The Anything Thread that is Never off subject.

[Tony1951]

An interesting way of using AI to carry out focus group analysis.

I was watching a video yesterday when someone suggested that the days of expensive focus group, opinion analysis might be over.

Typically, political parties spend a lot of money trying to work out how ordinary people react to their policies and what their views are about what politics should change on their behalf.

This person dropped a 'seed':

Why not use AI instead of doing all that cumbersome, expensive analysis.

Big AI, already knows from its vast training data sets what people are talking about and what they think and what their problems are. It usually has vast datasets of online discussion on a vast range of subjects.

So I asked chat GPT to reflect what it though two different demographics would be concerned about and want politicians to change.

If you click the link, you will need to scroll back up to the top of the page. For some reason these chat gpt links always place you at the end of the page.

I was surprised how closely the virtual consultation seemed to reflect what I might have expected for the two groups I specified. Take a look -

ChatGPT - Synthetic focus group concerns

A conversational AI system that listens, learns, and challenges

chatgpt.com

The great weakness of this approach of using AI to test what people think is that to some extent, all the AI models have what are called guard rails so they have been pre-programmed to steer away from certain kinds of discussion which were deemed, 'harmful' by their creators. So they will all actively steer away from some kinds of views.

I don't have much of a problem with that except that if you were really going to use big AI models to test opinion, it would automatically screen out and refuse to represent views which were deemed by its creators as unacceptable - so those kinds of views would be hidden from the enquirer. This means the analysis would not truly represent such minority opinions and it would appear that they didn't exist.

If the enquirer was really seeking to know what the population think, the omission of these fringe concerns would mean the analysis was incomplete.

 

[Woosh]

Law must remain the same as it was ......

I never said that. We have parliament to look after laws.

 

[Tony1951]

You misunderstood what democracy is. It's just a system of law.
The overarching concept is to live in a society, you must accept and obey its laws.
If you don't, emigrate or leave and live alone.
Imagine some immigrant (like me) pick and choose what laws I like to respect and which I don't. What would you think?
Being given a mandate does not equate that our PM can ride roughshot over our laws. He/she must obey the same laws like the rest of us and should be even more severely punished when not. Especially judges. When a high ranking politician like a minister breaks law (eg rape an underling or insider trading on the stock market), there usually be additional charges like abuse of power, corruption on top of the main charge.

This post is so stupid that I have to react to it.

1. Democracy is NOT just a system of law.

It is a system in which the people - all of them - have their interests and opinions considered by people who REPRESENT them in making the laws.

You can't just suddenly re-define terms that have been well understood since the time of Ancient Athens 2500 years ago. Democracy is about THE PEOPLE having a say in what laws bind them.

2. Of course people must be bound by the laws and that rule must apply to all.

That does not mean that laws are immutable and are never to change. You seem to be advancing this as a core part of what democracy is - a concept you are clearly unable to understand.

Your problem seems to be you don't like the way the tide is turning about some laws which may perhaps change before long. TOUGH. The law at some particular time is what the majority of Parliament wants it to be. It can be changed at ANY time, if there is a will in Parliament to change it.

Earlier, I pointed out examples of laws which were changed in the past. The laws which enabled slavery and the slave trade to be carried on. Laws which disenfranchised non property owning men, and later which disenfranchised women. Later still, laws which forbade in all circumstances abortion - changed. Legalising homosexual acts in private - changed. Criminal penalties which had enabled capital punishment - changed.

Law changes all the time in response to changes in circumstances and the needs and views of the people as a whole. This means all of the people. Not just teh ones who think like you do.

So before you put into print ridiculous falsehood like this here :

You misunderstood what democracy is. It's just a system of law.
The overarching concept is to live in a society, you must accept and obey its laws.
If you don't, emigrate or leave and live alone.

Have a think about the concepts you are writing about as they are understood in the real world. You don't get to re-define a concept like 'democracy', totally changing it in the process. The absolute core of that concept, is representing the will of the people. Not turning them into disgruntled, ignored surfs, because an empowered elite wants things a certain way.

I would put money on the idea that in the next five years - certainly ten - the UK will resile from the jurisdiction of the ECHR and reform the Human Rights Act to re-establish the supremacy of our own government and to restore the ability of the government to decide who lives here - particularly in terms of illegal migration, deportation of foreign born criminals, and whatever other matters are seen to be important for the well being of society at large. If so - so much the better - and I think I am safe in saying that is probably the view of the majority of the people who live in the UK.

In the last couple of day you have made several statements which are flatly untrue and wrong. You also stated that it was not a crime to enter the UK without a right to do so. The right to enter the Uk is defined in the Immigration Act 1971 and as amended by an act in 2023. In both of these it is explicitly stated that it is an offence to enter the UK by irregular means in contravention of the acts of parliament which cover this issue.

Immigration Act 1971

An Act to amend and replace the present immigration laws, to make certain related changes in the citizenship law and enable help to be given to those wishing to return abroad, and for purposes connected therewith.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Illegal Migration Act 2023.

"A Bill to Make provision for and in connection with the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have entered or arrived in breach of immigration control; to make provision about detention for immigration purposes;' - etc

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3429

 

[Woosh]

Let's just address a few points you made.

1. Immigration Act 1971.
This Act has been revised a few times over the year but the essence remains the same. Essentially, illegal migrants entering the UK without valid visa and overstayers are in covered by this Act. I think we can agree on that.
There have been millions of migrants but let's see how many rubber boat migrants have been prosecuted under this Act?

Year	Section 25	Section 25A	Section 25B
2018	309	8	1
2019	291	5	0
2020	139	2	0
2021	249	134	5
2022	155	6	0

Section 25 deals essentially with those criminals involved in people smuggling.

Illegal Migration Act 2023.

"A Bill to Make provision for and in connection with the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have entered or arrived in breach of immigration control; to make provision about detention for immigration purposes;' - etc
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3429

Legislation	Does it criminalise small-boat arrival?	Prosecutions/Convictions (small boat)
Illegal Migration Act 2023	No (focuses on removal, detention, etc.)	No tracked data available
Nationality and Borders Act 2022	Yes (‘illegal arrival’ offence)	556 charged, 455 convicted (June 2022–2024)

You can see that hardly anybody got put in jail just because they arrived by boat. That's why the Act can be easily disputed because our government already knew that it is incompatible with core elements of the ECHR.

2.

1. Democracy is NOT just a system of law.

I said a system of laws. The indefinite article is important here.
I am pretty sure you have noticed it but you chose not to understandwhat I meant.

The word systems of laws is more general than the word democracy, simply because monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship etc all can have laws. Laws is always a core element of any democracy.

Have a think about the concepts you are writing about as they are understood in the real world. You don't get to re-define a concept like 'democracy', totally changing it in the process. The absolute core of that concept, is representing the will of the people. Not turning them into disgruntled, ignored surfs, because an empowered elite wants things a certain way.

This is the point that I find most interesting. Both you and I are of similar age, with similar education albeit from different countries. Yet, our understanding of the basic role of our votes differ significantly.
For me, votes confer only a limited mandate. I voted for local councillors and local MP for a term.
Most of the times, the number of votes garnered by the winning side is around 30%. There is no logical reason to equate 30% or even 45% with the will of gthe people. Even with 50%+, no mandate implies that the elected person can trespass laws.

 

[Tony1951]

Arguing with you is entirely pointless. I have known this for a long time, and this argument, like the others is a total waste of time.

You assert as fact ideas you wish were true when they are not, and define concepts in your own mad way in absolute contradiction of what they mean and are understood to mean by everyone else who ever troubled them selves to think about the matter.

For hundreds of years the UK has had a system of elections which puts into Parliament the candidate who got the most votes. It does not matter how large his majority. One vote more than the next candidate is enough. It is perfectly legitimate and you ought to know that. The fact that you don't is quite disturbing.

The party in Parliament which has the most MPs, or can form a government in coalition with others giving them the most MPs forms the government,

If the government can command their support on ANY bill, it can make, or repeal ANY LAW, including ANY treaty, or obligation to take instruction from any international body or court.

No Parliament at any time can restrict or bind a later Parliament.

The government of the day when it wishes to pass a bill, is supreme in all respects.

THAT is the system that we have. And the laws stand until some other Parliament wishes to change it - which of course they could do at any time.

It is likely that the Labour government will in a few months allow children to vote. They have already declared that they will do so.

It is ridiculous in my opinion, but they have that power if they can swing the votes in Parliament. Probably - a more sensible government will be elected in about four years time and they will likely repeal such nonsense.

YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG about what our democracy is and whether or not a Parliament can repeal clauses and sections of laws. They do this all the time. If you trouble to read the laws they often repeal parts of previous legislation.

An example of this can be seen in the change of law which you hate so much after the EU Referendum in 2016. Read the text below and count how many times the word 'repeal' arises.....

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020

An Act to implement, and make other provision in connection with, the agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[Woosh]

Parliament can make new laws and revised existing ones but this is not an absolute concept or power. Laws are drafted by government lawyers. They are civil servants. They then have to be translated into statutes. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel translates government policy into clear, effective, and readable law. This team of government lawyers specializes in drafting legislation and works closely with government departments to translate policy into bills that can be introduced in Parliament. When a bill is approved by both Houses of Parliament and receives Royal Assent, it becomes an Act of Parliament, also known as a statute.

All new laws have to be consistent with other existing laws. Otherwise, the courts cannot work. You can see when politicians try to use their majority to introduce inconsistent amendments like the 2023 Act that you mentioned earlier, they can't be tested in court because they can be easily challenged.

Arguing with you is entirely pointless.

I point out to you a hypothetical point of Vue of a civil servant. My dad was one.

 

[Tony1951]

All new laws have to be consistent with other existing laws. Otherwise, the courts cannot work.

Not true.

They simply need to make sure when they introduce a new law or repeal an old one that other statutes related to the changed one are repealed.

It would obviously be stupid to have contradictory laws. I've read a fair few bills just out of interest and they routinely refer to and repeal contradictory clauses and whole statutes.

Remember how we came to this argument. I said that it was ridiculous and damaging that Minister's plans to deport foreign criminals, sometimes heinous criminals (grooming gang convicts) were being frustrated by the ECHR and sometimes our own courts because of the Human Rights Act and the way judges have interpreted the right to family life. On occasions, horrible, vile criminals have appealed the deportation orders allowed by UK law at the ECHR, and have won there.

I said the government should:
a) repeal the human rights act and replace it with a new one
b) pass a law making British Law and Parliament supreme in all such matters - probably in all matters as regards what is lawful in the UK.

This would solve those disputes at a stroke.

It would be a move supported by the vast majority of UK citizens.

It would mean that the will of Parliament could not be subverted.

That is what the vast majority of people in this supposed democracy want - therefore, it should be made to happen.

If Labour don't do it, the next government which may well be headed by Farage will do it for sure.

This, in the circumstances I have described is perfectly lawful and proper.

One reason Labour is haemorrhaging support by the day (have you seen the polls) is that very large numbers of people are not as sanguine as you re about the fact that since Labour came to power 50,000 fake asylum seekers escaping from terror in France, have come across the Channel and are being put up at the tax payers expense and are often being shipped up north, very far from where they landed, where NO ONE wants them.

Labour knows this is going to destroy their electoral chances in the next GE and that Reform will destroy them.

I am not advocating for the Reform party.

I have my doubts whether Farage can recruit enough smart people to be really good candidates, but the polls show what will likely come to pass because of the impotence of previous governments in dealing with this issue.

Most sensible people are perfectly happy with carefully vetted migration of reasonable numbers of high value, highly educated, civilised and law abiding people, especially in skill areas where we actually NEED new, foreign people.

What they don't want are the swarms of Albanian criminals that the Conservatives let in from about 2020, and what is going on right now. Neither do they want people who are low skilled to out compete them for less money and terrible conditions in low skilled jobs.

Vast amounts of current organised crime has been staffed by these imports.

They have and continue to suppress wages and conditions in many low skilled occupations. They simply displace existing workers in many cases.

We can't even house the population that is already here in any case.

Ordinary people are having to spend a vast proportion of their income on housing purely because of shortage caused by mass migration. For decades we have been importing more and more people and not growing the housing stock at anywhere near the same rate.

Rental housing is in VERY VERY short supply.

Affordable housing is virtually unobtainable on new contracts.

 

[Tony1951]

North East asylum seeker accommodation search paused

The Home Office says it believes it has enough properties in the region for asylum seekers.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is why Farage is getting a leg up in many traditional Labour areas.

Why should Newcastle have 40 asylum seekers per 10,000 population when the UK average is 15 per 10,000?

 

[Woosh]

On occasions, horrible, vile criminals have appealed the deportation orders allowed by UK law at the ECHR, and have won there.

They still have to serve their sentence. Justice is still served.

I am not advocating for the Reform party.

Noted. Incidentally, I agree with Farage's call for Starmer to nominate a number of Reform for the Lords.

I said the government should:
a) repeal the human rights act and replace it with a new one
b) pass a law making British Law and Parliament supreme in all such matters - probably in all matters as regards what is lawful in the UK.

This would solve those disputes at a stroke.

a) won't get us very far, it would take us to where the USA are legally at the moment but still far from Farage's goals as far as illegal immigrants are concerned. Trump got results by a combination of strategies: blackmail Mexico and Canada to stop immigrants before they reach the border, build detention camps, terrorise immigrants with random stopping and arrests at place of work and bypass due process. I don't think Farage can blackmail France in this context or our system allows Farage to bypass due process. Getting out of ECHR enables government to deport a few hundreds more a year, but we still have to offer due process, where the bottleneck is.

In all cases, it won't solve the big problem: our sluggish economy leading to ever higher taxes on those lucky enough to still have a good job, especially those who earn more than the upper level of basic rate. They are already unhappy with current level of taxes, any reduction of the number of working and skilled legal immigrants won't help them even a little bit.
You'll end up with having to look into the demography of those who want us leaving ECHR. If they are real patriots, the'll have to pay more CGT, IHT, CT etc.

 

[Tony1951]

Not true.

They simply need to make sure when they introduce a new law or repeal an old one that other statutes related to the changed one are repealed.

It would obviously be stupid to have contradictory laws. I've read a fair few bills just out of interest and they routinely refer to and repeal contradictory clauses and whole statutes.

Remember how we came to this argument. I said that it was ridiculous and damaging that Minister's plans to deport foreign criminals, sometimes heinous criminals (grooming gang convicts) were being frustrated by the ECHR and sometimes our own courts because of the Human Rights Act and the way judges have interpreted the right to family life. On occasions, horrible, vile criminals have appealed the deportation orders allowed by UK law at the ECHR, and have won there.

I said the government should:
a) repeal the human rights act and replace it with a new one
b) pass a law making British Law and Parliament supreme in all such matters - probably in all matters as regards what is lawful in the UK.

This would solve those disputes at a stroke.

It would be a move supported by the vast majority of UK citizens.

It would mean that the will of Parliament could not be subverted.

That is what the vast majority of people in this supposed democracy want - therefore, it should be made to happen.

If Labour don't do it, the next government which may well be headed by Farage will do it for sure.

This, in the circumstances I have described is perfectly lawful and proper.

One reason Labour is haemorrhaging support by the day (have you seen the polls) is that very large numbers of people are not as sanguine as you re about the fact that since Labour came to power 50,000 fake asylum seekers escaping from terror in France, have come across the Channel and are being put up at the tax payers expense and are often being shipped up north, very far from where they landed, where NO ONE wants them.

Labour knows this is going to destroy their electoral chances in the next GE and that Reform will destroy them.

I am not advocating for the Reform party.

I have my doubts whether Farage can recruit enough smart people to be really good candidates, but the polls show what will likely come to pass because of the impotence of previous governments in dealing with this issue.

Most sensible people are perfectly happy with carefully vetted migration of reasonable numbers of high value, highly educated, civilised and law abiding people, especially in skill areas where we actually NEED new, foreign people.

What they don't want are the swarms of Albanian criminals that the Conservatives let in from about 2020, and what is going on right now. Neither do they want people who are low skilled to out compete them for less money and terrible conditions in low skilled jobs.

Vast amounts of current organised crime has been staffed by these imports.

They have and continue to suppress wages and conditions in many low skilled occupations. They simply displace existing workers in many cases.

We can't even house the population that is already here in any case.

Ordinary people are having to spend a vast proportion of their income on housing purely because of shortage caused by mass migration. For decades we have been importing more and more people and not growing the housing stock at anywhere near the same rate.

Rental housing is in VERY VERY short supply.

Affordable housing is virtually unobtainable on new contracts.

Ha ha ha. A certain gentleman has black marked this post.



I think it is absolutely obvious common sense. I would far rather that Starmer dealt with this as it ought to be dealt with, than leave it to Farage, but come what may - if he doesn't , Farage and his party will do it.

I suspect ( reluctantly) that the left in his party will go bonkers about what is needed. In which case, i think Farage will be the absolute winner.

 

[Woosh]

Starmer and Yvette Cooper cut legal immigration by half in 2024. Did it work? No. Why would a few hundred deportations work?

 

[Tony1951]

Starmer and Yvette Cooper cut legal immigration by half in 2024. Did it work? No. Why would a few hundred deportations work?

What few hundred deportations? That is a fantasy.

What we've had since Labour came to power is a lot of head shaking, and talk of smashing the gangs and 50,000 illegal migrants have arrived on Labour's watch and are being put up in hotels and houses snatched off the market by the Home Office in areas which only puts up housing costs for everyone else where they are dumped.

Can you even visualise 50,000 mostly young men arriving in the country since the last general election? Illegally too.

Starmer and Cooper are as paralysed as the previous jokers, which is why Farage will likely be PM in five years time.

As you allude though - the real massive migration scandal is the something like half a million who were given a visa to supposedly do high value much needed jobs like 'Curry Chef', or 'Care Worker'.

To be fair, I expect there were some proper high value people in the massive swarm who were given legal right to live here.

Quite where they will live is moot though because for many years now we have had a massive shortage of housing which is why a kind hearted lady that I know who lives in Newcastle and has an interest in how people become homeless, is finding numerous respectable old men who are now living in the streets in dreadful circumstances when they were given notice to quit from rented accommodation and could not run to the new 'market rent' which of course is driven ever upward by competition. But never mind - the Home Office has imported large numbers of illegal migrants to Newcastle, very far from where they landed, because the market rents are lower than in the south east.

Nobody cares about these men. They are white British and spent fifty years paying taxes here so why should anyone care about them????

Are you surprised if Farage is empowered by this?

This country is BROKEN - totally Fked by stupid, liberal politicians - many of whom were supposed to be Conservatives. This and other incompetence totally smashed that party and the same fate awaits Labour unless they wake up.

 

[Tony1951]

My Manifesto to fix The UK.

1. Repeal right to buy legislation.

2. Massive publicly funded house building drive. Ten years at a quarter of a million houses a year like was done after WW2. The houses to remain in government control. Possibly let National Savings issue high interest bonds to get savers to put their money there and use that money to partially fund the investment needed. Ensure that serious business brains are in charge of the project so that it gets done properly and on time. All of these properties are to be for affordable rent. NONE for sale. We have had enough of public investment being sold off for private profit.

3. Repeal Judicial Review against government policy entirely. Parliament is supreme in our system - not lefty judges.

4. Repeal the Human Rights Act and rewrite a new version which ensures that no foreign individual given right to live here can ever commit a crime and stay here. To do so forfeits all rights to remain. The Secretary of Sate for Home Affairs is to be the only arbiter of any kind of appeal on deportation.

5. Deport all and any illegal migrants back to where they came from. If such deportation is prevented by for example the way 'Our friends the French' allow and facilitate migrant beach departures and then refuse to have them back, we must deport such illegal arrivals to camps on some desolate dependency - perhaps the Falkland Islands. Make it clear they will never ever be released except back to their point of origin.

6. Bring in an identity card system for all in the UK.
One reason we have a constant swarm of illegal migrants is that we have such a soft touch ability to work in the Black Economy. This acts like a magnet to economic migrants. We can not accommodate all the world's ambitious unskilled workers. This is a tiny island and England has a population density far greater than any comparable population country in Europe. In England currently, the population density is 434 people per sq km. By comparison the figure in France is 122 per sq km. Spain is around 80.

7. Repeal and redesign the planning laws which are out of date and contribute to the vast cost of any infrastructure development in the UK. Our development costs are massive by comparison and take typically a decade or more to even get started.

8.Totally reform the civil service after the manner of the ideas put forward by Cummings. Civil Servants who fail in their tasks must be sacked not promoted or moved off sideways. Especially reform recruiting so that experienced and proven successful people are given managerial roles.

10. Reform completely the Ministry of Defence and properly fund the security forces. Our armed forces are a joke - not because we lack tough men, but because the planners in the Ministry are clueless. Stop pretending that women make great front line soldiers and infantry. They don't and never will do. Infantry have ONE job - to close with the enemy and kill them. Women are not suitable for such a task. They may well do very well in other tasks such as logistics, intelligence, communications and other suitable roles. Fighting is not what they are good at.

11. Chop off the ability for people to opt out of work and supporting themselves that we have seen so greatly abused in the last few years since Covid. The UK has a massive migration onto sickness benefits among working age often very young adults. this trend is not seen among any of our neighbours and must be stopped. it is obviously a total con.

12. prisons policy and crime fighting is a joke right now. Build large wire enclosure prison camps in remote parts of Britain with rudimentary shelter and single occupancy cages with a corrugated iron shelter in them. Prisoners to be kept inside 24/7 and never let out. To be fed cold food through a hatch. Prisons as they are now are like gangster paradise. The most violent offenders prey on the rest and on the guards. Drugs are rife. Violence against other prisoners and prison guards is rife. ANY and All violent offenders need to be caged 24/7 preferably in very cheap fenced enclosures which are in effect cages in uncomfortable and remote places.

13. All offences and offenders to be pursued by the police. The vast majority of crime goes unsolved and undetected. The punishments are in the eyes of most criminals laughable. People of my age remember when this was the case. Now, police have washed their hands of a whole list of offences which are badly affecting society. NO crime reported to police can in future be ignored.

This manifesto is far from complete....

 

[Woosh]

1. Repeal right to buy legislation.

Right to buy is justified for those who stay in the same property for more than 10 years, the huge discount is not. Currently, it's 60% off the price of a house, capped at £102,400. I would suggest a much lower cap, 30% and capped at £50,000.

2. Massive publicly funded house building drive.

Every government has done that. Curbing immigration is an indirect way to achieve the same thing by reducing demand. You can already see lower demands the last 12 months.

3. Repeal Judicial Review against government policy entirely. Parliament is supreme in our system - not lefty judges.

No. It's against our core values and illogical.
Judges don't make laws. They stop stupid or extremist politicians breaking existing laws.

4. Repeal the Human Rights Act and rewrite a new version which ensures that no foreign individual given right to live here can ever commit a crime and stay here.

that doesn't solve anything regarding illegal immigration and deportations. Exsisting laws already cover them. The key issue is due process. Our judicial system can only cope with a limited number of cases every year. Removing the right to due process to criminals is against our core values.

5. Deport all and any illegal migrants back to where they came from.

No, we can't do that. You can put people you want to deport into a boat and let them drift out at sea but if you want them to land at an airport or a seaport, you will need agreement of the reception countries like Rwanda.
That sort of schemes would cost about £2 million per deportee.

6. Bring in an identity card system for all in the UK.

What good does it bring in practice? Immigants have already got identity documents issued to them by the home office. Those who are undocumented came here illegally and disappeared under the radar. If they find jobs, it's because someone wants to hire them in the black market. They can be domestics, delivery or cab drivers, construction workers etc but it's the black market economy that you have to sort out.

7. Repeal and redesign the planning laws which are out of date and contribute to the vast cost of any infrastructure development in the UK.

That's a very skewed view of the planning laws. It's not the planning laws that stop more houses to be built, it's the lack of skilled construction workers. There are plenty of cowboys who work shodily and rip you off but good builders are incredibly difficult to find.

8.Totally reform the civil service after the manner of the ideas put forward by Cummings.

You need to be cleverer than most of civil servants in order to understand where in their practices you can reform. Cummings's ideas are shortsighted and he is also not clever enough to do this. TBH, I doubt that you'll find anyone ideal for the post. I'd take on a consultant like Rory Stuart for this.

10. Reform completely the Ministry of Defence and properly fund the security forces.

The military is perenially badly managed and financially a bottomless pit. They would do better with less money, concentrating on paying staff better instead of building aircraft carriers or buying expensive american F35s to impress nobody. Half of their money would be better spent on international development aids to reduce worldwide famine and extreme poverty.

11. Chop off the ability for people to opt out of work and supporting themselves that we have seen so greatly abused in the last few years since Covid.

It's not their fault if they claim what they are promised. You have to punish those who make promises to buy votes. I would jail them if I could. I would require that all manifestos be fact checked before they can be distributed.

12. prisons policy and crime fighting is a joke right now. Build large wire enclosure prison camps in remote parts of Britain with rudimentary shelter and single occupancy cages with a corrugated iron shelter in them.

Prisons are failures of our system: poor education, poor healthcare, lack of incentives to take on manual and unskilled jobs, alcohol and drugs, social ghettos. It would be better to concentrate on improving our system instead of building more prisons.

13. All offences and offenders to be pursued by the police.

It's just not possible.

 

[Tony1951]

Ha ha ha fking Ha.

Impotent, acceptance of disaster. Useless uselessness.

I'm glad you weren't running anything in WW2.

 

[Woosh]

Ha ha ha fking Ha.

Impotent, acceptance of disaster. Useless uselessness.

I'm glad you weren't running anything in WW2.

That is not an argument.

 

[Tony1951]

That is not an argument.

No - it is pointless arguing with someone who constantly puts forward ridiculous evasions and inaccurate assessments of fact.