Reforming MPs pay

MPs could get a daily handout of around £150 for turning up at the Commons in return for giving up their controversial second homes allowance.

Senior MPs drawing up reforms of Parliamentary expenses are said to favour the system that would have an upper ceiling of about £24,000 a year.

Isn’t this something that the European Parliament has? I am sure I read somewhere that all they had to do to get the money was to turn up and sign the register. They weren’t needed to actually vote on anything. Infact after signing they could just go home and still get the money.

MPs expenses should be reformed but not this way. Their salaries should increase, yes you read that correctly. I don’t think they do a good job. That’s not the reason why I think they should get a higher salary. Our MPs are of low quality. We should be trying to get high quality people to become MPs like executives who earn hundreds of thousands of pounds per year. We should pay enough to get rid of the idiots and attract the people who will benefit Britain. Give them £150,000 per year and you will see more quality people wanting to become MPs.

Reform their expenses too. Don’t give them money to buy a house. Buy a plot of land in London and build enough flats to accommodate them all. They will all have to stay there. In the long term this will be a cheaper option than giving MP after MP enough to buy a house and maintain that house. At first it will be expensive but once the land is bought and the flats are built there will be very little expenses for homes. All that will be required is a little maintenance.

For the rest of the expenses there wouldn’t need to be a limit if every single expense was made public. If people knew what they were spending taxpayers’ money on they wouldn’t spend it on stupid things. Look at Scotland for an example of what this has done.

Allow them to employ family members but make that public too. If their constituents feel they are being taken for a ride they can hold them to account.

An idea to deal with fascist councils

Every household could have to nominate an adult who will take legal responsibility for its bins as townhalls start to crack down on residents who are not recycling properly.

Under the plans, people who leave their wheelie bins on the pavement, overfill them, or put the wrong items into their recycling, face tougher penalties under the policy.

Plymouth City Council in Devon said yesterday it would step up pressure on those who break the law by raising the penalty from £50 to £110, the maximum allowed.

A draft letter from the Tory-led council includes a questionnaire which asks each household to nominate an adult who will take legal responsibility for its bins.

This is going too far but I have an idea that could work. When they are nominating their adult they should nominate the leader of the council. That way the council will be fining themselves and they will leave you alone.

Allow private companies to enforce the law

We are told that monopolies are a bad thing in this country and yet we have one in this country. It is called Law Enforcement. Why is law enforcement allowed to be a monopoly when private companies could do the job just as well, if not better?

Monopolies go against the public interest. If there isn’t another company to compete with then there is no incentive to provide a good service and we don’t seem to get one in this country.

According to Revision Guru there are number of reasons why monopolies are against the public interest:

1. Higher price and lower output

We of course don’t pay the police directly but we do pay for the police in taxes. Taxes in this country are high. There is no doubt about it. Can people say the service that they get is of high quality? Only the criminals can say that because they live a life of luxury in prison if they are ever caught.

2. Productively inefficient

We see the inefficiencies by the fact that police spend many hours per day just filling in paperwork. That is inefficient.

3. High costs

Like all monopolies there isn’t any incentive to cut costs and the justice system just keeps gobbling our money.

There are probably a lot more disadvantages but I thought I’d name just those for now.

The case for competition

According to Tutor 2 U there are a number of benefits that can be taken from increased competition:

1. Lower prices for consumers

Some may think that this doesn’t apply because businesses will want to make a profit with this and they still can. They will be able to when criminals get sent to prison and they will be punished because of the reason that the companies will want to make a profit. There would probably be no luxuries in that prison so that they could keep costs to a minimum.

2. Improvements to the quality of service for consumers

There would be improvements in the quality of the service. Why would there be? That’s easy. If you weren’t satisfied with the police that attempted to solve the crime that was committed against you then you could phone up another police force the next time a crime was committed against you meaning that the first business would lose customers.

3. A faster pace of invention and innovation

This may not apply here but I think it might. The police would come up with new ways to catch criminals. This could be in a more cheap way or just to be able to do it.

How would it work?

People wanting to become police officers would be trained at a college or university. Those passing their tests could become police officers and join whichever company that was recruiting police officers.

It would be highly unlikely that prisons would become overcrowded as companies would be relying on prisoners for their profit so they would make more prisons to cope with demand. If there was less crime then they could sell off those prisons so people can make them into other things.

The companies could also send prisoners to their prisons abroad if they wanted to. Ever heard of outsourcing to china? They could make more profit by having prisoners over there.

Each company would of course have to have their own phone number. Maybe allow them to have 3-4 digits and have the present number for the police (999 in the UK) for all police forces. If you phone that it will go to the first available police officer regardless of the company.

After a while you would see adverts on television for these new companies and the better companies would survive while the other ones would go bankrupt.

Payment

If a criminal was sent to prison the company would be paid the full costs of the investigation. They would be given legal aid to hire their own prosecution team but it would not go above a certain amount.

They would only gain a profit when the criminal was sent to prison. According to Civitas it costs £38,753 per year to imprison a criminal so that’s what the companies would be paid at first. We can assume that the companies would reduce their costs. After 5 years we could give them £153 less per prisoner. Assuming that we have 90,000 prisoners in our jails (which I think we do) we would save just over £13 million per year after 5 years.

The problems

I can think of a few problems with the policy that may need addressing.

1. The companies might rely on a high crime rate for their profit

Solution: If crime goes down in an area give the companies that operate in that area access to a pot of money. They could get a percentage of it depending on what percentage of criminals they dealt with

2. Companies might not try to rehabilitate criminals

Solution: Once a prisoner has been released give the company a specified amount of money if that criminal has not committed another crime ten years later.

3. Companies might become petty and arrest people for trivial crimes like littering

Solution: Allow juries to also decide the sentence

Possible consequence of solution: Judges won’t be needed as much? Get rid of judges and replace them with ‘referees’ (basically admin people who say “over ruled” or sustained”) with less qualifications and give them a pay cut or just give the judges a pay cut?

Who should support this policy?

There are a number of them and here goes:

1. Libertarians

According to the Libertarian Party of America they believe that ‘each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market.’

The private police force would be offering their service on the free market would they not? Therefore this policy should be a libertarian principle.

2. Free marketers

If you truly believe in a free market then you should support peoples right to decide where their tax money goes if there is an alternative to the government.

3. The police

At present the police are not allowed to take industrial action because they are far too important because they are the only ones who provide this valuable service. However, if other companies could take up the slack if a company of employees went on strike it wouldn’t be that noticeable. Criminals would still be arrested, just by another company.

4. Consumer groups

Surely consumer groups should want an alternative to a monopoly so they get a better service.

Government running out of ideas

Prisons are overcrowded and the government is running out of ideas to deal with it. They now want to stop judges setting prison sentences and leave it up to an independent body that probably wouldn’t actually be independent.

Sentences for criminals shouldn’t be up to independent panels or judges. Sentences should not take into account prison populations. Sentences should take in to account what society thinks a criminal should get and the best way to do that would be to have juries give the sentence to the criminal. That would be the best way of finding out what society thinks should be the best punishment for the crime.

Private sector police force

In a lot of circumstances competition improves the effectiveness of organisations. To be able to compete they must be able to sell things cheaper or give better customer service.

Why is it then that governments have a monopoly on policing? What would be wrong with private companies setting up their own police forces? If the government police force is inadequate why shouldn't citizens be able to use another police force?

My proposal is this; private companies should be able to set up their own police force and be paid for fighting crime.

Here is how I think it would work:

The government police would still get around 10% of their funding the way they do now. The rest they would have to compete for.

Arrests that resulted in a conviction would mean that they would get money for that. Both, the public and the private sector would be paid the same. It would be a small amount but just enough to cover their costs and a bit of profit.

Once the case reached trial level the organisations would get legal aid but it would be low - maybe £50 per hour. This phase would probably not be profitable.

Once a criminal is sentenced they will be sent to prison. If they were arrested by a private company then they will be sent to a prison run by a private company. The private company would get around £100 per day per prisoner that was inside their prison. This would be where they would make the majority of their profit.

There would be nothing stopping these companies forcing prisoners to do hard labour and work for their food which would give more profit to the companies. There would be nothing stopping them from holding these prisoners in foreign countries to make even more profit.

The more criminals who are caught the more profit these companies will get. This will hopefully mean that criminals are caught faster and if companies want to stay in business they will have to become more effective at catching criminals.

They would also be paid more money if the area they operate in suddenly had a decrease in crime. A set amount of money would be available for this and they would be paid according to what percentage of solved crimes that they solved. For example say Yorkshire Blue Police PLC solved 15% of the crimes and 10 million was available. They would receive £1.5 million for a job well done.

The police would also be paid for steakouts and undercover work which resulted in a conviction. The going rate could be £10 per hour per employee on the steakout or undercover work.

Companies would probably only survive if the public relied on them. If they were bad at their job they would not even be contacted which would result in them getting no money. This might result in them not taking up certain difficult cases which they know would be hard to solve.

To negate this, the ‘999’ phone number would be a general number where it is reported to all companies in the area. If the crime remains unsolved then they all receive a ‘bad mark’ where they have a crime listed as unsolved. They will still have it listed as unsolved if another company solves it.

Instead of the 999 number maybe the state police could have 911 instead?

These private could also be used to investigate corrupt police or public officials or investigate when political pressure results in the police dropping a case (BAE Saudi investigation or cash for honours). This would mean that the costs would have to be paid regardless of whether it resulted in a conviction

Any questions, comments or criticisms?

Benefit cheats get away with it

Benefit claimants and job seekers could be forced to take lie detector tests as early as next year after an early review of a pilot scheme exposed 126 benefit cheats in just three months, saving one local authority £110,000.

Last May, the Department for Work and Pensions asked Harrow council in London to undertake a year-long, £63,000 pilot of the ground-breaking Voice Risk Analysis (VRA) technology.

What happens when they are caught claiming fraudulently? We can be sure that they probably won’t receive a prison sentence seeing as only 1% of benefit cheats are actually sent to prison while the rest only receive a caution. The lie detector tests might be a good idea if the criminals were actually punished but they aren’t. People will still be willing to try it because they are more than likely to get away with it even if they are caught.

I have a cheaper and more effective method of finding benefit cheats. Simply make them subject to freedom of information after-all taxpayers have a right to know where their money goes.

Once they start claiming benefits put their names and benefits which they are claiming on a website. If their neighbours ever check it they will probably know if they are claiming fraudulently and be able to tell the police.

Minimum wage to be regionalised

Workers in London should be paid a minimum wage £1 an hour higher than their peers across the rest of the country, according to a think-tank with close links to the Government.

The highly influential Institute for Public Policy Research is calling for the minimum wage to be raised to £6.50 an hour in the capital - compared with the national hourly rate of £5.35.

Advisers close to Gordon Brown last night confirmed that the plan was now under serious consideration by the Government.

I have said before that each area should have its own minimum wage and I even stated the minimum wage formula which can be seen here. The formula could be increased for big businesses so that the small businesses could compete.

Criminals should be humiliated

They glory in violence, earn the respect of their peers by shooting people and their favourite method of transport is a bicycle.

The urban warfare wrecking the neighbouring Croxteth and Norris Green estates in Liverpool, and which could be behind the murder of Rhys Jones, is all about "respect".

Children as young as 12 sign up, revelling in the misery they spread, thinking nothing of the lives they ruin.

Read the rest here.

The only way to stop this type of thing is to make scum like these lose any respect that they have gained from crime. John Barnes has an excellent suggestion here. The people that make communities hell should be humiliated at every opportunity. They should be birched and placed in the stocks for people to throw rotten fruit at them while they were girls’ clothes. This should be video taped and placed on the internet. Maybe DVD copies could even be sent to those living close to where they live.

Once people know that they are going to lose what respect anyone had for them they won’t try and gain respect by terrorising neighbourhoods or shooting anyone. Those days will be over if they are humiliated into stopping.

Does Heathrow need another runway?

Secret plans showing how Britain’s biggest airport is set for a massive expansion have been leaked to the Mirror.

Thousands of houses will be bulldozed to make way for another terminal and runway at Heathrow, the document reveals.

Detailed drawings never previously published show the land earmarked for the expansion.

Advertisement

It would mean the demolition of 700 homes, a primary school and a 900-year-old church.

The revelation comes in the midst of a series of public protests against the West London airport's fifth terminal, now being built.

The secret plans are for a mammoth sixth terminal and a third runway to be the same size as the two strips already there.

Does Heathrow really need another terminal and runway? I don’t believe it does. This is not just about climate change. It is also about safety. The more planes you have in the sky the more likely planes are likely to crash into each other. The Civil Aviation Authority wrote a report which can be read here. On page 90 you can see that near misses for civilian aircraft stood at 109 in 2004. The year before the number was at 87. Unfortunately the report only goes up to 2004. This means for the numbers in 2006 I have to look elsewhere. According to The Times there were 566 incidents where passengers’ lives were put at risk in 2006.

Our skies are already the most overcrowded in Europe and the government wants to double the number in our skies by 2030 which is madness. We should be reducing the number of flights in this country and I have a solution which I have already laid out here but I will go through it again.

In 2004 there were 3,670,000 flights (see page 93 of report). My proposal would be put a cap on the number of flights each year. The first time we could cap the amount of flights at 3.5 million which isn’t decreasing it much and it would be putting it to around 1999 levels. After that we would decrease it by around 1% each year.

Once the cap has been put on it you then auction off these journeys in 5%s putting a cap at around 15% so as not to create a monopoly. The bidders would of course be aeroplane companies. Once 85% of them have been auctioned off another 10% would be auctioned off to the smaller aeroplane companies in 2%s. The last 5% would not be auctioned off at first until the year started. When it did the 5% would be traded per journey and sold for the market price (whatever the average price was for each journey at the auction). After 1 month the other companies can sell off the journeys that they had bid on in a journey trading scheme.

Reducing the number of journeys would decrease CO2 and it wouldn’t harm the airlines because they would decide on their own tax which would be what they could afford.

The treasury would get a lot of money from this. Consider that each journey was sold for £5,000 (which isn’t much especially when there are about 300 seats on a plane which would mean £16.66 ‘tax’ on a plane ticket) and that there were 3.5 million journeys. This would mean that £17.5 billion would be taken in tax revenue which is a lot of money. This wouldn’t count the VAT on journey trading.

Clean aircraft that contributed less CO2 would be given a tax rebate but most of the money would still be taxed. Companies that based themselves in this country (which would create jobs) would also get a rebate. This would encourage innovation in the plane industry to either develop greener aircraft or develop aircraft that were bigger to get more passengers on.

This would also be beneficial to other industries too. If the price became high then it might become cheaper for Brits to holiday in this country meaning that our leisure industry would see more money flowing into it and more jobs created.

The ship building industry might see the benefit too. The plane industry has a limit of journeys but the shipping industry won’t meaning that there might the ships might be used more to take people to close European countries like France and Spain.

We need a separation of powers for education

The A level pass rate has reached an all time high with more than 96% of people passing. Are we actually surprised at this and if you are why are you surprised? One of the reasons we elect the government is to give children a good education. One of the ways to show that they have given children a good education is by children getting good grades.

If they get your children good grades then you think that they have done a good job and you will elect them again. They don’t exactly have an incentive not to dumb down education do they?

Most politicians have never worked in the education sector yet we think that they know what to do to make children have the best education. Why is this? Would we let a plumber give us open heart surgery when they have zero experience?

The way to change this is simple. Take away the government’s power to govern education and place it in the hands of education commissioners elected for each county who will control education in their county. These commissioners will have to have worked in the education system for about 5 years before they can stand for the education commission.

The commissioners will not control exams. This will be done by a third party, maybe the government or maybe the exam boards.

If the government doesn’t control the education system then they have no incentive to dumb it down. Eventually the education commission could be given more power. Maybe give them authority over adult learning to get people back into work.

National shortage of judges

There is a national shortage of judges causing delays in criminal trials. I have already blogged elsewhere about how I would increase judges making justice faster.

The way I see it judges are just referees. They give out the punishments for criminals which have been found guilty. I would change it and make it so that the jury are the ones giving out the sentence too. Of course they wouldn’t give out the exact sentence. They would give a tariff. For arguments sake let’s say that there are 10 tariffs. These would be:

1. Fine
2. Non custodial (asbo, community service etc)
3. 0-6 months prison
4. 6 month – 2 years
5. 2-5 years
6. 5-10 years
7. 10-20 years
8. 25-40
9. Life in prison
10. Death

Those are just examples. It could be organised any way. Once a tariff has been chosen by the jury the judge then decides the exact sentence (between the tariff). Judges would lose their power and would be basically administrators or they would be referees even more than they are now. This would allow less qualified people to become judges and allow the government to lower wages to say around £13000 to £30,000 for ones with experience. This would lower court costs and allow us to double the number of judges that are needed making access to justice faster. The qualifications could mean that those who passed law at A Level could become judges.

Some of our present judges would still be needed for complicated trials like serious fraud and murder but we would split the court system into three – magistrates’ court, middle court, high court.

The magistrates’ court would still deal with petty crime where criminals would normally get 2 years or less in prison while the middle court would deal with everything except the serious crimes.

We would need a lot less of the type of judges we have now. According to this link there are 1305 professional judges (page 12) and magistrates in England and Wales. Unfortunately I don’t know how accurate it is but I will go by this number. I know that professional judges get paid £120,000 per year which means the total if we sacked them all we would save over £156 million. If we were to pay the new judges £13,000 per year and increased the number of them to 3,000 it would cost us £39 million which would be around 25% of the cost that we are paying now however once they have experience (about 20 years) that would rise to £30,000 however it is doubtful that they will be all on that much at the same time but let’s estimate that they are. It would still cost just £90 million compared to the £156 million.

We wouldn’t get rid of all the judges at first because at first the judges might need a bit of supervision. Let’s say we keep 150 of them on paying them £120,000. It would cost us an extra £18 million on top of the £39 million I estimate. This would still be a lot cheaper and we would have faster access to justice.

Any complaints, suggestions or ideas to do with this idea?

Progress

Problems

During the last 60 years we have been brainwashed to believe we are progressing. These are all lies. I will expose these lies for what they are.

Crime
Decades ago liberals decided to give the scum in jail human rights and stopped capital and corporal punishment. Since then criminals don't fear jail. They don't care if they are caught because now they get playstations and satellite TV while their victims are left with emotional misery.

Teenagers now run rampant and they cannot be stopped but instead of punishing them they are given trips to go on.

If that is progress I want nothing part of it. I want nothing to do with a society that give more rights to the criminal than the victim.


European union
They said that being part of international organisations like the EU was progress yet I don't see anything progressive about it. We spend 9 billion pounds per year on europe which can be spent on hospitals, schools, transport, agriculture, industry and jobs right here.

Wouldn't better hospitals and schools alone be progress?

If the EU is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that gives its national sovereignty away and puts the EU before the education and health needs of the nation. Supporting the EU is treason and I want nothing to do with a treacherous nation.


Immigration and multiculturalism
They say immigration and multiculturalism enrich our society so it is progress. How is this progress? Where are the benefits? I would like to see them. I see no benefits whatsoever in allowing an alien people with alien ways to take over.

Immigration does more harm than good. It is a myth that immigrants will only do the jobs that the natives won't do. It is a fact that immigrants will do the job for less money. Natives would do the job if they weren't paid slave wages. Why should native britons be stopped from working just because they don't want to be slaves?

If immigration is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that makes their people work as slaves or stops them from working altogether if they don't become slaves.

There are very little benefits from immigration. The only benefits that I can see is we get the educated of the third world but even that has consequences. The educated should stay in their home countries to help build them up. Whole parts of africa have no health professionals.

To argue that Britain needs economic migrants because of their alleged energy, talent and skills, is to ignore the flip side of that coin which is that the country they came from is going to be deprived of their energy, talent and skills. Every economic migrant who comes here is depriving his or her country of their ability, and is prolonging their own country's agony. It is irresponsible and immoral to deprive countries in this way. Economic migration on these terms is a form of piracy, which should be outlawed!

If stealing health professionals from the people who desperately need them is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that steals from the poor to help the rich while the poor suffer with diseases and don't have a chance at a proper education.

Some say we need immigrants to keep the health service running and immigrants are progress for the NHS. The only reason nurses from Asia are being imported is because we don't, and won't, pay a living wage to nurses from this country. This is a new form of 21st century slavery.

If keeping health staff as slaves is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that treats their health professionals as slaves.

Some say we need immigrants to pay our pensions but that is wrong. Immigrants age too so we are just delaying the inevitable and making things worse than what they will be.

If delaying the inevitable and only having one solution is progress I want nothing to do with it. I don't want to be part of a society that is just making things worse in the long term.

Some say that companies couldn't survive without immigrants. My answer to that would be So what! If the company is only employing immigrants then what good is it doing for anyone other than immigrants?

If putting foreigners first is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that puts the wellbeing of foreigners above the wellbeing of the citizens.

Why else is immigration bad? Well according to the Optimum population trust the UK's sustainable population level in the 22nd century may be as low as 30 million.

If destroying our society by overpopulation is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that is going to destroy itself.

They said multicuturalism was progress but all it does is breed hate and repression of women. It was the cause of the London attacks and it has been the cause of the antiwhite violence antiwhite violence. In the attempt to stop us from debating the dangers of Islam the government gagged our freedom of speech with the religious hatred law.
If multiculturalism is so good why can't we debate it without fear of arrest? In islam women are separated from men in the mosque. Women are made to wear burquas so their faces cannot be seen. This is repression of women.

If repression and less freedom is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that allows repression and takes away our freedom to debate issues.


Education
They said compulsory education was progress but compulsory schooling is just a part time prison. It destroys individuality and was invented by the rich so they could get the population ready to be employed by them so they wouldn't want anything else. Why should the young be forced to do something they don't want to do? Education should be a choice and not something you have to do.

If repressive forced education is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that locks the youngsters up for hours at a time 5 days per week, punishing them because they aren't intelligent then wondering why they misbehave in class.


Economics
They said that free trade was progress but what good has free trade ever done? Was it good for MG Rover? NO! It is a fact that because of free trade companies are heading to foreign countries because they can make things cheaper and sell it cheaper here which makes people stop buying british goods and putting british people out of business.

If putting foreign workers first is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that doesn't help british companies and british workers.


Health
They said free healthcare for all was progress. I have yet to see it. Free healthcare helps the people who do not deserve it. Free healthcare helps those who continually drink themselves to a liver disorder like George Best.

Treating smoking-related illness costs the NHS £1.7billion a year. Why should we give free healthcare to people who know its harmful to their health? Why should the tax payer be forced to hand out money to care for people who are knowingly killing themselves?

The same with alcohol, it costs the NHS £3 billion per year to help people with alcohol related problems. Why should we help those poisoning themselves? I am not saying that we should ban alcohol and tobacco but we should not help those that are poisoning themselves. If they want to poison themselves and live they should pay for the treatment themself.

If progress is taking money from people with common sense to help those that are continually poisoning themselves I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that penalises healthy people with common sense by taking money from them to help the idiots.


Abortion
They said allowing women to have abortions was progress but how can it be progress when the public are funding the destruction of 180,000 unborn babies per year in britain alone. In 2002 abortions cost the NHS £38.2 million. It cost less the years before according to this table.
If we add them together and estimate that from 2003-2005 abordtion cost the same as 2002 we come to the figure of 183 million. Why should the public have to finance other peoples mistakes?

If financing the destruction of unborn babies is progress I want nothing to do with it. I don't want anything to do with a society that finances the destruction of unborn babies.



The free press
They said freedom of the press was progress but the people who own it continually try to brainwash us from the government (bbc) to private newspapers.

Take Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch is the owner of News International which owns much of the media in the UK.

What many people don't know about Rupert Murdoch is that he is in the pocket of Tony Blair. Rupert Murdoch has effectively paid no tax in the UK since 1988. Why is this? Well it is the fault of our corrupt governments. During 1988 until before the 1997 election the tory party was in charge and Rupert Murdoch donated money to the tory party and had his newspapers support the tory party so the tory party had no reason to stop him as he was helping them.

Just before the 1997 election he suddenly switched sides to labour and had his newspapers support labour and when the labour party were elected Tony Blair didn't do anything about the tax issue eventhough he meets Rupert Murdoch every 6 months.

Take Vere Harmsworth. Daily Mail and General Trust plc was owned by Vere Harmsworth, third Viscount Rothermere until his death in 1998 and has since passed to his son. Just before his death he had started sitting on the labour benches in the House of Lords. Why should someone who has a political agenda be allowed to sell newspapers when it is obvious that they are going to put a spin on the news?

That is not all but those are only two examples. 90% of the newspapers in britain have some connection to blair or labour from donating money to the labour party so they can break monopoly laws to fancying a member of the labour party. Just look it up. Find the people who own the newspapers newspapers.

If progress is for our government to allow big business to brainwash us because they bribe the government with money and good press then I want nothing to do with that society. I want nothing to do with a society that allows brainwashing.


Unions
They said allowing labour unions was progress but the leadership of those unions are fascists who only represent the interests of the political opinion that they agree with and they expel those that they don't agree with.

Unions also have far too much power. They routinely donate money to political parties (mainly labour) which means that if the labour party do not do what the unions want they can hold money back which the parties need. This means unions can blackmail the party into doing what the union leadership want and not what is best for the country. Its exactly the same with the rich.

If progress is allowing people with money to dictate what should happen then I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that allows money to have more weight than the views of the people that elected them.


Democracy
They said British democracy was progress but we don't have a real democracy. In the last election labour became the government yet were only elected by 36% of the votes. How is this democracy when the minority get to rule over the majority?

If progress is allowing the minority to rule over the majority then I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that doesn't listen to the views of the majority.


Privatisation
They said privatisation of our energy companies (gas, electricity etc) was progress yet I have seen no progress. Companies are only interested in money. They don't care about peoples lives, all they care about is profits. If they cared about peoples lives would they allow between 20,000-50,000 pensioners to die in winter every year because they couldn't heat their homes?

If progress is allowing the elderly to die because they couldn't afford to heat their homes I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that places profits before peoples lives.

They said privatisation of our banks was progress but where is this progress? All I see is people getting loans and paying up to 40% more back. How is that progress? How is it progress when they can almost stop a party from running by banning them from having an account with them? Barclays did this with the BNP and they have just survived. HSBC also did the same yet they are prepared to hold an account belonging to a London based terror group which has close links to al-Qaeda.

If progress is trying to ban a perfectly legal political party but helping terrorism I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that promotes terrorism and hates democracy.


Aid
They said sending aid to third world countries would lead to progress and it hasn't. Aid in the majority of cases does more harm than good. In the year 2000 World Bank aid destroyed the Mozambique cashew and sugar industries. Mostly, though, aid is simply wasted, producing nothing of value for anyone. The developing world is littered with the wreckage of ill-conceived aid projects, such as the salt mine in Uganda financed by the European Union. The site was so isolated, no one would live there and no salt was ever mined.

Now, even some aid recipients are asking for an end to aid. In February, the New York Times Magazine published a fascinating interview with Yousif Kowa, leader of a poor tribe living in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan, possibly the poorest nation on Earth.

Mr. Kowa rejected foreign aid for his people because he said it would destroy their self-reliance. He said he had seen many cases where previously productive farms were destroyed by food aid and did not want to see it happen to his people.
In other cases, the withdrawal of aid has been a blessing.

In May, the Atlantic Monthly reported that Mogadishu, Somalia, has boomed since aid was cut off in 1995, due to the breakdown of civil government. Without governments, both foreign and domestic, mucking things up, local entrepreneurs were able to make things happen without interference. The reporter was forced to conclude that "the lack of large-scale foreign aid might have benefits as well as drawbacks."

Between 1980 and 2002, the World Bank’s International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Development Association provided $68.2 billion (in 1995 dollars) in development assistance to the48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa to spur development in the region. This is a huge investment, particularly when the relatively small sizes of the recipient countries’ economies are taken into account. Despite this development investment (often at extremely subsidized interest rates and with generous repayment schedules), sub-Saharan Africa has performed dismally. Of the 45 sub-Saharan African countries for which per capita GDP data are available from 1980 to 2002:

*
Twenty-three experienced negative compound annual growth in real per capita GDP (constant 1995 U.S. dollars);
*
Seven experienced marginal compound annual growth of less than 1 percent in real per capita GDP; and
*
Fifteen experienced compound annual growth of more than 1 percent in real per capita GDP, but only three achieved per capita growth over 4 percent.

In 2001 Britain gave $4.7 billion in foreign aid which should have been spent on our own country. Since 2001 the amount has been increasing. In 2004 it was $7.8 billion. How can our government justify this when it never helps in the long term and in some cases actually harms the country?

If progress is what I talked about above I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that is destroying another society by "helping".


Solutions
Now that I have exposed the lies and shown that we really haven't progressed as much as we think I will attempt to give solutions most of which will be harsh but they are common sense. I will be killing multiculturalism but also embracing it in other ways. You don't think that is possible? oh it is. haha.


Crime
Punishments will get harsher. These punishments will be something that is a benefit from Islam because torture will be involved.

This is what I would change in the law. I would make it so there were 4 levels in crime:

Level 1- Non violent non financial crimes (except not paying fines). These people just go to jail.

Level 2- Violent crimes that don't result in death or it wasn't intended to result in death.

Level 3- Financial crimes

Level 4- Crimes that result in death or were supposed to result in death or sex crimes.


This would be the punishments:


Level 1-Community service or a couple of months in jail with 1 day per week of hard labour. Will never receive torture

Level 2-

First offence-Jailtime with 2 days of hard labour for first offence

Second offence-Jailtime with 3 days of hard labour. Judge can punish with 1 day of torture per week but not reccommended.

Third offence-Jailtime with 3 days hard labour. Judge must punish with 1 day of torture per week.

Fourth offence-Jailtime with 3 days hard labour with 2 days torture or death penalty.

Fifth offence-Death penalty

Level 3-
First offence-Jailtime with 3 days of hard labour. Judge can punish with 1 day of torture per week but not reccommended.

Second offence-Jailtime with 3 days hard labour. Judge must punish with 1 day of torture per week.

Third offence-Jailtime with 3 days hard labour with 2 days torture or death penalty.

Fourth-Death penalty


Level 4-
First offence-3 days of hard labour and 3 days of torture

Second offence-Death penalty


Torture will start 25% of the way through the sentence or 1 year into it. Whichever comes first.


Also the sentence given will just be a minimum amount. When sentence is up the criminal will head to a panel to see if they should be released. If criminal has done anything wrong while in jail they will stay in longer. Every one month after that they will head to the panel again to see if they should be released. If they are still considered a danger or the panel thinks they will do the crime again then they will not be allowed out.
Also if they stole property and the police never recovered it they will stay in jail until they tell the police where it is.


When it is their second offense they will have the option to have their citizenship revoked and be sent to a foreign country as long as they promise not to return as long as they have served 50% of their sentence.


The poorest 50 nations will be asked to take them. For every person they take they will get 300 pounds. They can do what they like with the prisoners as it will be of no concern to us what they do with scum. When they go they can only take clothes. All their financial belonging will belong to the state to compensate the victim and pay the 300 pounds to the third world country.

We should also allow law abiding citizens above the age of 30 (by that time if they were going to commit a crime they would have probably already done it) to carry guns as long as they have a license. If they are threatened by thugs or have their house burgled they should be allowed to shoot to kill.



European union
Get out of the EU. Britain has the fourth largest economy in the world and only trading with the 17 countries in the EU is not going to advance our economy. We should get out of the EU so we can trade with the world and stop them from dictating laws to us. 80% of our laws come from the EU and our government have to pass them even if they could be stupid like stopping barmaids from showing cleavage because they could possibly get skin cancer.

We have never needed the EU and it is time for our corrupt and treacherous politicians to realise that.


Immigration
Immigration has to be stopped. We must have the military patrolling our boarders at all times. Get our soldiers from iraq, germany, afghanistan and other foreign places were they are stationed. If that still isn't enough to adequately protect our boarders we should start the draft again making people from the age of 18 join up for 18 months.

If we catch immigrants and we don't know where they have come from (maybe they ripped up their passport) we will just do what we did with the criminals, send them to one of the poor countries that will take them possibly putting them in an even worse situation.

There should also be a boarder patrol police that goes around business and checks if the workers are illegal immigrants. If they are then the illegal will be deported within 72 hours and the business will be fined upto 10,000 pounds per illegal immigrant. Also for every 1 illegal found in that year the government will get 1% of the profits for a whole year.


Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism will be abolished and this is how:

Religion will technically be nationalised (lol) and this is how:

All religious figures (vicars, imams etc) will be employed by the government and need to get a license every year to preach.

In Turkey the Turkish government make up the sermons for the mosques and the imams have to read them. The imams are not allowed to do their own sermons. This is what we will do. A ministry of religion will be created and sermons for each of the major religions will be made every week.

If the religious figures make their own sermon then they will lose their right to preach and will lose their license and be replaced.

All sermons must be done in english.

Burquas will be banned in all public places.

Places of worship will be classed as public places.

The muslims "call to prayer" will be banned if more than 50% of the population of that town are none muslims.

Religious people who protest freedom of speech will be deported (sikhs rioting at that sikh play).

No more places of worship will be allowed to be built

In muslim countries they have a thing called dhimmitude and we will embrace that over here (embracing multiculturalism here). Dhimmitude is the oppression of none muslims. In saudi arabia it is made so none muslims pay more taxes which help muslim projects. In pakistan it is made so if a church is burned down it cannot be rebuilt. There are many more restrictions here. Therefore we will embrace dhimmitude on them by:

1. Stopping anymore religious buildings being built except for churches.
2. Banning the display of non christian symbols on the outside of their existing houses of worship.
3. Banning the publishing or selling of non-Muslim religious literature.

Embracing dhimmitude will be embracing multiculturalism more than we do now. So whoever likes multiculturalism should like dhimmitude as it is from another culture and it may "enrich" us.



Education

1. During primary and secondary school we should learn about our culture only. Our poets snd authors will be learned about in english. Our history and culture will be learned about in history. Christianity will be learned about in religious education. Our country will be learned about in geography for the majority of time (we don't have volcanoes). Our artists will be learned about in art. Our musicians will be learned about in music. If yoiu want to learn about other cultures and countries you will have a chance in college.

2. Education will not be compulsory from the age of 12. From then on you will have to sign up every year. If the child doesn't sign up their parents will lose child benefit for them.

3. Conspiracy theories will be taught in schools. They will not be taught if it it is the truth or not. This will make them think better.

4. School will be made more fun. See whyhere



Economics
Its time to stop free trade. We should put tariffs on all foreign goods that we are able to make in this country. As for telephone workers being offshored to India and other countries they should also be banned.

It is obvious to anyone even with half a brain that free trade is bad for the country.

If there is a shortage of jobs in the country the government should make jobs. If there is a lot of people skilled in manufacturing the government should start plants up and start selling products in britain and foreign countries making very little profit in britain but a normal profit selling in foreign countries. That way the government can employ people and get profits.

The same can be done for the people with no skills. The government can open supermarkets if ther is a lack of any. This will employ supermarket workers, lorry drivers and factory workers. The prices could be low enough that the poor can buy the products. This way big businesses won't have power over anyone because if they leave the government will just create jobs.


Health
Healthcare should be free but only to the people who attempt to keep themselves healthy. Not one penny of the tax payers money should go to help people who harm themselves. This will show we have zero tolerance for people like this and if they want good health the burden starts with them. This might make people cut down on cigarretes and alcohol and make the populace healthier by making them take care of themself.

Also just like the dentistry people will have to have a medical checkup every 6 months. If they don't take the advice of a doctor then they should start paying for medical treatment themself. It has already been shown in the problem section of this piece that we would save billions of pounds doing this.

We would still help those who smoke, become obese and drink alot. We will pay for gym sessions and anti addiction sessions.


Abortion
Eventhough abortion destroys 180,000 foetuses per year we should not ban it. Instead we should keep it legalised but make the mother pay for her abortion. Not one penny of tax payers money should go to pay for other peoples mistakes. If you want an abortion that is fine but don't expect the tax payer to foot the bill.


The press
It is time for newspapers and news channels to be nationalised. How would we do this? We would ban individual citizens from owning newspapers and news channels.
We would then nationalise the news so the government own it however they will not control it because the populace will elect an editor once per year. If the editor has an agenda the populace can then fire them after 1 year. The same should be done for news channels.

There would be a national editor for the national newspapers and regional editors dealing with regional news.

This will get control of information away from the rich and elite who just want to impose their agenda onto us. Also think of the environment. One type of newspaper=less paper needed=less trees cut down=better environment.

Incase the news doesn't tell us what is really happening the rich and elite can still own newspapers however they can only bring them out once per month and they can only own one newspaper.

People will be saying that a free press is what shows we are a democratic society. Can it get anymore free if the people control the news?



Unions and big business
Its time unions started doing things for the workers and using the money that they get from their workers to actually do something for the union and not donate to political parties. Unions have no business getting involved in politics which is why they should be banned from donating money to political parties. This would stop political parties doing what is beneficial for the unions and not what is beneficial for the people.

To stop political parties doing things for big business and the rich and not for the populace they will only be able to donate a maximum of £25,000 per year to political parties.


Democracy
At the moment we should keep british democracy mostly the same as it is and change it a little. It should be made so that if the winning party gets less than 50% of the vote they can only get in some of their policies freely. The rest have to be put into an election 1 by 1. So seeing as labour only got 36% of the vote in the last election they would only be able to get 36% of their policies through. The rest will have to be voted on by the populace.

Incase of something bad happening to the country the government will still be able to start emergency legislation to deal with the problem without getting the populace to vote on it.

This would allow for more and better democracy.


Privatisation
We should nationalise our water, electricity and gas companies. The resources of the people should not be in the hands of individuals. At the moment these companies make a lot of money from high prices. The government should make a small profit from it so the populace can have cheap energy and so that those 20,000-50,000 pensioners that die each year won't have to die from the cold.

As for banks they should also be nationalised and because multiculturalism is supposed to be beneficial we will have sharia law style bank accounts which will mean that people won't have to pay much interest on their loans.


Aid
I have already proven that aid is not beneficial, a lie that liberals continue to spew. Seeing as it is beneficial for none of us they will get limited aid and they will have to do something in return to get it like be part of our criminal and immigration policies (see above for more info).


Conclusion
I am sure if we did these changes we would have a more progressive society and we would have less taxes as we wouldn't be spending as much. I estimate atleast £10 billion would be saved. Which mean we would roughly each save £166 on our taxes.


I have finished now. Do you feel the same way as me? if so come and join my site if not why not debate at my site? I will have a kind of blog and forums.

Join here

If you don't already have an acornrack account you will have to sign up here first.

Nationalism and communism are the future

Most people think that nationalism is a bad thing. It is not a bad thing at alll. Infact for atleast the next two hundred years nationalism is the future. Nationalism does not cause wars. The leaders behind nationalism cause wars. That is like saying communism was responsible for 96 million deaths (more than hitler). That is wrong. The people behind communism are the bad guys. Communism is a good idea but it will never succeed for atleast another two hundred years and communism will not be voted in. We will eventually evolve into it step by step.

Nationalism is the future for now because it puts the nation first which is a good thing. We should not be giving aid to third world countries because it doesn't help them so it is a waste. Nationalism works. The past leaders of Britain knew this but they didn't care. From the 1950s onwards they overthrew nationalist regimes in the third world while they were helping annihilate poverty (read Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World). No other government type has succeeded in doing that yet the nationalist regimes were being successful. The democratic nationalist regimes of iran and egypt are two examples. Iran nationalised their oil because it would give them more of the profits to help the poor instead of the low income they were getting from the business. Britain didn't like this because it was a British company that owned that oil and the British government got part of the profits. The British government didn't care that it would help the poor and they helped fund a coup which to this day still has repercussions.

Until the third world can help themselves and stop continually getting aid from us they will never succeed so we should stop handing over aid to them and get them to get themselves out of poverty. Until that happens they should receive nothing from us because it shows that they just aren't civilised enough to be with the rest of the world.
If people want our governments to give aid the government should allow people to volunteer to give an extra 2% (or more) of their income in taxes to put in an emergency relief fund for disaster relief. Not one penny of my money should go to a foreign country if I don't want it to. If you want your money to go to a foreign country as aid you should be the one to finance it with extra tax money because my tax money should go to my country.

A world government is inevitable however until we are all equally capable in every country it should not happen. Only when the third world has become our equal should we even consider becoming a part of one government. This will take hundreds of years. If we do it before the third world becomes our equal they will drag us down and I do not want that and it will only be beneficial to the third world and no one else.

The only way to speed up the world to a one world government is to completely halt immigration from third world countries. This is so that their professionals of the future can build their country up. If they don't stay in their own country the third world will stay as bad as it is now with no relief ever. The architects, doctors, teachers and lawyers of the future will not have a future in the third world and the third world will not have a future at all.

In about two hundred years communism will begin to form the world. Most people say that people are too selfish for communism to work however that is exactly why it will work. Let me explain, most people would much rather have fun than work if they didn't have to pay the bills and pay for food so it will gradually happen. Communism will not be voted in. Society will evolve into it and this is how it will happen:

1. Like in England everywhere will get free education and healthcare provided free by the state.
2. Just like healthcare governments will decide that people should be guaranteed good health and be guaranteed food, water and heat so that will be paid for.
3. Machines will be made to do the job of man. This will mean that work will just be a national service like the army is today. The workers will most likely be on the production line.
4. The government will then decide that happiness should be guaranteed to the nation so fun will also be paid for.

As you can see, nothing in the end will need to be paid for, effectively negating the need for money which will make it a communist society and because it happened slowly people may not realise that it was infact communism.

Of course there may be some that want to work such as scientists who want to invent things to make our lives better but it will be solely out of choice.

If you haven't seen it yet you should know that only with nationalism can communism succeed in the future. Nationalism is for the hault of all immigration so the professionals of the third world can build the third world up making the third world our equals. This can only happen through nationalism because nationalism is the only government type that is serious about tackling immigration.

Education that isn't compulsory

I have just heard that my old secondary school called Gillbrook has just failed an inspection. They didn't just fail. They did much worse. They did so bad that all the teachers have been fired and they have to reapply for their job. I can't find the article that was in the paper but here is the inspectors report.

The main thing that was wrong was the discipline. Not surprised really. Teachers weren't in charge. the pupils used to throw books, lock teachers in cupboards and sometimes assault them.
Its a pity. I heard it started to go down hill when the new head teacher started (1 year before I started the school).
I hope my old tutor keeps his job. he was a good teacher. he was the one that got locked in the cupboard.

I hope they fire some of the insane teachers like the religious education teacher who thought she had seen a faery and that there are angels with us all the time both good and bad fighting over us.

There is a simple solution to all of this. All you have to do is uncompulsorise secondary school education. At the moment school is a prison. There is no doubt about that. Uncompulsorise school and the troublemakers will leave allowing the good ones to stay and try to learn. Why should we be made to go to school? If we don't want to learn why should we be made to?

Education should be free but not compulsory. It should be up to the person who is getting the education if he or she wants it.

Think about it. Without compulsory education school would be better. The children there would actually try and learn because they have a choice to either leave or learn and behave. I don't see how this could be bad however to stop children coming to school for one lesson and leaving when there is another they should be made to sign up for the year. If they sign up then sign out of school they will not be able to sign up again until the start of the month. If they keep signing in and out they will be stopped from messing the school about and be made to sign one thing. If they choose not to sign up then they will have to wait 1 year before they can start again.

There may still be disruptive pupils but if they are too disruptive they will just lose their right to free education for the rest of the year. Children that want to learn shouldn't be disrupted from doing so.

I don't see a problem with this. Does anyone see a problem with this?

Introduction

This blog will be my analysis of news. Firstly, in this post I will list my views, they may seem barbaric and uncivilised but you don't know what you are talking about. The media has brainwashed many people.
I will also expose the corruption of the british government and the lying media.


Crime
I believe crimes should be separated into differenty levels. Level 1 should be minor crimes like not paying parking tickets. Level 2 should be for things like theft. Level 3 should be crimes that seriously physically harm people and level 4 should be for murder, attempted murder and treason.

Level 1 crimes you will only get a short prison sentence.
Level 2 crimes you will get a prison sentence plus hard labour. If it is your second level 2 offense then the judge may sentence you to be tortured 3 times per week however the judge doesn't have to until your third level 2 offence. On your 4th level 2 offense the judge may sentence you to death however he doesn't have to until your 5th.
Level 3 crimes start with three times per week of torture. On your second level 3 offense the judge may sentence you to death but he doesn't have to until your third level 3 offense.
Level 4 crimes will get death straightaway.

Some of you may think this is barbaric and fascist, well I say its time to start acting fascist and barbaric towards prisoners. Criminals don't deserve human rights like the rest of us civilized beings.

Criminals will also have to do hard labour if they want something to eat. If they don't work they don't get fed and can starve.

Criminals will probably feel suicidal with all this going on. Well they can go ahead and kill themselves. I don't care about the lives of criminals and I don't see why I should. They didn't care about their victims so they shouldn't be taken care of.

Prisons will have nothing fun inside. There will be no TV and no games. Prison isn't supposed to be a picnic. There will also be no newspapers and prison officers will be ordered not to discuss the news of the outside world. If prisoners want to know what is going on in the outside world they shouldn't have committed a crime.
News about family dying includes news.

Criminals will get visits from family and friends one a month for 15 minutes. If they want to see family and friends they shouldn't have committed a crime. Children under 16 will not be allowed in prisons.

There will be no early release. What sentence is handed down by the courts is the minimum that will be done. After the sentence the prisoner will go to a prison board where they decide if they can be released. If there is even a minor blot on their prison record then they stay another month. If the prison board is full up because of the amount of prisoners they will have to wait. It is their own fault for committing a crime.

Also another punishment is sterilisation for criminals who have committed a level 2 crime more than once and those levels above. Criminals don't deserve to have children and if they did they would probably become scum like their parents and we are aiming to reduce crime.

I hope you all agree that punishment should come before rehabilitation.


Immigration
Its time to say enough is enough. Britain cannot handle anymore immigration. To be a sustainable country we must decrease our population to 30 million within 100 years (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/index.html).

Recently the government estimated that there was 570,000 illegal immigrants (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4637273.stm). This is a gigantic number and the british government is responsible for the invasion. The british government is incompetant. In anyother time in history there would be an uproar in allowing an invasion of british soil by foreign peoples but the media has conditioned the british people to accept it saying that it is good for us. I have seen no evidence that it is good for us and the facts speak for themselves (http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/).

It is time to get our army out of iraq and get them to patrol our boarders and shoot all invaders that come to conquer our territory because thats what they come to do. They come to conquer our territory with their foreign cultures and beliefs. It shouldn't be allowed anymore.


European union

The European Union is another entity that wants to conquer Britain. There is no doubt about it. They have taken over britain. Britain is just a state of the United states of Europe and we must get our independence back before it is too late.
At the moment we have limited independence but that will soon dissappear.


Why do people say the EU is a good thing? I see no reason. They say it benefits us economically because we have a free trade agreement yet even if we weren't in the EU we would still be able to negotiate one just like mexico has done (http://www.mexperience.com/business/fta/bc_fta.htm).

The EU needs us far more than they need mexico so its time to leave and negotiate free trade that way.

So why do we need the EU when it is obvious that they need us more than we need them. We can trade with everyone if it wasn't for eu rules that is.

The other reason is that they will stop trading with us if we left. That is just scaremongering. Britain and the EU are members of the World trade organisation. If they stopped trading with us they would get into trouble with the world trading organisation. Even if they did you are forgetting than they need us more than we need them.

Also leaving the EU would save britain billions of pounds allowing tax cuts or spending the money on other useful projects.


Economy
Foreign goods are bringing ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities that depend on them (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2e294a4c-f271-11d9-8e69-00000e2511c8.html)

The government should start putting tariffs on all foreign made goods so our industries can prosper. We should put the highest tariffs on chinese made goods as they are the cheapest and they are even making it hard for african goods to compete in the world market (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4656987.stm).

Banks and newspapers should serve the people of the country and not rich businessmen so all banks and newspapers will be nationalised as well as water, electricity and gas.


Education
Education will be free and compulsory up until secondary school. After that it will be free but not compulsory.
It is time to let the ones that want to learn do just that and the ones that don't want to learn leave. They are ruining their own lives and they shouldn't be allowed to ruin other peoples lives by ruining the discipline of the classroom.

Those that want to stay will have a good working environment as there will be no one stopping them from learning. Also those that want to stay will have to sign a contract saying they will have good behaviour. Those that get more than 5 detentions per year will be expelled from school and they will have to find a new school. Schools will not have to take them. It will be there own fault.

Those that do stay in school will have to have atleast 5 hours of physical education per week. Those found overweight will have longer so we don't have a nation of couch potatoes.

Health
Everyone will have free healthcare as long as they take care of their bodies. If someone comes in with something like a smoking related illness they will be cured freely however if they continue to smoke and they get another smoking related illness they will have to pay.

The government should not be expected to fork out money for people who are harming themselves. If they are destroying their bodies they should pay for the healthcare themself as it is their own fault.

People like george best who have had more 2 livers don't deserve anymore. They should be kept at the back of the list no matter how much money they pay because he would just go back to alcohol anyway and its better to save a life that is going to be greatful for it.



That is all for now but as I write more blogs you will know what I believe