Sunday, 17 July 2011

The 'Right' Way to Go

Tough on causes of crime, tougher on crime.
I am a believer that there are causes to crimes. Every action has a cause. Growing up in a council estate is not a cause for crime. Yes in some cases but not in all. Dropping out of school is not a cause for crime. Yes in some cases but not in all. Crime is committed because people think there is nothing wrong with their action, they can get away with it, don't care what happens to them or that conditions in prison are better than those they currently face. Yes some of these situations should be brought to a position of importance. However rulings on those that do commit crimes should be reformed first.
What really annoys me is that people commit crimes and then get away with them. If a criminal pleads guilty to a crime they are given a less harsh sentence or on some occasions are set free all together. I am sorry but this is wrong. People should not be rewarded for admitting to a crime. 'Do the crime do the time.' If you are not prepared for the consequences don't kill the person in the first place. People who commit crimes need to be given harsher, longer sentences. Bring in more life sentences if you ask me.
Not enough money to accommodate more prisoners.
This may be true but that is because too much money is spent on prisons. When you go to prison you go to be punished. Yet for some people prison is a life of luxury. It is a common occurrence for some people to commit crimes because when they are sent to prison they are given rooms with Sky TV and a Playstation 3. I am sorry but that is wrong. Less money needs to spend on accommodating prisoners. Human Rights has nothing to do with it. You commit a crime you get punished, you get put into jail, your Human Rights are stripped down to the basics. You live in a cell with a bed, a toilet and a sink. You are there because you are a horrible person who breaks the law, not to live a better life than you would on the outside.

Less Police, more powers.
I recently read an article about a Police Officer who got an award for going into a gang fight and breaking it up single handed. David Cameron commemorated him and praised the British Police force for risking their lives everyday to keep our streets safe. I am sorry but has he seen Northern Ireland Police? If a riot breaks out they send down half a dozen riot vans for them to sit there and do nothing and let the gangs get on with it. When the police do get out in their riot gear, again they stand and do nothing. Why? Because if they intervened it would be against Health and Safety or a rioter would sue the officer for touching them. This irritates me to no end. There should be less police on the roads, including traffic wardens, but they should also be given more powers. A police officer should have the power to go up to a rioter grab him and throw him into a riot van to be arrested.

The nation that sues.
If a police officer did that today Health and Safety would go mad and he would most likely get sued by the rioter and possibly fired. This is ridiculous. We sue too much. If a burglar comes into your home to steal your television and trips on your carpet and breaks his neck, he will come out better than you. He may get charged for attempted burglary or breaking and entering. But will get let off for pleading guilty so that he can then go on and sue you because he now has a broken neck and can't go to work any more. Seriously? This is the nation we now live in. It is a disgrace.
*update* 23/07/2011 a man was let off after stabbing and killing a burglar. Four men entered his house, one with a machete, and he tried to defend himself. The judge said due to the 'defensive' and 'frightening' circumstances the man was allowed to walk free. Thank God there is some sense in the world today.
People sue companies for thousands. There is a note up in my work about a 'Ten Thousand Pound Grape' because a women slipped on a grape and sued a shop somewhere. She was off work for a week because of a sprained ankle so lost a weeks wages. Which she ended up getting half of anyway because she was off on the sick. Yet she still has the ability to get all this money for no reason. In this situation the women should have got the money she would have earned if she was working normally and nothing else. If this is common practice people could earn millions by slipping in shopping centres and supermarkets. What a job that would be!

Free money for all.
People who get money for doing nothing annoy me. 'The Dole' annoys me. People get all this money for not having a job and sitting about the house watching, and frequently appearing on, the likes of 'Jeremey Kyle'. Then get even more money for popping out babies left right and centre. This needs to be stopped. People should only get benefits if they are seen to be out actively searching for a job or currently in a job which does not pay. Child Benefits should not be given to families where both parents are unemployed. If they cannot afford to raise the child they should not of had it in the first place. In my opinion that is bad parenting and the child should go into care where it would most likely have a better life anyway. People need to get off their sofa and go out and get a job.

But all the Foreign people have the jobs.
This may be true but a fluent speaker of the English Language with minimal GCSE grades would be a better candidate for any job than an Immigrant who can barely speak English and has no qualifications. Well that is they way it should be anyway. How can a person come into the United Kingdom, and live and work without basic qualifications? How is that someone who can't even speak English can get a job in Customer Relations when people born in this country where turned down because they got a D in English GCSE but can still speak and understand English well enough. This is a disgrace. Restrictions to this country need to be much stronger. People who want to live in this country need to be able to have a C or above in English and Maths GCSE's. After all that is the norm for the rest of us. Equality my backside.

We are all for Equal Rights.
I am sick of Equal Rights. What is wrong with the best person for the job. Companies get slandered all the time because they have no Women in powerful positions or because they do not have enough diversity in the company. So hire/promote people who are not suitable for the job. The reason because there is a White Male CEO is not because the company is racist and sexist, it is because he was the best man for the job. Equality and 'Political Correctness' has gone too far in this country. It really needs to be sorted out. We are turning into America with 'quota' based systems.

Now lets not even get me started on Europe, Foreign Aid, Socialists, NHS, Gays, Religion or anything or you will be reading for a good hour.
This country needs to pushed back in 'right' direction. (and yes that was Conservative pun)

Tuesday, 5 July 2011

Unionism is nationalism NOT Nationalism

This may come as a big shock to everyone, but I am, in fact, a nationalist.

There are two forms of nationalism in Northern Ireland, Republicanism and Loyalism. Both are different forms of nationalism; while Republicanism is nationalistic towards Ireland, Loyalism is nationalistic towards the United Kingdom.

These two phrases 'Nationalist' and 'Unionist' in my opinion are very out-dated. They no longer mean what they used to and it could be argued that they are used the wrong way round. A Nationalist is actually a Unionist and Unionist is actually a Nationalist. This brings me back to me first stating that I was a nationalist. In today's society 'Nationalists' are fighting for a union once again between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland while 'Unionists' are fighting to stay part of the nation which is United Kingdom. Yes during the early part of the twentieth century these terms where used to a different effect and worked back then, but now I feel as if they are no longer terms which are useful in the twenty first century. People fail to see the difference in Nationalism and nationalism and this is where the confusion lies.

Of course what I just wrote could be debated in a completely different arguing that 'Unionists' are fighting for the continuing union of the United Kingdom, however I feel it is interesting to think that both phrases actually work for both parties.

Benedict Anderson argues that 'the nation' is this 'imagined community'. I feel that I have to disagree with him as if a nation is imagined, then it does not exist and then therefore there is nothing to be proud of. I am British. If my nationality is towards this 'imagined community' then where does that leave me? Can I be part of more than one community? Can I imagine my own community?

I suppose though this is true in Sinn Fein's form of Nationalism. They believe in an imagined 'United Ireland' This imagined community is more of a geographical rather than political doctrine as it not official due to Northern Ireland officially being a part of the United Kingdom. It is also imagined in the sense that we do not know all of those in our community and will never meet them. No matter this community does exist whether imagined or not. This community is due to an official Nation pre 1921.

It is hard to not be biased in this blog but I know I am being it. Personally I dislike the fact that the people of Northern Ireland can have dual-nationality and have both a British and Irish passport. People constantly try to claim that I have this opinion because I am a 'Unionist' however this is not the case. In my mind you cannot have two nationalities. If nationalists believe that the nation is the central principle of political organisation, then you cannot have two nationalities. It would be impossible to carry out the laws of both political establishments and there would always have to be one, which in your mind, carried more political sovereignty. The problem with having an Irish Passport and a British Passport is that you can now be conscripted by either army, but what happens if the two countries went to war, which side would you pick? I just feel that too many complications arise from having dual-nationality.

An opinion that I have, even if it is rather harsh, is if you don't like it then pack up and move. If people in Northern Ireland want to be part of Ireland why don't they just move there? To me it makes more sense than having this tension between the two communities. It all comes down to the fact that, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom whether they like it or not. But do not get me wrong, if a referendum was held and the people voted for a United Ireland, there is nothing I could do about it as the majority of the people would have voted for it. But today, a majority of the people do not want it.

If a United Ireland happened, I would have two options. Take pride in my new Irish Nationality, or pack up and move to the United Kingdom. To be perfectly honest right now I am not sure what I would do. I am not a 'Unionist' because of my family, or my religion, but because of my great pride of being part of the United Kingdom but mainly because that is what is FACT. But if this fact changed and I now did live in Ireland, I may just embrace my Irish-ness and become Irish. However I am possibly swayed more towards moving to the United Kingdom, simply because it means I would be able to vote for Jedward in 2012 Eurovision as it is possible they will be representing them again.