Stop the Government acting against the majority wishes of the people

The largest response is to amend the smoking ban. Nick Clegg say they will not repeal the ban and he won't amend it either – yet it is what the majority of the people want. He was not elected to act against the people's wishes.

Why is this idea important?

The largest response is to amend the smoking ban. Nick Clegg say they will not repeal the ban and he won't amend it either – yet it is what the majority of the people want. He was not elected to act against the people's wishes.

Electoral canvass

I've no idea whether the Deputy Prime Minister is still looking at this site. Despite the promised frequent updates, nothing has been heard since 9 July. But just in case………

Each year an electoral canvass is required by law. Forms for completion are delivered to all households which are, or might be, residential. "No change" returns can be done online or by phone. To satisfy the law all others must bear a valid signature. This means processing (and presumably storing) many thousands, even millions, of forms. Reminders must be sent, canvassers must call. A colossal cost.

If the law were changed so that only an initial A5 page was delivered containing a code, then internet returns on a pro forma could supply many of the details, which should then self populate the new register. Spot checks would still be required but manual input would be much reduced.

A phone number would be required for those who preferred the form (and didn't want to download it) plus some canvassing input for "no shows". Substantive telephone returns could not be made due to the risk of error.

Why is this idea important?

I've no idea whether the Deputy Prime Minister is still looking at this site. Despite the promised frequent updates, nothing has been heard since 9 July. But just in case………

Each year an electoral canvass is required by law. Forms for completion are delivered to all households which are, or might be, residential. "No change" returns can be done online or by phone. To satisfy the law all others must bear a valid signature. This means processing (and presumably storing) many thousands, even millions, of forms. Reminders must be sent, canvassers must call. A colossal cost.

If the law were changed so that only an initial A5 page was delivered containing a code, then internet returns on a pro forma could supply many of the details, which should then self populate the new register. Spot checks would still be required but manual input would be much reduced.

A phone number would be required for those who preferred the form (and didn't want to download it) plus some canvassing input for "no shows". Substantive telephone returns could not be made due to the risk of error.

Free the innocent to alleviate prison overcrowding

U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.

Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.

It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.

Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.

The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.

Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.

For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.

As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.

There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.

Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.

I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.

Why is this idea important?

U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.

Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.

It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.

Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.

The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.

Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.

For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.

As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.

There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.

Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.

I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.

Re-evaluate the use of juries

 

I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.

Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'

So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:

The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.

Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.

If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.

Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.

The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'

The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'

After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'

And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.

It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.

The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?

In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.

All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.

Why is this idea important?

 

I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.

Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'

So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:

The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.

Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.

If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.

Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.

The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'

The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'

After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'

And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.

It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.

The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?

In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.

All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.

Stop the Government Stealing ‘Adoptable’ Children

Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.

Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.

The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.

No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.

If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.

If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.

While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.

Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.

EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.

A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.

A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.

If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.

The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.

Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.

A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.

While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.

The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.

The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.

The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.

Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!

Why is this idea important?

Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.

Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.

The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.

No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.

If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.

If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.

While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.

Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.

EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.

A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.

A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.

If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.

The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.

Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.

A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.

While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.

The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.

The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.

The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.

Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!

Make it impossible to be proven guilty by accusation alone

 

In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.

The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.

Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.

It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.

The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.

Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.

The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.

Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.

Why is this idea important?

 

In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.

The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.

Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.

It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.

The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.

Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.

The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.

Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.

Stop Council Tax for O A P ‘s

Its a disgrace how we don't take care of our pensioners, we should increase state pensions, stop council tax and be given free fuel.

How would we pay for it ?

Who would not be willing to pay and increase in income tax for this?

Why is this idea important?

Its a disgrace how we don't take care of our pensioners, we should increase state pensions, stop council tax and be given free fuel.

How would we pay for it ?

Who would not be willing to pay and increase in income tax for this?

Modification of the council tax legistration.

Because as it is presently enforced it violates ones right to PRIVACY.The right to the PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT OF ONES HOME AND PROPERTY and in certain cases THE RIGHT TO LIFE itself.

The responsibility for council tax should be placed back onto the individual where every one living in an L.A. area should be registered and made responsible for paying the tax.With exceptions for hardship.

Let those European anti's remember that it is the ordinary people who benefit most from Eouropean law.

Why is this idea important?

Because as it is presently enforced it violates ones right to PRIVACY.The right to the PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT OF ONES HOME AND PROPERTY and in certain cases THE RIGHT TO LIFE itself.

The responsibility for council tax should be placed back onto the individual where every one living in an L.A. area should be registered and made responsible for paying the tax.With exceptions for hardship.

Let those European anti's remember that it is the ordinary people who benefit most from Eouropean law.

Remove the need for electrical registration for Part P

If electrical work which falls under Part P of the building regulaions is being carried out, why cannot the householder just inform the Building Control (for a small fee), then the department can randomly check projects.

Why is this idea important?

If electrical work which falls under Part P of the building regulaions is being carried out, why cannot the householder just inform the Building Control (for a small fee), then the department can randomly check projects.

abolish dogs

Increase the dog licence to £500 per animal, and sanction corporal punishment for owners who allow their animals to foul the pavement. Any dog that does so should be put down.

Why is this idea important?

Increase the dog licence to £500 per animal, and sanction corporal punishment for owners who allow their animals to foul the pavement. Any dog that does so should be put down.

CLAMPING BAN OR REGULATE?

I have been involved in parking management since 1989.  I do not consider myself to be a cowboy or a rogue.  I am not a wealthy man and make a modest living from clamping and towing vehicles parked where they should not be.  I agree with much that has been written but I believe an outright ban on clamping and towing away is a mistake.  Landowner will loose the “freedom” to protect their own property from selfish unauthorised parking.  Gates and barriers are not always practical.  I manage a number of gated residential communities and although outsiders may not be able to get in, the sites suffer from inconsiderate and selfish parking by residents and their visitors.  Without any power to deter or punish this problem will certainly get worse should a ban be adopted?  As I see it the principal of using a financial penalty to deter or punish unauthorised is broadly accepted.  The two complaints most frequently voiced are exorbitant charges and inadequate warning signs.  I accept that this is sometimes the case.  Although a Conservative all of my life up until now I have to say that it was the last Labour government had the right idea. They introduced licensing so that people with a criminal record could not operate as clampers.  They were also about to introduce maximum charges for clamping, towing and storage of vehicles and regulations in respect of warning signs. Had these laws been introduced and more importantly enforced by the police I feel much of the criticism about clamping would have been answered  

Why is this idea important?

I have been involved in parking management since 1989.  I do not consider myself to be a cowboy or a rogue.  I am not a wealthy man and make a modest living from clamping and towing vehicles parked where they should not be.  I agree with much that has been written but I believe an outright ban on clamping and towing away is a mistake.  Landowner will loose the “freedom” to protect their own property from selfish unauthorised parking.  Gates and barriers are not always practical.  I manage a number of gated residential communities and although outsiders may not be able to get in, the sites suffer from inconsiderate and selfish parking by residents and their visitors.  Without any power to deter or punish this problem will certainly get worse should a ban be adopted?  As I see it the principal of using a financial penalty to deter or punish unauthorised is broadly accepted.  The two complaints most frequently voiced are exorbitant charges and inadequate warning signs.  I accept that this is sometimes the case.  Although a Conservative all of my life up until now I have to say that it was the last Labour government had the right idea. They introduced licensing so that people with a criminal record could not operate as clampers.  They were also about to introduce maximum charges for clamping, towing and storage of vehicles and regulations in respect of warning signs. Had these laws been introduced and more importantly enforced by the police I feel much of the criticism about clamping would have been answered  

Health Professions Council

There are many contributions on this subject now. Please all ready the very first (at the bottom) contribution " Abolish the HPC" which has now over 100 comments and makes frightening reading. All health professionals registered with the HPC please read the comments and add your opinions/stories.

Why is this idea important?

There are many contributions on this subject now. Please all ready the very first (at the bottom) contribution " Abolish the HPC" which has now over 100 comments and makes frightening reading. All health professionals registered with the HPC please read the comments and add your opinions/stories.

Linking Continuous Professional Development (CPD) to Re-registration

I have been selected this year (in April) to submit my CPD profile (2.5% are being selected) together with my re-registration. I have followed the example of my own professional body which is published on the hpc website. I have followed the written guidelines (and now available on the hpc website as video under continuous professional development), but still keep having it thrown back at me as not meeting their standards, despite having added a further 5 CPD activities. Below I am just quoting the official hpc guidelines and quotes from the letters received by the hpc.

"The registrant has explained how her EXPERIENCE has improved the quality of her work and how this experience has benefited the service user. The standards could be met if the registrant can show links as to how her CPD activities within the registration period have improved her work and benefited the service user." 

In the hpc guidelines they list, amongst many, the following to be CPD activities:

"Learning by Doing." , "Reflective Practice", "Gaining and learning from EXPERIENCE".

Can anyone make sense of the assessors' above comments ?

Next, I am being told that " Standard 1 states that a registrant must PROVIDE a continuous and up-to-date record (in my view up-to-date does not mean dated) of their CPD activities. In this case the assessors are looking for a continuous list covering the registration period May 2008 to April 2010. Please provide a full dated list of your CPD activities for the entire registration period."

I have always followed their printed guidelines and chosen to keep my CPD records in 2 Lever Arch Files. Their guidelines state:….."or you might keep a folder in which you store any documents relating to your CPD. This means that you can keep your personal record in a format that suits you. This also means that you can plan and undertake CPD which is relevant to you and your job and which fits with how you prefer to learn. Standard 1 states that a registrant must MAINTAIN (note not provide) a continuous up-to-date (Note not dated) accurate record of your CPD activities. You might keep a folder in which you store any documents relating to your CPD. This means that you can keep your personal record in a format that suits you. We never ask to see your complete CPD record folders." 

AND to finally add insult to injury I have also been told that "However we do not consider a registrants day to day work activities to be CPD activities."  The official hpc guidelines state:"…you should be able to show that your CPD activities are part of your work , contribute to your work and are not separate from it."

I have consistently been trying to explain to the hpc in lengthy written statements that experience and reflective practice is the main contributor to improve knowledge and skill because one learns from mistakes and experience. I have also submitted one of my more complicated case studies. But now they consider  day to day work activities not to be CPD activity, despite the fact what they state and they also list "Learning by Doing" as a recognised CPD activity.

I would love to hear from anybody  whether they can make sense of this all, continuously being rejected, despite having complied with their CPD requirements and being threatened to be removed from the register if the standards are not being met.. How can one meet the standards if the goal posts are continuously being moved ?

Please also read the 140 contributions below "Abolish the HPC". It gives a clear picture of the frightening powers and behaviour of the hpc.

Why is this idea important?

I have been selected this year (in April) to submit my CPD profile (2.5% are being selected) together with my re-registration. I have followed the example of my own professional body which is published on the hpc website. I have followed the written guidelines (and now available on the hpc website as video under continuous professional development), but still keep having it thrown back at me as not meeting their standards, despite having added a further 5 CPD activities. Below I am just quoting the official hpc guidelines and quotes from the letters received by the hpc.

"The registrant has explained how her EXPERIENCE has improved the quality of her work and how this experience has benefited the service user. The standards could be met if the registrant can show links as to how her CPD activities within the registration period have improved her work and benefited the service user." 

In the hpc guidelines they list, amongst many, the following to be CPD activities:

"Learning by Doing." , "Reflective Practice", "Gaining and learning from EXPERIENCE".

Can anyone make sense of the assessors' above comments ?

Next, I am being told that " Standard 1 states that a registrant must PROVIDE a continuous and up-to-date record (in my view up-to-date does not mean dated) of their CPD activities. In this case the assessors are looking for a continuous list covering the registration period May 2008 to April 2010. Please provide a full dated list of your CPD activities for the entire registration period."

I have always followed their printed guidelines and chosen to keep my CPD records in 2 Lever Arch Files. Their guidelines state:….."or you might keep a folder in which you store any documents relating to your CPD. This means that you can keep your personal record in a format that suits you. This also means that you can plan and undertake CPD which is relevant to you and your job and which fits with how you prefer to learn. Standard 1 states that a registrant must MAINTAIN (note not provide) a continuous up-to-date (Note not dated) accurate record of your CPD activities. You might keep a folder in which you store any documents relating to your CPD. This means that you can keep your personal record in a format that suits you. We never ask to see your complete CPD record folders." 

AND to finally add insult to injury I have also been told that "However we do not consider a registrants day to day work activities to be CPD activities."  The official hpc guidelines state:"…you should be able to show that your CPD activities are part of your work , contribute to your work and are not separate from it."

I have consistently been trying to explain to the hpc in lengthy written statements that experience and reflective practice is the main contributor to improve knowledge and skill because one learns from mistakes and experience. I have also submitted one of my more complicated case studies. But now they consider  day to day work activities not to be CPD activity, despite the fact what they state and they also list "Learning by Doing" as a recognised CPD activity.

I would love to hear from anybody  whether they can make sense of this all, continuously being rejected, despite having complied with their CPD requirements and being threatened to be removed from the register if the standards are not being met.. How can one meet the standards if the goal posts are continuously being moved ?

Please also read the 140 contributions below "Abolish the HPC". It gives a clear picture of the frightening powers and behaviour of the hpc.

The Government needs to acknowledge the plight of innocent prisoners


This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.

Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.

Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.

In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?

Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!

Why is this idea important?


This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.

Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.

Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.

In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?

Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!

General election voting at polling station only

That the encouragement of voting otherwise than at a polling station should be removed.  In fact it should be impossible to vote other than at a polling station for anyone who is not medically incapable (and not just difficult) of getting to the station.  Being out of the country is just tough.

 

An election, especially if we have fixed terms, is known about well in advance and, if people care, they should make themselves available to vote in person on the day.

Why is this idea important?

That the encouragement of voting otherwise than at a polling station should be removed.  In fact it should be impossible to vote other than at a polling station for anyone who is not medically incapable (and not just difficult) of getting to the station.  Being out of the country is just tough.

 

An election, especially if we have fixed terms, is known about well in advance and, if people care, they should make themselves available to vote in person on the day.

Compensation for people prosecuted and found not guilty

People who are prosecuted for an offence and found not gulty should be given some compensation for the inconvenience they have gone through and the damage to their reputation.

Why is this idea important?

People who are prosecuted for an offence and found not gulty should be given some compensation for the inconvenience they have gone through and the damage to their reputation.

Compensation for those not guilty on appeal

People who are convicted of a crime and found guilty, spend some time jail or other punishment and then later found not guilty should always get compensation. 

 

If they are found not guilty then they are innocent, at least legally, and so should receive compensation for the loss they have suffered.

Why is this idea important?

People who are convicted of a crime and found guilty, spend some time jail or other punishment and then later found not guilty should always get compensation. 

 

If they are found not guilty then they are innocent, at least legally, and so should receive compensation for the loss they have suffered.

Remove the secrecy from the Family Courts

To put understandable detail on here that people who have never experienced the Family Courts would take up to many words. I have a web site on the subject which I ask you to view. www.missingparent.co.uk

I emailed David Camerons office prior to the result of the election and was received the following reply:

Dear Mr Sage,

 

Thank you for getting in touch with David. We certainly take on board the points that you raise.

 

We have recently carried out a wide-ranging review of family justice, and if we win on May 6th, we plan to use this to give the MoJ’s own family review added momentum and urgency.  We are keen on the following ideas which will all be subject to full consultation:

 

  • A legal presumption in favour of automatic shared contact in the context of joint parental responsibility.
  • A much clearer definition of contact is needed, because if couples know  the likely outcome of their case, they will be less inclined to litigate.
  • Much greater use of mediation and dispute resolution could significantly reduce the number of cases going to court.
  •  Proper enforcement of contact orders.
  • Improving grandparent’s access to the family courts.
  • We support greater transparency in the family courts, but it must be subject to proper safeguards.
  • We plan to keep CAFCASS, but make it more efficient and better at handling complaints.
  • Above all, we want to see far fewer cases going to court.

Why is this idea important?

To put understandable detail on here that people who have never experienced the Family Courts would take up to many words. I have a web site on the subject which I ask you to view. www.missingparent.co.uk

I emailed David Camerons office prior to the result of the election and was received the following reply:

Dear Mr Sage,

 

Thank you for getting in touch with David. We certainly take on board the points that you raise.

 

We have recently carried out a wide-ranging review of family justice, and if we win on May 6th, we plan to use this to give the MoJ’s own family review added momentum and urgency.  We are keen on the following ideas which will all be subject to full consultation:

 

  • A legal presumption in favour of automatic shared contact in the context of joint parental responsibility.
  • A much clearer definition of contact is needed, because if couples know  the likely outcome of their case, they will be less inclined to litigate.
  • Much greater use of mediation and dispute resolution could significantly reduce the number of cases going to court.
  •  Proper enforcement of contact orders.
  • Improving grandparent’s access to the family courts.
  • We support greater transparency in the family courts, but it must be subject to proper safeguards.
  • We plan to keep CAFCASS, but make it more efficient and better at handling complaints.
  • Above all, we want to see far fewer cases going to court.

Implement an immediate review of ALL benefits

The idea is to review the payment of all types of benefits – unemployment, sickness, housing, motobility – to name but a few, with a view to reduce the outgoings

Why is this idea important?

The idea is to review the payment of all types of benefits – unemployment, sickness, housing, motobility – to name but a few, with a view to reduce the outgoings

Ban smoking everywhere

Face it you're doing smokers and their family a favour, the NHS a favour, the taxpayer a favour and your next blind date is guaranteed not to smell. (Or the place you go to eat in). No Brainer. Get BATS and co to spend their cash piles on developing anti-depressants instead. This would cure two problems in one go.

Why is this idea important?

Face it you're doing smokers and their family a favour, the NHS a favour, the taxpayer a favour and your next blind date is guaranteed not to smell. (Or the place you go to eat in). No Brainer. Get BATS and co to spend their cash piles on developing anti-depressants instead. This would cure two problems in one go.

Stop money flowing out of UK.

My brothers Ex-wife sold her council house and sent the money to Morrocco for her parents to build a house there.  She divorced my brother then tried to claim for half the money of his house. Now she has been rehomed in a new council house.  The system stinks. We have loads of people selling their council houses then years later saying they are homeless and the whole process starts again.

Why is this idea important?

My brothers Ex-wife sold her council house and sent the money to Morrocco for her parents to build a house there.  She divorced my brother then tried to claim for half the money of his house. Now she has been rehomed in a new council house.  The system stinks. We have loads of people selling their council houses then years later saying they are homeless and the whole process starts again.