Open to the citizens, Uk Civil Service, Code of Service

Propose to open up UK, Civil Service, Code of Service, allow citizens to bring Civil Servants to task, be challenged when decisions taken without fact and based only what within psychiatry is human experimentation. 

 

Why is this idea important?

Propose to open up UK, Civil Service, Code of Service, allow citizens to bring Civil Servants to task, be challenged when decisions taken without fact and based only what within psychiatry is human experimentation. 

 

Public Sector Workers and Political Activity

Public sector workers – civil servants, council employees and others – are banned from any kind of "political" activity if above a particular grade. They may not "engaging in a range of political activities" even if they do not brief elected officers, the press or public, and the activity is totally unrelated to their work or even the work of their employer. For example, a computer technician on spinal point 44 and working for the local council cannot legally write to the local newspaper supporting a campaign to keep a local school open because political parties at the education authority would have differing views, making the matter "political".  If just one MP or councillor expresses a dissenting opinion the matter is political.

Technically it is not even legal for any public sector worker on Scale Point 44 or above (about £30,000) to post an idea here or even click on the vote button. This is absurd. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (section 2) was introduced to stop abuses where council workers had phantom jobs and were really party workers getting council pay. This abuse is rare today and well understood to be corrupt.

It might be argued that exemptions can be obtained by applying. But in many cases people want to keep work and politics separate, and applying for official permission ends up labelling people.

In some organisations people on SC44 are many levels below the top of the organisation, have never met the elected officers and do not brief press, public or elected officials. The definition needs to be tightened. The top 2 tiers of management should be banned from political activity. Departments and people specifically involved in briefing elected officers, public or press on political matters should be banned. Other people should NOT be banned.

Why is this idea important?

Public sector workers – civil servants, council employees and others – are banned from any kind of "political" activity if above a particular grade. They may not "engaging in a range of political activities" even if they do not brief elected officers, the press or public, and the activity is totally unrelated to their work or even the work of their employer. For example, a computer technician on spinal point 44 and working for the local council cannot legally write to the local newspaper supporting a campaign to keep a local school open because political parties at the education authority would have differing views, making the matter "political".  If just one MP or councillor expresses a dissenting opinion the matter is political.

Technically it is not even legal for any public sector worker on Scale Point 44 or above (about £30,000) to post an idea here or even click on the vote button. This is absurd. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (section 2) was introduced to stop abuses where council workers had phantom jobs and were really party workers getting council pay. This abuse is rare today and well understood to be corrupt.

It might be argued that exemptions can be obtained by applying. But in many cases people want to keep work and politics separate, and applying for official permission ends up labelling people.

In some organisations people on SC44 are many levels below the top of the organisation, have never met the elected officers and do not brief press, public or elected officials. The definition needs to be tightened. The top 2 tiers of management should be banned from political activity. Departments and people specifically involved in briefing elected officers, public or press on political matters should be banned. Other people should NOT be banned.

MP’s should be forced to attend Parliament

I find it disgraceful that MP's, paid by the taxpayers – for the people, leave the House of Commons whenever they feel like it and attend the House of Commons for hearings that they choose to – rather than required to.

It should take a school like feature, where MP's have to attend (unless impossible, through illness etc) or punishment will result.

Why is this idea important?

I find it disgraceful that MP's, paid by the taxpayers – for the people, leave the House of Commons whenever they feel like it and attend the House of Commons for hearings that they choose to – rather than required to.

It should take a school like feature, where MP's have to attend (unless impossible, through illness etc) or punishment will result.

Secular Republic

Replace the monarch with an elected figurehead President.  Disestablish the Church of England.  Abolish religious indoctrination in schools.  Abolish "faith" schools.  Abolish all religious priviledge.

Why is this idea important?

Replace the monarch with an elected figurehead President.  Disestablish the Church of England.  Abolish religious indoctrination in schools.  Abolish "faith" schools.  Abolish all religious priviledge.

totalitarianism and the fall of pseudo democracy

We live in a society free of many of the ills that infect the wider world. We are lucky enough, for instance to have a national health service, free debate on religion without fear of reprisals, equal rights for women, freedom of expression and equal relationship rights for homosexuals and so on and so forth. It has not always been so. It was illegal untill 1967 for two people of the same gender to have sexual relations, it was illegal untill 1928 for a woman to vote, untill the British monarchy was relegated to head of state and power transfered to government we lived under the oppressive rule of successive theocratic dictators. I make these points to set the tone of change, to highlight the necessity to make difficult desicions for the benefit of society. With this in mind i now have to ask: why do we insist on prohibition? We have watched it fail and done nothing, we have watched our children criminalised by an experimental and relativley new system of oppression and we do nothing to prevent this breathtaking totalitarianism. I am not going to argue the medical benefits of cannabis or the obvious requirement for a legal stimulant (as opposed to the legal deppressant), nor will i argue the evidential safety of many of the drugs classified as prohibited. I will not make these arguements, partially because they have been made time and again by those better qualified than myself, but largely because the science of it is secondary to the fact that it is a basic human right to do whatever one chooses to his/her own body. Do we legislate on tattoos lest the needle be infected? do we ban boxing or extreme sports to prevent injury or death, after all, are they not just chasing a far more risky high? We in society have a duty to educate, to teach those younger than ourselves to think criticaly and to make our own desicions provided they affect only ourselves. I have seen the argument made that drugs should be illegal because they are illegal (or vice versa), besides being a laughable non-sequitur this is held as esteemed argument by a large majority. This attitude is why i started this piece as i did, there was i time when it was illegal to have homosexual relations simply because someone deemed it wrong, there was a time when it was illegal for a woman to vote because someone felt they knew better. I think for me, i speak for me and i live for me, we exist only once and it is OUR right to experiance life as we see fit provided we harm no one else in the process.      

Why is this idea important?

We live in a society free of many of the ills that infect the wider world. We are lucky enough, for instance to have a national health service, free debate on religion without fear of reprisals, equal rights for women, freedom of expression and equal relationship rights for homosexuals and so on and so forth. It has not always been so. It was illegal untill 1967 for two people of the same gender to have sexual relations, it was illegal untill 1928 for a woman to vote, untill the British monarchy was relegated to head of state and power transfered to government we lived under the oppressive rule of successive theocratic dictators. I make these points to set the tone of change, to highlight the necessity to make difficult desicions for the benefit of society. With this in mind i now have to ask: why do we insist on prohibition? We have watched it fail and done nothing, we have watched our children criminalised by an experimental and relativley new system of oppression and we do nothing to prevent this breathtaking totalitarianism. I am not going to argue the medical benefits of cannabis or the obvious requirement for a legal stimulant (as opposed to the legal deppressant), nor will i argue the evidential safety of many of the drugs classified as prohibited. I will not make these arguements, partially because they have been made time and again by those better qualified than myself, but largely because the science of it is secondary to the fact that it is a basic human right to do whatever one chooses to his/her own body. Do we legislate on tattoos lest the needle be infected? do we ban boxing or extreme sports to prevent injury or death, after all, are they not just chasing a far more risky high? We in society have a duty to educate, to teach those younger than ourselves to think criticaly and to make our own desicions provided they affect only ourselves. I have seen the argument made that drugs should be illegal because they are illegal (or vice versa), besides being a laughable non-sequitur this is held as esteemed argument by a large majority. This attitude is why i started this piece as i did, there was i time when it was illegal to have homosexual relations simply because someone deemed it wrong, there was a time when it was illegal for a woman to vote because someone felt they knew better. I think for me, i speak for me and i live for me, we exist only once and it is OUR right to experiance life as we see fit provided we harm no one else in the process.      

Keep prepackaged politics off Mainstream News

We all know, (well the minority of us that are semi awake) that certain news channels are more biased than others when it comes to promotion of political party policies and current events.

Create dedicated political channel(s) and let the mainstream news merchants do what they are supposed to do, reporting REAL news.

This way people can tune in 24/7 to whatever political propaganda channel they choose, as and when they desire to find out what they are voting on without getting swayed by the mainstream newsreaders "HARD TALK" 

And while your at it, make sure that these so called "public servants" have a weekly grilling from the public on issues and policies that effect us all, with an interactive feedback system to show what is hot and what is not. This especially includes the Prime minister and his minions.

The people are fed up of not having a voice, just having the right to vote IS NOT ENOUGH!!!

STOP SELLING POLITICS AS A PRE PACKAGED ADVERTISED MARKETED BRAND!!

Why is this idea important?

We all know, (well the minority of us that are semi awake) that certain news channels are more biased than others when it comes to promotion of political party policies and current events.

Create dedicated political channel(s) and let the mainstream news merchants do what they are supposed to do, reporting REAL news.

This way people can tune in 24/7 to whatever political propaganda channel they choose, as and when they desire to find out what they are voting on without getting swayed by the mainstream newsreaders "HARD TALK" 

And while your at it, make sure that these so called "public servants" have a weekly grilling from the public on issues and policies that effect us all, with an interactive feedback system to show what is hot and what is not. This especially includes the Prime minister and his minions.

The people are fed up of not having a voice, just having the right to vote IS NOT ENOUGH!!!

STOP SELLING POLITICS AS A PRE PACKAGED ADVERTISED MARKETED BRAND!!

The Midlothian Question

Either give English MPs the right to vote on purely Scottish matters or remove the right of Scottish MPs to vote on purely English matters

This needs to be addressed at once

Why is this idea important?

Either give English MPs the right to vote on purely Scottish matters or remove the right of Scottish MPs to vote on purely English matters

This needs to be addressed at once

Parliament – M.Ps. behaviour

Re-imbue in MPs the idea that they are public servants.

This subject is potentially huge and covers too much to put on this site. However, there are a few easy to implement ideas:

*   When an MP (or a local councillor) crosses the floor, he/she should be subject to a new ballot. When these people are voted for it is usually on a party ticket and so changing their minds is not adhering to their election promises

*   If and when an MP is found to be abusing the position parliament must be able to fire that person immediately. It should not be the case that the offender can simply hang around for the rest of the parliament before facing the constituents in an election contes

*   The number of MPs should be reduced to around the 400 mark. It really does not take nearly 700 MPs to run this country – plus the House of Lords.

*   Redraw the constituency map so that each one has approximately the same size of population (accept that there will be some anomalies like the Isle of Wight

*   Require that all MPs actually attend the house for a minimum period during each session. It cannot be right that there are so many empty seats where important measures are being debated. If the low attendance (or non) is indicative ot the low level of interest in and the small importance of the measure under discussion – cancel it

*   Ensure that MP's benefits such as subsidised restaurants, bars, crèches, etc. are declared as such for tax purposes in the same way as everyone else in this country  

 

Why is this idea important?

Re-imbue in MPs the idea that they are public servants.

This subject is potentially huge and covers too much to put on this site. However, there are a few easy to implement ideas:

*   When an MP (or a local councillor) crosses the floor, he/she should be subject to a new ballot. When these people are voted for it is usually on a party ticket and so changing their minds is not adhering to their election promises

*   If and when an MP is found to be abusing the position parliament must be able to fire that person immediately. It should not be the case that the offender can simply hang around for the rest of the parliament before facing the constituents in an election contes

*   The number of MPs should be reduced to around the 400 mark. It really does not take nearly 700 MPs to run this country – plus the House of Lords.

*   Redraw the constituency map so that each one has approximately the same size of population (accept that there will be some anomalies like the Isle of Wight

*   Require that all MPs actually attend the house for a minimum period during each session. It cannot be right that there are so many empty seats where important measures are being debated. If the low attendance (or non) is indicative ot the low level of interest in and the small importance of the measure under discussion – cancel it

*   Ensure that MP's benefits such as subsidised restaurants, bars, crèches, etc. are declared as such for tax purposes in the same way as everyone else in this country  

 

Allow the public to elect judges and magistrates

Every 4 years we hold judicial elections, where the public, get to choose our law-lords, judges & magistrates, by election.

This will be identical to a general election, but the candidates will have no polotical ties.

furthermore, let us have our judiciary wholly accountable to a council of people, persons chosen at random every 4 years, to whom our judges will have to explain their actions, reasoning and sentencing, and to give them powers to override any judicial decision, including those of courts abroad, for example the european court of human rights, which has consistently proven to be biased against the interests of the Great British people.

Why is this idea important?

Every 4 years we hold judicial elections, where the public, get to choose our law-lords, judges & magistrates, by election.

This will be identical to a general election, but the candidates will have no polotical ties.

furthermore, let us have our judiciary wholly accountable to a council of people, persons chosen at random every 4 years, to whom our judges will have to explain their actions, reasoning and sentencing, and to give them powers to override any judicial decision, including those of courts abroad, for example the european court of human rights, which has consistently proven to be biased against the interests of the Great British people.

Stop all laws where MPs/politicians are treated less restrictively

There are numerous laws created in Parliament in which MPs are treated more favourably than ordinary people.

 

An example is that which set a maximum cap on a pension fund – EXCEPT for MPs.

 

Another is the EU law which scrapped duty free on items within the EU unless you are an MEP or one of the EU staff.

 

All laws must apply to people equally.   In some cases there are situations whereby the politicians must be treated more harshly but NEVER less.

Why is this idea important?

There are numerous laws created in Parliament in which MPs are treated more favourably than ordinary people.

 

An example is that which set a maximum cap on a pension fund – EXCEPT for MPs.

 

Another is the EU law which scrapped duty free on items within the EU unless you are an MEP or one of the EU staff.

 

All laws must apply to people equally.   In some cases there are situations whereby the politicians must be treated more harshly but NEVER less.

European Democracy versus English Common Law

The people of England are not currently entitled to the same level of democracy as the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish.

Under the Human Rights Act – as opposed to English Common Law and common sense – foreign terrorists cannot be deported to their countries of origin, but kept under Police surveillance in the United Kingdom at vast expense to the British taxpayer.  And what effect do you think the Stockholm Protocol as opposed to Common Law / common sense will have on English Democracy?

Questions on Law in the United Kingdom:

Did or did not Mr Cameron promise that there would be no more European dictats steamrollered through the British Parliament?  So why is he still signing off on them; e.g. appendages to the Lisbon Treaty; reference European financial governance?

Question 2.  Who is the final arbitrator of laws in the United Kingdom:

a)  the unelected Commissioners in Brussels?
b)  the unelected European Court?
c)  the European Parliament?
d)  the unelected Supreme Court?
e)  the unelected politically-appointed House of Lords?
f)  the unelected Keir Starmer, DPP?
g)  Why has over a thousand years of English Common Law and common sense been superseded by European dictat?
h)  Could you please list in order of importance our locally-elected Member of Parliament’s obligations:

a)  to his constituency
b)  to himself
c)  to his party
d)  to his country
e)  to Europe
 

Why is this idea important?

The people of England are not currently entitled to the same level of democracy as the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish.

Under the Human Rights Act – as opposed to English Common Law and common sense – foreign terrorists cannot be deported to their countries of origin, but kept under Police surveillance in the United Kingdom at vast expense to the British taxpayer.  And what effect do you think the Stockholm Protocol as opposed to Common Law / common sense will have on English Democracy?

Questions on Law in the United Kingdom:

Did or did not Mr Cameron promise that there would be no more European dictats steamrollered through the British Parliament?  So why is he still signing off on them; e.g. appendages to the Lisbon Treaty; reference European financial governance?

Question 2.  Who is the final arbitrator of laws in the United Kingdom:

a)  the unelected Commissioners in Brussels?
b)  the unelected European Court?
c)  the European Parliament?
d)  the unelected Supreme Court?
e)  the unelected politically-appointed House of Lords?
f)  the unelected Keir Starmer, DPP?
g)  Why has over a thousand years of English Common Law and common sense been superseded by European dictat?
h)  Could you please list in order of importance our locally-elected Member of Parliament’s obligations:

a)  to his constituency
b)  to himself
c)  to his party
d)  to his country
e)  to Europe
 

Repeal of the Act of Settlement

I consider the Act of Settlement is outdated and limits the freedom of Catholics. A Catholic cannot be Prime Minister for example. Anyone else can, Muslims, Jews, Bhuddists, etc etc. Why is this dicrimination still in force. Catholice Bishops or Archbishops are not in the House of Lords, The Chief Rabbi is and I believe Methodist Leaders are, Lord Soper definitely was and we have Muslim Baroness.

A few years ago when Tony Blair was in power, Ian Duncan Smith, leader of the opposition and Charles Kennedy leader of the liberals, there was talk of a general election. If the Conservatives or Liberals had won, or if there had been a coalition then, both leaders were Catholics which would have caused a constitutional crisis.

It is high time this mess was sorted out.

Why is this idea important?

I consider the Act of Settlement is outdated and limits the freedom of Catholics. A Catholic cannot be Prime Minister for example. Anyone else can, Muslims, Jews, Bhuddists, etc etc. Why is this dicrimination still in force. Catholice Bishops or Archbishops are not in the House of Lords, The Chief Rabbi is and I believe Methodist Leaders are, Lord Soper definitely was and we have Muslim Baroness.

A few years ago when Tony Blair was in power, Ian Duncan Smith, leader of the opposition and Charles Kennedy leader of the liberals, there was talk of a general election. If the Conservatives or Liberals had won, or if there had been a coalition then, both leaders were Catholics which would have caused a constitutional crisis.

It is high time this mess was sorted out.

Deddf 1536

Mae'n warthus fod y wefan yma ddim ar gael yn y Gymraeg. Mae cael defnyddio ein iaith ein hunain yn hawl sylfaenol dynol wedi'r cyfan ac nid oes gan y Llywodraeth yma unrhyw barch tuag at ein iaith yn ein gwlad ein hunain. Y ddeddf cyntaf sydd angen ei ddiddymu yw deddf uno Cymru a Lloegr 1536 er mwyn i ni yng Nghymru gael hunan lywodraeth lawn a rhyddid cenedlaethol

Why is this idea important?

Mae'n warthus fod y wefan yma ddim ar gael yn y Gymraeg. Mae cael defnyddio ein iaith ein hunain yn hawl sylfaenol dynol wedi'r cyfan ac nid oes gan y Llywodraeth yma unrhyw barch tuag at ein iaith yn ein gwlad ein hunain. Y ddeddf cyntaf sydd angen ei ddiddymu yw deddf uno Cymru a Lloegr 1536 er mwyn i ni yng Nghymru gael hunan lywodraeth lawn a rhyddid cenedlaethol

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.

AV must not be adopted; axe the Whips instead.

I have to admit I'm bending the rules here a bit: no legislation has been passed yet to bring forward a referendum on changing the electoral system to AV, but I would be in favour of its repeal should it be passed.

In theory, constituent democracy works on the premise that constituents choose a candidate, not a party.  As such, the constituents have the greatest pull over the candidates and MPs.  Greater, that is, than the parties.  For, if local parties select their candidates and local constituents select their MPs, then the MPs owe their jobs and their power to their constituents.  MPs know that they will lose their jobs at the next election if they don't do what their constituents wish.

Unfortunately, the practice is somewhat different.  Any MP who harbours any ambitions of a miniserial portfolio or even a seat on a Select Committee must do as the Whips say, even if their constituents wouldn't want the MP to do so.  And how few people go into politics to spend their entire career on the back benches?

There is a simple solution to this: ensure that Whips can only force MPs to vote in a given way on manifesto commitments.  MPs would then vote with their consciences on all other legislation; which is, after all, what their constituents elected them to do.  The game of Tug-'o-War between their conscience and their ambition would be over. 

However, the proposed legislation also stipulates a fixed term five year parliament.  This would merely entrench unpopular and failing administrations in power; who wouldn't have wished Brown's failed administration out much sooner than it held on until?  If the Whips had no power over MPs for non-manifesto commitments, MPs would feel more able to throw out an unpopular administration, even if it was their own party. 

We have the system, one of the best electoral systems in the world, but it is being abused by power-hungry party-leaders and Governments.  We must first try fix the system and only replace if we cannot.

In order to reinforce all MPs' sense of duty towards their constituents, there is one change we could make without altering the system irrevocably.  We could introduce powers of recall, whereby a petition signed by a proportion of electors in a constituency could force a by-election.  This would focus the minds of MPs on their constituents' wishes.

Axe the Whips, not the electors's power.

Why is this idea important?

I have to admit I'm bending the rules here a bit: no legislation has been passed yet to bring forward a referendum on changing the electoral system to AV, but I would be in favour of its repeal should it be passed.

In theory, constituent democracy works on the premise that constituents choose a candidate, not a party.  As such, the constituents have the greatest pull over the candidates and MPs.  Greater, that is, than the parties.  For, if local parties select their candidates and local constituents select their MPs, then the MPs owe their jobs and their power to their constituents.  MPs know that they will lose their jobs at the next election if they don't do what their constituents wish.

Unfortunately, the practice is somewhat different.  Any MP who harbours any ambitions of a miniserial portfolio or even a seat on a Select Committee must do as the Whips say, even if their constituents wouldn't want the MP to do so.  And how few people go into politics to spend their entire career on the back benches?

There is a simple solution to this: ensure that Whips can only force MPs to vote in a given way on manifesto commitments.  MPs would then vote with their consciences on all other legislation; which is, after all, what their constituents elected them to do.  The game of Tug-'o-War between their conscience and their ambition would be over. 

However, the proposed legislation also stipulates a fixed term five year parliament.  This would merely entrench unpopular and failing administrations in power; who wouldn't have wished Brown's failed administration out much sooner than it held on until?  If the Whips had no power over MPs for non-manifesto commitments, MPs would feel more able to throw out an unpopular administration, even if it was their own party. 

We have the system, one of the best electoral systems in the world, but it is being abused by power-hungry party-leaders and Governments.  We must first try fix the system and only replace if we cannot.

In order to reinforce all MPs' sense of duty towards their constituents, there is one change we could make without altering the system irrevocably.  We could introduce powers of recall, whereby a petition signed by a proportion of electors in a constituency could force a by-election.  This would focus the minds of MPs on their constituents' wishes.

Axe the Whips, not the electors's power.

Each kingdom to be treated fairly

Wales should be given the same amount of powers that scotland get. The Welsh Assembly should be treat as a equal to the other assemblys in Britain. Also England should be given a assembly and all four of the kingdoms assemblys should be given the same powers, and Westminster should only represent all of the kingdoms in issues like military, nucleur weapons, fuel, imports, exsports, immigration etc, walst the assemblys deal with issues effecting that kingdom, this will make england equal to the other kingdoms rather than england being superior to the other kingdoms.

Why is this idea important?

Wales should be given the same amount of powers that scotland get. The Welsh Assembly should be treat as a equal to the other assemblys in Britain. Also England should be given a assembly and all four of the kingdoms assemblys should be given the same powers, and Westminster should only represent all of the kingdoms in issues like military, nucleur weapons, fuel, imports, exsports, immigration etc, walst the assemblys deal with issues effecting that kingdom, this will make england equal to the other kingdoms rather than england being superior to the other kingdoms.

Empower the Monarchy

I do not know whether it is due to Law or just plain tradition, however, I think that the monarch should start to think about the Bill they are signing.

The monarch should see if there is enough cause to ask the public their oppinion on a bill. If there is then a referendum should be held.

Before the referendum the Monarch should make an unbiased speach defending both sides of the arguement as to maintain her impartiality, and party campaigning on the issue should be banned to allow the public to make their decision uneffected by advertising.

Why is this idea important?

I do not know whether it is due to Law or just plain tradition, however, I think that the monarch should start to think about the Bill they are signing.

The monarch should see if there is enough cause to ask the public their oppinion on a bill. If there is then a referendum should be held.

Before the referendum the Monarch should make an unbiased speach defending both sides of the arguement as to maintain her impartiality, and party campaigning on the issue should be banned to allow the public to make their decision uneffected by advertising.

Bill of rights and a written constitution

It's all very well repealing some of these laws to restore our eroded civil liberties.  What is required is a 'Bill of Rights' which all citizens can understand and relate to, and a written constitution so that future governments cannot so easily introduce laws which have already been passed and which so many contributors to this site would like to see repealed.

Why is this idea important?

It's all very well repealing some of these laws to restore our eroded civil liberties.  What is required is a 'Bill of Rights' which all citizens can understand and relate to, and a written constitution so that future governments cannot so easily introduce laws which have already been passed and which so many contributors to this site would like to see repealed.