No 3 'Full sentence' There's a practical reason why we've always had full sentence not being full sentence. It's to keep the prisoner reasonably well-behaved inside.He could suffer some loss of remission for any misbehaviour. He knows that. That's easier than a system of full sentence plus more later for causing trouble, as and when.
Judges know, when they pass sentence, what the minimum time served will be and sentence accordingly.It's only the public who don't seem to appreciate that (but it gives the Daily Mail some copy !)
Foreigners who commit crimes with a penalty over a certain level are already repatriated unless you want to send my wife back to ireland for a speeding ticket!
A sentence does not mean prison - you can be sentenced to community service or a fine.
There is something called a "Tarrif" which is the minimum someone serves.
We could change the name of the tarrif to "sentence" and create a new word for the overall punishment - would that help?
I love the word "somehow" in 4) - cases are already investigated - perhaps you just want to employ more investigators.
These seem very poorly thought out - I guess you are David Cameron
Well if they are well behaved, they should serve there full sentence but if not, it gets extended or when they leave, they have to do community service ect. what about that then
i'm only 16 i don't fully understand politics yet but i know enough to realise this country is in a mess and its mainly down to the government so these are things i would probably do if i was in power.
jake, yeah i'd have a minimum level of crime, if you've had parking ticket you'd be allowed in but not more serious stuff like murder, rape or a burgulary (if lots of valuable stuff was taken or repeated smaller thefts were done)
jake its a somehow because i havent worked out the finner details of everything yet, just rough policies, when i running for prime minister i'll work out a budget and other logistics of the idea.
Careful jake I I know someone who was 'deported' ( they refused her the right to remain) from Australia because she was jay-walking and was mouthy to the policeman who stopped her! In the current climate, your wife may soon be in danger here, EU citizen and mere parking ticket or not !
Well it's just that 2 and 4 are already in place and 3 is just a (Common) misunderstanding of what a sentence is.
6 is interesting - I think you should see that an MP representing the North or Scotland needs to do a lot more travelling if you do that the only MPs will be rich already
Rich MPs generally don't always represent people well.
5) I like - but I'm Teetotal so Im'm biased
As for 1 - exactly who is going to decide which websites are suitable for the poor and which are not? A new censor? perhaps you could extend it to books and magazines. You could stop people spending their dole on newspapers too! well apart from ones you approve of - they need to stay informed.
Follow this down the path and what you're saying is that anybody who accepts state benefits must have middle class values and think like me.
I don't knock people who have to live on the benefit system if they
are genuine but I know of people who claim and work , and they do
it as a job .The fraud investigators take ages to get a case in to court
due to human rights , race issues , religion , the list is endless ...
but good old England , open door too all , but can't look after there
own elderly .
I would cut all benifits, except those to the people that are truely incapable of earning a living, so that working has more benifits than not.
I have had a couple of people turn down jobs because in thier eyes they would be working for 'only' £16. The benifits they get are so great why bother getting a job? and that is only 16hrs a week.
I think if they are offered a job if they don't take it they should get some benifits stopped.