Scrap accredited persons under the Police Reform Act 2001.

Withdraw the right of Chief Constables to appoint accredited persons under the Police Reform Act 2001.

The powers conferred upon them should only be available to police officers. If individuals such as security guards need the powers currently available to accredited persons they should call a police officer.

A Chief Constable may grant some or all of the following powers to an Accredited Person as part of a Community Safety Accreditation Scheme:[2]

    * The power to:
*require the name and address of a person who has committed a criminal offence that causes injury, alarm and distress to another person or damage or loss of another's property, or to whom a penalty notices has been issued;
*require the name and address of a person acting in an anti-social manner;
*require a person to stop drinking in a designated public place and confiscate and dispose of alcohol being consumed in a designated place;
*confiscate alcohol from young people;
*confiscate cigarettes and tobacco products from young people;
*require the removal of abandoned vehicles;
*stop cyclists if they are suspected of having committed the offence of riding on a footpath;
*stop a vehicle for the purposes of an inspection;
*control traffic for the purpose of escorting abnormal loads, for the purpose of conducting a traffic survey, and for other purposes
*require the name and address of a driver or pedestrian who fails to follow appropriate directions;
*photograph a person who has been given a penalty notice away from a police station.

    * The power to issue a fixed penalty notice:
*for riding a bicycle on footpath;
*for dog fouling;
*for littering;
*for graffiti and fly posting;
*to parents of truants.

    * The power to issue a penalty notice for disorder for:
*the sale of alcohol to person aged under 18;
*buying or attempting to buy alcohol for consumption by a person aged under 18;
*consumption of alcohol by a person aged under 18 or allowing such consumption;
*delivery of alcohol to a person aged under 18 or allowing such delivery;
*consumption of alcohol in a designated public space;
*possession by a person aged under 18 of an adult firework;
*possession of a some restricted fireworks;
*breach of a fireworks curfew;
*supply of excessively loud fireworks;
*throwing fireworks in a thoroughfare;
*wasting police time or giving a false report;
*using the telephones in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety;
*making hoax calls to the fire services;
*behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress;
*trespassing on a railway;
*throwing stones, etc. at trains or other things on railways.

 

Why is this idea important?

Withdraw the right of Chief Constables to appoint accredited persons under the Police Reform Act 2001.

The powers conferred upon them should only be available to police officers. If individuals such as security guards need the powers currently available to accredited persons they should call a police officer.

A Chief Constable may grant some or all of the following powers to an Accredited Person as part of a Community Safety Accreditation Scheme:[2]

    * The power to:
*require the name and address of a person who has committed a criminal offence that causes injury, alarm and distress to another person or damage or loss of another's property, or to whom a penalty notices has been issued;
*require the name and address of a person acting in an anti-social manner;
*require a person to stop drinking in a designated public place and confiscate and dispose of alcohol being consumed in a designated place;
*confiscate alcohol from young people;
*confiscate cigarettes and tobacco products from young people;
*require the removal of abandoned vehicles;
*stop cyclists if they are suspected of having committed the offence of riding on a footpath;
*stop a vehicle for the purposes of an inspection;
*control traffic for the purpose of escorting abnormal loads, for the purpose of conducting a traffic survey, and for other purposes
*require the name and address of a driver or pedestrian who fails to follow appropriate directions;
*photograph a person who has been given a penalty notice away from a police station.

    * The power to issue a fixed penalty notice:
*for riding a bicycle on footpath;
*for dog fouling;
*for littering;
*for graffiti and fly posting;
*to parents of truants.

    * The power to issue a penalty notice for disorder for:
*the sale of alcohol to person aged under 18;
*buying or attempting to buy alcohol for consumption by a person aged under 18;
*consumption of alcohol by a person aged under 18 or allowing such consumption;
*delivery of alcohol to a person aged under 18 or allowing such delivery;
*consumption of alcohol in a designated public space;
*possession by a person aged under 18 of an adult firework;
*possession of a some restricted fireworks;
*breach of a fireworks curfew;
*supply of excessively loud fireworks;
*throwing fireworks in a thoroughfare;
*wasting police time or giving a false report;
*using the telephones in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety;
*making hoax calls to the fire services;
*behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress;
*trespassing on a railway;
*throwing stones, etc. at trains or other things on railways.

 

Burglars should lose all Human Rights Protection (injuries etc)

My view is that anyone who makes the choice to burgle someone else's home should also forfit his human rights. We hear of too many instances of criminals who injure themselves in the act and then sue the home owner when they should not be there in the first place.

Also anyone arrested (and convicted/given a warning/proved to be in the wrong) and makes a claim against police should not be allowed to recieve money as damages. Any award should be given directly to a registered charity.

Why is this idea important?

My view is that anyone who makes the choice to burgle someone else's home should also forfit his human rights. We hear of too many instances of criminals who injure themselves in the act and then sue the home owner when they should not be there in the first place.

Also anyone arrested (and convicted/given a warning/proved to be in the wrong) and makes a claim against police should not be allowed to recieve money as damages. Any award should be given directly to a registered charity.

Racial and Religious Hatred Act, Part 3A, amended 2008

Review and amend the above.

Start a debate about free speech and what it means. Do away with the New Labour outrage that says that free speech is fine but only in moderation. Trust that a society of adults can handle religious, racial and sexual differences, even though this sometimes means 'offence'.

Why is this idea important?

Review and amend the above.

Start a debate about free speech and what it means. Do away with the New Labour outrage that says that free speech is fine but only in moderation. Trust that a society of adults can handle religious, racial and sexual differences, even though this sometimes means 'offence'.

Money Laundering Rules

The current money laundering rules are ludicrous.  They make your bank manager, your accountant, your lawyer and anyone you used to deal with in trust and confidence a secret informer against you.  Someone only has to suspect you have done something wrong and if they don't secretly report you to the authorities they are in trouble.  These wide draconian laws which were meant for terrorism have eroded the fabric of civil society and torn up the trusting social consensus. 

Why is this idea important?

The current money laundering rules are ludicrous.  They make your bank manager, your accountant, your lawyer and anyone you used to deal with in trust and confidence a secret informer against you.  Someone only has to suspect you have done something wrong and if they don't secretly report you to the authorities they are in trouble.  These wide draconian laws which were meant for terrorism have eroded the fabric of civil society and torn up the trusting social consensus. 

CITY CENTRE CAMERA’S

I just want to say that the whole idea of being watched over 200 times a day by the various camera's dotted all over the major city centres in the UK is very appalling indeed. It does not strike me as a free society at all. We must do something about this and the quicker the better.

Why is this idea important?

I just want to say that the whole idea of being watched over 200 times a day by the various camera's dotted all over the major city centres in the UK is very appalling indeed. It does not strike me as a free society at all. We must do something about this and the quicker the better.

repeal the protection against eviction act 1977

This is the "shield" that many families whos members and visitors and friends cause long term anti social behaviour hide behind and remain in our communities wreaking havoc and causing suffering for years.

we realise that everyone has a right to be housed, but with social housing at a premium and waiting lists years long it is time that people who cannot maintain their tenancies in a proper manner to risk or suffer eviction from the homes they inhabit.

Why is this idea important?

This is the "shield" that many families whos members and visitors and friends cause long term anti social behaviour hide behind and remain in our communities wreaking havoc and causing suffering for years.

we realise that everyone has a right to be housed, but with social housing at a premium and waiting lists years long it is time that people who cannot maintain their tenancies in a proper manner to risk or suffer eviction from the homes they inhabit.

Reform current drug laws

As a drug worker in London, for the past 6 years, it is very apparant that the current laws surrounding the misuse of drugs do not work! The criminalisation of drug addicts gets in the way of treatment and gives power and money to criminal gangs. A sensible review of current policy would hopefully result in decriminalisation of many substances and would then allow the 'professional' drug workers to do their jobs more effectively. Whilst the money saved from enforcement could be put back into treatment and education. The war  on drugs does not work! Please accept the evidential facts.

Why is this idea important?

As a drug worker in London, for the past 6 years, it is very apparant that the current laws surrounding the misuse of drugs do not work! The criminalisation of drug addicts gets in the way of treatment and gives power and money to criminal gangs. A sensible review of current policy would hopefully result in decriminalisation of many substances and would then allow the 'professional' drug workers to do their jobs more effectively. Whilst the money saved from enforcement could be put back into treatment and education. The war  on drugs does not work! Please accept the evidential facts.

Amend the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to prevent abuse by private companies

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 had the admirable goal of protecting people from harassment and stalking. However, it has been used more often than not as a method of preventing legitimate protest against private companies.

It needs amending so that it cannot be used to prevent legitimate protest against businesses.

Why is this idea important?

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 had the admirable goal of protecting people from harassment and stalking. However, it has been used more often than not as a method of preventing legitimate protest against private companies.

It needs amending so that it cannot be used to prevent legitimate protest against businesses.

Remove all blasphemy laws and Sunday trading laws

Freedom of religion is a personal choice and should be respected, however, it is a choice – just like choosing to support a particular football team or political party. In a modern society those who choose not to be religious should not have their freedoms curtailed because it may offend those who are. Therefore, anyone should be free to mock or ridicule religion in the same way as they can mock or ridicule Manchester United or the Conservative Party. Similarly, they should be able to open their shops on Easter Sunday or any Sunday.

Freedom to practice any religion should be protected by law, but so should the freedom not to practice any religion or be restricted by it’s beliefs.

Why is this idea important?

Freedom of religion is a personal choice and should be respected, however, it is a choice – just like choosing to support a particular football team or political party. In a modern society those who choose not to be religious should not have their freedoms curtailed because it may offend those who are. Therefore, anyone should be free to mock or ridicule religion in the same way as they can mock or ridicule Manchester United or the Conservative Party. Similarly, they should be able to open their shops on Easter Sunday or any Sunday.

Freedom to practice any religion should be protected by law, but so should the freedom not to practice any religion or be restricted by it’s beliefs.

Eliminate Multiple CRB checks

At present, anyone involved at more than one place has to have a CRB check for each place, as no institutionis allowed to accept a check carried out for another institution. This despite the same form being filled by the same person and assessed by the same body, but for an additional fee. I feel this is a waste of time and effort, and only achieves incresed revenues for the private firm (looking like a Government body ) that is run by a Nulab donor. Aside from the suspect financial arrangements, it is an inhibitory waste of time and unnecessary red tape. 

Bear in mind that this has to be repeated regularly, and is not a one off procedure.

Why is this idea important?

At present, anyone involved at more than one place has to have a CRB check for each place, as no institutionis allowed to accept a check carried out for another institution. This despite the same form being filled by the same person and assessed by the same body, but for an additional fee. I feel this is a waste of time and effort, and only achieves incresed revenues for the private firm (looking like a Government body ) that is run by a Nulab donor. Aside from the suspect financial arrangements, it is an inhibitory waste of time and unnecessary red tape. 

Bear in mind that this has to be repeated regularly, and is not a one off procedure.

Review Family Law and Secret Family Courts

For those lucky enough not to have been involved with the Secret Family Courts you may find the following unbalieveable in Britain in 2010…..

There are such things as Secret Courts – they deal with Family Law, and allow such evidence as 'hearsay'.  Life changing decisions are made in these courts – such as to remove children from their homes and have them adopted.  Once done, nothing can reverse that decision.

There can be no reporters in these courts, and if anybody speak about what happened in a court – they are sent to prison.  Every week – distraught parents are going to jail

Why is this idea important?

For those lucky enough not to have been involved with the Secret Family Courts you may find the following unbalieveable in Britain in 2010…..

There are such things as Secret Courts – they deal with Family Law, and allow such evidence as 'hearsay'.  Life changing decisions are made in these courts – such as to remove children from their homes and have them adopted.  Once done, nothing can reverse that decision.

There can be no reporters in these courts, and if anybody speak about what happened in a court – they are sent to prison.  Every week – distraught parents are going to jail

Repeal Human Rights Law

The Human Rights Law completely distorts the normal common rights & priviledges of the majority in favour of the few , who more often than not have behaved in such a way as to abrogate those rights when any level of common sense is brought to focus on their situation.

This should be replaced with a Bill of Common rights which is based on a common sense interpretation of the rights of a law-abiding majority & a sense of community & British cultural "fair play".

Why is this idea important?

The Human Rights Law completely distorts the normal common rights & priviledges of the majority in favour of the few , who more often than not have behaved in such a way as to abrogate those rights when any level of common sense is brought to focus on their situation.

This should be replaced with a Bill of Common rights which is based on a common sense interpretation of the rights of a law-abiding majority & a sense of community & British cultural "fair play".

Freedom of speech and association

The current law which makes it an offence to meet or speak freely in certain public places must go – example of this is the lady arrested for reading out a list of British war dead near the Houses of Parliament.

Why is this idea important?

The current law which makes it an offence to meet or speak freely in certain public places must go – example of this is the lady arrested for reading out a list of British war dead near the Houses of Parliament.

Media Format Shifting (For Music, Films, Books etc)

Currently, it is against the law to "rip" a CD to extract its contents for use on a computer or MP3 player. The same would hold true for other entertainment such as DVDs and even for Paper books (to be scanned, converted to a suitable format and then placed on an eBook reader). These items are priced well in excess of their material cost, so the remainder is a fee for the license to enjoy the entertainment and recompense for the artist. Currently the law force one to repurchase the same entertainment rather than allowing a media shift.

I propose that media shifting ANY legitimately obtained item is made legal, and moreover, downloading ANY copy of an item you have legally purchased is also made legal. I have countless VHS tapes and compact cassettes which are now outmoded, damaged, or otherwise impractical to play, and I have no way of transferring. I would like to be able to continue to experience these without the need to purchase equipment or the items themselves again.

The license I paid for when I purchased these items does not state that I must gain the permission of the copyright owner, merely that it must be "authorised". Changing the law would give this authorisation.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, it is against the law to "rip" a CD to extract its contents for use on a computer or MP3 player. The same would hold true for other entertainment such as DVDs and even for Paper books (to be scanned, converted to a suitable format and then placed on an eBook reader). These items are priced well in excess of their material cost, so the remainder is a fee for the license to enjoy the entertainment and recompense for the artist. Currently the law force one to repurchase the same entertainment rather than allowing a media shift.

I propose that media shifting ANY legitimately obtained item is made legal, and moreover, downloading ANY copy of an item you have legally purchased is also made legal. I have countless VHS tapes and compact cassettes which are now outmoded, damaged, or otherwise impractical to play, and I have no way of transferring. I would like to be able to continue to experience these without the need to purchase equipment or the items themselves again.

The license I paid for when I purchased these items does not state that I must gain the permission of the copyright owner, merely that it must be "authorised". Changing the law would give this authorisation.

The TV License re-evaluated

Understandably, there is a growing amount of hostility towards the TV license. Many see the License fee as just another tax and, perhaps, do not recognise the important part it plays in maintaining high quality and cheap broadcasting in Britain.

Britain has the best television and radio in the world and one of the most economical. The unique way broadcasting is funded through the TV license is a fundamental reason for this. Although the public may feel like they are paying twice to watch television and have no choice in the matter, in fact the license fee actually sets the price point for TV in Britain. Just look across the ocean to our neighbours in North America who have fully commercial television. A typical cable bill is $100 per month and the service is riddled with advertising every eight minutes.

The TV license is not a “BBC-TV tax”, yes it funds BBC television but also national and local radio services. The so-called “freeview” channels also benefit from it.

However, the BBC has changed over the last decade and become too commercial. Celebrities are paid far too handsome salaries and private production companies profit from BBC programming. It seems a shake up at the Beeb and a re-evaluation of the license fee would be in the publics’ interested. The uniqueness of the license fee should be protected but its revenue used in a new way.

My proposal is that the TV license is replaced with a “Broadcasting License” to reflect that the financial contributions from the license fee not only support BBC television production but local and national radio services and other independent TV broadcasters. We also need to recognise the changing way the public access broadcasting. The Broadcasting License should also support the internet/network infrastructure across the UK. The new license, as well as supporting the BBC, should also contribute to the development of a national fibre optic network and supply every UK license fee payer with free high-speed broadband internet access. Profits from the commercial arm of the BBC should also be used to support the national broadcasting and network infrastructure.

The BBC also needs to get back to its roots. It should become a television producer again rather than a publisher. It should reinvest in its production and post-production facilities so that it can make its own programming once more. The BBC should be making a wide spectrum of programming not just cheap commercial reality-type shows. It should be the world leader in training broadcasting professionals and in research and development of broadcasting technology. Its back catalogue of vintage programming and radio productions should be made available online for the public to access freely. No more ridiculous salaries for celebrities. The BBC does not need to pay these high wages, there are plenty more upcoming actors and presenters ready waiting to take they place without requiring Hollywood contracts.

In summary my proposals are:

  1. Ditch the current TV license for a new “Broadcasting License”.
  2. The License to also fund a national high-speed fibre optic network.
  3. Free high-speed broadband internet access for all license fee payers.
  4. The BBC to make its own television programmers in house.
  5. The BBC should be a world leader in broadcasting staff training and R&D.
  6. No more celebrities on Hollywood salaries.
  7. The BBC should be making TV programmes for all from costume dramas, to documentaries, educational, special interest, comedies, etc. Cut the cheap commercial reality and quiz shows.
  8. BBC worldwide profits re-invested in the broadcasting/network infrastructure.

The downside – there has to be one right?
The new Broadcasting License would be payable by any residence owning a TV, radio, or with any other means of accessing “Freeview” channels either through terrestrial, satellite, cable or via the internet.

Why is this idea important?

Understandably, there is a growing amount of hostility towards the TV license. Many see the License fee as just another tax and, perhaps, do not recognise the important part it plays in maintaining high quality and cheap broadcasting in Britain.

Britain has the best television and radio in the world and one of the most economical. The unique way broadcasting is funded through the TV license is a fundamental reason for this. Although the public may feel like they are paying twice to watch television and have no choice in the matter, in fact the license fee actually sets the price point for TV in Britain. Just look across the ocean to our neighbours in North America who have fully commercial television. A typical cable bill is $100 per month and the service is riddled with advertising every eight minutes.

The TV license is not a “BBC-TV tax”, yes it funds BBC television but also national and local radio services. The so-called “freeview” channels also benefit from it.

However, the BBC has changed over the last decade and become too commercial. Celebrities are paid far too handsome salaries and private production companies profit from BBC programming. It seems a shake up at the Beeb and a re-evaluation of the license fee would be in the publics’ interested. The uniqueness of the license fee should be protected but its revenue used in a new way.

My proposal is that the TV license is replaced with a “Broadcasting License” to reflect that the financial contributions from the license fee not only support BBC television production but local and national radio services and other independent TV broadcasters. We also need to recognise the changing way the public access broadcasting. The Broadcasting License should also support the internet/network infrastructure across the UK. The new license, as well as supporting the BBC, should also contribute to the development of a national fibre optic network and supply every UK license fee payer with free high-speed broadband internet access. Profits from the commercial arm of the BBC should also be used to support the national broadcasting and network infrastructure.

The BBC also needs to get back to its roots. It should become a television producer again rather than a publisher. It should reinvest in its production and post-production facilities so that it can make its own programming once more. The BBC should be making a wide spectrum of programming not just cheap commercial reality-type shows. It should be the world leader in training broadcasting professionals and in research and development of broadcasting technology. Its back catalogue of vintage programming and radio productions should be made available online for the public to access freely. No more ridiculous salaries for celebrities. The BBC does not need to pay these high wages, there are plenty more upcoming actors and presenters ready waiting to take they place without requiring Hollywood contracts.

In summary my proposals are:

  1. Ditch the current TV license for a new “Broadcasting License”.
  2. The License to also fund a national high-speed fibre optic network.
  3. Free high-speed broadband internet access for all license fee payers.
  4. The BBC to make its own television programmers in house.
  5. The BBC should be a world leader in broadcasting staff training and R&D.
  6. No more celebrities on Hollywood salaries.
  7. The BBC should be making TV programmes for all from costume dramas, to documentaries, educational, special interest, comedies, etc. Cut the cheap commercial reality and quiz shows.
  8. BBC worldwide profits re-invested in the broadcasting/network infrastructure.

The downside – there has to be one right?
The new Broadcasting License would be payable by any residence owning a TV, radio, or with any other means of accessing “Freeview” channels either through terrestrial, satellite, cable or via the internet.

Repeal of human rights for prisoners

Why should someone who has committed a crime and been found guilty have any rights? Many time we read about a prisoners civil rights and large amounts of compensation they receive while the law abiding citizen gets nothing. We read of prisoners living a life of riley with catellite TV, gyms etc etc. Prison is not meant to be a holiday camp it is meant to be a punishment. many prisoners are better off in prison that the victims of their crimes. There was a case some time ago where someone convicted of sexual offences used his so call civil rights to obtain pornographic publications while in prison. This is total caraziness and stupidity. Gyms and other luxuries should be removed from prison. Why does it cost more to send someone to prison that it does to send a child to Eton? Sort this out now.

Why is this idea important?

Why should someone who has committed a crime and been found guilty have any rights? Many time we read about a prisoners civil rights and large amounts of compensation they receive while the law abiding citizen gets nothing. We read of prisoners living a life of riley with catellite TV, gyms etc etc. Prison is not meant to be a holiday camp it is meant to be a punishment. many prisoners are better off in prison that the victims of their crimes. There was a case some time ago where someone convicted of sexual offences used his so call civil rights to obtain pornographic publications while in prison. This is total caraziness and stupidity. Gyms and other luxuries should be removed from prison. Why does it cost more to send someone to prison that it does to send a child to Eton? Sort this out now.

Police cautions to have 4 year expiry

Police Cautions currently stay on your record for life – which means each time a CRB check is done it is picked up and has to be explained over and over again.

This leads to continual explanation every time a CRB check is done.

Why is this idea important?

Police Cautions currently stay on your record for life – which means each time a CRB check is done it is picked up and has to be explained over and over again.

This leads to continual explanation every time a CRB check is done.

Please abolish the Architect’s Registration Board

The Architects Registration Board (Arb) only recognises EU architectural qualifications and does not recognise the foreign (mostly Commonwealth) Royal Insitute of British Architects (RIBA) validated schools degrees.

This means that Commonwealth RIBA validated degrees have to sit the very expensive (£3000) exams, which are imposed by the Architects Act 1997, in order for their degrees to be recognised in the UK.

Added to this, UK and Commonwealth graduates are required to sit the Part 3 examination, whereas our EU counterparts are exempt, making it very easy for EU graduates to register as "architects" but very difficult for Commonwealth graduates, even if RIBA validated.

To further inflame the situation, most of the Arb examiners are indeed RIBA members, which means that Commonwealth RIBA validated degrees have to be examined by RIBA members, within the Arb, when these examiners are morally and ethically obliged to recognise these degrees, due to their RIBA membership and RIBA degree validation.

This mess was created by the Labour Government's poorly written and implimented "Architects Registration Act of 1997" and has caused considerable discomfort within an already impoverished profession. Believe it or not, but architects suffer from very low pay and long hours.

Please repeal this law and hand any consumer issues over to the RIBA so as to not duplicate functions and domains within the architectural profession. 

Why is this idea important?

The Architects Registration Board (Arb) only recognises EU architectural qualifications and does not recognise the foreign (mostly Commonwealth) Royal Insitute of British Architects (RIBA) validated schools degrees.

This means that Commonwealth RIBA validated degrees have to sit the very expensive (£3000) exams, which are imposed by the Architects Act 1997, in order for their degrees to be recognised in the UK.

Added to this, UK and Commonwealth graduates are required to sit the Part 3 examination, whereas our EU counterparts are exempt, making it very easy for EU graduates to register as "architects" but very difficult for Commonwealth graduates, even if RIBA validated.

To further inflame the situation, most of the Arb examiners are indeed RIBA members, which means that Commonwealth RIBA validated degrees have to be examined by RIBA members, within the Arb, when these examiners are morally and ethically obliged to recognise these degrees, due to their RIBA membership and RIBA degree validation.

This mess was created by the Labour Government's poorly written and implimented "Architects Registration Act of 1997" and has caused considerable discomfort within an already impoverished profession. Believe it or not, but architects suffer from very low pay and long hours.

Please repeal this law and hand any consumer issues over to the RIBA so as to not duplicate functions and domains within the architectural profession.