Ukip

angrypirate

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

They lost their credibility in number 1 by plucking a number out of thin air. As a student mathematician/statistician it really irks me when people start spouting stats with nothing to back it up.

Nearly 4 million is the known immgration. Mitragtion watch state 3 million for the period under Labour so thats 97-2010. This is known mitragion so presumably ONS have figures. So a figure of 4 million hardly seems plucked out of thin air. A figure of 1 million unknown illegal immigration i dont know where that came from. Census data from 2005 looks like there were around .5 million illegals, so presumably this is an extrapolation of that with a factor built in to add a few more for people who didnt fill out the census. On the whole, the basis appear to be good enough for me (a professional engineer who often has to gestimate figures for design)

Number 2 isn't a policy, it's a statement.

Try re-reading the post. The top says (and i quote)

UKIP Immigration Policy is currently undergoing a review and update. The full policy will be published in due course. Meanwhile this is a statement of principles on which the detailed policy will be based.

It says that it isnt a policy but statements.

Number 3 is wishy-washy (UKIP will introduce a freeze, but with some exceptions - so not a proper freeze then?)

Again, these arent policies - just a statement of principles on which policies will be based. This is a lot more than what we are seeing from Labour right now

Number 4 - immigrants (non-EU ones) aren't even allowed to work for a period of time.

Dont get what you mean by this?

Number 5 - what on earth makes them think that anyone will want to after everything they plan to do?

They are still queuing up at Calais now despite the recession in the UK. Maybe with the curtailment of benefits and easier deportation laws they wont. I wont complain.

Good luck with number 6, how they think they'll be able to identify them is beyond me (perhaps those with a slight accent and darker skin colour?)

They are managing to deport small numbers of illegals at the moment. Ultimately, people need to work and you need to disclose an NI to your employer. Illegals wont have NIs. This is already one way they are managing to catch dodgy companies employing illegals.

Number 7 - "providing they fulfil certain criteria and are eligible to apply for work permits" (legislation could be changed to make it nearly impossible for them to fulfil those terms)

surely thats the idea

Number 8, I am actually speechless.

Surely this is no surprise - it basically means our courts are driven solely by UK laws. There is no influence from anywhere else. Doesnt mean to say we cant have similar laws dictating similar rights, but they will be UK laws and can be modified as seen fit. I mean, who seriously wants to give prisoners the vote?

N1AK

angrypirate wrote: »

I mean, who seriously wants to give prisoners the vote?

Me, well you did ask , and although you didn't ask why:

• I'm uncomfortable with anyone having the ability to disenfranchise others.
• Removing their right to vote doesn't decrease crime.
• We should be encouraging criminals to become involved in society not pushing them further away from it.
• Voting should be an inalienable right not a controlled privilege.
• Criminals are people and I believe they can have a legitimate opinion on political matters.

Yes there are costs to allowing them to vote, it won't be easy to manage and we need to consider what seat they are voting for etc but some principles are sufficiently important that we shouldn't abandon them so easily.

What I think says volumes about the British, and conservative British people in particular, is that the PM can say the idea of prisoners voting 'makes him feel sick' but he can happily support a policy change to deprive people who are made unemployed of state support for a week; and that is politically popular

angrypirate

N1AK wrote: »

Me, well you did ask , and although you didn't ask why:

• I'm uncomfortable with anyone having the ability to disenfranchise others.
• Removing their right to vote doesn't decrease crime.
• We should be encouraging criminals to become involved in society not pushing them further away from it.
• Voting should be an inalienable right not a controlled privilege.
• Criminals are people and I believe they can have a legitimate opinion on political matters.

Yes there are costs to allowing them to vote, it won't be easy to manage and we need to consider what seat they are voting for etc but some principles are sufficiently important that we shouldn't abandon them so easily.

What I think says volumes about the British, and conservative British people in particular, is that the PM can say the idea of prisoners voting 'makes him feel sick' but he can happily support a policy change to deprive people who are made unemployed of state support for a week; and that is politically popular

I believe in rights and responsibilities. Everyone has rights but they also have responsibilities and in my opinion, if you dont uphold your responsibilities you loose some of your rights. To boil this down to something simple, in my opinion you have a responsibility to uphold the law, you break the law you loose your right as a citizen to vote. I dont think law breakers should be able to vote in the law makers.

burnleymik

N1AK wrote: »

Me, well you did ask , and although you didn't ask why:

• I'm uncomfortable with anyone having the ability to disenfranchise others.

They disenfranchised themselves when they decided to act outside of the laws governing the UK.

• Removing their right to vote doesn't decrease crime.

Very true, but voting is a right we get as a free society, they chose to give up that right.

• We should be encouraging criminals to become involved in society not pushing them further away from it.

How is not voting pushing them "further" away? They have't had the right in the first place.

• Voting should be an inalienable right not a controlled privilege.

Tell that to the victims of their crimes.

• Criminals are people and I believe they can have a legitimate opinion on political matters.

Unfortunately they chose the path they took, they decided to act beyond the laws and to protect the public they have been removed from society and part of our society is democracy. As such they no longer get a say.

These people have been removed from society for a very good reason and as such they should have no say in how it is run or governed, until they have served their sentence and paid their debt.

Why should a man like Ian Brady, who has taken numerous innocent lives and kept the location of that boy's body hidden so long be allowed a say in our society? He took away everything from that boy and the others and their families, the last thing he deserves are any rights to have a say in how we are run and who by.

Criminals made their choice and now should live by the consequences of their actions until they are free to once again be a part of the society.

spacey2012

UKIP strike me as a bunch of ex-Tories who think they will do better in business without a European free market lead by a charismatic media savy mouthpiece.
What exactly they will do that will benefit the voters nobody can state.

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

Me, well you did ask , and although you didn't ask why:

• I'm uncomfortable with anyone having the ability to disenfranchise others.
• Removing their right to vote doesn't decrease crime.
• We should be encouraging criminals to become involved in society not pushing them further away from it.
• Voting should be an inalienable right not a controlled privilege.
• Criminals are people and I believe they can have a legitimate opinion on political matters.

Yes there are costs to allowing them to vote, it won't be easy to manage and we need to consider what seat they are voting for etc but some principles are sufficiently important that we shouldn't abandon them so easily.

What I think says volumes about the British, and conservative British people in particular, is that the PM can say the idea of prisoners voting 'makes him feel sick' but he can happily support a policy change to deprive people who are made unemployed of state support for a week; and that is politically popular

I do agree with what you say about the rights of people to vote.

But in my mind I have to look at responsibilities too.

My view on this is that we all have the right to vote. However, we all have the responsibility to maintain that right too, alongside many others.

Therefore, in my mind (and this isn't just on having the vote), if you break the law sufficiently to land you in prison, you should forgo many of the rights you had before breaking the law.

With rights come responsibilities. Like I say, this doesn't apply just to the prisoner vote, it applies to many aspects, and I find it difficult to accept that people should be allowed to forget their responsibilities but maintain all their rights.

This is in the news today...

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.

The court ruled there had to be both a possibility of release and review to be compatible with their human rights.

However it said this did not mean there was "any prospect of imminent release".

Bamber, along with Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter, argued their sentences were "inhuman" and they should have the right to a review.

All I can see there is what about the human rights of the people whose lives these people took from them? In my mind, as soon as you remove or break someone elses human rights, which most prisoners will have done, you lose yours, and that includes the vote.

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In my mind, as soon as you remove or break someone elses human rights, which most prisoners will have done, you lose yours, and that includes the vote.

Wow. So you think prisoners should lose their human rights?

Does that include the right to practice religion? The right to own property? The right to have a family? The right to think freely? The right to health care? The right to free speech?

Sampong

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

The right to own property?

Depends.

Is said property obtained from proceeds of crime?

If no - fine by me.

If yes - seize the asset.

Actually the law these days has greater powers to seize assets which are obtained through the proceeds of crime, which IMO is a good thing.

I absolutely support a more robust approach to tackling crime, with tougher punishments and longer and more meaningful sentences.

I don't understand why anyone would want to give prisoners the right to vote.

Graham_Devon

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Wow. So you think prisoners should lose their human rights?

Does that include the right to practice religion? The right to own property? The right to have a family? The right to think freely? The right to health care? The right to free speech?

It means I believe the should lose any human right which either involves them being included in, or has an impact on, wider society. The whole idea of prison is to remove that person from society for any given period of time.

Obviously there are some human rights which do not effect anyone but themselves, such as the ones you state.

I have no problems with a prisoners excercising his/her human right to wash their toes 15 times a day. I have no problems with them praying within the prison, in either cells or a prayer room. Again, it effects no one but themselves. It does not have any effect on wider society, nor do they need to be part of wider society to carry out their right.

I'm not sure there is even such a right to "have family".

I do have issues with convicted murderers, drug pushers etc with exercising any human right which effects wider society.

In an ideal world, I'd like to go further and suggest that only certain criminals lose their rights. For example, someone with a sentence under a year keeps the vote, based on the level of crime being lighter. But that becomes a little too complicated for this particular discussion.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All I can see there is what about the human rights of the people whose lives these people took from them? In my mind, as soon as you remove or break someone elses human rights, which most prisoners will have done, you lose yours, and that includes the vote.

Which is a very popular opinion; just not one I ascribe to

It is wrong to harm others, other wrongs don't magically change things. People make mistakes and people do terrible things but neither of these justifies society giving up on the virtues of hope and forgiveness; people can change and we should embrace that.

I couldn't be much further from a religious person if I tried but if there is one thing they teach which I wish we'd learn more from it's the importance of forgiveness. The story of Stephen, who asked god to forgive those who were stoning him to death, isn't a lesson in being too lenient but in how society is better if we believe there is good in others even when we can't see it yet.