This is largely in response to this post but also to anyone else who thinks the same.
It's quite ironic really to be accused of being insulting, accused of misrepresenting people's views and accused of not listening to other's points of view.
While at the same time to be called a 'retard', 'stupid', 'incapable of thinking' etc and have my views completely mis-represented. It was also pointed out that I changed my mind over the practicalities of ID cards, which hardly fits the accusation of 'not listening'.
Martin Keegan accuses me of being a racist (something I take deep offence at), he justifies this by giving the impression I want to further restrict non-EU immigration.
At no point have I ever said that, and I don't believe that at all. Who is mis-representing who here?
I have repeatedly said that I think immigration laws should be RELAXED. Of course I don't believe that our borders can be totally pourous, until the world's inequality is drastically reduced, some immigration control is necessary for practical reasons. I did state six months ago that the current immigration laws were about right but I now realise they can be relaxed. Although I do worry about the impact of robbing the third world of skilled labour (this should be avoided if possible). The USA is the worst culprit for robbing other countries of their skilled labour. They are effectively free riding on the taxes of other countries which pay for the training of workers.
I argue vociferously with people like DEVIL'S KITCHEN who villifies muslims in his blog and slags immigrants off.
I point out the enormous benefits immigration has brought to this country. I am an internationalist. I actually don't believe in the nation state. Nationalism is as irrational to me as religion and ideology.
I apologised for being clumsy in my comments to Martin (over ID cards)something I admit I regularly do, because he mis-interpreted what I was saying. I said I would like (jokingly) for all bigots to leave the country (and in a fit of anger at his unjustified comments), included him as a bigot.
As for my comments on Tony's respect agenda. You lot are having a field day because I was honest enough to admit that innocent people would be affected.
This is true of any system, even due process is far from perfect, as I am sure you know. The more severe the penalty, the more accuracy is needed and the more the innocent need to be protected.
This is a concept you lot seem unable to grasp. You think the principle of due process should be upheld regardless of the practicalities and cost. But having the same level of legal procedure for low level crime is just not practical and inevitably just leads to the guilty going unpunished.
You may think this acceptable, but Tony is trying to find a practical solution to the problem, not uphold a high minded principle that is just not working at the lowest level.
Just like relativity breaks down at the quantum level, so does due process. Letting people get away with low level crime just means having to deal with them later on for something much more serious. This is harming us all. This is ALL I am arguing for. I was direct enough to admit in blunt terms the implications of this on the innocent, but I pointed out that for those innocent who were affected, it would benefit them and society much more by having the guilty punished at an earlier stage. Life is inevitably unfair, sometimes it is better for us all to take the rough with the smooth if it solves a serious problem.
I am being lazy in lumping everyone's views together but it is sometimes hard to find the time to respond to dozens of people's comments. I apologise to anyone who hasn't criticised me in this way.