Stop the Propaganda in school history lessons

For the majority of people under 25 their history lessons at school seem to have consisted mainly about learning about the second world war and about the evils of Nazi-ism.

Stop teaching our children that history is nazi-ism and that our national identity comes from winning world war 2. 

While this may not seem like a civil liberties issue at first, it's laying the foundations for an errosion of our civil liberties.  If our children are only ever taught about their identity in terms of what they're not – ie "What does being British mean to you?" "It means fighting the nazis and winning world war 2", it means they will never have a full sense of what it means to be British in a positive way.  All the positive aspects of our history – our part in the industrial revolution, our lack of religious wars, our expertise in trade and discovery, our openness to new ideas from the places we travelled to – all of this disappears into the simple fact that we were on the winning side in a war.  And if we as a country have no sense of our national identity, no sense of who are are, then it is so much easier for a government to tell us who we are – who they want us to be.

In addition, education about World War 2 is framed in terms of Good (Us) and Evil (Them), and Hitler and his regime are demonise to such an extent that children believe that there is no subtlety to evil – that evil is easy to recognise and easy to avoid.  If no-one accepts that there was a seductive and rational side to Hitler's policies, then how can we ever learn the lessons of history?  The next evil dictator may be just around the corner – he (or she) may be telling us that we need to increase police power for our own protection, that we need to lock terrorist suspects up for our own protection, that we need to shoot innocent people for our own protection, that we need to disenfranchise poorer elements of the population for our own protection – and because they keep giving us money we're happy to go along with it, because our history lessons have shown us that evil is obvious and evil never as any good to it.  

I'm not saying that any of this has already happened, but I'm saying that if we never teach children the history of our country beyond WW2 and never teach them a pride in that history, then we are opening ourselves up to this kind of manipulation.

Why is this idea important?

For the majority of people under 25 their history lessons at school seem to have consisted mainly about learning about the second world war and about the evils of Nazi-ism.

Stop teaching our children that history is nazi-ism and that our national identity comes from winning world war 2. 

While this may not seem like a civil liberties issue at first, it's laying the foundations for an errosion of our civil liberties.  If our children are only ever taught about their identity in terms of what they're not – ie "What does being British mean to you?" "It means fighting the nazis and winning world war 2", it means they will never have a full sense of what it means to be British in a positive way.  All the positive aspects of our history – our part in the industrial revolution, our lack of religious wars, our expertise in trade and discovery, our openness to new ideas from the places we travelled to – all of this disappears into the simple fact that we were on the winning side in a war.  And if we as a country have no sense of our national identity, no sense of who are are, then it is so much easier for a government to tell us who we are – who they want us to be.

In addition, education about World War 2 is framed in terms of Good (Us) and Evil (Them), and Hitler and his regime are demonise to such an extent that children believe that there is no subtlety to evil – that evil is easy to recognise and easy to avoid.  If no-one accepts that there was a seductive and rational side to Hitler's policies, then how can we ever learn the lessons of history?  The next evil dictator may be just around the corner – he (or she) may be telling us that we need to increase police power for our own protection, that we need to lock terrorist suspects up for our own protection, that we need to shoot innocent people for our own protection, that we need to disenfranchise poorer elements of the population for our own protection – and because they keep giving us money we're happy to go along with it, because our history lessons have shown us that evil is obvious and evil never as any good to it.  

I'm not saying that any of this has already happened, but I'm saying that if we never teach children the history of our country beyond WW2 and never teach them a pride in that history, then we are opening ourselves up to this kind of manipulation.

More widespread legal graffiti walls

I am a street artist, and professional graphic designer. I take pride in the fact that I harbor the skill to create beautiful street art, and enjoy doing so publicly. I teach workshops occasionally underneath the Southbank Centre where there is indeed a legal graffiti wall.

My idea is that to introduce more legal graffiti walls in the UK which are accessible to all. Graffiti is a form of art, and even though there are mindless vandals scrawling obscenities on the walls nationwide, why not give them an opportunity to try and learn to create art in secluded areas.

I can understand that the government seems to assume graffiti artists are mostly vandals with drug problems, however, this is just an old stereotype that needs to be addressed.

Why is this idea important?

I am a street artist, and professional graphic designer. I take pride in the fact that I harbor the skill to create beautiful street art, and enjoy doing so publicly. I teach workshops occasionally underneath the Southbank Centre where there is indeed a legal graffiti wall.

My idea is that to introduce more legal graffiti walls in the UK which are accessible to all. Graffiti is a form of art, and even though there are mindless vandals scrawling obscenities on the walls nationwide, why not give them an opportunity to try and learn to create art in secluded areas.

I can understand that the government seems to assume graffiti artists are mostly vandals with drug problems, however, this is just an old stereotype that needs to be addressed.

Abolish or Halve the TV Licence fee

Halve/ abolish the TV licence fee. Make the BBC attract advertisng in order to fund the shortfall – and make this heavily New Labour-biased, overpaid, bureaucratic institution join the real world.

Why is this idea important?

Halve/ abolish the TV licence fee. Make the BBC attract advertisng in order to fund the shortfall – and make this heavily New Labour-biased, overpaid, bureaucratic institution join the real world.

We need to learn from other countries

When I was in the army in Germany the roads are clear of HGVs on Sundays. We can learn a lot from other countries such as Germany. No washing out, no grass cutting on Sundays. Also no parties out doors after 10pm.

If you cross the road and there is the red man and not green you are fined.

Why is this idea important?

When I was in the army in Germany the roads are clear of HGVs on Sundays. We can learn a lot from other countries such as Germany. No washing out, no grass cutting on Sundays. Also no parties out doors after 10pm.

If you cross the road and there is the red man and not green you are fined.

Immunity from the law for Vicars/Clergy

It sickens me deeply that the trust in our community is gone. At times like these I feel it is important for us to look at what was once the centre of the community: the Church. Once, our Vicars were our betters because they had authority from God, but now our belief in God has vanished and so therefore has our Vicars powers. Therefore the State should restore this power and with it our communities by making Vicars, Clergy and other Holy Leaders immune from the law. Let us unite under the banner of "If the Clergy do it, it must be OK!"

Before people start replying to this in order to tell me that no-one is above the law, let me point out that clergy are the pillars of our community and have been for centuries. Their moral guidance with the help of the legal system will allow them to once again reclaim this mantle. Besides, it's not like they break the law already, is it?

Why is this idea important?

It sickens me deeply that the trust in our community is gone. At times like these I feel it is important for us to look at what was once the centre of the community: the Church. Once, our Vicars were our betters because they had authority from God, but now our belief in God has vanished and so therefore has our Vicars powers. Therefore the State should restore this power and with it our communities by making Vicars, Clergy and other Holy Leaders immune from the law. Let us unite under the banner of "If the Clergy do it, it must be OK!"

Before people start replying to this in order to tell me that no-one is above the law, let me point out that clergy are the pillars of our community and have been for centuries. Their moral guidance with the help of the legal system will allow them to once again reclaim this mantle. Besides, it's not like they break the law already, is it?

Repeal the 1972 European Communities Act

Passing this Act was illegal against our 1,000 year old Constitution and it is helping, along with the other Treaties that have since been signed to destroy our culture, traditions and way of life.   

Our historic Constitution is made up of many parts including the Act of Supremacy in 1559.  This Act contained an Oath, part of which said: "No Foreign Prince, Person, State of Potentate, Hath or ought to have any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Supremacy, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in this Realm".

Included also within our Constitution is The Bill of Rights 1689, which states "Now it is a convention that no parliament can bind another.   So how could this Parliament bind successive parliaments for ever?  The answer is simple.  This Parliament was made up of the people's representatives.  The will of the people is supreme over both Parliament and the Sovereign.  Until such time as the representatives of the people meet to change the 1689 Bill of Rights, this Bill remains law".  Therefore as the Government is suggesting that we need a new Bill of Rights, this is unlawful against our Constitution as stated above, unless and until the people are consulted through their representatives and I do not mean our MPs!

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Passing this Act was illegal against our 1,000 year old Constitution and it is helping, along with the other Treaties that have since been signed to destroy our culture, traditions and way of life.   

Our historic Constitution is made up of many parts including the Act of Supremacy in 1559.  This Act contained an Oath, part of which said: "No Foreign Prince, Person, State of Potentate, Hath or ought to have any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Supremacy, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in this Realm".

Included also within our Constitution is The Bill of Rights 1689, which states "Now it is a convention that no parliament can bind another.   So how could this Parliament bind successive parliaments for ever?  The answer is simple.  This Parliament was made up of the people's representatives.  The will of the people is supreme over both Parliament and the Sovereign.  Until such time as the representatives of the people meet to change the 1689 Bill of Rights, this Bill remains law".  Therefore as the Government is suggesting that we need a new Bill of Rights, this is unlawful against our Constitution as stated above, unless and until the people are consulted through their representatives and I do not mean our MPs!

 

 

 

 

Rewarding homeless for collection litter

I've just returned from Copenhagen where I was impressed to see the extreme cleanliness of their city, in part due to the reduced population.

I was amazed to see homeless people collecting litter and being rewarded by the government for doing so. I know that this would surely save the councils some money for litter collection jobs, but it would hopefully generate an income for those less able to home themselves, and make the streets cleaner.

The collected waste is being recycled or turned in to compost for the farmers of Copenhagen, which I know would be very popular in our arable areas (I am in Lincolnshire where many crops are sprayed with chemicals).  This could create some revenue to fund the payments.

You can read about it here:

http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/en/global-action1/asia/bangladesh/trash-to-cash-case-study

Why is this idea important?

I've just returned from Copenhagen where I was impressed to see the extreme cleanliness of their city, in part due to the reduced population.

I was amazed to see homeless people collecting litter and being rewarded by the government for doing so. I know that this would surely save the councils some money for litter collection jobs, but it would hopefully generate an income for those less able to home themselves, and make the streets cleaner.

The collected waste is being recycled or turned in to compost for the farmers of Copenhagen, which I know would be very popular in our arable areas (I am in Lincolnshire where many crops are sprayed with chemicals).  This could create some revenue to fund the payments.

You can read about it here:

http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/en/global-action1/asia/bangladesh/trash-to-cash-case-study

Repeal all ‘Hate-Crime’ legislation

So-called ‘Hate-crime’ laws consider crimes committed against certain select groups as worse than identical crimes committed against a non-member of these groups because of the alleged ideas/views/attitudes of the criminal against the people covered by these categories (categories like race, religion, sexuality and disability).  

 

Why is this idea important?

So-called ‘Hate-crime’ laws consider crimes committed against certain select groups as worse than identical crimes committed against a non-member of these groups because of the alleged ideas/views/attitudes of the criminal against the people covered by these categories (categories like race, religion, sexuality and disability).  

 

Tighter Decency Controls on Media Coverage

I'm not sure that this is in the right section, but one thing I'd really like to see in the UK is a tighter control on the domineering attitude of the press and media.

An example of this is video and camera footage taken at high profile funerals, particularly when the funeral is the result of a serious crime. Its horrific, and I honestly can't see any benefit of showing the mourners on TV.

I think that laws should be introduced to protect non media savvy individuals (i.e. joe public!) if they come to the attention of the press. The McCann case really does highlight the damage that a speculative and corrosive press can cause.

 

Why is this idea important?

I'm not sure that this is in the right section, but one thing I'd really like to see in the UK is a tighter control on the domineering attitude of the press and media.

An example of this is video and camera footage taken at high profile funerals, particularly when the funeral is the result of a serious crime. Its horrific, and I honestly can't see any benefit of showing the mourners on TV.

I think that laws should be introduced to protect non media savvy individuals (i.e. joe public!) if they come to the attention of the press. The McCann case really does highlight the damage that a speculative and corrosive press can cause.

 

National Sporting and Cultural Events

It should no longer be possible for a private company, which may be owned and operated by foreign nationals, to restrict the inalienable right of British people to view National Sporting and Cultural Events and Free to Air Television.

 

Why is this idea important?

It should no longer be possible for a private company, which may be owned and operated by foreign nationals, to restrict the inalienable right of British people to view National Sporting and Cultural Events and Free to Air Television.

 

Scrap Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003

Repeal this law.

This law is totally unnecessary and has led to hardly any, and possibly zero, prosecutions.  The amount of looted material on the antiquities market is greatly exaggerated. The market is largely supplied by the vast amounts of legally acquired antiquities collected over the last 300 years. Dealers and auction houses have no need to deal in "tainted objects" as there is so much legally-acquired material on the market.  For example, the law making all antiquities subsequently discovered in Egypt property of the State was passed only in 1983. Before this date, tens of thousands of Egyptian antiquities were exported from Egypt with full permission of the Egyptian authorities of the time. Vast numbers of artefacts from all cultures are hence in private ownership and form the basis of the antiquities trade today. Many of the objects in dealers and auction catalogues have been circulating on the market for decades, even centuries.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal this law.

This law is totally unnecessary and has led to hardly any, and possibly zero, prosecutions.  The amount of looted material on the antiquities market is greatly exaggerated. The market is largely supplied by the vast amounts of legally acquired antiquities collected over the last 300 years. Dealers and auction houses have no need to deal in "tainted objects" as there is so much legally-acquired material on the market.  For example, the law making all antiquities subsequently discovered in Egypt property of the State was passed only in 1983. Before this date, tens of thousands of Egyptian antiquities were exported from Egypt with full permission of the Egyptian authorities of the time. Vast numbers of artefacts from all cultures are hence in private ownership and form the basis of the antiquities trade today. Many of the objects in dealers and auction catalogues have been circulating on the market for decades, even centuries.

Listed Buildings Act – make “de-listing” easier

This Act was designed to preserve our (architectural) heritage and within limits I am in favour of that.  However, it allows for a building to be listed on arbitrary grounds by people who have no responsibility for maintaining it, and against which it is extremely difficult to appeal.  This needs to change.  The onus should be on those who list a building (government/local authorities/heritage groups or whatever) to provide the funds to maintain it in the condition required by the grading.  Since that's not going to happen in most cases, it should then be possible for those responsible for the building to alter or demolish it as they see fit.  If the community objects, let the community put up the money to preserve it. 

Why is this idea important?

This Act was designed to preserve our (architectural) heritage and within limits I am in favour of that.  However, it allows for a building to be listed on arbitrary grounds by people who have no responsibility for maintaining it, and against which it is extremely difficult to appeal.  This needs to change.  The onus should be on those who list a building (government/local authorities/heritage groups or whatever) to provide the funds to maintain it in the condition required by the grading.  Since that's not going to happen in most cases, it should then be possible for those responsible for the building to alter or demolish it as they see fit.  If the community objects, let the community put up the money to preserve it. 

Censorship

I consider freedom of expression to be a basic human right, as such I and indeed everyone should be allowed to decide for ourselves what we personally find offensive, it should not be up to the state or noisy protesters. I suggest the following:

Repeal the obscene publifications act.

Stop bleeping and blurring everything moderately offensive on TV, if some overbearing parent finds it offensive that's their problem not mine.

Stop the BBFC from censoring or banning anything they personal don't like (i.e manhunt 2), Their only job should be age ratings.

Why is this idea important?

I consider freedom of expression to be a basic human right, as such I and indeed everyone should be allowed to decide for ourselves what we personally find offensive, it should not be up to the state or noisy protesters. I suggest the following:

Repeal the obscene publifications act.

Stop bleeping and blurring everything moderately offensive on TV, if some overbearing parent finds it offensive that's their problem not mine.

Stop the BBFC from censoring or banning anything they personal don't like (i.e manhunt 2), Their only job should be age ratings.

Cease funding the Olympics

The Olympics is an entertainment event. Everyone can choose and should pay for their own entertainment. The event should be funded by the competitors their sponsors and the audience like any other event. It should not be subsidised by taxpayers.

Why is this idea important?

The Olympics is an entertainment event. Everyone can choose and should pay for their own entertainment. The event should be funded by the competitors their sponsors and the audience like any other event. It should not be subsidised by taxpayers.

Scrapping of FM frequencies.

Stop this insane push to scrap broadcasting national radio on the FM frequencies.  DAB radio is far from perfect, and will ultimately be replaced by DAB2. The reasons given for going over to DAB broadcasting are political and don't stand up to scrutiny.

Why is this idea important?

Stop this insane push to scrap broadcasting national radio on the FM frequencies.  DAB radio is far from perfect, and will ultimately be replaced by DAB2. The reasons given for going over to DAB broadcasting are political and don't stand up to scrutiny.

Live music

The Music Licensing Bill. This is a supposed health and safety measure that is easily covered by other legislation, Scotland did not consider it necessary.
In practice it means it is legal for two hundred drunken football fans to watch a football match in a pub on wide screen television. However it is illegal for an acoustic guitarist to play to a handful of people in an organic restaurant unless the restaurant has a license. The punishment for any musician that plays in a venue without a license is up to a £20,000 fine and two years imprisonment.

Why is this idea important?

The Music Licensing Bill. This is a supposed health and safety measure that is easily covered by other legislation, Scotland did not consider it necessary.
In practice it means it is legal for two hundred drunken football fans to watch a football match in a pub on wide screen television. However it is illegal for an acoustic guitarist to play to a handful of people in an organic restaurant unless the restaurant has a license. The punishment for any musician that plays in a venue without a license is up to a £20,000 fine and two years imprisonment.

Copyright Law – personal backup of video games

The existing UK copyright law recognised that computer and video games were easily succeptable to damage, be it from magnetic or electrical damage, or young children scratching disks rendering them useless. As such, according to Section 50(A) of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, legal purchasers of computer games are explicitly permitted to make a backup copy of their purchase.

However, the corporate giants such as Sony are perfectly happy for you to go and spend another £40 on a replacement game that your child has just rendered useless by scratching the disk, so they ensure that their video games consoles cannot simply play backup disks. Their protection methods also prevent the software piracy that would in fairness be rife if they werent in place.

These protection methods prevent the consumers legal right to take a personal backup copy, but in order to exercise your rights, you could modify the games console that you have purchased and own to counteract any protection methods put in place by the manufacturers, therefore allowing you once again to make a personal backup copy of your purchased games.

The Copyright And Rights Regulations act (hereafter referred to as the CRRA) was introduced around 2003 and was a series of amendments to the UK’s copyright laws. The section of the law allowing consumers to make a personal backup copy has NOT been changed by the CRRA. You are still entitled by UK law to make a backup copy of any piece of software you buy legally. Where things start to get interesting, though, is in Section 296Z of the new law. Section 296 makes it an offence to do anything at all which is designed to circumvent any piece of copyright protection technology put in place by the manufacturers or distributors of any copyrighted work. In short what it means is that if a disc has some form of anti-copy protection, it is a criminal offence to either circumvent that protection yourself, or to give anyone else any device or piece of information which will enable them to do so. In other words, if you exercise your legally-enshrined right to make a backup of your legally-purchased game, you are automatically and necessarily breaking the law, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

The revision to the law is contradictory and a restriction in consumer rights, making a criminal out of a parent who is just fed up of having to put games in the bin sometimes just days old, because their young childen have scratched the game disk rendering it useless.

Why is this idea important?

The existing UK copyright law recognised that computer and video games were easily succeptable to damage, be it from magnetic or electrical damage, or young children scratching disks rendering them useless. As such, according to Section 50(A) of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, legal purchasers of computer games are explicitly permitted to make a backup copy of their purchase.

However, the corporate giants such as Sony are perfectly happy for you to go and spend another £40 on a replacement game that your child has just rendered useless by scratching the disk, so they ensure that their video games consoles cannot simply play backup disks. Their protection methods also prevent the software piracy that would in fairness be rife if they werent in place.

These protection methods prevent the consumers legal right to take a personal backup copy, but in order to exercise your rights, you could modify the games console that you have purchased and own to counteract any protection methods put in place by the manufacturers, therefore allowing you once again to make a personal backup copy of your purchased games.

The Copyright And Rights Regulations act (hereafter referred to as the CRRA) was introduced around 2003 and was a series of amendments to the UK’s copyright laws. The section of the law allowing consumers to make a personal backup copy has NOT been changed by the CRRA. You are still entitled by UK law to make a backup copy of any piece of software you buy legally. Where things start to get interesting, though, is in Section 296Z of the new law. Section 296 makes it an offence to do anything at all which is designed to circumvent any piece of copyright protection technology put in place by the manufacturers or distributors of any copyrighted work. In short what it means is that if a disc has some form of anti-copy protection, it is a criminal offence to either circumvent that protection yourself, or to give anyone else any device or piece of information which will enable them to do so. In other words, if you exercise your legally-enshrined right to make a backup of your legally-purchased game, you are automatically and necessarily breaking the law, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

The revision to the law is contradictory and a restriction in consumer rights, making a criminal out of a parent who is just fed up of having to put games in the bin sometimes just days old, because their young childen have scratched the game disk rendering it useless.