Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

How would you spend our money?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/fixed_artic ... 78,00.html

and another one...

http://www.frbsf.org/education/activiti ... index.html

Rather than how would I spend it I think "how would I not spend it" would be equally appropriate.

I was reading some employment figures recently which made intereting reading; I don't remember the exact numbers but the scale was horrifying.
At the start of the last century the Colonial Office (ruling the empire of nearly half the world) had about 2000 employees. The current equivalent has somewhere over 20,000 dealing with just a few tiny protectorates. Other ministries are the same. Remember that in those days letters had to be typed with carbon paper (or, more often hand copied into "daybooks") whereas now computers are extensively used.
SO
- anyone who has committed any breach of trust or of law (worse than one parking ticket) or promise (such as divorce) is unfit for payment from the public purse for any reason whatsoever (though there would be no objection to suitable candidates helping in charity works in the East End).

- any British person who commits an offence abroad under the law of the country where they then are risks second prosecution when returning to the UK for damaging or risking damage to the country's reputation (and see item 1). No non-British national who has a police record abroad would be allowed to enter the UK unless it was shown that the offence was not an offence under UK law and was not contrary to morality as understood by a majority of UK citizens.

- any person intending to be in the UK over 3 years must learn English and after 3 years will not be allowed an interpreter in any dealings with public bodies.

- no foreign national to be protected by the British authorities from Civil Arrest and trial whilst in the UK (I'm thinking here about the protection given to the man who organised the bombing of St David's Hotel in Jerusalem whose name I forget)

-No civil servant to have better employment and pension conditions than an "average" of UK workers

- No minister can issue an edict which has been authorised in general terms by Parliament; all such orders to be approved by a Parliamentary Committee instead.

- All committee meetings to be held with all attendees standing throughout (injures and disabled members excused)

- Apart from absences in hospital or abroad on state business every public appointee, MP, civil servant etc must attend in full 90% of all possible meetings etc. State business visits to be carried out in holidays wherever possible.

MPs Civil Servants etc to be personally liable for the consequences of excessive waste, un-necessary expenditure etc. with a personal liability to repay the tax payer.

So, we have cut the Civil Service by 80 percent which reduces the necessary tax bill. We have cut 30 - 40% of NHS staff (but no patient-facing person) and we have streamlined every branch of all levels of government.

Next: on conviction any guilty person loses their human rights for the period between the date of the offence to the date when the courts state that their punishment ends. (to explain - a person drawing unemployment benefit is forced to repay the amount received in the period prior to conviction and afterwards a person out on probation or licence does not get human rights back until the sentence period originally ordered has expired.)

An eye for an eye sentencing. (Apparently some man was found guilty of strangling or otherwise killing 100 women and putting their bodies in acid. Sentance was that the criminal be strangled, cut into 100 bits each one being put in acid.) It won't stop crime entirely but it will cut down on the number of criminals and prisoners

Your tax bill has dropped - what do you want to do with the savings?

Agreed on all points but the last, I don't think any human should kill another, for the same that reason that torture should remain outlawed. Its just 'not cricket'.

ben ashton wrote:Agreed on all points but the last, I don't think any human should kill another, for the same that reason that torture should remain outlawed. Its just 'not cricket'.

OK so what is your alternative for the worse crimes? Put the person in solitary in a dungeon for the rest of his/her life and on literally bread and water with no hope of better conditions, visitors or release?
IMHO a) the very thought of the sentence must be terrifying and b) must 110% ensure that the guilty party can never ever affect decent people again.

By the way - as for spouses etc: they chose to marry the guilty party, they failed to control the guilty party and they didn't seek the police help to keep him/her on the straight and narrow so if they suffer for such failure by losing the gulity party's benefits, bank balance etc. then that is their punishment

sejintenej wrote:By the way - as for spouses etc: they chose to marry the guilty party, they failed to control the guilty party and they didn't seek the police help to keep him/her on the straight and narrow so if they suffer for such failure by losing the gulity party's benefits, bank balance etc. then that is their punishment

Solid deterrent. Done.

However.. Solitary dungeons? Bread and Water? Not only are these conditions I don't want to be associated with through my national citizenship, but more importantly..

..the risk of mental health problems being missed or a later reversal of the sentence is too great even if only one person were ever mistakenly convicted and executed.

+ the equally obvious.. 'decent people' give second chances.

ben ashton wrote:

sejintenej wrote:By the way - as for spouses etc: they chose to marry the guilty party, they failed to control the guilty party and they didn't seek the police help to keep him/her on the straight and narrow so if they suffer for such failure by losing the gulity party's benefits, bank balance etc. then that is their punishment

Solid deterrent. Done.

However.. Solitary dungeons? Bread and Water? Not only are these conditions I don't want to be associated with through my national citizenship, but more importantly..
..the risk of mental health problems being missed or a later reversal of the sentence is too great even if only one person were ever mistakenly convicted and executed.
+ the equally obvious.. 'decent people' give second chances.

Ben; you haven't given your recommendations.
I can understand the concept of giving "decent people" a second chance but with recidivism running at astronomical rates and the prisons so full to bursting that crimes are effectively being ignored something effective has to be done to the remainder.

It is amazing how the courts treat "mental health". Yes, there are known mental cases (including ther recently convicted murderer who had stopped taking his pills) and there are the doubtful cases; remember the financier whose trial was stopped permanently because some shrink reckoned that because of the strain of the court case the accused was becoming mentally ill? He walked free and seems to be living the life of riley totally free of mental problems.
If a person is mentally disturbed then there is a place for them - in a secure hospital (and remember that you have agreed that officials should be responsible for the important results of their decisions - like freeing a mental case).

A thought; illegal drugs seem to be an important part of prison life. Surely guards should be made responsible (and given adequate powers) to ensure that such drugs simply cannot get into prisons. We never hear of prisoners being brought before the courts charged with supplying drugs within prisons - I wonder why.

I meant that the great majority of people, who consider themselves decent, should be willing to give chances, not that those accused are necessarily decent. Not that it matters if they are or are not, as they are human, and the taking of life is an inherently inhumane punishment. The UK Govt has many powers, most of which aren't used to their full extent where they could be striving towards relative equality and national prosperity, but killing it's constituent members should not be a power of any democratic country.

re. drugs, of course they shouldn't be allowed to get into prisons, but bear in mind that around 5% of people my age have taken cannabis, and thats one of the nicer drugs. When there's that much exposure in the population as a whole, the pattern is bound to be replicated as new inmates enter the system.

sejintenej wrote: So, we have cut the Civil Service by 80 percent which reduces the necessary tax bill. We have cut 30 - 40% of NHS staff (but no patient-facing person) and we have streamlined every branch of all levels of government.

None of your proposals actually does that. Some of them would do the exact opposite, like prosecuting crimes that were already dealt with abroad. The changes you'd make to civil service working conditions would certainly make it a less desirable place to work, so you'd probably face a recruitment crisis or strikes. Then again, if that's what you want, it would be easier just to slash pay by 20% or so.

Thanks, though. Suddenly, New Labour doesn't seem so bad.