Compassion

If you help to end the life of a loved one on compassionate grounds  who is suffering, then surely the law should be able to distinguish the difference between what they have done compared to a cold blooded killer.   Surely the word we all see clearly here is Compassion.  

To judge them on equal terms has always seemed wrong to me and the law is well over due to being changed.

Why is this idea important?

If you help to end the life of a loved one on compassionate grounds  who is suffering, then surely the law should be able to distinguish the difference between what they have done compared to a cold blooded killer.   Surely the word we all see clearly here is Compassion.  

To judge them on equal terms has always seemed wrong to me and the law is well over due to being changed.

Reducing the numbers eligible for child benefit

e have in this country a mind set amongst individuals that they can keep having child after child and the tax payer will pay for them.  This is totally wrong and if you want a large family then you should pay for it. 

I propose that we look at the average family and, if its say 2.4 children, put a cap on the number of children eligable by rounding up to the nearest whole number, in this case 3.  If you want more than the average then you pay for them.  Not us!

I accept that those who have already got large families must be allowed to continue with their current number of children under the old system until they are no longer drawing benefit.  But then we must draw the line in the sand and say "that's your lot.  No more"

Some will say that its every ones human right to have as many children as you want.  I do not disagree with this but its also the individuals responsibility to pay for their family.  Not ours!

I also must state that I believe we should get rid of all child benefit, but I think this proposal is more palatable to the squeamish.  I am a father and I work and pay for me and mine.  I shouldn't be paying, through my taxes, for other's. 

This should help towards population growth reduction and the restraining of the 'baby factories' who are such a drain on society.

 

Why is this idea important?

e have in this country a mind set amongst individuals that they can keep having child after child and the tax payer will pay for them.  This is totally wrong and if you want a large family then you should pay for it. 

I propose that we look at the average family and, if its say 2.4 children, put a cap on the number of children eligable by rounding up to the nearest whole number, in this case 3.  If you want more than the average then you pay for them.  Not us!

I accept that those who have already got large families must be allowed to continue with their current number of children under the old system until they are no longer drawing benefit.  But then we must draw the line in the sand and say "that's your lot.  No more"

Some will say that its every ones human right to have as many children as you want.  I do not disagree with this but its also the individuals responsibility to pay for their family.  Not ours!

I also must state that I believe we should get rid of all child benefit, but I think this proposal is more palatable to the squeamish.  I am a father and I work and pay for me and mine.  I shouldn't be paying, through my taxes, for other's. 

This should help towards population growth reduction and the restraining of the 'baby factories' who are such a drain on society.

 

Introduce Gene Therapy as a way of dealing with crime.

When the DNA samples of the prison population were compared with that of the general population, it was found that there were 3 genes which were dramatically more populous in the prisons. Upon further analysis these genes were found to each do one of the following: greatly increase the possibility of developing schizophrenia, make it much more likely to develop an addiction, and to make physical violence an automatic reaction (the so-called 'warrior gene'). It seems that, in the same way that a dyslexic has the part of the brain that affects letter order in an under-developed state, these people are also genetically impaired so that they have a different kind of learning disability, one which almost forces them into serious crime since their brains are unable to determine the right course of action or they are unable to do the right thing even if they want to. By replacing these genes with the normal gene that everyone else has, crime would more than halve.

Why is this idea important?

When the DNA samples of the prison population were compared with that of the general population, it was found that there were 3 genes which were dramatically more populous in the prisons. Upon further analysis these genes were found to each do one of the following: greatly increase the possibility of developing schizophrenia, make it much more likely to develop an addiction, and to make physical violence an automatic reaction (the so-called 'warrior gene'). It seems that, in the same way that a dyslexic has the part of the brain that affects letter order in an under-developed state, these people are also genetically impaired so that they have a different kind of learning disability, one which almost forces them into serious crime since their brains are unable to determine the right course of action or they are unable to do the right thing even if they want to. By replacing these genes with the normal gene that everyone else has, crime would more than halve.