The government should keep its election promises

Sites such as this are all very well, promising repeal of bad laws affecting civil liberties etc., (I will believe that IF it ever really happens)  but the government can't even be bothered to keep the promises it made in the election manifesto. The prime one today being the U-Turn on anonymity when accused of rape. People's lives are RUINED when they are falsely accused, even when later proven absolutely innocent as the mud still sticks whatever the court decides.

This is completely UNACCEPABLE and quite APPALLING.

 Commentaters on the BBC web site today overwhelmingly supported anonymity for accused people, yet the government have backtracked. I wonder if they will get my vote at the sooner, (if they carry on like this) than later next election 

Newley elected governments should be obliged to keep the promises they make before they are elected, especially those concerned with civil liberties and freedom.

 

Why is this idea important?

Sites such as this are all very well, promising repeal of bad laws affecting civil liberties etc., (I will believe that IF it ever really happens)  but the government can't even be bothered to keep the promises it made in the election manifesto. The prime one today being the U-Turn on anonymity when accused of rape. People's lives are RUINED when they are falsely accused, even when later proven absolutely innocent as the mud still sticks whatever the court decides.

This is completely UNACCEPABLE and quite APPALLING.

 Commentaters on the BBC web site today overwhelmingly supported anonymity for accused people, yet the government have backtracked. I wonder if they will get my vote at the sooner, (if they carry on like this) than later next election 

Newley elected governments should be obliged to keep the promises they make before they are elected, especially those concerned with civil liberties and freedom.

 

Question for Mr. Clegg RE: Why am I a criminal?

A quick question to you Mr. Clegg to which I would appreciate a straight answer.

I am a hard working citizen who is also in adult education at the moment, studying hard for a Gas Safety qualification. I have never taken any form of welfare from the state as an adult and therefore have cost the state nothing. I am morally adept, ethically minded and a responsible adult. I care for those around me, I help other people wherever and whenever I can whether that's by lifting a heavy suit case down some stairs for a mother who was also trying to look after her child (my most recent good deed) or by any other means. I am an upstanding member of society, I have passed my first aid qualifications and I try to be as good a person as I can be. I actively contribute to the society that I am part of. I used to smoke cannabis regularly and still do on occasion. I am "T" total, I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't indulge in any other drug habit. I speak well, am educated and well read. Lastly, I have never caused disruption of the peace, I have never been in a fight nor raised my hand against any other person.

Therefore, my question to you Mr. Clegg is: Please would you describe exactly why the state insists on criminalising me as well as millions like me and, furthermore, please explain in full the criminal act that I am accused of?

If you cannot justify my enduring criminalisation then perhaps you have just answered the question of the immorality of the Misuse of Drugs Act and also why it should be immediately repealed.

Why is this idea important?

A quick question to you Mr. Clegg to which I would appreciate a straight answer.

I am a hard working citizen who is also in adult education at the moment, studying hard for a Gas Safety qualification. I have never taken any form of welfare from the state as an adult and therefore have cost the state nothing. I am morally adept, ethically minded and a responsible adult. I care for those around me, I help other people wherever and whenever I can whether that's by lifting a heavy suit case down some stairs for a mother who was also trying to look after her child (my most recent good deed) or by any other means. I am an upstanding member of society, I have passed my first aid qualifications and I try to be as good a person as I can be. I actively contribute to the society that I am part of. I used to smoke cannabis regularly and still do on occasion. I am "T" total, I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't indulge in any other drug habit. I speak well, am educated and well read. Lastly, I have never caused disruption of the peace, I have never been in a fight nor raised my hand against any other person.

Therefore, my question to you Mr. Clegg is: Please would you describe exactly why the state insists on criminalising me as well as millions like me and, furthermore, please explain in full the criminal act that I am accused of?

If you cannot justify my enduring criminalisation then perhaps you have just answered the question of the immorality of the Misuse of Drugs Act and also why it should be immediately repealed.

Remove the law which allows police officers to enforce a 9pm-6am curfew on completely innocent, law abiding citizens

Whilst the police should have the power to deal with troublemakers and people who are causing a public nuisance, they should not be able to victimise innocent members of the public who are merely going about their everyday lives.

Paragraph 6 of Section 30 of the Anti Social Behaviour Act allows a police officer to remove a person they believe to be aged under 16 to their place of residence if they are not accompanied by an adult, even if they have done nothing wrong and are not causing any trouble to anyone.

This means that all under 16s can potentially be punished for the misdeeds of a minority and are legally treated as potential criminals regardless of their actual likelihood of committing a crime.  Curfews should be used as a punishment for those who have actually done wrong, not as an instrument to victimise an entire age group.

What is more, this law does nothing to tackle anti social behaviour, as other laws (including the others in section 30 of this act) already give police the powers to deal with people who are acting in an unruly or antisocial manner.  If anything this law actually serves to waste police time that could otherwise be used tackling genuine yobs.

Section 30, paragraph 6 of the 2003 Anti Social Behaviour Act should be removed from the statute books at the earliest possible moment in order to make it absolutely clear that this law is an unacceptable breach of the civil liberties of entirely innocent citizens.

Why is this idea important?

Whilst the police should have the power to deal with troublemakers and people who are causing a public nuisance, they should not be able to victimise innocent members of the public who are merely going about their everyday lives.

Paragraph 6 of Section 30 of the Anti Social Behaviour Act allows a police officer to remove a person they believe to be aged under 16 to their place of residence if they are not accompanied by an adult, even if they have done nothing wrong and are not causing any trouble to anyone.

This means that all under 16s can potentially be punished for the misdeeds of a minority and are legally treated as potential criminals regardless of their actual likelihood of committing a crime.  Curfews should be used as a punishment for those who have actually done wrong, not as an instrument to victimise an entire age group.

What is more, this law does nothing to tackle anti social behaviour, as other laws (including the others in section 30 of this act) already give police the powers to deal with people who are acting in an unruly or antisocial manner.  If anything this law actually serves to waste police time that could otherwise be used tackling genuine yobs.

Section 30, paragraph 6 of the 2003 Anti Social Behaviour Act should be removed from the statute books at the earliest possible moment in order to make it absolutely clear that this law is an unacceptable breach of the civil liberties of entirely innocent citizens.

Repeal Ombudsman Laws/ Rules

I would like to see the repeal of the law and or rules, that stop a judicial review having full powers to oversee and reverse any of the various Ombudsman's decisions.

Widely seen as biased and untrustworthy, Most people who have had to deal with any Ombudsman department would like the total power held over them by the Ombudsman and be association, the power of big business to act as they please, to be moderated and overseen by Judicial review or by going through some other suitable route.

The way the present Laws, rules and process moves, there is no protection for the public from even the most obviously ridiculous one sided rulings the ombudsman's bodies make.

So I, and a huge body of the British public urge a reform over the Laws and rules governing the way the Ombudsman and courts interact with the pubic once a complaint about a business, council, or utility service, has been made. 

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the repeal of the law and or rules, that stop a judicial review having full powers to oversee and reverse any of the various Ombudsman's decisions.

Widely seen as biased and untrustworthy, Most people who have had to deal with any Ombudsman department would like the total power held over them by the Ombudsman and be association, the power of big business to act as they please, to be moderated and overseen by Judicial review or by going through some other suitable route.

The way the present Laws, rules and process moves, there is no protection for the public from even the most obviously ridiculous one sided rulings the ombudsman's bodies make.

So I, and a huge body of the British public urge a reform over the Laws and rules governing the way the Ombudsman and courts interact with the pubic once a complaint about a business, council, or utility service, has been made. 

Using CCTV to catch motoring offences

CCTV was set up to protect society by preventing and protecting from dangerous crime, currently it is being overused by councils and private companies to hand out fines for small motoring offenses.

The coalition government should put a stop to CCTV cameras being used to fine motorists for small driving offenses as CCTV cameras were not designed for this type of practice

Also there are now cctv cameras being driven around on smart cars to catch motorists and issue fines, and the majority of time these spy cars are parked on double yellow lines……..how unfair is that?

 

story link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292944/CCTV-spy-cars-rake-8m-fines-catching-nearly-200-000-victims.html

Why is this idea important?

CCTV was set up to protect society by preventing and protecting from dangerous crime, currently it is being overused by councils and private companies to hand out fines for small motoring offenses.

The coalition government should put a stop to CCTV cameras being used to fine motorists for small driving offenses as CCTV cameras were not designed for this type of practice

Also there are now cctv cameras being driven around on smart cars to catch motorists and issue fines, and the majority of time these spy cars are parked on double yellow lines……..how unfair is that?

 

story link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292944/CCTV-spy-cars-rake-8m-fines-catching-nearly-200-000-victims.html

I want my Country back you dont own it we the people do!

Get rid of most CCTV

Get rid of ANPR

Get rid of DNA and other databases

Get rid of speed cameras

Get rid of SORN (DVLA)

Scrap ID cards and Bio passports

Deport all known terror suspects

Get out of the EU

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of most CCTV

Get rid of ANPR

Get rid of DNA and other databases

Get rid of speed cameras

Get rid of SORN (DVLA)

Scrap ID cards and Bio passports

Deport all known terror suspects

Get out of the EU

Abolish CRB checks

Remove the law that says Voluntary organisations must complete Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks before allowing an individual to participate. If removing CRB checks is considered too politically dangerous (red-tops would have a regular field day), make the legislation optional. The charity involved could then perform a 'local' assessment of need and decide whether CRB checks are appropriate. All the above also applies to Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and Vetting and Barring Scheme (VSB). 

Why is this idea important?

Remove the law that says Voluntary organisations must complete Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks before allowing an individual to participate. If removing CRB checks is considered too politically dangerous (red-tops would have a regular field day), make the legislation optional. The charity involved could then perform a 'local' assessment of need and decide whether CRB checks are appropriate. All the above also applies to Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and Vetting and Barring Scheme (VSB). 

Strict Regulation On Proliferation of CCTV

There are more CCTV cameras in the UK than any other country in Europe, there aim is to prevent antisocial behaviour and reduce crime. Studies have shown(1,2) that this is not the case and crime is mearly displaced by them at best, whilst ordinary citizens go watched wherever they go about there business. Stric regulation could curtail the number of security cameras and allow people to go about there business with some anonymity.

Surveillance has gone too far, other cities in Europe manage lower crime and do not have nearly as many cameras even in sensitive areas such as banks and airports. Why do we need them here when they are costly and ineffective?

Why is this idea important?

There are more CCTV cameras in the UK than any other country in Europe, there aim is to prevent antisocial behaviour and reduce crime. Studies have shown(1,2) that this is not the case and crime is mearly displaced by them at best, whilst ordinary citizens go watched wherever they go about there business. Stric regulation could curtail the number of security cameras and allow people to go about there business with some anonymity.

Surveillance has gone too far, other cities in Europe manage lower crime and do not have nearly as many cameras even in sensitive areas such as banks and airports. Why do we need them here when they are costly and ineffective?

Free carrier bags

The previous government’s interference in this area is a classic example of how every aspect of our lives is being micro managed. The decision on whether to offer suitable facilities in order that you can transport your purchases should be down to the company concerned.

I recycle my carrier bags by using them as bin liners. I do this instead of re-using the bags as they often fail and my shopping is ultimately damaged. The argument that free carrier bags are damaging the environment is flawed, people simply purchase bin liners rather than recycle their old carrier bags, so nothing is achieved, its just a paid for bin liner rather than a recycled free one.

Why is this idea important?

The previous government’s interference in this area is a classic example of how every aspect of our lives is being micro managed. The decision on whether to offer suitable facilities in order that you can transport your purchases should be down to the company concerned.

I recycle my carrier bags by using them as bin liners. I do this instead of re-using the bags as they often fail and my shopping is ultimately damaged. The argument that free carrier bags are damaging the environment is flawed, people simply purchase bin liners rather than recycle their old carrier bags, so nothing is achieved, its just a paid for bin liner rather than a recycled free one.

Repeal Section 63, Criminal Justice Act

 

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (2008) includes a Section 63 that prohibits a range of images, whether still or moving, possessed digitally or physically, as ‘extreme pornography’, exposing those found 'in possession' to  fines or up to five years in prison. 

 

Prohibited Images must satisfy four tests:

1. The image must be pornographic: ‘must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or mainly for the purpose of sexual arousal’.

2. The image portrays at least one of the following:

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).

3. The portrayal must be ‘explicit and realistic’; a reasonable person must believe the actors (and animals) involved are real.

4. The image must be ‘grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character’.

Defences include having a legitimate reason for possessing images, accidental access of images, or the possessor having taken part in the images with other consenting adults. Complete works that have been classified by the BBFC are exempt (although extracts of classified films are not).

 

It seems to me (and many others) that this is thoroughly bad law. not only is it selective and arbitrary but also creates a new category of 'thought crime'. 

The law takes little account of whether the images are the product of actual dangerous and abusive activities, or merely realistic depictions or acted scenes. It also fails to take account of whether the images were produced consensually. What it does, therefore, is to make some perfectly legal acts into illegal ones when recorded or viewed. And it makes the viewer the criminal, rather than the producer. 

However, to muddy the waters even further, Section 66 of the Act provides a defence in relation to participation in consensual acts. In order for it to be present the following elements must be established:

– That the defendant directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed

– That the act or the acts did not involve the infliction of non-consensual harm on any person

– That acts involving the portrayal of a human corpse was not in fact a human corpse

Given that all pornography sites explicitly state that all acts depicted are both non-harming and consensual, it seems that the law fails even to address properly the anti-porn campaigners stated target.

The law is meant to be limited by an 'obscenity test' similar to that used for prosecuting publications. However, the history of obscenity laws (Lady Chatterley's Lover, the Oz Trial, etc) shows that obscenity is arbitrary. Therefore most people will not know whether they have broken the law before they have been prosecuted.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (2008) includes a Section 63 that prohibits a range of images, whether still or moving, possessed digitally or physically, as ‘extreme pornography’, exposing those found 'in possession' to  fines or up to five years in prison. 

 

Prohibited Images must satisfy four tests:

1. The image must be pornographic: ‘must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or mainly for the purpose of sexual arousal’.

2. The image portrays at least one of the following:

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).

3. The portrayal must be ‘explicit and realistic’; a reasonable person must believe the actors (and animals) involved are real.

4. The image must be ‘grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character’.

Defences include having a legitimate reason for possessing images, accidental access of images, or the possessor having taken part in the images with other consenting adults. Complete works that have been classified by the BBFC are exempt (although extracts of classified films are not).

 

It seems to me (and many others) that this is thoroughly bad law. not only is it selective and arbitrary but also creates a new category of 'thought crime'. 

The law takes little account of whether the images are the product of actual dangerous and abusive activities, or merely realistic depictions or acted scenes. It also fails to take account of whether the images were produced consensually. What it does, therefore, is to make some perfectly legal acts into illegal ones when recorded or viewed. And it makes the viewer the criminal, rather than the producer. 

However, to muddy the waters even further, Section 66 of the Act provides a defence in relation to participation in consensual acts. In order for it to be present the following elements must be established:

– That the defendant directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed

– That the act or the acts did not involve the infliction of non-consensual harm on any person

– That acts involving the portrayal of a human corpse was not in fact a human corpse

Given that all pornography sites explicitly state that all acts depicted are both non-harming and consensual, it seems that the law fails even to address properly the anti-porn campaigners stated target.

The law is meant to be limited by an 'obscenity test' similar to that used for prosecuting publications. However, the history of obscenity laws (Lady Chatterley's Lover, the Oz Trial, etc) shows that obscenity is arbitrary. Therefore most people will not know whether they have broken the law before they have been prosecuted.