I propose that equal criticisms of all religions should be taught in schools.
The entire key stage 4 of religious education is about Christianity and what the bible says. There should be sections on using logic to defeat god, evidence against relgion, bible criticisms, the evil in the bible (millions of murders in the name of god or ordered by god) or the morality of relgions that are wrong.
Why is this idea important?
I propose that equal criticisms of all religions should be taught in schools.
The entire key stage 4 of religious education is about Christianity and what the bible says. There should be sections on using logic to defeat god, evidence against relgion, bible criticisms, the evil in the bible (millions of murders in the name of god or ordered by god) or the morality of relgions that are wrong.
I think that it is important that the civil rights of members of the major religions in this country should be respected. It has seemed that in many cases their freedom to act according to their own consciences has been eroded. The previous government seemed to bend over backwards, in the name of diversity, to put Christians' rights to the back of the queue. We are not a tiny minority who can be disregarded – you may not realise it but more people watch 'Songs of Praise' than 'Match of the Day'!
Why is this idea important?
I think that it is important that the civil rights of members of the major religions in this country should be respected. It has seemed that in many cases their freedom to act according to their own consciences has been eroded. The previous government seemed to bend over backwards, in the name of diversity, to put Christians' rights to the back of the queue. We are not a tiny minority who can be disregarded – you may not realise it but more people watch 'Songs of Praise' than 'Match of the Day'!
Following the conviction of Sergeant Mark Andrews, 37 for the assault on Pamela Somerville a petite 59 year old lady in the police custody suite. An incident in which Pamela has suffered permanent physical injury to her eyes and lasting psychological damage. Pamela who had not even received a parking ticket in her 59 years was arrested and brutalized by the police in a Police custody suit. Were it not for the Bravery of a Woman Police Officer who told a supervisor about the assault it would have not been brought to light. Many women claim they are raped and brutalized by male police offers in custody suits it is time to STOP vulnerable women being held in custody by male police officers.
Why is this idea important?
Following the conviction of Sergeant Mark Andrews, 37 for the assault on Pamela Somerville a petite 59 year old lady in the police custody suite. An incident in which Pamela has suffered permanent physical injury to her eyes and lasting psychological damage. Pamela who had not even received a parking ticket in her 59 years was arrested and brutalized by the police in a Police custody suit. Were it not for the Bravery of a Woman Police Officer who told a supervisor about the assault it would have not been brought to light. Many women claim they are raped and brutalized by male police offers in custody suits it is time to STOP vulnerable women being held in custody by male police officers.
Is it not a civil liberty to have freedom of speach and celebrate our countries customs without having to worry the local council is going to accuse us of being racist?
If we want to celebrate customs such as Easter and say we are English it is OUR right as British people. Surely the government should stop councils from offending the British by stopping them having that freedom? I was disgusted at the amount of councils last year that stopped putting up christmas decorations because it will offend. It offends us if they are not up.
The government needs to put some sort of guideline in place so that EVERYONE is happy not one or the other. At the end of the day we ALL live here and NOONES customs should be stopped or curbed. After all i thought we were a nation of EQUALITY.
I am all for legal immigration, but they have to respect everything that is british and what we celebrate, they cant expect us to change in our country, we dont expect them to give up their customs so why are we being made to by some councils and politicians?
Why is this idea important?
Is it not a civil liberty to have freedom of speach and celebrate our countries customs without having to worry the local council is going to accuse us of being racist?
If we want to celebrate customs such as Easter and say we are English it is OUR right as British people. Surely the government should stop councils from offending the British by stopping them having that freedom? I was disgusted at the amount of councils last year that stopped putting up christmas decorations because it will offend. It offends us if they are not up.
The government needs to put some sort of guideline in place so that EVERYONE is happy not one or the other. At the end of the day we ALL live here and NOONES customs should be stopped or curbed. After all i thought we were a nation of EQUALITY.
I am all for legal immigration, but they have to respect everything that is british and what we celebrate, they cant expect us to change in our country, we dont expect them to give up their customs so why are we being made to by some councils and politicians?
My name is laurie fear and im from Brighton
i dont see how straight people are aloud to call it a marriage and gay people have to call it a civil partnership.
I'm 17 and i come from a town called hailsham, i got alot of abuse because of my sexuality and i have found it hard to except myself , i had to move to Brighton because i got so much abuse i could deal with it any-more.
I just don't see how we have to be treated differently ,, we are all human beings and we should have the same right ,, we r not aliens froma diffrent planet ,, we r human beings
We should have the same right as everyone other person in this country and in this world
i think we should have the same rights as straight people , i get so angry when people just sit there and stair at me and my bf because we kiss in public , the law needs changing and needs changing for the good
Why is this idea important?
My name is laurie fear and im from Brighton
i dont see how straight people are aloud to call it a marriage and gay people have to call it a civil partnership.
I'm 17 and i come from a town called hailsham, i got alot of abuse because of my sexuality and i have found it hard to except myself , i had to move to Brighton because i got so much abuse i could deal with it any-more.
I just don't see how we have to be treated differently ,, we are all human beings and we should have the same right ,, we r not aliens froma diffrent planet ,, we r human beings
We should have the same right as everyone other person in this country and in this world
i think we should have the same rights as straight people , i get so angry when people just sit there and stair at me and my bf because we kiss in public , the law needs changing and needs changing for the good
The Coronation Oath –
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and
Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"
Elizabeth 2: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Elizabeth 2: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here
before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."
Those who want to follow the Laws of God, clearly stated in the Oath, are not being allowed.
At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse, according to this Oath, to God's Laws.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow The Law seek a single Court-room. Support the effort.
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/know-your-rights-and-give-judges-less-discretion
Why is this idea important?
The Coronation Oath –
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and
Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"
Elizabeth 2: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Elizabeth 2: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here
before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."
Those who want to follow the Laws of God, clearly stated in the Oath, are not being allowed.
At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse, according to this Oath, to God's Laws.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow The Law seek a single Court-room. Support the effort.
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/know-your-rights-and-give-judges-less-discretion
The Office of National Statistics shows that even today men in full-time employment still earn 12.2 per cent more than women doing the same jobs.
We are all told that the reasons for this are complex and that there are issues of confidentiality which prevent the problem being adequately addressed.
A simple solution would be to increase the wages for ALL women in full-time employment by 12.2 per cent. This would, in a single stroke, acheive the equality which decades of government policy has failed to do.
Why is this idea important?
The Office of National Statistics shows that even today men in full-time employment still earn 12.2 per cent more than women doing the same jobs.
We are all told that the reasons for this are complex and that there are issues of confidentiality which prevent the problem being adequately addressed.
A simple solution would be to increase the wages for ALL women in full-time employment by 12.2 per cent. This would, in a single stroke, acheive the equality which decades of government policy has failed to do.
I believe in a fair society so as recreational drugs are banned I believe it should be extended to all drugs . I believe there should be a prison term for the peddlers of booze (including the Houses of Commons )and tobacco use should attract a minimum of 10years in prison and 40 lashes ,lets have a bit of fairness
Why is this idea important?
I believe in a fair society so as recreational drugs are banned I believe it should be extended to all drugs . I believe there should be a prison term for the peddlers of booze (including the Houses of Commons )and tobacco use should attract a minimum of 10years in prison and 40 lashes ,lets have a bit of fairness
There are numerous laws created in Parliament in which MPs are treated more favourably than ordinary people.
An example is that which set a maximum cap on a pension fund – EXCEPT for MPs.
Another is the EU law which scrapped duty free on items within the EU unless you are an MEP or one of the EU staff.
All laws must apply to people equally. In some cases there are situations whereby the politicians must be treated more harshly but NEVER less.
Why is this idea important?
There are numerous laws created in Parliament in which MPs are treated more favourably than ordinary people.
An example is that which set a maximum cap on a pension fund – EXCEPT for MPs.
Another is the EU law which scrapped duty free on items within the EU unless you are an MEP or one of the EU staff.
All laws must apply to people equally. In some cases there are situations whereby the politicians must be treated more harshly but NEVER less.
Many religions ignore laws such as equal rights for women and homosexuality. Unless a religion conforms to the spirit of the law, it should, as a minimum, not be classified as a religion, and, if necessary, its members should be prosecuted for not positively adhering to equal rights.
Why is this idea important?
Many religions ignore laws such as equal rights for women and homosexuality. Unless a religion conforms to the spirit of the law, it should, as a minimum, not be classified as a religion, and, if necessary, its members should be prosecuted for not positively adhering to equal rights.
Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.
Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.
The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.
No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.
If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.
If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.
While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.
Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.
EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.
A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.
A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.
If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.
The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.
Interim Care Orders should be abolished.
No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.
Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.
A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.
While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.
The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.
The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.
The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.
Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!
Why is this idea important?
Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.
Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.
The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.
No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.
If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.
If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.
While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.
Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.
EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.
A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.
A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.
If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.
The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.
Interim Care Orders should be abolished.
No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.
Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.
A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.
While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.
The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.
The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.
The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.
Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!
Firstly, pull out of the EU. This monster is slowly but surely eroding our rights and liberties at home while ensuring business is more difficult to sustain than ever before. The public want to be governed at a local level where politicians can see what needs to be done and effect it, not at an international "one-size-fits-all" level. All the unnecessary and restrictive red tape and over-regulation that brussels keeps pouring out is doing us only harm. For example, recently sodium chlorate weedkiller was banned. I'm sure this came about because of what looked like a good idea on paper, but in reality the only effect of this decision is that the public have to break their backs trying to manually pull weeds out of their gardens. I say rid us of this beast not only because of this, but also because it is taking more money off us than has been ring-fenced for the foreign aid budget. A large portion of the planned spending cuts could be scrapped by simply ditching the masses of dead weight helpfully being generously provided to us by the EU. Note the sarcasm.
And speaking of the foreign aid budget, get rid of that, effective from yesterday! Just throwing money at other countries that often don't need it (example india with its own space programme and new multi-million-pound airports) is a waste of our hard-earned cash that we need to keep for ourselves, so it just beggars belief that "foreign aid" is the only budget that isn't going to be cut – and is possibly even to be increased!
Free haandouts don't stop there though. Immigrants of all sorts get thousands in benefits each week that they don't need – and even the ones that do find their own work take the opportunity away from brits that deserve it! There simply isn't enough money or space and there aren't enough jobs or houses for the british people as it is, let alone giving all sorts leave to roam our space and squat in our sheds. I call for an immediate halt to all immigration and start to a scheme of assisted repatriation for those who want to go home. That is the only way we will get rid of the excess population that is causing our once-great nation so much distress. And finally, stop racism! And I don't mean your sort of "racism", I mean the real discrimination that is happening against white British men all the time. The sort of racism that you lot seem to support and enjoy!
Why is this idea important?
Firstly, pull out of the EU. This monster is slowly but surely eroding our rights and liberties at home while ensuring business is more difficult to sustain than ever before. The public want to be governed at a local level where politicians can see what needs to be done and effect it, not at an international "one-size-fits-all" level. All the unnecessary and restrictive red tape and over-regulation that brussels keeps pouring out is doing us only harm. For example, recently sodium chlorate weedkiller was banned. I'm sure this came about because of what looked like a good idea on paper, but in reality the only effect of this decision is that the public have to break their backs trying to manually pull weeds out of their gardens. I say rid us of this beast not only because of this, but also because it is taking more money off us than has been ring-fenced for the foreign aid budget. A large portion of the planned spending cuts could be scrapped by simply ditching the masses of dead weight helpfully being generously provided to us by the EU. Note the sarcasm.
And speaking of the foreign aid budget, get rid of that, effective from yesterday! Just throwing money at other countries that often don't need it (example india with its own space programme and new multi-million-pound airports) is a waste of our hard-earned cash that we need to keep for ourselves, so it just beggars belief that "foreign aid" is the only budget that isn't going to be cut – and is possibly even to be increased!
Free haandouts don't stop there though. Immigrants of all sorts get thousands in benefits each week that they don't need – and even the ones that do find their own work take the opportunity away from brits that deserve it! There simply isn't enough money or space and there aren't enough jobs or houses for the british people as it is, let alone giving all sorts leave to roam our space and squat in our sheds. I call for an immediate halt to all immigration and start to a scheme of assisted repatriation for those who want to go home. That is the only way we will get rid of the excess population that is causing our once-great nation so much distress. And finally, stop racism! And I don't mean your sort of "racism", I mean the real discrimination that is happening against white British men all the time. The sort of racism that you lot seem to support and enjoy!
The status of travellers as a racial group is undermining measures to tackle the illegal actitivites of (some) of the members of this group, whether it's breaches of planning law, trespassing, or other anti-social actititives where the authorities have to wear "kit gloves" to deal with them, because of their status under equalities law.
Travelling is a lfestyle choice, not a race, regardless of how many generations have been doing it.
Why is this idea important?
The status of travellers as a racial group is undermining measures to tackle the illegal actitivites of (some) of the members of this group, whether it's breaches of planning law, trespassing, or other anti-social actititives where the authorities have to wear "kit gloves" to deal with them, because of their status under equalities law.
Travelling is a lfestyle choice, not a race, regardless of how many generations have been doing it.
Having recently received a state pension and living in social housing I find that there are only two options open to me. Renting privately is out of the question because of all the outlay, the 6 weeks deposit the months rent in advance, the agency fees, requisite before even moving in. In social housing now there are so many bad neighbours, with addictions, criminal histories or generally just noisy at night and inconsiderate that the only other option is to move into sheltered housing. Why is there no other option for those who cannot afford to buy, please? Sheltered housing is more expensive due to the costs of supporting manager, etc, but if a person is fit, healthy and very independent, likes privacy and doesnt want a red pull cord in possibly every room or someone knocking on their door every day to check whether they are all right and still alive the truth is that there is simply NO ALTERNATIVE but to rent social housing with often unscrupulous housing organisations who have no respect for the law in what they do or say and bad neighbours who can make life a hell on Earth. There is a housing crisis in England which needs to be addressed by this government! Now, it may not be a popular subject due to the fact it is about the needs of the poorer members of society but poor people are not automatically bad people.
Why is this idea important?
Having recently received a state pension and living in social housing I find that there are only two options open to me. Renting privately is out of the question because of all the outlay, the 6 weeks deposit the months rent in advance, the agency fees, requisite before even moving in. In social housing now there are so many bad neighbours, with addictions, criminal histories or generally just noisy at night and inconsiderate that the only other option is to move into sheltered housing. Why is there no other option for those who cannot afford to buy, please? Sheltered housing is more expensive due to the costs of supporting manager, etc, but if a person is fit, healthy and very independent, likes privacy and doesnt want a red pull cord in possibly every room or someone knocking on their door every day to check whether they are all right and still alive the truth is that there is simply NO ALTERNATIVE but to rent social housing with often unscrupulous housing organisations who have no respect for the law in what they do or say and bad neighbours who can make life a hell on Earth. There is a housing crisis in England which needs to be addressed by this government! Now, it may not be a popular subject due to the fact it is about the needs of the poorer members of society but poor people are not automatically bad people.
Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.
Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.
The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm
How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.
Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.
"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
Why is this idea important?
Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.
Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.
The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm
How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.
Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.
"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
How can we profess to be a truly democratic and modern society when we subsidise a head of state selected on the basis of hereditary privilege?
We should be allowed to elect our head of state. Someone who actively engages with the electorate. Only an elected head of state can adequately protect our civil liberties. A hereditary ruler has no legitimacy whatsoever.
Why is this idea important?
How can we profess to be a truly democratic and modern society when we subsidise a head of state selected on the basis of hereditary privilege?
We should be allowed to elect our head of state. Someone who actively engages with the electorate. Only an elected head of state can adequately protect our civil liberties. A hereditary ruler has no legitimacy whatsoever.
There has been a tendency by some people who have chosen a religious lifestyle to seek to opt out of affording respect for the rights and freedoms of certain others whilst demanding respect for their own rights and freedoms.
EU law does not allow the United Kingdom to deny groups rights because they deny the legitimacy of rights or liberty to others. However if we are to be consistent, people with non-religious philosophical beliefs (eg Humanists) should be allowed to opt of of those Christian laws that conflict with the sincerely, strongly held secular beliefs of a significant number of their adherents. Thus a Humanist would be entitled to avail themselves of active voluntary euthanasia and enter into a heterosexual civil partnership. Meanwhile Christian laws would only in future be applicable to those who have chosen a scripturally consistent, Christian lifestyle. Marriage should therefore be decoupled from faith.
Equally, if a Christian offering bed and breakfast wishes to decide on faith grounds who to admit, they should be allowed to do so subject to being theologically consistent. Thus whilst they may exclude homosexuals, they must also be required treat divorcees, adulterers, menstuating women and other unions that conflict with, say Leviticus, in exactly the same way, or risk prosecution for religious abuse. The abuse of religion to justify enforcing some beliefs whilst ignoring others that may be personally inconvenient to the holder of those beliefs has led to the moderate Christian majority being seen as complicit in discrimination and double standards, thus undermining Christian legitimacy.
Alternately there should be no special rights for those who have chosen a particular religious lifestyle and the law should apply equally to all and be faith neutral.
Why is this idea important?
There has been a tendency by some people who have chosen a religious lifestyle to seek to opt out of affording respect for the rights and freedoms of certain others whilst demanding respect for their own rights and freedoms.
EU law does not allow the United Kingdom to deny groups rights because they deny the legitimacy of rights or liberty to others. However if we are to be consistent, people with non-religious philosophical beliefs (eg Humanists) should be allowed to opt of of those Christian laws that conflict with the sincerely, strongly held secular beliefs of a significant number of their adherents. Thus a Humanist would be entitled to avail themselves of active voluntary euthanasia and enter into a heterosexual civil partnership. Meanwhile Christian laws would only in future be applicable to those who have chosen a scripturally consistent, Christian lifestyle. Marriage should therefore be decoupled from faith.
Equally, if a Christian offering bed and breakfast wishes to decide on faith grounds who to admit, they should be allowed to do so subject to being theologically consistent. Thus whilst they may exclude homosexuals, they must also be required treat divorcees, adulterers, menstuating women and other unions that conflict with, say Leviticus, in exactly the same way, or risk prosecution for religious abuse. The abuse of religion to justify enforcing some beliefs whilst ignoring others that may be personally inconvenient to the holder of those beliefs has led to the moderate Christian majority being seen as complicit in discrimination and double standards, thus undermining Christian legitimacy.
Alternately there should be no special rights for those who have chosen a particular religious lifestyle and the law should apply equally to all and be faith neutral.
My idea is to reduce the amount of time it takes for appealed cases to be reviewed. It takes up to 1 year for the person to be granted a visa this is too long. 3 to 6 months is more like it.
Why is this idea important?
My idea is to reduce the amount of time it takes for appealed cases to be reviewed. It takes up to 1 year for the person to be granted a visa this is too long. 3 to 6 months is more like it.
It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.
This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.
POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.
Why is this idea important?
It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.
This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.
POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.
Not sure if this is exactly the right forum for this idea but here goes.
How is it that the Government is seeking to increase the pension entitlement age so that we are all going to have to work longer and as yet I've heard no mention of raising the cut off dates for say driving licences and other age tested formalities the Government controls. if we are fit enough to be able to work longer and contribute doesn't it also follow that the age limit for those other criterion should also be lifted (and reduce the burocracy) or are we eventually going to have to be subjected to extra driving test etc merely to fullfill our contractual obligations to a working society?
Why is this idea important?
Not sure if this is exactly the right forum for this idea but here goes.
How is it that the Government is seeking to increase the pension entitlement age so that we are all going to have to work longer and as yet I've heard no mention of raising the cut off dates for say driving licences and other age tested formalities the Government controls. if we are fit enough to be able to work longer and contribute doesn't it also follow that the age limit for those other criterion should also be lifted (and reduce the burocracy) or are we eventually going to have to be subjected to extra driving test etc merely to fullfill our contractual obligations to a working society?
I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them. in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.
ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.
Why is this idea important?
I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them. in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.
ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.
That all veterans of the Armed Forced be treated equality in regard to the provision of pension rights, and that the 1975 pension act relating to service pensions be amended to ensure that those who served this country in the 50s, 60s , and early 70s be awarded the same pension rights as those who served after April 1975.
Why is this idea important?
That all veterans of the Armed Forced be treated equality in regard to the provision of pension rights, and that the 1975 pension act relating to service pensions be amended to ensure that those who served this country in the 50s, 60s , and early 70s be awarded the same pension rights as those who served after April 1975.
Dear Sir
The Law change which is very urgent involves a particularly destructive law, which is a travesty of justice and so perverse that it promotes an oxymoron. It reduces innocent people to remaining “guilty of being falsely accused.”
This comes about when a judge refuses to try a case, after legal argument, because it is revealed as an obvious miscarriage of justice and the judge refuses to put the case before a jury. It is thrown out of court and the innocent victim of the false allegation is freed.
However these victims never regain their innocent status in the way that those tried by a jury do.
They remain guilty of not being tried by a jury, despite the judge proving their innocence.
This situation remains, even though there have now been judge only cases tried, without a jury involved at all.
The cases to which I refer are not those where judges “stay the proceedings” but cases where the Prosecution offers ‘ no evidence ’ after a judge disputes authenticity and subsequent admissibility of certain evidence. The judge may declare for example “ In that case I have to find the defendant not guilty.” Or “There is no case to answer.”
( An example of the above situation might occur when evidence which has been withheld by the CPS is finally revealed on day one of the trial. )
Consequently, the issues which need to be addressed is whether the judge’s opinion alone is sufficient in these cases and whether this law change as and when it is convenient? I’m sure you agree that if this is the situation the law is truly unworthy of remaining as it is deeply flawed.
There can’t be one law applicable to some and another law applicable to other innocent people, justice must be available to all those falsely accused.
A defendant found not guilty and acquitted by a judge in these circumstances should have their full rights restored and should not have any matters recorded against them that would come up on Criminal Records Bureaux (CRB) checks or extended CRB checks. There should be complete admonishment and all records wiped, so the person returns to their rightful innocent status.
The matter to be concluded as the alleged offence having never happened.
Currently these people remain “guilty of not being tried by a jury.”
They are often victims of false allegations made by a person seeking personal gain and self interest.
(For example a wife wanting to gain a divorce in an all win situation, so falsely accuses the husband of sexually assaulting herself or their children. )
Thus the victim remains “Guilty of being falsely accused” and their full liberty is not restored to them. The accuser often gets away with perverting the course of justice and illegally obtains their goal, making them above the law. It also results in so much public money being wasted in the process.
It is of concern that so many innocent people have been falsely accused in this manner, their lives shattered and yet they cannot regain their Human Rights, freedom and truly innocent status.
I would like to encourage the Government to do everything necessary to ensure the change of the archaic law and release these victims from a life of misery.
May I respectfully suggest that an easy process be put in place, which will allow those declared innocent by a judge, to regain their freedom, their civil rights and their truly innocent status, in the same way as those found innocent by a jury.
I suggest that these victims, who have been subjected to the above travesty of justice, should be issued with a “Certificate of Acquittal” in order that their full civil liberties and Human Rights are restored to them and it is ascertained that they are not affected in the future.
I’m reassured that the present government are keen to listen and set a process of this sort in action and restore the lives of thousands of victims of false allegations etc. who are waiting to have their truly innocent status restored to them, but cannot afford a “Finding of Fact” to achieve this.
You will give them the means to start rebuilding their shattered lives by redressing this injustice.
With many thanks and looking forward to the worthwhile, new, trustworthy government who will right injustice by abolishing perverse Laws.
Why is this idea important?
Dear Sir
The Law change which is very urgent involves a particularly destructive law, which is a travesty of justice and so perverse that it promotes an oxymoron. It reduces innocent people to remaining “guilty of being falsely accused.”
This comes about when a judge refuses to try a case, after legal argument, because it is revealed as an obvious miscarriage of justice and the judge refuses to put the case before a jury. It is thrown out of court and the innocent victim of the false allegation is freed.
However these victims never regain their innocent status in the way that those tried by a jury do.
They remain guilty of not being tried by a jury, despite the judge proving their innocence.
This situation remains, even though there have now been judge only cases tried, without a jury involved at all.
The cases to which I refer are not those where judges “stay the proceedings” but cases where the Prosecution offers ‘ no evidence ’ after a judge disputes authenticity and subsequent admissibility of certain evidence. The judge may declare for example “ In that case I have to find the defendant not guilty.” Or “There is no case to answer.”
( An example of the above situation might occur when evidence which has been withheld by the CPS is finally revealed on day one of the trial. )
Consequently, the issues which need to be addressed is whether the judge’s opinion alone is sufficient in these cases and whether this law change as and when it is convenient? I’m sure you agree that if this is the situation the law is truly unworthy of remaining as it is deeply flawed.
There can’t be one law applicable to some and another law applicable to other innocent people, justice must be available to all those falsely accused.
A defendant found not guilty and acquitted by a judge in these circumstances should have their full rights restored and should not have any matters recorded against them that would come up on Criminal Records Bureaux (CRB) checks or extended CRB checks. There should be complete admonishment and all records wiped, so the person returns to their rightful innocent status.
The matter to be concluded as the alleged offence having never happened.
Currently these people remain “guilty of not being tried by a jury.”
They are often victims of false allegations made by a person seeking personal gain and self interest.
(For example a wife wanting to gain a divorce in an all win situation, so falsely accuses the husband of sexually assaulting herself or their children. )
Thus the victim remains “Guilty of being falsely accused” and their full liberty is not restored to them. The accuser often gets away with perverting the course of justice and illegally obtains their goal, making them above the law. It also results in so much public money being wasted in the process.
It is of concern that so many innocent people have been falsely accused in this manner, their lives shattered and yet they cannot regain their Human Rights, freedom and truly innocent status.
I would like to encourage the Government to do everything necessary to ensure the change of the archaic law and release these victims from a life of misery.
May I respectfully suggest that an easy process be put in place, which will allow those declared innocent by a judge, to regain their freedom, their civil rights and their truly innocent status, in the same way as those found innocent by a jury.
I suggest that these victims, who have been subjected to the above travesty of justice, should be issued with a “Certificate of Acquittal” in order that their full civil liberties and Human Rights are restored to them and it is ascertained that they are not affected in the future.
I’m reassured that the present government are keen to listen and set a process of this sort in action and restore the lives of thousands of victims of false allegations etc. who are waiting to have their truly innocent status restored to them, but cannot afford a “Finding of Fact” to achieve this.
You will give them the means to start rebuilding their shattered lives by redressing this injustice.
With many thanks and looking forward to the worthwhile, new, trustworthy government who will right injustice by abolishing perverse Laws.
As an ex Publican I saw first hand the destruction of a once thriving industry. I lay 90% of the blame at the feet of the Smoking Ban. To this end I have a solution.
All pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere that serves alcohol has to, by law, have a premises licence to trade alcohol. My solution to the smoking ban would be to do the same thing – licence it! The government could use it as a stick to beat the industry with in terms of tax generation, however that would be offset by the turnover that would undoubtedly be increased.
With the licensing would obviously come restrictions; pubs and restaurants with x% turnover on food (say for instance a pub with a 50/50 split on food against drink) would not be eligable for the licence. The scheme in my mind would be for the pubs with the greatest dangers – the drinkers pubs, or the pubs with kitchens too small to give a suitable food offering. Also, the requirements would have to mean that pubs taking part would have to have a set standard of air filtration and extraction, which would again mean investment. However, with the proposition of bringing supermarket alcohol prices in line with the rest of the industry it would offer a greater level of choice.
All my idea is, is a chance to give a bit of choice back to people, there wouldn't be a requirement for every pub to take this on as a compulsory measure, indeed, if pubs felt they were better off catering to the non smoking community then there would be no requirement for it. However, many of the smaller, drinkers pubs have found serious hardship and difficulty in maintaining revenue due to the lack of choice afforded to a large percentage of customers.
Why is this idea important?
As an ex Publican I saw first hand the destruction of a once thriving industry. I lay 90% of the blame at the feet of the Smoking Ban. To this end I have a solution.
All pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere that serves alcohol has to, by law, have a premises licence to trade alcohol. My solution to the smoking ban would be to do the same thing – licence it! The government could use it as a stick to beat the industry with in terms of tax generation, however that would be offset by the turnover that would undoubtedly be increased.
With the licensing would obviously come restrictions; pubs and restaurants with x% turnover on food (say for instance a pub with a 50/50 split on food against drink) would not be eligable for the licence. The scheme in my mind would be for the pubs with the greatest dangers – the drinkers pubs, or the pubs with kitchens too small to give a suitable food offering. Also, the requirements would have to mean that pubs taking part would have to have a set standard of air filtration and extraction, which would again mean investment. However, with the proposition of bringing supermarket alcohol prices in line with the rest of the industry it would offer a greater level of choice.
All my idea is, is a chance to give a bit of choice back to people, there wouldn't be a requirement for every pub to take this on as a compulsory measure, indeed, if pubs felt they were better off catering to the non smoking community then there would be no requirement for it. However, many of the smaller, drinkers pubs have found serious hardship and difficulty in maintaining revenue due to the lack of choice afforded to a large percentage of customers.
The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new agile and diverse philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .
Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially diverse responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .
Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .
Why is this idea important?
The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new agile and diverse philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .
Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially diverse responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .
Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .