Repeal Section 97 Children Act1989

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Why is this idea important?

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Close all bail hostels

I believe that all bail hostels should be closed or at teh very least redistributed. Whoever had the idea that putting groups of criminals together in one location so that crime can be normalised needs their bumps feeling.  Placing an offender with other offenders in poor quality housing in an impoverished area will never provide an atmosphere conducive of rehabilitation. It is just a cheap alternative to jail.

If a halfway house is required then offenders should be placed in flats alone where peer pressure to reoffend is not present. and sufficiently spread around to ensure that crime gangs are not being manufactured by the state.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that all bail hostels should be closed or at teh very least redistributed. Whoever had the idea that putting groups of criminals together in one location so that crime can be normalised needs their bumps feeling.  Placing an offender with other offenders in poor quality housing in an impoverished area will never provide an atmosphere conducive of rehabilitation. It is just a cheap alternative to jail.

If a halfway house is required then offenders should be placed in flats alone where peer pressure to reoffend is not present. and sufficiently spread around to ensure that crime gangs are not being manufactured by the state.

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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? 

New Firearms Licensing system

My idea is this, the replacement of the current firearms licensing system with a more simple and effective system that does not make criminals out of those who make a small mistake. eg owning 600 rounds of ammunition when allowed to only have 500.

Remove the need to name each calibre and action when gaining a Firearms certificate (FAC) and simply add new weapons and calibres to the FAC upon purchasing them and hence retaining the registration of all firearms.  Thus saving a huge amount of paperwork and unnecesary costs and allowing the person to have their license far faster, as it can take months in somecases for the police department to carry out the paperwork.

Remove ammunition limits, currently the system states on an individual basis how much of each calibre a person can own and purchase at any time, this is something which does nothing other than increase the frequency at which a firearms owner must visit the gun shop or produce his own ammunition via handloading. So long as all ammunition can be stored correctly in an ammunition cabinet there is no reason to limit the quantity of ammunition a firearms owner has, especially given that he can buy the components to produce his own ammunition without any limit or records. To claim that someone may break into the house and steal the weapons and ammunition would be incorrect and ignorant of just how well firearms/ammunition cabinets are fitted.

Remove the ban upon semi automatic centrefire rifles and handguns, the removal of semi automatic rifles from law abiding good people has lead to quite literally nothing positive, it has caused the practical rifle sport to diminish greatly and removed a great number of people from being interested in shooting. If a person has been proven to to be of good personality and responsability there is no reason to prevent them from owning such a firearm. Likewise with handguns which made up a large number of British shooters and was a fast growing sport there is again no reason to prevent a proven person to own these firearms.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

My idea is this, the replacement of the current firearms licensing system with a more simple and effective system that does not make criminals out of those who make a small mistake. eg owning 600 rounds of ammunition when allowed to only have 500.

Remove the need to name each calibre and action when gaining a Firearms certificate (FAC) and simply add new weapons and calibres to the FAC upon purchasing them and hence retaining the registration of all firearms.  Thus saving a huge amount of paperwork and unnecesary costs and allowing the person to have their license far faster, as it can take months in somecases for the police department to carry out the paperwork.

Remove ammunition limits, currently the system states on an individual basis how much of each calibre a person can own and purchase at any time, this is something which does nothing other than increase the frequency at which a firearms owner must visit the gun shop or produce his own ammunition via handloading. So long as all ammunition can be stored correctly in an ammunition cabinet there is no reason to limit the quantity of ammunition a firearms owner has, especially given that he can buy the components to produce his own ammunition without any limit or records. To claim that someone may break into the house and steal the weapons and ammunition would be incorrect and ignorant of just how well firearms/ammunition cabinets are fitted.

Remove the ban upon semi automatic centrefire rifles and handguns, the removal of semi automatic rifles from law abiding good people has lead to quite literally nothing positive, it has caused the practical rifle sport to diminish greatly and removed a great number of people from being interested in shooting. If a person has been proven to to be of good personality and responsability there is no reason to prevent them from owning such a firearm. Likewise with handguns which made up a large number of British shooters and was a fast growing sport there is again no reason to prevent a proven person to own these firearms.

 

 

with the comming of the 2012 Olympics and the hand gun ban

Yes this will creat some remarks,after the Dunblaine shootings the then goverment organised a report on the use of all firearms at a cost of I beleave 5 -6 £ millions and then took no notice of the Cullen report, who stated that small calibre hand guns that are used on ranges could still be used under strict controls as we are now. What I would like is the Cullen report inplimemted and allow us british shooters to have the same right as our cousins in europe enjoy and can practice for sporting events

Why is this idea important?

Yes this will creat some remarks,after the Dunblaine shootings the then goverment organised a report on the use of all firearms at a cost of I beleave 5 -6 £ millions and then took no notice of the Cullen report, who stated that small calibre hand guns that are used on ranges could still be used under strict controls as we are now. What I would like is the Cullen report inplimemted and allow us british shooters to have the same right as our cousins in europe enjoy and can practice for sporting events

Review of UK Firearms Law

A few years ago hand the firearms acts were tightned, now I know that because of the gun attacks in the Lake District and northumbria there are I am sure going to people who want all guns banned. But the banning of handguns hasn't worked infact it did exactly what I am I am sure many other said at the time. It made things worse not better, there are still handguns being used by criminals but where as before the police could take any gun that was found after a murder and check it against a database to see who owned it last now they only have an outdated database.

Before the ban on handguns was introduced there had only been maybe a hundred deaths caused by people with handguns since the 2nd world war but since the ban there has been upto 20 a year. Tighten Gun Laws add restictions but don't ban.  The UK used to have a firearms manufacturing sector which built some to the best guns in the world now even the replica firearms industry is being put out of buiness by laws. 

Guns don't kill people the man or woman who points and the fires the gun is the one whose doing the killing.  I mean if we banned everything that killed more than 20 people a year then the Cars, Buses, Lorries, Trains and even aeroplanes would have been banned years ago!

And cars are one of the most dangerous weapons there is! "Not only can they kill but while a bullet can only go in one direction a car can have its direction changed, guarenteing that it hits and kills a victim.  And you can't just ban something bacause it might be dangerous.

Why is this idea important?

A few years ago hand the firearms acts were tightned, now I know that because of the gun attacks in the Lake District and northumbria there are I am sure going to people who want all guns banned. But the banning of handguns hasn't worked infact it did exactly what I am I am sure many other said at the time. It made things worse not better, there are still handguns being used by criminals but where as before the police could take any gun that was found after a murder and check it against a database to see who owned it last now they only have an outdated database.

Before the ban on handguns was introduced there had only been maybe a hundred deaths caused by people with handguns since the 2nd world war but since the ban there has been upto 20 a year. Tighten Gun Laws add restictions but don't ban.  The UK used to have a firearms manufacturing sector which built some to the best guns in the world now even the replica firearms industry is being put out of buiness by laws. 

Guns don't kill people the man or woman who points and the fires the gun is the one whose doing the killing.  I mean if we banned everything that killed more than 20 people a year then the Cars, Buses, Lorries, Trains and even aeroplanes would have been banned years ago!

And cars are one of the most dangerous weapons there is! "Not only can they kill but while a bullet can only go in one direction a car can have its direction changed, guarenteing that it hits and kills a victim.  And you can't just ban something bacause it might be dangerous.

Review Mandatory Firearms sentences

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Why is this idea important?

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Ban Guns and knifes!!!!!!!

Please ban guns and knifes I know we have tough policy's on gun's and knifes, but not enough is been done.  As with more shootings at the weekend, and a stabbing with knife in London.  It is just not the victim's who suffer, but the families all suffer.I do no that they will go underground for them.  If they do and are caught they should get tougher sentences especially if they are going out intending to killing.  I know also the civil liberties will oppose this, but they are going out to intend to kill.  So what about the intended victims' rights too.

Why is this idea important?

Please ban guns and knifes I know we have tough policy's on gun's and knifes, but not enough is been done.  As with more shootings at the weekend, and a stabbing with knife in London.  It is just not the victim's who suffer, but the families all suffer.I do no that they will go underground for them.  If they do and are caught they should get tougher sentences especially if they are going out intending to killing.  I know also the civil liberties will oppose this, but they are going out to intend to kill.  So what about the intended victims' rights too.

Repeal the Firearms Act 1968 and amendments

My proposal is to seek the repeal of the 1968 Fierarms Act and its ammendments. A new Firearms Act is long overdue. Not simply to tinker and ammend but to look for the best legislation. They have proved outdated and not fit for purpose. The current legislation and its 2002 guidance are both draconian and lax, but not logical. It is my role, for a Constabulary to use this Act to licence certificate holders. The ammendments especially are without doubt pure reactive legislation, which as can be seen by recent events have failed to adequatley protect the public in general or the shooting community.

Proposals for a new Act could include such matters as;

  1. A single certificate rather than the current two
  2. Provision to licence people not the firearms
  3. Introduction of statutory  accredited training courses in order to support applications
  4. Statutory reporting by GP's of illnesses, injuries or medications which might affect continued holding of a certificate
  5. Introduction of review panels to deal with appeals against revocation or refusal by Chief Constables. Rather than the current use of Crown Courts.
  6. Formalise to a national standard for training and operation of Firearms Licensing Officers/Management.
  7. To provide a time limited certificate suspension, rather than revocation of a certificate as the only option in circumstances that require investigation.
  8. Provide fixed penalties for minor offences and or formal cautions.
  9. To revisit Lord Cullen's report to review the return of handguns for target shooting.
  10. The provision of a national body to oversea Firearms Licensing.
  11. Statutory self reporting by certificate holders of certain life changing events which might affect short or long term gun ownership
  12. To provide a debate on new legislation by a body, having specialised knowledge and for that body to be the only forum to provide future legislation to the Home Secretary. 
  13. To provide a better understanding of how implementation can be achieved calling on the input of the practitioners not just the representative bodies. Shooting is a practical issue and should not be legislated upon for political capitol or furtherance of organisational standing.

Whilst this is only a flavour of a Future Firearms Act much could be achieved. 

Why is this idea important?

My proposal is to seek the repeal of the 1968 Fierarms Act and its ammendments. A new Firearms Act is long overdue. Not simply to tinker and ammend but to look for the best legislation. They have proved outdated and not fit for purpose. The current legislation and its 2002 guidance are both draconian and lax, but not logical. It is my role, for a Constabulary to use this Act to licence certificate holders. The ammendments especially are without doubt pure reactive legislation, which as can be seen by recent events have failed to adequatley protect the public in general or the shooting community.

Proposals for a new Act could include such matters as;

  1. A single certificate rather than the current two
  2. Provision to licence people not the firearms
  3. Introduction of statutory  accredited training courses in order to support applications
  4. Statutory reporting by GP's of illnesses, injuries or medications which might affect continued holding of a certificate
  5. Introduction of review panels to deal with appeals against revocation or refusal by Chief Constables. Rather than the current use of Crown Courts.
  6. Formalise to a national standard for training and operation of Firearms Licensing Officers/Management.
  7. To provide a time limited certificate suspension, rather than revocation of a certificate as the only option in circumstances that require investigation.
  8. Provide fixed penalties for minor offences and or formal cautions.
  9. To revisit Lord Cullen's report to review the return of handguns for target shooting.
  10. The provision of a national body to oversea Firearms Licensing.
  11. Statutory self reporting by certificate holders of certain life changing events which might affect short or long term gun ownership
  12. To provide a debate on new legislation by a body, having specialised knowledge and for that body to be the only forum to provide future legislation to the Home Secretary. 
  13. To provide a better understanding of how implementation can be achieved calling on the input of the practitioners not just the representative bodies. Shooting is a practical issue and should not be legislated upon for political capitol or furtherance of organisational standing.

Whilst this is only a flavour of a Future Firearms Act much could be achieved. 

Motion Pertaining To The Legalisation Of Cannabis.

It is no secret that the decades old process of prohibition has failed completely to limit the distribution and use of cannabis throughout the UK. The only people to have ever benefited from the policy of prohibition has been and continues to be the black market criminal. Instead of taking advantage of the massive revenue of the entire cannabis trade, the UK prefers to hand this golden egg to criminals. Thus such revenue streams disappear, never to benefit British society while simultaneously, we feed the black market in a never ending viscous circle.

As the law stands on narcotic legislation, a drug is to be criminalised if it poses a direct risk to society and the individual. Taking this into account, cannabis cannot possibly constitute an equal risk to society or the individual as that of alcohol. Alcohol kills more people in the UK than any other illegal drug put together. It places an immeasurable stress on the NHS, results in open violence in our streets and homes, is the cause of much misery and crime and addicts the user relatively easily. Yet it is legal, despite the law. As Cannabis does none of the above, in fact it promotes a more harmonious way of life, why is the government telling society that the only choice for rest and relaxation is a drug more dangerous than the alternative? Why are we forced into drinking as the only legal means of getting high? As an adult, one should be able to have a choice in what they wish to indulge in, in terms of rest and relaxation substances. It is simply unethical and unjust to state that alcohol is a more acceptable drug than cannabis.

Our prisons are over crowded forcing the government to lessen the deterrent effect of prison in general and allowing some violent offenders to serve less time or not go in to prison at all. The effect of legalisation in terms of lessening the prison population would be significant. Indeed, current prisoners incarcerated for cultivation or possession could be viewed as "prisoners of conscience" as their crime hurts nobody and therefore is a victimless crime. The police would also benefit by being able to divert their resources to serious crime instead. It is no secret that the arrest of a cannabis user is an easy way to artificially raise crime statistics in the UK. It is morally and ethically wrong to criminalise a person for choosing to relax by using cannabis. Other than this one grey area, the user is statistically a perfectly law abiding, tax paying and upstanding citizen. It is unjust in the extreme to criminalise the adult individual and force them in to the shadows of a society that they fully contribute to and do no harm to what so ever. Such a move as legalisation would reflect favourably on our society by emancipating millions of people to live life in the open as legitimate citizens, beneficial to society.

The medical use of cannabis is well documented and successfully launched in several states in the USA as well as in other European countries. Cannabis has substantial medical qualities and eases the life of millions for a multitude of different illnesses. Why is it that the government insists that our society base itself solely on pharmaceutical drugs when they cause such terrible side effects? There is, as millions will concur, a far safer, 100% natural and more enjoyable alternative. Cannabis is cheaper to produce and more effective at easing the ailments of the sick user. Now, we all know that smoking is bad for you, yet there is still no argument that therefore, cannabis is bad for you as it can be consumed orally or by means of a vaporizer with no medical consequences. Again, it is unjust, unsympathetic, unethical and immoral to deprive the sick of a drug that is proven to be of such medicinal value. As for the argument of cannabis and schizophrenia, well that is simply nonsense. Scientific research has proven a 2% risk of permanent mental dis-function in regular users. Therefore, such risks are insignificant when balanced against the risks associated with alcohol. Are we really such a society that would prefer to criminalise the sick instead of help them by any means possible? I refuse to think so and live in hope that our collective humanity and decency will eventually make it’s way to the parliamentary table.

Taking our current economic crisis into account, has the time not finally arrived when necessity dictates that cannabis is legalised and regulated through proper medical channels and taxed? Britain could help to solve her debt crisis almost over night; massively increased tax revenue, an explosion of new small to medium businesses, increased tourism, decreased prison population, freed up police force, the advancement of British medical science and an increase of GDP within the UK Hemp industry. Currently 100% of all this cash goes straight into the hands of the black market, benefiting nobody but the criminal and that is, frankly, a senseless waist of revenue. There are currently 6 million adult cannabis user’s in the UK and 11 million casual adult users. Being government statistics, one can assume a much higher real usage throughout Britain. To deny the country such a massive instant revenue windfall in a time of such austerity is madness. The maths is not difficult, legalisation makes rational sense. Is it not time for the UK to collectively wake up to the reality of the situation and consider another far more reasonable, rational and ethical approach to managing the issue of social drug use?

We could liberate millions while simultaneously improving our economy and society. Instead of being seen as an evil psychotic menace perhaps cannabis will one day be seen as our saving grace. At the same time society will see that adults are able to self regulate and children will lose interest due to the lifting of the magnetic effect of a teenager and an illegal substance mixed with greater regulation and a reduction in the black market. Britain would follow Holland in years to come whereby they would have among the lowest population of drug abusers in the world.

I hope that I have been able to convince you of the merits of cannabis legalisation. In my opinion, it is a simple, rational and logical argument for the social equality of millions of our citizens. It is the just and correct thing to do in a modern and apparently open society.

Why is this idea important?

It is no secret that the decades old process of prohibition has failed completely to limit the distribution and use of cannabis throughout the UK. The only people to have ever benefited from the policy of prohibition has been and continues to be the black market criminal. Instead of taking advantage of the massive revenue of the entire cannabis trade, the UK prefers to hand this golden egg to criminals. Thus such revenue streams disappear, never to benefit British society while simultaneously, we feed the black market in a never ending viscous circle.

As the law stands on narcotic legislation, a drug is to be criminalised if it poses a direct risk to society and the individual. Taking this into account, cannabis cannot possibly constitute an equal risk to society or the individual as that of alcohol. Alcohol kills more people in the UK than any other illegal drug put together. It places an immeasurable stress on the NHS, results in open violence in our streets and homes, is the cause of much misery and crime and addicts the user relatively easily. Yet it is legal, despite the law. As Cannabis does none of the above, in fact it promotes a more harmonious way of life, why is the government telling society that the only choice for rest and relaxation is a drug more dangerous than the alternative? Why are we forced into drinking as the only legal means of getting high? As an adult, one should be able to have a choice in what they wish to indulge in, in terms of rest and relaxation substances. It is simply unethical and unjust to state that alcohol is a more acceptable drug than cannabis.

Our prisons are over crowded forcing the government to lessen the deterrent effect of prison in general and allowing some violent offenders to serve less time or not go in to prison at all. The effect of legalisation in terms of lessening the prison population would be significant. Indeed, current prisoners incarcerated for cultivation or possession could be viewed as "prisoners of conscience" as their crime hurts nobody and therefore is a victimless crime. The police would also benefit by being able to divert their resources to serious crime instead. It is no secret that the arrest of a cannabis user is an easy way to artificially raise crime statistics in the UK. It is morally and ethically wrong to criminalise a person for choosing to relax by using cannabis. Other than this one grey area, the user is statistically a perfectly law abiding, tax paying and upstanding citizen. It is unjust in the extreme to criminalise the adult individual and force them in to the shadows of a society that they fully contribute to and do no harm to what so ever. Such a move as legalisation would reflect favourably on our society by emancipating millions of people to live life in the open as legitimate citizens, beneficial to society.

The medical use of cannabis is well documented and successfully launched in several states in the USA as well as in other European countries. Cannabis has substantial medical qualities and eases the life of millions for a multitude of different illnesses. Why is it that the government insists that our society base itself solely on pharmaceutical drugs when they cause such terrible side effects? There is, as millions will concur, a far safer, 100% natural and more enjoyable alternative. Cannabis is cheaper to produce and more effective at easing the ailments of the sick user. Now, we all know that smoking is bad for you, yet there is still no argument that therefore, cannabis is bad for you as it can be consumed orally or by means of a vaporizer with no medical consequences. Again, it is unjust, unsympathetic, unethical and immoral to deprive the sick of a drug that is proven to be of such medicinal value. As for the argument of cannabis and schizophrenia, well that is simply nonsense. Scientific research has proven a 2% risk of permanent mental dis-function in regular users. Therefore, such risks are insignificant when balanced against the risks associated with alcohol. Are we really such a society that would prefer to criminalise the sick instead of help them by any means possible? I refuse to think so and live in hope that our collective humanity and decency will eventually make it’s way to the parliamentary table.

Taking our current economic crisis into account, has the time not finally arrived when necessity dictates that cannabis is legalised and regulated through proper medical channels and taxed? Britain could help to solve her debt crisis almost over night; massively increased tax revenue, an explosion of new small to medium businesses, increased tourism, decreased prison population, freed up police force, the advancement of British medical science and an increase of GDP within the UK Hemp industry. Currently 100% of all this cash goes straight into the hands of the black market, benefiting nobody but the criminal and that is, frankly, a senseless waist of revenue. There are currently 6 million adult cannabis user’s in the UK and 11 million casual adult users. Being government statistics, one can assume a much higher real usage throughout Britain. To deny the country such a massive instant revenue windfall in a time of such austerity is madness. The maths is not difficult, legalisation makes rational sense. Is it not time for the UK to collectively wake up to the reality of the situation and consider another far more reasonable, rational and ethical approach to managing the issue of social drug use?

We could liberate millions while simultaneously improving our economy and society. Instead of being seen as an evil psychotic menace perhaps cannabis will one day be seen as our saving grace. At the same time society will see that adults are able to self regulate and children will lose interest due to the lifting of the magnetic effect of a teenager and an illegal substance mixed with greater regulation and a reduction in the black market. Britain would follow Holland in years to come whereby they would have among the lowest population of drug abusers in the world.

I hope that I have been able to convince you of the merits of cannabis legalisation. In my opinion, it is a simple, rational and logical argument for the social equality of millions of our citizens. It is the just and correct thing to do in a modern and apparently open society.

GIVE US LAW ABIDING CITIZENS BACK OUR GUNS!

The horrific massacres that we have witnessed over the years have prompted successive governments to use knee-jerk reactions to tighten up the already strict gun laws. As predicted, the gun crime figures continue to rise apace, proving that the law abiding, resposible shooters were not to blame for these outrages. Those wonderful people who wish to participate in the 2012 Olympics have to practice in a foreign country as their own country, the UK, does not allow them to shoot here. We are at a disadvantage and no gold medals are predicted. The shooting centre will be closed after tha games, wasting public money. We should be promoting shooting sports and teaching our children and young people the responsible use of firearms rather than see them buy an illegal gun in the pub.

Why is this idea important?

The horrific massacres that we have witnessed over the years have prompted successive governments to use knee-jerk reactions to tighten up the already strict gun laws. As predicted, the gun crime figures continue to rise apace, proving that the law abiding, resposible shooters were not to blame for these outrages. Those wonderful people who wish to participate in the 2012 Olympics have to practice in a foreign country as their own country, the UK, does not allow them to shoot here. We are at a disadvantage and no gold medals are predicted. The shooting centre will be closed after tha games, wasting public money. We should be promoting shooting sports and teaching our children and young people the responsible use of firearms rather than see them buy an illegal gun in the pub.

Make residents in independent care homes subject to the Human Rights Act

How unjust that convicted criminals in UK prisons are permitted their human rights (frequently claiming massive compensation for the 'terrible' indignity of slopping out, poor dentistry etc ) while law abiding pensioners who reside in a private care home are not.

Stories of cruelty and neglect that cannot be prosecuted under the Human Rights Act are becoming more common as these residents (unlike those referred there by a local authority or residing in a local authority care home) are not protected by the law.

Although very recent changes mean that from October 2010 those living within a private residential home will be able to make a complaint to an independent ombudsman via their local authority it is still not the same automatic right via the Human Rights Act afforded to criminals.

It seems incredibly inhumane for this to be the case in our ‘decent society’. I urge people to demand that the government change the law.

If criminals continue to be given their Human Rights then no law abiding citizen should be denied them.

Why is this idea important?

How unjust that convicted criminals in UK prisons are permitted their human rights (frequently claiming massive compensation for the 'terrible' indignity of slopping out, poor dentistry etc ) while law abiding pensioners who reside in a private care home are not.

Stories of cruelty and neglect that cannot be prosecuted under the Human Rights Act are becoming more common as these residents (unlike those referred there by a local authority or residing in a local authority care home) are not protected by the law.

Although very recent changes mean that from October 2010 those living within a private residential home will be able to make a complaint to an independent ombudsman via their local authority it is still not the same automatic right via the Human Rights Act afforded to criminals.

It seems incredibly inhumane for this to be the case in our ‘decent society’. I urge people to demand that the government change the law.

If criminals continue to be given their Human Rights then no law abiding citizen should be denied them.