Totalitarianism and the fall of pseudo democracy

       We live in a society free of many of the ills that infect the wider world. We are lucky enough, for instance to have a national health service, free debate on religion without fear of reprisals, equal rights for women, freedom of expression and equal relationship rights for homosexuals and so on and so forth. It has not always been so. It was illegal untill 1967 for two people of the same gender to have sexual relations, it was illegal untill 1928 for a woman to vote, untill the British monarchy was relegated to head of state and power transfered to government we lived under the oppressive rule of successive theocratic dictators. I make these points to set the tone of change, to highlight the necessity to make difficult desicions for the benefit of society.                   

       With this in mind i now have to ask: why do we insist on prohibition? We have watched it fail and done nothing, we have watched our children criminalised by an experimental and relativley new system of oppression and we do nothing to prevent this breathtaking totalitarianism. I am not going to argue the medical benefits of cannabis or the obvious requirement for a legal stimulant (as opposed to the legal deppressant), nor will i argue the evidential safety of many of the drugs classified as prohibited. I will not make these arguements, partially because they have been made time and again by those better qualified than myself, but largely because the science of it is secondary to the fact that it is a basic human right to do whatever one chooses to his/her own body. Do we legislate on tattoos lest the needle be infected? do we ban boxing or extreme sports to prevent injury or death, after all, are they not just chasing a far more risky high?

     We in society have a duty to educate, to teach those younger than ourselves to think criticaly and to make our own desicions provided they affect only ourselves. I have seen the argument made that drugs should be illegal because they are illegal (or vice versa), besides being a laughable non-sequitur this is held as esteemed argument by a large majority. This attitude is why i started this piece as i did, there was i time when it was illegal to have homosexual relations simply because someone deemed it wrong, there was a time when it was illegal for a woman to vote because someone felt they knew better. I think for me, i speak for me and i live for me, we exist only once and it is OUR right to experiance life as we see fit provided we harm no one else in the process.     

Why is this idea important?

       We live in a society free of many of the ills that infect the wider world. We are lucky enough, for instance to have a national health service, free debate on religion without fear of reprisals, equal rights for women, freedom of expression and equal relationship rights for homosexuals and so on and so forth. It has not always been so. It was illegal untill 1967 for two people of the same gender to have sexual relations, it was illegal untill 1928 for a woman to vote, untill the British monarchy was relegated to head of state and power transfered to government we lived under the oppressive rule of successive theocratic dictators. I make these points to set the tone of change, to highlight the necessity to make difficult desicions for the benefit of society.                   

       With this in mind i now have to ask: why do we insist on prohibition? We have watched it fail and done nothing, we have watched our children criminalised by an experimental and relativley new system of oppression and we do nothing to prevent this breathtaking totalitarianism. I am not going to argue the medical benefits of cannabis or the obvious requirement for a legal stimulant (as opposed to the legal deppressant), nor will i argue the evidential safety of many of the drugs classified as prohibited. I will not make these arguements, partially because they have been made time and again by those better qualified than myself, but largely because the science of it is secondary to the fact that it is a basic human right to do whatever one chooses to his/her own body. Do we legislate on tattoos lest the needle be infected? do we ban boxing or extreme sports to prevent injury or death, after all, are they not just chasing a far more risky high?

     We in society have a duty to educate, to teach those younger than ourselves to think criticaly and to make our own desicions provided they affect only ourselves. I have seen the argument made that drugs should be illegal because they are illegal (or vice versa), besides being a laughable non-sequitur this is held as esteemed argument by a large majority. This attitude is why i started this piece as i did, there was i time when it was illegal to have homosexual relations simply because someone deemed it wrong, there was a time when it was illegal for a woman to vote because someone felt they knew better. I think for me, i speak for me and i live for me, we exist only once and it is OUR right to experiance life as we see fit provided we harm no one else in the process.     

Strict Privacy Restrictions on Press Reporting

In the light of William Hague's recent encounter with our trashy press, I think the time for respecting a human being's personal life is long overdue.

This has highlighted how essential a person's privacy needs legal enforcement behind it.

It's not a question of whether the gay affair he allegedly had is true or not. It's NO ONE'S business either way.

Bring in strict privacy press reporting laws now.

Why is this idea important?

In the light of William Hague's recent encounter with our trashy press, I think the time for respecting a human being's personal life is long overdue.

This has highlighted how essential a person's privacy needs legal enforcement behind it.

It's not a question of whether the gay affair he allegedly had is true or not. It's NO ONE'S business either way.

Bring in strict privacy press reporting laws now.

totalitarianism and the fall of pseudo democracy

We live in a society free of many of the ills that infect the wider world. We are lucky enough, for instance to have a national health service, free debate on religion without fear of reprisals, equal rights for women, freedom of expression and equal relationship rights for homosexuals and so on and so forth. It has not always been so. It was illegal untill 1967 for two people of the same gender to have sexual relations, it was illegal untill 1928 for a woman to vote, untill the British monarchy was relegated to head of state and power transfered to government we lived under the oppressive rule of successive theocratic dictators. I make these points to set the tone of change, to highlight the necessity to make difficult desicions for the benefit of society. With this in mind i now have to ask: why do we insist on prohibition? We have watched it fail and done nothing, we have watched our children criminalised by an experimental and relativley new system of oppression and we do nothing to prevent this breathtaking totalitarianism. I am not going to argue the medical benefits of cannabis or the obvious requirement for a legal stimulant (as opposed to the legal deppressant), nor will i argue the evidential safety of many of the drugs classified as prohibited. I will not make these arguements, partially because they have been made time and again by those better qualified than myself, but largely because the science of it is secondary to the fact that it is a basic human right to do whatever one chooses to his/her own body. Do we legislate on tattoos lest the needle be infected? do we ban boxing or extreme sports to prevent injury or death, after all, are they not just chasing a far more risky high? We in society have a duty to educate, to teach those younger than ourselves to think criticaly and to make our own desicions provided they affect only ourselves. I have seen the argument made that drugs should be illegal because they are illegal (or vice versa), besides being a laughable non-sequitur this is held as esteemed argument by a large majority. This attitude is why i started this piece as i did, there was i time when it was illegal to have homosexual relations simply because someone deemed it wrong, there was a time when it was illegal for a woman to vote because someone felt they knew better. I think for me, i speak for me and i live for me, we exist only once and it is OUR right to experiance life as we see fit provided we harm no one else in the process.      

Why is this idea important?

We live in a society free of many of the ills that infect the wider world. We are lucky enough, for instance to have a national health service, free debate on religion without fear of reprisals, equal rights for women, freedom of expression and equal relationship rights for homosexuals and so on and so forth. It has not always been so. It was illegal untill 1967 for two people of the same gender to have sexual relations, it was illegal untill 1928 for a woman to vote, untill the British monarchy was relegated to head of state and power transfered to government we lived under the oppressive rule of successive theocratic dictators. I make these points to set the tone of change, to highlight the necessity to make difficult desicions for the benefit of society. With this in mind i now have to ask: why do we insist on prohibition? We have watched it fail and done nothing, we have watched our children criminalised by an experimental and relativley new system of oppression and we do nothing to prevent this breathtaking totalitarianism. I am not going to argue the medical benefits of cannabis or the obvious requirement for a legal stimulant (as opposed to the legal deppressant), nor will i argue the evidential safety of many of the drugs classified as prohibited. I will not make these arguements, partially because they have been made time and again by those better qualified than myself, but largely because the science of it is secondary to the fact that it is a basic human right to do whatever one chooses to his/her own body. Do we legislate on tattoos lest the needle be infected? do we ban boxing or extreme sports to prevent injury or death, after all, are they not just chasing a far more risky high? We in society have a duty to educate, to teach those younger than ourselves to think criticaly and to make our own desicions provided they affect only ourselves. I have seen the argument made that drugs should be illegal because they are illegal (or vice versa), besides being a laughable non-sequitur this is held as esteemed argument by a large majority. This attitude is why i started this piece as i did, there was i time when it was illegal to have homosexual relations simply because someone deemed it wrong, there was a time when it was illegal for a woman to vote because someone felt they knew better. I think for me, i speak for me and i live for me, we exist only once and it is OUR right to experiance life as we see fit provided we harm no one else in the process.      

Tighten up consumer law to defend our rights

That the practice of stores selling say a bottle of wine at X in one store and Y in another, should be banned. It is reasonable to charge more in London where rents are higher, or in the Highlands because of distance involved, but where there is really no difference ie between two stores in Surrey, it should be stopped.

Furthermore, when looking to buy decorative stuff for my sitting room, I found that although they come from the same warehouse, one website within a group may charge thirteen pounds more for the same item, than another website owned by the same company. This is especially common at the biggest household name mail order companies.

I complained to Trading Standards and was told it's legal. It shouldn't be.

Why is this idea important?

That the practice of stores selling say a bottle of wine at X in one store and Y in another, should be banned. It is reasonable to charge more in London where rents are higher, or in the Highlands because of distance involved, but where there is really no difference ie between two stores in Surrey, it should be stopped.

Furthermore, when looking to buy decorative stuff for my sitting room, I found that although they come from the same warehouse, one website within a group may charge thirteen pounds more for the same item, than another website owned by the same company. This is especially common at the biggest household name mail order companies.

I complained to Trading Standards and was told it's legal. It shouldn't be.

Remove the age of criminal responsibility!

Kids know right from wrong, and know what they can legally get away with because of there age.

The 'age of criminal responsibility' gives them a 'get out of jail free card' until they turn 10.

Remove it and make them responsible for their actions.

A lot of people will say no to this idea because they think kids wont understand the laws, but let me remind you that these same kids know the law better than most adults when they are breaking them. And they know all too well that the law cant touch them!!!!

Why is this idea important?

Kids know right from wrong, and know what they can legally get away with because of there age.

The 'age of criminal responsibility' gives them a 'get out of jail free card' until they turn 10.

Remove it and make them responsible for their actions.

A lot of people will say no to this idea because they think kids wont understand the laws, but let me remind you that these same kids know the law better than most adults when they are breaking them. And they know all too well that the law cant touch them!!!!

Freedom of information act

I would like to see an end to this act it serves no purpose and has put an additional cost on the public purse dealing with all the inquiries that the press submit every day. Like how many road kills has been collected by councils and distroyed or how many street lights were repaired. This means that time and money are wasted each and every by councils doing searches which really no normal member of the public cares about.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see an end to this act it serves no purpose and has put an additional cost on the public purse dealing with all the inquiries that the press submit every day. Like how many road kills has been collected by councils and distroyed or how many street lights were repaired. This means that time and money are wasted each and every by councils doing searches which really no normal member of the public cares about.

Tier 1

The present set of PSW visa holders are unfairly trapped by the new increase in points to attain the tier 1 visa. When we took out the post study, we knew how much was required to be able to switch.

To be fair, I feel that present PSW visa holders should get at least 15 points.

The average salary for a graduate job in the UK is £25000. I require a £50000 salary to qualify under new rules. When I applied for the PSW visa, I needed far far less than that.

Why is this idea important?

The present set of PSW visa holders are unfairly trapped by the new increase in points to attain the tier 1 visa. When we took out the post study, we knew how much was required to be able to switch.

To be fair, I feel that present PSW visa holders should get at least 15 points.

The average salary for a graduate job in the UK is £25000. I require a £50000 salary to qualify under new rules. When I applied for the PSW visa, I needed far far less than that.

Being able to celebrate our own customs.

Is it not a civil liberty to have freedom of speach and celebrate our countries customs without having to worry the local council is going to accuse us of being racist?

If we want to celebrate customs such as Easter and say we are English it is OUR right as British people. Surely the government should stop councils from offending the British by stopping them having that freedom? I was disgusted at the amount of councils last year that stopped putting up christmas decorations because it will offend. It offends us if they are not up.

The government needs to put some sort of guideline in place so that EVERYONE is happy not one or the other. At the end of the day we ALL live here and NOONES customs should be stopped or curbed. After all i thought we were a nation of EQUALITY.

I am all for legal immigration, but they have to respect everything that is british and what we celebrate, they cant expect us to change in our country, we dont expect them to give up their customs so why are we being made to by some councils and politicians?

Why is this idea important?

Is it not a civil liberty to have freedom of speach and celebrate our countries customs without having to worry the local council is going to accuse us of being racist?

If we want to celebrate customs such as Easter and say we are English it is OUR right as British people. Surely the government should stop councils from offending the British by stopping them having that freedom? I was disgusted at the amount of councils last year that stopped putting up christmas decorations because it will offend. It offends us if they are not up.

The government needs to put some sort of guideline in place so that EVERYONE is happy not one or the other. At the end of the day we ALL live here and NOONES customs should be stopped or curbed. After all i thought we were a nation of EQUALITY.

I am all for legal immigration, but they have to respect everything that is british and what we celebrate, they cant expect us to change in our country, we dont expect them to give up their customs so why are we being made to by some councils and politicians?

afghanistan cannabis

Some people like myself who can not take alcohol in a responsible manner take cannabis.

I work full time and pay my taxes and have not had a day off with illness for many years.

I hate having to hand over my money to fund criminal activity just so i can have a joint to relax and stop the pain of a dislocating shoulder and bad back.

My idea, like most, is to decriminalise cannabis but I have a solution on how to supply the market and solve the problem of the poppy farmers in Afghanistan. The farmers could grow the cannabis, the UK could buy it to supply the cannabis shops in England hence creating alot of jobs in the UK. People like myself would know our money was going back into the UK economy and would help the Afghan farmers (& their government) with a sustainable crop.

An age limit could be applied, the illegal market for cannabis would dry up and we would be able to smoke some nice black which would also stop alot of the very potent " skunk " strains from causing people problems.

 

Why is this idea important?

Some people like myself who can not take alcohol in a responsible manner take cannabis.

I work full time and pay my taxes and have not had a day off with illness for many years.

I hate having to hand over my money to fund criminal activity just so i can have a joint to relax and stop the pain of a dislocating shoulder and bad back.

My idea, like most, is to decriminalise cannabis but I have a solution on how to supply the market and solve the problem of the poppy farmers in Afghanistan. The farmers could grow the cannabis, the UK could buy it to supply the cannabis shops in England hence creating alot of jobs in the UK. People like myself would know our money was going back into the UK economy and would help the Afghan farmers (& their government) with a sustainable crop.

An age limit could be applied, the illegal market for cannabis would dry up and we would be able to smoke some nice black which would also stop alot of the very potent " skunk " strains from causing people problems.

 

getting fed up

of people thinking motability cars for disabled people are free

they are not, If i want to get a motability car i have to give up the mobility componant of my DLA, which is nearly £50 a week. then some cars require a deposit to be paid, and not all adaptations to the cars are free either.

And on the subject of why 4×4's are available on the motability scheme, i think you will find that most people that get these are people who cannot get out of their wheelchairs or it would be easier for all concerned if they didnt have to keep getting in and out of their chairs, so they have to have bigger vehicles in order to be able to get in the vehicles, and the deposit for these bigger vehicles is in the the thousands of pounds, far from free.

so, what i am asking is, that the government informs the public of what the system is for getting a motability car, and to stop making people think disabled people are getting anything for free from left right and centre, we are not!!

Why is this idea important?

of people thinking motability cars for disabled people are free

they are not, If i want to get a motability car i have to give up the mobility componant of my DLA, which is nearly £50 a week. then some cars require a deposit to be paid, and not all adaptations to the cars are free either.

And on the subject of why 4×4's are available on the motability scheme, i think you will find that most people that get these are people who cannot get out of their wheelchairs or it would be easier for all concerned if they didnt have to keep getting in and out of their chairs, so they have to have bigger vehicles in order to be able to get in the vehicles, and the deposit for these bigger vehicles is in the the thousands of pounds, far from free.

so, what i am asking is, that the government informs the public of what the system is for getting a motability car, and to stop making people think disabled people are getting anything for free from left right and centre, we are not!!

Latest figures for alcohol abuse underline the perverse nature of prohibition

Yesterday the BBC News gave the number of hospital admissions due to alcohol. Read it and weep for the state of our so called democratic society:

In 2008/09, 606,799 people were admitted to hospital with drink-related problems. Some were treated more than once, leading to 945,469 total admissions, the Local Alcohol Profiles for England show.

More than 1,500 men and women are admitted to hospital every day because of alcohol, a report reveals.

The figure is 65 per cent higher than only five years ago, while drinking is to blame for around 15,000 deaths a year.

More than 400,000 brawls, burglaries, sexual assaults and other crimes are also fuelled by alcohol each year, the study shows.

Why is this idea important?

Yesterday the BBC News gave the number of hospital admissions due to alcohol. Read it and weep for the state of our so called democratic society:

In 2008/09, 606,799 people were admitted to hospital with drink-related problems. Some were treated more than once, leading to 945,469 total admissions, the Local Alcohol Profiles for England show.

More than 1,500 men and women are admitted to hospital every day because of alcohol, a report reveals.

The figure is 65 per cent higher than only five years ago, while drinking is to blame for around 15,000 deaths a year.

More than 400,000 brawls, burglaries, sexual assaults and other crimes are also fuelled by alcohol each year, the study shows.

Close all bail hostels

I believe that all bail hostels should be closed or at teh very least redistributed. Whoever had the idea that putting groups of criminals together in one location so that crime can be normalised needs their bumps feeling.  Placing an offender with other offenders in poor quality housing in an impoverished area will never provide an atmosphere conducive of rehabilitation. It is just a cheap alternative to jail.

If a halfway house is required then offenders should be placed in flats alone where peer pressure to reoffend is not present. and sufficiently spread around to ensure that crime gangs are not being manufactured by the state.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that all bail hostels should be closed or at teh very least redistributed. Whoever had the idea that putting groups of criminals together in one location so that crime can be normalised needs their bumps feeling.  Placing an offender with other offenders in poor quality housing in an impoverished area will never provide an atmosphere conducive of rehabilitation. It is just a cheap alternative to jail.

If a halfway house is required then offenders should be placed in flats alone where peer pressure to reoffend is not present. and sufficiently spread around to ensure that crime gangs are not being manufactured by the state.

Right to photograph in public places

There has been a trend in recent years for police – especially in London – to stop residents and tourists taking photographs in public places, on the pretext of stopping terrorism. Some have even been made to hand over cameras, or storage cards, or to wipe the pictures in front of the officer. The idea that these actions could ever make the slightest difference for a real terrorist is laughable. It is a complete nonsense, that makes those stopped with their cameras feel like they are in a police state behind the Iron Curtain in the 50's. The law should be clarified to ensure that no officer can stop a person taking photos in public places, per se.

Why is this idea important?

There has been a trend in recent years for police – especially in London – to stop residents and tourists taking photographs in public places, on the pretext of stopping terrorism. Some have even been made to hand over cameras, or storage cards, or to wipe the pictures in front of the officer. The idea that these actions could ever make the slightest difference for a real terrorist is laughable. It is a complete nonsense, that makes those stopped with their cameras feel like they are in a police state behind the Iron Curtain in the 50's. The law should be clarified to ensure that no officer can stop a person taking photos in public places, per se.

Repeal the CJ&IAct 2008 s49sch10 which treats cautions as ‘convictions’.

Section 49, Schedule 10 of the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act (2008) provides protection for spent cautions in Section 8a of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in England and Wales. 

In my view this is wrong and this should be repealed along with the growing number of laws passed in the last two years exempting employers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Whilst some would argue that this is a good thing in that after 5 years the 'conviction' is spent and is non-declarable unless when applying for a non-exempt post,  I argue that it is treating those people with cautions as 'rehabilitated' 'convicts' and 'ex-offenders' when this is not the case.

Most often recipients of cautions are not 'ex-offenders', were not 'convicted' of any crime in a court of law and were not 'rehabilitated'. So why should they be treated as such in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of future employers? THIS IS WRONG.

People have been claiming quite rightly that their civil liberties are being blighted by the fact that all cautions and other non-conviction data are declared on CRB checks. So what do they do? They  treat them as 'convictions' which then become 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' but are still disclosable to most employers as they've expanded the list of occupations exempt from The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not provide recipients of cautions with any protection but instead labels them as 'ex-offenders' with 'convictions'.

WRONG.

UNTIL SOMEONE HAS BEEN TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW AND FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AFTER BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, ONLY THEN SHOULD THEY BE LABELLED AS AN EX-OFFENDER WHO HAS BEEN REHABILITATED AND WHO HAS A STATUTORY CRIMINAL RECORD. 

A CAUTION IS NOT STATUTORY BUT INFORMAL, GIVEN TO THE RECIPIENT BY A POLICEMAN WHO IN MANY CASES ADVISED OR CAJOLLED  THEM INTO 'ACCEPTING' IT AND WHICH WAS 'ACCEPTED' BY THE RECIPIENT OFTEN WITHOUT LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND ADVICE AND NOT IN A COURT OF LAW WHERE PROCEDURES CAN BE ADHERED TO.

AS SUCH, NON-STATUTORY INFORMATION IS PRIVATE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED TO ANYONE REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF EMPLOYMENT APPLIED FOR.

This whole mess needs to be unwound, starting with:

1) Repeal Section 115(7)a and 115(7)b of the Police Act 1997 which states that 'relevant matters' which 'might be useful' 'ought to be included' in CRB checks,

2) Repeal Section 115(5) of the Police Act 1997 which states that cautions are a 'relevant matter'.

3) Repeal the numerous amendments made by the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act which provide exemption of occupations from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

4) Repeal the Criminal & Justice Act 2008 S49,sch10 which states 'it protects cautions by treating them as 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' when in fact it treats cautions as 'convictions' and recipients as 'ex-offenders' who have or have been 'rehabilitated'.

5) Delete all non-conviction data including cautions, bind overs, reprimands and malicious hearsay from police databases that feed the CRB system and remove fingerprints, DNA, photographs, etc.

In my view a caution is a caution, it was spent as soon as it was given.

Why is this idea important?

Section 49, Schedule 10 of the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act (2008) provides protection for spent cautions in Section 8a of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in England and Wales. 

In my view this is wrong and this should be repealed along with the growing number of laws passed in the last two years exempting employers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Whilst some would argue that this is a good thing in that after 5 years the 'conviction' is spent and is non-declarable unless when applying for a non-exempt post,  I argue that it is treating those people with cautions as 'rehabilitated' 'convicts' and 'ex-offenders' when this is not the case.

Most often recipients of cautions are not 'ex-offenders', were not 'convicted' of any crime in a court of law and were not 'rehabilitated'. So why should they be treated as such in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of future employers? THIS IS WRONG.

People have been claiming quite rightly that their civil liberties are being blighted by the fact that all cautions and other non-conviction data are declared on CRB checks. So what do they do? They  treat them as 'convictions' which then become 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' but are still disclosable to most employers as they've expanded the list of occupations exempt from The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not provide recipients of cautions with any protection but instead labels them as 'ex-offenders' with 'convictions'.

WRONG.

UNTIL SOMEONE HAS BEEN TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW AND FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AFTER BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, ONLY THEN SHOULD THEY BE LABELLED AS AN EX-OFFENDER WHO HAS BEEN REHABILITATED AND WHO HAS A STATUTORY CRIMINAL RECORD. 

A CAUTION IS NOT STATUTORY BUT INFORMAL, GIVEN TO THE RECIPIENT BY A POLICEMAN WHO IN MANY CASES ADVISED OR CAJOLLED  THEM INTO 'ACCEPTING' IT AND WHICH WAS 'ACCEPTED' BY THE RECIPIENT OFTEN WITHOUT LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND ADVICE AND NOT IN A COURT OF LAW WHERE PROCEDURES CAN BE ADHERED TO.

AS SUCH, NON-STATUTORY INFORMATION IS PRIVATE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED TO ANYONE REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF EMPLOYMENT APPLIED FOR.

This whole mess needs to be unwound, starting with:

1) Repeal Section 115(7)a and 115(7)b of the Police Act 1997 which states that 'relevant matters' which 'might be useful' 'ought to be included' in CRB checks,

2) Repeal Section 115(5) of the Police Act 1997 which states that cautions are a 'relevant matter'.

3) Repeal the numerous amendments made by the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act which provide exemption of occupations from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

4) Repeal the Criminal & Justice Act 2008 S49,sch10 which states 'it protects cautions by treating them as 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' when in fact it treats cautions as 'convictions' and recipients as 'ex-offenders' who have or have been 'rehabilitated'.

5) Delete all non-conviction data including cautions, bind overs, reprimands and malicious hearsay from police databases that feed the CRB system and remove fingerprints, DNA, photographs, etc.

In my view a caution is a caution, it was spent as soon as it was given.

Remove cautions from CRB

Cautions are blighting people's job prospects and ruining lives. I received a caution after my abusive ex-husband reported me to the police for common assault.  He had threatened my life and the lives of my children and had assaulted me on several occasions (including when pregnant).  Whilst feeling under threat and duress I I used reasonable force to remove him from my house.  I ended up with a caution (very much sold to me by the police) after spending hours without food in the police station.  I was too scared of the consequences of going to court , but now very much regret having my day in court.  The police did not charge my ex-husband despite him admitting to kicking me whilst pregnant in his statement!

I have a PhD and hoped to train as a teacher (my ex knew this and knew the consequences of his malicious complaint).  I do not want to have to discuss my appalling marriage every time I apply for a job, so I only apply for those that do not require a CRB. These tend to be low paid jobs.

My ex-husband also got cautioned, but due to his career will never need a CRB check…

I should never have been cautioned in the first place. Now my earning potential has plumetted and my ability to forge a career is pretty much ruined. 

Cautions were supposed to be a 'telling off', not a black mark that sticks for life,

Remove cautions fom CRB checks and allow people such as myself to have the career opportunities that we deserve.

Why is this idea important?

Cautions are blighting people's job prospects and ruining lives. I received a caution after my abusive ex-husband reported me to the police for common assault.  He had threatened my life and the lives of my children and had assaulted me on several occasions (including when pregnant).  Whilst feeling under threat and duress I I used reasonable force to remove him from my house.  I ended up with a caution (very much sold to me by the police) after spending hours without food in the police station.  I was too scared of the consequences of going to court , but now very much regret having my day in court.  The police did not charge my ex-husband despite him admitting to kicking me whilst pregnant in his statement!

I have a PhD and hoped to train as a teacher (my ex knew this and knew the consequences of his malicious complaint).  I do not want to have to discuss my appalling marriage every time I apply for a job, so I only apply for those that do not require a CRB. These tend to be low paid jobs.

My ex-husband also got cautioned, but due to his career will never need a CRB check…

I should never have been cautioned in the first place. Now my earning potential has plumetted and my ability to forge a career is pretty much ruined. 

Cautions were supposed to be a 'telling off', not a black mark that sticks for life,

Remove cautions fom CRB checks and allow people such as myself to have the career opportunities that we deserve.

stop giving non working immigrants benefits and houses

the country is ruined. Why destroy it completely and bankrupt it further by giving handouts to people who come here for no other reason than to get free mloney.. Look after your own people….. hows that for a radical idea.?? then maybe our country could improve again instead of plumetting completely.

Why is this idea important?

the country is ruined. Why destroy it completely and bankrupt it further by giving handouts to people who come here for no other reason than to get free mloney.. Look after your own people….. hows that for a radical idea.?? then maybe our country could improve again instead of plumetting completely.

ALLOW PARENTS TO CONTEST EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDERS

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Why is this idea important?

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Ban Cold Call Telesales Call Centres

Marketing companies should be banned from using autodialler systems and from using offshore call centres. I work from home and despite my telephone numbers being registered with the TPS, I sometimes receive several calls a day (usually from call centres in India) from people trying to sell consolidation loans or find out if I have been mis-sold an insurance policy.

Why is this idea important?

Marketing companies should be banned from using autodialler systems and from using offshore call centres. I work from home and despite my telephone numbers being registered with the TPS, I sometimes receive several calls a day (usually from call centres in India) from people trying to sell consolidation loans or find out if I have been mis-sold an insurance policy.

Automatic Renewals and The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

My suggestion is an amendment to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, to make a subscription that renews automatically (motor insurance policy, anti virus subscriptions, book clubs, etc., automatically unenforceable.

As the law stands, it is quite legal for a company to hide, within its terms and conditions, a clause that allows it to renew a subscription and charge a customer for another year’s subscription, without actually inviting the customer to renew.

Others may mention it at the time the contract is entered into, But at the end of the year, the customer may have forgotten, or doesn’t wish for it to be renewed, and has the devil of a job cancelling and obtaining a refund.

My argument is that it effectively flies in the face of the judgement in Felthouse v Bindley 1862: i.e. that one cannot impose an obligation on another to reject one's offer. In that respect, I believe that the any such contract term – hidden or not – is – or at least should be – judged unfair per se.

The Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 later gave some protection against this practice in that it prevents renewals where someone is not given reasonable opportunity to prevent the renewal. But one may be away on holiday, or in hospital, for instance, when the notification arrives, nor is the sender obliged to provide proof of delivery. Also – ‘reasonable opportunity’ has not been defined – if indeed it ever could be. 

A change that makes it unlawful to renew without some positive act of confirmation (such as a signed reply slip or even a recorded telephone conversation) to enact renewal, would clear this up and put the consumer back in the driver's seat.

Why is this idea important?

My suggestion is an amendment to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, to make a subscription that renews automatically (motor insurance policy, anti virus subscriptions, book clubs, etc., automatically unenforceable.

As the law stands, it is quite legal for a company to hide, within its terms and conditions, a clause that allows it to renew a subscription and charge a customer for another year’s subscription, without actually inviting the customer to renew.

Others may mention it at the time the contract is entered into, But at the end of the year, the customer may have forgotten, or doesn’t wish for it to be renewed, and has the devil of a job cancelling and obtaining a refund.

My argument is that it effectively flies in the face of the judgement in Felthouse v Bindley 1862: i.e. that one cannot impose an obligation on another to reject one's offer. In that respect, I believe that the any such contract term – hidden or not – is – or at least should be – judged unfair per se.

The Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 later gave some protection against this practice in that it prevents renewals where someone is not given reasonable opportunity to prevent the renewal. But one may be away on holiday, or in hospital, for instance, when the notification arrives, nor is the sender obliged to provide proof of delivery. Also – ‘reasonable opportunity’ has not been defined – if indeed it ever could be. 

A change that makes it unlawful to renew without some positive act of confirmation (such as a signed reply slip or even a recorded telephone conversation) to enact renewal, would clear this up and put the consumer back in the driver's seat.

Cancel listed buildings restrictions on residential buildings

At the moment there are a lot of restrictions as to what the owner of a listed building can do to their property.

 

An Englishman's (or a Scotsman…) home is his castle and owners of listed buildings should be just as entitled as any house owner to make modifications to their house.

 

If the house is primarily used as a dwelling then it should have no more restrictions on it than a 'normal' house.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment there are a lot of restrictions as to what the owner of a listed building can do to their property.

 

An Englishman's (or a Scotsman…) home is his castle and owners of listed buildings should be just as entitled as any house owner to make modifications to their house.

 

If the house is primarily used as a dwelling then it should have no more restrictions on it than a 'normal' house.

The government MUST review CRB checks as well as the Vetting and Barring System

In the coalition government's manifesto ' The Coalition: Our Programme for Government' published in May 2010, it states, in Section 3: Civil Liberties, Page 11 :

We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

In order to do this the Government MUST review the information included in CRB checks as well as the effectiveness of the Vetting & Barring Scheme and arrive at the conclusion that only true convictions where a person has defended him/herself in a court of law yet has still been found guilty by tiral and jury are included in the checks made available to employers.

As cautions, reprimands, warnings etc do not fall under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, CRB checks currently provide no protection whatsoever for people's freedoms with the inclusion of NON-CONVICTION data held on Police databases. 

Instead, each time a CRB check is returned with non-conviction data, the subject is effectively forced to stand trial by his/her future employer without any ability to defend themselves. Forcing a person to explain themselves (if they get as far as interview) and thus discuss very private data in order to be deemed guilty or not by a future employer (not a judge in a court of law but joe bloggs)  is just MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG. Why not just set up public stocks or brand people across their foreheads as this procedure is archaic!

The only way to protect people's freedoms and also privacy (relying on future employers to not discuss very private and often unproven incidents is no protection at all is to have a blanket approach and that is to:

OMIT ALL NON-CONVICTION DATA (INCLUDING CAUTIONS, REPRIMANDS, WARNINGS, NFA's, OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION, ETC) FOR EVERYBODY, REGARDLESS OF AGE OR IMPLIED SEVERITY OF EVENTS MENTIONED.
 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

In the coalition government's manifesto ' The Coalition: Our Programme for Government' published in May 2010, it states, in Section 3: Civil Liberties, Page 11 :

We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

In order to do this the Government MUST review the information included in CRB checks as well as the effectiveness of the Vetting & Barring Scheme and arrive at the conclusion that only true convictions where a person has defended him/herself in a court of law yet has still been found guilty by tiral and jury are included in the checks made available to employers.

As cautions, reprimands, warnings etc do not fall under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, CRB checks currently provide no protection whatsoever for people's freedoms with the inclusion of NON-CONVICTION data held on Police databases. 

Instead, each time a CRB check is returned with non-conviction data, the subject is effectively forced to stand trial by his/her future employer without any ability to defend themselves. Forcing a person to explain themselves (if they get as far as interview) and thus discuss very private data in order to be deemed guilty or not by a future employer (not a judge in a court of law but joe bloggs)  is just MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG. Why not just set up public stocks or brand people across their foreheads as this procedure is archaic!

The only way to protect people's freedoms and also privacy (relying on future employers to not discuss very private and often unproven incidents is no protection at all is to have a blanket approach and that is to:

OMIT ALL NON-CONVICTION DATA (INCLUDING CAUTIONS, REPRIMANDS, WARNINGS, NFA's, OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION, ETC) FOR EVERYBODY, REGARDLESS OF AGE OR IMPLIED SEVERITY OF EVENTS MENTIONED.
 

 

 

Put all pensioners in prison

Let's put the OAPs in jail and the criminals in a nursing home.  This way the OAPs would have access to showers, hobbies and walks.   
They'd receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and medical treatment, wheel chairs etc and they'd receive money instead of paying it out. 
They would have constant video monitoring, so they could be helped instantly, if they fell, or needed assistance. 
Bedding would be washed twice a week, and all clothing would be ironed and returned to them. A guard would check on them every 20 minutes and bring their meals and snacks to their cell.    
They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose. 
They would have access to a library, weight room, spiritual counseling, pool and education. 
Clothing & shoes would be free on request. 
Private, secure rooms for all, with an  exercise outdoor yard, with  gardens. 
Each OAP could have a PC a TV radio and daily phone calls. 
There would be a board of directors to hear complaints, and the guards would have a code of conduct that would be strictly adhered to.

The "criminals" would get cold food, be left all alone and unsupervised. 
Lights off at 8pm, and showers once a week. 
Live in a tiny room and pay £900.00 per month and have no hope of ever getting out.   
Justice for all we say. 

The above was sent to me as a "joke" but there is much to be leant from it!! 
 

Why is this idea important?

Let's put the OAPs in jail and the criminals in a nursing home.  This way the OAPs would have access to showers, hobbies and walks.   
They'd receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and medical treatment, wheel chairs etc and they'd receive money instead of paying it out. 
They would have constant video monitoring, so they could be helped instantly, if they fell, or needed assistance. 
Bedding would be washed twice a week, and all clothing would be ironed and returned to them. A guard would check on them every 20 minutes and bring their meals and snacks to their cell.    
They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose. 
They would have access to a library, weight room, spiritual counseling, pool and education. 
Clothing & shoes would be free on request. 
Private, secure rooms for all, with an  exercise outdoor yard, with  gardens. 
Each OAP could have a PC a TV radio and daily phone calls. 
There would be a board of directors to hear complaints, and the guards would have a code of conduct that would be strictly adhered to.

The "criminals" would get cold food, be left all alone and unsupervised. 
Lights off at 8pm, and showers once a week. 
Live in a tiny room and pay £900.00 per month and have no hope of ever getting out.   
Justice for all we say. 

The above was sent to me as a "joke" but there is much to be leant from it!! 
 

International usergroups for military hardware

Five of NATO member states are part of the so called EPAF: European Participating Air Forces. This group consists of five Air Forces, who joined forces on the operational logistics of their F-16A/B's and embarked upon a combined (together with the USAF) modernisation of the F-16 (the Midlife Update programme).

Great Britain has to cut heavily on defence spending. Yet, each and every time the RAF, the Naval Air Arm and the Army Air Corps seem to want something different than the countries surrounding the UK. The WAH-64 Apache AH1 differs so much from the Apaches of the US Army and the RNLAF (other Apache users), that no logistic economies of scale can be realized. The same is more or less true for the Tornado Force, Joint Force Harrier and the Typhoon.

Why not agree on an international standard and try to form international usergroups for miliatry equipment and weapons? If small countries can achieve considerable economies of scale, so should Britain! Why let the Brirtish armed forces go to waste because of the interests of industry?

Why is this idea important?

Five of NATO member states are part of the so called EPAF: European Participating Air Forces. This group consists of five Air Forces, who joined forces on the operational logistics of their F-16A/B's and embarked upon a combined (together with the USAF) modernisation of the F-16 (the Midlife Update programme).

Great Britain has to cut heavily on defence spending. Yet, each and every time the RAF, the Naval Air Arm and the Army Air Corps seem to want something different than the countries surrounding the UK. The WAH-64 Apache AH1 differs so much from the Apaches of the US Army and the RNLAF (other Apache users), that no logistic economies of scale can be realized. The same is more or less true for the Tornado Force, Joint Force Harrier and the Typhoon.

Why not agree on an international standard and try to form international usergroups for miliatry equipment and weapons? If small countries can achieve considerable economies of scale, so should Britain! Why let the Brirtish armed forces go to waste because of the interests of industry?

local authorities

change this label to something like local administrators.. and remove their right to lay down the law. theres a sign at my local quayside, installed recently. saying "no swimming or diving from this quay, by order. " . people have swam in this water for years. i swam in it, so did my grandparents. no, sudenly, we cant. this sign should be unlawful. in fact, im sure it is but because it says "by order" people believe it has to be obeyed.. no one has drowned here in my lifetime so its far from dangerous. things like this are happening all over the country.

Why is this idea important?

change this label to something like local administrators.. and remove their right to lay down the law. theres a sign at my local quayside, installed recently. saying "no swimming or diving from this quay, by order. " . people have swam in this water for years. i swam in it, so did my grandparents. no, sudenly, we cant. this sign should be unlawful. in fact, im sure it is but because it says "by order" people believe it has to be obeyed.. no one has drowned here in my lifetime so its far from dangerous. things like this are happening all over the country.

Keep prepackaged politics off Mainstream News

We all know, (well the minority of us that are semi awake) that certain news channels are more biased than others when it comes to promotion of political party policies and current events.

Create dedicated political channel(s) and let the mainstream news merchants do what they are supposed to do, reporting REAL news.

This way people can tune in 24/7 to whatever political propaganda channel they choose, as and when they desire to find out what they are voting on without getting swayed by the mainstream newsreaders "HARD TALK" 

And while your at it, make sure that these so called "public servants" have a weekly grilling from the public on issues and policies that effect us all, with an interactive feedback system to show what is hot and what is not. This especially includes the Prime minister and his minions.

The people are fed up of not having a voice, just having the right to vote IS NOT ENOUGH!!!

STOP SELLING POLITICS AS A PRE PACKAGED ADVERTISED MARKETED BRAND!!

Why is this idea important?

We all know, (well the minority of us that are semi awake) that certain news channels are more biased than others when it comes to promotion of political party policies and current events.

Create dedicated political channel(s) and let the mainstream news merchants do what they are supposed to do, reporting REAL news.

This way people can tune in 24/7 to whatever political propaganda channel they choose, as and when they desire to find out what they are voting on without getting swayed by the mainstream newsreaders "HARD TALK" 

And while your at it, make sure that these so called "public servants" have a weekly grilling from the public on issues and policies that effect us all, with an interactive feedback system to show what is hot and what is not. This especially includes the Prime minister and his minions.

The people are fed up of not having a voice, just having the right to vote IS NOT ENOUGH!!!

STOP SELLING POLITICS AS A PRE PACKAGED ADVERTISED MARKETED BRAND!!