Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sovr'gnChancellor£)
    It seems to have Britain's interests at heart and advocates tougher immigration policies in the vein of Australia and the United States and whatnot and does away with all of that multiculturalism nonsense (whatever that is...).

    What do you think about UKIP?

    Will you be voting for them in 2015?
    Are you for real.

    Ukip can say whatever **** they want cos theyll never be in power. Look at the green party bnp etc if they were gunna be in power they wouldn't say half the stuff they do.

    The lib dems never expected power so nick clegg said whatever he wanted in the debates and ended up in the coalition and now look he had to backtrack.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    Which policies are horrific? Name them.
    Leaving the EU? It's a monumentally stupid idea.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paulmch)
    Leaving the EU? It's a monumentally stupid idea.
    Not half as stupid as staying in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Angela Merkel has a swastika tattooed under her left breast.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    1) OK, man breaks into said OAP's home, stabs her, she dies.

    2) In what way do you support the welfare state?
    1) Again not much information - assuming that this is his first conviction for murder and that he broke in to commit a burglary and stabbed her in the course of this: a lengthy sentence before he could be considered to be suitable for release on license.

    When you look into things, criminal cases are very rarely clear cut. Here are some examples:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    R v Reid The appellant was convicted of murder. The victim, a man of 61, was in the habit of walking his dogs on a golf course. The appellant, aged 43, had undergone heart surgery, leaving him with some right-sided weakness and a degree of forgetfulness. In October 2003, both men were walking their dogs on the golf course when there was a confrontation between them, resulting from one of the victim's dogs attacking a dog being walked by the appellant. The appellant and the deceased were seen wrestling with each other. The appellant ran away to the car park, put his dog in a car which he had borrowed and drove off. The deceased was found shortly afterwards lying on his back on a footpath. The emergency services were summoned. A puncture wound was found in his back. A post-mortem examination revealed that the cause of death was massive internal bleeding from a single stab wound in the upper back. The following day, the appellant voluntarily surrendered to the police. He delivered a prepared statement to the effect that he had gone to the golf course, taking a knife with him to cut shrubs. One of his dogs fought with another dog, causing him to argue with the owner. The owner, the deceased, had attacked him, and the appellant had tried to walk away. The other man came up behind him and the appellant took the knife out because he thought that he was going to be attacked again. Defences of self-defence, provocation and accident were all rejected by the jury.


    In that case, is the man a cold hearted, brutal murderer? Is he the same as this person:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    R v McGrady The applicant pleaded guilty to murder. The applicant, who had previous convictions for rape and false imprisonment, murdered a 15 year-old girl who had left at home at 7 o'clock in the evening to make a telephone call from a public telephone. Police officers were called to the applicant's home three days after the disappearance of the girl. The applicant’s girl friend told them that the applicant had killed someone, and showed the officers a pile of bin bags which contained the dismembered remains of the victim. A post-mortem examination indicated that the victim had been strangled. Sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life order.


    I don't think so. Mr McGrady was given a whole life term - he is never getting out. Mr Reid got 12 years.

    That is what I mean when I say that there should be a degree of flexibility. Of course there are times when I think some sentences are silly - no system is perfect. But overall, I am against a blanket "life means life" policy.

    2) I support the fact that the Welfare system exists. I think that it has been mucked around with too much. Each change makes things much harder for those who genuinely need the benefit. There have been some real injustices - I have seen many, having dealt with such cases at tribunals.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Because I like having a country that can function?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    1) Again not much information - assuming that this is his first conviction for murder and that he broke in to commit a burglary and stabbed her in the course of this: a lengthy sentence before he could be considered to be suitable for release on license.

    When you look into things, criminal cases are very rarely clear cut. Here are some examples:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    R v Reid The appellant was convicted of murder. The victim, a man of 61, was in the habit of walking his dogs on a golf course. The appellant, aged 43, had undergone heart surgery, leaving him with some right-sided weakness and a degree of forgetfulness. In October 2003, both men were walking their dogs on the golf course when there was a confrontation between them, resulting from one of the victim's dogs attacking a dog being walked by the appellant. The appellant and the deceased were seen wrestling with each other. The appellant ran away to the car park, put his dog in a car which he had borrowed and drove off. The deceased was found shortly afterwards lying on his back on a footpath. The emergency services were summoned. A puncture wound was found in his back. A post-mortem examination revealed that the cause of death was massive internal bleeding from a single stab wound in the upper back. The following day, the appellant voluntarily surrendered to the police. He delivered a prepared statement to the effect that he had gone to the golf course, taking a knife with him to cut shrubs. One of his dogs fought with another dog, causing him to argue with the owner. The owner, the deceased, had attacked him, and the appellant had tried to walk away. The other man came up behind him and the appellant took the knife out because he thought that he was going to be attacked again. Defences of self-defence, provocation and accident were all rejected by the jury.


    In that case, is the man a cold hearted, brutal murderer? Is he the same as this person:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    R v McGrady The applicant pleaded guilty to murder. The applicant, who had previous convictions for rape and false imprisonment, murdered a 15 year-old girl who had left at home at 7 o'clock in the evening to make a telephone call from a public telephone. Police officers were called to the applicant's home three days after the disappearance of the girl. The applicant’s girl friend told them that the applicant had killed someone, and showed the officers a pile of bin bags which contained the dismembered remains of the victim. A post-mortem examination indicated that the victim had been strangled. Sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life order.


    I don't think so. Mr McGrady was given a whole life term - he is never getting out. Mr Reid got 12 years.

    That is what I mean when I say that there should be a degree of flexibility. Of course there are times when I think some sentences are silly - no system is perfect. But overall, I am against a blanket "life means life" policy.

    2) I support the fact that the Welfare system exists. I think that it has been mucked around with too much. Each change makes things much harder for those who genuinely need the benefit. There have been some real injustices - I have seen many, having dealt with such cases at tribunals.
    Tell me about it. My auntie passed away from terminal cancer a couple of years ago, and whilst ill she applied for some benefits - having worked all her life - to support her family. She was rejected on account of not being ill enough. Yet some lazy workshy **** could get lifetime support for them and their oiks.

    disgusting

    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    Because I like having a country that can function?
    And how would UKIP remove that?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)

    And how would UKIP remove that?
    Ahh you got me, I was being eccentric.

    But im a dirty super-lefty, im afraid I just don't agree with the bulk of the policy's.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    Tell me about it. My auntie passed away from terminal cancer a couple of years ago, and whilst ill she applied for some benefits - having worked all her life - to support her family. She was rejected on account of not being ill enough.
    That's horrible - I am sorry to hear that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    That's horrible - I am sorry to hear that.
    It is, and I'm sure you can see why it rankles so much to see those patently claiming fraudulently.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Voting UKIP is like voting lib dem, stupid. You should be focusing on which of the two main parties best suits you.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukas1051)
    This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone shares your point of view.

    Even if I did agree with their views on immigration, the EU etc. (which I don't), their other policies are pretty horrific, a lot of people don't know this.
    Like what?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    Which policies are horrific? Name them.
    Denial of climate change?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joeman560)
    The definition of marriage:
    The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
    Change the definition. Society has moved on man.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    Yes, you can. Don't back out now. Would you support parole in that incidence?

    And you can apply a one-size-fits-all approach to murder, no question.

    You support people sitting at home all day popping out kids to get extra benefits, do you? A whole horde of Rab C Nesbitts?

    And you support immigration. So do I, but not in the ridiculous numbers Labour have let in. And there'll be a ****load of Romanians and Bulgarians coming in next year. As UKIP say, we should allow in skilled immigrants on work permits, not every Tom, **** and Harry that wants.
    Since your pulling emotive examples out of your arse allow me to rebuke by doing the same thing.

    Man holds a gun to your family telling you to kill a random stranger or he'll kill them.

    You do it and have committed murder for which there is no defense in the law due to the sanctity of life principle.

    Do you support a life means life sentence in this case.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    OP, not knowing what multiculturalism is, and supporting a party that will attack it, is pretty pathetic. There's no excuse. Know thy enemy.

    I'm only politically critical of things I understand. There seems to be a direct correlation between people who research things not voting UKIP and people who are happy to be sheep voting for them. More than anything, the behaviour of these alleged voters, who are actually more likely to be party representatives faking grass roots, makes me ever more certain that UKIP should not receive my vote.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinnianC)
    Denial of climate change?
    If you consider that horrific, I do wonder about your priorities.

    (Original post by Carecup)
    Since your pulling emotive examples out of your arse allow me to rebuke by doing the same thing.

    Man holds a gun to your family telling you to kill a random stranger or he'll kill them.

    You do it and have committed murder for which there is no defense in the law due to the sanctity of life principle.

    Do you support a life means life sentence in this case.
    *you're

    You've also got to use common sense, evidently. If someone's acting under duress, appropriate mitigating circumstances should be considered.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    UKIP want to increase defense spending by 40% hahahaha, what.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Callahan)
    If you consider that horrific, I do wonder about your priorities.


    *you're

    You've also got to use common sense, evidently. If someone's acting under duress, appropriate mitigating circumstances should be considered.
    Sorry duress doesn't operate in these circumstances.

    Murder carries a mandatory life sentence, which thanks to UKIP's approach will mean that you'd be in prison for the rest of your life.

    So I ask again. Do you support a one size fits all approach to murder.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.