Repeal the cartel offence (s.180 Enterprise Act 2002)

UK competition law provides for heavy fines for companies found to have formed cartels to fix prices, boycott competitors or share out markets (Competition Act 1998).  Individuals involved can be disqualified as directors – ruining any business career. 

In addition, however, the Labout Government decided to make it a criminal offence, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, for individuals to be engaged in cartel behaviour.  The offence is prosecuted by the Office of Fair Trading or Serious Fraud Office.

There is a strong case for that offence to be repealed.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

UK competition law provides for heavy fines for companies found to have formed cartels to fix prices, boycott competitors or share out markets (Competition Act 1998).  Individuals involved can be disqualified as directors – ruining any business career. 

In addition, however, the Labout Government decided to make it a criminal offence, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, for individuals to be engaged in cartel behaviour.  The offence is prosecuted by the Office of Fair Trading or Serious Fraud Office.

There is a strong case for that offence to be repealed.

 

 

REMOVE THE TARGET AND BONUS CULTURE FROM OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The target and bonus culture is  entrenched  in the Police and Crown Prosecution Service  and  this leads to manifest injutices  

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


Details provided under the Freedom of Information Act found that. The prosecuting authority receives 18.5 per cent of the money seized from people convicted of fraud and subjected to confiscation orders. The RCPO admitted that in 2008-09 it paid almost £44,000 in bonuses to its senior staff who met “agreed written objectives”.
 

Why is this idea important?

The target and bonus culture is  entrenched  in the Police and Crown Prosecution Service  and  this leads to manifest injutices  

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


Details provided under the Freedom of Information Act found that. The prosecuting authority receives 18.5 per cent of the money seized from people convicted of fraud and subjected to confiscation orders. The RCPO admitted that in 2008-09 it paid almost £44,000 in bonuses to its senior staff who met “agreed written objectives”.
 

RESTORE RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID IN CRIMINAL CASES

In June 2010  a law came into operation which makes it impossible for British People to have a Fair Trial. If you are accused now by the State you will have to pay to defend yourself unless you are on State Benefits.    for full details see  http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/docs/cds_main/Legal_aid_is_changing_-_briefing_pack.pdf


This means that the endless resources open to the State will be waged against you and you must either defend yourself in person or risk loosing your home in order to mount a defence.

If you are subject to a Restraing Order  freexing your assetts you will be in the invidious positon of  because of your assets having too much money to qualify for legal aid  but be unable to use your assetts to pay for leg assistance to defend yourself.
 

Why is this idea important?

In June 2010  a law came into operation which makes it impossible for British People to have a Fair Trial. If you are accused now by the State you will have to pay to defend yourself unless you are on State Benefits.    for full details see  http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/docs/cds_main/Legal_aid_is_changing_-_briefing_pack.pdf


This means that the endless resources open to the State will be waged against you and you must either defend yourself in person or risk loosing your home in order to mount a defence.

If you are subject to a Restraing Order  freexing your assetts you will be in the invidious positon of  because of your assets having too much money to qualify for legal aid  but be unable to use your assetts to pay for leg assistance to defend yourself.
 

Modernise the law of treason

Anyone who owes allegiance to the Queen – that is, British citizens anywhere, foreigners resident in this country and holders of British passports (even if obtained fraudulently) – commits treason if he:

  • levies war against the Queen in the UK,
  • is adherent to the Queen's enemies in the UK or elsewhere by giving to them aid and comfort in the UK or elsewhere,
  • "compasses or imagines" the death of the King, Queen Regnant or Queen Consort, or Prince of Wales,
  • has sex (whether consensual or not) with the Queen Consort, the Princess of Wales or the Queen's "eldest daughter unmarried",
  • slays any judge in the exercise of his duties, (Treason Act 1351),
  • fights in the armed forces of a king de jure against the King de facto (Treason Act 1495),
  • attempts to prevent the next in line to the throne as appointed by law from succeeding (Act 1 Anne Stat 2 (c.21); Treason Act (Ireland) 1703), 
  • slays any of the Lords of Session or Lords Commissioners of Justiciary sitting on the bench in the exercise of their duties in Scotland,
  • counterfeits the Great Seal of Scotland (Treason Act 1708),
  • compasses or imagines "to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom" (use of force is not required), or use force to intimidate Parliament or to change the Government, or inciting any foreigner to make an armed invasion of the UK (Treason Felony Act 1848, which can be charged as treason).

I will submit a petition to Parliament on this subject, which proposes to abolish the concept of allegiance, restrict treason to making war on the UK, helping the UK's enemies in wartime, and killing or attempting to kill the Queen.  The language of the law will be modernised, written in English and the aim is to contain the whole law of treason in one statute.

Why is this idea important?

Anyone who owes allegiance to the Queen – that is, British citizens anywhere, foreigners resident in this country and holders of British passports (even if obtained fraudulently) – commits treason if he:

  • levies war against the Queen in the UK,
  • is adherent to the Queen's enemies in the UK or elsewhere by giving to them aid and comfort in the UK or elsewhere,
  • "compasses or imagines" the death of the King, Queen Regnant or Queen Consort, or Prince of Wales,
  • has sex (whether consensual or not) with the Queen Consort, the Princess of Wales or the Queen's "eldest daughter unmarried",
  • slays any judge in the exercise of his duties, (Treason Act 1351),
  • fights in the armed forces of a king de jure against the King de facto (Treason Act 1495),
  • attempts to prevent the next in line to the throne as appointed by law from succeeding (Act 1 Anne Stat 2 (c.21); Treason Act (Ireland) 1703), 
  • slays any of the Lords of Session or Lords Commissioners of Justiciary sitting on the bench in the exercise of their duties in Scotland,
  • counterfeits the Great Seal of Scotland (Treason Act 1708),
  • compasses or imagines "to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom" (use of force is not required), or use force to intimidate Parliament or to change the Government, or inciting any foreigner to make an armed invasion of the UK (Treason Felony Act 1848, which can be charged as treason).

I will submit a petition to Parliament on this subject, which proposes to abolish the concept of allegiance, restrict treason to making war on the UK, helping the UK's enemies in wartime, and killing or attempting to kill the Queen.  The language of the law will be modernised, written in English and the aim is to contain the whole law of treason in one statute.

Cannabis

I have to be 100% honest I use cannabis for pain releif as I find it lot more cheaper than getting medication on precription, also the drug doesn't cause as much hard as some precripted drugs being submitted by our G.P's and Hospitals.

Also I've found that taking certain medications have side affects but i also know side affects taken cannabis isn't a much bad taking it.

Why is this idea important?

I have to be 100% honest I use cannabis for pain releif as I find it lot more cheaper than getting medication on precription, also the drug doesn't cause as much hard as some precripted drugs being submitted by our G.P's and Hospitals.

Also I've found that taking certain medications have side affects but i also know side affects taken cannabis isn't a much bad taking it.

Prison sentences should be long as they are stated.

Prison sentences sometimes seem like a farce – we hear that some violent criminal has received a sentence of say  6 years, 20 years – but often he  / she will serve nothing like that time, but we the public have no information to know otherwise.

Prison sentences should be  clearer and transparent to all – if somebody receives 6 years, then that mean it is the shortest sentence he should receive.  If he can be let out in 3 years or whatever with parole – then the shortest time he will serve should be the stated sentence – e.g. 3 years – so we all know exactly what sort of justice he / she has received.

Why is this idea important?

Prison sentences sometimes seem like a farce – we hear that some violent criminal has received a sentence of say  6 years, 20 years – but often he  / she will serve nothing like that time, but we the public have no information to know otherwise.

Prison sentences should be  clearer and transparent to all – if somebody receives 6 years, then that mean it is the shortest sentence he should receive.  If he can be let out in 3 years or whatever with parole – then the shortest time he will serve should be the stated sentence – e.g. 3 years – so we all know exactly what sort of justice he / she has received.

Restriction of Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 – Double Jeopardy

Double Jeopardy

The rule against double jeopardy is a fundamental civil liberty recognised both in international human rights instruments including Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 4 of the Seventh Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the common law prior to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003).

In 2001 the Law Commission produced a thorough report on the rule against double jeopardy and, after examining the issue in immense detail, concluded that the rule should be “subject to an exception in certain cases where new evidence is discovered after an acquittal, but only where the offence of which the defendant was acquitted was murder, genocide consisting in the killing of any person” and furthermore that the exception “should be available only where the court is satisfied that the new evidence: (a) appears to be reliable; and (b) when viewed in context, appears at that stage to be compelling”.

Despite this sensible and proportionate recommendation, the government went far further than necessary and, via Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, introduced an exception to the double jeopardy rule which applied to no less than 50 different offences, and furthermore, defined “compelling” evidence as “highly probative of the case against the acquitted person” instead of the Law Commissions recommendation of “highly probable that the defendant is guilty”.

The exceptions against the double jeopardy rule by virtue of Part 10 of the CJA 2003 went far further than necessary and leaves many, many people acquitted of committing a crime liable to be called back for a second trial in the future. The law violates international human rights standards and steamrolled over an important principle of the common law with little benefit to victims and anxiety to those acquitted.

Part 10 of the CJA 2003 should be amended to bring it in line with the strict exception recommended by the Law Commission.

Why is this idea important?

Double Jeopardy

The rule against double jeopardy is a fundamental civil liberty recognised both in international human rights instruments including Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 4 of the Seventh Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the common law prior to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003).

In 2001 the Law Commission produced a thorough report on the rule against double jeopardy and, after examining the issue in immense detail, concluded that the rule should be “subject to an exception in certain cases where new evidence is discovered after an acquittal, but only where the offence of which the defendant was acquitted was murder, genocide consisting in the killing of any person” and furthermore that the exception “should be available only where the court is satisfied that the new evidence: (a) appears to be reliable; and (b) when viewed in context, appears at that stage to be compelling”.

Despite this sensible and proportionate recommendation, the government went far further than necessary and, via Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, introduced an exception to the double jeopardy rule which applied to no less than 50 different offences, and furthermore, defined “compelling” evidence as “highly probative of the case against the acquitted person” instead of the Law Commissions recommendation of “highly probable that the defendant is guilty”.

The exceptions against the double jeopardy rule by virtue of Part 10 of the CJA 2003 went far further than necessary and leaves many, many people acquitted of committing a crime liable to be called back for a second trial in the future. The law violates international human rights standards and steamrolled over an important principle of the common law with little benefit to victims and anxiety to those acquitted.

Part 10 of the CJA 2003 should be amended to bring it in line with the strict exception recommended by the Law Commission.

TV licence fee should be reclassified as a civil offence – not a criminal offence

Please support amendments intended to ensure that the TV licence  fee is recoverable as a civil matter only, following non-payment and failure to respond to a notice issued by OFCOM – not a criminal offence.  This is an unfair and outdated penalty.

The television licence fee is a "despised compulsory impost" and should be scrapped.  The annual charge and the BBC should be funded by other means.

Why is this idea important?

Please support amendments intended to ensure that the TV licence  fee is recoverable as a civil matter only, following non-payment and failure to respond to a notice issued by OFCOM – not a criminal offence.  This is an unfair and outdated penalty.

The television licence fee is a "despised compulsory impost" and should be scrapped.  The annual charge and the BBC should be funded by other means.

Repeal the samurai sword ban

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons)(Amendment) Order 2008

This law made the import, sale and hire of any sword with a curved blade of 50 centimetres or over in length, unless antique or made in a traditional manner.  This was a knee-jerk response to the attack on Nigel Jones, MP, and the media coverage of the use of such weapons in other attacks.

The amendment to the law was unnecessary.  The perpetrators of these crimes could already be tried under existing laws for possession of an offensive weapon, assault, murder, etc.  The perpetrators of these crimes could have used an alternative weapon, had this ban already been in place.

Why is this idea important?

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons)(Amendment) Order 2008

This law made the import, sale and hire of any sword with a curved blade of 50 centimetres or over in length, unless antique or made in a traditional manner.  This was a knee-jerk response to the attack on Nigel Jones, MP, and the media coverage of the use of such weapons in other attacks.

The amendment to the law was unnecessary.  The perpetrators of these crimes could already be tried under existing laws for possession of an offensive weapon, assault, murder, etc.  The perpetrators of these crimes could have used an alternative weapon, had this ban already been in place.

repeal or rebalance extradition-to-USA law

the law allows extradition of UK citizens to the US without any strong examination of the case facing the accused.  once in the US, there is little funding for the suspects lawyers to prepare the suspects case.

Why is this idea important?

the law allows extradition of UK citizens to the US without any strong examination of the case facing the accused.  once in the US, there is little funding for the suspects lawyers to prepare the suspects case.

Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights  Act 1998 is by far the worst piece of legislation intrduced by the previous government. The idea was fantastic and I believe that everyone is entitled to certain rights. However, this piece of legislation has been hijacked by foreign criminals, terrorists and suspected terrorists. It allows people convicted of serious offences (hijacking etc) to remain in the UK for fear that their life may be indanger if they were deported, putting UK citizens at serious risk. What checks are undertaken by the government and security services with the convicted individuals country of origin to establish how real these risks are?.

Why is this idea important?

The Human Rights  Act 1998 is by far the worst piece of legislation intrduced by the previous government. The idea was fantastic and I believe that everyone is entitled to certain rights. However, this piece of legislation has been hijacked by foreign criminals, terrorists and suspected terrorists. It allows people convicted of serious offences (hijacking etc) to remain in the UK for fear that their life may be indanger if they were deported, putting UK citizens at serious risk. What checks are undertaken by the government and security services with the convicted individuals country of origin to establish how real these risks are?.