How can i be arrested under MDA

If i am caught with cannabis by the police, how can i be charged for being in possesion of a controlled substance when cannabis is clearly not controlled?

I suggest that anyone from now on whom is arrested – that when the police advise you you have been arrested for being in possesion of a controlled substance – that you point out to the police that it is not the case, as cannabis is not a controlled substance but rather an uncontrolled substance.

Alcohol is a controlled substance and so is tobbaco as they are only available to persons of age and are controlled by strick guidlines – no selling alcohol or tobbaco to minors

Why is this idea important?

If i am caught with cannabis by the police, how can i be charged for being in possesion of a controlled substance when cannabis is clearly not controlled?

I suggest that anyone from now on whom is arrested – that when the police advise you you have been arrested for being in possesion of a controlled substance – that you point out to the police that it is not the case, as cannabis is not a controlled substance but rather an uncontrolled substance.

Alcohol is a controlled substance and so is tobbaco as they are only available to persons of age and are controlled by strick guidlines – no selling alcohol or tobbaco to minors

How can i be arrested under MDA

If i am caught with cannabis by the police, how can i be charged for being in possesion of a controlled substance when cannabis is clearly not controlled?

I suggest that anyone from now on whom is arrested – that when the police advise you you have been arrested for being in possesion of a controlled substance – that you point out to the police that it is not the case, as cannabis is not a controlled substance but rather an uncontrolled substance.

Alcohol is a controlled substance and so is tobbaco as they are only available to persons of age and are controlled by strick guidlines – no selling alcohol or tobbaco to minors

Why is this idea important?

If i am caught with cannabis by the police, how can i be charged for being in possesion of a controlled substance when cannabis is clearly not controlled?

I suggest that anyone from now on whom is arrested – that when the police advise you you have been arrested for being in possesion of a controlled substance – that you point out to the police that it is not the case, as cannabis is not a controlled substance but rather an uncontrolled substance.

Alcohol is a controlled substance and so is tobbaco as they are only available to persons of age and are controlled by strick guidlines – no selling alcohol or tobbaco to minors

local authorities

change this label to something like local administrators.. and remove their right to lay down the law. theres a sign at my local quayside, installed recently. saying "no swimming or diving from this quay, by order. " . people have swam in this water for years. i swam in it, so did my grandparents. no, sudenly, we cant. this sign should be unlawful. in fact, im sure it is but because it says "by order" people believe it has to be obeyed.. no one has drowned here in my lifetime so its far from dangerous. things like this are happening all over the country.

Why is this idea important?

change this label to something like local administrators.. and remove their right to lay down the law. theres a sign at my local quayside, installed recently. saying "no swimming or diving from this quay, by order. " . people have swam in this water for years. i swam in it, so did my grandparents. no, sudenly, we cant. this sign should be unlawful. in fact, im sure it is but because it says "by order" people believe it has to be obeyed.. no one has drowned here in my lifetime so its far from dangerous. things like this are happening all over the country.

DELIVER JUSTICE, PROTECT THE PUBLIC: MANDATORY LENGHTY CUSTODIAL SENTENCES FOR UNPROVOKED VIOLENCE

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

Why is this idea important?

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

Return local authorities to their role as service providers

I am no longer concerned about nanny state. What concerns me is the increasingly authoritarian attitude of local authorities. It is time that their powers to introduce "criminal" offences such as putting out rubbish on the  wrong day and imposing politically motivated parking restrictions and twenty mile speed limits were curbed. No bye-laws should ever be criminal offences.

They should be forced back to performing their proper role as service providers to the local community and should be held properly accountable for doing so.

Perhaps a change of name from "local authority" to "local service provider" would be a good starting point in delivering the message.

Why is this idea important?

I am no longer concerned about nanny state. What concerns me is the increasingly authoritarian attitude of local authorities. It is time that their powers to introduce "criminal" offences such as putting out rubbish on the  wrong day and imposing politically motivated parking restrictions and twenty mile speed limits were curbed. No bye-laws should ever be criminal offences.

They should be forced back to performing their proper role as service providers to the local community and should be held properly accountable for doing so.

Perhaps a change of name from "local authority" to "local service provider" would be a good starting point in delivering the message.

Atlas Shrugged (or Why We Need to Crack Down on Government Control Freakery)

Crime is a serious problem, right?

The fact is that the problem governments now face is that there is too LITTLE crime. THIS is what is threatening them. Not too much crime, as they tell you through their mouthpiece, the press.

Just imagine a paradisic country where everyone is living a happy moral life. There is no crime.

What need would there be for government? Perhaps to run the schools, transport, hospitals, clean the streets and a few other bits and bobs.

There would be no need, however, for a home secretary. You would not need police or prisons. And you would not need big government departments to oversee the police and the prisons.

Government would be significantly smaller. (And your taxes proportionately less.)

In short, if crime went down, large sections of government would have to go. Right?

Well, not quite. Both property and violent crime have been dropping steadily since they peaked in the early-to-mid 90s. These are now at the same level they were in 1980.

But we also have TWICE the number of people incarcerated than in 1980, despite property and violent crime having dropped back down to this level. (America has FOUR times its 1980 level.)

We also have 4000 new laws since Labour came into power.

And we have more prisons, far more police and massive government departments than we ever had in this area.

Government is thriving. (And your tax is high.)

Here is a rather chilling quote from the classic 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand:

 

<i>"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game…"</i>

Sound familiar?

Why is this idea important?

Crime is a serious problem, right?

The fact is that the problem governments now face is that there is too LITTLE crime. THIS is what is threatening them. Not too much crime, as they tell you through their mouthpiece, the press.

Just imagine a paradisic country where everyone is living a happy moral life. There is no crime.

What need would there be for government? Perhaps to run the schools, transport, hospitals, clean the streets and a few other bits and bobs.

There would be no need, however, for a home secretary. You would not need police or prisons. And you would not need big government departments to oversee the police and the prisons.

Government would be significantly smaller. (And your taxes proportionately less.)

In short, if crime went down, large sections of government would have to go. Right?

Well, not quite. Both property and violent crime have been dropping steadily since they peaked in the early-to-mid 90s. These are now at the same level they were in 1980.

But we also have TWICE the number of people incarcerated than in 1980, despite property and violent crime having dropped back down to this level. (America has FOUR times its 1980 level.)

We also have 4000 new laws since Labour came into power.

And we have more prisons, far more police and massive government departments than we ever had in this area.

Government is thriving. (And your tax is high.)

Here is a rather chilling quote from the classic 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand:

 

<i>"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game…"</i>

Sound familiar?

Dept. of Education (NI) should not be allowed to invent legislation that does not exist.

 

The Department of Education in Northern Ireland have recently issued new guidelines for school attendance which prevents parents from deregistering their child from school to electively home educate, even though this would require a change in law first.

Why is this idea important?

 

The Department of Education in Northern Ireland have recently issued new guidelines for school attendance which prevents parents from deregistering their child from school to electively home educate, even though this would require a change in law first.

Remove restrictive checks for parents with children

To prevent reoccurrences of incidents such as this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicester/10558648.stm

The presumption of guilt in this country is ridiculous. Parents should be able to support their children at sports days and other events. This kind of extreme paranoia prevents parents from seeing important moments in the lives of their children.

Why is this idea important?

To prevent reoccurrences of incidents such as this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicester/10558648.stm

The presumption of guilt in this country is ridiculous. Parents should be able to support their children at sports days and other events. This kind of extreme paranoia prevents parents from seeing important moments in the lives of their children.

Remove and destroy for ever the ridiculous smiley face road signs… WE ARE NOT PLAYSCHOOL CHILDREN!!!

Well, the title says it all. Get rid of the silly digital smiley / frown face speed check signs! They serve no purpose but to infuriate motorists by insulting their intelligence and by suggesting that we should be treated like children. Everybody I know who passes them admits to speeding up instead of slowing down when they see one. They have an adverse effect and they make us look like morons.  I'm not a moron! I'm a mature adult who finds it offensive to be so blatantly patronised by a ridiculous nanny state.

Why is this idea important?

Well, the title says it all. Get rid of the silly digital smiley / frown face speed check signs! They serve no purpose but to infuriate motorists by insulting their intelligence and by suggesting that we should be treated like children. Everybody I know who passes them admits to speeding up instead of slowing down when they see one. They have an adverse effect and they make us look like morons.  I'm not a moron! I'm a mature adult who finds it offensive to be so blatantly patronised by a ridiculous nanny state.

repeal cto’s review mha 2007 consider civil/human rights/freedoms

section 17 of the mental health act already exists – it cannot compel patients within the commuity to take medication against their will, however cto's can,  controlling civil freedom, choice, autonomy too often information is not forthcoming, transparent or easily understood.   – it could be argued cto' s are coersive and could present as an increased risk to patients and professionals if used routinely

Why is this idea important?

section 17 of the mental health act already exists – it cannot compel patients within the commuity to take medication against their will, however cto's can,  controlling civil freedom, choice, autonomy too often information is not forthcoming, transparent or easily understood.   – it could be argued cto' s are coersive and could present as an increased risk to patients and professionals if used routinely

Make the Police more human

There have been several occasions in which I have encountered the police using laws to direct action rather than guidance, suggestion, or any form of wisdom. What they should be saying is, you can't do that, becuase such and such a reason. Instead, we get "you can't do that, because that's the way it is", often in a very arrogant, very non-bending, very non-understanding or unhelpful way.

Here are some examples; I have been retained for hours in peaceful protest situations under 'terrorism laws', completely misused, and in turn creating frustration and abuse. In similar situations, I have been told to move away from the pavement, or simply away from having a decent conversation under "blockage of public passageway" instructions. I have been told I couldn't wait for a friend on the other side of a passport queue in an airport, and when I did, was questioned for 40 minutes and held by the police while they did an identity check on me. I tell you, that made me feel very unhappy about coming back to britain from relatively relaxed scandinavia.

There are many things that could make the police more human. walking or getting about by bicycles instead of cars (like rudeboys in the hood) would help. Using contextual, situational (e.g. more human) guidance for control rather than the use of laws would be good. Perhaps having policing as a more community (elected?) group would be fantastic.

Why is this idea important?

There have been several occasions in which I have encountered the police using laws to direct action rather than guidance, suggestion, or any form of wisdom. What they should be saying is, you can't do that, becuase such and such a reason. Instead, we get "you can't do that, because that's the way it is", often in a very arrogant, very non-bending, very non-understanding or unhelpful way.

Here are some examples; I have been retained for hours in peaceful protest situations under 'terrorism laws', completely misused, and in turn creating frustration and abuse. In similar situations, I have been told to move away from the pavement, or simply away from having a decent conversation under "blockage of public passageway" instructions. I have been told I couldn't wait for a friend on the other side of a passport queue in an airport, and when I did, was questioned for 40 minutes and held by the police while they did an identity check on me. I tell you, that made me feel very unhappy about coming back to britain from relatively relaxed scandinavia.

There are many things that could make the police more human. walking or getting about by bicycles instead of cars (like rudeboys in the hood) would help. Using contextual, situational (e.g. more human) guidance for control rather than the use of laws would be good. Perhaps having policing as a more community (elected?) group would be fantastic.

General laws controlling us

We now have govt interference in all our lives telling us what to eat, drink etc.

We need to remove all laws interfering with individual lives and let us make our own decisions and choices, do we wear a seat belt, crash helmet, drink, hunting,  smoke(passive smoking harm was never proved) green energy(forced to buy), local objections to GM wind farms power stations etc always overturned by govt what is democratic about that, using laws designed for terror to spy on us, DNA samples taken and kept despite the fact you are innocent. CRB checks for the slightest excuse, if required why not one check to cover all events.

Why is this idea important?

We now have govt interference in all our lives telling us what to eat, drink etc.

We need to remove all laws interfering with individual lives and let us make our own decisions and choices, do we wear a seat belt, crash helmet, drink, hunting,  smoke(passive smoking harm was never proved) green energy(forced to buy), local objections to GM wind farms power stations etc always overturned by govt what is democratic about that, using laws designed for terror to spy on us, DNA samples taken and kept despite the fact you are innocent. CRB checks for the slightest excuse, if required why not one check to cover all events.