cannabis

as for the problems with prisons.majority of the prisoners are there due to cannabis.i reckon it should be legalised.i am disabled and the doctors cant do anything about it.im in pain 24 hr a day.all the pain tablets short of morphene the doctors have tried on me and none work.they will not give me morphene.so i tried cannabis for the first time in 10 years i didnt have much pain(bare in mind im only 24).i reckon they should legalise cannabis especially medically.

Why is this idea important?

as for the problems with prisons.majority of the prisoners are there due to cannabis.i reckon it should be legalised.i am disabled and the doctors cant do anything about it.im in pain 24 hr a day.all the pain tablets short of morphene the doctors have tried on me and none work.they will not give me morphene.so i tried cannabis for the first time in 10 years i didnt have much pain(bare in mind im only 24).i reckon they should legalise cannabis especially medically.

Health and Safety

Local Authorities, businesses, schools and other service providers are stifled by a requirement to overly analyse risks to the public and thier workforce and put in place excessive measures to reduce such risk to almost zero. The result of this is a significanty curtailed service provision and increase in costs.

To my mind, these risk analyses and "health and safety" provisions are driven by a fear of being sued in the event of an accident. Even frivilous lawsuits cost money to defend, but with the availablity of legal aid the recent explosion in "no win no fee" solicitors, a victim of an accident has nothing to lose in pursuing a claim for compensation.

It is not the health and safety laws that has resulted in the well known maxim "health and safety gone mad", but rather the ease of bringing a claim without fear of having to foot the bill of doing so.

My idea is this: abolish "no win no fee"; make anyone who wants to bring an action in court foot the bill. This would not discourage genuine claimants who, if successful, would have its costs paid for my the losing party in any event, but will discourage frivilous claimants. In addition, tighten up the rules relating to legal aid. Make legal aid dependent upon an intial review of the case and only those which had say 80% chance of success are funded.

Why is this idea important?

Local Authorities, businesses, schools and other service providers are stifled by a requirement to overly analyse risks to the public and thier workforce and put in place excessive measures to reduce such risk to almost zero. The result of this is a significanty curtailed service provision and increase in costs.

To my mind, these risk analyses and "health and safety" provisions are driven by a fear of being sued in the event of an accident. Even frivilous lawsuits cost money to defend, but with the availablity of legal aid the recent explosion in "no win no fee" solicitors, a victim of an accident has nothing to lose in pursuing a claim for compensation.

It is not the health and safety laws that has resulted in the well known maxim "health and safety gone mad", but rather the ease of bringing a claim without fear of having to foot the bill of doing so.

My idea is this: abolish "no win no fee"; make anyone who wants to bring an action in court foot the bill. This would not discourage genuine claimants who, if successful, would have its costs paid for my the losing party in any event, but will discourage frivilous claimants. In addition, tighten up the rules relating to legal aid. Make legal aid dependent upon an intial review of the case and only those which had say 80% chance of success are funded.

marriage should be a secular arrangement open to same sex couples

Same sex couples are still discriminated against because they are not legally allowed to marry. The church claim that marriage is a religious arrangement and yet non religious hetero sexual couples can be married in non religious state ceremonies, eg registry office weddings. Therefore non religious same sex couples should be allowed to be married in the same way that non religious straight couples can. Civil Partnerships are a step forward but still do not provide equality. Marriage ceremonies performed at registry offices are not allowed to have any religious content and is secular arrangement. This kind of marriage should be permitted to gay people.

Why is this idea important?

Same sex couples are still discriminated against because they are not legally allowed to marry. The church claim that marriage is a religious arrangement and yet non religious hetero sexual couples can be married in non religious state ceremonies, eg registry office weddings. Therefore non religious same sex couples should be allowed to be married in the same way that non religious straight couples can. Civil Partnerships are a step forward but still do not provide equality. Marriage ceremonies performed at registry offices are not allowed to have any religious content and is secular arrangement. This kind of marriage should be permitted to gay people.

Removal of onerous legislation surrounding weddings

Allow more freedom of where, and how to get married in the UK (particularly England and Wales as I understand Scotland already has more liberal rules on this).

Why is this idea important?

Allow more freedom of where, and how to get married in the UK (particularly England and Wales as I understand Scotland already has more liberal rules on this).

remove finger and personal information prints from police

i think that any one convicted of a minor offence should have the option of having their finger prints and personall information removed the police data base after 5 years as long as the person has not been convicted for any other crime during the 5 year period

i was convicted of crimal damage at the age of 16 and i am now 42 and i have never been in trouble with the police since . i have though been stopped in my car  numerous time over the years and had my details checked and on occasions have police officers making commment about me being known to the police and been a good boy as they put and i find this very annoying

Why is this idea important?

i think that any one convicted of a minor offence should have the option of having their finger prints and personall information removed the police data base after 5 years as long as the person has not been convicted for any other crime during the 5 year period

i was convicted of crimal damage at the age of 16 and i am now 42 and i have never been in trouble with the police since . i have though been stopped in my car  numerous time over the years and had my details checked and on occasions have police officers making commment about me being known to the police and been a good boy as they put and i find this very annoying

Make it illegal to cold call your telephone

My telephone number is ex-directory,  I have registered to opt out of telemarketing using the TPS telephone preference service.   Companies get around this by 'randomly selecting numbers from a computer' to call me at ridiculous times of the night.  Even when I tell them I am not interested and to stop calling me.  There are plenty of websites on the internet to track down the serial offenders (type in 'British Gas cold calling' into a search engine and you'll see who they are and how they work.   I propose that you make it illegal to make an unsolicited call for the purposes of selling a product with stiffer penalties if they call after 8pm in the evening.   This would mean that inadvertent wrong-numbers would not fall foul of the law, but it would make telemarketing companies think twice.

Why is this idea important?

My telephone number is ex-directory,  I have registered to opt out of telemarketing using the TPS telephone preference service.   Companies get around this by 'randomly selecting numbers from a computer' to call me at ridiculous times of the night.  Even when I tell them I am not interested and to stop calling me.  There are plenty of websites on the internet to track down the serial offenders (type in 'British Gas cold calling' into a search engine and you'll see who they are and how they work.   I propose that you make it illegal to make an unsolicited call for the purposes of selling a product with stiffer penalties if they call after 8pm in the evening.   This would mean that inadvertent wrong-numbers would not fall foul of the law, but it would make telemarketing companies think twice.

Biased site

The whole site is biased in its set-up. It is assuming that all laws need to be changed and that civil liberties need 'restoring'. The negative attitude gives little chance for people who feel these laws are there to protect them from law-breakers to really be heard. Most comments will be from people who want to do away with laws, so they will appear to be the majority.

Why is this idea important?

The whole site is biased in its set-up. It is assuming that all laws need to be changed and that civil liberties need 'restoring'. The negative attitude gives little chance for people who feel these laws are there to protect them from law-breakers to really be heard. Most comments will be from people who want to do away with laws, so they will appear to be the majority.

Repeal the law allowing detention without trial

Simply put, the idea proposes the restoration of the habeas corpus acts of Magna Carta (1215), 1640, 1679, 1803, 1804, 1816 and 1862 that treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty, by demanding that a prisoner be taken before a court, and that the custodian presents proof of authority, allowing the court to determine if the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person.

Why is this idea important?

Simply put, the idea proposes the restoration of the habeas corpus acts of Magna Carta (1215), 1640, 1679, 1803, 1804, 1816 and 1862 that treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty, by demanding that a prisoner be taken before a court, and that the custodian presents proof of authority, allowing the court to determine if the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person.

Scrap Human Rights for Prisoners

Prisoners get a cushy life, often you hear prison compared to a holiday club. I used to work in security and have made many arrests. There is always a few that stick in my mind one being someone caught for shoplifting saying that life is easier in prison as he had access to sky, playstation etc.

Why is this idea important?

Prisoners get a cushy life, often you hear prison compared to a holiday club. I used to work in security and have made many arrests. There is always a few that stick in my mind one being someone caught for shoplifting saying that life is easier in prison as he had access to sky, playstation etc.

Power should be given to Councils to enable enforcement of Laws on “Queensland”

Currently if someone's hedge over grows onto a public footpath or alleyway, the council can impose fines if it is not cut back, thus forcing landowners to fulfill their responsibilities.

In respect to land that is owned by the Crown but consitutes access to peoples private land the only way to enforce the need for others to keep this access open is to take out a Civil Law suit which is both time consuming, expensive and has the potential to create tensions within a neighbourhood.

Therefore I would propose that councils are given the same enforcement laws on this type of land as on public highways.

This way early intervention and reminding people of their responsibilities will make the lifes of those affected easier and less stressful.

Why is this idea important?

Currently if someone's hedge over grows onto a public footpath or alleyway, the council can impose fines if it is not cut back, thus forcing landowners to fulfill their responsibilities.

In respect to land that is owned by the Crown but consitutes access to peoples private land the only way to enforce the need for others to keep this access open is to take out a Civil Law suit which is both time consuming, expensive and has the potential to create tensions within a neighbourhood.

Therefore I would propose that councils are given the same enforcement laws on this type of land as on public highways.

This way early intervention and reminding people of their responsibilities will make the lifes of those affected easier and less stressful.

CCTV Restrictions : preventing neighbourhood spying

Intrusive CCTV by neighbours should be a specific criminal offence.

At the moment the anti harrassment laws are infeffective in dealing with this .

The legal mechanism to deal with neighbourhood spying is cumbersome and ineffective – this must be remedied.

 

Why is this idea important?

Intrusive CCTV by neighbours should be a specific criminal offence.

At the moment the anti harrassment laws are infeffective in dealing with this .

The legal mechanism to deal with neighbourhood spying is cumbersome and ineffective – this must be remedied.

 

councils

i live in bradford and i can see that when it comes to saving money.bradford doesnt !majority of works such as the park and other stuff.it is destroying bradford.the council decide for us and we have no say.i reckon we should have that right.you will save more money by pulling the plug on some of these stupid ideas and give the right to decide to the people.

Why is this idea important?

i live in bradford and i can see that when it comes to saving money.bradford doesnt !majority of works such as the park and other stuff.it is destroying bradford.the council decide for us and we have no say.i reckon we should have that right.you will save more money by pulling the plug on some of these stupid ideas and give the right to decide to the people.

Gay marriage instead of civil partnership

I am a 26 year old woman, all I want is a wedding with my partner with big white dresses, flowers, the whole shebang, the same as any other 26 year old woman I would imagine. The problem is my partner is also a woman so we are not permitted the simple right to get married, we may only have a civil partnership, I don't want to introduce her to the world as my civil partner, I want the right to call her my wife and be afforded the same liberties and rights as my straight counterparts. I'm not someone who screams from the rooftops or marches on Whitehall, I just feel very let down that we could travel to Spain, probably the most catholic country in Europe, and have the wedding but our country for which we work hard and contribute alot will not recognise our status. Lets not have one kind of fair for one group and another for another group, if the limitation was set by skin colour or hair colour there would be wars over it.

Why is this idea important?

I am a 26 year old woman, all I want is a wedding with my partner with big white dresses, flowers, the whole shebang, the same as any other 26 year old woman I would imagine. The problem is my partner is also a woman so we are not permitted the simple right to get married, we may only have a civil partnership, I don't want to introduce her to the world as my civil partner, I want the right to call her my wife and be afforded the same liberties and rights as my straight counterparts. I'm not someone who screams from the rooftops or marches on Whitehall, I just feel very let down that we could travel to Spain, probably the most catholic country in Europe, and have the wedding but our country for which we work hard and contribute alot will not recognise our status. Lets not have one kind of fair for one group and another for another group, if the limitation was set by skin colour or hair colour there would be wars over it.

Change Section 63 of Criminal Justice Act

In the current climate our sexual freedom is under attack as never before. Successive pieces of the previous Government's legislation have succeeded in criminalising the normal sexual activity of hundreds of thousands of adult citizens based on flimsy evidence and a general feeling of distaste.

It is widely agreed and accepted that consenting activities between adults are just that, and that it is not the business of the state to legislate on grounds of taste. The freedom to express oneself sexually without fear of prejudice is a basic civil liberty.

Why is this idea important?

In the current climate our sexual freedom is under attack as never before. Successive pieces of the previous Government's legislation have succeeded in criminalising the normal sexual activity of hundreds of thousands of adult citizens based on flimsy evidence and a general feeling of distaste.

It is widely agreed and accepted that consenting activities between adults are just that, and that it is not the business of the state to legislate on grounds of taste. The freedom to express oneself sexually without fear of prejudice is a basic civil liberty.

abolish court and charging orders on properties related to debt

I believe that banks have demonstrated that when it comes to managing the nations money they are no better. So making the general public pay through court orders seems unfair. I think banks should be prevented from issuing court orders without warning. This a waste of time and tax payers money. Many people are willing to pay their debt and are tied in to debt management plans. So why put them through the humiliation of going to court and treat them like criminals. Charging a fee for warning letter when person who is already in debt is ludicrous. The court orders run for years and are an expensive waste of money.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that banks have demonstrated that when it comes to managing the nations money they are no better. So making the general public pay through court orders seems unfair. I think banks should be prevented from issuing court orders without warning. This a waste of time and tax payers money. Many people are willing to pay their debt and are tied in to debt management plans. So why put them through the humiliation of going to court and treat them like criminals. Charging a fee for warning letter when person who is already in debt is ludicrous. The court orders run for years and are an expensive waste of money.

Dissolve the acts of union 1707

Give Scotland the opportunity to make her own decisions. Let her be a sovereign state, let her keep the revenue generated from the North Sea in Scotland. Scotland has the ability to rule herself. We need to be idepedent, now is the time!

Why is this idea important?

Give Scotland the opportunity to make her own decisions. Let her be a sovereign state, let her keep the revenue generated from the North Sea in Scotland. Scotland has the ability to rule herself. We need to be idepedent, now is the time!

Stop public monitoring through CCTVs

It’s ridiculous to know there are 5 millions CCTVs installed in England which accounts for 25% of the CCTVs around the world.  Even totalitarian state like China won’t install CCTVs to monitor the daily lives of it citizens.  It is utterly beyond necessary to keep eyes on everybody for the purpose tackling crimes.

I don’t know how the former Labour Gov’t can rationalise that surveillance of British Citizens without trespassing human rights.

Why is this idea important?

It’s ridiculous to know there are 5 millions CCTVs installed in England which accounts for 25% of the CCTVs around the world.  Even totalitarian state like China won’t install CCTVs to monitor the daily lives of it citizens.  It is utterly beyond necessary to keep eyes on everybody for the purpose tackling crimes.

I don’t know how the former Labour Gov’t can rationalise that surveillance of British Citizens without trespassing human rights.

Photography in Public Places

A recent law means the police can stop photographers and question them about why they are taking pictures as a means to prevent terrorism. This law is meant for use in areas which could be targeted by terrorists (unmarked to the public), for example The Houses of Parliament in London.

Police officers are illadvised about this law and frequently exceed the requirements of this law by confiscating cameras and threatening arrest of innocent photographers and members of the public. The police are seemingly beginning to believe that we are not allowed to take pictures in public, and also seem to use this as an excuse for heavy handed policing and state control.

This law needs to be addressed.

For example, see this article where the police claim they don't even need a law to stop people taking pictures- 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/officers-claim-they-dont-need-la=w-to-stop-photographer-taking-pictures-2012827.html">h</a><a%20href=3D"http:/=/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/officers-claim-they-dont-need-law-to-s=top-photographer-taking-pictures-2012827.html

Why is this idea important?

A recent law means the police can stop photographers and question them about why they are taking pictures as a means to prevent terrorism. This law is meant for use in areas which could be targeted by terrorists (unmarked to the public), for example The Houses of Parliament in London.

Police officers are illadvised about this law and frequently exceed the requirements of this law by confiscating cameras and threatening arrest of innocent photographers and members of the public. The police are seemingly beginning to believe that we are not allowed to take pictures in public, and also seem to use this as an excuse for heavy handed policing and state control.

This law needs to be addressed.

For example, see this article where the police claim they don't even need a law to stop people taking pictures- 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/officers-claim-they-dont-need-la=w-to-stop-photographer-taking-pictures-2012827.html">h</a><a%20href=3D"http:/=/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/officers-claim-they-dont-need-law-to-s=top-photographer-taking-pictures-2012827.html

restore the right to silence

The right to silence was a long established legal principle in English law up until the criminal justice Act of 1993, when it was abolished.

Most English speaking jurisdictions have this right, which is closely allied to the presumption of innocence. It is a key safe guard against bullying and set-ups by the Police.

 

Why is this idea important?

The right to silence was a long established legal principle in English law up until the criminal justice Act of 1993, when it was abolished.

Most English speaking jurisdictions have this right, which is closely allied to the presumption of innocence. It is a key safe guard against bullying and set-ups by the Police.

 

The true purpose of Government

The purpose of Government should be to protect the natural rights of citizens (or, in the case of this monarchy, of subjects). Those rights are inherent in the human condition, and are summarised in the American Declaration of Independence and associated documents, and are well described by Thomas Paine and others; the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Government exists to protect individuals against each other – so we need a police force; to protect us all against foreign invaders – so we need an armed service; and to arbitrate matters of dispute – so we need a judiciary. These three basic functions are both necessary and sufficient for a civil society. But, most important, we need to be proteced against Government itself.

The single guiding rule should be that no-one, including Government, may initiate violence (including, but not limited to, physical violence) against the person or property of another. Thus, assault, theft, coercion and fraud are prohibited, and such prohibition should be robustly enforced, but all other human interactions are voluntary, and should not be the province of Government.

Why is this idea important?

The purpose of Government should be to protect the natural rights of citizens (or, in the case of this monarchy, of subjects). Those rights are inherent in the human condition, and are summarised in the American Declaration of Independence and associated documents, and are well described by Thomas Paine and others; the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Government exists to protect individuals against each other – so we need a police force; to protect us all against foreign invaders – so we need an armed service; and to arbitrate matters of dispute – so we need a judiciary. These three basic functions are both necessary and sufficient for a civil society. But, most important, we need to be proteced against Government itself.

The single guiding rule should be that no-one, including Government, may initiate violence (including, but not limited to, physical violence) against the person or property of another. Thus, assault, theft, coercion and fraud are prohibited, and such prohibition should be robustly enforced, but all other human interactions are voluntary, and should not be the province of Government.

Section 5 of the public order act

"Contempt of Cop"

Section 5 of the public order act has been overused by the target lead police force. It is used to arrest anyone who dares to profane with in ear shot of a police officer who then arrests the individual under this law so they can meet their targets.

Even with the scrapping of labour targets, this law is used to much to limit free speech and should be scrapped.

Why is this idea important?

"Contempt of Cop"

Section 5 of the public order act has been overused by the target lead police force. It is used to arrest anyone who dares to profane with in ear shot of a police officer who then arrests the individual under this law so they can meet their targets.

Even with the scrapping of labour targets, this law is used to much to limit free speech and should be scrapped.

DNA database

Permanently remove the details of anybody who has not been convicted of a crime from the DNA database within 6 months of the sample being taken.

Why is this idea important?

Permanently remove the details of anybody who has not been convicted of a crime from the DNA database within 6 months of the sample being taken.

Include Sub-Cultures under the same discrimination laws as other cultures

Include subcultures under the same discrimination laws as other cultures.  Why is it ok that people who decide to dress different or have different ideals to be attacked just because they are "a goth, an emo, cybergoth, etc".  If there is a racially motivated attack it is a serious issue, if there is an attack on someones beliefs it is a serious issue, but the hate crimes against subcultures is always toned down…..why?

Why is this idea important?

Include subcultures under the same discrimination laws as other cultures.  Why is it ok that people who decide to dress different or have different ideals to be attacked just because they are "a goth, an emo, cybergoth, etc".  If there is a racially motivated attack it is a serious issue, if there is an attack on someones beliefs it is a serious issue, but the hate crimes against subcultures is always toned down…..why?

Restore common sense and community policing

There was a time when a police officer on the beat could solve a minor disturbance in a public place, or between neighbours when tempers are rising on a hot summer's night, simply by having a quiet word with all parties involved and giving out a few warnings.

Today's topsy turvy world of policing involves arresting everyone in sight simply to get another DNA record on a discredited database and asking questions later. With this dogged approach the police are throwing pages of caution, written by our legislators into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), into the wind. Rather than the sensible ideas behind 'Community Policing' officers are today forced to abandon any common sense and turn citizens against them by making unnecessary humiliating and stigmatising public arrests and then spending hours writing reports in triplicate about this waste of public resources.

Let's enable Police Officers to use common sense and discretion again. Let's call the APCO lobby ( note: a private company, not answerable to Freedom of Information legislation) to account for being an illegal IT lobby hell bent on selling more data base systems in which data protection principles are flouted and Human rRghts to a private live are breached on a daily basis. Note that the UK government was convicted over this mis-use in the Case S. and Marper on December 4th 2008 in the  ECHR in Strassburg.

Why is this idea important?

There was a time when a police officer on the beat could solve a minor disturbance in a public place, or between neighbours when tempers are rising on a hot summer's night, simply by having a quiet word with all parties involved and giving out a few warnings.

Today's topsy turvy world of policing involves arresting everyone in sight simply to get another DNA record on a discredited database and asking questions later. With this dogged approach the police are throwing pages of caution, written by our legislators into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), into the wind. Rather than the sensible ideas behind 'Community Policing' officers are today forced to abandon any common sense and turn citizens against them by making unnecessary humiliating and stigmatising public arrests and then spending hours writing reports in triplicate about this waste of public resources.

Let's enable Police Officers to use common sense and discretion again. Let's call the APCO lobby ( note: a private company, not answerable to Freedom of Information legislation) to account for being an illegal IT lobby hell bent on selling more data base systems in which data protection principles are flouted and Human rRghts to a private live are breached on a daily basis. Note that the UK government was convicted over this mis-use in the Case S. and Marper on December 4th 2008 in the  ECHR in Strassburg.