batwad said:
1. We will ensure that the main priority of the police be returned to that of the prevention and punishment of crime, and we will abolish all politically-correct distractions from this mission.
What does that mean? Absolutely nothing! Is that any different from any other party? No, of course everyone wants "the main priority of the police" to be the prevention of crime. Also, punishment isn't the responsibility of the police; it's the courts.
The point is many of these cases shouldn't ever reach the courts. They could be dealt with at a lower level, thereby saving time and money.
It is different from other parties in that sentence "abolish all politically-correct distractions from this mission". If you honestly think that there are certain aspects of policing, and rules that have to be followed, which are not simply there to protect the force from being accused of racism (even though they're actually common sense) then you've been living in a cave.
The police spend so much time doing paperwork it's unbelievable! Recently there was a policeman on tv who told a story: a woman phoned to say she thought her ex boyfriend had stolen her cat. 5 minutes later she phoned back to say she'd made a mistake and found her cat. The policeman then ended up writing a 40 page report as there was so much he had to include in it. And that's just one example that we know of.
batwad said:
2. We will return, so far as conditions permit, to traditional foot and bicycle patrol policing and reduce reliance on police cars.
What a laughably impractical suggestion. So PC Plod can keep up with criminals in their Evos can he? Never mind the fact that the standard of driving on our roads is falling, let's reduce the number of traffic police. Great shout.
It doesn't mention traffic police. They're a different group. And I would hope most policies would include increasing the numbers of traffic police since they've been dramatically reduced under labour.
What is needed is a more public service from the police. On the streets and accessible to the public. A force that's in your face and force to rely on a make the public feel safer. Not a cop car that drives past every-so-often with 2 fat coppers in. But of course cops need cars, so there would certainly have to be a baseline of police patrolling, ready to react to crime.
Although I don't fully agree with the policy, it's only a short statement so there's a lot more to it than stated here. And the current system doesn't work so a change is needed.
I have been there myself where I've been in town, seen a crowd causing a bit of trouble, and wanted to find a copper on foot who could intervene. Imagine being 70 and feeling the same.
batwad said:
3. We will end the legal system's harassment of fathers by means of the Child Support Agency and change the outdated presumption in favour of maternal custody in divorce cases to one of joint custody.
Headline grabbing anyone? It's pretty much universally accepted that the CSA is a complete joke. Is this any reason to vote for the BNP?
It may be headline grabbing but at least it's correct. And the current government have the power to change it but haven't done so.
batwad said:
4. We support the re-introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute, as by DNA evidence or being caught red-handed.
I am completely against the death penalty so there's no way I'm ever going to agree with this.
I also disagree to a certain extent. I think life (as in LIFE) imprisonment would be a far greater punishment. But that costs a lot of money. And what for? And I think the victims or the victims' families have a right to see someone punished properly. I'm sure there are many people in society who agree with "an eye for an eye".
batwad said:
5. We believe in 'Restorative Justice' - all fines imposed by the Courts will be given to the victims not the government. Criminals will be forced to repair any damage they have done in the community.
So we'll have to pay more tax to plug the gap.
Is it right that a criminal who, for example steals a car, crashes it and runs away, gets punished by losing his license for a year (not that that'll stop him driving) and a fine of £500? What about the cost of the police work involved? What about the upset to the car owner? What about all of us who have to pay extra insurance to cover the cost of replacing or repairing the car?
It's a complete joke. More tax to plug it? ********, we pay too much already. How about the criminal is fined 20k for a new car. And he'll pay a certain amount every month until it is paid off. And if he doesn't want to work he can work for the council in one of the jobs noone wants to do, or he can go to prison. Yes the prison is paid for by the tax payer but it'd work out a lot cheaper in the long run. Especially as it'd act as a huge deterrent!
batwad said:
None of these points are reasons to vote for the BNP and I feel sorry for the poor misguided fools that do so.
These points alone are not a reason to vote BNP no. These points are only highlighted on this thread as they're pretty pertinent after recent events. But these points are amongst many which are basically common sense, and that most of us agree on I think. But there are a few of their policies I don't agree on. But at least they have the main points right and they can see a problem and know how to fix it.
Although these policies are from the 2005 elections, they're far older than that. David Cameron has been speaking a lot of sense recently, but that's exactly the point, it's only recent, he's obviously seen how ****** off the general population is and is acting on it. There's nothing wrong with that of course but it seems a little too late to win my vote.