the most expensive law firm in the country, and then you lose. Then you have to pay for the their expenses - which let's be honest, you probably don't have the money for if you're going to a dentist that chips teeth >>

If a case like that were to go through then it would be a severe failure in the legal system before anything else - but then again I do see your point in that there would be exceptions to the issue. However, there are always failures in the legal system, and this new means would result in less people taking their claims forward, which in turn would mean that the cases that do get presented are more thoroughly looked at. Overall, there will always be mistakes, but this should help to reduce them

logical2u, on 12 Oct 2008, 19:53, said:

Treat the prisoners like crap and they'll treat your country like back in exchange. If you treat the citizens like crap for jaywalking, expect to get an angry subset of humanity on your case.

No one said that the citizens should be treated like crap, but those who have already abused the country though crime will likely treat the country like crap no matter what. If they go to prison at the moment, they cause damage, go to jail, get fed well and looked after, then leave and go back out into the world having been taught that - pissing around gets you a free stay in a better place than your current home. Reduce the quality of care, or just generally, of prisons, and the inmates will hate the place, leading to them not wanting to go back once being released. If they abuse the country again, back they go for worse time than that they would have had as a free person.

logical2u, on 12 Oct 2008, 19:53, said:

Isn't the claim of violence inducing drugs also partially related to the psychology of the user? You can be a mean drunk, would alcohol be banned?

Drugs change the psychology of a person - admittedly a person more prone to mood swings aggravates the change in the wrong direction (towards more violence), but drugs have a far harsher effect than alcohol on a persons' psychological makeup. If drugs were introduced as legal, penalties would apply to them as they do to alcohol - but just because drugs or alcohol affects a person's behaviour, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be introduced - it is a person's right and responsibility to control themselves - if they become out of control it is their fault, not the substance.

[NanSolo]

Quote

Give each pupils' guardian a voucher that a school can redeem for one students worth of funding for one year.
Let anyone start a school
Scrap the national curriculum

To pick up on these points: firstly the voucher. Costs vary wildly for different schools in different areas: it costs a lot more to teach a science course in London for example than a humanities course in Newcastle. Schools will receive more funding for going into certain areas leaving other less well-funded subjects short on teachers and materials. An example of this can be seen today in Doctoral Research funding at universities: there is a lot more funding available for science research than there is for humanities and social sciences. And while we need scientists, for example, to find a cure for cancer, a biologist isn't going to find a way of solving the credit crunch.
About letting anyone start a school this might work in large urban areas where you might have 3 or 4 schools within reasonable travelling time, and as such competition will work to ensure that the schools are forced to aim for high standards. However in areas of low populations or low population density there is often only the one school to choose from. What incentive does this school have for performing? The threat of reduced funding is irrelevant as there is no where else the students can go if the school is shut down. A further consideration is in the setting up of ideological schools. What happens if the only schoo within reach is an Islamic School? While I would like my children to study the Koran at some point to gain a basic knowledge of the Islamic faith I wouldn't send them to a school where it is taught as dogma. And vice-versa for Muslim children being forced to go to Christian schools? This last example is something that happens now to a certain extent, and one I agree should be changed.
And finally on the national curriculum, leading on from my previous point: how do you regulate the quality of the teaching? Where as competitive schools have some incentive to provide a broad selection of courses, monopoly schools will be able to teach virtually what they want to whatever standard. I think the national curriculum needs an overhaul, but we can't do away withit completely.

Quote

We are secular, we thank the Church for their help developing the legal system and send them on their way. ArchBishops can continue to talk to the press, I will continue to ignore them.

Yes, we are secular. The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't have any legislative powers. All he can do is talk, and whether the media wants to quote him and spread his opinions is up to the free press. And while we all have a right to ignore him, we also have the right to listen to him and weigh up his opinions. This argument applies the a point you make further on about same-sex marriage. It is not the Church that has the authority to prevent this, it's your elected representatives. You have the right to express an opinion, as do members of the clergy. Which opinion people want to listen to is up to them.
And following up on same-sex marriage and the Church, Churches are not public places like a park or a road, they're private property. You can no more force a Church to host a same-sex marriage than you can force them to hold an "Isn't Allah just the coolest thing since sliced bread" symposium. The Church doesn't marry people, it's the government and the civil register, who can then delegate this responsability to a Church.


Running out of battery on the laptop so I'm going to have to leave it there.

[Dauth]

In all honesty I am more a fan of a) That being said all faith schools should be closed down. Along with all specialist colleges.

We could always refuse to renew the licence to host a wedding for any building that will not allow same sex marriages.

Oh I'd also word out any 'by the grace of God' stuff from ceremonies about the State. The State is separate from the Church. As for ignoring the Archbishop I'm sure as PM I'd be asked and would respond in some scathing manner.

[Wizard]

Quote

Education System
1) Education system revisited, well there are 2 options depending on the amount of time overhauling.
a) Scrap a lot of the mickey mouse subjects, turn the polies back into polies not Universities and fund courses dependent on usefulness. Wipe out LEAs
b) Total overhaul and privatisation,
We spend £X on secondary education each year, X/# students = amount per student
Give each pupils' guardian a voucher that a school can redeem for one students worth of funding for one year.
Let anyone start a school
Scrap the national curriculum
Now if someone wants to teach intelligent design, they can, but they cannot expect the pupil to get a job in the Museum of Natural History
Good schools survive, bad ones fail
Of course special needs students get more like they do atm

The system is fundamentally flawed at present. Your options do have some benefits but it is such a radical overhaul that I could never see a real change being made.

Interesting side note: Speak to any teacher who has more than 20 years experience and ask them what has gone wrong. They'll answer that the 1996/1997 graduation year of Secondary Education (in England) was the last good year to be a teacher. This was the year I graduated secondary school, can anyone find a sensible reason for why this might be the consensus?

Quote

4) Legalise all illegal drugs, except those proven to cause violence (Heroin + Cocaine + all derivatives), have dens where they are sold, so E-clubs etc, and hash pits. Tax it and now we stop funding the terrorists because we pay the state instead. Anyone found with a substance in an area where it is not allowed will be fined using tougher versions of current laws and tax evasion laws. This also frees up the jails since at least 60% of inmates are drug related. (Depending on the response I have a 336 page report to back me up)

How would legalising drugs that you suggest don't cause violence help anyone beyond the funding of terrorism/crime? There will still be a need for someone to find the Grade A substances and will still propogate the problems. You have just allowed for the taxation of Ecstasy and Dope. It would be easier to allow all drugs to become legalised, therefore if you want to get off your head on crack then you have to do it in a Government controlled facility (cafe). The price can be controlled to the point that you won't have to steal car stereos to fund the habit and there are other benefits of bringing an under-ground culture to the surface.

Quote

International Relations
1)a) Withdraw from EU, we can bargain the same deal as the Swiss, we are a net importer so the trade barriers stay down or the EU hurts itself.
b) Or we stop paying until everyone else has the same level of implementation of EU directives as we do. (Last check, UK = 85%+, French = 55%)
[I do recognise that the EU is a bogeyman used by politicians but its worth that to save several £bn a year]

Not very far sighted imo. There are benefits to being part of a large scale International Power. Being part of a larger group with the ability to place the full weight of that group behind you is more beneficial than most people realise. The relationship with most other single countries would be very different if every member state of the EU realised this and tried to pull in the same direction. I realise that it's difficult to find a common path, but it's better to be in ther trying to make it happen then watching from the sidelines.

I disagree almost entirely with your comments on driving, but I will comment on that another time.

[NanSolo]

Dauth, on 13 Oct 2008, 12:15, said:

We could always refuse to renew the licence to host a wedding for any building that will not allow same sex marriages.

Would you ban a Mosque from carrying out weddings if they refused to have my Christian ceremony? You hire a building for a wedding, just like you can hire it for any other occassion, and each building has different rules as to what's allowed to happen in them. That's the whole point of it being private property.
The wedding ceremony itself is already secular, the signing of the register etc doesn't have any religious context unless you personally chose to place it in one.

And unlike Wizard I agree with all the driving points, though you would need to find a way to subsidise the system because a test can be very expensive, and to find more examinaers because there's already a very long waiting list for people to take the exams.

[Dauth]

No but the Christian who wanted a wedding in a Mosque may well need their heads examining.

There is no reason for a Mosque to perform a Christian ceremony, however there is a very good reason for a Mosque to perform a homosexual ceremony between two Muslims, and that is equality.

I am 100% sure this could work, and if it doesn't I am more than willing to remove the right to marry from any religious building, I'm even willing to tear the building down if I have to. I see equality between homosexual and heterosexual a human right, while my views on organised religion are somewhat dimmer.

Wzi if you don't want to get out of the EU then we could at least get our monies worth. I will stop the cash until the French implementation is equal to or better than ours. How long would it take? When you have a country by the short and curlies financially they move fast, see the credit crunch.

Schools, I'm happy to settle for a) tbh b) was posted to get people thinking of how bad it could be. 1997 hmm Labour Government by any chance? Charles Clarke IIRC.

The only time you'd be able to deal with the 'violent drug' users is if you locked them up until the end of the high, well that's going to put people off a lot.

[Warbz]

I gotta say, I love the no shit policy type thing you have going on here. Definitely need more of that.

[Wizard]

Dauth, on 13 Oct 2008, 15:40, said:

Wzi if you don't want to get out of the EU then we could at least get our monies worth. I will stop the cash until the French implementation is equal to or better than ours. How long would it take? When you have a country by the short and curlies financially they move fast, see the credit crunch.

I am all for getting our monies worth from the EU, however by far the bigger issue is getting everyone to accept that there is 50% on which we can all agree and 50% we will differ on. It seems right now no one would even agree on those figures as a matter of fact. It's the sceptics that cause lots of problems because we didn't embrace the EU at the beginning. Had we done so then we'd be getting the benefit that the French do now.

I would happily be using tje euro now if I had my way.

Quote

1997 hmm Labour Government by any chance? Charles Clarke IIRC.

You win the first Political Area cookie

Quote

The only time you'd be able to deal with the 'violent drug' users is if you locked them up until the end of the high, well that's going to put people off a lot.

There is no way to put people off. Addicts are addicts. What you need to do is move them away from starting and that is a very complicated issue. However, you may find legalising it does that already and without even trying.

[Ion Cannon!]

Quote

Quote

The only time you'd be able to deal with the 'violent drug' users is if you locked them up until the end of the high, well that's going to put people off a lot.

There is no way to put people off. Addicts are addicts. What you need to do is move them away from starting and that is a very complicated issue. However, you may find legalising it does that already and without even trying.

Even if you legalise all drugs some people will still not be able to afford them and will return to crime as a result. Other than that drug legalisation is on the whole a good thing. Although I would prefer some sort of method to stop drugs even entering society, thats not realistic. Another way of looking at it is keep some drugs illegal and punish those that use them, if the punishment is strong enough it might be enough to dissuade new users. You will still have problems with the current addicts of the drug of course, they're addicted. Therefore as well as the punishment they could get alot of help to take them off the drug, and hopefully quell their addictions. With the addicts no longer addicts and the punishments enough to dissuade the majority of new users demand for those illegal drugs should go down. To make sure the post-addicts stay clean you could also keep supporting them after their stay in prison, or whatever it may be, has ended.

[Wizard]

Insomniac!, on 14 Oct 2008, 0:08, said:

Quote

Quote

The only time you'd be able to deal with the 'violent drug' users is if you locked them up until the end of the high, well that's going to put people off a lot.

There is no way to put people off. Addicts are addicts. What you need to do is move them away from starting and that is a very complicated issue. However, you may find legalising it does that already and without even trying.

Even if you legalise all drugs some people will still not be able to afford them and will return to crime as a result.

Perhaps I should've been clearer. If it were my manifesto, I'd make serious narcotics almost free. In order to prevent the fallout from a harsh substance such as this you need to remove the economic mechanism that motivates the user to steal.

Imagine this situation if you will. Crack users use as it's the "accepted" escape from their reality. There is a rather defined set of social/economic circumstances that cause someone to use this drug as it's ultimately a slow death. Now place the drug in the hands of the Government, and I do mean Government and not a private concern, and you can dramatically change the social/economic position of the drug itself and not the user. I'd hope that those with a better education and more sound economic footing would avoid it as they know it would kill them and perhaps those that may turn to these extreme drugs may move to something less severe, such as dope for their escapism, with side effects substantially reduced.

Bottom line, remove the illegality of it, control the end product and to a degree, the market base.

[Dauth]

While I agree that would work it would be a media circus with the first crime committed while under the influence. You'd need a social revolution for this to work properly.

[Wizard]

Whilst I agree with you it's worth pointing out that crime that is caused whilst under the influence of such a category of narcotics could be effectively reduced to zero by sticking a junkie in a padded cell for about 3 hours. The levels of crime reduction I am more insterested in is the "what happens to get the money to buy my hit with". If treated like the disease it is, it could be done for gratis.

[Dauth]

I'd love to run some experiments to this end. It would be nice to stop addicts stealing stuff to pay for their habit, and with it nearly free people may OD and wipe themselves out, another saving.

[Wizard]

There is an argument one supposes that it would cost the tax payer money to purchase the narcotics in the first place however I would bet my house the savings to wider economy would be huge. Think how many more police would be on the streets rather than targetting illegal dealers, the cost for insurance when someone steals you tv, I think the list could be quite large.

[Libains]

Necro, but there are no rules against that here, so lets keep the ball rolling?

Dauth, on 16 Oct 2008, 14:08, said:

I'd love to run some experiments to this end. It would be nice to stop addicts stealing stuff to pay for their habit, and with it nearly free people may OD and wipe themselves out, another saving.

While I concede that having a bunch of hard drug users being wiped out would not be a bad thing at the end of the day, it takes a severe line indeed to want people to wipe themselves out - that is in some regards allowing a demographic to kill themselves - which is along the lines of genocide. No matter how far a person has strayed from the beaten path, that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to get further away until they die - it is the responsibility of a civilised country to help the people with illnesses, no matter what kind of illness.

Wizard, on 16 Oct 2008, 14:15, said:

There is an argument one supposes that it would cost the tax payer money to purchase the narcotics in the first place however I would bet my house the savings to wider economy would be huge. Think how many more police would be on the streets rather than targetting illegal dealers, the cost for insurance when someone steals you tv, I think the list could be quite large.

Indeed it would cost the taxpayer to purchase narcotics, and likely the increased number of people that would take up drugs following the introduction of such a proposal would be enough to counterbalance any savings elsewhere. As for the police, in this current economic climate, if such a move were proposed, likely some cops would lose their jobs, not be sent elsewhere.

[Dauth]

AJ, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:33, said:

Necro, but there are no rules against that here, so lets keep the ball rolling?

Dauth, on 16 Oct 2008, 14:08, said:

I'd love to run some experiments to this end. It would be nice to stop addicts stealing stuff to pay for their habit, and with it nearly free people may OD and wipe themselves out, another saving.

While I concede that having a bunch of hard drug users being wiped out would not be a bad thing at the end of the day, it takes a severe line indeed to want people to wipe themselves out - that is in some regards allowing a demographic to kill themselves - which is along the lines of genocide. No matter how far a person has strayed from the beaten path, that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to get further away until they die - it is the responsibility of a civilised country to help the people with illnesses, no matter what kind of illness.

Allowing someone to kill themselves is no genocide, I'm not attacking a race or creed. I'm attacking a way of life and that is at worst a sociocide, if society is not perfect (something everyone will agree on for whatever reason) then by logical extension some bits must be removed and replaced. All I am doing it allowing the unwanted bits the unfettered access to be themselves. Freedom: people die for it, but people can die from it too, remember that.

Quote

Wizard, on 16 Oct 2008, 14:15, said:

There is an argument one supposes that it would cost the tax payer money to purchase the narcotics in the first place however I would bet my house the savings to wider economy would be huge. Think how many more police would be on the streets rather than targetting illegal dealers, the cost for insurance when someone steals you tv, I think the list could be quite large.

Indeed it would cost the taxpayer to purchase narcotics, and likely the increased number of people that would take up drugs following the introduction of such a proposal would be enough to counterbalance any savings elsewhere. As for the police, in this current economic climate, if such a move were proposed, likely some cops would lose their jobs, not be sent elsewhere.

We'll of course get a spike of users on legalisation but that happened in the PA. Lots of activity initially and now its died down to the people who actually want to. I bet people joined because they didn't want to be left out, not because they wanted to post. The same would be true in drugs.

As for the coppers, come on, I'm slaughtering the civil service jobs we'll have money.

[Libains]

Dauth, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:41, said:

AJ, on 8 Dec 2008, 0:33, said:

Necro, but there are no rules against that here, so lets keep the ball rolling?

Dauth, on 16 Oct 2008, 14:08, said:

I'd love to run some experiments to this end. It would be nice to stop addicts stealing stuff to pay for their habit, and with it nearly free people may OD and wipe themselves out, another saving.

While I concede that having a bunch of hard drug users being wiped out would not be a bad thing at the end of the day, it takes a severe line indeed to want people to wipe themselves out - that is in some regards allowing a demographic to kill themselves - which is along the lines of genocide. No matter how far a person has strayed from the beaten path, that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to get further away until they die - it is the responsibility of a civilised country to help the people with illnesses, no matter what kind of illness.

Allowing someone to kill themselves is no genocide, I'm not attacking a race or creed. I'm attacking a way of life and that is at worst a sociocide, if society is not perfect (something everyone will agree on for whatever reason) then by logical extension some bits must be removed and replaced. All I am doing it allowing the unwanted bits the unfettered access to be themselves. Freedom: people die for it, but people can die from it too, remember that.

But surely if this country is seen to be an upstanding member of the world society, leading the way, as it were, we should help those that need help, not allow them to die. If such were true, it would put Britiain's government in line with third world countries that don't care about their citizens unless they are of a certain status.

Quote

Quote

Wizard, on 16 Oct 2008, 14:15, said:

There is an argument one supposes that it would cost the tax payer money to purchase the narcotics in the first place however I would bet my house the savings to wider economy would be huge. Think how many more police would be on the streets rather than targetting illegal dealers, the cost for insurance when someone steals you tv, I think the list could be quite large.

Indeed it would cost the taxpayer to purchase narcotics, and likely the increased number of people that would take up drugs following the introduction of such a proposal would be enough to counterbalance any savings elsewhere. As for the police, in this current economic climate, if such a move were proposed, likely some cops would lose their jobs, not be sent elsewhere.

We'll of course get a spike of users on legalisation but that happened in the PA. Lots of activity initially and now its died down to the people who actually want to. I bet people joined because they didn't want to be left out, not because they wanted to post. The same would be true in drugs.

As for the coppers, come on, I'm slaughtering the civil service jobs we'll have money.

There is one massive difference between the PA and drugs - they're addictive, and no forum, especially one that requires high levels of intellect before posting, can ever be addictive as something that gets into every inch of you body. Agreed, people would take it up to be a part of the new fad, but they'd stay because their bodies forced them too, not because they were willing to stay.