A 'life sentence' has NEVER meant locking someone away for life. The principle of a 'life sentence' is actually one of the most advanced in legal punishments.

What the sentence was designed to mean is that the state imprisoned such people as long as experts deemed necessary TO PROTECT THE REST OF US and the, on release, the State takes responsibility for monitoring such people as long as possible.

GET A CLUE. Most of us think that the WORST criminals are those that go around using violence against ordinary people. SUCH CRIMINALS ARE THE CANCER OF ANY SOCIETY.

Far from increasing punishment for criminals that prey on the weak and vunerable, Blair has ensured that such people are FAR LESS LIKELY to go to prison. No, Blair's prisons are for protesters, people in debt, muslims, people with BDSM fetishes (coming to a computer near you soon), people who have genuine road accidents, and people who rob Blair's business supporters, regardless of whether violence is used.

Prison is almost NEVER applied to those who make our lives a living hell. If a young mugger goes down, it has to be after literally hundreds of previous events (and here we are talking about the numbers that the State is aware of, not of actual crimes), and only after multiple trivial penalties have been applied first.

'ventura' YOU can solve the issue of at least one mugger. Go find one of your violent buddies, and promise them that they can exclusively mug YOU once a week. You, of course, promise never to complain, or report said mugging to the police.

Ordinary people of all political positions want the criminals that prey on them to receive heavy punishments. Life for ordinary people should never be made a hell by those twisted enough to take advantage of thuggish violent behaviour.

So called do-gooders are actually do-evilers. People who know that by subjecting the sheep to unbearable leverls of pain, the mind of the sheep can be manipulated to support vile political movements, like Blair and his New Reich party.

Of course, young criminals should be taken into State care NOT to stigmatise them, but to reform them. They should be helped, but also warned that if they choose to be adult criminals that operate by preying on ordinary people, they will be targetted as a priority (we wish).

Some of you may point to nations where all crime is lightly punished, but you should look at every aspect of their society. Until the UK becomes decent enough to copy EVERY aspect of more enlightened nations, going easy on the scum that target all of us will simply accelerate the rate at which the scum increases, feeding the mechanisms that push the population of the UK to empower extremist political leadership.

I am not saying that fighting crime like this is a priority, because it is not. The crime we face is a symptom of an illness that our nation sufferes from, and that illness has a name, Blair. People, young and old, see the genocide that Blair has inflicted on multiple lands, and some figure that any activity short of murder has become an acceptable choice in their daily lives.

Sadly, Blair is persuading low crime nations like Japan, Germany, Australia, Holland and Canada to emulate the extremist racist pro-aggressive-war position of the UK. Low crime rates (for crimes that hurt ordinary people) DO NOT HELP BLAIR. A fist pounding daily into the faces of ordinary people as they try to live decent lives DOES HELP BLAIR.

I do understand what life in English law means,then and now.And i do understand that the Blair types are victims too,ongoing from the Thatcher types.But i don't understand why you think i have violent friends.Which i do not.Perhaps you would like to reply again less angry?