[Archived] Hang Em High

[Eddie]

There has always been crime and there always will be, regardless of what the punishment is. Some people enjoy it, some people are mentally illl and some people will just make a mistake, but it will always happen. "Eye for an eye" punishment needs to be left in the bible.

[Flopsy]

when we had capital punishment for a number of crimes including sheep stealing, guess what happened? People still stole sheep.

People still stole bread when the punishments were considerably harsher than we could ever imagine.

[thenodrog]

when we had capital punishment for a number of crimes including sheep stealing, guess what happened? People still stole sheep.

They'd only steal one sheep though.

[Flopsy]

depends how many you could carry I suppose

[Eddie]

If you really want to crack down on crime, why not just kill the poor? You don't see many earning 500+k (determined by tax reports, don't want some drug dealers messing up the system) out on the street stabbing and shooting people? We'd still have the odd one, but while we're thinking of getting rid of the dead-beats in society we may as well not wait for them to do something wrong.

[Claytons Left Boot]

If you really want to crack down on crime, why not just kill the poor? You don't see many earning 500+k (determined by tax reports, don't want some drug dealers messing up the system) out on the street stabbing and shooting people? We'd still have the odd one, but while we're thinking of getting rid of the dead-beats in society we may as well not wait for them to do something wrong.

That's the sort of forward thinking I like Eddie.

[Paul Mellelieu]

Crime, especially of a violent nature, tends to be highest in the most unequal countries, such as America, and lowest in the most equal, such as the Scandanaian countries, which also have the best quality of life.

Go figure..

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Crime, especially of a violent nature, tends to be highest in the most unequal countries, such as America, and lowest in the most equal, such as the Scandanaian countries, which also have the best quality of life.

Go figure..

I can see where you’re going with one......... The Scandinavian nations have a higher standard of living because of a favourable demographic and geographic profiles. They are large countries with a relatively small populace which always seems to be a good fit. Any nation in the Western World that has such a ratio between geographical size./populations always seems to do well both in QOL & economically.

It has nothing to do with being Socialist as you wish to think Paul. Take Australia, Japan & Canada for examples, all will be amongst the top echelons in terms of quality of life indicators; yet historically ( not including Rudd’s newly formed government) have been dominated by centre or right-of centre parties

[American]

I'd put Singapore as another example.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I'd put Singapore as another example.

Yep and the likes of Iceland, Switzerland, Austria etc etc. But you get the point im trying to make.

[Paul Mellelieu]

I can see where you’re going with one......... The Scandinavian nations have a higher standard of living because of a favourable demographic and geographic profiles. They are large countries with a relatively small populace which always seems to be a good fit. Any nation in the Western World that has such a ratio between geographical size./populations always seems to do well both in QOL & economically.

It has nothing to do with being Socialist as you wish to think Paul. Take Australia, Japan & Canada for examples, all will be amongst the top echelons in terms of quality of life indicators; yet historically ( not including Rudd’s newly formed government) have been dominated by centre or right-of centre parties

My point was about equality, not just standards of living per se. For this debate i think we have to put Japan to one side, because its social structure, history and culture are not comparable and we can learn little about what might work in a western democracy. (Official crime was very low in east Germany, if you get my point). I think you can make similat ponts about Australia (although the treatment of the Aboriginies is as shameful episode as i can imagine). I dno't really know enough about Canada other than to note that it was generally been a more liberal country than its neighbour.

You could ask the question a different way; why are we so unhappy (more unhappy ten a generation ago), when we're the richest we've ever been?

The USA is important here because it's the model Cameron loves to love, and the poor live in absolutely shocking conditions, confirmed by the experience of the natives of new Orleans.

The Scandanavian countires have high taxes, good welfare systems, excellent childcare (more lone parents than the UK, but more outcomes for them) and do not have the inequalities we have. And no they're not socialist.

[thenodrog]

Crime, especially of a violent nature, tends to be highest in the most unequal countries, such as America, and lowest in the most equal, such as the Scandanaian countries, which also have the best quality of life.

Go figure..

Correct Paul! So the quickest way forward to emulating the Scandi's is a policy of 'Go kill the poor'. Certainly makes sense to me I must say. But I was a bit suprised to find you advocating that.... until I remembered the lifes work of Stalin, Pol Pot and their ilk.

[American]

I love how when trying to make a point you "throw out" examples that don't prove your point....

Edit: If I were to look at the countries and why they do well one thing that sticks out is the work ethic of the people of the country.

[thenodrog]

If you really want to crack down on crime, why not just kill the poor? You don't see many earning 500+k (determined by tax reports, don't want some drug dealers messing up the system) out on the street stabbing and shooting people? We'd still have the odd one, but while we're thinking of getting rid of the dead-beats in society we may as well not wait for them to do something wrong.

Yup eddie! Killing that many's a bit messy I guess and it would stink up the entire country for a time. So on recollection that must've been why Australia was invented.

[thenodrog]

You could ask the question a different way; why are we so unhappy (more unhappy ten a generation ago), when we're the richest we've ever been?

WE?

The Scandanavian countires have high taxes, good welfare systems, excellent childcare (more lone parents than the UK, but more outcomes for them) and do not have the inequalities we have. And no they're not socialist.

OBVIOUSLY NOT. SOCIALISTS WOULD P1SS ON THE CHIPS PROPERLY BY WASTING THE TAX REVENUE ON STUPID PROJECTS AND HAND OUTS FOR DOLLOPERS. THEREBY MAKING THE REST OF THE POPULATION UNHAPPY LIKE HERE. I ASSUME THAT THE SCANDIES MUST USE IT TO IMPROVE THE LIFESTYLES OF THE PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTE AND MATTER MOST?

[Bazzanotsogreat]

You could ask the question a different way; why are we so unhappy (more unhappy ten a generation ago), when we're the richest we've ever been?

We are not though are we Paul. GDP maybe at its highest ever amount, but disposable income has stagnated and has probably gone backwards especially amongst the lower classes.. So much for a Labour government.

The USA is important here because it's the model Cameron loves to love, and the poor live in absolutely shocking conditions, confirmed by the experience of the natives of new Orleans.

As for your New Orleans example- Bush’s response was deplorable agreed. However, in any nation their will always be regions or cities with lower living standards than the rest of the nation. New Orleans is one- it has no great economic driver, apart from its cultural quarter which is partly the reason why it lags behind other US cities. Take LA & New York the two richest cities in the US - also amongst the most ethnically diverse, so the whole race argument doesn’t stand for me.

The Scandanavian countires have high taxes, good welfare systems, excellent childcare (more lone parents than the UK, but more outcomes for them) and do not have the inequalities we have. And no they're not socialist.

Again Paul look at the make-up and population profiles of those nations. They are under populated, where as Britain is vastly overpopulated. QOF is obviously going to be better when you are rich, housing is affordable ( in terms of income) and you have low stable population levels.[/quote]

[Paul Mellelieu]

I don't have the data to hand, and yes inequalities have grown under Labour, but compared to a generation ago most people are wealthier.

Look at the health data of non-white Americans and you have your answer.

The Scandanavians have the most generous welfare states in the world, and consequently less poverty. One example: the UK has amongst the highest levels of pensioner poverty in the Eu-15, Sweden the lowest, followed by Denmark. This is in part because under the Tories, the link between pensions and wages as broken, SERPS was downgraded and millions of workers duped into investing into private pension schemes. And we know about them.

I'm not arguing that the UK and Sweden are demographically similar, but that social-democratic government policy since the end of the war has resulted in better societies than they would otherwise havg been.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I don't have the data to hand, and yes inequalities have grown under Labour, but compared to a generation ago most people are wealthier.

Look at the health data of non-white Americans and you have your answer.

The Scandanavians have the most generous welfare states in the world, and consequently less poverty. One example: the UK has amongst the highest levels of pensioner poverty in the Eu-15, Sweden the lowest, followed by Denmark. This is in part because under the Tories, the link between pensions and wages as broken, SERPS was downgraded and millions of workers duped into investing into private pension schemes. And we know about them.

I'm not arguing that the UK and Sweden are demographically similar, but that social-democratic government policy since the end of the war has resulted in better societies than they would otherwise havg been.

BANGS HEAD AGAINST BRICK WALL.

Britain is overpopulated by around 20 million people. Sweden is under populated by around the same amount. Britain much the same as France has a sub-ghetto culture - partly as a result of been an ex-colonial power. Sweden does not…. Draw your own assumptions

The rich have got richer but the middle & lower classes have less disposable income under Labour. Secondly the reason why Britain has a considerably higher GDP than 10 years ago is much more to do with the Rapid Growth of India, China etc than the excellent economic policies of Labour. As stated before- Mr Brown has presided over the most prosperous period the world has seen in the past 100 years. The majority of this good fortune has been wasted.

[Paul Mellelieu]

BANGS HEAD AGAINST BRICK WALL.

Britain is overpopulated by around 20 million people. Sweden is under populated by around the same amount. Britain much the same as France has a sub-ghetto culture - partly as a result of been an ex-colonial power. Sweden does not…. Draw your own assumptions

The rich have got richer but the middle & lower classes have less disposable income under Labour. Secondly the reason why Britain has a considerably higher GDP than 10 years ago is much more to do with the Rapid Growth of India, China etc than the excellent economic policies of Labour. As stated before- Mr Brown has presided over the most prosperous period the world has seen in the past 100 years. The majority of this good fortune has been wasted.

Bazza you're not making sense and banging your head won't help.

I think you are ignoring the central point I'm making because it doesn't fit your pitch. IF the UK was more equal, had a better welfare state. etc, etc then it would be a better country. What the Scandanavians have done shows some of what is possible. And again: compare our pensioner poverty to Germany's, which is far lower. It's about political priorities.

I simply do not accept that the country is overcrowded. you con't actually explain what that means. And what should Brown have down with his 'good fortune' other than tax the rich and invest in public services?

One other thing, the US is the most unequal advanced western power, and there's plenty of 'space' there for everyone.

[yoda]

Bazza you're not making sense and banging your head won't help.

I think you are ignoring the central point I'm making because it doesn't fit your pitch. IF the UK was more equal, had a better welfare state. etc, etc then it would be a better country. What the Scandanavians have done shows some of what is possible. And again: compare our pensioner poverty to Germany's, which is far lower. It's about political priorities.

I simply do not accept that the country is overcrowded. you con't actually explain what that means. And what should Brown have down with his 'good fortune' other than tax the rich and invest in public services?

One other thing, the US is the most unequal advanced western power, and there's plenty of 'space' there for everyone.

The Scotsman has had 11 years to get it right, how can you still quote a tory policy as being the fault?

[Paul Mellelieu]

The Scotsman has had 11 years to get it right, how can you still quote a tory policy as being the fault?

If we're talking about pensions then a large part of the responsibility of today's problems are rooted in the free market madness of the Thatcher era.

You are right that labour hasn't sorted out the problem, although they did set up the Pensions Commission and are implementing some of their recommendations.

Despite the recent setback Labour has taken significant numbers of pensions out of poverty through the introduction of the Pension Credit.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

If we're talking about pensions then a large part of the responsibility of today's problems are rooted in the free market madness of the Thatcher era.

You are right that labour hasn't sorted out the problem, although they did set up the Pensions Commission and are implementing some of their recommendations.

Despite the recent setback Labour has taken significant numbers of pensions out of poverty through the introduction of the Pension Credit.

You’re forgetting the small fact that Mr Brown despicably raided private pensions - to the tune of several billions. Robbery on a massive scale.

What I don’t understand with the likes of you Paul; is that you are so blinkered in your praise for this catastrophic Labour government is that you will still support them even though the majority of their actions go against your own personal belief.

You gripe and criticise the Tories yet Labour -( especially under Blair) was further right than the Tories on many policies- hardly the bastion of socialism.

[yoda]

If we're talking about pensions then a large part of the responsibility of today's problems are rooted in the free market madness of the Thatcher era.

You are right that labour hasn't sorted out the problem, although they did set up the Pensions Commission and are implementing some of their recommendations.

Despite the recent setback Labour has taken significant numbers of pensions out of poverty through the introduction of the Pension Credit.

How long ago was Thather dispatched?

Labour have had more than enough time to correct the points you bring up.

I/we are not talking about pensions in isolation, as Bazza points out the world has seen a dramatic increase in wealth in the last decade, Britain PLC would have benifited who ever was in power, just a pity that Labour have thrown the increased wealth at over paid under acheiving managers in the public sector, that particular cock up will come home to roost big style in the coming reccession.

[Paul Mellelieu]

How long ago was Thather dispatched?

Labour have had more than enough time to correct the points you bring up.

I/we are not talking about pensions in isolation, as Bazza points out the world has seen a dramatic increase in wealth in the last decade, Britain PLC would have benifited who ever was in power, just a pity that Labour have thrown the increased wealth at over paid under acheiving managers in the public sector, that particular cock up will come home to roost big style in the coming reccession.

The effects of the Thatcher era are at the centre of today's pensions problem. Simple as that.

Well the private sector pays far more that the public sector for similar work. For example a Director of a Social Service Department, with a budget of tens of millions of pounds responsible for the care of the elderly and vulnerable children is paid around £95k a year; a good wage, but something a city worker would laugh at. A social worker, responsible for the welfare of vulnerable children is typically paid £25-30k. Some half brained berk in advertising wouldn't get out of bed for that. Get my drift?

[yoda]

The effects of the Thatcher era are at the centre of today's pensions problem. Simple as that.

Well the private sector pays far more that the public sector for similar work. For example a Director of a Social Service Department, with a budget of tens of millions of pounds responsible for the care of the elderly and vulnerable children is paid around £95k a year; a good wage, but something a city worker would laugh at. A social worker, responsible for the welfare of vulnerable children is typically paid £25-30k. Some half brained berk in advertising wouldn't get out of bed for that. Get my drift?

If the Thatcher policies were so bad then why have Labour not changed them, simple as that.

Can you not read? I refered to over paid under acheiving managers, I never mentioned directors of anything.

get my drift?