72% of Criminals use Cannabis...

A few days ago, the Government published a report revealing that more than 7 out of 10 teenage criminals have smoked cannabis every day for the last 12 months.
Not only does this show that cannabis use is on the rise, but also that solid evidence is emerging between use of the drug, and crime rates.
But the real question I want answered is....why does Charles Clarke still refuse to amend its classification from Class C to B?
Since New Labour re-classified the drug in 2004, youths have turned their attention to cannabis (including the super strength version known as "skunk"), and as a result, drug related crimes have increased further each year. Youths (who have now formed addictions to cannabis) turn to crime to fund their purchasing of the drug, and because of this, become less inhibited by legislation and legal restrictions. But does the Government seem to care? Of course not...after all, since its re-classification, police are not even allowed to caution youths for possession of the drug anymore, and no measures are being taken to consider the drug's likely affect on human phychosis, so its the last thing I believe when ministers claim its for the good of the country.
But what bemuses me the most is when Labour Ministers claim that it will turn young people's attention from class A drugs to softer narcotics such as that of cannabis. An experimental idea I have to admit, but an idea I feel would never work, simply because of one simple reason...drugs are addictive.
If a youth taking class A drugs (such as heroin or MDMA) hears that cannabis is downgraded from Class B to C, he is not suddenly going to stop admitting these illegal substances into his body just because Cannabis has become more legally acceptable. Heroin is addictive, and not even inhaling cannabis will solve this addiction, so the youth will continue to purchase heroin at any cost. Cannabis will not solve this problem, it just means that it will be used more regularly, and contributing to this country's negative externalities.
All I ask is that Ministers realise this; that Cannabis is not a solution, it is an addition to the ever growing drugs problem in Britain, and that it should never have been downgraded in the first place.

Police now have no authority over possession of Cannabis

Political Correctness: an excuse for inequality

We cannot avoid it. No matter how much we try and escape it, political correctness affects everyone, and in most cases (if not all), it simply degrades the views of the majority so a small minority can rule today's political thought.
Its no stranger to the internet either. Whilst browsing a few political blogs the other day (listed in my links column), i came across the blog entitled "Anthropax", run by an ex-colleague of mine from Monmouth School, and a known supporter of the Liberal Democrat Party.
Whilst browsing through his archives however (October 2004), I came across the link entitled "Ignorant Bigots"! Through curiosity, i decided to select the link, only to discover that the link address lead to the website:
www.christianvoice.org.uk
...run by a leading Christian group within the UK, who comment on recent political matters through the eyes of British Christians.
Im not saying that the Anthropax website should be banned from the internet for all eternity (after all, he is entitled to freedom of speech)...but i couldn't help thinking what the situation would be like if the website address was slightly different.
What if I posted exactly the same link definition ("ignorant bigots"), but to these websites instead:

• www.islamvoice.com
• www.jewishvoice.org

I cant help but think that if I went ahead with this idea, i would be branded either an anti-Semitic ******* or a racist islamophobe. But yet, if someone calls the Christian Voice Organisation "ignorant bigots"...nothing is done, and the matter is simply left to rest.

And this is exactly the point im making. Why is it okay for people to insult Britains most wide-spread religion, but politically in-correct to insult the minority religions of this country?
Political correctness appears to be nothing more than a way of keeping the public majority silent, silencing our view points while those of the minority groups are entitled to express theirs. If these people want equality in this country, then they should recognise that insulting Britains majority groups is not the way to go about it. The majority of this country used to have every right that our laws allowed...it now seems that its the minority of this country who have those rights, while the majority groups are left to stand still and deal with modern day political correctness.

New Labour: the party of political correctness?

The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?

It's a well known debate within the UK, and has been since its abolition since 1965, but the question still remains of whether the death penalty is morally wrong, or a necessary punishment for inexcusable crimes.
The sentence itself was abolished in the mid-1960's, but only for murder accusations. Now, it has been completely abolished since 1998, even for military offences and acts of treason. This was subject to New Labour signing up for the Human Rights Act, which denounces capital punishment for the reasons of all humans having:
-the right to life [and]
-the right not to be tortured or subject to any cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment [*]
However, as much as I believe every law abiding citizen has the right to these ideologies, I cant help but state my own views on this matter, especially after recently discussing this with a few friends of mine the other day.
Lets take terrorists for example. There is no doubt in my mind that those responsible for the July 7th bombings should be sentenced to capital punishment. Why? Because of two simple reasons. The first being...why should someone (who has murdered an innocent victim, and denied that person his/her human rights of life) be allowed to proceed sentencing under the Human Rights Act itself? The terrorist clearly doesn't believe in Human Rights, so why should he be given the benefits of saving his life under this Act in the first place?
And the second is this......how is it fair that an innocent man is killed, but yet a murderer is allowed his rights of life, which no doubt, because of the politically correct Judges in this country, will also be allowed out of prison within 8 years?
I'm a firm believer that harsh punishment is un-necessary, but if someone has murdered an innocent British civilian for the cause of their own satisfaction...then the line has to be drawn some-where. In my opinion, the American legal system is exactly what Britain needs; where if an individual kills an innocent civilian in unjust circumstances, then that individual will be tried and sentenced to death (if found guilty).
As for the anti-death penalty campaigners...all i can say is this: you have obviously never known what it's like to lose someone close to you when terrorists tragically take their life away. Britain should have the death penalty, because in my opinion, those who have no regards for life get exactly what they deserve.

[*] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Articles 3 and 5
What resource of punishment should Britain take for serious offences?

The Cameron Effect......

Over the past few days, I have been visiting numerous political websites, and what strikes me the most is that alot of Conservative members are not actually happy with the way our new leader, David Cameron, is running the newly formed "Modern Conservative" party.
And i can see their point! He has indeed turned over alot of existing Conservative policies and introduced new, more modern policies which many argue to be of the "left-wing" origin. You may or may not like it, but in my opinion, Cameron is playing a very smart game!
He is known by many to be shifting the Conservative party leftwards, and taking us away from traditional Conservative ideologies and bringing us closer to the centre ground of the political spectrum. But is this a wise move? I believe so...
And in saying that, this is not the first time that the Conservative party have moved to the centre ground either. In the 1950's, they cleverly moved leftwards to decrease the competition they had from Labour, hence increasing their support base, which then allowed them later to move politics rightwards again in the 1980's (with Margaret Thatcher as their leader), and this is what I believe Cameron is doing.
He is tactically moving the Conservatives to the centre ground to gain support from both Labour and Liberal voters, and once he's done that, he will bring the country (and the Conservative party) back to a right-wing frame of mind, allowing himself to govern the country under the policies that the Conservatives once stood for. After all, its not difficult to see that Cameron is still a traditional Conservative at heart. I find it hard to believe that he calls himself a "Liberal-Conservative", but yet still supports fox hunting and independance from the European Union. Yes...I may have dis-agreed with him over his support for 24 hour drinking, but in general, I feel he is making the right move to getting the Conservatives back into office. Lets not forget, we have lost the past 3 General Elections in a row by fighting the same old policies over and over again. The Conservatives need a change of strategy, and I feel that Cameron is the man for that duty.

"Would someone please tell Cameron to stick to traditional Conservative values?"-Sam Pritchard

"Cameron is producing results, the Tories are higher in the polls now...and he will deliver the results that Hague and Howard couldn't"-Adam Sanderson

Is Cameron right for Conservatism?

Are we being represented fairly?

Is the National Union of Students (NUS) really helping University students, or leaving our educational issues un-touched? (Read More)
www.nusonline.co.uk

Muslims turn up the heat

We have all heard about the riots that have been caused my muslims protesting against European newspapers, who have published cartoons which are deemed "offensive" to the muslim prophet Mohammed. Only a few days ago (on the 5th February), thousands of muslims staged an attack on the Danish Consulate in Beirut, setting the building ablaze and destroying Christian churches throughout the night (which reports confirm that serious injuries had occured, and even numerous deaths).
Not only have the cartoons been published in Europe, but have also spread across the world, attracting the attention of Australia and New-Zealand. But why have these attacks and violent protests been carried out?
According to muslims, it is forbidden to visually display their prophet, and publish cartoons of him, which appear to ridicule the Islamic faith. However, im not here to discuss how they demoralise the muslim religion, but explain that there is something seriously wrong in the law, being that there appears to be "one law for them" and another for everyone else!
Lets take my first example, being the protests which occured in London a few days ago over these cartoons. Muslims were deliberately shouting abuse at the British government in the form of death threats, terrorist attacks, and claiming that anyone who publishes these cartoons should be slain and be-headed. But was there anything done by the British police? Absolutley not...and the reason is because this country is in a state of fear. Brtiain is too scared to do anything about this, because by arresting those of ethnic minorities, we fear that we may be branded "racist" by Labour/Liberal doo-gooders, so in result...those who offend and threaten our country by violent protests go free. Further more, a few months ago at the Labour Party Conference, Walter Wolfgang was ejected from his seat for merely shouting the word "nonsense"! How is it fair to arrest an innocent person such as Mr.Wolfgang under anti-terrorist laws, and yet allow muslim protesters (who threaten the safety and security of our own nation) to walk free?
Either way, it is clear that there is something seriously wrong with our legal system to allow such a thing to happen. And if you ask for my personal opinion, i think those European newspapers were right to publish those cartoons. As we have seen, it maybe offensive to some of the muslim population, but it is our freedom of speech which is the most important here. Every British citizen is entitled (by natural right) to express his/her own personal opinion, so according to our civil liberties and rights, what exactly have these newspapers done wrong? Either way, they have done nothing to deserve the violence that those hateful terrorists have thrown at them...especially the arson attacks made on the Norwegian and Danish embassies earlier on this week in Damascus.
You've now heard my opinion on the matter, and a few other internet users seem to agree with me.

"Our reaction belies how far we have moved away from the roots of Islam where tolerance was given to all. Once again the name of ordinary Muslims is being dragged through the mud because of a small bunch of zealots." Shapps, shappir.blog.com

"Death-threats do not exactly do Islam's image any real good...must I drag in last years example of Muslims handling it all wrong? V-a-n-G-o-g-h, ring any bells?" Farah, underprogress.blogs.com

"Cartoons Causing Riots...Yikes! Who'd have thought we could have such power?!" Matt Glover, mattglover.com

"I dont see any muslims protesting against al-Jazeera by showing all those bloody tapes." Haydur.dot.com








Preacher of hate: a muslim cleric preaches the word of Islam outside the burning consulate in Denmark