Make fines proportional to earnings.

If a fine is issued by a court or similar public authority to any person, for commiting any offence the fine should be calculated as a percentage of  the persons earnings.

Why is this idea important?

If a fine is issued by a court or similar public authority to any person, for commiting any offence the fine should be calculated as a percentage of  the persons earnings.

Court proceedings

I believe the law should be changed to allow those giving evidence to give complete anwers as they see fit in court rather than being goaded into answering in the way the barrister wants them to.

Why is this idea important?

I believe the law should be changed to allow those giving evidence to give complete anwers as they see fit in court rather than being goaded into answering in the way the barrister wants them to.

Legal requirement to apply common sense on Court Proceedings

Before any case is heard in any court there should be a legal requirement for "Common Sense" to be considered.

For example, if a burglar falls through a roof, before s/he can claim compensation the "Law of Common Sense" should be applied, ie if they hadn't been on the roof they wouldn't have fallen through,  so the case is instantly dismissed.

If a driver is charged with speeding on a motorway at 82 miles an hour when no one else is around in great weather and visibility, then  the "Law of Common Sense" should be applied and as they were not endangering anyone else the case is dismissed.

Particularly applies to:

Human Rights

Health and Safety

Compensation claims

Why is this idea important?

Before any case is heard in any court there should be a legal requirement for "Common Sense" to be considered.

For example, if a burglar falls through a roof, before s/he can claim compensation the "Law of Common Sense" should be applied, ie if they hadn't been on the roof they wouldn't have fallen through,  so the case is instantly dismissed.

If a driver is charged with speeding on a motorway at 82 miles an hour when no one else is around in great weather and visibility, then  the "Law of Common Sense" should be applied and as they were not endangering anyone else the case is dismissed.

Particularly applies to:

Human Rights

Health and Safety

Compensation claims

No Offence committed but charged with breach of bail.

I'm sure I'm not the only person in this country to help Police with their enquiries and be placed on bail only to have no further action taken,but still taken to court and prosecuted for breach of that bail.Where there is no charge made against a person,surely they shouldn't be prosecuted for an offence that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for that,now,non-existant charge.In cases where enquiries result in a person having no action taken against them,then that should be the end of it,charging them for breach of bail afterwards seems petty.It should be no charge,no bail offence.

Why is this idea important?

I'm sure I'm not the only person in this country to help Police with their enquiries and be placed on bail only to have no further action taken,but still taken to court and prosecuted for breach of that bail.Where there is no charge made against a person,surely they shouldn't be prosecuted for an offence that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for that,now,non-existant charge.In cases where enquiries result in a person having no action taken against them,then that should be the end of it,charging them for breach of bail afterwards seems petty.It should be no charge,no bail offence.

Limit legal costs of both sides of a case to the same money

Each side of a court case should only be allowed to spend the same money on their lawyers. If one side particularly wished to increase their legal defence/procesution then then they should foot the bill for the opposing party so that the costs are identical

Why is this idea important?

Each side of a court case should only be allowed to spend the same money on their lawyers. If one side particularly wished to increase their legal defence/procesution then then they should foot the bill for the opposing party so that the costs are identical

court costs for non payment of council tax

When people are struggling to pay council tax, do not add court costs as it makes it even harder to pay. People just need to pay over 12 months not 10 as they dont get paid any earlier.

Why is this idea important?

When people are struggling to pay council tax, do not add court costs as it makes it even harder to pay. People just need to pay over 12 months not 10 as they dont get paid any earlier.

MAKE IT EASIER TO PROSECUTE POLICE AND JUDGES

It should be that the law applies to all equally, but it doesn't. Too often we see the police and those within the judiciary get away with doing wrong. In the UK there appears to be a prevalent perception, or rather a misconception under which many people labour, and that is that the police and the judiciary do not make mistakes or do not do so deliberately. That those who enforce the law are actually above it, simply because they work within it. I am constantly amazed by how much the police get away with. Just look at the Menendes shooting or the Stephen Lawrence case – or if you want to go further back, look at those very high profile miscarriages of justice like the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and so on. In each of those cases no police officers were ever prosecuted, even though they had fabricated confessions, beat the accused into giving false confessions and deliberately put innocent people in prison.

And it is not only infamous cases of miscarriages of justice that highlight police failings, miscarriages continue to this day; occurring because the police and even the courts are allowed to ignored vital pieces of information that begin in the police station. The system is not perfect but it does little to prevent miscarriages of justice happening in the first place.

Why is this idea important?

It should be that the law applies to all equally, but it doesn't. Too often we see the police and those within the judiciary get away with doing wrong. In the UK there appears to be a prevalent perception, or rather a misconception under which many people labour, and that is that the police and the judiciary do not make mistakes or do not do so deliberately. That those who enforce the law are actually above it, simply because they work within it. I am constantly amazed by how much the police get away with. Just look at the Menendes shooting or the Stephen Lawrence case – or if you want to go further back, look at those very high profile miscarriages of justice like the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and so on. In each of those cases no police officers were ever prosecuted, even though they had fabricated confessions, beat the accused into giving false confessions and deliberately put innocent people in prison.

And it is not only infamous cases of miscarriages of justice that highlight police failings, miscarriages continue to this day; occurring because the police and even the courts are allowed to ignored vital pieces of information that begin in the police station. The system is not perfect but it does little to prevent miscarriages of justice happening in the first place.

Ban all ‘guilty until proven innocent’ procedures

Under the Labour Government, 'guilty until proved innocent' investigative procedures were adopted widely, and allowed for by numerous legally flawed Acts, especially those enabling quangos to 'regulate' in a non-accountable and unjust manner. The Coalition Government needs to pass an Act specifically outlawing such procedures (since it is impossible to trace all instances of their use, as there are too many), and make this Act retrospective, thus enabling all miscarriages of justice achieved by this means to be appealed straightforwardly on the basis of this new Act. Presumably the 'guilty until proven innocent' procedures were all illegal in any case and if the matter ever reached the Supreme Court, a legal free-for-all could result. It is best if the Government makes the position absolutely clear at the earliest possible date by reaffirming the principle established over 1000 years of the evolution of British justice that everyone is 'innocent until proved guilty', stating that as this is a fundamental human right, any instance of this right having been or being infringed by any investigative procedure whatever is and always has been illegal.

Why is this idea important?

Under the Labour Government, 'guilty until proved innocent' investigative procedures were adopted widely, and allowed for by numerous legally flawed Acts, especially those enabling quangos to 'regulate' in a non-accountable and unjust manner. The Coalition Government needs to pass an Act specifically outlawing such procedures (since it is impossible to trace all instances of their use, as there are too many), and make this Act retrospective, thus enabling all miscarriages of justice achieved by this means to be appealed straightforwardly on the basis of this new Act. Presumably the 'guilty until proven innocent' procedures were all illegal in any case and if the matter ever reached the Supreme Court, a legal free-for-all could result. It is best if the Government makes the position absolutely clear at the earliest possible date by reaffirming the principle established over 1000 years of the evolution of British justice that everyone is 'innocent until proved guilty', stating that as this is a fundamental human right, any instance of this right having been or being infringed by any investigative procedure whatever is and always has been illegal.

Increase gaol (jail) sentences to reflect increased life expectency.

Minimum and maximum sentences for most crimes were set based upon a much shorter life expectency. As a result the percentage of life a criminal spent behind bars for a crime commited now compared to the time spent behind bars when the legislation was created is much shorter.

The impact of this is that gaol sentences are less of a deterent than they were. 

Fo example a person given a 20 year sentence in the past at age 30 may not have expected to get out of gaol. However, a person of equal age given a 20 year sentence now would come out as a fit and kicking 50 year old ( assuming the sentence was actually enforced in full).

I would expect to see all gaol sentences reviewed and the maximum penalty potentially doubled.

Why is this idea important?

Minimum and maximum sentences for most crimes were set based upon a much shorter life expectency. As a result the percentage of life a criminal spent behind bars for a crime commited now compared to the time spent behind bars when the legislation was created is much shorter.

The impact of this is that gaol sentences are less of a deterent than they were. 

Fo example a person given a 20 year sentence in the past at age 30 may not have expected to get out of gaol. However, a person of equal age given a 20 year sentence now would come out as a fit and kicking 50 year old ( assuming the sentence was actually enforced in full).

I would expect to see all gaol sentences reviewed and the maximum penalty potentially doubled.

Take Rape Seriously

The current legal justice system is stacked against rape victims – to prove guilt, there must be evidence.  In the case of rape, that evidence is usually the victim's word, against the accused, and so guilt cannot be proven.  Rape is not always violent, often perpetuated by someone known to the victim, and usually not reported immediately due to shock/refusal to acknowledge what happened.  Not only must the recommendations of Baroness Stern's report be properly implemented, but we must go further and change the burden of proof.  Not to change from innocent until to proven guilty.  But the accused must be able to prove that consent existed, rather than the victim proving that consent did not.  

Why is this idea important?

The current legal justice system is stacked against rape victims – to prove guilt, there must be evidence.  In the case of rape, that evidence is usually the victim's word, against the accused, and so guilt cannot be proven.  Rape is not always violent, often perpetuated by someone known to the victim, and usually not reported immediately due to shock/refusal to acknowledge what happened.  Not only must the recommendations of Baroness Stern's report be properly implemented, but we must go further and change the burden of proof.  Not to change from innocent until to proven guilty.  But the accused must be able to prove that consent existed, rather than the victim proving that consent did not.  

PREPARE AN ORGANISATION TO ALLOW CONVICTED FELONS TO APPEAL

THE FIRST ACT OF THE GOVERNMENT/ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THOUSANDS AND THUSANDS OF CITIZENS WERE VICTIMS OF THE POLICE PERSECUTION AND WERE CONVICTED AND JAILED BY INSANE AND UNSCRUPULOUS JUDICIARY AGENTS

BESIDES GRANTING A PARDON OR ALTERNATIVELY RELEASING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN PRISON THE CIIZENS CONVICTED OF CRIMES IN THE UK IN THE PAST TEN YEARS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPEAL THEIR CONVICTIONS

THERE IS NO CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL IN THE UK AND THERE NEVER WAS – A REAL CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL STAYS THE SENTENCE UNTIL IT RE EXAMINES THE ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANYT – IN ENGLAND NOT ONLY THE DECISON OF FIRST COURT CANNOT BE OVERTURNED THE APPEAL COURT WILL NOT ALLOW A RE RUN OF FACTS LITIGATED IN FIRST COURT

CONVICTIONS CRIPPLE BECAUSE THEY SHOW UP ON CRB CHECKS – THEY SEND ALARM BELLS ACROSS ANY APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT

85% OF CONVICTIONS OF CITIZENS IN THE UK WERE OBTAINED WITH CORRUPTION, ABUSE, TRICKERY OF THE DEFENDANT IN COURT BY BOTH THE JUDG AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION AND MOST CERTAINLY THE POLICE

IN ORDER TO HAVE A FREE SOCIETY CITIZENS HAVE TO BE PROTECTED OF THESE PRACTICES AND THOSE THAT WERE CAUGHT IN THE HORRIFIC SPIDER WEB OF THE BROWN-STRAW CONSPIRACY SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF CHALLENGING THE WAY IN WHICH THEY WERE CONVICTED – BECAUSE ALMOST CERTAINLY THEY WERE DONE IN BY THE LIES OF THE POLICE AND THE PROSECUTION

Why is this idea important?

THE FIRST ACT OF THE GOVERNMENT/ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THOUSANDS AND THUSANDS OF CITIZENS WERE VICTIMS OF THE POLICE PERSECUTION AND WERE CONVICTED AND JAILED BY INSANE AND UNSCRUPULOUS JUDICIARY AGENTS

BESIDES GRANTING A PARDON OR ALTERNATIVELY RELEASING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN PRISON THE CIIZENS CONVICTED OF CRIMES IN THE UK IN THE PAST TEN YEARS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPEAL THEIR CONVICTIONS

THERE IS NO CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL IN THE UK AND THERE NEVER WAS – A REAL CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL STAYS THE SENTENCE UNTIL IT RE EXAMINES THE ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANYT – IN ENGLAND NOT ONLY THE DECISON OF FIRST COURT CANNOT BE OVERTURNED THE APPEAL COURT WILL NOT ALLOW A RE RUN OF FACTS LITIGATED IN FIRST COURT

CONVICTIONS CRIPPLE BECAUSE THEY SHOW UP ON CRB CHECKS – THEY SEND ALARM BELLS ACROSS ANY APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT

85% OF CONVICTIONS OF CITIZENS IN THE UK WERE OBTAINED WITH CORRUPTION, ABUSE, TRICKERY OF THE DEFENDANT IN COURT BY BOTH THE JUDG AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION AND MOST CERTAINLY THE POLICE

IN ORDER TO HAVE A FREE SOCIETY CITIZENS HAVE TO BE PROTECTED OF THESE PRACTICES AND THOSE THAT WERE CAUGHT IN THE HORRIFIC SPIDER WEB OF THE BROWN-STRAW CONSPIRACY SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF CHALLENGING THE WAY IN WHICH THEY WERE CONVICTED – BECAUSE ALMOST CERTAINLY THEY WERE DONE IN BY THE LIES OF THE POLICE AND THE PROSECUTION

Judges code of conduct and appeal review

There should be a stricter code of conduct for the judges. At the moment the only thing that covers them is they should not be racist or prejudice at all.

Judges should not be allowed to say remarks as 'you have a man of outstanding character with no previous criminal record, but you only have to look in a newspaper and he has been abusing children for years. But put that aside and forget about that!!!!!

If that is not being prejudiced what is. Barristers have said that "they go up to the fence but don't go over it!!!!!" that is leading a jury to find him guilty.

There is a flaw in the legal system and you don't want to admit it. How can an innocent person prove their innocence if there is no evidence on which they have been convicted and the justice system will not go against one of their own. There should be a review of the appeal process.

Jack Straw would not listen, but that is not a surprise considering his knowledge and experience as a judge of the legal system and was one of them. I hope you listen and change the law to protect the innocent.

Why is this idea important?

There should be a stricter code of conduct for the judges. At the moment the only thing that covers them is they should not be racist or prejudice at all.

Judges should not be allowed to say remarks as 'you have a man of outstanding character with no previous criminal record, but you only have to look in a newspaper and he has been abusing children for years. But put that aside and forget about that!!!!!

If that is not being prejudiced what is. Barristers have said that "they go up to the fence but don't go over it!!!!!" that is leading a jury to find him guilty.

There is a flaw in the legal system and you don't want to admit it. How can an innocent person prove their innocence if there is no evidence on which they have been convicted and the justice system will not go against one of their own. There should be a review of the appeal process.

Jack Straw would not listen, but that is not a surprise considering his knowledge and experience as a judge of the legal system and was one of them. I hope you listen and change the law to protect the innocent.

The Restoration of Double Jeopardy

As soon as possible restore the double jeopardy rule. If a case cannot be made against an idividual or individuals sufficient to convince a jury of their guilt. Then that should be the end of the matter. There cannot be a situation that the prosecution can keep re trying untill they get the the answer they like. it is a rediculous distortion of justice. Unless there is convincing and profound new evidence that was unavailable previously and even then that would have to be persuasive. this 'best out of three' situation is a disgrace.

Why is this idea important?

As soon as possible restore the double jeopardy rule. If a case cannot be made against an idividual or individuals sufficient to convince a jury of their guilt. Then that should be the end of the matter. There cannot be a situation that the prosecution can keep re trying untill they get the the answer they like. it is a rediculous distortion of justice. Unless there is convincing and profound new evidence that was unavailable previously and even then that would have to be persuasive. this 'best out of three' situation is a disgrace.

CPS – review

There should not be a point system as to whether they decide there can be a trial.

A trial should be considered if there is actual physical evidence, not circumstantial.

There should be equal sexes looking at the case, to ensure a fair decision has been made.

No evidence, no trial.

Why is this idea important?

There should not be a point system as to whether they decide there can be a trial.

A trial should be considered if there is actual physical evidence, not circumstantial.

There should be equal sexes looking at the case, to ensure a fair decision has been made.

No evidence, no trial.

Repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

We petition to restore the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial before punishment and the repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act (POAC)
 

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC calls the POAC “a law more draconian and manifestly unjust than anything ever devised by a State in modern times”
He continues that this “legally complicated, draconian and unjust system” has come about “mainly because Parliament does not send enough time , or use enough care, in vetting the laws us before it by civil servants and politicians-goaded as they are by the tabloid press with little understanding of the consequences of what they do”

 

1) Search warrants under POAC.

Warrants under the Proceeds of Crime Act can be issued to ‘the Occupant’. Someone who is merely suspected of involvement in a crime, without any evidence or complaint and without anyone having been charged or convicted of a crime, and any person who lives in an adjacent named property in the same building can have all movable assets seized

The police already have enough power to search and seize property relating to a crime they do not need the wide ranging powers given by the search and seizure warrant under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

 

2) Restraint Orders

Freeze all non movable assets at the beginning of an investigation, before charge and on suspicion alone. By issuing a Restraint Order the suspect is punished before charge and before trial and prevented from paying for legal advice or assistance to overturn or vary the Restraint Order. If not charged or found innocent at trial the innocent victim is prevented from seeking compensation. This is a gross injustice.

 

3) Fair Trial

At trial the defendant, unless on State Benefits, is unable to obtain Legal Aid and because their assets are frozen is unable to pay for legal representation or expert witnesses. Justice for the defendant is impossible in these circumstances.
Whilst the Crown has virtually unlimited resources, is adversarial and stands to gain financially from a confiscation order if their prosecution succeeds

 

4) Confiscation Order

The prosecuting authority receives a cut of the proceeds seized from people convicted and subjected to confiscation orders and senior staff receives bonuses


Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, says the “manifest injustices” in confiscation proceedings that were compounded by the setting of targets. “Once you start setting targets you are saying, ‘Never mind justice.’ Bodies like RCPO have to make a judgment on the cases they pursue — if they make that judgment on the basis that they will receive a lot of money, it calls into question whether justice is going to be done.

The Proceeds of Crime Act is not necessary as laws already exist for the confiscation or the proceeds of crime and these laws can be extended if necessary.

Why is this idea important?

We petition to restore the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial before punishment and the repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act (POAC)
 

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC calls the POAC “a law more draconian and manifestly unjust than anything ever devised by a State in modern times”
He continues that this “legally complicated, draconian and unjust system” has come about “mainly because Parliament does not send enough time , or use enough care, in vetting the laws us before it by civil servants and politicians-goaded as they are by the tabloid press with little understanding of the consequences of what they do”

 

1) Search warrants under POAC.

Warrants under the Proceeds of Crime Act can be issued to ‘the Occupant’. Someone who is merely suspected of involvement in a crime, without any evidence or complaint and without anyone having been charged or convicted of a crime, and any person who lives in an adjacent named property in the same building can have all movable assets seized

The police already have enough power to search and seize property relating to a crime they do not need the wide ranging powers given by the search and seizure warrant under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

 

2) Restraint Orders

Freeze all non movable assets at the beginning of an investigation, before charge and on suspicion alone. By issuing a Restraint Order the suspect is punished before charge and before trial and prevented from paying for legal advice or assistance to overturn or vary the Restraint Order. If not charged or found innocent at trial the innocent victim is prevented from seeking compensation. This is a gross injustice.

 

3) Fair Trial

At trial the defendant, unless on State Benefits, is unable to obtain Legal Aid and because their assets are frozen is unable to pay for legal representation or expert witnesses. Justice for the defendant is impossible in these circumstances.
Whilst the Crown has virtually unlimited resources, is adversarial and stands to gain financially from a confiscation order if their prosecution succeeds

 

4) Confiscation Order

The prosecuting authority receives a cut of the proceeds seized from people convicted and subjected to confiscation orders and senior staff receives bonuses


Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, says the “manifest injustices” in confiscation proceedings that were compounded by the setting of targets. “Once you start setting targets you are saying, ‘Never mind justice.’ Bodies like RCPO have to make a judgment on the cases they pursue — if they make that judgment on the basis that they will receive a lot of money, it calls into question whether justice is going to be done.

The Proceeds of Crime Act is not necessary as laws already exist for the confiscation or the proceeds of crime and these laws can be extended if necessary.

Gagged.

Britain's secret family courts are able to gag our citizens and force adoptions and other injustices. The secret courts can issue injunctions to prevent people speaking and even talking to each other. We routinely gag our own people and proclaim our wonderful system to the world at large. Repeal and clean up the secret courts and the evil mindsets that devised and put in place the enabling legislation.

Why is this idea important?

Britain's secret family courts are able to gag our citizens and force adoptions and other injustices. The secret courts can issue injunctions to prevent people speaking and even talking to each other. We routinely gag our own people and proclaim our wonderful system to the world at large. Repeal and clean up the secret courts and the evil mindsets that devised and put in place the enabling legislation.

Inability to Deport Foreign Criminals and Terrorist Operatives

The British government is prevented at present by a host of statutes, precedents and European court rulings from deporting foreign nationals and immigrants who are convicted of serious crimes or found to be members of proscribed, often terrorist organisations back to their countries of origin where those countries are thought not to place the same emphasis on so-called "human rights" as we do. We need not necessarily be talking about North Korea; quite often these "unsafe" nations are members of the Commonwealth, and objections can even be raised when deporting someone to the United States on grounds that the Americans retain the death sentence.

The state's first duty being to protect the law-abiding in general and its own citizens in particular, these impediments to the deportation of foreign criminals and terrorist operatives should all be swept away and the individuals concerned compelled to lie in the beds they have made for themselves.  I thought we weren't supposed to pass judgements on the cultures of others anymore, anyway?

Why is this idea important?

The British government is prevented at present by a host of statutes, precedents and European court rulings from deporting foreign nationals and immigrants who are convicted of serious crimes or found to be members of proscribed, often terrorist organisations back to their countries of origin where those countries are thought not to place the same emphasis on so-called "human rights" as we do. We need not necessarily be talking about North Korea; quite often these "unsafe" nations are members of the Commonwealth, and objections can even be raised when deporting someone to the United States on grounds that the Americans retain the death sentence.

The state's first duty being to protect the law-abiding in general and its own citizens in particular, these impediments to the deportation of foreign criminals and terrorist operatives should all be swept away and the individuals concerned compelled to lie in the beds they have made for themselves.  I thought we weren't supposed to pass judgements on the cultures of others anymore, anyway?

Change the Police statement on arrest to remove prejudice

At present, when arrested, Police use a statement that includes the words "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence" (or very similar).

This is a prejudiced statement and should be altered in two respects (the amendments are underlined):

  1. The first part should be altered to read something like, "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly,  we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession"
  2. the latter part should be altered to state, "Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".

So, in summary, the full statement should read (and be supported by the requisite legislative instruments):

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly,  we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession. Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".

Why is this idea important?

At present, when arrested, Police use a statement that includes the words "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence" (or very similar).

This is a prejudiced statement and should be altered in two respects (the amendments are underlined):

  1. The first part should be altered to read something like, "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly,  we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession"
  2. the latter part should be altered to state, "Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".

So, in summary, the full statement should read (and be supported by the requisite legislative instruments):

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in Court. Similarly,  we undertake to inform you of evidence we have in our possession. Anything you do say may be given as evidence in prosecution or defence".

Abolish the involvement of the Office of Public Guardian in power of attorney

The Office of the Public Guardian's involvement in the Mental Capacity act and setting up powers of attorney is unnecessarily bureaucratic. Is there a real need or benefit for these items to be registered in a central database?

Much less complicated to arrange this through your solicitor as in the past, and avoid the filling in of 88+ pages (which are repetitive, poorly phrased and designed). This is before you have to wait 3 months to actually receive the power of attorney back having been charged a maximum of£240. There is no provision for urgent applications. This appears to be a waste of everyone's time and money, not least the public purse. 

Why is this idea important?

The Office of the Public Guardian's involvement in the Mental Capacity act and setting up powers of attorney is unnecessarily bureaucratic. Is there a real need or benefit for these items to be registered in a central database?

Much less complicated to arrange this through your solicitor as in the past, and avoid the filling in of 88+ pages (which are repetitive, poorly phrased and designed). This is before you have to wait 3 months to actually receive the power of attorney back having been charged a maximum of£240. There is no provision for urgent applications. This appears to be a waste of everyone's time and money, not least the public purse. 

Bring back dealth penalty

I think the number of prisoners in our jails has gone beyone belief and it seems that when you let them out – within a few months they are back in.

Bring back hanging.  With all the modern scientific ways of proving from DNA that someone has committed the crime.  All paedo's, murders and people that take another persons life should have the dealth penalty given as the sentance.

With the overcrowded country, full of immigrants that we have no history of, coming over here and committing some horrendous crimes – they should simply be shot.

Ian Huntley should of been given the death penalty as it is costing thousands to keep him in jail.  And as for his so called girlfriend well she was given thousands of pounds and a new identity to carry on their lives without much guilt is disgusting.

BRING BACK HANGING !!!!

 

Why is this idea important?

I think the number of prisoners in our jails has gone beyone belief and it seems that when you let them out – within a few months they are back in.

Bring back hanging.  With all the modern scientific ways of proving from DNA that someone has committed the crime.  All paedo's, murders and people that take another persons life should have the dealth penalty given as the sentance.

With the overcrowded country, full of immigrants that we have no history of, coming over here and committing some horrendous crimes – they should simply be shot.

Ian Huntley should of been given the death penalty as it is costing thousands to keep him in jail.  And as for his so called girlfriend well she was given thousands of pounds and a new identity to carry on their lives without much guilt is disgusting.

BRING BACK HANGING !!!!

 

Putting personal responsibility into compensation claims

To put some dicipline into 'No win – no fee' compensation claims, the degree to which the claimant was responsible for an injury should be considered. If a claimant does carry a portion of the blame then both the compensation award AND their lawyers fees are reduced by that proportion.

This will deter lawyers from pursuing claims where the actions of the claimant are outside of what responsible and careful members of the public would expect.

Legal costs should not exceed the compensation award by more than a pre-determined percentage. A government body should determine this percentage.

Why is this idea important?

To put some dicipline into 'No win – no fee' compensation claims, the degree to which the claimant was responsible for an injury should be considered. If a claimant does carry a portion of the blame then both the compensation award AND their lawyers fees are reduced by that proportion.

This will deter lawyers from pursuing claims where the actions of the claimant are outside of what responsible and careful members of the public would expect.

Legal costs should not exceed the compensation award by more than a pre-determined percentage. A government body should determine this percentage.

Mothers blackmailing fathers

It is a childs inherited right to see and be with their father in equality of seeing and being with their mother.  This should be recognised by the Courts, then one gets a happy balanced child growing up knowing that they are loved equally by both father and mother.

 

Children should never be used as a form of blackmail against fathers for financial or other reasons.  Mothers should always consider the childs well being first over and above their own selfish needs.

 

Very often fathers have to fight to see their children and are used as  pawns in this"GAME" and mothers should not be allowed to do this by the Courts.

Why is this idea important?

It is a childs inherited right to see and be with their father in equality of seeing and being with their mother.  This should be recognised by the Courts, then one gets a happy balanced child growing up knowing that they are loved equally by both father and mother.

 

Children should never be used as a form of blackmail against fathers for financial or other reasons.  Mothers should always consider the childs well being first over and above their own selfish needs.

 

Very often fathers have to fight to see their children and are used as  pawns in this"GAME" and mothers should not be allowed to do this by the Courts.

Remove regulations which prevent televised courts.

The removal of these regulations would allow the televisual recording of our courts at the judges or magistrates discretion to be available for broadcast only after all appeals were exhausted.

At present our courts can only be attended by a miniscule percentage of the population.The lack of televised coverage means that the great majority of those interested,especially in highly publicised cases, are denied the opportunity to hear testimonies,to observe the body language,to gain an informed opinion that is not influenced by mainstream media and above all to create a situtaion where justice is seen to be done.

The current situation is one where our court proceedings very close to being secret.

All we are currently allowed under the regulations are reports from murdoch media and the establishment broadcasters.
 

Why is this idea important?

The removal of these regulations would allow the televisual recording of our courts at the judges or magistrates discretion to be available for broadcast only after all appeals were exhausted.

At present our courts can only be attended by a miniscule percentage of the population.The lack of televised coverage means that the great majority of those interested,especially in highly publicised cases, are denied the opportunity to hear testimonies,to observe the body language,to gain an informed opinion that is not influenced by mainstream media and above all to create a situtaion where justice is seen to be done.

The current situation is one where our court proceedings very close to being secret.

All we are currently allowed under the regulations are reports from murdoch media and the establishment broadcasters.
 

Ban Care Proceedings against Innocent Parents

Care Proceedings in the UK family courts are pure Theatrics and everyone knows the failed Criminal Barristers and Solicitors that specialise in Family Law are the most corrupt around. Proceedings should only be launched within the most serious circumstances and the thresholds should be higher.

The Barristers and Solicitors should not permited to work for the Local Authority, Cafcass and Parents, this must create a conflict of interests, because lets face it the Local Authority are going to make any firm of solicitors a shed load of cash.

Before anyone jumps on me for advocating Child Abuse etc in the UK, then please take the time to visit any family court up and down the country your unlikely to find them full of Parents like those of Babt P,the majority are  just normal parents that have fallen foul of Children's Services and bad Social Work Practices.

The Majority of Children in the UK removed from parents due to "risk of future emotional harm".

Why is this idea important?

Care Proceedings in the UK family courts are pure Theatrics and everyone knows the failed Criminal Barristers and Solicitors that specialise in Family Law are the most corrupt around. Proceedings should only be launched within the most serious circumstances and the thresholds should be higher.

The Barristers and Solicitors should not permited to work for the Local Authority, Cafcass and Parents, this must create a conflict of interests, because lets face it the Local Authority are going to make any firm of solicitors a shed load of cash.

Before anyone jumps on me for advocating Child Abuse etc in the UK, then please take the time to visit any family court up and down the country your unlikely to find them full of Parents like those of Babt P,the majority are  just normal parents that have fallen foul of Children's Services and bad Social Work Practices.

The Majority of Children in the UK removed from parents due to "risk of future emotional harm".