The full text of the Coalition programme is now out.

 

Full document here http://www.scribd.com/doc/31656197/Coalition-Programme

 

 

A certain Thatcher loving Tory will love this bit.

 

We will ensure that people have the

protection that they need when they defend

themselves against intruders.

The full text of the Coalition programme is now out.

 

Full document here http://www.scribd.com/doc/31656197/Coalition-Programme

A certain Thatcher loving Tory will love this bit.

 

I sure love that bit about time it was bought in B)

 

In general I can live with that document, there is a lot of wishy washy stuff in it that is a sell out to true conservatism but there is also a good deal of common sense ideas proposed

 

I await Gideon's budget but I am braced for tax rises

 

 

That "protection" shouldn't extend to taking it out on the streets though.. What you have to do in your own home to protect yourself is okay, but going out onto the streets in pursuit turns it into vigilanteism as far as I'm concerned... As does procuring an illegal firearm a'la Tony Martin....

That "protection" shouldn't extend to taking it out on the streets though.. What you have to do in your own home to protect yourself is okay, but going out onto the streets in pursuit turns it into vigilanteism as far as I'm concerned... As does procuring an illegal firearm a'la Tony Martin....

 

Depends on the circumstances, if I catch a chav vandalising my car I don't have the right to use my hunting knife on him, that would be disproportionate but if someone came into my house, tortured me and I broke free when he leave and beat the $h!t out of him with a cricket bat then that is understandable IMHO, each case should be judged on the circumstances, in the case of the asian guy with the cricket bat he should not have been near the inside of a courtroom.

 

Martin should have been charged with possession of firearms offences and punished accordingly but again I don't think he should have faced trial for murder

Martin should have been charged with possession of firearms offences and punished accordingly but again I don't think he should have faced trial for murder

 

Would you have said that if Tony Martin were a black guy living on an estate in South London where gun and drug crime was rife...? Nah, dont buy it mate.. And I dont think the Scum would have mounted a national campaign to free said black guy, I mean, how could they....?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you have said that if Tony Martin were a black guy living on an estate in South London where gun and drug crime was rife...? Nah, dont buy it mate.. And I dont think the Scum would have mounted a national campaign to free said black guy, I mean, how could they....?

 

It depends, if it was a young guy probably not, infact certainly not, if it was an older Trevor McDonald type of black guy who was continually burgled by drug addicts and then in despair bought a gun and shot one then I think there would be a fair bit of sympathy and campaign, The Scum much as I hate the "paper" were the leaders in the outrage about the asian guy with the cricket bat being jailed and also gave the suspected killers of Stephen Lawrence a hard time.

It depends, if it was a young guy probably not, infact certainly not, if it was an older Trevor McDonald type of black guy

Hmmm, so you're Age-ist then....? :P Oh, and obviously middle-class businessmen are entitled to defend themselves too....

 

You dont accept that a young guy (and no, I dont mean some gang-member or drug dealer, just an average kid from a rough background) could potentially fear for his life and get a firearm or knife for protection....? Sorry mate, doesn't make sense to me considering the vast majority of victims of street violence are young men aged between 16 and 30 and most DONT actually have any gang or criminal affiliations....

 

I would say a working class kid living on a rough estate has much more reason to fear the daily violence of life in London than a white bloke living in the sticks or a pair of middle class Asian businessmen living in a good neighbourhood, and yet your law would not protect the statistically most vulnerable person....

 

This is the trouble when you start legislating this sort of thing... You start to make pejoritive and subjective statements about who is "entitled" to use deadly force to defend themselves and who isn't.....

Hmmm, so you're Age-ist then....? :P

 

You dont accept that a young guy could potentially fear for his life and get a firearm for protection....? Sorry mate, doesn't make sense to me considering the vast majority of victims of street violence are young men aged between 18 and 30....

 

I would say a working class kid living on a rough estate has much more reason to fear the daily violence of life in London than a white bloke living in the sticks or a pair of middle class Asian businessmen living in a good neighbourhood, and yet your law would not protect the statistically most vulnerable person....

 

There is a big difference though between perceived fear of crime and actual crime itself

 

A young black guy getting a gun because he FEARS crime would not to me be an acceptable excuse whereas Martin was a multiple victim of burglary before he snapped and took the law into his own hands.

 

If there was a young black guy who had repeatedly been the victim of crime and saw the police doing nothing about his situation and he then got a gun and shot a robber then yeah I would be understanding but someone buying a gun out of paranoia or FEAR of crime and then shooting a mugger would get less sympathy from me.

Edited May 21, 201015 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

There is a big difference though between perceived fear of crime and actual crime itself

 

On the estates I'm talking about it's a lot more than "perceived" mate... It's REAL.... It's happening... I'm sorry, but you cant have one set of standards for one lot and another set of standards for another, this is the WHOLE point I'm making, and why I'm using this as an argument... It's a pretty slippery path to go down, and frankly I cant trust the Tories to get it even remotely right given their disastrous history of social policy.... Not that Nu Labor were any better mind, but at least they had the sense to leave particlular cases to be judged on individual merit....

On the estates I'm talking about it's a lot more than "perceived" mate... It's REAL.... It's happening... I'm sorry, but you cant have one set of standards for one lot and another set of standards for another, this is the WHOLE point I'm making, and why I'm using this as an argument... It's a pretty slippery path to go down, and frankly I cant trust the Tories to get it even remotely right given their disastrous history of social policy.... Not that Nu Labor were any better mind, but at least they had the sense to leave particlular cases to be judged on individual merit....

 

I will give the example of the fact I carry a knuckle duster when I am in London in a night time, if someone tried to mug me I would use it without hesitation but also I accept that if I am caught with a knuckle duster whether I have used it or not I can accept and expect to be charged

 

Just having a firearm because everyone else in the area has one will turn us into another America and I don't want to see that

 

Each case should be judged on its merits, a first time victim of crime shooting someone because everyone in the estate has a gun should face a murder charge but a multiple victim of crime who armed himself out of fear of his life should be treated differently

I will give the example of the fact I carry a knuckle duster when I am in London in a night time, if someone tried to mug me I would use it without hesitation but also I accept that if I am caught with a knuckle duster whether I have used it or not I can accept and expect to be charged

 

You dont actually live on an estate though mate, it's different... You choose to come into London, for many kids violence is all they've ever known, there's no choice, little hope and a lot of despair and deprivation.. I think it's a bit rich to compare yourself to people who are living with it day to day, because you can choose to avoid it...

You dont actually live on an estate though mate, it's different... You choose to come into London, for many kids violence is all they've ever known, there's no choice, little hope and a lot of despair and deprivation.. I think it's a bit rich to compare yourself to people who are living with it day to day, because you can choose to avoid it...

 

It is wrong that everyone on an estate should have a gun because the criminals carry guns, that makes them as bad as the criminals and leads to anarchy and they no longer have the moral high ground, a kid having a gun out of fear should face the same sentence of firearms possession as the local drug dealer who carries a gun should face.

 

I was using myself as an example that I knowingly break the law by carrying an offensive weapon and that I accept any punishment that comes my way I wasn't comparing their lifestyles with mine.

 

 

If the Conservatives try to overturn the Human Rights Act then the Lib Dems will instantly pull out of the coalition. And rightly so.

If the Conservatives try to overturn the Human Rights Act then the Lib Dems will instantly pull out of the coalition. And rightly so.

 

A common sense based British bill of rights is far better than what we are signed up to now, scrapping the HRA would not turn us into North Korea there would still be rights but the more lunatic aspects of the HRA would be amended and it would be more tailored to our country as opposed to a one size fits all system that there is for loads of countries

A common sense based British bill of rights is far better than what we are signed up to now, scrapping the HRA would not turn us into North Korea there would still be rights but the more lunatic aspects of the HRA would be amended and it would be more tailored to our country as opposed to a one size fits all system that there is for loads of countries

Direct me to any part of the Human Rights Act's text which could be legitimately described as 'lunatic'. Or are you just on about the odd interpretations of it?

A common sense based British bill of rights is far better than what we are signed up to now, scrapping the HRA would not turn us into North Korea there would still be rights but the more lunatic aspects of the HRA would be amended and it would be more tailored to our country as opposed to a one size fits all system that there is for loads of countries

 

I'm not against a British Bill of Rights going alongside the Human Rights Act; in fact, I'd be quite happy if that formed part of a formal, written constitution (which would stop things like the "55% rule" happening). But what shouldn't be on the table is actually taking away any rights, including the right for all people to avoid torture in their country of origin. As Menzies Campbell said on Question Time last night, if we start taking away certain rights, then that leaves the door open for future governments to take more and more away.

 

But anyway, my main point is that, regardless of the rights and wrongs, we know that the Tories definitely WON'T be trying to overturn the HRA anytime soon, because the Lib Dems would instantly pull out of the coalition... or atleast, they would if Clegg has even the remotest sense for what the Lib Dems are supposed to stand for.

Direct me to any part of the Human Rights Act's text which could be legitimately described as 'lunatic'. Or are you just on about the odd interpretations of it?

 

Ones to do with prisoners are the ones I object to tbh

 

Prisoners getting large amount of compensation for trivial things while in prison, whole life tariffs not being available etc etc

 

To me prisoners having any RIGHTS above bedding and food and water is immoral to me, prisoners should not be able to claim compensation, they opted out of their rights when they committed their crimes IMHO

 

 

Ones to do with prisoners are the ones I object to tbh

 

Prisoners getting large amount of compensation for trivial things while in prison, whole life tariffs not being available etc etc

 

To me prisoners having any RIGHTS above bedding and food and water is immoral to me, prisoners should not be able to claim compensation, they opted out of their rights when they committed their crimes IMHO

Scrapping the HRA won't change that though. We'd still be signed up to the European Convention (ECHR). It would just mean people having to pursue such cases in Strasbourg rather than the English courts. The British would become the only Europeans in a democracy not to have the right to use their own courts to pursue a case under the ECHR. That might make you proud but it would make me thoroughly ashamed and embarrassed to be British.

That "protection" shouldn't extend to taking it out on the streets though.. What you have to do in your own home to protect yourself is okay, but going out onto the streets in pursuit turns it into vigilanteism as far as I'm concerned... As does procuring an illegal firearm a'la Tony Martin....

I think the word is 'intruders'. So the idea is to cover those that intrude into your property.

 

BTW Tony Martin didn't have an illegal firearm did he?

BTW Tony Martin didn't have an illegal firearm did he?

 

Yes he did mate, he had a pump-action shotgun.. You CANNOT get these by legal channels under any circumstances in the UK.... Not exactly for shooting rabbits are they...?