Open to the citizens, Uk Civil Service, Code of Service

Propose to open up UK, Civil Service, Code of Service, allow citizens to bring Civil Servants to task, be challenged when decisions taken without fact and based only what within psychiatry is human experimentation. 

 

Why is this idea important?

Propose to open up UK, Civil Service, Code of Service, allow citizens to bring Civil Servants to task, be challenged when decisions taken without fact and based only what within psychiatry is human experimentation. 

 

Policing

Policing has become more militaristic over the last government's tenure and has forgotten that it is a Police Service and not a Police Force.

The Service needs to be more accountable to the local people and Councils and not Central Government.  Our Precept includes a large sum for the Police and yet we have no say in what is done nor is there any local accountability. 

We rarely see a Police presence in the Village as they are all in the City.

The Police should be accountable to the community they serve and which pays their wages.

 

Why is this idea important?

Policing has become more militaristic over the last government's tenure and has forgotten that it is a Police Service and not a Police Force.

The Service needs to be more accountable to the local people and Councils and not Central Government.  Our Precept includes a large sum for the Police and yet we have no say in what is done nor is there any local accountability. 

We rarely see a Police presence in the Village as they are all in the City.

The Police should be accountable to the community they serve and which pays their wages.

 

Abolish ‘Commercial in Confidence’

All public accounts should be open to scrutiny by the public.

At the moment a lot of public expenditure is hidden by 'Commercial in Confidence' clauses imposed by the private sector companies hired to deliver public services.

This is done to precvent the public knowing where their money is actually going.

Why is this idea important?

All public accounts should be open to scrutiny by the public.

At the moment a lot of public expenditure is hidden by 'Commercial in Confidence' clauses imposed by the private sector companies hired to deliver public services.

This is done to precvent the public knowing where their money is actually going.

Allow the public to elect judges and magistrates

Every 4 years we hold judicial elections, where the public, get to choose our law-lords, judges & magistrates, by election.

This will be identical to a general election, but the candidates will have no polotical ties.

furthermore, let us have our judiciary wholly accountable to a council of people, persons chosen at random every 4 years, to whom our judges will have to explain their actions, reasoning and sentencing, and to give them powers to override any judicial decision, including those of courts abroad, for example the european court of human rights, which has consistently proven to be biased against the interests of the Great British people.

Why is this idea important?

Every 4 years we hold judicial elections, where the public, get to choose our law-lords, judges & magistrates, by election.

This will be identical to a general election, but the candidates will have no polotical ties.

furthermore, let us have our judiciary wholly accountable to a council of people, persons chosen at random every 4 years, to whom our judges will have to explain their actions, reasoning and sentencing, and to give them powers to override any judicial decision, including those of courts abroad, for example the european court of human rights, which has consistently proven to be biased against the interests of the Great British people.

Stop the Government Stealing ‘Adoptable’ Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abolish the monarchy and titles of nobility

How can we profess to be a truly democratic and modern society when we subsidise a head of state selected on the basis of hereditary privilege?

We should be allowed to elect our head of state. Someone who actively engages with the electorate. Only an elected head of state can adequately protect our civil liberties. A hereditary ruler has no legitimacy whatsoever.

Why is this idea important?

How can we profess to be a truly democratic and modern society when we subsidise a head of state selected on the basis of hereditary privilege?

We should be allowed to elect our head of state. Someone who actively engages with the electorate. Only an elected head of state can adequately protect our civil liberties. A hereditary ruler has no legitimacy whatsoever.

Expand the Freedom of Information Act to include all social housing organisations

My housing organisation in the Richmond borough are building a truly MASSIVE new building for their offices while they already have office buildings in practically every town in the borough.Now I know they in receipt of public funding and accordingly I wrote to the housing manager to ask him under the Foe Act how much the building costs and where the money to build such an enormous construction in width, breadth and height came from. He curtly replied that he didn't have to give me such information. Please change the law so that all housing organisations in regular receipt of public funds (It must be costing millions!)discloses the financial details for there is another housing organisation which DOES disclose these figures in this borough. This is a waste of public money based on the pure greed of such landlords who, at the same time, are miserly and mean towards their tenants, refusing to spend a penny on many essential repairs, etcetera.

Why is this idea important?

My housing organisation in the Richmond borough are building a truly MASSIVE new building for their offices while they already have office buildings in practically every town in the borough.Now I know they in receipt of public funding and accordingly I wrote to the housing manager to ask him under the Foe Act how much the building costs and where the money to build such an enormous construction in width, breadth and height came from. He curtly replied that he didn't have to give me such information. Please change the law so that all housing organisations in regular receipt of public funds (It must be costing millions!)discloses the financial details for there is another housing organisation which DOES disclose these figures in this borough. This is a waste of public money based on the pure greed of such landlords who, at the same time, are miserly and mean towards their tenants, refusing to spend a penny on many essential repairs, etcetera.

Ban Group Tenancies for Properties with Over 4 People

I believe a ban should be placed on group tenancies for properties with over 4 people.

 

The idea is given birth from a situation I experienced as a student renting for the first time at university. In order to find accommodation at a reasonable price and in time for the following year, myself and three friends rented a 10 person house with a few unknowns and another group that we were briefly acquainted with.

Much to our surprise when it came time to signing the tenancy contract (by now it was too late to find alternate accommodation) we realised that the contract was worded for a single tenant and that simply by placing the names of all tenants on this one contract, we became treated as a single entity by law. We confirmed that this was common practise so thought nothing of it.

Later I left university during the middle of the year. Following my contractual agreement continuing to pay rent for the entire year and I paid off any outstanding and statutory bills out of good will to other housemates.

It turned out that a housemate had failed to pay rent and bills for many months and that several thousands of pounds were now being asked for from the other tenants, including myself, by the estate agent that managed the property.

Why is this idea important?

I believe a ban should be placed on group tenancies for properties with over 4 people.

 

The idea is given birth from a situation I experienced as a student renting for the first time at university. In order to find accommodation at a reasonable price and in time for the following year, myself and three friends rented a 10 person house with a few unknowns and another group that we were briefly acquainted with.

Much to our surprise when it came time to signing the tenancy contract (by now it was too late to find alternate accommodation) we realised that the contract was worded for a single tenant and that simply by placing the names of all tenants on this one contract, we became treated as a single entity by law. We confirmed that this was common practise so thought nothing of it.

Later I left university during the middle of the year. Following my contractual agreement continuing to pay rent for the entire year and I paid off any outstanding and statutory bills out of good will to other housemates.

It turned out that a housemate had failed to pay rent and bills for many months and that several thousands of pounds were now being asked for from the other tenants, including myself, by the estate agent that managed the property.

Redefine our type of government.

Our government is called a democracy. The labour party proved and so far the Con/Lib have re-inforced the fact that we do not live in a democracy but a five year dictatorship. This website proves that if it is not on their agenda, then it is wiped off. Immigration, the smoking ban, capital punishement, foreign aid. Things that the people want and comment about are ignored or removed. The political ELITE have their own agenda which we the voting public will never be privy to. Is it the well paid job in Europe after parliament, a few well paid directorships after parliament, their place in history? Who knows the reasons behind their decisions, we never will. 

Why is this idea important?

Our government is called a democracy. The labour party proved and so far the Con/Lib have re-inforced the fact that we do not live in a democracy but a five year dictatorship. This website proves that if it is not on their agenda, then it is wiped off. Immigration, the smoking ban, capital punishement, foreign aid. Things that the people want and comment about are ignored or removed. The political ELITE have their own agenda which we the voting public will never be privy to. Is it the well paid job in Europe after parliament, a few well paid directorships after parliament, their place in history? Who knows the reasons behind their decisions, we never will. 

Restrict the irresponsible power wielded by C.M.E.C. (formerly C.S.A.)

Restrict the way in which C.M.E.C. (C.S.A.) are allowed to act in the name of protecting children with no consideration or responsiblity for the wilful destruction of families, acting above the law, protecting themselves by the very laws they created, using abusive and bullying behaviour, criminalising parents, restricting their movements, imposing DEO's with no regard, destroying the family unit. Individual circumstances are not taken into account and C.M.E.C. instead of resolving issues would rather quote regulation and resolve nothing.

Review each case on its merits, not stupid regulation put in place to protect C.M.E.C. and interprete as they see fit. There are many parents who have genuine reasons for the circumstances in which they find themselves, C.M.E.C. in their pursuit of officious interpretation and regulation with the ability ignore appeals, have by there actions caused the deaths of more than 60 people, in any other civilised society they would be charged with man slaughter

Why is this idea important?

Restrict the way in which C.M.E.C. (C.S.A.) are allowed to act in the name of protecting children with no consideration or responsiblity for the wilful destruction of families, acting above the law, protecting themselves by the very laws they created, using abusive and bullying behaviour, criminalising parents, restricting their movements, imposing DEO's with no regard, destroying the family unit. Individual circumstances are not taken into account and C.M.E.C. instead of resolving issues would rather quote regulation and resolve nothing.

Review each case on its merits, not stupid regulation put in place to protect C.M.E.C. and interprete as they see fit. There are many parents who have genuine reasons for the circumstances in which they find themselves, C.M.E.C. in their pursuit of officious interpretation and regulation with the ability ignore appeals, have by there actions caused the deaths of more than 60 people, in any other civilised society they would be charged with man slaughter

Let tv licence payers elect the BBC heirachy.

At the moment WE pay the fee and THEY(the government) choose the governors and other people they would like to run it.

It would be a simple matter to make the licencepayers preferences known when the reminders are sent out.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment WE pay the fee and THEY(the government) choose the governors and other people they would like to run it.

It would be a simple matter to make the licencepayers preferences known when the reminders are sent out.

Make the law accessible and judges more accountable

Cap fees for lawyers and educate judges to care about the quality of work carried out by lawyers. Review lawyers claims for costs on basis of work achieved and time that really needed to be spent. I would also provide transcripts of cases to litigants in person free of charge to help them challenge lazy judges. The methods of recourse when the legal systems fails are slow, inefficient and untrustworthy.

Why is this idea important?

Cap fees for lawyers and educate judges to care about the quality of work carried out by lawyers. Review lawyers claims for costs on basis of work achieved and time that really needed to be spent. I would also provide transcripts of cases to litigants in person free of charge to help them challenge lazy judges. The methods of recourse when the legal systems fails are slow, inefficient and untrustworthy.

Repeal the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act

This is the lunatic Act introduced by the last Government to allow them to amend laws which, in their frantic churning out of legislation, they had gotten all wrong in the first place. It allows them to amend legislation without coming back to Parliament and debating the issue properly.

It should be repealed in its' entirety.

Why is this idea important?

This is the lunatic Act introduced by the last Government to allow them to amend laws which, in their frantic churning out of legislation, they had gotten all wrong in the first place. It allows them to amend legislation without coming back to Parliament and debating the issue properly.

It should be repealed in its' entirety.

Repeal the regs allowing Councils to get Final Salery Pensions.

The bizarre case of Croydon.  The town that committed suicide.

All management decisions…

 

They seem to have sunk a town to simply line their own nests.  See below.

Why is this idea important?

The bizarre case of Croydon.  The town that committed suicide.

All management decisions…

 

They seem to have sunk a town to simply line their own nests.  See below.

All official answers must be committal not noncommittal

This applies to every answer given by a government minister or office, civil servant, MP, councillor etc, other public office or commission of any nature, or business answering an enquiry about problems with its product, inclduing lawyers.

Everything stated in every answer given in an official capacity, i.e. as part of these folks' jobs, must be definite about all facts involved. if total factual certainty does not exist, the extent to which it does must be stated definitely. The words "unfortuately", "regrettably", and all synonyms used similarly, should be banned. Phrases like "you feel" or "you consider", that take the committal factuality out of a sentence, should be banned, and provision made for any new such phrase that bureaucrats are seen to coin and use, to be banned too upon its existence being demonstrated.

If the recipient of the answer perceives that any statement in it is noncommittal, s/he will be entitled to write back stating and explaining how that is, and to demand, as an enforceable right, a reply where the writer of the statement has to show, word by word, that it is watertightly committal and definite.

Why is this idea important?

This applies to every answer given by a government minister or office, civil servant, MP, councillor etc, other public office or commission of any nature, or business answering an enquiry about problems with its product, inclduing lawyers.

Everything stated in every answer given in an official capacity, i.e. as part of these folks' jobs, must be definite about all facts involved. if total factual certainty does not exist, the extent to which it does must be stated definitely. The words "unfortuately", "regrettably", and all synonyms used similarly, should be banned. Phrases like "you feel" or "you consider", that take the committal factuality out of a sentence, should be banned, and provision made for any new such phrase that bureaucrats are seen to coin and use, to be banned too upon its existence being demonstrated.

If the recipient of the answer perceives that any statement in it is noncommittal, s/he will be entitled to write back stating and explaining how that is, and to demand, as an enforceable right, a reply where the writer of the statement has to show, word by word, that it is watertightly committal and definite.

Unlawful behaviour and abuse of human rightsby powerful bureaucracies

In Richmond a fairly low key member of staff in a social housing organisation relayed private e mails with a woman in a council housing department, one which contained slanderous and fictitious content about a tenant with no criminal history and who liked to lead a peaceful existence. This stated that in the opinion of the woman concerned the tenant was violent and had a serious mental illness. This was entirely untrue! As a result the social services were contacted,(All without any information being given about the procedure to the subject of it!), a local NHS Trust involved and a huge procedures was put secretly into place, involving a very large body of complete strangers to the subject involved. A hospital in the area was involved and also a clinic which made phone calls to try to get the name of the subject's doctor. (Refused twice!) A major NHS trust in the south west was contacted with ties with Tooting Bec (a well known mental hospital). Funny things started happening to the tenant who got wise to this clandestine procedure by powerful and unaccountable authorities and directly approached and challenged the social worker in the clinic who had made the calls. A letter from their doctor was forwarded to the landlords and the council stating that no information had been given from her patient's medical file at any time to the authorities concerned. This was ignored but by intelligent questioning of involved individuals with relation to clauses in the data protection acts and after an interview with the social worker at the clinic a memo was sent to the council from the clinic that to involve the particular individual in such a procedure was 'very inappropriate.' However this went on record on the housing file. Years later the tenant took the council housing department to court on another case and the slanderous information on the housing file was repeated by a judge who told the council.'It is wrong to mention…'s mental illness' as part of their defence.This tenant in question had no history of any mental illness, abhorred any form of violence and was suffering a new neighbour with an alcohol addiction who had attacked her, sent many hate letters and shouted hateful abuse from her balcony keeping everyone awake nearly every night for five and a half years before the landlords and the police finally evicted her. I have heard this procedure has been used by councils and housing associations against tenants before and since this case occurred. Is this right to treat a human being in this way? This cost a great deal of money with all the quangos involved but it was really a huge mistake. The housing file in question which revealed what had taken place in secret came to light in a solicitor's office. The council mysteriously 'lost' their own copy of this file.

Why is this idea important?

In Richmond a fairly low key member of staff in a social housing organisation relayed private e mails with a woman in a council housing department, one which contained slanderous and fictitious content about a tenant with no criminal history and who liked to lead a peaceful existence. This stated that in the opinion of the woman concerned the tenant was violent and had a serious mental illness. This was entirely untrue! As a result the social services were contacted,(All without any information being given about the procedure to the subject of it!), a local NHS Trust involved and a huge procedures was put secretly into place, involving a very large body of complete strangers to the subject involved. A hospital in the area was involved and also a clinic which made phone calls to try to get the name of the subject's doctor. (Refused twice!) A major NHS trust in the south west was contacted with ties with Tooting Bec (a well known mental hospital). Funny things started happening to the tenant who got wise to this clandestine procedure by powerful and unaccountable authorities and directly approached and challenged the social worker in the clinic who had made the calls. A letter from their doctor was forwarded to the landlords and the council stating that no information had been given from her patient's medical file at any time to the authorities concerned. This was ignored but by intelligent questioning of involved individuals with relation to clauses in the data protection acts and after an interview with the social worker at the clinic a memo was sent to the council from the clinic that to involve the particular individual in such a procedure was 'very inappropriate.' However this went on record on the housing file. Years later the tenant took the council housing department to court on another case and the slanderous information on the housing file was repeated by a judge who told the council.'It is wrong to mention…'s mental illness' as part of their defence.This tenant in question had no history of any mental illness, abhorred any form of violence and was suffering a new neighbour with an alcohol addiction who had attacked her, sent many hate letters and shouted hateful abuse from her balcony keeping everyone awake nearly every night for five and a half years before the landlords and the police finally evicted her. I have heard this procedure has been used by councils and housing associations against tenants before and since this case occurred. Is this right to treat a human being in this way? This cost a great deal of money with all the quangos involved but it was really a huge mistake. The housing file in question which revealed what had taken place in secret came to light in a solicitor's office. The council mysteriously 'lost' their own copy of this file.

Why are we still in the European Union?

Being a member of the European Union costs this country a substantial amount of money reported at an estimated 40 million pounds per day, our laws and budget policies are scrutinised by Europeans, we have no control over immigration within the EU – we are expected to open our doors to anybody, we are stuck with an outdated and unfair human rights act and finally we allow convicted criminals to appeal their sentences at the European court of justice.

My idea is to stop this madness and leave now before we completely lose sovereignty and turn into a bureaucratic arm of a larger and more malignant body of German and French bureaucrats.

Why is this idea important?

Being a member of the European Union costs this country a substantial amount of money reported at an estimated 40 million pounds per day, our laws and budget policies are scrutinised by Europeans, we have no control over immigration within the EU – we are expected to open our doors to anybody, we are stuck with an outdated and unfair human rights act and finally we allow convicted criminals to appeal their sentences at the European court of justice.

My idea is to stop this madness and leave now before we completely lose sovereignty and turn into a bureaucratic arm of a larger and more malignant body of German and French bureaucrats.

Make An Anti-Whitewashing Open Confidence Poll For Public Enquiries

A number of enquiries conducted in the past decade (e.g. the Hutton Enquiry, or the recent enquiry into the ClimateGate affair) have been lead by those with questionable allegiances to the state or to those who are the subject of the enquiry.

To deter this from happening in future, you could for example create website that published all official public enquiries and their documents, and held a public poll of confidence on the enquiry and open it up to comments.

This would be available for all to see, including the media, and would help deter the temptation for the government to 'choose the right people to investigate themselves' to determine the outcome.

That is not a fair enquiry.

Why is this idea important?

A number of enquiries conducted in the past decade (e.g. the Hutton Enquiry, or the recent enquiry into the ClimateGate affair) have been lead by those with questionable allegiances to the state or to those who are the subject of the enquiry.

To deter this from happening in future, you could for example create website that published all official public enquiries and their documents, and held a public poll of confidence on the enquiry and open it up to comments.

This would be available for all to see, including the media, and would help deter the temptation for the government to 'choose the right people to investigate themselves' to determine the outcome.

That is not a fair enquiry.

police officers should have large, highly visible numbers and names on their uniform at ALL times

these should be especially large and visible in situations where they may not be wearing their usual uniform and accountability is especially important, such as public order situations

it should be a criminal offence for police not to display these

Why is this idea important?

these should be especially large and visible in situations where they may not be wearing their usual uniform and accountability is especially important, such as public order situations

it should be a criminal offence for police not to display these

Loss of data – personal liability in the private sector

There are severe penalties for private organisations which lose data – not so for the public sector. The Inland Revenue & other departments have lost millions of personal details, with little or no consequences.

Why is this idea important?

There are severe penalties for private organisations which lose data – not so for the public sector. The Inland Revenue & other departments have lost millions of personal details, with little or no consequences.

Make public officials financially liable

The Chief Executive and the Board of Directors of public organisations should be personally liable for paying fines or suits against their organisations, and not the taxpayer.

Why is this idea important?

The Chief Executive and the Board of Directors of public organisations should be personally liable for paying fines or suits against their organisations, and not the taxpayer.

Separate the executive from the legislature

Currently, the Cabinet sits in Parliament. This means that they can vote on what the laws are, and then put them into force, a gross violation of the separation of powers principle. The executive seems to dominate Parliament, and forces through laws we don't want, and appoints people only one constituency (if that) chose.

 

I am not proposing that the Prime Minister shouldn't come from the House of Commons. He can stay. But the rest, the ones that form his Cabinet – they should not be MPs or Peers.

 

Instead, we could emulate the American system. The Prime Minister would nominate someone to take up a role in Cabinet. Then that person should be vetted and approved by Parliament. The vetting would be a thorough Q&A session (or plural)  to assess the nominee's ability to do the job. Then a vote would be taken, and if the vote was lost, then the Prime Minister would have to find someone else to nominate.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, the Cabinet sits in Parliament. This means that they can vote on what the laws are, and then put them into force, a gross violation of the separation of powers principle. The executive seems to dominate Parliament, and forces through laws we don't want, and appoints people only one constituency (if that) chose.

 

I am not proposing that the Prime Minister shouldn't come from the House of Commons. He can stay. But the rest, the ones that form his Cabinet – they should not be MPs or Peers.

 

Instead, we could emulate the American system. The Prime Minister would nominate someone to take up a role in Cabinet. Then that person should be vetted and approved by Parliament. The vetting would be a thorough Q&A session (or plural)  to assess the nominee's ability to do the job. Then a vote would be taken, and if the vote was lost, then the Prime Minister would have to find someone else to nominate.

Stop pumping public money into ACPO, a private company

The Association of Chief Police Officers is a private company which receives millions of pounds a year of state money. It advises Government, it sets policing policy, it campaigns for increased police powers, and is engaged in commercial activities over which it has a monopoly.

Much of the legislation which has reduced our liberties over the last 13 years has been proposed or strongly supported by ACPO.

As a private company it is not accountable to the public, and is not covered by the Freedom of Information act.

Why is this idea important?

The Association of Chief Police Officers is a private company which receives millions of pounds a year of state money. It advises Government, it sets policing policy, it campaigns for increased police powers, and is engaged in commercial activities over which it has a monopoly.

Much of the legislation which has reduced our liberties over the last 13 years has been proposed or strongly supported by ACPO.

As a private company it is not accountable to the public, and is not covered by the Freedom of Information act.