If you were Prime Minister what would you do!

Why particularly race hate crime? Shouldn't there be zero tolerance for all crime?

What actually was wrong with my post? I really would like to know.

Very polite

jingi have no idea. Seemed normal mixed up jing to me

Which post? Who are you asking, wotsamashedupjingl?

Sorry, just twigged. As you were....

"If I was prime minister I would go and have a nice, very long, holiday at Chequers and be waited on hand and foot by the staff, while I had all the garden to myself. And they would light me lovely log fires in the evenings and clean the grate out next day.

Aaaah!!!

Dream on."

That one. Posted perfectly innocently by me at 12.14.42. Lighthearted, yes. Offensive, no.

And the next thing I know, I'm apparently winding people up and goodness knows what. And I get a nasty remark obviously aimed at me on another thread.

I suddenly began to wonder why race hate is that much worse than hate. If a black person hates another black person and murders them, why is it less deserving of punishment than if a black person hates a white person and murders them?

It isn't petallus. Race hate crimes not investigated and detected, with no-one brought to justice, are evidence of institutionalised racism in the police, so zero tolerance of race hate crime is one strategy for tackling racism, both on the streets and in the police.

Violent crime is apalling wherever and whoever perpetrates it and should be dealt with severely..but if it is as a result of racial hatred ( whoever the victim ) that adds another dimension. Killing or violence purely because of a person's race / religion is what the Nazi's did and is really insidious.
Death penalty is not proven to be a preventative so I find difficult to justify.

I couldn't justify it even if it was proven to be a deterrent. Killing people as a punishment is abhorrent to me, and although I know it's astronomically expensive to keep someone in prison for the rest of their life, I don't think any civilised country should be even considering reinstating the death penalty.

I agree with you Anagram.

Hideous!

Anagram I agree..did not mean to apply otherwise but can see how it reads! I could not kill anyone so should not expect it to be done in my name and agree it is not a sign of a civilised nation to be proud of its executions.

too tired..imply not apply

If I were Prime Minister I would start by restoring Parliamentary democracy. Instead of making all decisions ad hoc in Cabinet or on the sofas of Downing Street, I would attend the House of Commons on a regular basis, not just to grandstand for the television cameras at Prime Minister's Questions (which I would reinstate as daily rather than weekly) and would listen to back benchers who are, after all, elected MPs. I would also remind myself daily that I am a mere human being infinitely capable oif making mistakes.

Sorry this is long. I’ve been out all day and missed the fun.

I wouldn’t bring back capital punishment because even if only one execution in a thousand was of an innocent person, that would be too many.

I wouldn’t build more prisons – they don’t work. We need a range of alternatives.

I would certainly sack the Human Rights Bill, and any other European legislation that gets in our way. Skilfully, without totally falling out with the Euro-chappies.

I would, after consultation - including with the general public, no matter how offensive trendy lefties find their ideas, we need to hear to them - take some serious decisions about borders, how open or not we intend to be. And think about genuine enforcement. This may mean stepping out of line with Europe. This is about economic survival, not about being insular or racist. It may mean we become more open to particular groups...

I certainly wouldn’t hand anything to Labour! I might make ban them as enemies of the state.

I would actively promote values which we all ‘should’ (from my perspective as Prime Minister) share. Duty, responsibility, courtesy, tolerance, industriousness, respect for self and others, kindness…

All pet ownership would be licensed [I want c in licenced. My computer doesn’t]; licenses would only be issued to people of mature years (over 25) with sufficient income to support their pets, who took out insurance for pet health care and who completed a six-session (one a week over six weeks, I need evidence of commitment) training course on how to care for their pet. Pet shops would be banned from selling rabbits, and other living beings. Animal-breeding would be licensed but only if there was a good reason to breed, no congenital ailments in the line and a clear market of good homes waiting. Breeders’ licenses would be very expensive, so no-one would take it up just for fun. Pet owners and breeders would be subject to spot checks to ensure animal welfare was maintained. The RSPCA would be banned. No, that’s just a personal prejudice. The RSPCA would be reformed.

Ensuring that people with a vested interest in the long-term success of our nation were included in parliament and the cabinet would be a key aim. The trouble with politicians today is that they think about themselves and what they can get out of it – we need people who take a longer term view. A lot of them might be old-Etonians.

I would follow Greatnan’s example in taking a hard look at procurement contracts and finding ways to deal with this matter effectively in future. I don’t want to see any money wasted.

I would re-think foreign policy, and aid, in see it in context of the UK (England and Wales?) in the world today.

I would take the difficult decision to restructure the education system over a period of ten years or more. The children of all UK subjects/citizens would receive education-credits which their parents would help them use to purchase the education and training they actually needed. If you can teach your child to read, there is no need for him/her to do that in a 'school'. Schools would become community colleges, teachers would only be employed if there was demand for their courses. Radical. And Prime Minister me would have put teacher me out of a job.

The health service would need deep and specific investigation. Wherever waste of resources occurred, it would have to be stopped. And taking used wipes out of the bin to use on patients might be the only crime leading to 'life means life' imprisonment.

Scotland would need attention. Financial, political at first but some of the attention might have to be military. Sorry, but this is a small island. No defections allowed. I mean, devolutions. Independence. No.
The balance sheet of the UK would be made clear to the public. We cannot afford our lifestyle and we are going to have to change. Big changes, deeper cuts, fewer services, more do-it-yourself.

Well, that should have made a few more enemies…

'make ban'? no. ban.

...and typing errors.

And 'the balance sheet' is a new paragraph.

If some of the people posting here were Prime Minister, I would seek political asylum abroad.

absentgrana - and probably incorrect spelling, grammar and punctuation! goodness, i don't know how i survive!

you'd be welcome!

Licence is a noun - license is a verb. Licensed is correct.

granbunny The comment about typing errors was meant to follow my comment about my human fallibility but your post came in between.

I think some people posting here have mistaken the role of Prime Minister in a democracy, albeit a severely flawed one, for that of dictator. Not unlike Beloved Leader Blair did.

thank you, anagram. i find as i grow older, i know even less than i did before. doesn't stop me having opinons, though.

thank you for your clarification, absentgrana. i thought you were just having a pop...