No testy tempered interruptions by judges in court

Judges, JPs, sheriffs (in Scotland), anyone presiding over a court, may not subject the other participants to interruptions, or to a level of testy temper that is not allowed to be shown back to them.

Everyone who is speaking shall be entitled to finish the sentence, and if they are in mid-explanation, to finish the explanation. The relevance of any explanation to the case may only be judged after it has been given and completed, not in an interruption made when it is still in progress.

It shalle never be contempt of court to stand up to browbeating, impatience, testiness, snapping, from the judge, by yourself treating the judge in exactly the same equal way in return. Thus shall the argument be kept fair.

Why is this idea important?

Judges, JPs, sheriffs (in Scotland), anyone presiding over a court, may not subject the other participants to interruptions, or to a level of testy temper that is not allowed to be shown back to them.

Everyone who is speaking shall be entitled to finish the sentence, and if they are in mid-explanation, to finish the explanation. The relevance of any explanation to the case may only be judged after it has been given and completed, not in an interruption made when it is still in progress.

It shalle never be contempt of court to stand up to browbeating, impatience, testiness, snapping, from the judge, by yourself treating the judge in exactly the same equal way in return. Thus shall the argument be kept fair.

All official answers must be committal not noncommittal

This applies to every answer given by a government minister or office, civil servant, MP, councillor etc, other public office or commission of any nature, or business answering an enquiry about problems with its product, inclduing lawyers.

Everything stated in every answer given in an official capacity, i.e. as part of these folks' jobs, must be definite about all facts involved. if total factual certainty does not exist, the extent to which it does must be stated definitely. The words "unfortuately", "regrettably", and all synonyms used similarly, should be banned. Phrases like "you feel" or "you consider", that take the committal factuality out of a sentence, should be banned, and provision made for any new such phrase that bureaucrats are seen to coin and use, to be banned too upon its existence being demonstrated.

If the recipient of the answer perceives that any statement in it is noncommittal, s/he will be entitled to write back stating and explaining how that is, and to demand, as an enforceable right, a reply where the writer of the statement has to show, word by word, that it is watertightly committal and definite.

Why is this idea important?

This applies to every answer given by a government minister or office, civil servant, MP, councillor etc, other public office or commission of any nature, or business answering an enquiry about problems with its product, inclduing lawyers.

Everything stated in every answer given in an official capacity, i.e. as part of these folks' jobs, must be definite about all facts involved. if total factual certainty does not exist, the extent to which it does must be stated definitely. The words "unfortuately", "regrettably", and all synonyms used similarly, should be banned. Phrases like "you feel" or "you consider", that take the committal factuality out of a sentence, should be banned, and provision made for any new such phrase that bureaucrats are seen to coin and use, to be banned too upon its existence being demonstrated.

If the recipient of the answer perceives that any statement in it is noncommittal, s/he will be entitled to write back stating and explaining how that is, and to demand, as an enforceable right, a reply where the writer of the statement has to show, word by word, that it is watertightly committal and definite.

that housing law shall consist only of clear facts that disprove their own opposites

This is to enact a blanket principle, that simply states: in all law concerning occupancy of your  home, as owner or tenant, every fact of law or point of law that is true shall be absolutely true with no shades of uncertainty, and shall disprove that its opposite is true.

This is to prevent manipulation and swindling by your solicitor. At present, there can be all sorts of complications arising from planning issues, certifying the completion of extensions, or "burdens", duties attached to a piece of land for murky reasons of its history. When these complications or any others arise, you are left to rely on your solicitor's opinion, with no definite reference point to say it is right or wrong, and solicitors are allowed to have different conflicting opinions on the same thing yet both count as right. This is manipulation, it leaves you with no entitlement to know for certain what the law is that you are trying to comply with.

These things are true in both the English and Scottish systems.

Why is this idea important?

This is to enact a blanket principle, that simply states: in all law concerning occupancy of your  home, as owner or tenant, every fact of law or point of law that is true shall be absolutely true with no shades of uncertainty, and shall disprove that its opposite is true.

This is to prevent manipulation and swindling by your solicitor. At present, there can be all sorts of complications arising from planning issues, certifying the completion of extensions, or "burdens", duties attached to a piece of land for murky reasons of its history. When these complications or any others arise, you are left to rely on your solicitor's opinion, with no definite reference point to say it is right or wrong, and solicitors are allowed to have different conflicting opinions on the same thing yet both count as right. This is manipulation, it leaves you with no entitlement to know for certain what the law is that you are trying to comply with.

These things are true in both the English and Scottish systems.

Personal status is never dependent on any losable document

To enact a principle that already follows by common sense from disability discrimination as a principle. That no person's status, as they move around, shall ever depend in any way on bearing a physical document that is capable of getting lost or stolen.

Human error exists, much as the Victorians wanted to believe otherwise. It is not a safe society if human error can cause devastation to your planned day and to the whole order of your life, such that you can't resume your routine life until you have reestablished your status somehow, it is not always obvious how and might incur great expense.

Obviously this is an extension of the repeal of identity cards, and is part of the case against them. But as should have been learned from the identity cards issue, this reasoning is not limited to identity cards, it applies to any form of bearing a document to prove your status.

If you have ever needed your birth certificate, say for a job, were you sure where it was or that itr was in your possession? Then you were relieved you could obtain a copy of it, not have your life mucked up irreversibly by loss of one copy. That could be different if you are a refugee or asylum seeker.

The lost documents issue applies to everyone, as human error applies to everyone. But disability discrimination comes into it too and helps to prove the argument – because there are disabilities that can make you more likely to lose a document. Dyspraxia and attention deficit include clumsiness at the "fine motor" level. A person's extent of physical dexterity, or capability to keep attention focussed, is never entirely their own fault even if you say "be careful". More physically serious conditions of jerks and fits here the body is not wholly under voluntary control, make a very visible issue out of small documents' losability. Folks with those conditions move around independently, rightly for still having their own lives under their own control. It follows that disability discrimination is done by any requirement ever to prove your status with a losable document. Think also of the learning diasabled.

This would have the effect of abolishing passports, but of course we still have to issue them so long as other countries have not adopted this fair principle and still require them. But it prevents us requiring them, and it is just blatantly nice and enlightened that this forces the immigration system to work liberally. The bigots' view just gets neatly totally overturned by the facts of human error that stand in its way.

Most noticeably in daily life, is that it would abolish tickets and physically borne passes on public transport.

By statistical chance tickets will sometimes get lost, and it gets very scary then. How fair is that to the victim of crime when a ticket gets stolen along with their money?  Transport systems breach public safety by not providing any simple committal guaranteed means whereby they will always get the passenger out of trouble in any situation around a lost or stolen ticket that is not the passenger's fault. e.g. I have seen a man put off a train at unstaffed station Rosyth, at 2226 at night, who wanted to be allowed to go to the staffed focal point of Edinburgh to seek a way out of his trouble. I made an urgent query to First Scotrail about this as a witness and I did not get an answer that made any foolproof commitment to provide anything for the passenger in such a situation. They left it wholly to the abusable discretion of often nasty train conductors.

When I was 21 I had an experience of stolen wallet at Carmarthen and a train conductor who was visibly an anti-young bigot turned very nasty and just not believing the situation was genuine, I got other station staff's backing in complaining against him and in them finding out what to do but it still involved me needing to have a third party to contact, which is mortifying and not at all certain, and them having to travel to a station and get charged extra for the service, and when they asked , what if I they were infirm and unable to make that journey, they got no answer but "oh well..um..er.."

This is, and always has been, flagrantly an abuse of the public in any society constituted to consider public safety. No matter how culturally accepted this situation is by habit, dating from the ruthless uncaringness of the nineteenth century, it is now unsustainable under scrutiny of responsibility to transport users, concerning: risking travellers' safety, and human fallibility, such as is always considered in road accident prevention systems, and minorities.

Why is this idea important?

To enact a principle that already follows by common sense from disability discrimination as a principle. That no person's status, as they move around, shall ever depend in any way on bearing a physical document that is capable of getting lost or stolen.

Human error exists, much as the Victorians wanted to believe otherwise. It is not a safe society if human error can cause devastation to your planned day and to the whole order of your life, such that you can't resume your routine life until you have reestablished your status somehow, it is not always obvious how and might incur great expense.

Obviously this is an extension of the repeal of identity cards, and is part of the case against them. But as should have been learned from the identity cards issue, this reasoning is not limited to identity cards, it applies to any form of bearing a document to prove your status.

If you have ever needed your birth certificate, say for a job, were you sure where it was or that itr was in your possession? Then you were relieved you could obtain a copy of it, not have your life mucked up irreversibly by loss of one copy. That could be different if you are a refugee or asylum seeker.

The lost documents issue applies to everyone, as human error applies to everyone. But disability discrimination comes into it too and helps to prove the argument – because there are disabilities that can make you more likely to lose a document. Dyspraxia and attention deficit include clumsiness at the "fine motor" level. A person's extent of physical dexterity, or capability to keep attention focussed, is never entirely their own fault even if you say "be careful". More physically serious conditions of jerks and fits here the body is not wholly under voluntary control, make a very visible issue out of small documents' losability. Folks with those conditions move around independently, rightly for still having their own lives under their own control. It follows that disability discrimination is done by any requirement ever to prove your status with a losable document. Think also of the learning diasabled.

This would have the effect of abolishing passports, but of course we still have to issue them so long as other countries have not adopted this fair principle and still require them. But it prevents us requiring them, and it is just blatantly nice and enlightened that this forces the immigration system to work liberally. The bigots' view just gets neatly totally overturned by the facts of human error that stand in its way.

Most noticeably in daily life, is that it would abolish tickets and physically borne passes on public transport.

By statistical chance tickets will sometimes get lost, and it gets very scary then. How fair is that to the victim of crime when a ticket gets stolen along with their money?  Transport systems breach public safety by not providing any simple committal guaranteed means whereby they will always get the passenger out of trouble in any situation around a lost or stolen ticket that is not the passenger's fault. e.g. I have seen a man put off a train at unstaffed station Rosyth, at 2226 at night, who wanted to be allowed to go to the staffed focal point of Edinburgh to seek a way out of his trouble. I made an urgent query to First Scotrail about this as a witness and I did not get an answer that made any foolproof commitment to provide anything for the passenger in such a situation. They left it wholly to the abusable discretion of often nasty train conductors.

When I was 21 I had an experience of stolen wallet at Carmarthen and a train conductor who was visibly an anti-young bigot turned very nasty and just not believing the situation was genuine, I got other station staff's backing in complaining against him and in them finding out what to do but it still involved me needing to have a third party to contact, which is mortifying and not at all certain, and them having to travel to a station and get charged extra for the service, and when they asked , what if I they were infirm and unable to make that journey, they got no answer but "oh well..um..er.."

This is, and always has been, flagrantly an abuse of the public in any society constituted to consider public safety. No matter how culturally accepted this situation is by habit, dating from the ruthless uncaringness of the nineteenth century, it is now unsustainable under scrutiny of responsibility to transport users, concerning: risking travellers' safety, and human fallibility, such as is always considered in road accident prevention systems, and minorities.

Publishing of any evidence of public dangers and harm, by automatic right

Suppose you have personal knowledge, from experience or otherwise, of any type of harm or damage that is being done to some people. Suppose this harm, either the whole thing or one particular aspect of it, are not already widely publicised. Then you should have an automatic right to have your information published.
 
If you are capable of writing one, this means a widely circulated book, with an automatic right to public flagging of its existence, shelf space in the shops, and orderability. If a video or website or simply getting spoken to by the media suit you better, then those should be your entitlements alternatively. But book is still the best idea, the most solid type of document. "Narrowcasting" options are not a solution to this issue, for this idea is about making a danger widely known.
 
The idea is about dangers that any section of society is exposed to, dangers that result from ideas or policies that are being practised. It is not about isolated crimes, except when these evidence dangers that a policy or theory allows to exist, hence that can happen to other folks too.
 
An example is the dangers that children can be placed in by supposedly expert decisions taken about them by school teachers in authority over them, deciding on the child's level of ability at school work and the methods used to force the child to perform at a higher level than they can, where nobody will listen to the child concerning their own limits of ability. The sign-and-punishment regime taken towards schoolwork in the authoritarian backlash of the 1980s has been proved damaging by the more recent understanding of factors like attention deficit that were just not being recognised by authority before, and often enough still are not. Nobody can be sure that all these forms of child harm have been stopped, until every personally experienced aspects of them, known to anyone, particularly to persons with childhood memory of being the object of them, have been published by automatic right. Hence it is a matter of child protection already existing, that they should be.
 
As yet, the fact that children could be put in a position with a life-threatening scale of impossibility has not registered at all with the media and has remained totally absent from the politics of education for 30 years. In a society as frantic as ours about child protection, any decision maker who goes against automatic public exposure and scrutiny of such facts, commits a crime of endangering every child in the country.
 
This is just one example. Others, affecting adults in the same way, could be over questions of medical safety, the effectiveness and consequences of every prescribed medicine, local effects of industrial or nuclear pollution, conditions in care of the elderly, dangers caused by long working hours, other questions of industrial and mechanical safety, mean practises by insurers, short cuts by police and lawyers and the courts, bullying and violence, food safety, housing scandals of all types and housing policies failing to prevent them. Most importantly, it guarantees a broadcast scale of hearing to factual evidence on issues of safety that are not listed here because nobody, except the few who know of them, have thought of them.
 
The publishing's content would be defended by the same right as public interest journalism. It would have a responsibility to evidence its own accuracy, and not to make personal accusations out of nowhere. When what you publish is looked at, after it has been published, it will be a crime to have laid claim to use the power without having a genuine issue of widely unrecognised danger to expose. So anyone wishing to use this power will have to think responsibly before they use it. Hence it will not flood society with silly made up accusations.

Why is this idea important?

Suppose you have personal knowledge, from experience or otherwise, of any type of harm or damage that is being done to some people. Suppose this harm, either the whole thing or one particular aspect of it, are not already widely publicised. Then you should have an automatic right to have your information published.
 
If you are capable of writing one, this means a widely circulated book, with an automatic right to public flagging of its existence, shelf space in the shops, and orderability. If a video or website or simply getting spoken to by the media suit you better, then those should be your entitlements alternatively. But book is still the best idea, the most solid type of document. "Narrowcasting" options are not a solution to this issue, for this idea is about making a danger widely known.
 
The idea is about dangers that any section of society is exposed to, dangers that result from ideas or policies that are being practised. It is not about isolated crimes, except when these evidence dangers that a policy or theory allows to exist, hence that can happen to other folks too.
 
An example is the dangers that children can be placed in by supposedly expert decisions taken about them by school teachers in authority over them, deciding on the child's level of ability at school work and the methods used to force the child to perform at a higher level than they can, where nobody will listen to the child concerning their own limits of ability. The sign-and-punishment regime taken towards schoolwork in the authoritarian backlash of the 1980s has been proved damaging by the more recent understanding of factors like attention deficit that were just not being recognised by authority before, and often enough still are not. Nobody can be sure that all these forms of child harm have been stopped, until every personally experienced aspects of them, known to anyone, particularly to persons with childhood memory of being the object of them, have been published by automatic right. Hence it is a matter of child protection already existing, that they should be.
 
As yet, the fact that children could be put in a position with a life-threatening scale of impossibility has not registered at all with the media and has remained totally absent from the politics of education for 30 years. In a society as frantic as ours about child protection, any decision maker who goes against automatic public exposure and scrutiny of such facts, commits a crime of endangering every child in the country.
 
This is just one example. Others, affecting adults in the same way, could be over questions of medical safety, the effectiveness and consequences of every prescribed medicine, local effects of industrial or nuclear pollution, conditions in care of the elderly, dangers caused by long working hours, other questions of industrial and mechanical safety, mean practises by insurers, short cuts by police and lawyers and the courts, bullying and violence, food safety, housing scandals of all types and housing policies failing to prevent them. Most importantly, it guarantees a broadcast scale of hearing to factual evidence on issues of safety that are not listed here because nobody, except the few who know of them, have thought of them.
 
The publishing's content would be defended by the same right as public interest journalism. It would have a responsibility to evidence its own accuracy, and not to make personal accusations out of nowhere. When what you publish is looked at, after it has been published, it will be a crime to have laid claim to use the power without having a genuine issue of widely unrecognised danger to expose. So anyone wishing to use this power will have to think responsibly before they use it. Hence it will not flood society with silly made up accusations.

Publishing of any evidence of public dangers and harm, by automatic right

dangers that a policy or theory allows to exist, hence that can happen to other folks too.

 
An example is the dangers that children can be placed in by supposedly expert decisions taken about them by school teachers in authority over them, deciding on the child's level of ability at school work and the methods used to force the child to perform at a higher level than they can, where nobody will listen to the child concerning their own limits of ability. The sign-and-punishment regime taken towards schoolwork in the authoritarian backlash of the 1980s has been proved damaging by the more recent understanding of factors like attention deficit that were just not being recognised by authority before, and often enough still are not. Nobody can be sure that all these forms of child harm have been stopped, until every personally experienced aspects of them, known to anyone, particularly to persons with childhood memory of being the object of them, have been published by automatic right. Hence it is a matter of child protection already existing, that they should be.
 
As yet, the fact that children could be put in a position with a life-threatening scale of impossibility has not registered at all with the media and has remained totally absent from the politics of education for 30 years. In a society as frantic as ours about child protection, any decision maker who goes against automatic public exposure and scrutiny of such facts, commits a crime of endangering every child in the country.
 
This is just one example. Others, affecting adults in the same way, could be over questions of medical safety, the effectiveness and consequences of every prescribed medicine, local effects of industrial or nuclear pollution, conditions in care of the elderly, dangers caused by long working hours, other questions of industrial and mechanical safety, mean practises by insurers, short cuts by police and lawyers and the courts, bullying and violence, food safety, housing scandals of all types and housing policies failing to prevent them. Most importantly, it guarantees a broadcast scale of hearing to factual evidence on issues of safety that are not listed here because nobody, except the few who know of them, have thought of them.
 
The publishing's content would be defended by the same right as public interest journalism. It would have a responsibility to evidence its own accuracy, and not to make personal accusations out of nowhere. When what you publish is looked at, after it has been published, it will be a crime to have laid claim to use the power without having a genuine issue of widely unrecognised danger to expose. So anyone wishing to use this power will have to think responsibly before they use it. Hence it will not flood society with silly made up accusations.

Why is this idea important?

dangers that a policy or theory allows to exist, hence that can happen to other folks too.

 
An example is the dangers that children can be placed in by supposedly expert decisions taken about them by school teachers in authority over them, deciding on the child's level of ability at school work and the methods used to force the child to perform at a higher level than they can, where nobody will listen to the child concerning their own limits of ability. The sign-and-punishment regime taken towards schoolwork in the authoritarian backlash of the 1980s has been proved damaging by the more recent understanding of factors like attention deficit that were just not being recognised by authority before, and often enough still are not. Nobody can be sure that all these forms of child harm have been stopped, until every personally experienced aspects of them, known to anyone, particularly to persons with childhood memory of being the object of them, have been published by automatic right. Hence it is a matter of child protection already existing, that they should be.
 
As yet, the fact that children could be put in a position with a life-threatening scale of impossibility has not registered at all with the media and has remained totally absent from the politics of education for 30 years. In a society as frantic as ours about child protection, any decision maker who goes against automatic public exposure and scrutiny of such facts, commits a crime of endangering every child in the country.
 
This is just one example. Others, affecting adults in the same way, could be over questions of medical safety, the effectiveness and consequences of every prescribed medicine, local effects of industrial or nuclear pollution, conditions in care of the elderly, dangers caused by long working hours, other questions of industrial and mechanical safety, mean practises by insurers, short cuts by police and lawyers and the courts, bullying and violence, food safety, housing scandals of all types and housing policies failing to prevent them. Most importantly, it guarantees a broadcast scale of hearing to factual evidence on issues of safety that are not listed here because nobody, except the few who know of them, have thought of them.
 
The publishing's content would be defended by the same right as public interest journalism. It would have a responsibility to evidence its own accuracy, and not to make personal accusations out of nowhere. When what you publish is looked at, after it has been published, it will be a crime to have laid claim to use the power without having a genuine issue of widely unrecognised danger to expose. So anyone wishing to use this power will have to think responsibly before they use it. Hence it will not flood society with silly made up accusations.