Then take the scum and bang em all up.

Thats a no-brainer as well.

Problem solved.
[Rep]

Thatcher and the Thatcher years are perceived by people in ways that are best described as Boolean.

Personally I think she was the saviour of Britain, and that the huge cost was inevitable considering the dreadful state the place was in but she, like all of us, in some respects had feet of clay.

Amongst her “drop off’s” was implementing the “Care in the Community” program that saw tens of thousands of people with varying degrees of mental health problems released into what rapidly became clear to be NO care in the community and the closure and selling off of the many mental hospitals and asylums that had previously housed them.

The consequences of this are affecting us today.

The vast majority of the “kiddie Fiddlers” would have been safely placed in the now closed asylums as a result of excessively odd behaviour earlier in their lives and thus be having no effect on society today.

Many others presently living quite awful existences, you couldn’t call them lives, and spending most of the time in jail having committed some usually trivial crime would have also been living much happier lives in asylums and not being treated as criminals and so being punished.

In short, in my opinion there is a need to quietly re-think the Care in the Community concept, see it for what it is, and roll the clock back and re-introduce asylums for these people who today roam the streets, themselves unhappy and causing unhappiness and frequently grief for the rest of us.

An asylum is, after all, a place of safety. Safety for the people who need it, and safety for the rest of us to have those who are a danger placed within.
[Rep]

Agree 100%

Would that we could return to the heady days of Thatcherism.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Mikeuk:
I suggest we start by checking the homos.

They claim to be 10% so there must be 6 million of them.

I tried to start a reply but burst out laughing! Why didn't THEY think of that one?

Let me get this right, a parent that has not been CRB checked cannot 'handle' children in school or otherwise have any unnecessary association with them until the authorities say they can, or words to that effect.

But, a homosexual, who thinks that sticking his hard pecker up the sh*thole of another man who "consents" to this obscene act, is more than welcome to handle children if HE has been CRB checked?

And people think I am EXTREME. How extreme is this sort of pervasive and subtle liberal infestation of our ancient mindset that dictated for generations, that brown holing was a socially degenerate act not becoming of a civilised society. But no, heterosexual couples with children are deemed potential child abusers whilst a substantial (apparently) portion of the population with shirtlifting tendencies is somehow acceptable?
[Rep]

Whether you are homophobic or not (I'm not saying you are), are you saying it is more likely for a homosexual to be a greater threat to children than a hetrosexual ?

If so I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.
I'd suggest that all child molesters are mentally ill.
I'm interested to know - are you saying homosexuals are mentally ill ?
[Rep]

You don't think that a man wanting to stick his dick up another man's bottom is NOT mentally ill? Would you encourage children to be homosexual, and would you be happy if your 6 or 7 or 8 year old son or daughter brought a same sex "friend" home, knowing that there was a potential for same-sex kissing, holding hands and other shows of affection? Are you really saying that is acceptable in a society where the sustainability of population is based biologically on love between men and women? If it is good for adults, then why not for children, too?

What I am saying that there is something wrong when a society that searches for any signs of warped sexual attitudes amongst heterosexual people if, at the same time, it considers homosexuals to be able to provide loving and responsible care for children equal to that of a hetero couple.

Why do so many people defend homosexuality? Is it just a case of surrendering to mass insanity?
[Rep]

I don't see any evidence that homosexuals are mentally ill. Do you have any evidence ?

I'm not saying they aren't because I don't have any evidence, but I suspect they are not mentally ill at all.

Of course I would not encourage homosexual behaviour, but if you criticize something you don't understand that seems to as bad as racism.

I don't understand homosexuality, but unless you are one is it even possible ?

I guess you're trying to make sense of something you don't understand by saying they are mentally ill becasue you don't understand it.

I've met homosexuals - some who are disgusting, some who are well balanced, friendly and loving people(no sick jokes please...)

Would you lock up all homosexuals under the mental health act ?

By the way, beleive it or not there are a lot of very high profile politicians here and abroad which have a tendency for indecent sexually inpropriety (a lot worse than homosexuality by all accounts) but you will not hear of this on the news at ten.

To me these sicko politicians in Washington who interfere with children should be the ones locked up.
[Rep]

I am not saying that they are mentally ill, I am saying the physical act of 'simulated sex' between two men, is. If that then becomes the definition of presumed mental instability then the perpetrators of the act should be treated accordingly.

I do not accept that two men can be accepted as a couple, nor should I be presumed to be able to accept the inference of homosexual intimacy as an acceptable social activity. The fact it exists does not make it 'right' or 'normal' because the law or anyone else says it does. Nature says differently, otherwise it would have provided humans with the ability of autogamy or some sort of parthenogenesis.

Maybe I have good grounds for political exile to a country where homosexuality is illegal on the grounds that I can be punished for OPPOSING it! If "they" can seek asylum for intolerance and discrimination, then so should I be able to!
[Rep]

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe:
I am not saying that they are mentally ill, I am saying the physical act of 'simulated sex' between two men, is. If that then becomes the definition of presumed mental instability then the perpetrators of the act should be treated accordingly.

I do not accept that two men can be accepted as a couple, nor should I be presumed to be able to accept the inference of homosexual intimacy as an acceptable social activity. The fact it exists does not make it 'right' or 'normal' because the law or anyone else says it does. Nature says differently, otherwise it would have provided humans with the ability of autogamy or some sort of parthenogenesis.

Maybe I have good grounds for political exile to a country where homosexuality is illegal on the grounds that I can be punished for OPPOSING it! If "they" can seek asylum for intolerance and discrimination, then so should I be able to!

I respect your views on homosexuality and appreciate your stance but what I don't get is when you say:

"I am not saying that they are mentally ill, I am saying the physical act of 'simulated sex' between two men, is."

A physical act itself cannot be mentally ill.
Either the act is immoral or the people that are performing it are "mentally ill" but the physical act itself cannot be mentally ill.

Maybe you meant they are immoral or mentally ill for what you consider to be a sick physical act ?

Anyway I think I understand your stance on same sex couples.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe:
I tried to start a reply but burst out laughing! Why didn't THEY think of that one?

If they are doing that then they should certainly check all Catholic priests and ministers of religion in general.

Originally Posted by :
But, a homosexual, who thinks that sticking his hard pecker up the sh*thole of another man who "consents" to this obscene act, is more than welcome to handle children if HE has been CRB checked?

Perhaps because it has nothing to do with it and would be completely discriminatory if he was not allowed to.
[Rep]