Is our goverment commeted to the restoration of citizens’ fundamental freedoms ?

This is what our goverment says

"The Government is committed not only to opening up the discussion on the restoration of citizens’ fundamental freedoms, but to responding to and acting as appropriate on the ideas submitted through this site. Your ideas, comments and ratings will directly inform the Government’s policy making. Some of your proposals could even end up making it into bills before Parliament. We’ll consider your ideas on civil liberties for the proposed Freedom Bill later in 2010. We may also include ideas on unnecessary laws in a future bill."

If our goverment is commited to restoring our Freedoms, then this subject cannot be ignored.

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

1.  The MDA infringes upon our freedom, it conflicts with article 8 and 9 of the european covention on human rights and fundermental freedoms.

1b. Article 8 –

  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
  2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Example

If we as responsible adults choose to use cannabis for medical or recreational purpose in the privicy of our own homes, we can under article 8 and 9 because its YOUR body and your PRIVATE life. But sadly not our goverment convicts and ruins peoples lifes with criminal records for this reason.

  • National security is not at all affected  
  • Public safety or the economic well-being of the country are also not affected
  • Cannbis use in ones home does not cause disorder or crime
  • 'For the protection of health or morals' – This is the one our goverment beileves it does affect
  •  'For the protection of the rights and freedoms of others' not affected again

My point is if our goverment beilives it can break our freedom on the point of health and morals for the use of cannabis, then i want to see the scientific evidence to support their claim. I have done some research on the health risks and benifits of cannabis and the evidence suggest that cannabis is far less harmful and more benifcial than our goverment belive and want us to belive.

To convict medical cannabis users that suffer from Cancer, Aids, Glaucoma, Epilepsy, MS, ME and many more conditions that find relief in the natural cannabis plant, based on health and morals is wrong, how can u convict someone who finds deadly needed relief with little if any health risks from the cannabis. YOU carnt under the ECOHR

To convict for recreational use is also wrong as there is also little if any risk for most people in terms of harmful. Yes as evidence doest suggest cannabis may trigger scizophrenia in individuals, to say that it causes scizophrenia is totaly over exagerated as the scientific evidence doesnt support the cliam.

1c. Article 9 –

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
  2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

My point

A person has the funderment choich to become a Cantheist or believe in Hinduism, Christianity and more, but the diffrence is in the religion of Christianity wine(alcohol) is a sacrade substance as the blood of Jesus Christ and can be consumed in rituals, but if you choose to become a Cantheist then the sacrade substance would be cannabis. But under the current MDA 1971 you would be convited for that view.

Why is this idea important?

This is what our goverment says

"The Government is committed not only to opening up the discussion on the restoration of citizens’ fundamental freedoms, but to responding to and acting as appropriate on the ideas submitted through this site. Your ideas, comments and ratings will directly inform the Government’s policy making. Some of your proposals could even end up making it into bills before Parliament. We’ll consider your ideas on civil liberties for the proposed Freedom Bill later in 2010. We may also include ideas on unnecessary laws in a future bill."

If our goverment is commited to restoring our Freedoms, then this subject cannot be ignored.

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

1.  The MDA infringes upon our freedom, it conflicts with article 8 and 9 of the european covention on human rights and fundermental freedoms.

1b. Article 8 –

  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
  2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Example

If we as responsible adults choose to use cannabis for medical or recreational purpose in the privicy of our own homes, we can under article 8 and 9 because its YOUR body and your PRIVATE life. But sadly not our goverment convicts and ruins peoples lifes with criminal records for this reason.

  • National security is not at all affected  
  • Public safety or the economic well-being of the country are also not affected
  • Cannbis use in ones home does not cause disorder or crime
  • 'For the protection of health or morals' – This is the one our goverment beileves it does affect
  •  'For the protection of the rights and freedoms of others' not affected again

My point is if our goverment beilives it can break our freedom on the point of health and morals for the use of cannabis, then i want to see the scientific evidence to support their claim. I have done some research on the health risks and benifits of cannabis and the evidence suggest that cannabis is far less harmful and more benifcial than our goverment belive and want us to belive.

To convict medical cannabis users that suffer from Cancer, Aids, Glaucoma, Epilepsy, MS, ME and many more conditions that find relief in the natural cannabis plant, based on health and morals is wrong, how can u convict someone who finds deadly needed relief with little if any health risks from the cannabis. YOU carnt under the ECOHR

To convict for recreational use is also wrong as there is also little if any risk for most people in terms of harmful. Yes as evidence doest suggest cannabis may trigger scizophrenia in individuals, to say that it causes scizophrenia is totaly over exagerated as the scientific evidence doesnt support the cliam.

1c. Article 9 –

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
  2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

My point

A person has the funderment choich to become a Cantheist or believe in Hinduism, Christianity and more, but the diffrence is in the religion of Christianity wine(alcohol) is a sacrade substance as the blood of Jesus Christ and can be consumed in rituals, but if you choose to become a Cantheist then the sacrade substance would be cannabis. But under the current MDA 1971 you would be convited for that view.

Civil Service pay bargaining

Restore National Civil Service Pay bargaining and a National Civil Service Pay structure. The fragmented pay bargaining that presently exists is inefficient, costly, divisive and unfair.

Why is this idea important?

Restore National Civil Service Pay bargaining and a National Civil Service Pay structure. The fragmented pay bargaining that presently exists is inefficient, costly, divisive and unfair.

Human Rights for All Citizens

Current legislation gives individuals rights which override the rights of other citizens.   The rules should be amended so that no one individual can claim a right where this would clearly affect the rights of others.    Jail inmates should loose such rights when imprisoned and illegal immigrants should have no rights until they have been accepted into our country.   This would reduce litigation that currently forces our country to accept none desirable people to the detriment of our own wishes.

We should also have the right to exclude people from within the EEC who are known criminals

Why is this idea important?

Current legislation gives individuals rights which override the rights of other citizens.   The rules should be amended so that no one individual can claim a right where this would clearly affect the rights of others.    Jail inmates should loose such rights when imprisoned and illegal immigrants should have no rights until they have been accepted into our country.   This would reduce litigation that currently forces our country to accept none desirable people to the detriment of our own wishes.

We should also have the right to exclude people from within the EEC who are known criminals

About airlines and others charging for debit card use.

 

I must first explain how this can be an amendment to an existing law.

There is a law which defines 'legal tender'; ie, a law which in effect defines what MONEY USED FOR PAYMENTS IS. Essentially, that means that only MONEY approved by the King is acceptable.  My suggestion is an amendment to that law.

A few years ago, airlines sneaked into their on-line booking systems a charge for using cards to pay for booking a flight on-line. At first, the charge was minimal – say, £1. Because the charge was so minimal, they got away with it. But, as is the case with baggage charges, they have gradually increased these additional charges/fees. Below is Jet 2's list of charges for using cards:

————————————————————————————

How can I pay?

You can pay online using a credit or debit card and also using PayPal – see charges below. For payment via the call centre you can pay using a credit or debit card only. For payment at our sales desks you can pay using a credit or debit card, cheque or cash.

Booking fees A booking fee of 3.5% (minimum charge of 4.99GBP/ 7EUR/ 10CHF/ 180CZK/ 30PLN) will be applied to all card payments except for Solo and Visa Electron which are free. For bookings made using PayPal the booking fee is 3.49GBPQuestions or/ 5.00EUR.

Payment fees Payment made by credit card or PayPal incur an additional fee of 2.25% or 1.5% respectively.

 

—————————————————————————

 

As an example, a person who books flights costing £400 and pays by debit card will incur a fee of £14 (3.5%). A person using a credit card will incur a further additional fee of £9, making a total of £23. That is the cost of paying!

 

We can understand that the cost of carrying baggage is a reasonable, competitive service, but can the same thing be said about paying the bill? I think that not.

 

Read the quote above carefully and note that payments made by cheque or cash at sales desks incur no charge. I am not definitely sure about cheques, but I know FOR A FACT that charging for payment in cash IS AGAINST THE LAW.  

 

But we must ask ourselves, is it in anyway possible to pay on-line in cash? Obviously, not. But the serious point is that, as regards on-line payments, debit cards ARE cash – or the equivalent.

 

We notice also that these demands from airlines are couched in phrases such as 'booking fee'. That is not true. What we are paying for when we book on-line is the ACTUAL COST of being transported from, say, Manchester to Majorca. What the airlines are doing, by using the phrase 'booking fee', is making us pay to pay! This is nonsense!

 

The Law which defines 'Legal Tender' must be changed to include payment by debit card. Debit card these days is the equivalent of cash. I would say that the same applies to credit cards, but – one step at a time.

 

I have no doubt that airlines would say in their defence that Banks charge them for internet transaction, but that idea will not wash. The fact is that Banks charge these airlines just as much, if not more, for cash and cheque activity. It costs airlines a lot in terms of staff costs, bank charges, etc to handle cash and cheques. On-line transactions save them MASSES of money.  

 

The Law re Legal Tender needs to be brought up to date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

 

I must first explain how this can be an amendment to an existing law.

There is a law which defines 'legal tender'; ie, a law which in effect defines what MONEY USED FOR PAYMENTS IS. Essentially, that means that only MONEY approved by the King is acceptable.  My suggestion is an amendment to that law.

A few years ago, airlines sneaked into their on-line booking systems a charge for using cards to pay for booking a flight on-line. At first, the charge was minimal – say, £1. Because the charge was so minimal, they got away with it. But, as is the case with baggage charges, they have gradually increased these additional charges/fees. Below is Jet 2's list of charges for using cards:

————————————————————————————

How can I pay?

You can pay online using a credit or debit card and also using PayPal – see charges below. For payment via the call centre you can pay using a credit or debit card only. For payment at our sales desks you can pay using a credit or debit card, cheque or cash.

Booking fees A booking fee of 3.5% (minimum charge of 4.99GBP/ 7EUR/ 10CHF/ 180CZK/ 30PLN) will be applied to all card payments except for Solo and Visa Electron which are free. For bookings made using PayPal the booking fee is 3.49GBPQuestions or/ 5.00EUR.

Payment fees Payment made by credit card or PayPal incur an additional fee of 2.25% or 1.5% respectively.

 

—————————————————————————

 

As an example, a person who books flights costing £400 and pays by debit card will incur a fee of £14 (3.5%). A person using a credit card will incur a further additional fee of £9, making a total of £23. That is the cost of paying!

 

We can understand that the cost of carrying baggage is a reasonable, competitive service, but can the same thing be said about paying the bill? I think that not.

 

Read the quote above carefully and note that payments made by cheque or cash at sales desks incur no charge. I am not definitely sure about cheques, but I know FOR A FACT that charging for payment in cash IS AGAINST THE LAW.  

 

But we must ask ourselves, is it in anyway possible to pay on-line in cash? Obviously, not. But the serious point is that, as regards on-line payments, debit cards ARE cash – or the equivalent.

 

We notice also that these demands from airlines are couched in phrases such as 'booking fee'. That is not true. What we are paying for when we book on-line is the ACTUAL COST of being transported from, say, Manchester to Majorca. What the airlines are doing, by using the phrase 'booking fee', is making us pay to pay! This is nonsense!

 

The Law which defines 'Legal Tender' must be changed to include payment by debit card. Debit card these days is the equivalent of cash. I would say that the same applies to credit cards, but – one step at a time.

 

I have no doubt that airlines would say in their defence that Banks charge them for internet transaction, but that idea will not wash. The fact is that Banks charge these airlines just as much, if not more, for cash and cheque activity. It costs airlines a lot in terms of staff costs, bank charges, etc to handle cash and cheques. On-line transactions save them MASSES of money.  

 

The Law re Legal Tender needs to be brought up to date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smoking Ban – Let’s have a referendum!

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Leave the EU – that should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Why is this idea important?

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Amend the Smoking Ban

The smoking ban is an infringement of the rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that second hand smoke was a danger to those around it, who could possible inhale it. This has never been scientifically proven.

No law should be allowed to go into the statute books without absolute proof that the need for such a law can be substantiated both legally and scientifically.

When the Labour Government first proposed this law, it was in their manifesto that it should be a partial ban, only operational in places that served food. This proposal was suddenly changed to include "all" indoor public places. The reason given, was that staff needed protection from second hand smoke.

In the ex-Labour Government's dying throws, they started suggesting extending the smoking ban to outdoor areas as well as the enclosed areas that were already covered by the ban. If there was any truth at all in their doctrine that second-hand smoke kills or injures, and that is why they needed a smoking ban in the first instance, then why are there proposals still in force to try and extend the ban to outdoor areas?

Smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this. This would not impinge at all on those who do not wish to smoke or even smell smoke, as they too should be allowed their own smoke free places.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban is an infringement of the rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that second hand smoke was a danger to those around it, who could possible inhale it. This has never been scientifically proven.

No law should be allowed to go into the statute books without absolute proof that the need for such a law can be substantiated both legally and scientifically.

When the Labour Government first proposed this law, it was in their manifesto that it should be a partial ban, only operational in places that served food. This proposal was suddenly changed to include "all" indoor public places. The reason given, was that staff needed protection from second hand smoke.

In the ex-Labour Government's dying throws, they started suggesting extending the smoking ban to outdoor areas as well as the enclosed areas that were already covered by the ban. If there was any truth at all in their doctrine that second-hand smoke kills or injures, and that is why they needed a smoking ban in the first instance, then why are there proposals still in force to try and extend the ban to outdoor areas?

Smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this. This would not impinge at all on those who do not wish to smoke or even smell smoke, as they too should be allowed their own smoke free places.