Restore the Peelian Principles of Policing.

Robert Peel laid down the following principles for an ethical police force:

  1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
  2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
  3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
  4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
  5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
  6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
  7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
  8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
  9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Further to these principles, every policeman in his force had to wear a number badge so that his actions would be accountable.

My idea is to restore these principles to the very core of police training.  Our policemen and women should live and breathe these ideals.

Why is this idea important?

Robert Peel laid down the following principles for an ethical police force:

  1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
  2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
  3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
  4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
  5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
  6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
  7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
  8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
  9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Further to these principles, every policeman in his force had to wear a number badge so that his actions would be accountable.

My idea is to restore these principles to the very core of police training.  Our policemen and women should live and breathe these ideals.

Abolish control orders

Current control orders are certainly a violation of human right, denying a fair trial to terrorism suspects. They do not favour good relations with the ethnic/religious groups suspects belong to, but exhacerbate current negative feelings against state and police.

Why is this idea important?

Current control orders are certainly a violation of human right, denying a fair trial to terrorism suspects. They do not favour good relations with the ethnic/religious groups suspects belong to, but exhacerbate current negative feelings against state and police.

Block/Repeal the European Investigation Order/European Arrest Warrant

For both the European Investigation Order (EIO) and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) laws to be blocked from coming into force or repealed. Both are highly damaging to our Civil Liberties and Freedoms as a Nation. European police forces will be/are able to undermine our own when it comes to investigating cases.

Why is this idea important?

For both the European Investigation Order (EIO) and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) laws to be blocked from coming into force or repealed. Both are highly damaging to our Civil Liberties and Freedoms as a Nation. European police forces will be/are able to undermine our own when it comes to investigating cases.

Lobby Groups With Power Are Killing Democracy

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Why is this idea important?

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Remove legislation that criminalises children.

I think that the minimum age of criminal liability in England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be raised to 17. Of course any increase should be done in conjunction with a detailed review and restructuring of methods dealing with crimes at below that age as well as easy and immediate provsion of Restorative Justice for everyone involved.

Why is this idea important?

I think that the minimum age of criminal liability in England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be raised to 17. Of course any increase should be done in conjunction with a detailed review and restructuring of methods dealing with crimes at below that age as well as easy and immediate provsion of Restorative Justice for everyone involved.

Revoke firearm permits of convicted violent criminals and seize all their weapons

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Why is this idea important?

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Reducing metal thefts by new rules for scrap yards

Suggested legislation/regulation to greatly reduce the incidence of theft of metals:

(1) Require scrap-metal dealers to record names and proof of identity and residence (eg driving licence number, address from recent utility bill, etc) from everyone who sells to them.

(2) Prohibit payment by cash on the spot.  Payment would be by cheque posted to the seller at the address demonstrated above.

(3)  Perhaps require scrap yards to hold purchased metal materials for 14 or 28 days, which would improve the chances of recovering items reported stolen.

Why is this idea important?

Suggested legislation/regulation to greatly reduce the incidence of theft of metals:

(1) Require scrap-metal dealers to record names and proof of identity and residence (eg driving licence number, address from recent utility bill, etc) from everyone who sells to them.

(2) Prohibit payment by cash on the spot.  Payment would be by cheque posted to the seller at the address demonstrated above.

(3)  Perhaps require scrap yards to hold purchased metal materials for 14 or 28 days, which would improve the chances of recovering items reported stolen.

repeal the retention of minor convictions on the police national computer

until the end of 2006 it was possible to apply to have  one's criminal record erased in the case of minor and long-ago offences. now these offences, although they may only appear on a CRB at police discretion, remain on the PNC until 100 years after the death of the subject.

Why is this idea important?

until the end of 2006 it was possible to apply to have  one's criminal record erased in the case of minor and long-ago offences. now these offences, although they may only appear on a CRB at police discretion, remain on the PNC until 100 years after the death of the subject.

A new type of National Service

National Service , bring to mind of men playing at soldiers!

 

It doesnt have to be that way

My idea is that for every recently convited person under and up to the age of thirty five must be made to do civil service (NOT community service) in addition to their sentence! This means when they finish their sentence they MUST go on a program where they are educated about the responsibilities of every British citizen, along with some rather strigent excersize regimen to teach and reinforce discapline amongst onesself. If they successfuly complete the course then they are offered training to help them to get gainful employment. However if they are convicted of a further offence, having been through the above then they are given a harsher sentence, for the reason of 'abusal of trust' given by the British people!

This idea could be extended to those whom are on long tern unemployed. Help them to teach value in themselves as well as others, build up their confidence!

Why is this idea important?

National Service , bring to mind of men playing at soldiers!

 

It doesnt have to be that way

My idea is that for every recently convited person under and up to the age of thirty five must be made to do civil service (NOT community service) in addition to their sentence! This means when they finish their sentence they MUST go on a program where they are educated about the responsibilities of every British citizen, along with some rather strigent excersize regimen to teach and reinforce discapline amongst onesself. If they successfuly complete the course then they are offered training to help them to get gainful employment. However if they are convicted of a further offence, having been through the above then they are given a harsher sentence, for the reason of 'abusal of trust' given by the British people!

This idea could be extended to those whom are on long tern unemployed. Help them to teach value in themselves as well as others, build up their confidence!

Tighten Regulations INSTEAD of relaxing them.

Social Fabric is being eroded.  With laws being introduced to 'protect' the rights of some the rights of others are being removed and this needs to be reversed.  Civilisation was built by law, order and discipline.  Ask individuals is they want more freedom they will always say YES but true freedom comes at too high a price for some and government MUST return to a much tighter regime or our society will disintegrate and social regression will set in.

Why is this idea important?

Social Fabric is being eroded.  With laws being introduced to 'protect' the rights of some the rights of others are being removed and this needs to be reversed.  Civilisation was built by law, order and discipline.  Ask individuals is they want more freedom they will always say YES but true freedom comes at too high a price for some and government MUST return to a much tighter regime or our society will disintegrate and social regression will set in.

Focus On The Victims Of Crime

In our current fiscal situation, the UK is to lose a potential 65-000 police officers.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-10694895

Today, Louise Casey the Victims and Witness Commissioner has spoken freely of how the current judicial system is failing the victims of crime:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10691151

With Kenneth Clarke looking for ways to cut the judicial system budget, it is prudent and respectful to those who have been a victim of crime to to receive the support they deserve and appropriate penalties should be focused on crime with a victim.  This is where law and order should be focused.

It is insulting to those who have suffered real crime to still place onus on catching people with cannabis, there is no victim involved with this plant, and resources simply cannot be spared on this unjust and futile war.  Alcohol is taking up an immeasurable amount of time, money and resources on the police, cannabis has never and can never create this drain on the force as an ingested substance; and as many senior members of the force have spoken out in ending the war on cannabis, please can they be listened to.  It is an infringement of everyone's civil liberties as it stands that cannabis is still given attention by law when violent crime is so prevalent.  Crime needs a victim, so please let's focus on that ethos.

Why is this idea important?

In our current fiscal situation, the UK is to lose a potential 65-000 police officers.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-10694895

Today, Louise Casey the Victims and Witness Commissioner has spoken freely of how the current judicial system is failing the victims of crime:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10691151

With Kenneth Clarke looking for ways to cut the judicial system budget, it is prudent and respectful to those who have been a victim of crime to to receive the support they deserve and appropriate penalties should be focused on crime with a victim.  This is where law and order should be focused.

It is insulting to those who have suffered real crime to still place onus on catching people with cannabis, there is no victim involved with this plant, and resources simply cannot be spared on this unjust and futile war.  Alcohol is taking up an immeasurable amount of time, money and resources on the police, cannabis has never and can never create this drain on the force as an ingested substance; and as many senior members of the force have spoken out in ending the war on cannabis, please can they be listened to.  It is an infringement of everyone's civil liberties as it stands that cannabis is still given attention by law when violent crime is so prevalent.  Crime needs a victim, so please let's focus on that ethos.

Hate crime ..add disability

Presently if its deemed a crime was committed against someone mainly because of their race or sexuality the sentence can be more severe than if the crime was committed on other grounds . Disability tho isnt included on this list even tho attacks on disabled people because of their impairments arent infrequent.

The case of the mother who killed herself and her disabled child because of constant harassment by locals  was one which shocked and horrified many yet if those people are caught they can only be charged with public order offences not hate crimes.

Had this been a racially based or homophobic couple based harrassment they could have been charged with hate crime and been given a heavier penalty.

Why is this idea important?

Presently if its deemed a crime was committed against someone mainly because of their race or sexuality the sentence can be more severe than if the crime was committed on other grounds . Disability tho isnt included on this list even tho attacks on disabled people because of their impairments arent infrequent.

The case of the mother who killed herself and her disabled child because of constant harassment by locals  was one which shocked and horrified many yet if those people are caught they can only be charged with public order offences not hate crimes.

Had this been a racially based or homophobic couple based harrassment they could have been charged with hate crime and been given a heavier penalty.

Sentencing for Youths -Referral Orders

Whilst the concept of the Referral Order as a sentence for young people who plead guilty is an excellent one, the use of volunteer panel members from the local community should be reviewed as it slows down the administration of justice, is meaningless in relation to what the voluntary panel brings to the panel meeting and is costly both in time, process and resources.

Why is this idea important?

Whilst the concept of the Referral Order as a sentence for young people who plead guilty is an excellent one, the use of volunteer panel members from the local community should be reviewed as it slows down the administration of justice, is meaningless in relation to what the voluntary panel brings to the panel meeting and is costly both in time, process and resources.

Repeal the drugs laws

Make the laws governing alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, heroin and mdma etc consistent. Bring the illicit trade and use of drugs out of the underworld and under regulation. Make the focus about education rather than criminalisation and alienation.

Why is this idea important?

Make the laws governing alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, heroin and mdma etc consistent. Bring the illicit trade and use of drugs out of the underworld and under regulation. Make the focus about education rather than criminalisation and alienation.

De-criminalize the carrying of ALL knives whose purpose is peaceful

People carrying everyday knives — yes, even big ones — should not be seen as criminals.

You might have just bought a set of foot-long kitchen knives to carry home. Or you might have been invited to a Christmas party and are taking good quality one to lend to the host because the ones he owns are dysfunctional.

Yes, I know there is a clause allowing people to carry such knives provided they have "good reason".

But this exactly where it breaks down. The boundaries are vague and open to abuse by police bent on harrassing members of the public.

And there is scant evidence that this law actually reduces knife crime.

If there really are politicians who respect liberty and are not afraid of the tabloids they will begin by abolishing this law. 

Why is this idea important?

People carrying everyday knives — yes, even big ones — should not be seen as criminals.

You might have just bought a set of foot-long kitchen knives to carry home. Or you might have been invited to a Christmas party and are taking good quality one to lend to the host because the ones he owns are dysfunctional.

Yes, I know there is a clause allowing people to carry such knives provided they have "good reason".

But this exactly where it breaks down. The boundaries are vague and open to abuse by police bent on harrassing members of the public.

And there is scant evidence that this law actually reduces knife crime.

If there really are politicians who respect liberty and are not afraid of the tabloids they will begin by abolishing this law. 

Family Values, Children and Government Expenditure

There are laws all over the place that easily rip apart families – husband & wife, and/or children and their parents. These laws have pointedly taken away proper childhood from most children in the UK. The consequences of improper childhood, single parenthood and broken homes are very obvious in the society. A disoriented child may become a liability to the general society in terms of crime potentials. Tax payers' money go into fighting these crimes and still provide support for such individuals in form of benefits. Single parenthood is becoming a thriving enterprise in the economy because the govenments (both local and central) fund it!

All legislations that encourage single parenthood and/or easy disolution of marriages sholud be abolished in the interest of proper childhood. Government should stop financing single parents in the name of benefits. Restore family values and make fathers and mothers responsible for the up-keep of their household! UK was built on positive human values that are now getting eroded by legislation. 

Why is this idea important?

There are laws all over the place that easily rip apart families – husband & wife, and/or children and their parents. These laws have pointedly taken away proper childhood from most children in the UK. The consequences of improper childhood, single parenthood and broken homes are very obvious in the society. A disoriented child may become a liability to the general society in terms of crime potentials. Tax payers' money go into fighting these crimes and still provide support for such individuals in form of benefits. Single parenthood is becoming a thriving enterprise in the economy because the govenments (both local and central) fund it!

All legislations that encourage single parenthood and/or easy disolution of marriages sholud be abolished in the interest of proper childhood. Government should stop financing single parents in the name of benefits. Restore family values and make fathers and mothers responsible for the up-keep of their household! UK was built on positive human values that are now getting eroded by legislation. 

more CCTV coverage

cover every inch of the uk (excluding the inside of peoples homes) with cctv cameras, have the footage overseen by an independent agency that report any crime to the local authorities. None of the cctv footage is to be used for anything but serious crime prevention.

Why is this idea important?

cover every inch of the uk (excluding the inside of peoples homes) with cctv cameras, have the footage overseen by an independent agency that report any crime to the local authorities. None of the cctv footage is to be used for anything but serious crime prevention.

The Police Should Not Be Allowed To Refer Themselves To The Police Complaints Authority.

The police should not be permitted to refer themselves to their own complaints authority. Complaints should come from and be initiated by police victims or those with complaints against the police. The practice of referring themselves is a conflict of interests and it allows police to frame the compliants and provide the evidence to condemn themselves.

I suspect that self-referral is a case of possible self-justification and added complexity and timewasting.

Why is this idea important?

The police should not be permitted to refer themselves to their own complaints authority. Complaints should come from and be initiated by police victims or those with complaints against the police. The practice of referring themselves is a conflict of interests and it allows police to frame the compliants and provide the evidence to condemn themselves.

I suspect that self-referral is a case of possible self-justification and added complexity and timewasting.