Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Why is this idea important?

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

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.

right to light act

Repeal the rule that allows placing a pole or scaffold tube on site,  that takes the place of the planned building.

Once this pole or scaffold has been in place for a year and a day, the builder is then allowed by law to construct any building to the height of that pole or scaffold tube.

This can all be carried out with no notice or warning to the residents effected save the pole, scaffold tube or any other erection in place to the height they will to build.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the rule that allows placing a pole or scaffold tube on site,  that takes the place of the planned building.

Once this pole or scaffold has been in place for a year and a day, the builder is then allowed by law to construct any building to the height of that pole or scaffold tube.

This can all be carried out with no notice or warning to the residents effected save the pole, scaffold tube or any other erection in place to the height they will to build.

Equality for all regardless of Religous Denomination

I would like to be as equal as you. I would like my son to be an equal to you.

But we are not, we by religous denomination are not extended the same rights and freedoms as you and yours.To be Catholic in your 21st Century modern society where equality issues are dominant in your social policies, is to be invisible.The great undiscussed. The only religion where the law of the land itself discriminates against you rather than society itself .It is easily solved. Repeal the Act of Settlement and do it willingly under the grounds that we are all equal and that my son should have the right to stand shoulder to shoulder with yours on the steps of Downing Street.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to be as equal as you. I would like my son to be an equal to you.

But we are not, we by religous denomination are not extended the same rights and freedoms as you and yours.To be Catholic in your 21st Century modern society where equality issues are dominant in your social policies, is to be invisible.The great undiscussed. The only religion where the law of the land itself discriminates against you rather than society itself .It is easily solved. Repeal the Act of Settlement and do it willingly under the grounds that we are all equal and that my son should have the right to stand shoulder to shoulder with yours on the steps of Downing Street.

End legal privilege of religious over non-religious views

Laws and regulations which give special privelege and protection to religious beliefs should be amended, such as Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam and 2003 Employment Equality regulations.

The argument is not that discrimination against religious views should be lawful, but privilege given to  religious views over others, is wrong.

Why is this idea important?

Laws and regulations which give special privelege and protection to religious beliefs should be amended, such as Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam and 2003 Employment Equality regulations.

The argument is not that discrimination against religious views should be lawful, but privilege given to  religious views over others, is wrong.

Abolish the inhuman right of police to user the TASER gun

Although I'm giving up posting here, because this site does not allow me to properly debate the radical changes we need in our society adequately, before I leave, I simply must register my utter disgust with the recent policy of TASERING the public in the course of policing.

It is quite simply a form of TORTURE, and torture is constantly denied even in the case of terrorist suspects by our governments (apart from the Americans who openly admit to waterboarding and so on), it's totally against human rights, and takes us back to the middle ages in terms of the administration of law and order.

I can appreciate that in EXTREME circumstances, i.e. dealing  with an armed and hostile criminal, the police need some means of subduing him/her  without seriously risking their own lives, but even the courts are not allowed to torture CONVICTED criminals, let alone suspects, or innocent people whom they mistakenly pursue who may panic and try to get away even though they are innocent.

What next  to control the public – ELECTRIC CATTLE PRODS? Wouldn't they be really useful in crowd control situations.

Why not,  if you can LEGALLY fire terminals into somebody, and torture them by pressing a button and giving them  thousands of volts shocks, surely it's only a small step away to justyfing the use of electric cattle prods?

Consider the alternatives to TASERS – for extremely violent or dangerour armed suspects, why not for example use some kind of anaesthetic gas to put them unconscious? Why not have a hypodermic syringe of doping agent which can be used to bring down a rhinoceros or a tiger, so surely quite easy to use with a human?

The TASER is giving the police the power to TORTURE suspects and innocent people, and as such it is AN APPALLING ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, and just shows the absolute contempt that is held for the general public, both by the police and the governments who have introduced or approved this weapon, which as usual has been imported from America like almost every other bad and inhumane idea.

Can the governmments  of this country start having a mind of their own please, and stop following every idea that America things up , rendering our nation and government to no more than a tail being wagged by a dog?

 

Why is this idea important?

Although I'm giving up posting here, because this site does not allow me to properly debate the radical changes we need in our society adequately, before I leave, I simply must register my utter disgust with the recent policy of TASERING the public in the course of policing.

It is quite simply a form of TORTURE, and torture is constantly denied even in the case of terrorist suspects by our governments (apart from the Americans who openly admit to waterboarding and so on), it's totally against human rights, and takes us back to the middle ages in terms of the administration of law and order.

I can appreciate that in EXTREME circumstances, i.e. dealing  with an armed and hostile criminal, the police need some means of subduing him/her  without seriously risking their own lives, but even the courts are not allowed to torture CONVICTED criminals, let alone suspects, or innocent people whom they mistakenly pursue who may panic and try to get away even though they are innocent.

What next  to control the public – ELECTRIC CATTLE PRODS? Wouldn't they be really useful in crowd control situations.

Why not,  if you can LEGALLY fire terminals into somebody, and torture them by pressing a button and giving them  thousands of volts shocks, surely it's only a small step away to justyfing the use of electric cattle prods?

Consider the alternatives to TASERS – for extremely violent or dangerour armed suspects, why not for example use some kind of anaesthetic gas to put them unconscious? Why not have a hypodermic syringe of doping agent which can be used to bring down a rhinoceros or a tiger, so surely quite easy to use with a human?

The TASER is giving the police the power to TORTURE suspects and innocent people, and as such it is AN APPALLING ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, and just shows the absolute contempt that is held for the general public, both by the police and the governments who have introduced or approved this weapon, which as usual has been imported from America like almost every other bad and inhumane idea.

Can the governmments  of this country start having a mind of their own please, and stop following every idea that America things up , rendering our nation and government to no more than a tail being wagged by a dog?

 

Rethink invisable straight jackets – CTO

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

Why is this idea important?

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

Repeal all funding to ‘charities’ who lobby (ASH in particular)

Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site – as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.

 

To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.

 

I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.

Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.

 

Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic – they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).

 

To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

 

The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

 

Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry – thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws

 

I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.

Why is this idea important?

Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site – as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.

 

To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.

 

I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.

Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.

 

Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic – they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).

 

To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

 

The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

 

Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry – thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws

 

I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

I’d like to make a complaint about The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and request that it be repealed completely as it does absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration or illegal workers in the UK, but it does cause a lot of grief and harassment for people who were born in this country, have lived here all their lives and have the lawful right to work here.

The Act costs businesses a lot of time and money chasing documentation and doesn’t provide any remedy or solution for workers who don’t have the identifications being requested, nor are they required to have and hold such identification in law. The Act also does nothing for people like myself who have religious beliefs that are opposed to carrying or using ID of any kind and provides no remedy to threats from employers of dismissal.

The company I work for a year ago started to bombard me with emails requesting that I bring in a passport and birth certificate. I don’t have a birth certificate and at the time my passport was misplaced, as I have not been overseas for 5 years. The company kept demanding these documents and I kept informing them that I don’t have any of the documents they were requesting nor was I obliged to have, hold, possess or carry them in law.

I had also stated to them that even if I had a birth certificate which I don’t that I have been informed that a birth certificate is not a valid proof of identity and it clearly states this on birth certificates “It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person(s) presenting it.” I did not have a birth certificate or any of the other documents they requested at the time such as a passport.

Eventually I had a meeting with someone from the HR department who had previously told me they would provide a list of other documents that would be acceptable instead. They didn’t mention any other documents in the meeting but just kept asking for the same documents I had already told them I didn’t have or had misplaced.

I asked several times what law requires me to possess any of the documentation they were requesting or to do any of this and each time they avoided the question like the plague, and were unable to tell me what law.  "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry is left unanswered and would be intentionally misleading.”

Eventually they simply said that it was company policy and provided me with a booklet detailing the Right to Work policy of the company. I kept asking what other documents I could bring instead, but they were unable to mention any.  “You have to reveal the terms of any contract and if formally noticed and questioned about the liabilities imposed by said contract, you must answer. Otherwise there is no duty.”

I also mentioned that I had already given my national insurance number to them when I first started working there and it is stated on the pay slip they give me every four weeks. If I wasn’t able to provide them with this when I first started working there almost 10 years ago they wouldn’t have been able to make deductions for tax and national insurance all these years so its absurd that they are requesting this again. What have they done with the original information I provided when I first started working there?

The booklet they provided stated that they should sit down with each worker and go through the information with them and explain everything. The company I work for has not done this with anyone that works there. They just bombard you with emails and expect you to bring in documents you don’t even possess. This is harassment. The last time I checked this wasn’t Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union it’s Great Britain! Their right to work policy booklet also says that the documents checks are for “potential new” employees before they start work. I am not a “potential new” employee, I have been there almost ten years now, and started working there a considerably long time ago, so I clearly shouldn’t have even been asked.

In one of the emails I was sent by someone at the company requesting this, they stated that there was no suggestion that I didn’t have the right to work. If there’s no suggestion that I don’t have the right, why do I need to prove that I do, and why are the company harassing me for things that are not lawful anyway? There is a legal maxim that “One who does not deny admits”. If no law has been broken, no crime committed, no life lost, no freedom breached, no property damaged, no rights infringed, then why is the company I work for harassing me like Gestapo agents for documentation when I have worked there almost ten years? I am being treated like a common criminal and interviewed by wannabe detectives from HR without any justifiable reason and contrary to the common law of the land.

 

 

When I read through the document it shows that a Statutory Declaration would be acceptable, so I went to a solicitors, paid the £5-00 fee and did the declaration, which was witnessed and signed to state who I was, my nationality, name and to show I have the right to work here. I was unable to provide any of the documents they were requesting at the time so could only give them the Statutory Declaration confirming my identity and nationality as well as a copy of my driving license. They took copies of these and said that they were fine after consulting with other people within the company.

Now a year later they have come back to me and said that the Statutory Declaration (a legal document) isn’t acceptable and not valid and they need my national insurance card from when I left school. I left school almost 20 years ago and doubt very much I have this anymore. I have since found my passport, which expires next year, which I have said I will bring instead. This clearly seems like a follow up check, which is only meant to be for people who do not have a permanent right to work in the country, according to their own policy booklet. I do have a permanent right to work here, have provided them documentation, which they accepted as being valid in August 2009, yet I am still being harassed for more a year later and suffering detrimental treatment.

I would like to ask the question, if the company I work for doesn’t believe that the Statutory Declaration Act of Parliament that allows you to make a Statutory Declaration is valid and they are not willing to accept my Statutory Declaration, which is a valid legal document, then how on Earth can they believe that the The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act is any more valid? It seems like the company I work for is picking and choosing which legislation and Acts of Parliament they are going to follow and which they are going to blatantly ignore despite their own company policy saying that Statutory Declarations are accepted.

Also why has it taken them almost a year to suddenly decide that a valid legal document witnessed under oath and counter signed by a solicitor is not an acceptable proof? And why was it acceptable proof to them a year ago something which they double-checked with other people in HR and the Legal department? A Statutory Declaration is a powerful legal document taken under oath and penalty of perjury.

Why do they regard a birth certificate as valid proof of identity when it apparently states on birth certificates that it isn’t a valid proof of identity? This is absolutely absurd and half-witted policy.

They want me to produce a worthless piece of paper I don’t have namely a “birth certificate” that isn’t proof of identity or relate to the individual presenting it, and believe a legal document that is proof of identity and does relate to the individual presenting and is taken under their oath and penalty of perjury isn’t valid.

I believe the HR department of the company I work for are clearly incompetent and don’t know what they are doing, but I’m not surprised by this given all the legislation and regulations they have to comply with, especially this ridiculous Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act. The only thing this Act is serving to do is to constrain the law abiding, and cost business a lot of time and money in the process.

Why is this idea important?

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

I’d like to make a complaint about The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and request that it be repealed completely as it does absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration or illegal workers in the UK, but it does cause a lot of grief and harassment for people who were born in this country, have lived here all their lives and have the lawful right to work here.

The Act costs businesses a lot of time and money chasing documentation and doesn’t provide any remedy or solution for workers who don’t have the identifications being requested, nor are they required to have and hold such identification in law. The Act also does nothing for people like myself who have religious beliefs that are opposed to carrying or using ID of any kind and provides no remedy to threats from employers of dismissal.

The company I work for a year ago started to bombard me with emails requesting that I bring in a passport and birth certificate. I don’t have a birth certificate and at the time my passport was misplaced, as I have not been overseas for 5 years. The company kept demanding these documents and I kept informing them that I don’t have any of the documents they were requesting nor was I obliged to have, hold, possess or carry them in law.

I had also stated to them that even if I had a birth certificate which I don’t that I have been informed that a birth certificate is not a valid proof of identity and it clearly states this on birth certificates “It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person(s) presenting it.” I did not have a birth certificate or any of the other documents they requested at the time such as a passport.

Eventually I had a meeting with someone from the HR department who had previously told me they would provide a list of other documents that would be acceptable instead. They didn’t mention any other documents in the meeting but just kept asking for the same documents I had already told them I didn’t have or had misplaced.

I asked several times what law requires me to possess any of the documentation they were requesting or to do any of this and each time they avoided the question like the plague, and were unable to tell me what law.  "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry is left unanswered and would be intentionally misleading.”

Eventually they simply said that it was company policy and provided me with a booklet detailing the Right to Work policy of the company. I kept asking what other documents I could bring instead, but they were unable to mention any.  “You have to reveal the terms of any contract and if formally noticed and questioned about the liabilities imposed by said contract, you must answer. Otherwise there is no duty.”

I also mentioned that I had already given my national insurance number to them when I first started working there and it is stated on the pay slip they give me every four weeks. If I wasn’t able to provide them with this when I first started working there almost 10 years ago they wouldn’t have been able to make deductions for tax and national insurance all these years so its absurd that they are requesting this again. What have they done with the original information I provided when I first started working there?

The booklet they provided stated that they should sit down with each worker and go through the information with them and explain everything. The company I work for has not done this with anyone that works there. They just bombard you with emails and expect you to bring in documents you don’t even possess. This is harassment. The last time I checked this wasn’t Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union it’s Great Britain! Their right to work policy booklet also says that the documents checks are for “potential new” employees before they start work. I am not a “potential new” employee, I have been there almost ten years now, and started working there a considerably long time ago, so I clearly shouldn’t have even been asked.

In one of the emails I was sent by someone at the company requesting this, they stated that there was no suggestion that I didn’t have the right to work. If there’s no suggestion that I don’t have the right, why do I need to prove that I do, and why are the company harassing me for things that are not lawful anyway? There is a legal maxim that “One who does not deny admits”. If no law has been broken, no crime committed, no life lost, no freedom breached, no property damaged, no rights infringed, then why is the company I work for harassing me like Gestapo agents for documentation when I have worked there almost ten years? I am being treated like a common criminal and interviewed by wannabe detectives from HR without any justifiable reason and contrary to the common law of the land.

 

 

When I read through the document it shows that a Statutory Declaration would be acceptable, so I went to a solicitors, paid the £5-00 fee and did the declaration, which was witnessed and signed to state who I was, my nationality, name and to show I have the right to work here. I was unable to provide any of the documents they were requesting at the time so could only give them the Statutory Declaration confirming my identity and nationality as well as a copy of my driving license. They took copies of these and said that they were fine after consulting with other people within the company.

Now a year later they have come back to me and said that the Statutory Declaration (a legal document) isn’t acceptable and not valid and they need my national insurance card from when I left school. I left school almost 20 years ago and doubt very much I have this anymore. I have since found my passport, which expires next year, which I have said I will bring instead. This clearly seems like a follow up check, which is only meant to be for people who do not have a permanent right to work in the country, according to their own policy booklet. I do have a permanent right to work here, have provided them documentation, which they accepted as being valid in August 2009, yet I am still being harassed for more a year later and suffering detrimental treatment.

I would like to ask the question, if the company I work for doesn’t believe that the Statutory Declaration Act of Parliament that allows you to make a Statutory Declaration is valid and they are not willing to accept my Statutory Declaration, which is a valid legal document, then how on Earth can they believe that the The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act is any more valid? It seems like the company I work for is picking and choosing which legislation and Acts of Parliament they are going to follow and which they are going to blatantly ignore despite their own company policy saying that Statutory Declarations are accepted.

Also why has it taken them almost a year to suddenly decide that a valid legal document witnessed under oath and counter signed by a solicitor is not an acceptable proof? And why was it acceptable proof to them a year ago something which they double-checked with other people in HR and the Legal department? A Statutory Declaration is a powerful legal document taken under oath and penalty of perjury.

Why do they regard a birth certificate as valid proof of identity when it apparently states on birth certificates that it isn’t a valid proof of identity? This is absolutely absurd and half-witted policy.

They want me to produce a worthless piece of paper I don’t have namely a “birth certificate” that isn’t proof of identity or relate to the individual presenting it, and believe a legal document that is proof of identity and does relate to the individual presenting and is taken under their oath and penalty of perjury isn’t valid.

I believe the HR department of the company I work for are clearly incompetent and don’t know what they are doing, but I’m not surprised by this given all the legislation and regulations they have to comply with, especially this ridiculous Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act. The only thing this Act is serving to do is to constrain the law abiding, and cost business a lot of time and money in the process.

Draconian Licensing Regulations restricting public dancing or singing

The regulations under the Licensing Acts and the Local Government Acts restricting the playing of music in pubs, the activities of live musicians and whether the public are dancing or singing should be scrapped. It may come as a surprise to many that if a member of the public spontaneously starts dancing and or singing and the Licensee does not have a relevant license allowing the public to dance or sing then this is a breach of their license conditions and they could faced closure.

People should be free to sing and dance wherever they want in a liberal democracy such as ours. Landlords should not be forced to behave like Cromwellian informants and suppress normal human behaviour. 

I agree that very loud or disruptive behaviour disturbing the peace should be curtailed but under Common Law we already have the means to control this if there is a complaint or if the police have grounds to believe such behaviour could result in a danger to persons or property.

Why is this idea important?

The regulations under the Licensing Acts and the Local Government Acts restricting the playing of music in pubs, the activities of live musicians and whether the public are dancing or singing should be scrapped. It may come as a surprise to many that if a member of the public spontaneously starts dancing and or singing and the Licensee does not have a relevant license allowing the public to dance or sing then this is a breach of their license conditions and they could faced closure.

People should be free to sing and dance wherever they want in a liberal democracy such as ours. Landlords should not be forced to behave like Cromwellian informants and suppress normal human behaviour. 

I agree that very loud or disruptive behaviour disturbing the peace should be curtailed but under Common Law we already have the means to control this if there is a complaint or if the police have grounds to believe such behaviour could result in a danger to persons or property.

Administration of Justice (Language) Act (Ireland) 1737

This Act which now applies only in Northern Ireland, was originally designed to prevent lawyers from bamboozling both plaintiffs and defendants in Irish courts, by arguing cases in Latin or legal French.


It incidently forbids the use of Gaelic in legal proceedings within the jurisdiction, but this now appears to be it's only residual function. This aspect of the Act has always been an injustice, to the Gaelic language community of Ulster.

I propose amendment by replacing the words in Paragraph 1 "…shall be in the English tongue and language, and not in Latin or French or any other tongue or language whatsoever"  with the words "shall be in either the English tongue and language, or the Gaelic tongue and language , but not in Latin or French or any other tongue or language whatsoever"

Why is this idea important?

This Act which now applies only in Northern Ireland, was originally designed to prevent lawyers from bamboozling both plaintiffs and defendants in Irish courts, by arguing cases in Latin or legal French.


It incidently forbids the use of Gaelic in legal proceedings within the jurisdiction, but this now appears to be it's only residual function. This aspect of the Act has always been an injustice, to the Gaelic language community of Ulster.

I propose amendment by replacing the words in Paragraph 1 "…shall be in the English tongue and language, and not in Latin or French or any other tongue or language whatsoever"  with the words "shall be in either the English tongue and language, or the Gaelic tongue and language , but not in Latin or French or any other tongue or language whatsoever"

Freedom From Noise Nuisance Act Needed

There needs to be tighter laws to nforce councils and or police to act upon complaints of noise nuisance from 11pm til 6am. Disturbed sleep is dangerous to your mental and physical health and ruins lives. It should be a human right to have a peaceful nights sleep.

At present if you phone the council they will want an exact address before doing anything. The council should be obliged by law to go out and investigate a noise nuisance if say, you know its rough location ie on the first floor of a block of flats. We the public shouldnt be expected to go out in our pj's at 2am to locate the exact address. This discriminates against women. the elderly, the disabled and the sick who cannot go out in the night time and possibly risk abuse.

once the perpetrators address is established, the law should warn them that next time they will be heavily fined and possibly have their hifi equipment confiscated.

We have had enough of noise nuisance.  

Why is this idea important?

There needs to be tighter laws to nforce councils and or police to act upon complaints of noise nuisance from 11pm til 6am. Disturbed sleep is dangerous to your mental and physical health and ruins lives. It should be a human right to have a peaceful nights sleep.

At present if you phone the council they will want an exact address before doing anything. The council should be obliged by law to go out and investigate a noise nuisance if say, you know its rough location ie on the first floor of a block of flats. We the public shouldnt be expected to go out in our pj's at 2am to locate the exact address. This discriminates against women. the elderly, the disabled and the sick who cannot go out in the night time and possibly risk abuse.

once the perpetrators address is established, the law should warn them that next time they will be heavily fined and possibly have their hifi equipment confiscated.

We have had enough of noise nuisance.  

Travellers Rights

Why do council tax payers have to pay for clearing of  their illegal sites, why cant they be moved on as soon as they appear  saving us money. They have more rights than the law abiding residents who live in the area and pay all their taxes, these people come in flout the law and get away with it leaving us with the bills.

Councils should be allowed to get tough with these people, make them pay for damage caused, by removal of assets, like they do for us who owe them money, make the police deal with them properly and not as now be afraid to upset them, check for motoring and anti social problems and deal with them like you do with us.

Why is this idea important?

Why do council tax payers have to pay for clearing of  their illegal sites, why cant they be moved on as soon as they appear  saving us money. They have more rights than the law abiding residents who live in the area and pay all their taxes, these people come in flout the law and get away with it leaving us with the bills.

Councils should be allowed to get tough with these people, make them pay for damage caused, by removal of assets, like they do for us who owe them money, make the police deal with them properly and not as now be afraid to upset them, check for motoring and anti social problems and deal with them like you do with us.

Where does it allow in the British constitution that Britain can be governed by an outside nation not elected by the British people?

Britain must sever its links with the EU due to the fact that the past Labour-Union government administration of Britain entered into an illegal affiliation with the EU governing body contrary to the Constition of Britain which requires that the approval of the citizens of Britain must be gotten before such an alliance with another government can be made on their behalf. This was not done by Blair. He misled the British public and did not adequately explain or communicate the matter to the public or the parliament of Britain. He contrived to deceive.

Why is this idea important?

Britain must sever its links with the EU due to the fact that the past Labour-Union government administration of Britain entered into an illegal affiliation with the EU governing body contrary to the Constition of Britain which requires that the approval of the citizens of Britain must be gotten before such an alliance with another government can be made on their behalf. This was not done by Blair. He misled the British public and did not adequately explain or communicate the matter to the public or the parliament of Britain. He contrived to deceive.

Unlawful behaviour and abuse of human rightsby powerful bureaucracies

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

Why is this idea important?

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

Remove the right to anonymity of 16/17 year olds convicted of crimes

Amend the law that currently provides special legal protection to all under 18s convicted of crimes so that it only applies to those under the age of 16.

By the age of 16, somebody is more than mature enough to face the full consequences of their actions.  The law should reflect this. 

The law as it stands means that the press are prevented from revealing the identity of a 16/17 year old convicted criminal unless the Judge presiding over the case specifically lifts their anonymity.  The result of this is that the media report that ‘A 16 year old, who can not be named for legal reasons has been convicted of …’.  This tarnishes the reputation of all 16 year olds, even though the vast majority would never dream of committing the crime that that individual 16 year old has been convicted of committing, as it gives the impression that:

(a) It could be any 16 year old who has done it, and

(b) There is a likelihood that any 16 year old might commit a similar crime. 

This is not the case.

As with any other age group, the vast majority of criminal offences are committed by a very small minority.  This small minority should be forced to take full responsibility for their actions. 

Why is this idea important?

Amend the law that currently provides special legal protection to all under 18s convicted of crimes so that it only applies to those under the age of 16.

By the age of 16, somebody is more than mature enough to face the full consequences of their actions.  The law should reflect this. 

The law as it stands means that the press are prevented from revealing the identity of a 16/17 year old convicted criminal unless the Judge presiding over the case specifically lifts their anonymity.  The result of this is that the media report that ‘A 16 year old, who can not be named for legal reasons has been convicted of …’.  This tarnishes the reputation of all 16 year olds, even though the vast majority would never dream of committing the crime that that individual 16 year old has been convicted of committing, as it gives the impression that:

(a) It could be any 16 year old who has done it, and

(b) There is a likelihood that any 16 year old might commit a similar crime. 

This is not the case.

As with any other age group, the vast majority of criminal offences are committed by a very small minority.  This small minority should be forced to take full responsibility for their actions. 

Right should exist to publicly protest over social services decisions

It is ilegal to make a public protest if your children are taken away from you by social services. My proposal would be legally restore the rights of parents to protest publicly about irrevocable decisions of the state.

Why is this idea important?

It is ilegal to make a public protest if your children are taken away from you by social services. My proposal would be legally restore the rights of parents to protest publicly about irrevocable decisions of the state.

Unify and Celebrate the Age of Majority

Tradionally there used to be a definite transition from childhood to adulthood. The old "I've got the key to the door" at 21. Most societies have marked such a transition.

These days we have different age limits for different rights and the transition has become, to my mind, blurred; the rites of passage abandoned.

I believe that we should consider bringing these separate age lines together. The age at which you can drive, smoke, join the armed forces, consent to sex, vote and so on. Perhaps at 17 or 18. We should encourage a formal rite of passage to be held to mark the transition from child to adult, solumnised by a Church for those so inclined, by secular organisations to those that prefer that.

Why is this idea important?

Tradionally there used to be a definite transition from childhood to adulthood. The old "I've got the key to the door" at 21. Most societies have marked such a transition.

These days we have different age limits for different rights and the transition has become, to my mind, blurred; the rites of passage abandoned.

I believe that we should consider bringing these separate age lines together. The age at which you can drive, smoke, join the armed forces, consent to sex, vote and so on. Perhaps at 17 or 18. We should encourage a formal rite of passage to be held to mark the transition from child to adult, solumnised by a Church for those so inclined, by secular organisations to those that prefer that.

Abolish Crown Immunity, create a People’s Prosecutor

Case law, and most written laws, give immunity to the police or the government. With a few exceptions, from International Human Rights law, this means they can do things that the rest of us can't, and they can't be punished. So a constable can park his squad car on a double yellow line to do a bit of shopping, the local council can throw your rubbish all over the road, soldiers can carry intimidating guns in public places, schools can fingerprint our kids, and of course MPs can fiddle their expenses in the knowledge that only one or two of them will be put forward for investigation.

A new Act should be passed to introduce a principle that What's Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander : a public person can be prosecuted for doing anything that a private person would be prosecuted for, unless they can justify it objectively; all individual enactments and case law giving unjustified immunity are repealed; and a People's Prosecutor is to be elected, who cannot be a past present or future employee of a public authority.

The People's Prosecutor would have the budget and experience to bring investigations and prosecutions of public persons and bodies in response to any complaint by a private person.

Why is this idea important?

Case law, and most written laws, give immunity to the police or the government. With a few exceptions, from International Human Rights law, this means they can do things that the rest of us can't, and they can't be punished. So a constable can park his squad car on a double yellow line to do a bit of shopping, the local council can throw your rubbish all over the road, soldiers can carry intimidating guns in public places, schools can fingerprint our kids, and of course MPs can fiddle their expenses in the knowledge that only one or two of them will be put forward for investigation.

A new Act should be passed to introduce a principle that What's Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander : a public person can be prosecuted for doing anything that a private person would be prosecuted for, unless they can justify it objectively; all individual enactments and case law giving unjustified immunity are repealed; and a People's Prosecutor is to be elected, who cannot be a past present or future employee of a public authority.

The People's Prosecutor would have the budget and experience to bring investigations and prosecutions of public persons and bodies in response to any complaint by a private person.

Repeal the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

The Criminal Justice Act which was made law under the Major administration brought into effect many laws that infringed civil liberties such as: Ending the right to silence and unregulated stop and search. The government should re-visit this legislation and make changes so that civil liberties are no longer infringed.

Why is this idea important?

The Criminal Justice Act which was made law under the Major administration brought into effect many laws that infringed civil liberties such as: Ending the right to silence and unregulated stop and search. The government should re-visit this legislation and make changes so that civil liberties are no longer infringed.

Define marriage as between two adults, not man & woman

Change the part of marriage law stipulating marriage to be between a man & a woman, and make it instead between two adults.

Simultaneously, you can alter civil partnership law to the same effect, so people of any orientation can have whichever partnership they feel is best for them.

Churches can still do as they please, but civil marriages & partnerships would be for everyone.

 

(Needless to say, other restrictions to do with incest, polygamy, forced marriage, underage marriage, bigamy, etc would stay in place, before some make claims equating gay marriage with all these.)

Why is this idea important?

Change the part of marriage law stipulating marriage to be between a man & a woman, and make it instead between two adults.

Simultaneously, you can alter civil partnership law to the same effect, so people of any orientation can have whichever partnership they feel is best for them.

Churches can still do as they please, but civil marriages & partnerships would be for everyone.

 

(Needless to say, other restrictions to do with incest, polygamy, forced marriage, underage marriage, bigamy, etc would stay in place, before some make claims equating gay marriage with all these.)

Define marriage as between two adults, not man & woman

Change the part of marriage law stipulating marriage to be between a man & a woman, and make it instead between two adults.

Simultaneously, you can alter civil partnership law to the same effect, so people of any orientation can have whichever partnership they feel is best for them.

Churches can still do as they please, but civil marriages & partnerships would be for everyone.

 

(Needless to say, other restrictions to do with incest, polygamy, forced marriage, underage marriage, bigamy, etc would stay in place, before some make claims equating gay marriage with all these.)

Why is this idea important?

Change the part of marriage law stipulating marriage to be between a man & a woman, and make it instead between two adults.

Simultaneously, you can alter civil partnership law to the same effect, so people of any orientation can have whichever partnership they feel is best for them.

Churches can still do as they please, but civil marriages & partnerships would be for everyone.

 

(Needless to say, other restrictions to do with incest, polygamy, forced marriage, underage marriage, bigamy, etc would stay in place, before some make claims equating gay marriage with all these.)

Limit compensation claims by people who have committed a crime

When someone has been found guilty of committing a crime (either civil or criminal) they should not be able to claim subsequently for personal or financial compensation or injury from those they committed the act against whilst that act was taking place.

Assuming the victim acted with reasonable force (the judge will decide) in defending his/her self or property, the court should decree that the guilty party shall not make any further claim related to that case against the victim through any court or institution.

Why is this idea important?

When someone has been found guilty of committing a crime (either civil or criminal) they should not be able to claim subsequently for personal or financial compensation or injury from those they committed the act against whilst that act was taking place.

Assuming the victim acted with reasonable force (the judge will decide) in defending his/her self or property, the court should decree that the guilty party shall not make any further claim related to that case against the victim through any court or institution.