Restore stolen goods to owners

Currently if theives are caught with stolen goods they just say those goods were bought from someone – and voila! the theives get to keep the stolen goods. Make sure all stolen goods, once described by the victim of theft, are returned.

Why is this idea important?

Currently if theives are caught with stolen goods they just say those goods were bought from someone – and voila! the theives get to keep the stolen goods. Make sure all stolen goods, once described by the victim of theft, are returned.

Repeal the handgun ban

This ridiculous law should be overturned to give law abiiding citzens the right to pursue and enjoy the previously popular sport of handgun target shooting under ISSF rules.

As most of our major cities seem to be awash with illegal handguns this law has not made one jot of a difference to handgun crime. At the time of the ban a campaign was run stating that " If handguns are outlawed then only outlaws will have handguns". How true this has become.

Our Olympic shooters are not allowed to train in their own country and must travel to Switzerland to train, at great cost. I also understand that not allowing people to pursue an Olympic sport in their own country is against the Oylmpic charter and as such the UK should not be allowed to host the 2012 games.

The government is spending over 4 million pounds of your money to build an Olympic shooting venue that will have no legacy – yes it will be pulled down after the event.

Its time to look at this law again and begin to give back the "Freedom" and civil liberties of law abiding Handgun shooters

Why is this idea important?

This ridiculous law should be overturned to give law abiiding citzens the right to pursue and enjoy the previously popular sport of handgun target shooting under ISSF rules.

As most of our major cities seem to be awash with illegal handguns this law has not made one jot of a difference to handgun crime. At the time of the ban a campaign was run stating that " If handguns are outlawed then only outlaws will have handguns". How true this has become.

Our Olympic shooters are not allowed to train in their own country and must travel to Switzerland to train, at great cost. I also understand that not allowing people to pursue an Olympic sport in their own country is against the Oylmpic charter and as such the UK should not be allowed to host the 2012 games.

The government is spending over 4 million pounds of your money to build an Olympic shooting venue that will have no legacy – yes it will be pulled down after the event.

Its time to look at this law again and begin to give back the "Freedom" and civil liberties of law abiding Handgun shooters

Adopt Dutch Model for Crime Reporting

Part of the problem of crime in the UK is the perception of it. People believe it is at a worse level than in reality.

This is because the press thrive on crime. They sell papers from it.

The result is that people, particularly women, get unduly scared when going out.

This is not good for the social cohesion in our country.

So I propose we adopt the Dutch model for crime reporting to help quell these false perceptions of crime.

In Holland, when a crime is committed, names of suspects cannot be mentioned. And after conviction, only their initials can be reported.

Why is this idea important?

Part of the problem of crime in the UK is the perception of it. People believe it is at a worse level than in reality.

This is because the press thrive on crime. They sell papers from it.

The result is that people, particularly women, get unduly scared when going out.

This is not good for the social cohesion in our country.

So I propose we adopt the Dutch model for crime reporting to help quell these false perceptions of crime.

In Holland, when a crime is committed, names of suspects cannot be mentioned. And after conviction, only their initials can be reported.

Punish 14 year old’s and upwards as adults

I believe you should punish anyone 14 and older as adults and not as minors. These kids are growing up much faster and know exactly what they are doing when they are committing assaults, murders, rapes and burglaries.

Why is this idea important?

I believe you should punish anyone 14 and older as adults and not as minors. These kids are growing up much faster and know exactly what they are doing when they are committing assaults, murders, rapes and burglaries.

Amendment or repeal of POCA 2002

The POCA 2002 needs to be either repealed or dramatically amended as it is a conviluted

 contradictary Act that is drafted in the most fragmented and unclear way.

  The wisest members of the judiciary strugle to make complete sence of various sections, so what chance does the average Crown Court judge or defence advocate have of attempting to ensure justice is fairly done.Especially when the poor old judge is given little training on this outlandish Act, and is so busy dealing with other duties. 

Why is this idea important?

The POCA 2002 needs to be either repealed or dramatically amended as it is a conviluted

 contradictary Act that is drafted in the most fragmented and unclear way.

  The wisest members of the judiciary strugle to make complete sence of various sections, so what chance does the average Crown Court judge or defence advocate have of attempting to ensure justice is fairly done.Especially when the poor old judge is given little training on this outlandish Act, and is so busy dealing with other duties. 

Free Speech Against Feminism

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

Why is this idea important?

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

Abolish Control Orders

Control Orders go against everything that we once understood as 'British justice' and thus endanger putting Britain amongst those countries with the worst records on human rights. Is this how the government wants Britain to be viewed?

Why is this idea important?

Control Orders go against everything that we once understood as 'British justice' and thus endanger putting Britain amongst those countries with the worst records on human rights. Is this how the government wants Britain to be viewed?

Abolish Control Orders.

Control Orders are incompatible with human rights, civil liberties, and Common Law.  Their existence brings our judicial system into disrepute, and I believe that they should be abolished forthwith.

Why is this idea important?

Control Orders are incompatible with human rights, civil liberties, and Common Law.  Their existence brings our judicial system into disrepute, and I believe that they should be abolished forthwith.

Restore civil liberties eroded by last government

The introduction of Control Orders which can severely restrict individual freedoms, and deny even family access, without any convictions against a person, was a shameful piece of legislation – and its practice demonstrated how degrading it was – and should be repealed.

Further, the widespread introduction of surveillance cameras and of sound monitoring as well, and the far too 'liberal' discretion with which police forces can employ such methods in comparison with the denial of ordinary civil rights, through the guise of anti-terrorism, needs to be brought to a halt, and reasonable presumptions of innocence restored.

Why is this idea important?

The introduction of Control Orders which can severely restrict individual freedoms, and deny even family access, without any convictions against a person, was a shameful piece of legislation – and its practice demonstrated how degrading it was – and should be repealed.

Further, the widespread introduction of surveillance cameras and of sound monitoring as well, and the far too 'liberal' discretion with which police forces can employ such methods in comparison with the denial of ordinary civil rights, through the guise of anti-terrorism, needs to be brought to a halt, and reasonable presumptions of innocence restored.

Why Control Orders should be scrapped

There is no place for 'laws' which are internationally illegal. Their effects shame me and all citizens of this country and I wish no part of Government actions which do this.

Why is this idea important?

There is no place for 'laws' which are internationally illegal. Their effects shame me and all citizens of this country and I wish no part of Government actions which do this.

no republic for any commonwealth country state or territory

until all such entities adhere to the westminster system and all checks and balances are in place. without a bicameral system in place a republic is a distinct possibility and all that that implies i.e. dictatorship, loss of liberty, freedom of speech, indoctrination etc.

suggest all those entities which do not adhere are subjected to trade embargos or some similar sanction. the rule of law is essential for a truly democratic system and the right of an individual to a fair trial, and to be able to appeal to a higher authority against a sentence length. deprivation of liberty in prison is punnishment enough. humiliation, torture are not the hallmarks of a civilised society which should have detention facilities with the minimal facilities in place.

Why is this idea important?

until all such entities adhere to the westminster system and all checks and balances are in place. without a bicameral system in place a republic is a distinct possibility and all that that implies i.e. dictatorship, loss of liberty, freedom of speech, indoctrination etc.

suggest all those entities which do not adhere are subjected to trade embargos or some similar sanction. the rule of law is essential for a truly democratic system and the right of an individual to a fair trial, and to be able to appeal to a higher authority against a sentence length. deprivation of liberty in prison is punnishment enough. humiliation, torture are not the hallmarks of a civilised society which should have detention facilities with the minimal facilities in place.

REDUCE CORRUPTION AND ABUSE BY SCALING OFFENCES

I WAS JAILED FOR BLACKMAIL IN 2007 – FOR THE PROSECUTION IT WAS THE SIMPLEST THING – I HAD MADE DEMANDS MY EMPLOYER PAID ME FOR WORK UNPAID

ALL THE CROWN PROSECUTION HAD TO DO WAS FEIGN AND PRETEND THE WORK UNPAID WAS NOT UNPAID AND THEY HIT ME WITH BLACKMAIL WHICH CARRIES A 14 YEAR TERM OF IMPRISONMENT

WE HAVE BEEN AT THE MERCY OF A STUPID CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DESIGNED BY THE LORDS TO KEEP THE PEASANTS IN THEIR PLACE AND CRUSH AND IMPRISON THEM IF THEY DARE TO RISE

MY EMPLOYER MADE HIMSELF INTO A LORD AND TOLD THE POLICE TO ARREST ME

IN PRISON I MET A LAD THAT ONE DAY HAD A JEALOUS QUARREL WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND – HE WAS IN THE KITCHEN AND HE TOOK A HOT POTATO OFF A TRAY AND SMEARED IT ON HER FACE IN A JEALOUS RAGE

SHE DID NOT TREAT THE BURN PROPERLY AND THE BURN INFECTED – WHEN IT INFECTED IT BURST THE SKIN AND BECAME ACTUAL BODILY HARM TO GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM – HE STUPIDLY WAS TOLD TO PLEAD GUILTY TO GBH NOT KNOWING WHAT HE WAS GETTING HIMSELF IN TO – HE GOT 8 YEARS

HE WAS A BIRMINGHAM COUNCIL CLERK WITH NO PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

MY IDEA IS YOU BREAK DOWN EACH OF THESE STUPID SERIOUS OFFENCES INTO GRADE 1, 2 AND 3 WHERE 3 IS VERY SERIOUS AND 1 NOT SERIOUS

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I WAS JAILED FOR BLACKMAIL IN 2007 – FOR THE PROSECUTION IT WAS THE SIMPLEST THING – I HAD MADE DEMANDS MY EMPLOYER PAID ME FOR WORK UNPAID

ALL THE CROWN PROSECUTION HAD TO DO WAS FEIGN AND PRETEND THE WORK UNPAID WAS NOT UNPAID AND THEY HIT ME WITH BLACKMAIL WHICH CARRIES A 14 YEAR TERM OF IMPRISONMENT

WE HAVE BEEN AT THE MERCY OF A STUPID CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DESIGNED BY THE LORDS TO KEEP THE PEASANTS IN THEIR PLACE AND CRUSH AND IMPRISON THEM IF THEY DARE TO RISE

MY EMPLOYER MADE HIMSELF INTO A LORD AND TOLD THE POLICE TO ARREST ME

IN PRISON I MET A LAD THAT ONE DAY HAD A JEALOUS QUARREL WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND – HE WAS IN THE KITCHEN AND HE TOOK A HOT POTATO OFF A TRAY AND SMEARED IT ON HER FACE IN A JEALOUS RAGE

SHE DID NOT TREAT THE BURN PROPERLY AND THE BURN INFECTED – WHEN IT INFECTED IT BURST THE SKIN AND BECAME ACTUAL BODILY HARM TO GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM – HE STUPIDLY WAS TOLD TO PLEAD GUILTY TO GBH NOT KNOWING WHAT HE WAS GETTING HIMSELF IN TO – HE GOT 8 YEARS

HE WAS A BIRMINGHAM COUNCIL CLERK WITH NO PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

MY IDEA IS YOU BREAK DOWN EACH OF THESE STUPID SERIOUS OFFENCES INTO GRADE 1, 2 AND 3 WHERE 3 IS VERY SERIOUS AND 1 NOT SERIOUS

 

 

 

 

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial

The government  must not deny people  a fair hearing in a court of law.  Everyone is supposedly innocent until proved guilty.  This must apply without exception to everyone. 

Why is this idea important?

The government  must not deny people  a fair hearing in a court of law.  Everyone is supposedly innocent until proved guilty.  This must apply without exception to everyone. 

Reducing Reoffending – Employing Ex Offenders and Equality Legislation

There are two important issues that stimulates re-offending.  The first is a lack of suitable accomodation and the second being unable to secure meaningful employment.

Ex-offenders are required to declare all unspent criminal convictions if asked on an application form.  Research undertaken by CIPD (Chartered Institute for Professional Development) and the Social Exclusion Unit (Previously based in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) acknowledges that the vast majority of employers disregard applications where declarations of criminal convictions are provided, regardless of the position that an ex-offender is applying for.

Would there be some merit in including ex-offenders in equality law to ensure that disposing of application forms soley on a criminal record being declared is simply not acceptable?  Whilst I appreciate that some may argue that equality law is not about what 'one' has done but is about who one is I would suggest that the disproportional number of BME boys in prison reflects that in some cases people are more likely to obtain a criminal record than others because of who they are.

Why is this idea important?

There are two important issues that stimulates re-offending.  The first is a lack of suitable accomodation and the second being unable to secure meaningful employment.

Ex-offenders are required to declare all unspent criminal convictions if asked on an application form.  Research undertaken by CIPD (Chartered Institute for Professional Development) and the Social Exclusion Unit (Previously based in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) acknowledges that the vast majority of employers disregard applications where declarations of criminal convictions are provided, regardless of the position that an ex-offender is applying for.

Would there be some merit in including ex-offenders in equality law to ensure that disposing of application forms soley on a criminal record being declared is simply not acceptable?  Whilst I appreciate that some may argue that equality law is not about what 'one' has done but is about who one is I would suggest that the disproportional number of BME boys in prison reflects that in some cases people are more likely to obtain a criminal record than others because of who they are.

Create a British “Bill of Rights”

A lot of the ideas submitted here for repealing laws etc are good. But they will inevitably involve a huge amount of work by government to modify/change/alter existing laws and some of that will unlikely achieve what many people want, which is to roll back the state and limit its powers in a number of areas.

IMV a far better idea is to draft a "British Bill of Rights" which would cut right across many of the intrusive and police-state laws we have seen introduced over the last 13 years.

Why is this idea important?

A lot of the ideas submitted here for repealing laws etc are good. But they will inevitably involve a huge amount of work by government to modify/change/alter existing laws and some of that will unlikely achieve what many people want, which is to roll back the state and limit its powers in a number of areas.

IMV a far better idea is to draft a "British Bill of Rights" which would cut right across many of the intrusive and police-state laws we have seen introduced over the last 13 years.

Fair trial

I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to a fair and open trial if suspected of wrong doing, what ever that may be. If someone is accused of a crime they must be given a fair trial, no excuses, no detention without a fair and open trial. Our freedom is one of the most important values of living in the UK and I fear it is slowly being eroded.

Susan Gilchrist

Why is this idea important?

I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to a fair and open trial if suspected of wrong doing, what ever that may be. If someone is accused of a crime they must be given a fair trial, no excuses, no detention without a fair and open trial. Our freedom is one of the most important values of living in the UK and I fear it is slowly being eroded.

Susan Gilchrist

A Consistent National Parking Policy For Motorcyclists

Local authorities have their own individual policies for motorycyle parking,  Some authorities allow free parking in metered bays for motorcyclists.  Others, such as Liverpool city council don't, and you will get a fixed penalty, even though there is no prominent signages on their bays..  LIverpool CC's Civil Enforcement Offiers did sticker some motorcylists when they changed the rules but that's not much use to visitors who are getting caught out by a lack of proper signage in parking bays,   

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities have their own individual policies for motorycyle parking,  Some authorities allow free parking in metered bays for motorcyclists.  Others, such as Liverpool city council don't, and you will get a fixed penalty, even though there is no prominent signages on their bays..  LIverpool CC's Civil Enforcement Offiers did sticker some motorcylists when they changed the rules but that's not much use to visitors who are getting caught out by a lack of proper signage in parking bays,   

NO U-TURN ON ANYONYMITY FOR RAPE ACCUSED!!!

It is totally outrageous that after the Coalition government promising to give anonymity to (almost entirely MALE) ALLAGED male rapists it has now CAVED IN TO PRESSURE from FEMINIST EXTREMISTS.

According to the BBC News – the grounds for this u-turn have been "Labour and women Tory MPs said it could send a negative signal about women who accuse men of rape."

Could you tell us please what kind of "signal" gets sent about MEN WHO GET FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE?

Pretty negative I'd say.

And just WHO is running this country? Labour feminist MPs? Feminist women who have sneaked into seats in the Conservative party now that there's little point them infiltrating the Labour party any more AS THEY DID, I watched it happen since the 70s, as there's no POWER in it for them.

So the partly Liberal Coalition gets elected, but it still does what it is told by a bunch of shrieking feminist activists, who endlessly criticise it simply because there aren't enough (in THEIR opinion) women in the cabinet???  What an IMPOTENT excercise of "power" by the Coalition, first making a decision which was a FAIR, JUST ONE, properly acknowledging the EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS of men and then caving in at the first sign of protests from shrieking, deeply unjust, feminist women.

It's THESE kind of people, largely a feminist government we've been living under in the Blair era, with their hypocrisy, more interested in their job titles, their salaries and perks, and their reflections in the mirror, and fiddling their expenses, who have got us in this mess in the first place – our disrespectful, crime ridden, badly behaved, debt ridden, teenage pregnant,m dryg addcuted, unsafe to walk the streets, etc, society  -, and now they have not been ELECTED as a government ,  they are simply INTIMIDATING/BULLYING to get what they want by shrieking propaganda at the government who have!

And of course, the great irony is that ACCUSERS (almost entirely women), THEY get anonymity, but the men ACCUSED don't!

Astounding!

i.e. a man can be FALSELY accused on any petty, malevolent whim of a woman who is upset with him, and HE gets publicly shamed, made a leper in  his community and maybe even subject to attack from gangs of yobs who are always looking for an excuse to attack some innocent person, while SHE hides laughing in the shadows, as he gets tortured and publicly ridiculed, and maybe never trusted again by other women in the community where he lives, even if found totally innocent of the crime.

So a case was given to justify this shrieking protest from the feminists, of a taxi driver who raped 80 women (so THEY tell us, I wasn't there), and until his name was published, all the other women who had been raped didn't come forward.

Yes – well, what a TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ARGUMENT. Once the guy had been CONVICTED his name would have been published ANYWAY. So THEN they would have had their opportunity to come forward.

And in any case, this is no grounds to lift anonymity from accused men, because what the government should be seeking to do is to PREVENT RAPE rather than all the emphasis being on CONVICTING RAPISTS.

Because these feminists are apparently too stupid to realise that once a woman has actually been raped (if it REALLY happend that is, and it's not just a malevolent false accusation) it's actually TOO LATE.

Sure, if he is caught and convicted, it will (for a time) prevent him raping other women, but that won't ever make it right for the woman who has been raped ALREADY.

So let's take the example of this taxi driver rapist. Firstly, women have to start taking FAR MORE RESPONSIBLITY for their own actions. If a drunken woman is going home from a nightclub or party and  she goes home ALONE in a taxi or even car driven by ANY man she is not "asking for it", but she is TAKING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK.

Men in general are not saints, as no more so are women, and x percent of men will feel tempted when a woman's defences are down like that, knowing that due to drink she might not even REMEMBER who he is.

So the solution to preventing women being raped, is not to keep printing the names and pictures in Newspapers or showing on TV men who just MIGHT have done a rape, but it's not proven, but to educate women to take more responsibility for their own actions, and also put in place practical steps like WOMEN ONLY TAXI SERVICES with women only drivers.

Or you know, why don't we give the feminists what they REALLY want? Which is to basically have every man wear a warning sign on him wherever he goes, hanging around his neck, that says RAPIST UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, and there should be a big database of EVERY  male over 10  giving  his name and address, and a photo of him, and if a woman doesn't like a particular man, all she has to do is email in (ANONYMOUSLY OF COURSE) a rape accusation, and then minutes later, the police will be kicking in his door, and hauling him off for interrogation, assuming him guilty until proven iinnocent.

I assure all the men and sane non-feminist women, that if the feminsits had their way, the above scenario would be pretty much a reality, and I am not joking.

Because think about it logically, and it's easy to see such a publicly accessible database of men that women could search through, would surely make it much easier to find any man they believe has raped them, so surely if it would prevent ONE SINGLE WOMAN getting raped, that justifies it being done?

No, IT DOES NOT.  That's ALWAYS the excuse.

e.g. why not take EVERYBODY'S DNA at birth? Surely that would make ALL criminals easier to catch?

Why? Because we've got HUMAN RIGHTS, the rigbht to lvie in freedom unless it's PROVEN we are some kind of threat to society.

The feminsts are interesting only in  WOMEN'S RIGHTS, not MEN'S RIGHTS, and not only that, they are shrieking endlessly about women's RIGHTS, but what they DON'T talk about, is women's RESPONSIBILITIES. E.G. to take care of their children properly, or be fair to men, or to not act stupidly getting drunk and going home in a man's car alone or going back to the flat/home of a man they hardly know, and expecting there to be no risk in such an unwise course of action.

And I'm appalled that so many men are so mute and meek on this subject, because they foolishly imagine  a false couldn't happen to THEM.

(well yes, just hide in your home, never go out, never be anywhere near the company of women, never answer the door to a woman caller (let alone let her in – NUCLEAR ALERT!) don't go anywhere near your daughter, sister, mothers, grandmothers, aunt, girl cousin, sister in law,  a mixed sex work place, bar, public park, cinema, concert, theatre, shopping centre, or place of worship, and you just MIGHT be in with a chance that you'll NEVER be accused of rape/sexual aasault).

Whereas the fact is, that women are routinely accusing men of all kinds of things, and using the police against men, just to get their own way, or to "punish" a man who displeases them in some way, make his life a misery, it's not only rape accusations.

It could be because IN HER OPINION he is disciplining a misbehaving child in a way SHE doesn't agree with, and because she uses the law to stop him controlling the child, we end up with a society of out of control children, who become vandals, hooligans, violent thugs, gang members, and yes, even RAPISTS, because she used the feminist controlled law against a man who was trying to keep a child in hand, teach it to have RESPECT for other human beings.

So few men are really THINKING what a serious issue this is: it's not just about rape, it's a whole flotilla of infringinments and inequalities against men's rights, and this is just the most obvious example.

One more REAL LIFE example of someone I know, what happened to him recently to illustrate the point. He allowed a woman to share his flat, the relationship failed and he told her to leave. She then reported him to the police, accused him of kidnapping and raping her and the police came to take him away. He was saved ONLY by the fact there were messages from her on his mobile phone which showed they obviously had an ongoing CONSENSUAL relationship.

So without that slender but VITAL evidence, only available incidentaly since the mobile phone era, he would likely have been imprisoned until trial, and possibly even sentenced to many years as a convicted rapist and kidnapper, and his life would have been over, all on HER MALEVOLENT WHIM and FALSE ACCUSATION.

And all the while SHE would have (and as far as I know, still IS) remained TOTALLY ANONYMOUS and able to do exactly the same to any number of future male victims.

As is usual, with the feminists, we only ever here ONE HALF of the story, only about men's crimes (alleged) against women, but NEVER about  women's  numerous crimes against men in all kinds of ways, false accusations to police, social workers and other authorities being a very favourite one at the present.

That this Coalition is continuing the DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 50 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION (Ii.e MEN) started mainly by the New Labour Feminists, is a totally appalling injustice, and failure of them to uphold CIVIL LIBERTIES as they have promised, the very thing this website is supposed to be about.
 

 

Why is this idea important?

It is totally outrageous that after the Coalition government promising to give anonymity to (almost entirely MALE) ALLAGED male rapists it has now CAVED IN TO PRESSURE from FEMINIST EXTREMISTS.

According to the BBC News – the grounds for this u-turn have been "Labour and women Tory MPs said it could send a negative signal about women who accuse men of rape."

Could you tell us please what kind of "signal" gets sent about MEN WHO GET FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE?

Pretty negative I'd say.

And just WHO is running this country? Labour feminist MPs? Feminist women who have sneaked into seats in the Conservative party now that there's little point them infiltrating the Labour party any more AS THEY DID, I watched it happen since the 70s, as there's no POWER in it for them.

So the partly Liberal Coalition gets elected, but it still does what it is told by a bunch of shrieking feminist activists, who endlessly criticise it simply because there aren't enough (in THEIR opinion) women in the cabinet???  What an IMPOTENT excercise of "power" by the Coalition, first making a decision which was a FAIR, JUST ONE, properly acknowledging the EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS of men and then caving in at the first sign of protests from shrieking, deeply unjust, feminist women.

It's THESE kind of people, largely a feminist government we've been living under in the Blair era, with their hypocrisy, more interested in their job titles, their salaries and perks, and their reflections in the mirror, and fiddling their expenses, who have got us in this mess in the first place – our disrespectful, crime ridden, badly behaved, debt ridden, teenage pregnant,m dryg addcuted, unsafe to walk the streets, etc, society  -, and now they have not been ELECTED as a government ,  they are simply INTIMIDATING/BULLYING to get what they want by shrieking propaganda at the government who have!

And of course, the great irony is that ACCUSERS (almost entirely women), THEY get anonymity, but the men ACCUSED don't!

Astounding!

i.e. a man can be FALSELY accused on any petty, malevolent whim of a woman who is upset with him, and HE gets publicly shamed, made a leper in  his community and maybe even subject to attack from gangs of yobs who are always looking for an excuse to attack some innocent person, while SHE hides laughing in the shadows, as he gets tortured and publicly ridiculed, and maybe never trusted again by other women in the community where he lives, even if found totally innocent of the crime.

So a case was given to justify this shrieking protest from the feminists, of a taxi driver who raped 80 women (so THEY tell us, I wasn't there), and until his name was published, all the other women who had been raped didn't come forward.

Yes – well, what a TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ARGUMENT. Once the guy had been CONVICTED his name would have been published ANYWAY. So THEN they would have had their opportunity to come forward.

And in any case, this is no grounds to lift anonymity from accused men, because what the government should be seeking to do is to PREVENT RAPE rather than all the emphasis being on CONVICTING RAPISTS.

Because these feminists are apparently too stupid to realise that once a woman has actually been raped (if it REALLY happend that is, and it's not just a malevolent false accusation) it's actually TOO LATE.

Sure, if he is caught and convicted, it will (for a time) prevent him raping other women, but that won't ever make it right for the woman who has been raped ALREADY.

So let's take the example of this taxi driver rapist. Firstly, women have to start taking FAR MORE RESPONSIBLITY for their own actions. If a drunken woman is going home from a nightclub or party and  she goes home ALONE in a taxi or even car driven by ANY man she is not "asking for it", but she is TAKING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK.

Men in general are not saints, as no more so are women, and x percent of men will feel tempted when a woman's defences are down like that, knowing that due to drink she might not even REMEMBER who he is.

So the solution to preventing women being raped, is not to keep printing the names and pictures in Newspapers or showing on TV men who just MIGHT have done a rape, but it's not proven, but to educate women to take more responsibility for their own actions, and also put in place practical steps like WOMEN ONLY TAXI SERVICES with women only drivers.

Or you know, why don't we give the feminists what they REALLY want? Which is to basically have every man wear a warning sign on him wherever he goes, hanging around his neck, that says RAPIST UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, and there should be a big database of EVERY  male over 10  giving  his name and address, and a photo of him, and if a woman doesn't like a particular man, all she has to do is email in (ANONYMOUSLY OF COURSE) a rape accusation, and then minutes later, the police will be kicking in his door, and hauling him off for interrogation, assuming him guilty until proven iinnocent.

I assure all the men and sane non-feminist women, that if the feminsits had their way, the above scenario would be pretty much a reality, and I am not joking.

Because think about it logically, and it's easy to see such a publicly accessible database of men that women could search through, would surely make it much easier to find any man they believe has raped them, so surely if it would prevent ONE SINGLE WOMAN getting raped, that justifies it being done?

No, IT DOES NOT.  That's ALWAYS the excuse.

e.g. why not take EVERYBODY'S DNA at birth? Surely that would make ALL criminals easier to catch?

Why? Because we've got HUMAN RIGHTS, the rigbht to lvie in freedom unless it's PROVEN we are some kind of threat to society.

The feminsts are interesting only in  WOMEN'S RIGHTS, not MEN'S RIGHTS, and not only that, they are shrieking endlessly about women's RIGHTS, but what they DON'T talk about, is women's RESPONSIBILITIES. E.G. to take care of their children properly, or be fair to men, or to not act stupidly getting drunk and going home in a man's car alone or going back to the flat/home of a man they hardly know, and expecting there to be no risk in such an unwise course of action.

And I'm appalled that so many men are so mute and meek on this subject, because they foolishly imagine  a false couldn't happen to THEM.

(well yes, just hide in your home, never go out, never be anywhere near the company of women, never answer the door to a woman caller (let alone let her in – NUCLEAR ALERT!) don't go anywhere near your daughter, sister, mothers, grandmothers, aunt, girl cousin, sister in law,  a mixed sex work place, bar, public park, cinema, concert, theatre, shopping centre, or place of worship, and you just MIGHT be in with a chance that you'll NEVER be accused of rape/sexual aasault).

Whereas the fact is, that women are routinely accusing men of all kinds of things, and using the police against men, just to get their own way, or to "punish" a man who displeases them in some way, make his life a misery, it's not only rape accusations.

It could be because IN HER OPINION he is disciplining a misbehaving child in a way SHE doesn't agree with, and because she uses the law to stop him controlling the child, we end up with a society of out of control children, who become vandals, hooligans, violent thugs, gang members, and yes, even RAPISTS, because she used the feminist controlled law against a man who was trying to keep a child in hand, teach it to have RESPECT for other human beings.

So few men are really THINKING what a serious issue this is: it's not just about rape, it's a whole flotilla of infringinments and inequalities against men's rights, and this is just the most obvious example.

One more REAL LIFE example of someone I know, what happened to him recently to illustrate the point. He allowed a woman to share his flat, the relationship failed and he told her to leave. She then reported him to the police, accused him of kidnapping and raping her and the police came to take him away. He was saved ONLY by the fact there were messages from her on his mobile phone which showed they obviously had an ongoing CONSENSUAL relationship.

So without that slender but VITAL evidence, only available incidentaly since the mobile phone era, he would likely have been imprisoned until trial, and possibly even sentenced to many years as a convicted rapist and kidnapper, and his life would have been over, all on HER MALEVOLENT WHIM and FALSE ACCUSATION.

And all the while SHE would have (and as far as I know, still IS) remained TOTALLY ANONYMOUS and able to do exactly the same to any number of future male victims.

As is usual, with the feminists, we only ever here ONE HALF of the story, only about men's crimes (alleged) against women, but NEVER about  women's  numerous crimes against men in all kinds of ways, false accusations to police, social workers and other authorities being a very favourite one at the present.

That this Coalition is continuing the DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 50 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION (Ii.e MEN) started mainly by the New Labour Feminists, is a totally appalling injustice, and failure of them to uphold CIVIL LIBERTIES as they have promised, the very thing this website is supposed to be about.
 

 

Scrap Controls

We can't become a nation which imposes an unfair trial on who we suppose to be guilty. We used to pride ourselves on innocent until proven guilty. This involves applying dignity.

Why is this idea important?

We can't become a nation which imposes an unfair trial on who we suppose to be guilty. We used to pride ourselves on innocent until proven guilty. This involves applying dignity.