Well….. lets start with the following

A written constitution.
A bill of rights.
An elected second chamber.
Excess to the law for people on modest means.
Revision of the tax laws. simplyfying the process and closing all loopholes for the rich.
Elected Chief Constables.
End to the “first past the post system”.

As for any form of capital punishment. I thought we had grown up a little as a society and got away from all that barbaric nonsence.

If you ever have to resort to such actions it just means society has failed completly and we are going back hundreds of years.

With regard to jail sentences, just look at the US system. This has resulted in the vast majority of cases being settled by “plea bargin”. This has in turn resulted in lots of miscarriges of justice and plenty of people wrongfully imprisioned since they become afaid of challenging crazy long sentences.

Lets concentrate on getting people back to work. If people are working and earning then crime will reduce.

A lot of the problems you mention here are because of the remedies that you suggest. Having elected Police or Court officials inevitably results in a race for who can be ‘toughest on crime’, resulting in absurd sentences and a desire to convict not based on evidence but to keep the statistics looking good for the re-election.

Also, I wouldn’t be too quick to get rid of the House of Lords, they are merely an advisory house made up of experts, and their input is often valuable. Given that the Commons can override them anyway with the Parliament Act, getting in more politicians who are purely there for the gravy train for our upper house would be pointless.

That’s a moot point. Using this logic we can cancel the existence of the United States, Peru, Brazil, Mexico and pretty much all other American countries right away.

It’s pointless to discuss whether Argentina should return Patagonia today because there is no legal entity to return it to, let alone a legal entity that would raise any claims. So what’s the whole Patagonia argumentation about, then?

I’m pointing out the ridiculousness of Argentina singling out Britain for ‘colonialism’ as a matter of convenience. If they are so against it, why not support native Americans? They still exist on reservations in the United States, and the treaties they made with the US government were repeatedly broken and their land stolen. So does Argentina care about righting a historical wrong or is this just the flimsy excuse they give for something about which they otherwise have nothing to complain about?

What state/country of the mentioned natives are you referring to?

The fact is that Patagonia was annexed by Argentina, control wrested from the natives that lived there. Even if they did not have a formal ‘state’ in the legal sense, this is still clearly a form of colonialism.

The fact that Argentina is willing to call out the UK for settling otherwise uninhabited islands but to ignore its own past transgressions reeks of hypocrisy. If you want to declare an end to colonialism that’s fine, but it means having to give up your own colonial possessions.

Mods – shouldn’t this have moved to GD by now?

Very poor reasoning, if you ask me. Your pseudo-funny tricks with Fireman Sam do not really help it..

The fact that the people want to live there all want so stay British is poor reasoning?

As for the British giving the islands ‘back’ to Argentina (their claim is highly dubious), maybe we should consider it when they give Patagonia back to the natives they conquered to steal it from.

Or are you only willing to hold the UK to this standard and not Argentina?

Surely F35A for the RAF and “54” F35C for the navy??

The F35A doesn’t make sense for the UK.

For a start, it uses the boom air to air refueling system that the UK doesn’t train or have the equipment for. The F-35B and C use probe and drogue, like existing RAF types.

Secondly, having two types would mean a larger pool of spare parts would be needed, as well as different flight and maintenance training. A single fleet of Bs or Cs would simplify this immensely, allow aircraft with less carrier landings left to be used from land bases, extending their service lives, give the FAA and RAF a capacity to pool aircraft and much more.

Wasn’t there a film about him fairly recently? I think he was played by Andy Serkis.

Surely this can only be from paranoia?

Wouldn’t the most likely targets (ie barracks, fuel and munitions dumps, artillery sites etc) be nowhere near Pyongyang?