(s)he was only facing nine months? What's going on there? =S
Printable View
(s)he was only facing nine months? What's going on there? =S
It is British 'justice' - although many on here would claim the way to solve crime is to sit down and have a chat with these people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moh
Labour ended the early release scheme and was embarking on a huge prison building programme.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...prison-numbers
As sick as this crime was, and why on earth ANYONE would want to look at that anyway, I think nine months would of been fine.
She didn't take the photos, all she did was look at a few of them. As sick as doing that is, I don't think longer than nine months is necessary.
Do read the article and use some common sense;Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
'Rise of more than 1,000 in England and Wales six weeks after scheme was shelved by Labour heading into election'
Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
So it was announced?
Also what happened to the 715 refurbishment of the new schools which would have made millions in tax and kept the contruction industry going. Unemployment dropped from January to May so it was working. Watch it rise again and house prices are dropping again. You also do not need to be so rude.Quote:
The Labour government has embarked on the biggest prison building programme in western Europe, aiming to take the number of places in the system to 96,000 by 2014.
It was shelved due to the election, do read the article before linking me to it. Why was it shelved due to the election Rosie? why do you really think they shelved an unpopular policy just before an election? :rolleyes: you and millions more are so easily bought and taken for a mug by this lot time after time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
As for the schools rebuilding programme - that does not create anything in tax, it loses the government money. All state controlled industry and economies (socialism) used the method you are describing (government taking money and spending it) and it does not create any wealth, it only saps it. A government cannot create wealth, only private enterprise can. If you build something such as a school, it does not create wealth therefore generates no wealth. Schools are needed indeed, however at the moment we can not afford it thanks to the last government.
Despite the fact me telling you all this, you and many others will still go and vote in the party which created this mass of debt in the first place.
It would of made millions in tax yes, but it would also cost the government hundred of millions to build. There's no point keeping people employed for the hell of it, and like Dan has pointed out, it's the private sector which generates wealth, quite basic economics here. It would of also not improved the education system which is what it's all about anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
How would you cut the deficit? If you were in debt, would you spend and borrow your way out of debt? :P
By all means rip into the Conservatives for their U-Turn on Prisons but don't bring Labour into it, they have no high ground at all on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Again they didn't - the tories would have done no better with a world wide recession. End of. We shall see who was right by the end of the year I suspect.
Nothing to say on the prisons issue then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
As for government spending.. Labour created the large amount of debt because they did not cut spending and even before the recession, they were still spending what we as a nation did not have. I often also hear you and others of the Labourite variety praise Labours decade in office before the recession, was that a world wide boom then?
It cannot be both ways, either the boom and bust were both world wide or they both occured here and were caused by the government. It seems very strange to me that when we mention the bust its all the fault of everybody but the government - whereas with the boom beforehand, it as all the work of Gordon and co! - it can only be one, the UK economy during the past few decades has been a settled economy meaning that both have the same links to either the home government or the world economy at large - take your pick but you cannot chop and change to what suits your stance.
Labour did not cut spending, it is their fault we have such an enormous debt.