From what I’ve heard it costs between £30,000 – £50,000 a year to keep someone in prison (though don’t know how they got that figure).
So based on that, to keep someone who’s done something to land them a life sentence would cost the following:
20 years = £600,000 – £1,000,000 (a million quid)
25 years = £750,000 – £1,250,000
30 years = £900,000 – £1,500,000
In comparison, a length of rope costs less than £1 a metre (unless maybe it was bought through one of New Labour’s dodgy PFI Contracts). A Gun such as a Heckler & Koch MP5 can be picked up over in the USA for about $1,500 (£901), and a box of 9mm bullets apparently cost $20 in Walmart over in the states…. for some people, surely the death penalty is the better option? (and it saves the taxpayers money having to look after the scum)
Earlier on I saw news that George Osborne was thinking of changing the name of National Insurance to “Earnings Tax”.
The Taxpayers Alliance seemed pretty chuffed…..
Others weren’t so sure…..
I’m of the opinion of a different choice of name than “Earnings Tax”. We’ve already got an “Earnings Tax”, it’s called Income Tax. I’ve thought maybe “Health & Welfare Contributions T ax” would be more appropriate (and use it ONLY for that), or just get on with merging it into a Flat Income Tax, and stick it in a breakdown as “Income Tax: Health & Welfare Contributions”.
UPDATE: The Taxpayer’s Alliance have made a follow-up post on Facebook….
Another of the dumb things I’ve noticed leftards do of late is dismiss Climate Realists (or “Climate Sceptics” as they diss them as) who post information showing the reality of climate change / global warming / Man-made global warming – because it was on a blog or a messageboard and not a scientific paper. Even though if they’d bothered to actually read the bloody thing they’d realise it was relaying information from scientific papers calling their beloved climate change religion a load of crap based on bad science out into the mainstream and in a digestible format for people who might not otherwise know where to find or even tackle reading such things.
Then when you point this out to them that Climate Realist blogs pass on info from Scientific papers in a similar way to Newspapers + TV News Stations get information from the like of AP & Reuters, the fucktards cut off your comment (about relaying information) and call you stupid…..
Just because a blog or messageboard says Climate change is bollocks doesn’t make it less relavent because “it isn’t a peer reviewed scientific paper”, as all the majority of them are doing is relaying details of peer reviewed scientific papers that says Climate Change / Global Warming / Man-made global warming is bollocks out into the mainstream where more people can see them…. just like blogs / news articles, etc pitching climate change / global warming as a religion do (even if most of pro-global warming ones seem to recycle old information as true from a couple of years before climate realists later showed them to be either wrong or potentially wrong)
‘ Just because a blog or messageboard says Climate change is bollocks doesn’t make it less relavent because “it isn’t a peer reviewed scientific paper”‘
A researched scientific paper fashioned by an educated expert in the field trumps a private blog or message board posting. How one suggests that it doesn’t is baffling.
@john duck: ‘doesn’t make it less relavent because “it isn’t a peer reviewed scientific paper”,’
Are you really stupid or just delusional?
read the rest of it where it mentions that while they may not be scientific papers, they do RELAY SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, as in BASE INFORMATION IN THE BLOG ON STUFF WRITTEN IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS…. kinda like how newspapers + TV news stations get stuff from news agencies such as AP or Reuters and pass them on, rather than do the hardwork themselves *rollseyes* some people on here really need to go to bloody SpecSavers ^
Their other favourite thing seems to be, particularly when you point fingers at Climategate to show their views aren’t as much a “Scientific consensus” they stomp their feet insisting it is by them then pointing fingers at articles in New Scientist magazine from 2007 (2 years before Climategate was revealed) insisting it is true because that magazine from 2yrs before it was shown to be dodgy says so.
I seem to remember in the not too distant past mentioning below an article on ConservativeHome or somewhere that we needed to be careful how we phrase it when discussing replacing the Human Rights act with something that has a bit more sanity to it (though I can’t currently find it).
I knew this because I’d previously seen on Yahoo Answers (part of Yahoo, the 4th most popular website in the world) leftie idiots asking why UKIP want to revoke Human rights, after they’d had pretty much the same idea, which I got the best answer for correcting them with:
They don’t want to revoke human rights……… they just want to replace the ECHR’s screwed-up interpretation of Human Rights with a better version that hasn’t been written & administered by unelected complete retards who put Criminals & Terrorist’s rights above those of their victims, as some of the decisions coming from the ECHR lot in the past decade or so have started getting bloody ridiculous.
It seems my recommendation that we needed to be careful phrasing replacing Human Rights act with a British Bill of Rights, or similar sane replacements, has fallen on deaf ears, and now lefties on Facebook groups with memberships the size of a small town are posting crap like this about Conservative policies as a result (seen earlier tonight):
Hands up who else thinks that Jeremy Hunt is doing a better job than Andrew Lansley as Secretary of State for Health?
When Lansley was in the job you could hardly tell if he was doing anything, and the only time you knew he was there was when his name popped-up in the ConservativeHome monthly satisfaction survey.
In contrast Jeremy Hunt has made headlines for doing undercover shifts in NHS Hospitals, and telling the NHS they must treat patients as people + bringing back the Family Doctor.