Repeal the Firearms Amendment Act of 1996

This Act was made in haste following the terrible events at Dunblane. An election was forthcoming and each of the political parties was trying to show how tough they could be.

Despite the observations of Lord Cullen, who did not advocate the banning of all handguns, the Government of the day decided to ban all larger calibre pistols, the incomoing Government banned all of them.  In effect they punished some 60,000 law abiding citizens for another mans crime.  Very few polititians listened to the target shooters, who were being vilified almost on a daily basis by the media and the Government in general.

As a result, pistols were only available to the criminals and the police. As I recall, in the first year since the ban statistics indicated that gun crime had increased fourfold, and has continued to rise each year.

Therefore, all the act has done is to prevent the law abiding citizen to enjoy the sport of target pistol shooting, The National teams of England and Scotland have to train abroad for Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  It was a sport that enabled the aged and the infirm to compete on a level with able people, what other sport could accomplish this?

It's about time that common sense prevailed and target pistol shooting could again be practised in this country.

Why is this idea important?

This Act was made in haste following the terrible events at Dunblane. An election was forthcoming and each of the political parties was trying to show how tough they could be.

Despite the observations of Lord Cullen, who did not advocate the banning of all handguns, the Government of the day decided to ban all larger calibre pistols, the incomoing Government banned all of them.  In effect they punished some 60,000 law abiding citizens for another mans crime.  Very few polititians listened to the target shooters, who were being vilified almost on a daily basis by the media and the Government in general.

As a result, pistols were only available to the criminals and the police. As I recall, in the first year since the ban statistics indicated that gun crime had increased fourfold, and has continued to rise each year.

Therefore, all the act has done is to prevent the law abiding citizen to enjoy the sport of target pistol shooting, The National teams of England and Scotland have to train abroad for Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  It was a sport that enabled the aged and the infirm to compete on a level with able people, what other sport could accomplish this?

It's about time that common sense prevailed and target pistol shooting could again be practised in this country.

Make uninsured drivers pay.

Uninsured drivers cost us all a lot of money on our insurance premiums and, if one of them hits us, we lose our NCD and our excess isn't covered even if the crash wasn't your faul. I'm not sure if it is entirely fair to penalise the law abiding majority to pay for the law breaking minority.

 

I believe that if someone chooses to drive without insurance and then has a crash, they personally are liable for all the resultant costs and they should only recieve help from the Motor Insurer's Bureau once their esate is valued at £0.

Why is this idea important?

Uninsured drivers cost us all a lot of money on our insurance premiums and, if one of them hits us, we lose our NCD and our excess isn't covered even if the crash wasn't your faul. I'm not sure if it is entirely fair to penalise the law abiding majority to pay for the law breaking minority.

 

I believe that if someone chooses to drive without insurance and then has a crash, they personally are liable for all the resultant costs and they should only recieve help from the Motor Insurer's Bureau once their esate is valued at £0.

Repeal the Human Rights Act

Repeal the act because the UK can't extradite terrorists because this breaches their human rights ie they could get tortured back home. This puts the human rights of terrorists ahead of the human rights of the population who have the human right not to be blown up getting the tube or bus.

A lifer in prison also has the human right to get married in prison and have IVF treatment (right to a family under the act) – despite the fact  he's a murderer (hardly the best father) and in prison (can't be there for the child). This puts the human rights of a murderer ahead of his victim and society (forced to pay for IVF and benefits for the child who he clearly can't support). 

Their human rights are at the expense of ours. This is political correctness gone mad.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the act because the UK can't extradite terrorists because this breaches their human rights ie they could get tortured back home. This puts the human rights of terrorists ahead of the human rights of the population who have the human right not to be blown up getting the tube or bus.

A lifer in prison also has the human right to get married in prison and have IVF treatment (right to a family under the act) – despite the fact  he's a murderer (hardly the best father) and in prison (can't be there for the child). This puts the human rights of a murderer ahead of his victim and society (forced to pay for IVF and benefits for the child who he clearly can't support). 

Their human rights are at the expense of ours. This is political correctness gone mad.

Repeal the Law for Aggravated Offences

The idea that crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred should attract a differential sentencing premium of 40% to 70% should be scrapped.  Justice should be blind.  It is no business of the State to punish 'thought crimes' which is what these laws try to do.

If I murdered a Jew because I hated Jews (I don't actually), why should I be punished more severely than if I murdered a prostitute because I hate prostitutes (which, I hasten to add, I don't).

The State is creating favoured Client groups who will use there 'protected status' to obtain advatanges over unprotected groups.

Britain must become again a Free and Fair country.  Ban these divisive laws that seek to punish 'thought crimes'.

Why is this idea important?

The idea that crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred should attract a differential sentencing premium of 40% to 70% should be scrapped.  Justice should be blind.  It is no business of the State to punish 'thought crimes' which is what these laws try to do.

If I murdered a Jew because I hated Jews (I don't actually), why should I be punished more severely than if I murdered a prostitute because I hate prostitutes (which, I hasten to add, I don't).

The State is creating favoured Client groups who will use there 'protected status' to obtain advatanges over unprotected groups.

Britain must become again a Free and Fair country.  Ban these divisive laws that seek to punish 'thought crimes'.

The Right to Silence

The Government should seriously consider the position of section 34-36 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the fundamental right of the accused to remain silent.

A corner stone of the English legal system is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant's guilt, it has been describes as the "golden thread" running through the law of the land, not the defendant establishing his innocence. The principle therefore is simple: the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt. Despite this fundamental principle numerous governments have eroded this right and place positive obligations on an accused to speak, rather than relying on the prosecution to establish quilt.

 

If Nick Clegg is serious about civil liberties, which I doubt, he would reverse the burden place on the defendant and revert back to the prosecution whereby the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

Why is this idea important?

The Government should seriously consider the position of section 34-36 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the fundamental right of the accused to remain silent.

A corner stone of the English legal system is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant's guilt, it has been describes as the "golden thread" running through the law of the land, not the defendant establishing his innocence. The principle therefore is simple: the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt. Despite this fundamental principle numerous governments have eroded this right and place positive obligations on an accused to speak, rather than relying on the prosecution to establish quilt.

 

If Nick Clegg is serious about civil liberties, which I doubt, he would reverse the burden place on the defendant and revert back to the prosecution whereby the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

self-defence

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Why is this idea important?

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Nullify Human Rights for Criminals and restore CAPITAL punishment

It is clear that the legal 'professionals' are abusing the Human Rights laws to the benefit of criminals.  Since the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) started INTERFERING in our legal process the bias has shifted from the victim to the criminal.

When a criminal CHOOSES to commit a crime that affects another human being and their human rights then the criminal should be choosing to forego their entitlement to Human Rights.  The criminals in our society however go whimpering to the ECHR about how harsh our sentences are or how our prisons are not comfortable enough and they WIN!  Our prisons are like hotels for the career criminals where they live in better conditions than many people in society.

A victim of crime DOESN'T CHOOSE to be a victim.  The victim DOESN'T DECIDE TO FOREGO THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS and thus let the criminal attack them.  Instead they have it thrust upon them by a selfish and callous animal.  The victim, if the criminal is captured, then faces a court battle to see justice done and when they think it has been the ECHR interferes and reduces the sentence or overturns it completely. FARCICAL.

It is high time that our legal system stopped pandering to the bleeding hearts and returned to a time when the law was feared, when sentences were harsh and prisons uncomfortable.  Some will say that the old system treated them like animals.  My opinion and I am sure the opinion of many others too is that CRIMINALS ARE ANIMALS and animals are NOT Human and therefore are NOT entitled to HUMAN RIGHTS.  They choose to act like animals and I respectfully suggest they be treated as such and therefore have entitlement to Human Rights legislation and protection revoked as a punishment for their actions and choices.

Regarding serious crime, murder and the like, where evidence is irrefutable then I would suggest that, on the same vein, that as VISCOUS ANIMALS these individuals should be treated how society treats a dog that attacks a human.  They should face CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.  This would be the justice they deserve as animals.

Return law and order to our streets, protect the honest citizens and make justice a tool to inspire fear in the criminal classes as it should be.  ACT NOW BEFORE OUR SOCIETY DETERIORATES FURTHER.  THE DECENT AND LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ARE LOOKING TO YOU FOR HELP BUT AS YET NONE IS COMING!!  LET THERE BE HOPE.

Why is this idea important?

It is clear that the legal 'professionals' are abusing the Human Rights laws to the benefit of criminals.  Since the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) started INTERFERING in our legal process the bias has shifted from the victim to the criminal.

When a criminal CHOOSES to commit a crime that affects another human being and their human rights then the criminal should be choosing to forego their entitlement to Human Rights.  The criminals in our society however go whimpering to the ECHR about how harsh our sentences are or how our prisons are not comfortable enough and they WIN!  Our prisons are like hotels for the career criminals where they live in better conditions than many people in society.

A victim of crime DOESN'T CHOOSE to be a victim.  The victim DOESN'T DECIDE TO FOREGO THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS and thus let the criminal attack them.  Instead they have it thrust upon them by a selfish and callous animal.  The victim, if the criminal is captured, then faces a court battle to see justice done and when they think it has been the ECHR interferes and reduces the sentence or overturns it completely. FARCICAL.

It is high time that our legal system stopped pandering to the bleeding hearts and returned to a time when the law was feared, when sentences were harsh and prisons uncomfortable.  Some will say that the old system treated them like animals.  My opinion and I am sure the opinion of many others too is that CRIMINALS ARE ANIMALS and animals are NOT Human and therefore are NOT entitled to HUMAN RIGHTS.  They choose to act like animals and I respectfully suggest they be treated as such and therefore have entitlement to Human Rights legislation and protection revoked as a punishment for their actions and choices.

Regarding serious crime, murder and the like, where evidence is irrefutable then I would suggest that, on the same vein, that as VISCOUS ANIMALS these individuals should be treated how society treats a dog that attacks a human.  They should face CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.  This would be the justice they deserve as animals.

Return law and order to our streets, protect the honest citizens and make justice a tool to inspire fear in the criminal classes as it should be.  ACT NOW BEFORE OUR SOCIETY DETERIORATES FURTHER.  THE DECENT AND LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ARE LOOKING TO YOU FOR HELP BUT AS YET NONE IS COMING!!  LET THERE BE HOPE.

Criminal Record Retention

The length of time that some criminal offences are kept on record is inappropriate, unjust, and disproportionate to the crimes themselves. Draconian would not be a hyperbole.

For example, I was 'cautioned' at the age of thirteen for possession of a class B substance (a very small amount of Cannabis) and, despite not having been cautioned, warned, charged, or convicted of a single offence since, the caution is still on my record. It can never be deleted.

It has cost me jobs in the past and I am sure it will lend itself to further prejudice from employers in the future. I recently graduated from one of the top universities in Europe and yet this blemish on my record continues to blight my future job prospects and earning potential. Is that what criminal justice is supposed to be about? Would that be a fair and moral punishment for such a minor offence?

I have held lengthy conversations with the police force about this and they have generally been both helpful and honest. They too seem to share my bemusement and frustration over the present system. 

All I can hope for now is that my caution is 'stepped down', a term that means it can be hidden from employers but not from the police force. The 'step down period' of possession of a class B substance for a young offender is, astonishingly, 10 years. Possession of a class B substance is deemed to be an Offence Group A crime, along with other fairly harmless stuff like 'Genocide', 'Murder', 'Rape', and, my personal favourite, 'Infanticide' (that's the practice of intentionally killing an infant). So, as a young member of society, I have been lumped together with murderers, rapists, and the genocidally insane. Great.

Now, I am well aware that the laws regarding criminal record retention changed in 2006 after the Ian Huntley case. The previous system (the one that existed before 2006) deleted, or was supposed to delete, all warnings, cautions, charges and convictions from a young offender's record once they had turned 18. But guess what? In 2006 I had already turned 18. I was in fact 20 years of age. My caution was supposed to have been deleted 2 years previously. But, alas, it was not and is still sitting pretty on my criminal record. Good old fashioned British police negligence. It really does bring a tear to one's eye.

What I propose is quite simple really. This system needs a complete overhaul. Why equate smoking cannabis to raping and murdering a young child? What sort of message does that give? Individuals like me, who have committed such minor offences, should clearly not be castigated by a punitive and unfair system. This needs changing. Now.

Why is this idea important?

The length of time that some criminal offences are kept on record is inappropriate, unjust, and disproportionate to the crimes themselves. Draconian would not be a hyperbole.

For example, I was 'cautioned' at the age of thirteen for possession of a class B substance (a very small amount of Cannabis) and, despite not having been cautioned, warned, charged, or convicted of a single offence since, the caution is still on my record. It can never be deleted.

It has cost me jobs in the past and I am sure it will lend itself to further prejudice from employers in the future. I recently graduated from one of the top universities in Europe and yet this blemish on my record continues to blight my future job prospects and earning potential. Is that what criminal justice is supposed to be about? Would that be a fair and moral punishment for such a minor offence?

I have held lengthy conversations with the police force about this and they have generally been both helpful and honest. They too seem to share my bemusement and frustration over the present system. 

All I can hope for now is that my caution is 'stepped down', a term that means it can be hidden from employers but not from the police force. The 'step down period' of possession of a class B substance for a young offender is, astonishingly, 10 years. Possession of a class B substance is deemed to be an Offence Group A crime, along with other fairly harmless stuff like 'Genocide', 'Murder', 'Rape', and, my personal favourite, 'Infanticide' (that's the practice of intentionally killing an infant). So, as a young member of society, I have been lumped together with murderers, rapists, and the genocidally insane. Great.

Now, I am well aware that the laws regarding criminal record retention changed in 2006 after the Ian Huntley case. The previous system (the one that existed before 2006) deleted, or was supposed to delete, all warnings, cautions, charges and convictions from a young offender's record once they had turned 18. But guess what? In 2006 I had already turned 18. I was in fact 20 years of age. My caution was supposed to have been deleted 2 years previously. But, alas, it was not and is still sitting pretty on my criminal record. Good old fashioned British police negligence. It really does bring a tear to one's eye.

What I propose is quite simple really. This system needs a complete overhaul. Why equate smoking cannabis to raping and murdering a young child? What sort of message does that give? Individuals like me, who have committed such minor offences, should clearly not be castigated by a punitive and unfair system. This needs changing. Now.

TEACH THE POLICE TO STOP BULLYING AND MARGINALISING PEOPLE

IT SHOULD BE AN OFFENCE FOR A POLICEMAN TO COME UP TO YOU AND ASK : "IS THAT YOUR GIRLFRIEND"    OR   "IS THAT A SURF CAR!!"       THEY REALLY DO. 

Why is this idea important?

IT SHOULD BE AN OFFENCE FOR A POLICEMAN TO COME UP TO YOU AND ASK : "IS THAT YOUR GIRLFRIEND"    OR   "IS THAT A SURF CAR!!"       THEY REALLY DO. 

Save government money, cut crime, control drugs rather than fight them

There was a time when the number of addicts in thius country was very small, there were no people living on the proceeds of drug dealing and no crime committed to provide money for addicts to buy drugs.

Unfortunately because only a few doctors were prepared to prescribe, and they would only do so privately, the few addicts sold a very small amount of their pharmaceutically pure prescription to pay the doctor. So the number of addicts increased to approximately 200 UK-wide.

Then the media created a frenzyn and the government of the day reacted by making it illegal for doctors to prescribe Class A drugs to addicts unless they were specially licensed psychiatrists operating in drug dependancy centres. There was a waiting period for these centres and the drugs became difficult to obtain. So, initially illegal heroin known as 'Chinese' appeared on the streets of London. More addicts were created and these addicts had to commit crimes in order to buy drugs.

This has now reached a point where at least 70% of all crime is drug-related and addicts plus dealers can be found everywhere, even in the smallest village.

The special centres rarely get addicts clean. Instead they often supply methadone, a drug that has only been used long-term comparitively recently, for the life of the addict. How long that addict lives depends on whether they are ready to stop, and so become addicted to methadone, which has a longer withdrawal period and a risk of an irregular heartbeat, or if they sell the methadone, commit crimes, and buy illegal heroin.

My proposal is to repeal the laws banning ordinary doctors from prescribing these drugs, instead educating and ensuring that NHS GPs in all areas are willing to prescribe.

That would remove the market for illegal drugs so there would be no drug dealers. It would remove all crime associated with the taking of these drugs by addicts because they wouldn't need large amounts of money to buy them, therefore saving money and freeing a great deal of police resources for other things. It would also ease pressure on hospitals that have to deal with the results of addicts taking impure drugs with unknown strength. It would also free up a large number of prison places.

Also, such a step would remove a great deal of the glamour that many young people see in taking these drugs. Instewad, with the right education, addiction would be seen as an illness, and what young person wants to be ill?

I believe this would save the government several billions to start with, taken from savin gs in the health service, police, and prisons. Eventually the number of addicts would drop considerably and the government would gain money from prescription charges.

Of course drugs that are currently illegal could be sold in appropriate places, taxed, with the price controlled by the state, but unless the cost was very low crime would continue, although probably to a lessser degree. I don'yt think pensioners (the number of whom are growing) dependant on these drugs for most of their lives should have to pay, especially if they have worked and paid taxes for most of their lives.

Why is this idea important?

There was a time when the number of addicts in thius country was very small, there were no people living on the proceeds of drug dealing and no crime committed to provide money for addicts to buy drugs.

Unfortunately because only a few doctors were prepared to prescribe, and they would only do so privately, the few addicts sold a very small amount of their pharmaceutically pure prescription to pay the doctor. So the number of addicts increased to approximately 200 UK-wide.

Then the media created a frenzyn and the government of the day reacted by making it illegal for doctors to prescribe Class A drugs to addicts unless they were specially licensed psychiatrists operating in drug dependancy centres. There was a waiting period for these centres and the drugs became difficult to obtain. So, initially illegal heroin known as 'Chinese' appeared on the streets of London. More addicts were created and these addicts had to commit crimes in order to buy drugs.

This has now reached a point where at least 70% of all crime is drug-related and addicts plus dealers can be found everywhere, even in the smallest village.

The special centres rarely get addicts clean. Instead they often supply methadone, a drug that has only been used long-term comparitively recently, for the life of the addict. How long that addict lives depends on whether they are ready to stop, and so become addicted to methadone, which has a longer withdrawal period and a risk of an irregular heartbeat, or if they sell the methadone, commit crimes, and buy illegal heroin.

My proposal is to repeal the laws banning ordinary doctors from prescribing these drugs, instead educating and ensuring that NHS GPs in all areas are willing to prescribe.

That would remove the market for illegal drugs so there would be no drug dealers. It would remove all crime associated with the taking of these drugs by addicts because they wouldn't need large amounts of money to buy them, therefore saving money and freeing a great deal of police resources for other things. It would also ease pressure on hospitals that have to deal with the results of addicts taking impure drugs with unknown strength. It would also free up a large number of prison places.

Also, such a step would remove a great deal of the glamour that many young people see in taking these drugs. Instewad, with the right education, addiction would be seen as an illness, and what young person wants to be ill?

I believe this would save the government several billions to start with, taken from savin gs in the health service, police, and prisons. Eventually the number of addicts would drop considerably and the government would gain money from prescription charges.

Of course drugs that are currently illegal could be sold in appropriate places, taxed, with the price controlled by the state, but unless the cost was very low crime would continue, although probably to a lessser degree. I don'yt think pensioners (the number of whom are growing) dependant on these drugs for most of their lives should have to pay, especially if they have worked and paid taxes for most of their lives.

Do NOT bring back capital punishment and here’s why…

Horrific crimes often generate a knee jerk reaction resulting in a call for the resurrection of capital punishment in the United Kingdom. This is not the answer to crime in Britain and here is why.

1. The death penalty is often cited as being  a deterrent to crime. This is debatable but there is no conclusive evidence for this. The Southern United States has the highest execution rate in the country and also the highest murder rate. Chicken or egg? It hardly matters.

Some research suggests that far from deterring murders, capital punishment has a brutalising effect upon society and can actually increase the number of murders per year.

2. Why should people be kept in jail for the rest of their lives at the expense of the taxpayer? Believe it or not it's actually often more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. It cost the state of Florida $3 million to execute serial killer Ted Bundy, it would have cost $1.5 million to keep him in prison until he was 80.

This is due to the lengthy appeals process that MUST be undertaken in order to ensure that an innocent person is not put to death. Most defendants cannot afford the team of lawyers that are required for a capital case, so these must be provided by the state. This is very costly and can go on for years, sometimes decades while the appeals play out.

It is also more expensive to keep someone on death row than in the normal prison population. Condemned prisoners must be kept under almost 24 hour guard in solitary confinement. This is also far more expensive than life in prison.

3. No justice system is faultless. It's bad enough that people have spent years in prison before being found innocent on appeal. Executing someone is final and cannot be reversed. DNA evidence is not a magic bullet and was never intended to be. It merely provides a chronological narrative of movements. For more information on this search for 'the CSI effect'.

4. Having the death penalty for a crime where the victim does not die, such as paedophilia,is counter-productive. If the penalty is the same as if they victim dies, the perpetrator has no reason not to kill the victim to escape identification.

5. Either human life is sacred or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. Once exceptions are made to human rights, it's a slippery slope.

6. Executing a murderer does not bring the victim back. Many victim's families in the United States have campaigned to save the life of their relative's killer, over their opposition to the death penalty.

Why is this idea important?

Horrific crimes often generate a knee jerk reaction resulting in a call for the resurrection of capital punishment in the United Kingdom. This is not the answer to crime in Britain and here is why.

1. The death penalty is often cited as being  a deterrent to crime. This is debatable but there is no conclusive evidence for this. The Southern United States has the highest execution rate in the country and also the highest murder rate. Chicken or egg? It hardly matters.

Some research suggests that far from deterring murders, capital punishment has a brutalising effect upon society and can actually increase the number of murders per year.

2. Why should people be kept in jail for the rest of their lives at the expense of the taxpayer? Believe it or not it's actually often more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. It cost the state of Florida $3 million to execute serial killer Ted Bundy, it would have cost $1.5 million to keep him in prison until he was 80.

This is due to the lengthy appeals process that MUST be undertaken in order to ensure that an innocent person is not put to death. Most defendants cannot afford the team of lawyers that are required for a capital case, so these must be provided by the state. This is very costly and can go on for years, sometimes decades while the appeals play out.

It is also more expensive to keep someone on death row than in the normal prison population. Condemned prisoners must be kept under almost 24 hour guard in solitary confinement. This is also far more expensive than life in prison.

3. No justice system is faultless. It's bad enough that people have spent years in prison before being found innocent on appeal. Executing someone is final and cannot be reversed. DNA evidence is not a magic bullet and was never intended to be. It merely provides a chronological narrative of movements. For more information on this search for 'the CSI effect'.

4. Having the death penalty for a crime where the victim does not die, such as paedophilia,is counter-productive. If the penalty is the same as if they victim dies, the perpetrator has no reason not to kill the victim to escape identification.

5. Either human life is sacred or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. Once exceptions are made to human rights, it's a slippery slope.

6. Executing a murderer does not bring the victim back. Many victim's families in the United States have campaigned to save the life of their relative's killer, over their opposition to the death penalty.

Referendum on Capital and Corporal Punishment.

I have just watched your message at the front of the page, and for you to say that you will definitely not re-introduce the Death Penalty and Corporal Punishment, really is going against what this website is for really.

You can't just ask people for their views and then when they do produce their views just shove it to one side because you don't like it.

You are a representative of the nation, and these two penalties were taken away without the proper consultation of the general public.

With your own admissions, the prisons are full to bursting, and we are not in a postion to keep building new ones.

The most dangerous view that is being put forward by Kenneth Clarke is to release some prisoners for community service.

The problem with that is the person is not being punished. The law is a laughing stock, because criminals know that they will only get a slapped wrist and don't do it again routine. The next minute, there is another victim of crime by the same prisioner you let out early.

How many people should be brutally attacked, or even murdered, before the government sits up and takes notice that this shouldn't be happening in our society.

People should be able to walk down the street without fearing attack. The blight that the illegal drugs has on the effect on not just the users and families, but of neighbourhoods, with people afraid to the shops, or being afraid of waking up with a man stood over your bed with a machettee, because he is looking for someone that he is going to either maim or murder.

Prisons help to stop these criminals from terrorising our country, however with there not being enough room within prison, you are letting others free to cause mayham again.

With cutbacks looming with the Police and frontline services, people are being left vunerable, and they cannot take the law into their own hands.

Will the public be consulted about the laws you are repealing?

Why is this idea important?

I have just watched your message at the front of the page, and for you to say that you will definitely not re-introduce the Death Penalty and Corporal Punishment, really is going against what this website is for really.

You can't just ask people for their views and then when they do produce their views just shove it to one side because you don't like it.

You are a representative of the nation, and these two penalties were taken away without the proper consultation of the general public.

With your own admissions, the prisons are full to bursting, and we are not in a postion to keep building new ones.

The most dangerous view that is being put forward by Kenneth Clarke is to release some prisoners for community service.

The problem with that is the person is not being punished. The law is a laughing stock, because criminals know that they will only get a slapped wrist and don't do it again routine. The next minute, there is another victim of crime by the same prisioner you let out early.

How many people should be brutally attacked, or even murdered, before the government sits up and takes notice that this shouldn't be happening in our society.

People should be able to walk down the street without fearing attack. The blight that the illegal drugs has on the effect on not just the users and families, but of neighbourhoods, with people afraid to the shops, or being afraid of waking up with a man stood over your bed with a machettee, because he is looking for someone that he is going to either maim or murder.

Prisons help to stop these criminals from terrorising our country, however with there not being enough room within prison, you are letting others free to cause mayham again.

With cutbacks looming with the Police and frontline services, people are being left vunerable, and they cannot take the law into their own hands.

Will the public be consulted about the laws you are repealing?

Review of Firearms legislation

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

Seems a shame that the British shooting team must practice in Switzerland when the very hub of marksmanship was Bisley. It's also a shame that this elite class will always remain elite if competitors are effectively selected out by legislation rather than their skill level.

Why is this idea important?

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

Seems a shame that the British shooting team must practice in Switzerland when the very hub of marksmanship was Bisley. It's also a shame that this elite class will always remain elite if competitors are effectively selected out by legislation rather than their skill level.

Do NOT decriminalize cannabis…

…LEGALIZE it.

It is important people undrestund the difference between legalizing and decriminalizing.

Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.

Legalization is a process often applied to what are regarded, by those working towards legalization, as victimless crimes, of which one example is the consumption of illegal drugs .

Legalization should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations.

Why is this idea important?

…LEGALIZE it.

It is important people undrestund the difference between legalizing and decriminalizing.

Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.

Legalization is a process often applied to what are regarded, by those working towards legalization, as victimless crimes, of which one example is the consumption of illegal drugs .

Legalization should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations.

Intruders into househoulds should lose all rights – and househoulders who injure intruders should not face arrest, court etc.e

Intruders should LOSE ALL RIGHTS on entering a property – it is utterly disgraceful that home owners in particular can end up in jail for defending themselves or their loved ones. In Singapore a martial arts expert thumped a robber who had stolen a lady’s handbag – he was a hero in the Straits Times. In the UK he would have been arrested and thrown into jail, which is just disgraceful. We need to protect ourselves without fear of landing in jail like the Asian businessman who damaged a miscreant who had tied him and his wife up – he was right, and if the intruder was badly damaged then the Asian had saved us all from further intrusion.

Why is this idea important?

Intruders should LOSE ALL RIGHTS on entering a property – it is utterly disgraceful that home owners in particular can end up in jail for defending themselves or their loved ones. In Singapore a martial arts expert thumped a robber who had stolen a lady’s handbag – he was a hero in the Straits Times. In the UK he would have been arrested and thrown into jail, which is just disgraceful. We need to protect ourselves without fear of landing in jail like the Asian businessman who damaged a miscreant who had tied him and his wife up – he was right, and if the intruder was badly damaged then the Asian had saved us all from further intrusion.

Stop the Criminal Justice Acts

Once upon a time there was a Criminal Justice Act every ten years. Now they come thick and fast as governments decide that there are too many/too few people in prison or believe they have the answer to recidivism.

As to the first, the judges have said that the Acts are drafted so badly that even they don't understand them.

As to the second, there is no magic cure to recidivism. Believe me, I have lived through them all. (Just reflect a moment on the last occasion when a government decided that short prison sentences were undesirable. The prison population shot up.)

Why is this idea important?

Once upon a time there was a Criminal Justice Act every ten years. Now they come thick and fast as governments decide that there are too many/too few people in prison or believe they have the answer to recidivism.

As to the first, the judges have said that the Acts are drafted so badly that even they don't understand them.

As to the second, there is no magic cure to recidivism. Believe me, I have lived through them all. (Just reflect a moment on the last occasion when a government decided that short prison sentences were undesirable. The prison population shot up.)

ASBO AND CRASBOS TO GAG AND SILENCE

MAKE IT ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL FOR THE CROWN PROSECUTION TO MAKE ASBOS AND CRASBOS WHICH LIMIT THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE WAY THEY WERE ARRESTED, CHARGED AND CONVICTED

Why is this idea important?

MAKE IT ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL FOR THE CROWN PROSECUTION TO MAKE ASBOS AND CRASBOS WHICH LIMIT THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE WAY THEY WERE ARRESTED, CHARGED AND CONVICTED

A sensible right to self/home defence

Lots of talk about owning guns etc for self defence. Although I now live in the USA and own guns and have a concealed carry pemit I agree it is not in the British psyche. However current law forbids anyone to carry anything which can be conceived as a weapon and this is wrong. Any mugger knows that it is unlikely that their victim can defend themselves – so the nurse coming off a late shift and having to take the tube home when it is deserted then walk from the station to home is vulnerable. For gods sake make some defence items legal such as pepper spray, short baton whatever. The criminals have them because they are criminals, like they carry knives – more legislation on knives only affects the law abiding citizen. For years even before I came to the US I carried a lock knife with a 3" blade thinking it was legal – I now discover I was breaking the law. That is crazy as I carry it out of habit and use it daily for all sorts of things. I feel naked without it. My wife as a nurse often used to walk from Ancoats hospital with her scissors in her hand in her coat pocket.

Why is this idea important?

Lots of talk about owning guns etc for self defence. Although I now live in the USA and own guns and have a concealed carry pemit I agree it is not in the British psyche. However current law forbids anyone to carry anything which can be conceived as a weapon and this is wrong. Any mugger knows that it is unlikely that their victim can defend themselves – so the nurse coming off a late shift and having to take the tube home when it is deserted then walk from the station to home is vulnerable. For gods sake make some defence items legal such as pepper spray, short baton whatever. The criminals have them because they are criminals, like they carry knives – more legislation on knives only affects the law abiding citizen. For years even before I came to the US I carried a lock knife with a 3" blade thinking it was legal – I now discover I was breaking the law. That is crazy as I carry it out of habit and use it daily for all sorts of things. I feel naked without it. My wife as a nurse often used to walk from Ancoats hospital with her scissors in her hand in her coat pocket.

Allow “previous history” to be fully taken into consideration when sentencing

At present, when a judge decides a sentence for an offender, only previous *related* offences are taken into consideration.

Thus, for instance, if the current crime being judged is for car theft, a previous history of convictions for shoplifting or housebreaking or assault is not taken into consideration because these are not considered relevant to car theft.

A single person can become an entire crime wave, yet still get off with nothing more than a trivial punishment for each crime, as long as they remain *unrelated* to each other.

Which seems pretty daft to me, and shows that justice in this country is aimed more at raising revenue for the government than setting the standards that people should live by.

Why is this idea important?

At present, when a judge decides a sentence for an offender, only previous *related* offences are taken into consideration.

Thus, for instance, if the current crime being judged is for car theft, a previous history of convictions for shoplifting or housebreaking or assault is not taken into consideration because these are not considered relevant to car theft.

A single person can become an entire crime wave, yet still get off with nothing more than a trivial punishment for each crime, as long as they remain *unrelated* to each other.

Which seems pretty daft to me, and shows that justice in this country is aimed more at raising revenue for the government than setting the standards that people should live by.

Add concept of ‘Good Guest’ to Human Rights Act

Many of of the complaints about the HRA revolve around foreigners who commit crimes here and resist deportation on the basis that they would be unfairly treated if deported.

I strongly believe that a visitor to my home or my country should behave well. If they abuse hospitality then they do not deserve to enjoy it any more and should be ejected.

It is highly probable that a criminal here fearing harsh treatment at home would only receive that harsh treatment because they were equally criminal there.

I suggest that any criminal who receives a sentence of more than 3 months for any deliberate crime, or any person that is convicted of inciting others to violent or crimininal acts should have the protection of the HRA against deportation automatically removed. Such a Bad Guest could then be liable to deportation after due process of UK law.

 

Why is this idea important?

Many of of the complaints about the HRA revolve around foreigners who commit crimes here and resist deportation on the basis that they would be unfairly treated if deported.

I strongly believe that a visitor to my home or my country should behave well. If they abuse hospitality then they do not deserve to enjoy it any more and should be ejected.

It is highly probable that a criminal here fearing harsh treatment at home would only receive that harsh treatment because they were equally criminal there.

I suggest that any criminal who receives a sentence of more than 3 months for any deliberate crime, or any person that is convicted of inciting others to violent or crimininal acts should have the protection of the HRA against deportation automatically removed. Such a Bad Guest could then be liable to deportation after due process of UK law.

 

Clear and precise review of existing self defence laws

I'd like to see an extension to the current self defence laws. We've all seen instances where householders have been taken to court for protecting their family from intruders. This needs to stop. It's the reason why people put their head down and walk on when they see a crime taking place in the street. They have a genuine fear of prosecution. 

Youths harassing vulnerable members of our communities know the law is on their side, particularly if they are under age. 

I'd like to see the law open to allowing disabled people, elderly people and victims of serious crime the right to own a pepper spray/taser, even initially only in their own homes. This would be subject to a licence which would be retracted if the law of use was breached. They are not always as capable of self defence as other members of the community and should be afforded additional help and assurances. 

I'd like to see the police working with the community, offering free self defence classes to those most at risk. This would help build relationships back between police and public. 

The public needs to have it's confidence restored because there aren't enough police to be on every street corner. People must be confident that self defence will be unlikely to result in prosecution, especially if someone breaks into their house. The law should presume the intruder is armed and willing to use a weapon and allow the occupier to use self defence accordingly. 

Why is this idea important?

I'd like to see an extension to the current self defence laws. We've all seen instances where householders have been taken to court for protecting their family from intruders. This needs to stop. It's the reason why people put their head down and walk on when they see a crime taking place in the street. They have a genuine fear of prosecution. 

Youths harassing vulnerable members of our communities know the law is on their side, particularly if they are under age. 

I'd like to see the law open to allowing disabled people, elderly people and victims of serious crime the right to own a pepper spray/taser, even initially only in their own homes. This would be subject to a licence which would be retracted if the law of use was breached. They are not always as capable of self defence as other members of the community and should be afforded additional help and assurances. 

I'd like to see the police working with the community, offering free self defence classes to those most at risk. This would help build relationships back between police and public. 

The public needs to have it's confidence restored because there aren't enough police to be on every street corner. People must be confident that self defence will be unlikely to result in prosecution, especially if someone breaks into their house. The law should presume the intruder is armed and willing to use a weapon and allow the occupier to use self defence accordingly. 

Remove 90% of all government surveillance cameras

 

This country is like a prison camp, people feel so invaded by largely useless and intrusive surveillance, that many of us would like to emigrate. These are not security cameras they are "secure the authorities" cameras. They will eventually be used against our citizens to prevent political dissent. Democracy cannot protect us from this if all parties become so ideologically similar that suppression of the people becomes their common aim. Take the cameras down in all but the most dangerous areas, or where people of a particular community request them.

Why is this idea important?

 

This country is like a prison camp, people feel so invaded by largely useless and intrusive surveillance, that many of us would like to emigrate. These are not security cameras they are "secure the authorities" cameras. They will eventually be used against our citizens to prevent political dissent. Democracy cannot protect us from this if all parties become so ideologically similar that suppression of the people becomes their common aim. Take the cameras down in all but the most dangerous areas, or where people of a particular community request them.

Do Police Ever Patrol In Groups Of Less Than Two?

Police seem always to walk the streets or attend ordinary events in groups. You see them in twos, threes and more. Why is this? Ordinary members of the public routinely walk about at all times on their own, so why do police need to be in large groups? If we are a civilised society, do police really need to go mob handed at all times?

My idea is that police should patrol singly unless there is a pressing operational imperative to go with more than one person to attend an incident or event.

Why is this idea important?

Police seem always to walk the streets or attend ordinary events in groups. You see them in twos, threes and more. Why is this? Ordinary members of the public routinely walk about at all times on their own, so why do police need to be in large groups? If we are a civilised society, do police really need to go mob handed at all times?

My idea is that police should patrol singly unless there is a pressing operational imperative to go with more than one person to attend an incident or event.