Cutting Crime Is Surprisingly Easy – Here’s How to Do It

Not one political party has a serious programme to end the blight of daily crime ruining our lives. They need to read this!

BRITISH PATRIOT’S SUBSTACK

This website is a veritable treasure house of articles covering all the big issues of the day, from the ‘problem’ of Northern Ireland after Brexit (spoiler: it isn’t a problem at all) to how to cut immigration, from Net Zero madness to the US-Iran war, and with regular analyses of British politics that cannot be beaten anywhere. Yes, if you take your time to look at the back catalogue of articles on these pages, all as accurate and as relevant now as the day they were written, you will find the solutions to all of the problems the UK is facing. And today I am going to add ‘How To End Crime’ to the list.

Well, ‘end crime’ might be a tad optimistic, but certainly end crime as experienced by most people on a daily basis. Given that no party has been able to deliver this, you might think that it’s not truly possible, but that isn’t the case. It is quite easy actually, but it does require careful planning and joined up thinking. Just because it’s easy doesn’t mean that it’s simple.

Of course defeating crime requires a full range of solutions. There is no one single magic bullet. There are many different crimes and many different criminals, and so just as you wouldn’t play a round of golf, with all the different holes and types of shots needed, with just a single club, so you can’t tackle the wide-ranging problem of crime without a wide range of policies. So here they are:

1. Illegal immigrants

The first and most obvious thing you need to do is deport all the illegal immigrants, which includes those who arrived legally but overstayed their visa, as well as all the bogus asylum seekers (which means all asylum seekers, since the UK is not the nearest safe country to any of them and they are all bogus). Yes, I realise this may sound obvious, but no government has actually done this, have they?

All illegal immigrants are criminals (the clue is in the word “illegal”!), and in addition many engage in shoplifting and sexual assaults – and sometimes even murder. And as I’ve explained elsewhere (as I’ve said, do read all the old articles!) deporting immigrants (whether illegal or not, and including asylum seekers) is not difficult.

Once you remove all their legal protections (which Reform, to its credit, has said it will do), then the only immigrants you are left with are (i) those whose countries are reluctant to take back and (ii) those whose countries you do not know (because they threw away their passport and refuse to say). The first problem is solved by imposing severe financial sanctions against the offending countries: ban all visas, all foreign aid, all remittances (which are worth many times more than foreign aid but are ignored by all politicians, including those of Reform) and ban all money transfers by any bank (all of which have branches in the City and are therefore subject to UK laws) of any money into or out of that country (which will ruin whatever economy they may have in a week). Trump has shown that economic sanctions work in getting countries to take deportees.

As for those immigrants who refuse to reveal their country of origin, you simply put them all in a very austere and basic prison camp, with no support or amenities of any kind, until they own up and agree to return voluntarily to their home country – or simply to go and seek asylum elsewhere. The camp could be either in some remote part of Scotland (or even the Falkland Islands!), or in some dirt-poor African country (like South Sudan) happy to do the job very cheaply.

2. Immigrant criminals

Of course it’s not just the illegal immigrants who need to be deported, but all immigrants who commit crimes. Everyone knows that Blacks and Asians are the most dangerous, violent and criminal members of the population. Orientals are much less criminally inclined, and those who are generally restrict any such activities to within their own communities (and the Japanese are the most law-abiding race of all).

It is already the law that foreign-born criminals sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment or more should automatically be deported, but not only is this threshold too high (given that most criminals receive shorter sentences), not only do these criminals often avoid deportation by arguing that this would breach their ‘human rights’, not only does this not apply to refugees, not only are those who came as children or who have lived here for many years, or who have acquired British citizenship, exempt, but what is also happening is that left-wing judges are deliberately giving immigrant criminals – even those guilty of serious crimes – sentences just under 12 months, in order to sabotage the deportation process.

That is why I propose that all foreign-born criminals, guilty of any crime, whatever the sentence, should be deported – with no right of appeal of any kind. If they have acquired British citizenship this should be revoked. Foreign-born criminal scum are not welcome. Full stop.

But we need to go further. Because sadly, second-generation immigrants – those born here to parents who arrived from abroad – are often more arrogant, more entitled and more aggressive than their parents, and hence more likely to commit crimes. So we need to extend the automatic deportation rule to these immigrants too. If a second-generation immigrant is found guilty of a crime, any crime, they need to be deported to the land of their origin. Axel Rudakubana, the sub-human monster who killed those three little girls in Southport, is a second-generation immigrant who had a history of carrying knives and violent assault. If he had been deported years ago those poor girls would be alive today. It is true that Rudakubana was a child at the time of his earlier offences, and that is why, in such cases (where the offender is under the age of 17) I propose that the parents be deported together with their criminal child.

Of course these criminal second-generation immigrants would first need to be stripped of their British nationality, but that is not a problem. They can easily acquire their parents’ nationality (which would be much more difficult for third-generation immigrants to do and which is why I exclude them), and there is solid legal precedent for stripping UK citizens of their British passport. The most obvious example is Shamima Begum who went to Syria to join ISIS and who has been stripped of her British nationality and not allowed to return. And last year a former policeman, Mark Bullen, a law-abiding British citizen of good character, who is currently living peacefully with his Russian-born wife in St Petersburg, was suddenly stripped of his British passport with no reason given other than the statement that our disgusting Pakistani Home Secretary deemed it “conducive to the public good”! And he was told that if he tried to appeal “the trial will be closed and secret. We won’t show you the evidence. You won’t know what exactly you’re accused of”. This is utterly Kafkaesque and is far more authoritarian than anything I am suggesting!

3. Islamic terrorists

It has been revealed that MI5 is currently trying to monitor over 1,000 dangerous Islamic extremists considered “active” terrorist threats. There are also another 40,000 or so muslim threats not considered quite so urgent, and around 900 new cases of suspected dangerous Islamist extremism reported each year to Prevent. This workload is clearly too great for our security services to deal with (to say nothing of the cost involved!) and so therefore many potential terrorists are slipping through the net and going unwatched – such as Rudakubana who was referred to Prevent but was ignored.

I propose that any suspected Islamist extremist against whom there is any credible evidence (which would certainly include all 1,000 deemed to be active threats) should be deported. Nobody who cares about saving the lives of innocent British citizens can object.

I know what the far-left will say. They will try to muddy the waters and say ‘look over there – a squirrel!‘ pointing to the number of referrals to Prevent of people deemed ‘far-right extremists’. It’s a LIE. It’s done to show the muslim invaders that Prevent is ‘even-handed’. But you need to understand that any patriot can now be – and is – called ‘far-right’. And yes, I mean that literally, since the British Army actually lists “Describe themselves as ‘Patriots’” as one of the “extreme right wing indicators and warnings” that they “look out for”. Yes, seriously, the Army thinks that patriotism is a sign of being a right-wing extremist!

And Prevent themselves suggest that being concerned about the “erosion of British values” is an indicator of ‘far-right extremism’, together with watching, er, Yes Minister or The Dam Busters. I kid you not. No wonder that, as the Daily Mail reported: “A damning public report warned in 2023 that Prevent had been experiencing a ‘loss of focus’ as it had become distracted by far right cases, rather than concentrating on Islamists. In his long-awaited 188-page report, William Shawcross claimed too many resources were being focused on right-wing terrorism rather than its Islamist equivalent”.

There is NO genuine ‘far-right extremism’ in Britain. The only dangerous extremists are the muslim loonies, and we should be identifying and deporting them. All of them!

4. Minimum sentences

These measures will radically reduce the amount of imported crime, but let’s not kid ourselves – we need to really, really, stamp down on our home-grown criminals too. The thing you need to understand, however, is that the vast majority of crimes are committed by just a very small number of people. As a general rule, around 1% of adults commit 50% of all crimes. Lock them up and you halve crime overnight!

But the problem is that they are not locked up. On average, around 20,000 people a year are convicted of a crime but not incarcerated – despite having more than 25 previous convictions! The answer here is to introduce new sentencing rules. If you are convicted of murder you automatically receive a life sentence. The judge can, if he wants, impose a minimum period before the convict can apply for parole, but the point is that the life sentence is automatic. We need a similar system for other convictions too, with automatic minimum sentences that a judge cannot circumvent.

I’m not suggesting that all crimes would fall under this rule, but many of the more worrying ones should. So if you are convicted of burglary, or a crime of violence, or theft from the person (eg, phone snatching or pickpocketing or demanding money or expensive watches with menaces), or car theft, or even shoplifting (which should be viewed as a genuinely serious crime), for instance, you should ALWAYS go to prison. ALWAYS. And there should be NO parole. You serve the time you are sentenced to.

We can debate what the minimum sentences should be in each case, but there should be no possibility of a suspended sentence, or community order, or fine, or any other namby-pamby nonsense like that. And the minimum sentences should be become increasingly longer for repeat offenders. Let’s take burglary as an example. I would suggest a minimum of two years for a first offence, five years for a second offence, and 10 years for any subsequent offences.

Critics will say that we would need to spend billions for more prison capacity, but this is not true, since if my earlier proposals about deporting foreign criminals are implemented there will be more than enough space for our native criminals.

5. Left-wing judges

Despite the introduction of minimum sentences for many offences, it is inevitable that left-wing judges will try to subvert the legislation, and will impose weak sentences on their favoured groups (mainly immigrants), allowing these to avoid imprisonment and reoffend with impunity. Judges are LEFT-WING SCUM. Let’s be very clear about this. They protect immigrants and persecute Whites and patriots. That’s what they always do, and this is not going to change until they are sacked.

So that’s what needs to be done: the widespread sacking of scum judges.

There is a little-known method whereby this can be done now: by a motion passed by both the House of Commons and the Lords. But this never happens, because our politicians are also left-wing scum. And even if Reform won the next general election and had a majority in the Commons they would not have a majority in the Lords. So they have a choice: either change the law so that a motion to sack a judge only needs the approval of the Commons, or simply give this power to the Lord Chancellor.

Before that Britain-hating piece of shit Tony Blair eviscerated and undermined the powers of the British government through his Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lord Chancellor was the head of the judiciary, appointing and disciplining judges, as well as sitting as senior judge in the House of Lords. But Blair stripped all these powers away from him, and created a hodgepodge mess, with different rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland, with all control over judges transferred to left-wing quangos, and with the creation of a US-style Supreme Court from which the Lord Chancellor is barred. It is a ghastly and anti-British subversion of our judicial system.

My preference would therefore be for the Lord Chancellor to once more be given control of our judiciary – full control. He should appoint and sack judges (and magistrates), and he should oversee any legal attempts to overturn or undermine government legislation.

The left-wing argument against this is that it undermines ‘judicial independence’, but this is nonsense. Firstly, it is nonsense because when the Left talks about ‘judicial independence’, all they are talking about is independence from the government. But what really matters is independence of thought. And this does not exist. All judges have the same left-wing beliefs, and allow these beliefs to corrupt their sentencing. Yes, judges are politically corrupt. And this needs to change. And the only way to change this is to sack them.

The second reason left-wing talk of ‘judicial independence’ is nonsense is because this is fundamentally undemocratic. In a democracy the people (the ‘demos’) must be in control. They exert that control by electing the politicians that put forward the policies that they support. The politicians then put those policies into law. But if those laws – and hence the policies that the people want – are blocked or subverted or undermined by unelected judges, that is clearly a complete negation of the wishes of the people and hence of democracy itself.

So to have a true democracy the judges must be under the control of the democratically-elected government. And that is therefore what I want to see happen.

6. Policing

Even the best laws, and a judiciary that enforces these, will achieve nothing unless the police do their job and arrest the criminals in the first place. Right now, the police are a sick joke. They prefer to promote homosexuality and multiculturalism, painting their cars in rainbow colours and dancing in the streets like retarded monkeys at Black or Pride festivals, rather than protect the law-abiding majority. This has to change.

The first thing you need to do is change the Chief Constables, in order to appoint men who understand that the police exist to enforce the law and protect decent British citizens – not to act as the enforcers of left-wing ideologies. If British citizens are protesting against immigrants in their locality, for instance, then the police should side with the British, not the filthy invaders.

And this mentality then needs to cascade all the way down to the bobbies on the streets. Of which there should be more. And as with the judges and Chief Constables, any policemen who do not fully support this new policy must be sacked and replaced. And let us have proper policeMEN, strong and authoritative, capable of tackling criminals. We need to return to traditional height and fitness standards, so that policemen can patrol the streets singly, rather than in pairs – which is obviously a less efficient use of manpower (as it halves the number of streets that can be patrolled) and only became the norm when women were sent out onto the streets, as these had to be accompanied by a male officer for their protection.

Once we have proper policemen, willing and able to enforce the law and protect the public, they then need to adopt a ‘Zero Tolerance’ model of policing. We need an intensive stop-and-search of Black youths throughout the country, and we need to arrest anyone who commits any crime of theft or violence. If you arrest (and imprison) those who commit crimes such as shoplifting, anti-social behaviour or fare evasion, for instance, then this has two highly positive results. Firstly, it takes these vermin out of circulation (and as we have seen, it’s a small number of criminals who commit the vast majority of offences), so this will quickly reduce the crime rate in the local area. And secondly, it sends a very strong signal to anyone else who might have been considering acting in a similar way that this is not a good idea.

The other thing the police should do is engage in entrapment. Instead of waiting for a crime to occur and then hoping that the criminal was dumb enough to leave enough evidence behind to identify them with, it’s much better to lay a trap so that you can catch them in the act. This is a perfectly legal and legitimate police tactic, in case you are wondering. So, for instance, leave some conspicuous and tempting packages outside front doors, smartphones on the pavement tables of cafes or pubs, or bicycles unattended and unlocked on busy streets – when thieves take the bait, the police take the thieves.

7. Self-defence

While all these policies will dramatically cut crime rates, the sad truth is that there is no way to guarantee that you will never be the victim of crime. The police cannot be everywhere, always there to protect you. So it is imperative that we be allowed to have the means to protect ourselves. When criminals carry knives, forcing the general public to go around unarmed and defenceless is effectively condemning them to be attacked, raped, robbed and murdered.

“When guns are outlawed only the outlaws have guns” is a well-known truism which highlights the stupidity of trying to disarm everyone. You just make the innocent more vulnerable and give more power to the criminals. It is so illogical that only the most stupid left-wing nutters support this policy. Unfortunately they are the ones in government. And our supposed ‘right-wing’ politicians are no better. I’ve never heard Nigel Farage, for instance, talk about giving people the ability to defend themselves.

Now I’m not suggesting that everyone be allowed to go around armed with a gun – even though there is evidence from the US to show that where the ‘concealed carry’ of guns is allowed (with permits to exclude those with a criminal record) murder rates and other violent crimes have fallen. This is probably a step too far politically here in Britain, given how brainwashed the British sheep have been by decades of left-wing propaganda. But I am suggesting that we all be allowed to carry pepper spray with us for self-defence purposes.

This is not a far-fetched idea at all. In fact, it is the law in other European countries. There, you can just go to a shop and buy a can of pepper spray over the counter. And there is no evidence to suggest that criminals use it. Why would they when they have knives? No, it is used for personal protection. If everyone else around the world can defend themselves with pepper spray – which is non-lethal and causes no long-term harm – then why can’t we? Why doesn’t Farage support this?

And think of the many other ways pepper spray could be used to fight crime and save lives: Shop staff would be able to tackle shoplifters; Tube and train staff could arrest fare dodgers; Teachers could protect the children in their care – imagine how those poor little girls in Southport could have been saved from that African monster if only their teachers had had some pepper spray.

8. Death penalty

I have left this to the end as it is probably the most controversial of my proposals, even though opinion polls show that a majority of the public support the restoration of the death penalty – especially for child murders and acts of terrorism. So why not begin with a law that imposes the death penalty on these criminals, and then see if there is any support for an extension at a later date?

There are many arguments in favour of the death penalty:

• There is the straightforward issue of democracy: if you really believe in democracy then you should allow the people to have what they want. Those who oppose the death penalty are marxist totalitarians who spit on the people and believe in their absolute right to ignore the public’s wishes while sneering at them with arrogant disdain.

• Then there is the deterrent effect. Now look, I completely accept that this may be limited, since terrorists such as suicide bombers are willing to die for their cause – but I wonder how many of their conspirators, who stay back while pushing their more extreme comrades to kill themselves for the cause, would be quite so willing to take part in this sort of crime if they knew that the death penalty would extend to all those involved? And child killers are not so happy to die, and would surely think twice if they knew that the rope awaited them. Even if only a handful of such evil crimes were deterred, it would be worthwhile.

• There are also the financial considerations. Category A prisoners such as terrorists and child killers cost over £60,000 a year to detain. Most will be held for 40-50 years, meaning they will each cost us some £3 million in total. What a complete and total waste of money. Why throw so much money away on people who are so vile, so dangerous, so irredeemable, so worthless? Think of all the far better uses to which that money could be put – whether it is to fund healthcare for our sick, our elderly or our little children, or on police to protect us and keep us safe. The point is that detaining and caring for the worst killers in the country is not a good use of money we so desperately need elsewhere.

• And finally there is the moral justification. The Bible tells us that we should be guided by the principle of Lex Talionis – ie. retribution in kind. Far from being harsh or cruel, it is the very opposite. It is designed to be restrained and fair, just and limited. It tells us not to be excessive in our punishment, but to simply respond to the crime that has been committed. The penalty should, in other words, be proportionate and equitable. So Exodus tells us that if someone commits any harm “you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe”. Yes, that’s right: “life for life”. And this is such an important message that it is repeated in Deuteronomy. So imposing the death penalty on someone who has himself taken another’s life is exactly what we are exhorted to do in the Bible. It is therefore the moral imperative.

So there you have it. The death penalty is right politically, democratically, logically, financially and morally. The only argument I ever hear against it is the horny old whine ‘what if you make a mistake?’ But that is very easily resolved: simply stipulate that this will only be enacted where the evidence is irrefutable – such as in the Southport case. Once you do this there is no valid objection any more. The death penalty should definitely be available for the most heinous murders. But not one political party is willing to put this forward. How disappointing.

.

So there you have it: my eight-point plan to defeat crime. The famous mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras believed that eight was a lucky number and represented victory and prosperity, and I have no doubt that the policies I have set out above will finally allow decent people to be victorious over the criminals who plague our society. What do YOU think? Have I missed anything out? Do let me know in the comments!

———–

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE (it’s free!)!

Thank you 🙂

---

This article (CUTTING CRIME IS SURPRISINGLY EASY – HERE’S HOW TO DO IT) was created and published by British Patriot’s Substack and is republished here under “Fair Use”

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.