Supporting in-family childcare arrangements

Support mothers returning to work by allowing childcare vouchers to be used for family members providing childcare.  Allowing a Grandma to look after her grandchild whilst also enabling her to be in receipt of payment would keep both mother and grandparent earning whilst benefitting both parties and the child. Alternative might often be mother staying at home instead, claiming benefits as cost of sending child to nursery outweighs benefit of earning.

Why is this idea important?

Support mothers returning to work by allowing childcare vouchers to be used for family members providing childcare.  Allowing a Grandma to look after her grandchild whilst also enabling her to be in receipt of payment would keep both mother and grandparent earning whilst benefitting both parties and the child. Alternative might often be mother staying at home instead, claiming benefits as cost of sending child to nursery outweighs benefit of earning.

child abuse (are social worker’s hands tied)

Social workers must be given the powers to enter a home where a a child is suspected to be at risk.

The recent case of Khyra Ishaq who was starved and badly abused until she died, is an example of social workers inabilities to do their job, as they do not have sufficient powers.

They visited this house on at least seven occasions and only twice briefly glimpsed poor Khyra. They were unable to assess her condition.

Social workers should be able to call on police if necessary to force entry and insist on seeing a child in a way sufficient to enable them to assess the mental and physical condition of the child properly.

Why is this idea important?

Social workers must be given the powers to enter a home where a a child is suspected to be at risk.

The recent case of Khyra Ishaq who was starved and badly abused until she died, is an example of social workers inabilities to do their job, as they do not have sufficient powers.

They visited this house on at least seven occasions and only twice briefly glimpsed poor Khyra. They were unable to assess her condition.

Social workers should be able to call on police if necessary to force entry and insist on seeing a child in a way sufficient to enable them to assess the mental and physical condition of the child properly.

To amend the law which automatically gives Parental Responsibility to mothers

To restore the civil liberty of fathers, where their name was entered onto their child’s Birth Certificate prior to 01/12/2003, so that they automatically receive Parental Responsibility for that child (as they would have done if their child was born after 01/12/2003).

Why is this idea important?

To restore the civil liberty of fathers, where their name was entered onto their child’s Birth Certificate prior to 01/12/2003, so that they automatically receive Parental Responsibility for that child (as they would have done if their child was born after 01/12/2003).

Get rid of red tape surrounding adoption.

I am 1 of many people who would like to adopt in the near future, but currently i will have a major fight to do so given the amount of red tape, tests, exams, courses etc…. that is compulsary before YOU are told that your capable to adopt. I have a loving partner, we have our own children who are happy, loved, do well in most of their achievements and are behind us adopting. I have a friend that tried to adopt but was refused due to a criminal offence from 20 years ago! has never re-offended since and is a wonderful parent, who was willing to adopt 2 or more siblings.

Why is this idea important?

I am 1 of many people who would like to adopt in the near future, but currently i will have a major fight to do so given the amount of red tape, tests, exams, courses etc…. that is compulsary before YOU are told that your capable to adopt. I have a loving partner, we have our own children who are happy, loved, do well in most of their achievements and are behind us adopting. I have a friend that tried to adopt but was refused due to a criminal offence from 20 years ago! has never re-offended since and is a wonderful parent, who was willing to adopt 2 or more siblings.

Revert to the Protection of Children Act 1978

Over recent years we have seen the definition of 'child pornography' stretched beyond all credibility. The 1978 Protection of Children Act made the simple possession of indecent images illegal, where to be indecent the image had to:

1. Depict an actual person younger than the age of consent (then, and still, 16 years of age)

2. Depict them in a sexual context (that is, the material was produced for the purposes of arousal and is thus 'pornographic')

This was a simple and clear definition. You could easily know what was legal and what was not. Any person old enough to consent to sex could be photographed without danger of being caught by the Act. Simple child nudity of the sort that might appear in holiday photos or family photos of very young children was excluded.

The Act did precisely what it set out to do – protected children. By allowing police to arrest individuals for possession of actual child abuse images, it made it possible for them to target those who produced and supported the production of such material.

Since the 1978 Act, we have had a slew of amendments and new legislation that:

1. Created the notion of the pseudo-image. This is an image which is doctored in some way to make it appear to be an indecent image of a child when in fact it wasn't.

2. Criminialised material where the person depicted looks like (or could be interpreted to look like) a child. An image of a 20-something porn star dressed in a schoolgirl outfit and acting young could be considered child pornography depending on the context.

3. Changed the definition of 'child' to include persons over the age of consent but under 18, thus creating a legal anomaly where a person may legally consent to sex but cannot be photographed doing so, and retrospectively criminalising previously legal material including back-copies of newspapers and top-shelf magazines that featured 16 and 17-year old models.

4. Changed the interpretation of 'indecent' to include simple nudity or even 'provocative poses' by fully-clothed subjects, thus making innocent family pictures potential 'child pornography'.

5. Allowed material depicting imaginary characters – computer-generated or cartoon – who were (or might be construed to be) underage to be prosecuted as 'child pornography'.

6. Most recently, attempting to make written material simply describing any of the above equivalent to 'child pornography'.

Even the most cursory consideration of these changes will reveal that the clear intent of these changes to the law is to outlaw any material which pedophiles – or 'potential' pedophiles – might possibly find arousing. If you follow this route to its logical conclusion you ought to make any photograph or description of a child illegal, and lock all children away from public view lest someone become aroused at the sight of them.

This single-minded witch-hunting of the unseen but ever-threatening pedo-under-the-bed does not make children safer. Indeed, most of the changes have been made to permit the prosecution of individuals who have not harmed children at all. Its purpose is clear – it is thoughtcrime legislation, designed to satisy the baying calls of the gutter press and to keep CEOP and similar agencies in business.

It is now effectively impossible to know if a particular image is illegal or not. There is no safe standard. A picture of a fully-clothed adult may be child porn if they happen to be dressed and posed in a particular way. Offences being now largely based on 'context' mean that until it goes before a jury, you cannot be sure you're safe. People are being sent to jail as pedophiles for 'offences' which, only a few years ago, would have been laughable and which most certainly have not involved any actual children coming to harm.

My proposal is simple. Repeal and amend the various acts as necessary to return the definition of child pornography to that of the 1978 Protection of Children Act, and let the police get on with the business of actually protecting children and catching child abusers.

Why is this idea important?

Over recent years we have seen the definition of 'child pornography' stretched beyond all credibility. The 1978 Protection of Children Act made the simple possession of indecent images illegal, where to be indecent the image had to:

1. Depict an actual person younger than the age of consent (then, and still, 16 years of age)

2. Depict them in a sexual context (that is, the material was produced for the purposes of arousal and is thus 'pornographic')

This was a simple and clear definition. You could easily know what was legal and what was not. Any person old enough to consent to sex could be photographed without danger of being caught by the Act. Simple child nudity of the sort that might appear in holiday photos or family photos of very young children was excluded.

The Act did precisely what it set out to do – protected children. By allowing police to arrest individuals for possession of actual child abuse images, it made it possible for them to target those who produced and supported the production of such material.

Since the 1978 Act, we have had a slew of amendments and new legislation that:

1. Created the notion of the pseudo-image. This is an image which is doctored in some way to make it appear to be an indecent image of a child when in fact it wasn't.

2. Criminialised material where the person depicted looks like (or could be interpreted to look like) a child. An image of a 20-something porn star dressed in a schoolgirl outfit and acting young could be considered child pornography depending on the context.

3. Changed the definition of 'child' to include persons over the age of consent but under 18, thus creating a legal anomaly where a person may legally consent to sex but cannot be photographed doing so, and retrospectively criminalising previously legal material including back-copies of newspapers and top-shelf magazines that featured 16 and 17-year old models.

4. Changed the interpretation of 'indecent' to include simple nudity or even 'provocative poses' by fully-clothed subjects, thus making innocent family pictures potential 'child pornography'.

5. Allowed material depicting imaginary characters – computer-generated or cartoon – who were (or might be construed to be) underage to be prosecuted as 'child pornography'.

6. Most recently, attempting to make written material simply describing any of the above equivalent to 'child pornography'.

Even the most cursory consideration of these changes will reveal that the clear intent of these changes to the law is to outlaw any material which pedophiles – or 'potential' pedophiles – might possibly find arousing. If you follow this route to its logical conclusion you ought to make any photograph or description of a child illegal, and lock all children away from public view lest someone become aroused at the sight of them.

This single-minded witch-hunting of the unseen but ever-threatening pedo-under-the-bed does not make children safer. Indeed, most of the changes have been made to permit the prosecution of individuals who have not harmed children at all. Its purpose is clear – it is thoughtcrime legislation, designed to satisy the baying calls of the gutter press and to keep CEOP and similar agencies in business.

It is now effectively impossible to know if a particular image is illegal or not. There is no safe standard. A picture of a fully-clothed adult may be child porn if they happen to be dressed and posed in a particular way. Offences being now largely based on 'context' mean that until it goes before a jury, you cannot be sure you're safe. People are being sent to jail as pedophiles for 'offences' which, only a few years ago, would have been laughable and which most certainly have not involved any actual children coming to harm.

My proposal is simple. Repeal and amend the various acts as necessary to return the definition of child pornography to that of the 1978 Protection of Children Act, and let the police get on with the business of actually protecting children and catching child abusers.

Ban Middle Class Benefits!

I see no reason why families with a combined income of more than 30K should be taking anything out of the 'benefits' pot. If we removed them from the system, we would not only save billions of pounds, we could concentrate on giving more support  to those families and individuals who really need help.

Why is this idea important?

I see no reason why families with a combined income of more than 30K should be taking anything out of the 'benefits' pot. If we removed them from the system, we would not only save billions of pounds, we could concentrate on giving more support  to those families and individuals who really need help.

Lower the age of criminal responsibility to 7

7 is the accepted 'age of reason'. I'm tired of hearing people talk of under 12 year olds as if they wander around in a bubble of ignorance, unaware of right & wrong. This is not true. People just forget what being a child is like.

If kids are so incapable of knowing consequences of their actions etc then why are we putting them into schools at 4?? We expect them to do homework, obey teachers & school rules, not bully, learn a variety of subjects, take exams, perform in concerts etc but then argue that, criminally, they exist in some kind of moral vacuum!!

Having myself been subjected to incredibly vile & evil wrongdoings by a 10 year old (who knew exactly what they were doing) when I was 6 the last thing I'd want is to see the age raised to 12 or above. It's naive insanity.

Why is this idea important?

7 is the accepted 'age of reason'. I'm tired of hearing people talk of under 12 year olds as if they wander around in a bubble of ignorance, unaware of right & wrong. This is not true. People just forget what being a child is like.

If kids are so incapable of knowing consequences of their actions etc then why are we putting them into schools at 4?? We expect them to do homework, obey teachers & school rules, not bully, learn a variety of subjects, take exams, perform in concerts etc but then argue that, criminally, they exist in some kind of moral vacuum!!

Having myself been subjected to incredibly vile & evil wrongdoings by a 10 year old (who knew exactly what they were doing) when I was 6 the last thing I'd want is to see the age raised to 12 or above. It's naive insanity.

Right to Life for Unborn Children

Someone decides to have sex, they should live with the concequences. Abortion should be banned for all social economic reasons.

Life is a sacred thing, whether you believe it is from God or not, people these days think that you just pop-out of the womb on the day you are born, but it starts before that within the womb.

If people disagree with banning Abortion for social economic reasons, could they please explain why it is differnt to killing a 5 year old because they are not an Adult yet?

Abortion is just legalised mass murder, wrapped up to make everyone feel good about it.

Why is this idea important?

Someone decides to have sex, they should live with the concequences. Abortion should be banned for all social economic reasons.

Life is a sacred thing, whether you believe it is from God or not, people these days think that you just pop-out of the womb on the day you are born, but it starts before that within the womb.

If people disagree with banning Abortion for social economic reasons, could they please explain why it is differnt to killing a 5 year old because they are not an Adult yet?

Abortion is just legalised mass murder, wrapped up to make everyone feel good about it.

Revoke Sarah’s Law, The Children’s Act (2004) et al

Much of the rhetoric governing all things child abuse evolves from roots borne out of the Feminist movement of the 1960's.  As a result, it is almost impossible to effectively challenge any degree of thinking that contradicts or conflicts with what is stated as a given today.  For example, in the climate of fear which now exists if a child is murdered, the instant national hysteria that erupts is fuelled not by a media clamouring for something newsworthy but largely by those who claim to be 'campaigners' for children's rights/issues.

The list includes the NSPCC, Barnado's, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (most notably Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall), and the children's charity set up by Michele Elliott, Kidscape, as well as several other individuals – including Esther Rantzen and Sara Payne.  Together, we are informed by them that child abuse or child death is akin to a nightmare being visited upon us all and one from which there is no escape.  Collectively, we shirk back in fear, because the words come from credible sources.  So we dare not challenge them.

Over the past 20-30 years, these once respected organisations, along with some of the newer ones, have been in receipt of ever-growing state funding, (actual amounts to be found  in accounts submitted to the Charities Commission on an annual basis) and this is overlooked on the basis that children are being protected.  But what are children being protected from?  And why are they being protected?  What is this danger that now exists?  What happened a generation ago that seemingly eradicated common-sense and replaced it with a mindset that now wishes to submit Society to evermore stringent requirements, so much so that no-one can be seen to be innocent, without first be able to prove it?  Of equal importance, is that as state funding increases, these organisations and individuals have become evermore duplicitious given that any independence they once enjoyed has been so compromised.

Child abuse is real.  For those of us who know what it feels like, there is no doubt that it influences our lives.  But so what?  There are many, many people, children included, who have experienced far worse, such as the death of a parent, or no parents, yet scant if any attention is afforded them.  Instead, we substitute reason with an alarmist modus operandi bordering on vigilantiism at times – for the sake of 50 – 200 children a year who die at the hands of adults, depending on the accuracy of figures used.

It is this lack of perspective that gives rise to laws that never should have come into being; such as the Children's Act of 1989, given Royal Assent in 2004, and later, Sarah's Law, indirectly as a result of the death of Sarah Payne.  What is not acknowledged is that there is no law which ever could prevent all child deaths, any more than murder can be prevented, or rape can be, or that drug addiction can be fully eradicated.  Yet we allow ourselves to be collectively misled by those who suggest that 'if only' we adopted 'this law' or 'that criminal check', then such pain could be avoided.  It cannot – and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.  The best any of us can hope to achieve is to perhaps ameliorate the level of child abuse but we cannot and never will eradicate it, and nor should we seek to do so as it is this wrongful degree of emphasis that gives rise to the fear of paedophilia that we see today.  There should be a level of acceptance that at some point that acknowledges our limits and abilities, and it is because we do not have such limits that we then have expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

What if many of the laws and checks now in place actually contribute to a rise in children being harmed?  What if, in their constant competition to win public support, bodies such as the NSPCC and Barnado's have gone too far with 'raising people's awareness'?  That instead of gently letting the population know they are there should people require their support, they realised that they were being left behind when a more aggressive stance was adopted by some, such as Esther Rantzen and Michele Elliott?  Who, between them have succeeded in raising people's awareness so acutely that most adults are terrified, lest they step out of line by doing something as innocuous as taking a photograph of their children in a park for example.  This is not raising awareness, it may have been once, twenty-five years ago but it has morphed into a zealousness bordering on obsession. 

We are encouraged to teach our children that we – that they must not discriminate.  We do this in part, because of the growing numbers of immigrants within our population and we do not want to be seen to be intolerant of them.  Yet those who teach such rhetoric fail on two counts.  They first do not understand what the original problem is, if any and secondly, make pronouncements based upon biased thinking.  Long before it became 'illegal' to discriminate, we all got along pretty nicely.  The English hated the Irish and the Scots and the Welsh for one reason or another and the Irish, Scots and Welsh all hated the English.  It worked quite well for hundreds of years, until we are told, that it is a criminal offence to say that we hated one or the other.

The result is that children are now not taught how to discriminate because it is seen as a 'dirty' word.  One consequence is that children are now collectively so immature that their age of maturity has been reduced by two years in the past 20 years.  This does little to prepare them for the world.  It may also give some insight as to why so many children seem to lose sight of all reason when on the internet – that because they do not discriminate, they no longer know how to in order to retain a basic level of safety.

Yet human survival is based upon an ability to distinguish between friend and foe.

To all the child abuse agencies and 'do-gooders' who want to 'help' – if the intent is genuine, it can best be achieved by leaving 'us' alone and instead focussing on that which hurts children most, for it is not child abuse, it is children's parents marriages breaking up or not having parents (i.e. mother and father) at all – this is far more devastating than any abuse and has far greater repercussions in later life.  Although it is widely known, this cultural shift over the last 30 years is rarely focussed on, for there are many more people who would then be 'guilty' of harming their children in this way than abuse by a paedophile ever could be.

An abuser may sometimes victimise children but it is the agencies and charities who ensure that children remain as victims.  Nasty things sometimes happen to some people, but victims do have a choice.  We can acknowledge (if not fully accept) what happens or we can fight it.  If we accept it, this leads to understanding and insight, sometimes forgiveness – but what is not forgiveable is those who tell us that it is acceptable to remain as victims. 

Even a paedophile does not leave this kind of stigma on those who have been abused.

Why is this idea important?

Much of the rhetoric governing all things child abuse evolves from roots borne out of the Feminist movement of the 1960's.  As a result, it is almost impossible to effectively challenge any degree of thinking that contradicts or conflicts with what is stated as a given today.  For example, in the climate of fear which now exists if a child is murdered, the instant national hysteria that erupts is fuelled not by a media clamouring for something newsworthy but largely by those who claim to be 'campaigners' for children's rights/issues.

The list includes the NSPCC, Barnado's, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (most notably Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall), and the children's charity set up by Michele Elliott, Kidscape, as well as several other individuals – including Esther Rantzen and Sara Payne.  Together, we are informed by them that child abuse or child death is akin to a nightmare being visited upon us all and one from which there is no escape.  Collectively, we shirk back in fear, because the words come from credible sources.  So we dare not challenge them.

Over the past 20-30 years, these once respected organisations, along with some of the newer ones, have been in receipt of ever-growing state funding, (actual amounts to be found  in accounts submitted to the Charities Commission on an annual basis) and this is overlooked on the basis that children are being protected.  But what are children being protected from?  And why are they being protected?  What is this danger that now exists?  What happened a generation ago that seemingly eradicated common-sense and replaced it with a mindset that now wishes to submit Society to evermore stringent requirements, so much so that no-one can be seen to be innocent, without first be able to prove it?  Of equal importance, is that as state funding increases, these organisations and individuals have become evermore duplicitious given that any independence they once enjoyed has been so compromised.

Child abuse is real.  For those of us who know what it feels like, there is no doubt that it influences our lives.  But so what?  There are many, many people, children included, who have experienced far worse, such as the death of a parent, or no parents, yet scant if any attention is afforded them.  Instead, we substitute reason with an alarmist modus operandi bordering on vigilantiism at times – for the sake of 50 – 200 children a year who die at the hands of adults, depending on the accuracy of figures used.

It is this lack of perspective that gives rise to laws that never should have come into being; such as the Children's Act of 1989, given Royal Assent in 2004, and later, Sarah's Law, indirectly as a result of the death of Sarah Payne.  What is not acknowledged is that there is no law which ever could prevent all child deaths, any more than murder can be prevented, or rape can be, or that drug addiction can be fully eradicated.  Yet we allow ourselves to be collectively misled by those who suggest that 'if only' we adopted 'this law' or 'that criminal check', then such pain could be avoided.  It cannot – and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.  The best any of us can hope to achieve is to perhaps ameliorate the level of child abuse but we cannot and never will eradicate it, and nor should we seek to do so as it is this wrongful degree of emphasis that gives rise to the fear of paedophilia that we see today.  There should be a level of acceptance that at some point that acknowledges our limits and abilities, and it is because we do not have such limits that we then have expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

What if many of the laws and checks now in place actually contribute to a rise in children being harmed?  What if, in their constant competition to win public support, bodies such as the NSPCC and Barnado's have gone too far with 'raising people's awareness'?  That instead of gently letting the population know they are there should people require their support, they realised that they were being left behind when a more aggressive stance was adopted by some, such as Esther Rantzen and Michele Elliott?  Who, between them have succeeded in raising people's awareness so acutely that most adults are terrified, lest they step out of line by doing something as innocuous as taking a photograph of their children in a park for example.  This is not raising awareness, it may have been once, twenty-five years ago but it has morphed into a zealousness bordering on obsession. 

We are encouraged to teach our children that we – that they must not discriminate.  We do this in part, because of the growing numbers of immigrants within our population and we do not want to be seen to be intolerant of them.  Yet those who teach such rhetoric fail on two counts.  They first do not understand what the original problem is, if any and secondly, make pronouncements based upon biased thinking.  Long before it became 'illegal' to discriminate, we all got along pretty nicely.  The English hated the Irish and the Scots and the Welsh for one reason or another and the Irish, Scots and Welsh all hated the English.  It worked quite well for hundreds of years, until we are told, that it is a criminal offence to say that we hated one or the other.

The result is that children are now not taught how to discriminate because it is seen as a 'dirty' word.  One consequence is that children are now collectively so immature that their age of maturity has been reduced by two years in the past 20 years.  This does little to prepare them for the world.  It may also give some insight as to why so many children seem to lose sight of all reason when on the internet – that because they do not discriminate, they no longer know how to in order to retain a basic level of safety.

Yet human survival is based upon an ability to distinguish between friend and foe.

To all the child abuse agencies and 'do-gooders' who want to 'help' – if the intent is genuine, it can best be achieved by leaving 'us' alone and instead focussing on that which hurts children most, for it is not child abuse, it is children's parents marriages breaking up or not having parents (i.e. mother and father) at all – this is far more devastating than any abuse and has far greater repercussions in later life.  Although it is widely known, this cultural shift over the last 30 years is rarely focussed on, for there are many more people who would then be 'guilty' of harming their children in this way than abuse by a paedophile ever could be.

An abuser may sometimes victimise children but it is the agencies and charities who ensure that children remain as victims.  Nasty things sometimes happen to some people, but victims do have a choice.  We can acknowledge (if not fully accept) what happens or we can fight it.  If we accept it, this leads to understanding and insight, sometimes forgiveness – but what is not forgiveable is those who tell us that it is acceptable to remain as victims. 

Even a paedophile does not leave this kind of stigma on those who have been abused.

Stop arrest and dnaing of minors for petty mishaps

My son was arrested for an accidental breaking of a window at a local school during a snowball fight, the head did not want to report it because she knew him and knew it was not intentional but an unpleasant neighbour who worked at the school did.  My son, who was 14 was arrested by 2 heavy handed police, dna was taken, photos, fingerprints. We then had to wait 6 weeks to find out if he would go to court or be reprimanded, the later was what happened.The result of this was he was very scared and unhappy, started to get into trouble at school, this had not happened before but he started to resent forms of authority.  It ruined the rest of his schooling and made for a very unpleasant 2 years with myself seeking medical help. His dna is being kept for life unless this government follow the rules of the European Court of human Rights.

The costs of this arrest must have been great and including the ensuing problems at school also the medical help sort,  it helped the police records for crimes solved though, they have another dna sample, gosh what a result!

Luckily and with hard work he is back on track, it was an unnecessary brush with the law which he believed was there to protect people, it changed our view of the police for the worse and the F******* Labour gov for encouraging it to happen.

Why is this idea important?

My son was arrested for an accidental breaking of a window at a local school during a snowball fight, the head did not want to report it because she knew him and knew it was not intentional but an unpleasant neighbour who worked at the school did.  My son, who was 14 was arrested by 2 heavy handed police, dna was taken, photos, fingerprints. We then had to wait 6 weeks to find out if he would go to court or be reprimanded, the later was what happened.The result of this was he was very scared and unhappy, started to get into trouble at school, this had not happened before but he started to resent forms of authority.  It ruined the rest of his schooling and made for a very unpleasant 2 years with myself seeking medical help. His dna is being kept for life unless this government follow the rules of the European Court of human Rights.

The costs of this arrest must have been great and including the ensuing problems at school also the medical help sort,  it helped the police records for crimes solved though, they have another dna sample, gosh what a result!

Luckily and with hard work he is back on track, it was an unnecessary brush with the law which he believed was there to protect people, it changed our view of the police for the worse and the F******* Labour gov for encouraging it to happen.

Come down harder on pedophile preiests and the churches that keep them safe.

Make it easier to prosecute priests who abuse the most vulnerable of their congregation, and hold churches to account that would rather protect their image than the childeren by hiding the scandals, and simply moving people to a different parish.

Why is this idea important?

Make it easier to prosecute priests who abuse the most vulnerable of their congregation, and hold churches to account that would rather protect their image than the childeren by hiding the scandals, and simply moving people to a different parish.

Modifying laws dealing with “indecent images”

In the sexual offences act, "indecent images of children" needs replacing with something more representative of disruption to society. This is likely to be more complex than current laws. The basic problem is that the scope for interpretation of "indecent" is routinely being abused, leading to a form of "legal discrimination". And the public are none the wiser. This is limiting the protection of children by the significant diversion of resources towards cases of dubious value, actively and intentionally contributing to a public misunderstanding of paedophilia as a group, and ruining the lives of many who should be considered moraly innocent. Of course, there are many, many effects in reality, which I'm not going to go into here, but the more you look into it, the more you realise how badly we're… well, getting it wrong.

I'm not talking about people who have obviously accrued large collections of serious child pornography. If you thought I meant that we should be legalising that, with respect, you probably have a lot to learn. All I'm saying is that justice should be proportional to the disruption caused to individuals and society by an offence. Many indecent image convictions are based on actions for which such disruption is practically 0. At the moment the situation is far from adequate, with even "making" (i.e. causing to be displayed on a computer screen) a single "level 1" image portrayed as a "serious" offence, and branding somebody a sexual offender.

Why is this idea important?

In the sexual offences act, "indecent images of children" needs replacing with something more representative of disruption to society. This is likely to be more complex than current laws. The basic problem is that the scope for interpretation of "indecent" is routinely being abused, leading to a form of "legal discrimination". And the public are none the wiser. This is limiting the protection of children by the significant diversion of resources towards cases of dubious value, actively and intentionally contributing to a public misunderstanding of paedophilia as a group, and ruining the lives of many who should be considered moraly innocent. Of course, there are many, many effects in reality, which I'm not going to go into here, but the more you look into it, the more you realise how badly we're… well, getting it wrong.

I'm not talking about people who have obviously accrued large collections of serious child pornography. If you thought I meant that we should be legalising that, with respect, you probably have a lot to learn. All I'm saying is that justice should be proportional to the disruption caused to individuals and society by an offence. Many indecent image convictions are based on actions for which such disruption is practically 0. At the moment the situation is far from adequate, with even "making" (i.e. causing to be displayed on a computer screen) a single "level 1" image portrayed as a "serious" offence, and branding somebody a sexual offender.

Let me choose my child’s school!

I pay the taxes that pay for our education system. Why should the state dictate to me where that money can be spent? What's wrong with a voucher system where state funding will follow my child to a school of my choosing? Why can I only choose from the low-quality schools that the state has set up? Why does the state seem to think that only it knows what is best for my child?

Why is this idea important?

I pay the taxes that pay for our education system. Why should the state dictate to me where that money can be spent? What's wrong with a voucher system where state funding will follow my child to a school of my choosing? Why can I only choose from the low-quality schools that the state has set up? Why does the state seem to think that only it knows what is best for my child?

Scrap law that says schools must hold collective worship

all schools must hold a collective worship daily, such as in assemblies. usually this is chritian, surely assemblies about moral issues would be more appropriate and inclusive.

Why is this idea important?

all schools must hold a collective worship daily, such as in assemblies. usually this is chritian, surely assemblies about moral issues would be more appropriate and inclusive.