8:00  |  13 August 11
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Current Poll Results

Subjects of Debate

Should UKIP and the BNP merge to concentrate the vote of those who want to withdraw from the EU?
The anti-EU vote is being fragmented by this apparent choice of 2 parties neither of which is likely to win a seat, but who both want a more rigorous immigration policy and to withdraw from the EU.

UKIP is favoured by the middle classes while the BNP has its natural constituency in the working class.

The middle classes are for social reasons more restrained in their complaints against foreigners while the working classes who are directly competing with them for housing, welfare payments and living space tend to be more forthright in the expression of how they could be made to go.

Neither party has the means to completely subjugate the other. While the BNP are a grassroots movement, UKIP have one MP, 9 MEPs and 2 Members in the House of Lords.

Together they could rival and surpass the LibDems. Apart they are impotent.

To merge, however, the BNP *MUST* change their constitution declaring their intention of returning the country to its pre-1948 racial composition and lift its colour bar.

Perhaps a constitution such as the one found at

http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=107

could be an acceptable compromise?

It judiciously

(a) rules out the introduction of anything like apartheid (to address the fears of non-white supporters)

(b) promises to repeal all anti-discrimination legislation (to address the fears of white members fearing the playing of the race card by non-white members)

(c) promises not to impose any form of legislation that is

(i) in favour of discrimination
(ii) against discrimination
(iii) forbidding any sort of discrimination

so we can all have freedom of association!

Its endorsement of direct democracy or government by referenda allows the conduct of referenda on any issue that is arguably in the national interest.

For the diehard Tyndallites, this means they can as party members PROPOSE to conduct a referendum on the repatriation of non-white British citizens, if that is what they wish to do.

But they won't win it, will they??

So honour is satisfied all round and no one need worry too much.

This seems a rather elegant solution to the problem of intra- and inter-party bickering over policy that they will never be in a position to implement anyway.
Yes - 22% No - 78%
Should Britain opt-out of the European Convention of Human Rights?
Are you tired of hearing about the "human rights" of delinquent children and criminals being prized over common sense and justice?
Yes - 87% No - 13%
Should the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 be repealed?
Should discrimination on grounds of sex be allowed? Is freedom of contract and association more important than Politically Correct ideals of non-discrimination?

More importantly, should feminism be questioned? And is not the repealing of the Sex Discrimination Act the means by which feminism can be challenged?

Married men face the risk of being divorced by their wives, having their property confiscated and being deprived of their children for merely expressing views that insult, denigrate or ridicule feminists.

Unmarried men cannot imagine that such a thing could happen to them, although increasingly many do and this takes the form of refusing to marry.

Can such inter-gender hatred be good for society?
Yes - 71% No - 29%
Should Holocaust denial be an imprisonable offence?
Holocaust denial - free speech - David Irving
Yes - 7% No - 93%
Should schools have nit nurses to conduct regular inspections and immediate and compulsory treatment for children infested by headlice?
nit nurses - headlice - stronger measures
Yes - 95% No - 5%
Should no-fault divorce be abolished and the concept of fault re-introduced in divorce proceedings?
http://www.family-men.com/Summary%20of%20Divorce%20Law%20since%201970.htm

"Essentially, what has happened is that the Courts have virtually turned the Law upside down, contrary to the express intention of Parliament, and created a situation whereby people can break up marriages and obtain the same financial benefits as would only have been received had the other party broken up the marriage. Since actions may be taken without consequences, there is no incentive to refrain from those actions.

The law applies a subjective and not an objective test to unreasonable behaviour, so that behaviour which the average man or woman would not regard as unreasonable was treated as unreasonable if the party claiming it said that they found it unreasonable. This opened a floodgate of petitions n grounds which Parliament never contemplated, and this round became by far the most popular ground for divorce whereas it had been the least used (under the name of cruelty) before he 1970 Act.

'Conduct' was no longer relevant unless it was "gross and obvious" and effectively the Courts rarely hold any conduct to be relevant, or if they do, pay lip service to it and otherwise ignore it. If the wife broke up the marriage the Courts would treat her in a way as if it had been her husband who had broken up the marriage. Whereas, if the husband did break up the marriage, he could rely upon being treated with greater harshness.

The Courts announced that they would not enforce their own access Orders. The affect was rather like saying that in future burglars would not be prosecuted. You get a wave of burglaries. The specious ground for this was that if the custodial parent was upset the child would be upset. You might say to the contrary that the image to the child not seeing the non custodial parent would be much more serious.

Since the Courts take the view that wives may break up their marriage without any consequence, it is not surprising there is more of divorce. The "unreasonable demeanor petition" is that the vast majority are thoroughly bad and reflect no more than boredom with the marriage and more so the majority of cases what triggers off the divorce is the arrival of the boyfriend hidden in the background."
Yes - 65% No - 35%
Should inheritance tax be abolished?
Tax his cow, tax his goat;
Tax his pants, tax his coat.
Tax his crop, tax his work;
Tax his ties, tax his shirt.
Tax his chew, tax his smoke;
Teach him taxing is no joke.
Tax his tractor, tax his mule;
Tell him, "Taxing is the rule."
Tax his oil, tax his gas;
Tax his notes, tax his cash.
Tax him good and let him know
That after taxes, he has no dough.
If he hollers, tax him more;
Tax him 'til he's good and sore.
Tax his coffin, tax his grave,
Tax the sod 'neath which he's laid.
Put these words upon his tomb:
"Taxes drove him to his doom."
After he's gone, we won't relax;
We'll still collect inheritance tax.
Yes - 90% No - 10%
Should all drugs be legalised (and intoxication and addiction treated as an aggravating factor deserving of harsher punishment)?
It looks like violent sexual crime (as well as the problem feral teenagers terrorising and killing householders who dare protest in person when their cars are being vandalised or their gardens urinated on) is about to go up soon.

The use of the class A drug crystal meth could be as big a problem as crack cocaine within two years, police warn. A report for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) predicts that use of the drug is rising. Crystal meth is a form of amphetamine which has been crystallised so that it can be smoked. The report compares the growth in the UK with the pattern of use in Australia and the US where it has reached epidemic levels in some areas. Methamphetamine, or crystal meth, the highly addictive drug prevalent across the US and Australia, is present in almost every town and city in England and Wales.

The study has found that the drug, which was upgraded to a class A substance in January 2008, is being produced, sold or used in every area of the UK except Scotland.

It also found increasing levels of crystal meth turning up in other drugs - notably heroin and cocaine - meaning some people were taking it without knowing.

While numbers involved remained small, it was difficult to get an accurate picture as some people did not realise they were taking the drug. "Drug users who are thinking 'This crack is good' are sometimes taking crystal meth; that's the information we are getting off the street and that seems to be the way it is creeping into the system."

The drug produces a high similar to crack cocaine, although it can last up to 12 hours when it is smoked or injected. Experts say its physical and psychological effects are more damaging. It was once confined to the gay club scene and regular users of other hard drugs, but there are fears it is becoming more mainstream.

Crystal meth's other street names include ice and Nazi crank, based on reports that Hitler was a user. In parts of the US it is now more popular than heroin or cocaine - the number of illegal "meth labs" went from 3,800 in 1998 to 10,200 in 2003.

Paranoia, kidney failure, violence, internal bleeding and less inhibited sexual behaviour, are among the reported side effects of the drug.
Other risks associated with the synthetic stimulant, which can be smoked or injected, include depression and tooth decay.

It can give a massive high to users, but they can quickly become dependent and it can lead to serious mental health problems.

Should we continue with more liberal hand-wringing or introduce laws NOW, that make very clear that drug-addicted and intoxicated criminals should expect to be treated in way that might deter them from their inclinations, or punish them to the satisfaction of their victims (or their loved ones) if it has not?
Yes - 62% No - 38%
Should we be surprised at Iran's determination to develop its own nuclear capacity after the invasion of Iraq?
Iran - nuclear capacity
Yes - 7% No - 93%
Should organ donation be made something you opt out of, rather than opt in to?
organ donation - opting out rather than opting in
Yes - 57% No - 43%
Page 4 of 13
< Previous  
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ...
Next >
Topics
Members

Why Join?

Why Join? Join only if you:

care enough to have a view on the topics listed in the Chamber of Debate

relish debate in civilised terms with those who may disagree with you

want to meet like-minded people with whom to organise your opposition or support of a political cause

This is The Meeting Place for the Political Activist. May you change minds and in turn have yours changed. May we all be clearer about what it is that we want (and whether it is good for us!).
How it works
       
    Home