egafd.com

Always cracks me up this subject but before I lay the blame where it should be put can I first say that Jack Straw is a useless *unt.

I've tried to deal with him on a number of occasions and this new change in direction left me speechless. Good old Jack (or at least the people who reply for him) often gives excuses why things cant be done (human rights of the thug etc) so to now fight for the victim is what most think it is pre-electioneering.

Rant over as far as Mr Straw is concerned.


As far as anti-social behaviour goes all anyone has to do is look at their community safety strategies see all the good intentions listed by our council and their partners in them and then ask why the hell aren't they (the council not the Government) doing what they have not only said they would but have committed themselves to!

Every Council has or at least should have one and most can be found online.

At the moment we are seeing the Murder of little Rhys Jones.

In Liverpool's Community Safety Strategy it harps on about how it will listen to the community and act on its concerns.

The community of Croxteth have been complaining about the behaviour of 'gangs' for ages *uck all was done, despite it being a Council priority and little Rhys became a victim.

If the Council had fulfilled its obligations and commitments there is every chance that that little boy would still be with us.

The Government should take a lot of the blame but at the end of the day Councils not dealing with issues they are aware of is the reason anti-social behaviour continues as it is.

Translation services by Lizard.

*uck = FUCK
*unt = CUNT

Officer Dibble wrote:

> After all, in the last decade there have
> been umpteen private members bills to give more leeway to 'have
> a go heroes?, but the government has put the kybosh on 'em all.

Many when Straw was in control at the Home Office.

Alice,
In court the reality of reasonable force is very different. Once you start to fight back you are said to be "pro-active" and this means that you are now the attacker. The court decides what a "reasonable man" would do but a struggle makes one unreasonable and the instinct to survive takes over.

Why should a person that attacks you in your own home have any rights at all? The home is a sacred place and the attacker is responsible for anything that might happen to him because he has no right to be there and is the instigator and author of his own misfortunes.


Mike Freeman.

The struggle for universal sufferage played such an important part in our history that I feel we all have a duty to participate. Whilst not wanting voting to be compulsory as in some countries like, I think, Australia, there should be a 'none of the above candidates' box that one could tick. That way one would have taken part but signalled an antipathy to the choices on offer. Merely not voting rather than making a positive abstention allows government to treat the electorate with even more contempt.