Publishing of any evidence of public dangers and harm, by automatic right

Suppose you have personal knowledge, from experience or otherwise, of any type of harm or damage that is being done to some people. Suppose this harm, either the whole thing or one particular aspect of it, are not already widely publicised. Then you should have an automatic right to have your information published.
 
If you are capable of writing one, this means a widely circulated book, with an automatic right to public flagging of its existence, shelf space in the shops, and orderability. If a video or website or simply getting spoken to by the media suit you better, then those should be your entitlements alternatively. But book is still the best idea, the most solid type of document. "Narrowcasting" options are not a solution to this issue, for this idea is about making a danger widely known.
 
The idea is about dangers that any section of society is exposed to, dangers that result from ideas or policies that are being practised. It is not about isolated crimes, except when these evidence dangers that a policy or theory allows to exist, hence that can happen to other folks too.
 
An example is the dangers that children can be placed in by supposedly expert decisions taken about them by school teachers in authority over them, deciding on the child's level of ability at school work and the methods used to force the child to perform at a higher level than they can, where nobody will listen to the child concerning their own limits of ability. The sign-and-punishment regime taken towards schoolwork in the authoritarian backlash of the 1980s has been proved damaging by the more recent understanding of factors like attention deficit that were just not being recognised by authority before, and often enough still are not. Nobody can be sure that all these forms of child harm have been stopped, until every personally experienced aspects of them, known to anyone, particularly to persons with childhood memory of being the object of them, have been published by automatic right. Hence it is a matter of child protection already existing, that they should be.
 
As yet, the fact that children could be put in a position with a life-threatening scale of impossibility has not registered at all with the media and has remained totally absent from the politics of education for 30 years. In a society as frantic as ours about child protection, any decision maker who goes against automatic public exposure and scrutiny of such facts, commits a crime of endangering every child in the country.
 
This is just one example. Others, affecting adults in the same way, could be over questions of medical safety, the effectiveness and consequences of every prescribed medicine, local effects of industrial or nuclear pollution, conditions in care of the elderly, dangers caused by long working hours, other questions of industrial and mechanical safety, mean practises by insurers, short cuts by police and lawyers and the courts, bullying and violence, food safety, housing scandals of all types and housing policies failing to prevent them. Most importantly, it guarantees a broadcast scale of hearing to factual evidence on issues of safety that are not listed here because nobody, except the few who know of them, have thought of them.
 
The publishing's content would be defended by the same right as public interest journalism. It would have a responsibility to evidence its own accuracy, and not to make personal accusations out of nowhere. When what you publish is looked at, after it has been published, it will be a crime to have laid claim to use the power without having a genuine issue of widely unrecognised danger to expose. So anyone wishing to use this power will have to think responsibly before they use it. Hence it will not flood society with silly made up accusations.

Why is this idea important?

Suppose you have personal knowledge, from experience or otherwise, of any type of harm or damage that is being done to some people. Suppose this harm, either the whole thing or one particular aspect of it, are not already widely publicised. Then you should have an automatic right to have your information published.
 
If you are capable of writing one, this means a widely circulated book, with an automatic right to public flagging of its existence, shelf space in the shops, and orderability. If a video or website or simply getting spoken to by the media suit you better, then those should be your entitlements alternatively. But book is still the best idea, the most solid type of document. "Narrowcasting" options are not a solution to this issue, for this idea is about making a danger widely known.
 
The idea is about dangers that any section of society is exposed to, dangers that result from ideas or policies that are being practised. It is not about isolated crimes, except when these evidence dangers that a policy or theory allows to exist, hence that can happen to other folks too.
 
An example is the dangers that children can be placed in by supposedly expert decisions taken about them by school teachers in authority over them, deciding on the child's level of ability at school work and the methods used to force the child to perform at a higher level than they can, where nobody will listen to the child concerning their own limits of ability. The sign-and-punishment regime taken towards schoolwork in the authoritarian backlash of the 1980s has been proved damaging by the more recent understanding of factors like attention deficit that were just not being recognised by authority before, and often enough still are not. Nobody can be sure that all these forms of child harm have been stopped, until every personally experienced aspects of them, known to anyone, particularly to persons with childhood memory of being the object of them, have been published by automatic right. Hence it is a matter of child protection already existing, that they should be.
 
As yet, the fact that children could be put in a position with a life-threatening scale of impossibility has not registered at all with the media and has remained totally absent from the politics of education for 30 years. In a society as frantic as ours about child protection, any decision maker who goes against automatic public exposure and scrutiny of such facts, commits a crime of endangering every child in the country.
 
This is just one example. Others, affecting adults in the same way, could be over questions of medical safety, the effectiveness and consequences of every prescribed medicine, local effects of industrial or nuclear pollution, conditions in care of the elderly, dangers caused by long working hours, other questions of industrial and mechanical safety, mean practises by insurers, short cuts by police and lawyers and the courts, bullying and violence, food safety, housing scandals of all types and housing policies failing to prevent them. Most importantly, it guarantees a broadcast scale of hearing to factual evidence on issues of safety that are not listed here because nobody, except the few who know of them, have thought of them.
 
The publishing's content would be defended by the same right as public interest journalism. It would have a responsibility to evidence its own accuracy, and not to make personal accusations out of nowhere. When what you publish is looked at, after it has been published, it will be a crime to have laid claim to use the power without having a genuine issue of widely unrecognised danger to expose. So anyone wishing to use this power will have to think responsibly before they use it. Hence it will not flood society with silly made up accusations.

Publishing of any evidence of public dangers and harm, by automatic right

dangers that a policy or theory allows to exist, hence that can happen to other folks too.

 
An example is the dangers that children can be placed in by supposedly expert decisions taken about them by school teachers in authority over them, deciding on the child's level of ability at school work and the methods used to force the child to perform at a higher level than they can, where nobody will listen to the child concerning their own limits of ability. The sign-and-punishment regime taken towards schoolwork in the authoritarian backlash of the 1980s has been proved damaging by the more recent understanding of factors like attention deficit that were just not being recognised by authority before, and often enough still are not. Nobody can be sure that all these forms of child harm have been stopped, until every personally experienced aspects of them, known to anyone, particularly to persons with childhood memory of being the object of them, have been published by automatic right. Hence it is a matter of child protection already existing, that they should be.
 
As yet, the fact that children could be put in a position with a life-threatening scale of impossibility has not registered at all with the media and has remained totally absent from the politics of education for 30 years. In a society as frantic as ours about child protection, any decision maker who goes against automatic public exposure and scrutiny of such facts, commits a crime of endangering every child in the country.
 
This is just one example. Others, affecting adults in the same way, could be over questions of medical safety, the effectiveness and consequences of every prescribed medicine, local effects of industrial or nuclear pollution, conditions in care of the elderly, dangers caused by long working hours, other questions of industrial and mechanical safety, mean practises by insurers, short cuts by police and lawyers and the courts, bullying and violence, food safety, housing scandals of all types and housing policies failing to prevent them. Most importantly, it guarantees a broadcast scale of hearing to factual evidence on issues of safety that are not listed here because nobody, except the few who know of them, have thought of them.
 
The publishing's content would be defended by the same right as public interest journalism. It would have a responsibility to evidence its own accuracy, and not to make personal accusations out of nowhere. When what you publish is looked at, after it has been published, it will be a crime to have laid claim to use the power without having a genuine issue of widely unrecognised danger to expose. So anyone wishing to use this power will have to think responsibly before they use it. Hence it will not flood society with silly made up accusations.

Why is this idea important?

dangers that a policy or theory allows to exist, hence that can happen to other folks too.

 
An example is the dangers that children can be placed in by supposedly expert decisions taken about them by school teachers in authority over them, deciding on the child's level of ability at school work and the methods used to force the child to perform at a higher level than they can, where nobody will listen to the child concerning their own limits of ability. The sign-and-punishment regime taken towards schoolwork in the authoritarian backlash of the 1980s has been proved damaging by the more recent understanding of factors like attention deficit that were just not being recognised by authority before, and often enough still are not. Nobody can be sure that all these forms of child harm have been stopped, until every personally experienced aspects of them, known to anyone, particularly to persons with childhood memory of being the object of them, have been published by automatic right. Hence it is a matter of child protection already existing, that they should be.
 
As yet, the fact that children could be put in a position with a life-threatening scale of impossibility has not registered at all with the media and has remained totally absent from the politics of education for 30 years. In a society as frantic as ours about child protection, any decision maker who goes against automatic public exposure and scrutiny of such facts, commits a crime of endangering every child in the country.
 
This is just one example. Others, affecting adults in the same way, could be over questions of medical safety, the effectiveness and consequences of every prescribed medicine, local effects of industrial or nuclear pollution, conditions in care of the elderly, dangers caused by long working hours, other questions of industrial and mechanical safety, mean practises by insurers, short cuts by police and lawyers and the courts, bullying and violence, food safety, housing scandals of all types and housing policies failing to prevent them. Most importantly, it guarantees a broadcast scale of hearing to factual evidence on issues of safety that are not listed here because nobody, except the few who know of them, have thought of them.
 
The publishing's content would be defended by the same right as public interest journalism. It would have a responsibility to evidence its own accuracy, and not to make personal accusations out of nowhere. When what you publish is looked at, after it has been published, it will be a crime to have laid claim to use the power without having a genuine issue of widely unrecognised danger to expose. So anyone wishing to use this power will have to think responsibly before they use it. Hence it will not flood society with silly made up accusations.

Repeal of the 1973, Treaty of Accession, bringing the UK, into the EEC,

REPEAL THIS HENOUS ACT OF PARLIAMENT THAT SUBJEGATED BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY AND THE BRITISH PEOPLE TO A FORIEGN POWER IN BRUSSLLS.

THE TREAT OF ACCESSION IS THE CENTRAL PLANK OF EU CONTROL IN BRITAIN, REPEAL THIS AND THE OTHER EU TREATIES, LISBON, MAASTRICHT, AMSTERDAM AND OTHERS HAVE NO BASISIN UK LAW, AND ARE THEREFORE SCRAPPED ALONG WITH EU MEMBERSHIP.

THE EUROPEAN UNION IS A FEDERAL SUPER-STATE AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS PROPOSED OR VOTED FOR BY THE BRITISH PEOPLE.  THE ACCESSION TO THE EU BY GREAT BRITAIN WAS PERPETRATED ON A LIE AND THEREFORE HAS NO LEGITEMACY IN LAW OR ANY MORAL FOUNDATION.

BRITAIN IS AN INDEPENDENT SOVERIEGN STATE NOT A PROVINCE OF A FORIEGN EMPIRE.



 

Why is this idea important?

REPEAL THIS HENOUS ACT OF PARLIAMENT THAT SUBJEGATED BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY AND THE BRITISH PEOPLE TO A FORIEGN POWER IN BRUSSLLS.

THE TREAT OF ACCESSION IS THE CENTRAL PLANK OF EU CONTROL IN BRITAIN, REPEAL THIS AND THE OTHER EU TREATIES, LISBON, MAASTRICHT, AMSTERDAM AND OTHERS HAVE NO BASISIN UK LAW, AND ARE THEREFORE SCRAPPED ALONG WITH EU MEMBERSHIP.

THE EUROPEAN UNION IS A FEDERAL SUPER-STATE AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS PROPOSED OR VOTED FOR BY THE BRITISH PEOPLE.  THE ACCESSION TO THE EU BY GREAT BRITAIN WAS PERPETRATED ON A LIE AND THEREFORE HAS NO LEGITEMACY IN LAW OR ANY MORAL FOUNDATION.

BRITAIN IS AN INDEPENDENT SOVERIEGN STATE NOT A PROVINCE OF A FORIEGN EMPIRE.



 

Local government powers

The general power of competence of local authorities should be curtailed so that further discretionary functions can only be adopted after a referendum of residents.

Over the past decade local authorities have become involved in all sorts of peripheral issues at the expense of the local taxpayer.   This involvement has brought no measurable benefits to local people and in some cases has increased the local authorities' intrusive powers over them.

When councils publish details of their spending on-line, they should make clear what is spent on:  a) legal responsibilities they have to peform;  b) functions they may carry out under national legislation;  and c) local discretionary functions they have adopted for their area.

Only in this way will the average citizen begin to understand the job of their local council and form a view of the additional functions and spending they would like for their area.   

Why is this idea important?

The general power of competence of local authorities should be curtailed so that further discretionary functions can only be adopted after a referendum of residents.

Over the past decade local authorities have become involved in all sorts of peripheral issues at the expense of the local taxpayer.   This involvement has brought no measurable benefits to local people and in some cases has increased the local authorities' intrusive powers over them.

When councils publish details of their spending on-line, they should make clear what is spent on:  a) legal responsibilities they have to peform;  b) functions they may carry out under national legislation;  and c) local discretionary functions they have adopted for their area.

Only in this way will the average citizen begin to understand the job of their local council and form a view of the additional functions and spending they would like for their area.   

A Government mechanism to support offender responsibilities

A Government initiated fund based on the "STUDENT LOANS" model to be made available to support all convicted individuals unable to pay expences and/or fines enforced by a court of law. The fund would subsequently claw back the loan in exactly the same way as a student loan and would  involve a similar rate of interest on the outstanding amount.

The fund should be available for an individual to claim up to three separate loans. A fourth loan should only be allowed when all previous loans have been repaid.

For all individuals loans should remain payable after bankrupcy so that a loan of this kind could only lapse on death of the individual.

Why is this idea important?

A Government initiated fund based on the "STUDENT LOANS" model to be made available to support all convicted individuals unable to pay expences and/or fines enforced by a court of law. The fund would subsequently claw back the loan in exactly the same way as a student loan and would  involve a similar rate of interest on the outstanding amount.

The fund should be available for an individual to claim up to three separate loans. A fourth loan should only be allowed when all previous loans have been repaid.

For all individuals loans should remain payable after bankrupcy so that a loan of this kind could only lapse on death of the individual.

make publicly companies subject to the Freedom of Information Act

Make all companies owned 90 per cent. or more by any number of public authorities subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

There is a major loophole in the UK’s Freedom of Information Act which means that a company wholly owned by one local authority is subject to the Act but a company owned by two local authorities is not. Currently a company owned 95% or even 99.5% by a single public authority is not subject to the provisions of the act, as only companies owned 100% by a single authority are currently covered.  This just does not make any sense.

I propose closing this loophole to make publicly owned companies accountable to the public.

Why is this idea important?

Make all companies owned 90 per cent. or more by any number of public authorities subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

There is a major loophole in the UK’s Freedom of Information Act which means that a company wholly owned by one local authority is subject to the Act but a company owned by two local authorities is not. Currently a company owned 95% or even 99.5% by a single public authority is not subject to the provisions of the act, as only companies owned 100% by a single authority are currently covered.  This just does not make any sense.

I propose closing this loophole to make publicly owned companies accountable to the public.

National Corrupt Officials’ Register

The government should create a ‘National Corrupt Officials Register’ to operate in a similar manner to the existing Sex Offenders' Register to seek to prevent those found guilty of corruption or misconduct in public office from ever again being employed in public office.

Anyone in any public office, including judges, magistrates, tribunal members, MPs, the police, fire and ambulance services, NHS employees, doctors, civil servants of any grade, ombudsmen and their staff, local government officials, councillors and anyone employed or volunteering in a comparable office must be subject to this provision.

  • All entries on the register should be for life.
  • In order to ensure transparency, the register should be a publicly accessible document.
  • There must not be any exclusion from the register under ‘Public Interest Immunity’.
  • The register must not be maintained by a government body.
  • There should be a board established to hear appeals against inclusion on the register, but that board should be composed of members of the public only.

Why is this idea important?

The government should create a ‘National Corrupt Officials Register’ to operate in a similar manner to the existing Sex Offenders' Register to seek to prevent those found guilty of corruption or misconduct in public office from ever again being employed in public office.

Anyone in any public office, including judges, magistrates, tribunal members, MPs, the police, fire and ambulance services, NHS employees, doctors, civil servants of any grade, ombudsmen and their staff, local government officials, councillors and anyone employed or volunteering in a comparable office must be subject to this provision.

  • All entries on the register should be for life.
  • In order to ensure transparency, the register should be a publicly accessible document.
  • There must not be any exclusion from the register under ‘Public Interest Immunity’.
  • The register must not be maintained by a government body.
  • There should be a board established to hear appeals against inclusion on the register, but that board should be composed of members of the public only.

Elections for Chief Constables

Accountability needs to be brought in for the UK Police forces. Chief Constables should be publicly elected as they are in the USA.

If Chief Constables are not doing their job, there should be a way of removing them.

Why is this idea important?

Accountability needs to be brought in for the UK Police forces. Chief Constables should be publicly elected as they are in the USA.

If Chief Constables are not doing their job, there should be a way of removing them.

Abolish the Official Secrets Act

The OSA was originally brought in during a state of war, and its presence on the statute book is at the heart of the culture of unaccountability, secrecy and control freakery which defines most of what is wrong with UK politics today.

 

How can the citizen trust a system which is conceited enough to believe it "owns" information, when all of government is the property of the taxpayer ? A duty of openness should replace a culture of deceit and cover up.

Why is this idea important?

The OSA was originally brought in during a state of war, and its presence on the statute book is at the heart of the culture of unaccountability, secrecy and control freakery which defines most of what is wrong with UK politics today.

 

How can the citizen trust a system which is conceited enough to believe it "owns" information, when all of government is the property of the taxpayer ? A duty of openness should replace a culture of deceit and cover up.

Curb the powers of the Police, and make them more accountable

While I am certain that everyone agrees on the need for an effective police force, I do feel that their powers need to be curbed as they have had to much discretion given them under labour to dole out fines and issue cautions without due process having taken place. I beleive that in this country when accused of a crime one is meant to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and it is the job of the police to find enough evidence to secure a conviction, not to become judge and jury as well.

And as has been reported on the news of late, the apparent disregard they themselves have for the law when controlling peacefull protests etc leaves a lot to be desired, thinking of the death of innocent bystanders here, and yet they always seem to get away with it., often with complete disregard and contempt against anyone who should dare to even question their apparent complete lack of morals.

Why is this idea important?

While I am certain that everyone agrees on the need for an effective police force, I do feel that their powers need to be curbed as they have had to much discretion given them under labour to dole out fines and issue cautions without due process having taken place. I beleive that in this country when accused of a crime one is meant to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and it is the job of the police to find enough evidence to secure a conviction, not to become judge and jury as well.

And as has been reported on the news of late, the apparent disregard they themselves have for the law when controlling peacefull protests etc leaves a lot to be desired, thinking of the death of innocent bystanders here, and yet they always seem to get away with it., often with complete disregard and contempt against anyone who should dare to even question their apparent complete lack of morals.

Politicians – hands off Judicial Inquiries: Repeal The Inquiries Act 2005

This Act applies to judicial inquiries such as the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday.

It allows ministers to ban publication of evidence and restrict media attendance at an inquiry to save money. If all else fails, the minister may bring the inquiry to a premature end. 

Government can require sections from the report of findings of an inquiry to be removed or redrafted or to be altered, if the government believe that it is necessary and expedient to do so under under the wide discretionary powers under section 25 of the Act.

Under this law, independent judicial inquires no longer exist in UK.

Why is this idea important?

This Act applies to judicial inquiries such as the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday.

It allows ministers to ban publication of evidence and restrict media attendance at an inquiry to save money. If all else fails, the minister may bring the inquiry to a premature end. 

Government can require sections from the report of findings of an inquiry to be removed or redrafted or to be altered, if the government believe that it is necessary and expedient to do so under under the wide discretionary powers under section 25 of the Act.

Under this law, independent judicial inquires no longer exist in UK.

Make Police Accountable for their actions

the protection of police against punishment, for any of their actions has led to them committing assaults, gassing people, MULTI tazering people hwo are on the ground, submitting, and even killing people by punching them IN THE BACK (Ian Tomlinson), with NO chance of ever getting punished.

If a police officer commits any crime, he shuold instantly lose all of his rights, as do the rest of us.

The police has become THE best job, for anyone who wants to become a succesful criminal, because its the ONLY place where criminals can perform hideous crimes, and NEVEr be punished.

Things have improved a lot since the advent of you tube, and you can physically see the change (and improvement) in any officers attitude and behaviour, as soon as you mention the magic words "you tube2 to them. They are STUNNED for a second, and then start behaving more profesionally, instantly.

Therefore, take it one step further, and you will have the public rooting out the bad cops (since the police wont do it), and cleaning up our own police forces.

There are many wonderful officers, but imagine how they feel when their good behaviour is tarred by the scum, who joined the force, to abuse it, and milk it, and get rich through crime. Its NO different to the politicians who robed expenses, so lets get it under way, and FORCE THE FORCE, to be the best police force int he worl (as it once was), rather than just "claiming" that they are, all the time.

The second you announced this as law, you would see the panic, in the faces of thousands of cops – and the relief in thuosands more !!

Come on cleggy, time to clean out their closets !!

Why is this idea important?

the protection of police against punishment, for any of their actions has led to them committing assaults, gassing people, MULTI tazering people hwo are on the ground, submitting, and even killing people by punching them IN THE BACK (Ian Tomlinson), with NO chance of ever getting punished.

If a police officer commits any crime, he shuold instantly lose all of his rights, as do the rest of us.

The police has become THE best job, for anyone who wants to become a succesful criminal, because its the ONLY place where criminals can perform hideous crimes, and NEVEr be punished.

Things have improved a lot since the advent of you tube, and you can physically see the change (and improvement) in any officers attitude and behaviour, as soon as you mention the magic words "you tube2 to them. They are STUNNED for a second, and then start behaving more profesionally, instantly.

Therefore, take it one step further, and you will have the public rooting out the bad cops (since the police wont do it), and cleaning up our own police forces.

There are many wonderful officers, but imagine how they feel when their good behaviour is tarred by the scum, who joined the force, to abuse it, and milk it, and get rich through crime. Its NO different to the politicians who robed expenses, so lets get it under way, and FORCE THE FORCE, to be the best police force int he worl (as it once was), rather than just "claiming" that they are, all the time.

The second you announced this as law, you would see the panic, in the faces of thousands of cops – and the relief in thuosands more !!

Come on cleggy, time to clean out their closets !!