|
|
Crime |
|
Behave - or be Hammered |
In New Labour's Britain 2010 - snatch a mobile phone from a little girl in the street, or punch an old lady to rob her at a cash-point - and you'll be allowed to do this up to FIFTY TIMES before facing prison . Instead of jailing these twats IMMEDIATELY, our upside-down legal system threatens normal people with long prison sentences, for putting rubbish in the wrong bin; a middle-aged lady is threatened with 12 months FOR SELLING A BOY A GOLDFISH ! (How could this have harmed the boy? Do they think the goldfish would jump out of its jar and do a "Jaws" attack?)
All New Labour's stupid laws will be KEPT by the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. (The Liberals are even worse - they want to ABOLISH prisons and let Ian Huntly, Peter Sutcliffe and all the rest of them, back out on the streets). Only FAMILIES FIRST would GUARANTEE to get things back to normal.
|
Crime has spiralled out of control - the No. 1 issue for all Britain's families, as it has been for the last
30 years. Blunkett, Clarke, Straw, whoever - they come up with a new Spin proposal nearly every week - none of them work! They haven't got a clue. To see through the "Spin", to New Labour's true attitude to crime, we need to look back at the
Election of 2001. Remember all the hype and cheering? "Labour wins historic 2nd term!".
Answer this: What was the first thing - the very first thing - that Blair did, after they got back into power ? Something for the NHS perhaps? For schools? A rise in the State pension? None of these. Their first act - when the crosses on Britain's ballot-papers were hardly dry - was to let two child-murderers, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, out of prison. New Labour then spent millions of pounds of taxpayer's money to give these two twats new "aliases"; to give them both credit-cards; and to buy houses for them. |
Labour's Flagship policy exposed ... |
Another gun Murder, this time a young girl in Nottingham. The killers sped away in a car with blacked-out windows, and will probably never get caught.
Why do we allow cars to have darkened windows? Everyone knows they're used by criminals and others who don't want to show their faces.
They're also dangerous to other drivers - at a junction, you need to be able to see the other driver's face, to make sure the've seen your car. FAMILIES FIRST would swiftly outlaw these windows, as well as all the other forms of identity-concealment, the hooding and masking; with a new "Full Visibility Act". "In a Public Place - Show your Face ". The only ones who need to hide their FACE are those with something else to HIDE |
|
How can we stop crime? We've tried Plan A for 25 years- the Tory solution, carried on by New Labour: Alarms in every house; cameras in every shop; home-watch in every street. Compensation for victims paid out of our taxes (not by the attackers). It costs a fortune - and it doesn't work.
Now it's time for Plan B - longer sentences. Cheaper, fairer - and it's what Britain's ordinary people want (as opposed to what the posh judges, lawyers and MPs want). Most of all - it's what the victims themselves want. Don't ask the judges or the lawyers - ask the victims what they want. They always say "Longer sentences, please". Critics say "we've got the most people in prison in Europe". So ? Nothing sinister. We've got the most umbrellas in Europe too - because it rains more here. We've got the most prisoners because, unfortunately, we've also got the most crime. Everyone knows that the streets of Britain are much more dangerous than those of France, Germany or the Netherlands. Longer sentences "are more expensive" - crap. Our home insurance premiums, and the bills for leaving the lights on all night - comes to more than five times the cost of the extra prison accommodation. Longer sentences "don't prevent re-offending" - rubbish ! They're the best possible way to stop re-offending. Why? Simple - nobody can mug, burgle, rape or car-take when they're in prison! Suppose a car-thief steals only two cars a week - jailing him for a year, prevents him doing 104 crimes. But jail him for five years, and you prevent 520 crimes. Which is better? The Law still continues to treat burglars as offenders against property ! They offend against PEOPLE, not property. We'd therefore rename the offence of domestic Burglary as "Home Violation". Mandatory minimums for first-time offences:
|
|
Sentencing: Long vs. Short
|
|
Every week they come with yet another stupid idea. All of them totally impracticable - just words, just spin. Curfews, anti-social orders, fast-track. None of them ever get put into practice. Remember Jack Straw's dickhead idea to cut car-crime: He proposed forcing all drivers to fit immobilizers. This sums up New Labour's attitude to crime: "punish the victim - not the offender". What next: Stop Rape, by forcing all women to wear chastity-belts ? Now the latest brain-dead idea from Blunkett: On-the-spot fines for noisy teenagers. How can you fine a child "on the spot"? They haven't got any money.
Labour has a bag of stuff copied (like all Blair's ideas) from the Americans. "Teenage curfews", and "Zero Tolerance" (which means you prosecute every trivial offence - such as litter-dropping). Britain doesn't have a problem with trivial offences. Our problem is with Serious offences - assaults, burglaries and car-taking - committed again and again by a small number of young men. We don't need "Zero Tolerance" but a different "Zero" - an idea of our own, instead of one copied from the USA. It's "Zero Option: No Second Chance". Zero Option means that offenders who commit assault, burglary, rape or car-taking are ALWAYS jailed for the first offence. No more Cautions or second-chances. And if they already have a record for any similar offence in the last twenty years - there will be an automatic remand in custody, while awaiting trial. |
|
Time and time again, the judges are ignoring the wishes of the victims - and victims' families - when setting sentences. It's almost as if for these posh judges, the victim doesn't count - just what's in the "interest" of the offender. (That's shorthand for "what the offender wants"). Obviously, all convicted offenders only want short sentences! Look at the way the courts totally ignored the wishes of Jamie Bolger's mother Denise, when they let his murderers out of prison after only 8 years. We'd stop all that. A brand new court of appeal, the "Victim's Voice". This court would be able to increase sentences, if the victim (or their family), feels the sentence is too lenient. EVEN for PAST offences in the last 20 years. I'm sure one of the first actions of "Victim's Voice" will be to put child-murderers Venables and Thompson, back INSIDE where they belong. New Labour's "Register of Paedophiles" is a joke. The offenders are supposed to go along and register themselves - and then they only stay on the list for a certain time, like one or two years. Why should we trust these people to put themselves on the list? This should be done by the courts or by the police, automatically; and they stay on the "N-List" (Nonce-list) for life. The list should be on the Internet; and contain the person's full name; date of birth; a quality photo or video; and details of their convictions. (NOT their address - that's stupid - people can change their address in five minutes. The information we need to keep is the things that don't change.) And any who are still considered dangerous to children - shouldn't be allowed out anyway - they should stay in prison. |
| Britain a Drug-Free Zone |
|
Drugs - "hard" drugs - Cocaine, heroin, so-called "smack" - are death. They kill - simple as that. And now these smack-head dealers are targeting, not adults but children - some as young as 7 - in the school playgrounds. Maybe Gordon Brown and home secretary Jack Straw don't mind their children living in the shadow of this evil; I don't know; but I don't want my children's world to be like this. I want them to grow up in a land free of all these dangerous drugs; not even knowing that they exist. In a Drug-free Zone. How can we sort this? I want Britain to be the FIRST "DRUG FREE ZONE" in Europe. A land TOTALLY FREE of hard drugs. This means hitting the dealers at the point where they enter Britain - with much, much longer prison sentences. We'd have the longest sentences in Europe - 17 years minimum for bringing in hard drugs. What will happen then? The dealers will target their imports to our neighbour contries, such as the Netherlands, who would still have "Micky Mouse" sentences. That's their problem - our responsibility is to our own children. For possession of "soft" drugs like cannabis - rather than fines or prison, we would have a much more effective punishment. Those caught would go on to a "Mentally Unstables" List. Mentally Unstables would not be able to drive a passenger vehicle like a bus or a train; they'd be unable to hold a normal full driving licence, but would be restricted to vehicles with under 1000 cc. capacity. New Labour's Drugs "Tsar" resigns, saying "We can't just ban every new dangerous drug which comes along". Hold on - why can't we? YES WE CAN. YES WE CAN. YES WE CAN. YES WE CAN. FAMILIES FIRST CAN AND WILL.
The Liberal Democrats want "10,000 more police". We don't need more police - there's enough already ! What we need is to let them get on with POLICING, out on the streets - instead of constant form-filling. They have over 100 forms to fill in. We'd tear up all forms introduced during the Thatcher or Blair regimes; and any put there by Brussels. (If any of these forms were needed by a particular piece of legislation - we'd abolish that law on the spot.) Research suggests this measure could reduce the polices's paper-pushing by up to 30 %. Most crime and disorder takes place in the afternoon and night-time. We'd make the police re-arrange shift patterns, to ensure most of the officers were OUT during these 4pm to 4am hours. The time for the paperwork would be the morning. More and more of the Police's time is being taken up on calls to deal with groups of young boys (some only 9 or 10) who "gang" near homes and shops - wherever they can cause the most nuisance and distress to people. Their offences may not be serious ones - but for the victims, it's very distressing. The Police may come quickly - but they don't do very much to solve the problem. They always come in marked panda-cars - so the offenders see them and just run away; to come back, half-an-hour later, when the police have gone. In the rare occasions when the Police manage to catch any of them - all they'll get is a talking-to. The excuse is that their hands are "tied" by the law. Then why not change the law? We'd like to see a more proactive attitude: "Softly Softly" - coming in UNMARKED cars - to try and "catch in the act" rather than "scare away - to re-offend another day". If the police need to ask questions, this should be done "off-street" - at the Police Station; not outside the victims' homes. In the case of very young boys, rather than starting any proceedings or paperwork, a much better idea is to keep them in, until their parents come to the station and collect them. This is much more productive than a "talking-to" in the street. Many of these children's parents have got no idea what their sons get up to in the evening. When their own leisure-time is interrupted, and they have to trek down to the police-station to pick their lads up, they'll realise what is happening. A suitable punishment by the parents (such as "grounding"), is far, far more effective than any "juvenile court" nonsense. And best of all, by "off-streeting" the whole gang, the victims get a night's rest from their harrassment. Yet another case recently of a man being falsely accused of rape. It only gets in the papers when the victim is someone famous - like those Leicester City footballers, TV presenter John Leslie and actor Craig Charles (to name a few). Although these men usually get acquitted, the damage is already done - their reputations and careers in ruins. One estimate puts the percentage of rape allegations which are false accusations at 40% - even if the real figure was only half that, it still means that in nearly a quarter of all rape claims, the police are wasting time and resources which should be used to investigate genuine rapes. Why has this happened ? It's a direct result of women in rape cases, being allowed to remain anonymous; while the accused man gets the full glow of publicity. When this law was changed, a few voices warned that this was a recipe for a flood of false accusations - they were ignored; and now look at what's happened. Rape is unlike most other crimes, in that very often there's no actual evidence (unlike say, murder or burglary). The case often depends on the woman's word against the man's - the judge and jury having to decide whether the man is a rapist, or the woman is a liar - which ? here's where the publicity of the man's identity is so important - a real rapist often has a history of attacking other women, and these will now come forward "he did that to me, too ... !". But that's why we need the claimant to be identified as well. The woman who's telling the truth, has got nothing to fear. But the "serial accusers" will soon be found out, as a string of men come forward "she accused me as well ...!" For the "genuine" rape victim this is the most traumatic of crimes, which can devastate her life - convicted rapists should be given a massive sentence. But for the "false accuser", it's all too easy. They may be motivated by revenge, or just by the big compensation payout they get, if the man is found guilty. They've got nothing to lose - even if he's aquitted - they've done him a lot of damage. Abolish "Hate" Crime. That's as true today as it was when I
was a boy in Liverpool. Name calling can never be a crime - only when you
attack or assault a person, or if the hate takes some concrete form (such as
sending hate-mail). New Labour's invented the so-called "Hate" crime, where
people are now being taken to court just because they "hate" some other group
of people eg by race or colour. If individuals have such racialist opinions,
it is very sad - but it cannot be a crime! People are entitled to their
opinions in a free society, however much we dislike their opinions. This
applies even if they are in positions of authority or responsibility such as
the police. We'd abolish these offences.
In their 13 years of power, New Labour has created thousands upon thousands of new "crimes" - like putting things in the wrong bin, and so on. Almost ALL of these new "offences" are either clearly not crimes at all; or else, they were already covered by existing laws. Families First would BIN every single one of these new "crines" from Britain's statute books. STOP them changing their names!
Knowingly buying stolen
goods is a crime - quite correctly, because it rewards the thief and at the
same time, encourages further theft by offering a ready market for more stolen
goods. Some private data from UK citizens' bank accounts abroad,
was stolen; and our government then paid the thief to get this data.
Does this not mean that the government itself, is now guilty of "handling
stolen property"? Maybe the CPS - if they can't do the right thing, and
abolish themselves - should take a look at this case.
PRISON automatic for ALL serious crimes, the FIRST TIME as well as the 51st time Much stricter bail rules Prison service re-nationalised, with main functions of GUARDING, then feeding the inmates and preventing self- or other- harming. NEVER to re-habilitate offenders. Longer, mandatory MINIMUM jail sentences for all crimes involving violence, burglary, drugs, knives / guns and car-crime. Nobody can re-offend while they're "inside" ! Abolish the Crown Prosecution Service, which stops offenders from facing justice. Lock up the REAL criminals - the burglars and muggers - not
middle-aged women who sell goldfish.
Remove all of Labour's 1000's of new "crimes" from the statute book
Stop using Police heliocopters at night in urban areas, when poice on the ground could be used instead Make "Squatting" an offence |