SIMPLIFY TRAIN FARES

The Government needs to force the rail companies to simplify rail fares and simplify the rules about using them. There should only be one fare whether you are jumping on the train without buying a ticket in advance or with a ticket you have already reserved your set for. If they want to get people travelling they have to make it as simple, easy and as cheap as possible. The train fares are also crazily expensive and it's no surprise people use their cars.

Take the story on the link below about a couple forced to pay a fine for getting off two stops too early. It is absolutely disgusting and makes my blood boil that the train company are actually able to fine them a ridiculous amount of money for that. It's not right, not fair, doesn't apply any common sense and puts people back into cars when the Government wants us out of them.

And for those of you who might say they should have read the rules of the ticket – who does read them? It could happen to you. There's no need to read rules if there are no stupid laws or bylaws for something so simple as getting off two stops too early.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/7983548/Couple-fined-for-getting-off-train-too-early.html

Why is this idea important?

The Government needs to force the rail companies to simplify rail fares and simplify the rules about using them. There should only be one fare whether you are jumping on the train without buying a ticket in advance or with a ticket you have already reserved your set for. If they want to get people travelling they have to make it as simple, easy and as cheap as possible. The train fares are also crazily expensive and it's no surprise people use their cars.

Take the story on the link below about a couple forced to pay a fine for getting off two stops too early. It is absolutely disgusting and makes my blood boil that the train company are actually able to fine them a ridiculous amount of money for that. It's not right, not fair, doesn't apply any common sense and puts people back into cars when the Government wants us out of them.

And for those of you who might say they should have read the rules of the ticket – who does read them? It could happen to you. There's no need to read rules if there are no stupid laws or bylaws for something so simple as getting off two stops too early.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/7983548/Couple-fined-for-getting-off-train-too-early.html

Sentencing should mean what is said

If someone is jailed for 15 years they should serve 15 years to the day. If someone is fined £300 they should pay £300. If someone is given 100 hours of community service that's what they should do. No more no less. If the judge / magistrates want to take into account the potential of them behaving in prison just give them less.

Also if someone is say given a jail sentence of two years and a ban on driving for three the driving ban should start after their release from prison.

 

Why is this idea important?

If someone is jailed for 15 years they should serve 15 years to the day. If someone is fined £300 they should pay £300. If someone is given 100 hours of community service that's what they should do. No more no less. If the judge / magistrates want to take into account the potential of them behaving in prison just give them less.

Also if someone is say given a jail sentence of two years and a ban on driving for three the driving ban should start after their release from prison.

 

BAN SMOKING IN PRISONS

Smoking should be totally banned in all prisons – if you are convicted of an offence you shouldn't have the privelege of being able to smoke inside. A similar policy has led to a substantial cut in crime on the Isle of Man as word got around of teh new restrictions.

Why is this idea important?

Smoking should be totally banned in all prisons – if you are convicted of an offence you shouldn't have the privelege of being able to smoke inside. A similar policy has led to a substantial cut in crime on the Isle of Man as word got around of teh new restrictions.

Get rid of magistrates and have district judges only for minor trials

Why do we have magistrates?

Ever since anyone was allowed to become a magistrate you have to ask yourself whether they now do a good job as they have no clue about the law. The court clerks meant to help them are often no more clued up on the law or procedure.

All minor cases should instead come before a district judge who is trained and knows the law.

As well as being more efficient it should also save money in the long run with quicker justice and less poor decisions.

Judges are also undoubtedly more independent.

Why is this idea important?

Why do we have magistrates?

Ever since anyone was allowed to become a magistrate you have to ask yourself whether they now do a good job as they have no clue about the law. The court clerks meant to help them are often no more clued up on the law or procedure.

All minor cases should instead come before a district judge who is trained and knows the law.

As well as being more efficient it should also save money in the long run with quicker justice and less poor decisions.

Judges are also undoubtedly more independent.

Allow juries to do their own research

I believe that juries should be allowed to do their own research into any case that they are hearing and deciding on. If you are on a jury and have to decide on something then surely you should be allowed to investigate the facts yourself. One of the key reasons this wasn't possible before is that the courts weren't allowed to talk about previous convictions. Now, most previous convictions are unveiled to them anyway. So why shouldn't juries be allowed to do their own research into the evidence and facts in the case?

Why is this idea important?

I believe that juries should be allowed to do their own research into any case that they are hearing and deciding on. If you are on a jury and have to decide on something then surely you should be allowed to investigate the facts yourself. One of the key reasons this wasn't possible before is that the courts weren't allowed to talk about previous convictions. Now, most previous convictions are unveiled to them anyway. So why shouldn't juries be allowed to do their own research into the evidence and facts in the case?

Change the test of all courts to beyond any doubt whatsoever based on the evidence

I would like to see the test in all courts changed to "beyond any doubt whatsoever based on the evidence". I don't think the test of "on the balance of probabilities" is tough enough and leads to miscarriages of justice in the civil system. I also think that the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" in the criminal courts isn't tough enough. If people on the jury or a judge has any doubt at all then they shouldn't be convicting.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the test in all courts changed to "beyond any doubt whatsoever based on the evidence". I don't think the test of "on the balance of probabilities" is tough enough and leads to miscarriages of justice in the civil system. I also think that the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" in the criminal courts isn't tough enough. If people on the jury or a judge has any doubt at all then they shouldn't be convicting.

Increase age of consent to 18 or lower age of buying porn to 16

How is it that you can legally have sex if both participants are 16 or over but you can't buy pornography until you are 18? So under the current law you can do it but not watch it at 16. I think that sums up my idea to clear up a daft anomaly.

Why is this idea important?

How is it that you can legally have sex if both participants are 16 or over but you can't buy pornography until you are 18? So under the current law you can do it but not watch it at 16. I think that sums up my idea to clear up a daft anomaly.