Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet?

Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet, sulking like a naughty school boy who’s been discovered pedaling lies and deceit?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-relaxes-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana-1.312347

So the media makes Israel out to be some sort of monster when in actual fact the evidence suggests that they are far more reasonable, compassionate and concerned for liberty and justice than we are here in the UK!

Israel realises the senseless injustice of criminalising the sick.

Israel understands that it is not humane to remove the right of the sick to be treated by possibly the best natural medication known to man.

Israel has dealt a significant blow to greedy, self obsessed political / corporate agendas because they see such action as NECESSARY and IMPORTANT, indeed, the Jewish people have a saying: "If you haven't got your health, than what have you got?".

They replaced greedy drug policy with humane and compassionate treatment.

Israel sees the hypocrisy. Israel sees the blatant bigotry. Israel sees the complete and utter failure of the drug war.

Israel is doing something about it.

Is the UK really to be the elephant in the room? Standing on our outdated, prejudicial and, frankly, insane principles we are begging to be left behind by other more evolved, liberated and compassionate societies.

The UK government are a disgrace for while the world is turning to a more liberal future, the UK is so steeped in the web of deceit, propaganda, political complicity and corruption that it would seem they cannot untangle themselves from it without also ruining their own careers. Well, personally, I think that any prohibitionist should be forced from their disgraceful and hateful position of power so that they no longer infect reason with their corrupt, illogical, irrational and perverse sense of justice.

Why is this idea important?

Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet, sulking like a naughty school boy who’s been discovered pedaling lies and deceit?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-relaxes-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana-1.312347

So the media makes Israel out to be some sort of monster when in actual fact the evidence suggests that they are far more reasonable, compassionate and concerned for liberty and justice than we are here in the UK!

Israel realises the senseless injustice of criminalising the sick.

Israel understands that it is not humane to remove the right of the sick to be treated by possibly the best natural medication known to man.

Israel has dealt a significant blow to greedy, self obsessed political / corporate agendas because they see such action as NECESSARY and IMPORTANT, indeed, the Jewish people have a saying: "If you haven't got your health, than what have you got?".

They replaced greedy drug policy with humane and compassionate treatment.

Israel sees the hypocrisy. Israel sees the blatant bigotry. Israel sees the complete and utter failure of the drug war.

Israel is doing something about it.

Is the UK really to be the elephant in the room? Standing on our outdated, prejudicial and, frankly, insane principles we are begging to be left behind by other more evolved, liberated and compassionate societies.

The UK government are a disgrace for while the world is turning to a more liberal future, the UK is so steeped in the web of deceit, propaganda, political complicity and corruption that it would seem they cannot untangle themselves from it without also ruining their own careers. Well, personally, I think that any prohibitionist should be forced from their disgraceful and hateful position of power so that they no longer infect reason with their corrupt, illogical, irrational and perverse sense of justice.

Police Paramilitary Style Tactics

Lets put an end to these macho, gung – ho, SAS wannabe’s wearing their black military gear, bursting into domestic properties, screaming “ON THE FLOOR!!!, ON THE FLOOR!!!” etc., getting all hyped up like sharks in a feeding frenzy, feeling really brave  – when all they’re confronted by is some pathetic, sleep-weary bag-head with less meat on his bones than on a butcher’s apron and who’s repeatedly trying to tell them he’ll gladly do as he’s told…

They scream orders at the hapless sod from every direction, along with questions they don’t give him time to answer, until eventually you end up asking: “Was there really any need for all that?”  We’re supposed to be rooting for the ‘good guys.' It’s hard to tell who’s who, these days.

Couldn’t it be scaled down, and replaced with a quiet arrest, when the suspect was off guard? Do you really NEED 15 big 'brave' coppers in riot gear – to arrest one man? 

I’m not saying go soft on crime – but these guys are bloody dangerous. Next thing you know, they’ve got a gun in their mits, and you’ve got another Jean Charles de Menezes in the news.

 Drop the SAS tactics; bring back more traditional style policing.

Why is this idea important?

Lets put an end to these macho, gung – ho, SAS wannabe’s wearing their black military gear, bursting into domestic properties, screaming “ON THE FLOOR!!!, ON THE FLOOR!!!” etc., getting all hyped up like sharks in a feeding frenzy, feeling really brave  – when all they’re confronted by is some pathetic, sleep-weary bag-head with less meat on his bones than on a butcher’s apron and who’s repeatedly trying to tell them he’ll gladly do as he’s told…

They scream orders at the hapless sod from every direction, along with questions they don’t give him time to answer, until eventually you end up asking: “Was there really any need for all that?”  We’re supposed to be rooting for the ‘good guys.' It’s hard to tell who’s who, these days.

Couldn’t it be scaled down, and replaced with a quiet arrest, when the suspect was off guard? Do you really NEED 15 big 'brave' coppers in riot gear – to arrest one man? 

I’m not saying go soft on crime – but these guys are bloody dangerous. Next thing you know, they’ve got a gun in their mits, and you’ve got another Jean Charles de Menezes in the news.

 Drop the SAS tactics; bring back more traditional style policing.

Civil liberties for faith groups

I think that it is important that the civil rights of members of the major religions in this country should be respected.  It has seemed that in many cases their freedom to act according to their own consciences has been eroded.  The previous government seemed to bend over backwards, in the name of diversity, to put Christians' rights to the back of the queue.   We are not a tiny minority who can be disregarded –  you may not realise it but more people watch 'Songs of Praise' than 'Match of the Day'!

Why is this idea important?

I think that it is important that the civil rights of members of the major religions in this country should be respected.  It has seemed that in many cases their freedom to act according to their own consciences has been eroded.  The previous government seemed to bend over backwards, in the name of diversity, to put Christians' rights to the back of the queue.   We are not a tiny minority who can be disregarded –  you may not realise it but more people watch 'Songs of Praise' than 'Match of the Day'!

Leave European Union

To restore democracy and freedom to this country only MPs at Westminster (and peers in House of Lords) should be allowed to make laws. No laws should be imposed on Westminster ( and therefore UK) by EU.

All acts taking us into European Union and binding us in from 1972 should be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

To restore democracy and freedom to this country only MPs at Westminster (and peers in House of Lords) should be allowed to make laws. No laws should be imposed on Westminster ( and therefore UK) by EU.

All acts taking us into European Union and binding us in from 1972 should be repealed.

freedom to peaceful demonstration.

the right to peacefully demonstrate for any reason should be restored as a cornerstone to our democratic  system. for demonstrations to be restricted under the heading of anti terrorism is a  restriction of my right to make an active statement of my approval or disapproval. i have only once in my life felt moved to demonstrate (and i am 60 years of age) the only terrorists present were disguised as police officers.

greenham common. ghandi. there are many examples of peaceful protest changing our world. protests are a window to peoples viewes. they should be viewed as a citizens right and not as a terrorist activity.

laws that relate to demonstration could be viewed as a governments level of paranoia or a guage of the supression intended by the state upon its citizens

you need to display confidence………   not control

p.s. point of information. i protested against the invasion of iraq. also , should i ever feel so angry again i will bloody well protest anyway.

Why is this idea important?

the right to peacefully demonstrate for any reason should be restored as a cornerstone to our democratic  system. for demonstrations to be restricted under the heading of anti terrorism is a  restriction of my right to make an active statement of my approval or disapproval. i have only once in my life felt moved to demonstrate (and i am 60 years of age) the only terrorists present were disguised as police officers.

greenham common. ghandi. there are many examples of peaceful protest changing our world. protests are a window to peoples viewes. they should be viewed as a citizens right and not as a terrorist activity.

laws that relate to demonstration could be viewed as a governments level of paranoia or a guage of the supression intended by the state upon its citizens

you need to display confidence………   not control

p.s. point of information. i protested against the invasion of iraq. also , should i ever feel so angry again i will bloody well protest anyway.

Uphold the European supreme court findings on Sex “offender” notifications etc.

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that lifelong requirements for sex offenders to notify the police when they move house or travel abroad are a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The result of the judgment is that the Supreme Court have issued a “declaration of incompatibility” with the Human Rights Act 1998.

The requirements were a disproportionate manner of pursuing a legitimate aim of preventing crime and therefore breached their rights under Article 8.

Lord Philips gave the leading judgment. He emphasised that the question (as in the case of all human rights claims involving a “qualified” right in general and Article 8 in particular) was one of proportionality, and that the correct test, as had been set out in previous decisions, was:

whether: (i) the legislative objective is sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right; (ii) the measures designed to meet the legislative objective are rationally connected to it; and (iii) the means used to impair the right or freedom are no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective (para 17)

Why is this idea important?

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that lifelong requirements for sex offenders to notify the police when they move house or travel abroad are a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The result of the judgment is that the Supreme Court have issued a “declaration of incompatibility” with the Human Rights Act 1998.

The requirements were a disproportionate manner of pursuing a legitimate aim of preventing crime and therefore breached their rights under Article 8.

Lord Philips gave the leading judgment. He emphasised that the question (as in the case of all human rights claims involving a “qualified” right in general and Article 8 in particular) was one of proportionality, and that the correct test, as had been set out in previous decisions, was:

whether: (i) the legislative objective is sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right; (ii) the measures designed to meet the legislative objective are rationally connected to it; and (iii) the means used to impair the right or freedom are no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective (para 17)

review or repeal law on harrassment

i would like to see the law on harrassment repealed, or at least rviewed.I was convicted of this so called crime in 2006. The way this law stands at present, anybody can make an accusation,with little or no proof, and it is a virtual conviction. In my own case,Ihad protested to a neighbour about her 14 year old daughter, assaulting my 9 year old daughter,and I threatened to call the  Police. Several days later I was arrested and charged, with no evidence whatsoever,except for thier allegation against me.At the trial,again no evidence or witnesses were called against me , except for the mother and daughter, and their allegations. Ihave since spoken to another man,who was also convicted under similar circumstances.It seems ridiculous, that in this day and age,anybody can be forced into a criminal on the say so of another person with no proof whatsoever.  I would like to see the law at least changed so that the burden of proof is placed on the police and prosecution to prove a crime has been committed,and not just some petty act of revenge by some person who feels slighted, or an easy conviction for the police. Also the whole system of C.R.B. checks should be reviewed. It is my understanding that C.R.B. checks were originally brought in to stop sex offenders working with children,and not for someone working in a factory or warehouse.                        

 

Why is this idea important?

i would like to see the law on harrassment repealed, or at least rviewed.I was convicted of this so called crime in 2006. The way this law stands at present, anybody can make an accusation,with little or no proof, and it is a virtual conviction. In my own case,Ihad protested to a neighbour about her 14 year old daughter, assaulting my 9 year old daughter,and I threatened to call the  Police. Several days later I was arrested and charged, with no evidence whatsoever,except for thier allegation against me.At the trial,again no evidence or witnesses were called against me , except for the mother and daughter, and their allegations. Ihave since spoken to another man,who was also convicted under similar circumstances.It seems ridiculous, that in this day and age,anybody can be forced into a criminal on the say so of another person with no proof whatsoever.  I would like to see the law at least changed so that the burden of proof is placed on the police and prosecution to prove a crime has been committed,and not just some petty act of revenge by some person who feels slighted, or an easy conviction for the police. Also the whole system of C.R.B. checks should be reviewed. It is my understanding that C.R.B. checks were originally brought in to stop sex offenders working with children,and not for someone working in a factory or warehouse.                        

 

Hate crime ..add disability

Presently if its deemed a crime was committed against someone mainly because of their race or sexuality the sentence can be more severe than if the crime was committed on other grounds . Disability tho isnt included on this list even tho attacks on disabled people because of their impairments arent infrequent.

The case of the mother who killed herself and her disabled child because of constant harassment by locals  was one which shocked and horrified many yet if those people are caught they can only be charged with public order offences not hate crimes.

Had this been a racially based or homophobic couple based harrassment they could have been charged with hate crime and been given a heavier penalty.

Why is this idea important?

Presently if its deemed a crime was committed against someone mainly because of their race or sexuality the sentence can be more severe than if the crime was committed on other grounds . Disability tho isnt included on this list even tho attacks on disabled people because of their impairments arent infrequent.

The case of the mother who killed herself and her disabled child because of constant harassment by locals  was one which shocked and horrified many yet if those people are caught they can only be charged with public order offences not hate crimes.

Had this been a racially based or homophobic couple based harrassment they could have been charged with hate crime and been given a heavier penalty.

Make politicians listen and act FOR us

Having just seen the new video introduction, it's abundantly clear that this site is a PR stunt.

There is another idea proposing its closure http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-your-freedom-forum

 

And in many ways I agree with the sentiments in that idea. If politicians are just going to discard ideas to suit their own agendas, then what is the point of debate.

 

Politicans are there to serve US, to listen and take on board OUR views – not to sit in judgement and discard ideas they may not agree with.

 

This country is allegedly a democracy, yet time and time again, politicians ignore the will of the people and do their own thing.

 

So politicians MUST be made to listen to the people they serve – as opposed to just serving their own self interests, or discarding ideas because they don't fit with their idealogy.

 

Of course, not all ideas will be viable – some will be outlandish, while others are just too draconian for a free society.

But serious suggestions that merely suggest compromise should not be discarded out of hand.

 

If they're only going to take on board those ideas which they supported before the election, then what is the point of sites like this ?

 

To my mind, it's now as pointless as the Downing Street petitions site.

Why is this idea important?

Having just seen the new video introduction, it's abundantly clear that this site is a PR stunt.

There is another idea proposing its closure http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-your-freedom-forum

 

And in many ways I agree with the sentiments in that idea. If politicians are just going to discard ideas to suit their own agendas, then what is the point of debate.

 

Politicans are there to serve US, to listen and take on board OUR views – not to sit in judgement and discard ideas they may not agree with.

 

This country is allegedly a democracy, yet time and time again, politicians ignore the will of the people and do their own thing.

 

So politicians MUST be made to listen to the people they serve – as opposed to just serving their own self interests, or discarding ideas because they don't fit with their idealogy.

 

Of course, not all ideas will be viable – some will be outlandish, while others are just too draconian for a free society.

But serious suggestions that merely suggest compromise should not be discarded out of hand.

 

If they're only going to take on board those ideas which they supported before the election, then what is the point of sites like this ?

 

To my mind, it's now as pointless as the Downing Street petitions site.

Freedom Of Information Act – and Freedom

The freedom of information act has been abused and can be proven so:

These three separate documents unequivocally prove that information has been withheld from a biased point of view.  Any other subject matter and this would have been headline news, but, for some reason, it didn't.

On the 9th July 2010, the freedom of information act finally relented and gave up this piece of damning evidence against the drug classification system, it vindicates Professor Nutt entirely.  Not to mention, it makes a mockery of the governance of the day.  The full document pdf can be found here:

http://www.drugequality.org/ico_press_release.htm

 

In 2007, the FOI vetted this document so as "to avoid a focus on the gaps in the evidence base" and cited the group Transform specifically.  This is against the rules of the FOI act, no biased is allowed to a party wishing to view a document.  Once more, the full story and document  PDF can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/06/home_office_error_reveals_how_foi_request_handled.html

 

And finally, this piece of information was withheld from the public for 9 months and was "slipped through" with the Mephadrone ban.  The document called "pathways to problems" is a report from the ACMD .  The document is a highly critical of the way alcohol is handled in the UK, once more, it has received little attention and the recommendations were not heeded.  The story can be found here:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/critical-alcohol-review-hidden-by-mephedrone-row-1948191.html

I would like the Freedom Of Information act to do as it says, allow freedom without bias or partisan ethics.

Why is this idea important?

The freedom of information act has been abused and can be proven so:

These three separate documents unequivocally prove that information has been withheld from a biased point of view.  Any other subject matter and this would have been headline news, but, for some reason, it didn't.

On the 9th July 2010, the freedom of information act finally relented and gave up this piece of damning evidence against the drug classification system, it vindicates Professor Nutt entirely.  Not to mention, it makes a mockery of the governance of the day.  The full document pdf can be found here:

http://www.drugequality.org/ico_press_release.htm

 

In 2007, the FOI vetted this document so as "to avoid a focus on the gaps in the evidence base" and cited the group Transform specifically.  This is against the rules of the FOI act, no biased is allowed to a party wishing to view a document.  Once more, the full story and document  PDF can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/06/home_office_error_reveals_how_foi_request_handled.html

 

And finally, this piece of information was withheld from the public for 9 months and was "slipped through" with the Mephadrone ban.  The document called "pathways to problems" is a report from the ACMD .  The document is a highly critical of the way alcohol is handled in the UK, once more, it has received little attention and the recommendations were not heeded.  The story can be found here:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/critical-alcohol-review-hidden-by-mephedrone-row-1948191.html

I would like the Freedom Of Information act to do as it says, allow freedom without bias or partisan ethics.

Cannabis Tag has been removed, yet again.

The Cannabis issue has received no less than 325 posts. That makes it one of the most popular single issues on this site, if not THE most popular on this site.

Excuses for it's constant appearing and disappearing range from magic to the Tag not getting clicked or posted enough.

After some consideration, I reject these explanations. It is simply not acceptable to try and dissolve an issue by removing it from the main index of Tags to the right of the forum. It is especially inappropriate to remove one of the single largest topics of debate on this website.  Even if it is somehow true that the tag has not been clicked on as much as others, it should still be reinstated as this issue is obviously of great concern to the public no matter what excuses are used to silence the issue.

Please mirror the public mood by reinstating the Cannabis Tag to it's rightful place.

Why is this idea important?

The Cannabis issue has received no less than 325 posts. That makes it one of the most popular single issues on this site, if not THE most popular on this site.

Excuses for it's constant appearing and disappearing range from magic to the Tag not getting clicked or posted enough.

After some consideration, I reject these explanations. It is simply not acceptable to try and dissolve an issue by removing it from the main index of Tags to the right of the forum. It is especially inappropriate to remove one of the single largest topics of debate on this website.  Even if it is somehow true that the tag has not been clicked on as much as others, it should still be reinstated as this issue is obviously of great concern to the public no matter what excuses are used to silence the issue.

Please mirror the public mood by reinstating the Cannabis Tag to it's rightful place.

Amendments to Digital Economy Act 2010

At the current moment parts the the Digital Economy Act 2010 introduced by Lord Peter Mandelson on 8th of April which  is simply unenforceable and too draconian in statue to implerment properly.  The following changes which I propose would benefit not only Internet providers but aswell compensate Industries who lose said money to digital piracy. 

Proposel

  • The right to download copyrighted work for home use, educational purposes without any economical benefit or the intent to redistribute.
  • Creation of a new independant government body of which handles copyright on digital and internet use of said copyrighted materials and which collects payment of monies collected from a new tax .
  • A marginal tax all Internet providers would charge on top of all subcriptions made and passed to the new independant government body who then distributes the monies to the various lobbies who own the said copyright.

Why is this idea important?

At the current moment parts the the Digital Economy Act 2010 introduced by Lord Peter Mandelson on 8th of April which  is simply unenforceable and too draconian in statue to implerment properly.  The following changes which I propose would benefit not only Internet providers but aswell compensate Industries who lose said money to digital piracy. 

Proposel

  • The right to download copyrighted work for home use, educational purposes without any economical benefit or the intent to redistribute.
  • Creation of a new independant government body of which handles copyright on digital and internet use of said copyrighted materials and which collects payment of monies collected from a new tax .
  • A marginal tax all Internet providers would charge on top of all subcriptions made and passed to the new independant government body who then distributes the monies to the various lobbies who own the said copyright.

Video’s in support of legalisation of cannabis and drugs.

The idea here is to give people easy access to some video's that are based in scientific fact and public opinion. Please view the video's in order to better acquaint yourself with the facts of the issue at hand:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/91y9KqvVggY&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/91y9KqvVggY&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-9077214414651731007&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The idea here is to give people easy access to some video's that are based in scientific fact and public opinion. Please view the video's in order to better acquaint yourself with the facts of the issue at hand:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/91y9KqvVggY&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/91y9KqvVggY&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-9077214414651731007&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

 

 

 

Photographing public places and people – including police

Recent restrictions on individuals photographing public scenes, buildings and people which can be otherwise looked at legally should be repealed. 

If something can be seen in public it should be photographable!

Why is this idea important?

Recent restrictions on individuals photographing public scenes, buildings and people which can be otherwise looked at legally should be repealed. 

If something can be seen in public it should be photographable!

Religeous Freedom for Christians

As this is a Christian country, the Christian way of life should be respected and should not be 'brushed under the carpet' just to accommodate other religeons so as ''not to offend them''.  Most other religeons are happy to worship alongside Christians in the same community, but I believe it is wrong that for example Christmas cards depicting the birth of Jesus Christ, Easter cards depicting Christian symbols, etc should be barred from being on display and replaced by pictures of easter eggs, bunny rabbits and unreligeous symbols on Christmas cards or even not displayed at all  incase non Christians are offended.  This is a Christian nation and as such we should be honoured to display our beliefs and not have others be ashamed of us when it comes to religeon.

Why is this idea important?

As this is a Christian country, the Christian way of life should be respected and should not be 'brushed under the carpet' just to accommodate other religeons so as ''not to offend them''.  Most other religeons are happy to worship alongside Christians in the same community, but I believe it is wrong that for example Christmas cards depicting the birth of Jesus Christ, Easter cards depicting Christian symbols, etc should be barred from being on display and replaced by pictures of easter eggs, bunny rabbits and unreligeous symbols on Christmas cards or even not displayed at all  incase non Christians are offended.  This is a Christian nation and as such we should be honoured to display our beliefs and not have others be ashamed of us when it comes to religeon.

Reduce Police Costs AND Improve Freedom of Speech

Reduce Protest confrontations by limiting same day or location of secondary counter demonstrations from occuring and thus save money as well as reduce friction in the community, and agression and violence on our streets.

Example:-

1/ Those who protest agains the war should not be permitted to protest at the same places and times where soldiers are marching to commemorate losses/celebrate their bravery.

2/ BNP and anti-BNP groups should have seperate protests either by the location or the date.

The tests I would apply is here is one of historical violence and size of protest as well as whether the secondary protest will prevent the first from freedom of expression at all. If the groups are known to be peaceful and of a reasonable size then this change should not be applied.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce Protest confrontations by limiting same day or location of secondary counter demonstrations from occuring and thus save money as well as reduce friction in the community, and agression and violence on our streets.

Example:-

1/ Those who protest agains the war should not be permitted to protest at the same places and times where soldiers are marching to commemorate losses/celebrate their bravery.

2/ BNP and anti-BNP groups should have seperate protests either by the location or the date.

The tests I would apply is here is one of historical violence and size of protest as well as whether the secondary protest will prevent the first from freedom of expression at all. If the groups are known to be peaceful and of a reasonable size then this change should not be applied.

Make motorist automaticaly liable for collisions with cyclists/pedestrians

A no fault liability system should be applied to cyclists/pedestrians unless a motorist or vehicle driver is able to demonstrate total or partial fault on the part of a cyclist/pedestrian.

The above is standard practice and law in many European/EU Countries

Although this may create, at the outset, a feeling of favouritism this would have the effect of making motorist more cautious to-wards parties who do not have the benefit of protection of airbags and protective compartments around them.

Why is this idea important?

A no fault liability system should be applied to cyclists/pedestrians unless a motorist or vehicle driver is able to demonstrate total or partial fault on the part of a cyclist/pedestrian.

The above is standard practice and law in many European/EU Countries

Although this may create, at the outset, a feeling of favouritism this would have the effect of making motorist more cautious to-wards parties who do not have the benefit of protection of airbags and protective compartments around them.

Permit the drinking of alcohol in parks

 

Pimms in The Park? Sorry that's illegal!

 
What better than a tall cool glass of Pimms in the park on a Sunday afternoon? 

Sounds great doesn't it?

Well I was recently at a party in Mount Street Gardens in Mayfair. 

The sandwiches were delicious; and so was the Pimms (right). 

As it happens drinking alcohol in many parks, including Mount Street Gardens, is illegal.

My delicious but illegal Pimms in The Park brings home that there are just far too many regulations now in the UK and it is about time they were swept away.

Drinking alcohol should be permitted in public parks.

What could be the supposed issues?

Drunks start abusing others, getting violent and urinating in the park maybe. And alcohol generates litter with the empties being strewn on the grass.

Well does it really matter if the hooligans and degenerates in the park getting violent, abusive and urinating are drunk or stone cold sober? Not a bit. 

And there are plenty of sober litterbugs. I have just crossed Hyde Park and saw perfectly sober concert goers openly drop their litter in the park. The place will be a mess in a few hours.

As for urinating in parks, there should be more urinals. I have an enlarged prostate – boasting again 😉 and need to urinate frequently. There should be more urinals.

Why is this idea important?

 

Pimms in The Park? Sorry that's illegal!

 
What better than a tall cool glass of Pimms in the park on a Sunday afternoon? 

Sounds great doesn't it?

Well I was recently at a party in Mount Street Gardens in Mayfair. 

The sandwiches were delicious; and so was the Pimms (right). 

As it happens drinking alcohol in many parks, including Mount Street Gardens, is illegal.

My delicious but illegal Pimms in The Park brings home that there are just far too many regulations now in the UK and it is about time they were swept away.

Drinking alcohol should be permitted in public parks.

What could be the supposed issues?

Drunks start abusing others, getting violent and urinating in the park maybe. And alcohol generates litter with the empties being strewn on the grass.

Well does it really matter if the hooligans and degenerates in the park getting violent, abusive and urinating are drunk or stone cold sober? Not a bit. 

And there are plenty of sober litterbugs. I have just crossed Hyde Park and saw perfectly sober concert goers openly drop their litter in the park. The place will be a mess in a few hours.

As for urinating in parks, there should be more urinals. I have an enlarged prostate – boasting again 😉 and need to urinate frequently. There should be more urinals.

Amend all ‘child protection’ legislation so that it does not apply to teenagers

Teenagers are no longer little, sweet children who need mollycoddling and protecting as though they are still toddlers.  They are adolescents, who are in the process of turning into adults and thus need to learn to behave as adults and be guided into the adult world. 

Protecting them as ‘children’ encourages rebellion, as they are prevented from doing anything vaguely exciting, risky or grown up, or from taking any responsibility for themselves and so turn instead to illicit and often particularly dangerous thrills such as trespassing on railway lines, drug abuse or joy riding.

Teenage boys in particular, when treated like weaklings and starved of risk, danger, competition and responsibility are prone to acting ‘macho’ and being violent in order to prove they are tough and strong enough to be a ‘real man’.

Treating teenagers as ‘children’ also prevents them from gaining the vital skills and qualities required to face the real world, leaving those who do not rebel ill-equipped to face the challenges adult life when they are finally thrown out into the real world at 18 and suddenly told they are different now because they are an ‘adult’.

All ‘child protection’ legislation should therefore be amended so that it only applies to those aged under 13 years, as it does more harm than good when applied to teenagers.

Why is this idea important?

Teenagers are no longer little, sweet children who need mollycoddling and protecting as though they are still toddlers.  They are adolescents, who are in the process of turning into adults and thus need to learn to behave as adults and be guided into the adult world. 

Protecting them as ‘children’ encourages rebellion, as they are prevented from doing anything vaguely exciting, risky or grown up, or from taking any responsibility for themselves and so turn instead to illicit and often particularly dangerous thrills such as trespassing on railway lines, drug abuse or joy riding.

Teenage boys in particular, when treated like weaklings and starved of risk, danger, competition and responsibility are prone to acting ‘macho’ and being violent in order to prove they are tough and strong enough to be a ‘real man’.

Treating teenagers as ‘children’ also prevents them from gaining the vital skills and qualities required to face the real world, leaving those who do not rebel ill-equipped to face the challenges adult life when they are finally thrown out into the real world at 18 and suddenly told they are different now because they are an ‘adult’.

All ‘child protection’ legislation should therefore be amended so that it only applies to those aged under 13 years, as it does more harm than good when applied to teenagers.