Deport foreign criminals upon sentencing

If a foreign national commits a crime in this country and the conviction stipulates a prison sentence, they should be deported to their country of origin upon sentencing instead of being held in a British prison.

Why is this idea important?

If a foreign national commits a crime in this country and the conviction stipulates a prison sentence, they should be deported to their country of origin upon sentencing instead of being held in a British prison.

Stop police walking around our streets like drama queens armed to the teeth.

Police are now killing more innocent members of the public than the villans = walking around armed to the teeth like drama queens = they would save more lives carrying lollypops on school crossings instead of guns. and what is it all costing. = and where is it all going to end = call for concern I think.

Why is this idea important?

Police are now killing more innocent members of the public than the villans = walking around armed to the teeth like drama queens = they would save more lives carrying lollypops on school crossings instead of guns. and what is it all costing. = and where is it all going to end = call for concern I think.

Stop protecting the anonymity of teenagers convicted of violent crime

Amend the law which grants the right of anonymity to young offenders so that it does not apply to those aged 13 or over convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder and grievous bodily harm.

The law should be protecting the victims of these crimes, not the perpetrators.  What is more, the public should have the right to know the identity of someone who has been convicted of committing a very serious crime in their community.

By the age of 13 someone should be well aware that such crimes destroy the lives of the victims and the victims’ families and should thus suffer the full consequences of their actions.  The perpetrators of these crimes are violent thugs, not sweet, innocent ‘children’ who need mollycoddling and protecting, and the law should reflect this.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the law which grants the right of anonymity to young offenders so that it does not apply to those aged 13 or over convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder and grievous bodily harm.

The law should be protecting the victims of these crimes, not the perpetrators.  What is more, the public should have the right to know the identity of someone who has been convicted of committing a very serious crime in their community.

By the age of 13 someone should be well aware that such crimes destroy the lives of the victims and the victims’ families and should thus suffer the full consequences of their actions.  The perpetrators of these crimes are violent thugs, not sweet, innocent ‘children’ who need mollycoddling and protecting, and the law should reflect this.

Was that a Community Support Officer or Police Officer?

My idea is to differentiate the design of uniforms belonging to Community Support Officer volunteers from Police Officers so they can be easily distinguished at a distance.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to differentiate the design of uniforms belonging to Community Support Officer volunteers from Police Officers so they can be easily distinguished at a distance.

CyberCrime

We need a more definative law on cyber-crime and cyber-terrorism. At the moment the rules are blurred based on the detachment from social norm the internet provides. Considering this, I propose that the following be considered cyber-crime:

 

– Soliciting Miners

– Identity Theft

– Rick Rolling (Possibly the worst, my son told me he was 'rick rolled' at school by one of his teachers, but the police would do nothing.)

 

Any other suggestions from people about online acts which should be considered cyber crime?

Why is this idea important?

We need a more definative law on cyber-crime and cyber-terrorism. At the moment the rules are blurred based on the detachment from social norm the internet provides. Considering this, I propose that the following be considered cyber-crime:

 

– Soliciting Miners

– Identity Theft

– Rick Rolling (Possibly the worst, my son told me he was 'rick rolled' at school by one of his teachers, but the police would do nothing.)

 

Any other suggestions from people about online acts which should be considered cyber crime?

IMPRISON ALL PERSONS CARRYING UNJUSTIFIABLE WEAPONS

It is mostly obvious that persons involved in stabbings are carrying knives for that purpose. To say that the law shouldn't operate as it means butchers and other persons using knives professionally will not be carrying them in a way to commit a crime. This common sense approach should be adapted and to reinforce it persons under 20 convicted of carrying knives and other weapons with no good reason  or excuse should be given at least( 5) years in prison.

It would need an extremely zealous policeman and an idiot of a judge to convict a person who has legitimate reason or is being completely non threatening

Anybody using a knife to stab another should get a minimum of 15 years (served)excepting in proven self defence but proven to have not gone "tooled up". ie if carrying a knife when out clubbing or roaming the streets, Lock em up

Why is this idea important?

It is mostly obvious that persons involved in stabbings are carrying knives for that purpose. To say that the law shouldn't operate as it means butchers and other persons using knives professionally will not be carrying them in a way to commit a crime. This common sense approach should be adapted and to reinforce it persons under 20 convicted of carrying knives and other weapons with no good reason  or excuse should be given at least( 5) years in prison.

It would need an extremely zealous policeman and an idiot of a judge to convict a person who has legitimate reason or is being completely non threatening

Anybody using a knife to stab another should get a minimum of 15 years (served)excepting in proven self defence but proven to have not gone "tooled up". ie if carrying a knife when out clubbing or roaming the streets, Lock em up

RING-FENCE FUNDING FOR THE POLICE

The Police have ,I think, been asked to look at the effects of a 40% cut in their funding. While a straight cut of this magnitude is unlikely,  a cut of a lesser degree seems to be in the offing, before long.

 

I say no cut at all should be made.

Why is this idea important?

The Police have ,I think, been asked to look at the effects of a 40% cut in their funding. While a straight cut of this magnitude is unlikely,  a cut of a lesser degree seems to be in the offing, before long.

 

I say no cut at all should be made.

Repeal the Human Rights Act

I think that we should repeal, or stop becoming signatories to the Human Rights act.  Why should illegal immigrants be granted the right to remain in the UK simply because they are homosexual and that homosexuality is illegal in their own country?  I am also fed up with the European Human Rights court preventing us from sending ABU Hamza to the USA because he might get a sentance that is too long – the guy promotes Islamic terrorism.  Why are we fighting terrorists with one hand tied behind our back?

Why is this idea important?

I think that we should repeal, or stop becoming signatories to the Human Rights act.  Why should illegal immigrants be granted the right to remain in the UK simply because they are homosexual and that homosexuality is illegal in their own country?  I am also fed up with the European Human Rights court preventing us from sending ABU Hamza to the USA because he might get a sentance that is too long – the guy promotes Islamic terrorism.  Why are we fighting terrorists with one hand tied behind our back?

Life without the posibility of parole.

Crimes which constitute a 'Life' sentence as imposed by a Judge should have the option to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Crimes such as murder should be catagorised as per the United States of America … and if an offender is convicted of Murder in the First Degree a sentence of 'Life without the possibility of parole' should be enforced. It's not fair on society that the judiciary can send someone to prison only for the probation service to say 'yes this individual is safe to be released' only for that offender to offend again. For people who cause the most heinous of crimes should not be given the possibility of parole and by doing so society will be safe in the knowledge such characters will be safely kept behind bars.

Why is this idea important?

Crimes which constitute a 'Life' sentence as imposed by a Judge should have the option to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Crimes such as murder should be catagorised as per the United States of America … and if an offender is convicted of Murder in the First Degree a sentence of 'Life without the possibility of parole' should be enforced. It's not fair on society that the judiciary can send someone to prison only for the probation service to say 'yes this individual is safe to be released' only for that offender to offend again. For people who cause the most heinous of crimes should not be given the possibility of parole and by doing so society will be safe in the knowledge such characters will be safely kept behind bars.

Remove the needless prohibition on drugs.

Remove the prohibition on drugs, this would allow for the government to quality control as well as make sure it doesn’t become easily available to children.

 

I don't know exactly how much it costs to search and penalise drug users and dealers, the figures I found estimate it to be around £500million per year.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/03/fresh-thinking-on-the-war-on-drugs/

 

The people arrested would then need to be imprisoned, this can add to the annual cost of the prison services as well as contribute towards prisons becoming overcrowded. Fewer prisons would need to be made, this saving further money for the country and more space available for homes/buildings.

 

Like alcohol it would need to be regulated and only licenced premises would be entitled to sell the product, depending on the drug to how much can be sold to an individual during a time period. Like alcohol, if the supplier feels that the person has bought too much for his own health then they would politely refuse the sale. Also like paracetamol, there can be restrictions on the amount purchased in one sale.

 

The prohibition helps to artificially inflate the price of the product; this can help fund illegal activities due to the profit that comes with products being sold in the 'black market'.

Without the prohibition the price of the product could be reduced, the reduction of the price would result in lower profits for the 'black market traders', thus removing a lot of traders who use it purely for a 'cash crop'.

 

As previously mentioned, the quality control can be implemented so that drugs would be less dangerous due to harmful substances included to pack out the weight.

Due to it being sold via legal regulated methods, the sales person should check to make sure it does not get into the hands of minors who are going through physiological maturity.

 

This would also fit into the scheme of more freedom for the individual who can purchase the product legally to consume; it should be only 'adults' who can purchase it and adults should be allowed the freedom to choose what they like to do to their own bodies.

 

If it was also legalised there can be tax added onto the product, this can equate to a very large figure annually.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-high-tech-success-against-soft-drugs

The site makes reference to 'soft drugs' being sold in Holland making an annual profit of 2 billion euros; this can be increased in the UK by including a larger scale of drugs, including 'hard drugs'.

 

We would need expert advice on how to distribute the products so it is easily available but not in open view of minors who can be easily persuaded by peer pressure.

 

The production of these products would also need to be regulated like current pharmasies regulate current legal drugs, which would include health warnings and guidelines of usage. Also the health and safty of the work place (place of production) would also ensure the safty of equipment used, reducing further risk to people not involved.

 

Due to a possable increase in health cost, part of the the profit from these products can go towards the medical care. This can also include help and advise on how to give up the addiction, like smokers can get help from there local GP.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the prohibition on drugs, this would allow for the government to quality control as well as make sure it doesn’t become easily available to children.

 

I don't know exactly how much it costs to search and penalise drug users and dealers, the figures I found estimate it to be around £500million per year.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/03/fresh-thinking-on-the-war-on-drugs/

 

The people arrested would then need to be imprisoned, this can add to the annual cost of the prison services as well as contribute towards prisons becoming overcrowded. Fewer prisons would need to be made, this saving further money for the country and more space available for homes/buildings.

 

Like alcohol it would need to be regulated and only licenced premises would be entitled to sell the product, depending on the drug to how much can be sold to an individual during a time period. Like alcohol, if the supplier feels that the person has bought too much for his own health then they would politely refuse the sale. Also like paracetamol, there can be restrictions on the amount purchased in one sale.

 

The prohibition helps to artificially inflate the price of the product; this can help fund illegal activities due to the profit that comes with products being sold in the 'black market'.

Without the prohibition the price of the product could be reduced, the reduction of the price would result in lower profits for the 'black market traders', thus removing a lot of traders who use it purely for a 'cash crop'.

 

As previously mentioned, the quality control can be implemented so that drugs would be less dangerous due to harmful substances included to pack out the weight.

Due to it being sold via legal regulated methods, the sales person should check to make sure it does not get into the hands of minors who are going through physiological maturity.

 

This would also fit into the scheme of more freedom for the individual who can purchase the product legally to consume; it should be only 'adults' who can purchase it and adults should be allowed the freedom to choose what they like to do to their own bodies.

 

If it was also legalised there can be tax added onto the product, this can equate to a very large figure annually.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-high-tech-success-against-soft-drugs

The site makes reference to 'soft drugs' being sold in Holland making an annual profit of 2 billion euros; this can be increased in the UK by including a larger scale of drugs, including 'hard drugs'.

 

We would need expert advice on how to distribute the products so it is easily available but not in open view of minors who can be easily persuaded by peer pressure.

 

The production of these products would also need to be regulated like current pharmasies regulate current legal drugs, which would include health warnings and guidelines of usage. Also the health and safty of the work place (place of production) would also ensure the safty of equipment used, reducing further risk to people not involved.

 

Due to a possable increase in health cost, part of the the profit from these products can go towards the medical care. This can also include help and advise on how to give up the addiction, like smokers can get help from there local GP.

empty shops….. coffee shops?

Now call me crazy, but surely everyone must have noticed the increasing amounts of empty shops in towns caused by the recession in this country. If some of these were turned in to Amsterdam style coffeeshops, I am fairly sure that they would stay open. The demand for cannabis is so great it is truly staggering, all I have heard for the past decade is disappointed cannabis users complaining how much effort it takes to get cannabis, I have heard stories of 400 mile round trips to obtain a few grams of grass. But no matter how hard it is to get, people always do.

There is nothing that this government can do to stop people obtaining and smoking cannabis, it will never end. 

Why not use this obvious mass market and make it a part of our (clearly failing) economy. We could easily regulate this plant and people will want to buy it. Don't get me wrong, a license to sell cannabis should be extremely difficult (but not impossible) to get, and very easy to lose.

Why is this idea important?

Now call me crazy, but surely everyone must have noticed the increasing amounts of empty shops in towns caused by the recession in this country. If some of these were turned in to Amsterdam style coffeeshops, I am fairly sure that they would stay open. The demand for cannabis is so great it is truly staggering, all I have heard for the past decade is disappointed cannabis users complaining how much effort it takes to get cannabis, I have heard stories of 400 mile round trips to obtain a few grams of grass. But no matter how hard it is to get, people always do.

There is nothing that this government can do to stop people obtaining and smoking cannabis, it will never end. 

Why not use this obvious mass market and make it a part of our (clearly failing) economy. We could easily regulate this plant and people will want to buy it. Don't get me wrong, a license to sell cannabis should be extremely difficult (but not impossible) to get, and very easy to lose.

Review of Prohibition

Just two things:–

1. The prohibition of drugs has been a complete failure and actually causes more damage.

2. We need to review all drugs, including tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, legal highs and illegal use of prescription-only medicines, on a level playing field with no preconceptions.

I would expect our liberal (?) government to set up a review as soon as possible with a view to making recommendations on a comprehensive reform of legislation on drug use and supply.  But perhaps they are too conservative(?) for this?

Think of the extra tax revenue we could raise during the recession!

Why is this idea important?

Just two things:–

1. The prohibition of drugs has been a complete failure and actually causes more damage.

2. We need to review all drugs, including tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, legal highs and illegal use of prescription-only medicines, on a level playing field with no preconceptions.

I would expect our liberal (?) government to set up a review as soon as possible with a view to making recommendations on a comprehensive reform of legislation on drug use and supply.  But perhaps they are too conservative(?) for this?

Think of the extra tax revenue we could raise during the recession!

Review Sentencing Laws, Adopt American Style Sentencing

I'm not  suggesting anything like 'life should mean life' or anything to that effect.

Currently if you commit 14 crimes in Britain, each with a certain servicable sentence you get a sentence on the judges calculations. Usually this would not be anything close to what the sentence would be if all the terms were added together.

Sentencing is concurrent so when you go to prison you serve sentences for all your crimes and convictions at the same time.

I suggest adopting American sentencing policy where you serve each sentence and conviction one after the other. When one sentence/conviction ends another begins.

Why is this idea important?

I'm not  suggesting anything like 'life should mean life' or anything to that effect.

Currently if you commit 14 crimes in Britain, each with a certain servicable sentence you get a sentence on the judges calculations. Usually this would not be anything close to what the sentence would be if all the terms were added together.

Sentencing is concurrent so when you go to prison you serve sentences for all your crimes and convictions at the same time.

I suggest adopting American sentencing policy where you serve each sentence and conviction one after the other. When one sentence/conviction ends another begins.

Put Lock Knives on the Same Standing as Folding Knives

The current situation where a penknife with a locking blade is illegal whereas a folding knife isn't is ludicrous.  Folding penknives are dangerous and result in far too many injuries.  THe law should be changes to allow a person to also carry a penknife with a locking blade of no more than 3 inches, the same requirement as the folding penknife.

The current law criminalises innocent people like myself who garden, fish and do woodcraft activities with their sons who have routinely carried a locking penknife since their early teens, in my case for over 30 years.

I doubt the restriction has made a single knife-wielding thug change their weapon of choice to a folding knife with a blade under 3 inches.

Why is this idea important?

The current situation where a penknife with a locking blade is illegal whereas a folding knife isn't is ludicrous.  Folding penknives are dangerous and result in far too many injuries.  THe law should be changes to allow a person to also carry a penknife with a locking blade of no more than 3 inches, the same requirement as the folding penknife.

The current law criminalises innocent people like myself who garden, fish and do woodcraft activities with their sons who have routinely carried a locking penknife since their early teens, in my case for over 30 years.

I doubt the restriction has made a single knife-wielding thug change their weapon of choice to a folding knife with a blade under 3 inches.

Inability to Deport Foreign Criminals and Terrorist Operatives

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

Sentencing rules with regards to consent

Scrap the sentencing guidelines which allow this:

Paedophiles who abuse children of 12 or under may receive shorter jail terms if their victims "consent" to sex, according to sentencing rules published this week.

The law currently considers such youngsters incapable of giving consent – so sexual intercourse is automatically classed as rape.

However, judges have now been told that it may be "material in relation to sentence" if the child agreed to intercourse.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the sentencing guidelines which allow this:

Paedophiles who abuse children of 12 or under may receive shorter jail terms if their victims "consent" to sex, according to sentencing rules published this week.

The law currently considers such youngsters incapable of giving consent – so sexual intercourse is automatically classed as rape.

However, judges have now been told that it may be "material in relation to sentence" if the child agreed to intercourse.

Repeal the age of consent for sex

I propose we repeal the sexual age of consent, replacing it with existing rape laws and a new system of 'relationship assessment', whereby all sex involving persons aged 13-18 will be illegal if deemed coercive or harmful by a court.

Why is this idea important?

I propose we repeal the sexual age of consent, replacing it with existing rape laws and a new system of 'relationship assessment', whereby all sex involving persons aged 13-18 will be illegal if deemed coercive or harmful by a court.

replica fire arms

get rid of stupid law which means replica must have various parts painted bright orange green red etc so that the public know they are not real. dah! if you wanted to use them for illegal reasons you would spray over this stupid paint with gun metal paint. so whats the point of the exercise. nanny state yet again.  there are plenty of REAL fire arms for sale in our inner cities so why punish collectors and retailers it is legal to buy a REAL decommisioned fire arm so how would public know that this wasnt working if it was waved in their face? 

Why is this idea important?

get rid of stupid law which means replica must have various parts painted bright orange green red etc so that the public know they are not real. dah! if you wanted to use them for illegal reasons you would spray over this stupid paint with gun metal paint. so whats the point of the exercise. nanny state yet again.  there are plenty of REAL fire arms for sale in our inner cities so why punish collectors and retailers it is legal to buy a REAL decommisioned fire arm so how would public know that this wasnt working if it was waved in their face? 

Inform us of new laws

All new laws affecting the British people should be summarised and put on a website every day and listed in national newspapers regularly.

We should also be told who made the laws – the EU or Westminster – and what the penalties are for breaking them.

Why is this idea important?

All new laws affecting the British people should be summarised and put on a website every day and listed in national newspapers regularly.

We should also be told who made the laws – the EU or Westminster – and what the penalties are for breaking them.

Make the offence of Gross Indecency subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

An act of homosexuality in a public toilet was deemed an act of Gross Indecency in 1975.  Anyone convicted in the Mill Hill Police area by the homophobic Officer who used to stand on milk crates outside the toilet window and who went on to frighten men to plead guilty as I did have suffered for years.  Gross Indecency is seen as a sexual offense and there is no 'good behaviour' slate-cleaning as a sexual offence is not subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders provisions, even what today might be considered a minor one.

So 35 years later, I must declare all the time I have a criminal record, I am prevented from doing any form of volentary work as a CRB check is required and that which I was doing, one for 25 years, I have had to give up as CRB checks are gradually introduced into every sphere.

I have not re offended, I have had no form of complaint against me since 1975 yet I am unable to be 'forgiven' and start a new life.  As things are, I will carry it to the grave despite my actual inocense, but that is not a consideration as the offense is a matter of public record.

Why is this idea important?

An act of homosexuality in a public toilet was deemed an act of Gross Indecency in 1975.  Anyone convicted in the Mill Hill Police area by the homophobic Officer who used to stand on milk crates outside the toilet window and who went on to frighten men to plead guilty as I did have suffered for years.  Gross Indecency is seen as a sexual offense and there is no 'good behaviour' slate-cleaning as a sexual offence is not subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders provisions, even what today might be considered a minor one.

So 35 years later, I must declare all the time I have a criminal record, I am prevented from doing any form of volentary work as a CRB check is required and that which I was doing, one for 25 years, I have had to give up as CRB checks are gradually introduced into every sphere.

I have not re offended, I have had no form of complaint against me since 1975 yet I am unable to be 'forgiven' and start a new life.  As things are, I will carry it to the grave despite my actual inocense, but that is not a consideration as the offense is a matter of public record.

You can steal from a dying relatives bank account and the police won’t get involved!!!

To change the law because at the moment a relative can steal from a dying man's bank account, watch his life slipping away and make transation after transaction and even though proof, bank statements, dates of admission to hospital etc are supplied to the police, they choose not to look at them and send you on your way. How is this justice? Thousands of pounds can be withdrawn. You can also ransack their house whilst they are dying in hospital, force locks on cash tins and empty cash tins. You can take thousands. The police call it a civil matter so won't get involved. How do I know? It happened at Hartlepool Police Station on Monday. I have made an official complaint. The man that this happened too was my granda. Where is his justice?

Why is this idea important?

To change the law because at the moment a relative can steal from a dying man's bank account, watch his life slipping away and make transation after transaction and even though proof, bank statements, dates of admission to hospital etc are supplied to the police, they choose not to look at them and send you on your way. How is this justice? Thousands of pounds can be withdrawn. You can also ransack their house whilst they are dying in hospital, force locks on cash tins and empty cash tins. You can take thousands. The police call it a civil matter so won't get involved. How do I know? It happened at Hartlepool Police Station on Monday. I have made an official complaint. The man that this happened too was my granda. Where is his justice?