Department for International Development: how to improve human rights in Uganda

My two ideas are

  1. Channel some existing aid via minority groups – womens groups or gay groups – so that if these groups are locked-up, there is nobody to cash the cheques.   I'm assuming that they would be prepared to cash cheques for large amounts of money and pay the money on to existing grant recipients, and that this could be monitored for any corruption.
     
  2. A long-term goal of linking human rights violations with higher EU import tariffs. I'm thinking of examples where a third world country gets a special zero tariff in order to help it develop, but the third world government is more interested in locking people up and killing people than development.

My hope is that the short-term policy and long-term policy combined would make it very hard for third world politicians to persecute minorities to get easy popularity, as the Kampala government is doing now.

Why is this idea important?

My two ideas are

  1. Channel some existing aid via minority groups – womens groups or gay groups – so that if these groups are locked-up, there is nobody to cash the cheques.   I'm assuming that they would be prepared to cash cheques for large amounts of money and pay the money on to existing grant recipients, and that this could be monitored for any corruption.
     
  2. A long-term goal of linking human rights violations with higher EU import tariffs. I'm thinking of examples where a third world country gets a special zero tariff in order to help it develop, but the third world government is more interested in locking people up and killing people than development.

My hope is that the short-term policy and long-term policy combined would make it very hard for third world politicians to persecute minorities to get easy popularity, as the Kampala government is doing now.

Repeal the laws which require offenders to register beyond ten years without a review

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which supported a High Court ruling against the Home Office/Government, stated that sex offenders should not be required to continue registering each year without having their case reviewed to see if they still pose a threat. They ruled that this requirement conflicted with EC Human Rights Article 8, therefore that part of the Sex Offenders Act which makes lifelong registration without the possibility of review must be removed from UK law.

The Supreme Court ruled that every case should be reviewed after ten years, and each year thereafter if necessary, which would reduce the workload of the police having to monitor those who no longer pose a threat, or never posed a threat in the first place. The Government have yet to implement this ruling.
 

Why is this idea important?

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which supported a High Court ruling against the Home Office/Government, stated that sex offenders should not be required to continue registering each year without having their case reviewed to see if they still pose a threat. They ruled that this requirement conflicted with EC Human Rights Article 8, therefore that part of the Sex Offenders Act which makes lifelong registration without the possibility of review must be removed from UK law.

The Supreme Court ruled that every case should be reviewed after ten years, and each year thereafter if necessary, which would reduce the workload of the police having to monitor those who no longer pose a threat, or never posed a threat in the first place. The Government have yet to implement this ruling.
 

Freedom from Police Brutality

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Why is this idea important?

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Equal representation for women

While we are considering reforming the voting system, why don't we make sure that women are equally represented?  This could be done by electing one man and one woman for each constituency.  It would mean that constituencies would have to be larger, but it's the only way that women will get equality in Parliament – we are really not making any progress worth mentioning.  I expect someone will comment that we can't do that for every group in society – true, but I'm not proposing that.  Whilst someone can be black and a man or women, a smoker and a man or woman, etc, as far as I know you can't be registered as a man and a woman at the same time.  Minority groups are fairly represented in Parliament already. Women form more than half of our population, but they are not properly represented in Parliament.  Women do think differently from men and approach life in a different way.  Their experience of life is totally different from men and yet we only have a few women MPs.  This should apply to all elected bodies.

Why is this idea important?

While we are considering reforming the voting system, why don't we make sure that women are equally represented?  This could be done by electing one man and one woman for each constituency.  It would mean that constituencies would have to be larger, but it's the only way that women will get equality in Parliament – we are really not making any progress worth mentioning.  I expect someone will comment that we can't do that for every group in society – true, but I'm not proposing that.  Whilst someone can be black and a man or women, a smoker and a man or woman, etc, as far as I know you can't be registered as a man and a woman at the same time.  Minority groups are fairly represented in Parliament already. Women form more than half of our population, but they are not properly represented in Parliament.  Women do think differently from men and approach life in a different way.  Their experience of life is totally different from men and yet we only have a few women MPs.  This should apply to all elected bodies.

i dont do drugs

alcohol and tobacco are two of the most dangerous drugs available not only to the user but also on society. If you use either, you ARE a drug user. A tobacco addiction puts a heroin one to shame. So you can stop looking down on people who’s drugs of choice happen to be illegal because the drugs your using are far more dangerous than almost all the illegal ones. So you can quit the “I’ve never taken a drug in my life” because you have

Why is this idea important?

alcohol and tobacco are two of the most dangerous drugs available not only to the user but also on society. If you use either, you ARE a drug user. A tobacco addiction puts a heroin one to shame. So you can stop looking down on people who’s drugs of choice happen to be illegal because the drugs your using are far more dangerous than almost all the illegal ones. So you can quit the “I’ve never taken a drug in my life” because you have

Take all UK land into public ownership

It is unjust that current generations are born into a country where all the land was appropriated (often by violence, or by the legalised violence of the enclosures movement) before their birth, and that consequently they have to pay what are often absurd amounts of money for the privilege of occupying, in the shape of a house or flat, a tiny portion of the country they are supposed to be able to call their own.

Hence my idea is to nationalise all land without compensation, so as to turn it into a public asset from which all can benefit.   Rents should be on a sliding scale, such that ordinary citizens who are content to live in a small flat or family house need pay very little – far less than at present when land is used as a source of private profit – while any individuals and companies that wish to occupy sizeable tracts of land would be required to pay very handsomely for the privilege. 

Thus land would be converted from being a source of private profit through exploiting the housing needs of the unpossessed, and change instead into a useful source of income for the public purse and hence for society generally.   

Why is this idea important?

It is unjust that current generations are born into a country where all the land was appropriated (often by violence, or by the legalised violence of the enclosures movement) before their birth, and that consequently they have to pay what are often absurd amounts of money for the privilege of occupying, in the shape of a house or flat, a tiny portion of the country they are supposed to be able to call their own.

Hence my idea is to nationalise all land without compensation, so as to turn it into a public asset from which all can benefit.   Rents should be on a sliding scale, such that ordinary citizens who are content to live in a small flat or family house need pay very little – far less than at present when land is used as a source of private profit – while any individuals and companies that wish to occupy sizeable tracts of land would be required to pay very handsomely for the privilege. 

Thus land would be converted from being a source of private profit through exploiting the housing needs of the unpossessed, and change instead into a useful source of income for the public purse and hence for society generally.   

Removing exceptions to Equalitie Law

Remove all exceptions to equlities laws (such as the exception to the Church to not comply with some parts of Sexual orientation law). People are people and everyone should be treated with respect and dignity by everyone else, with no exceptions!

Why is this idea important?

Remove all exceptions to equlities laws (such as the exception to the Church to not comply with some parts of Sexual orientation law). People are people and everyone should be treated with respect and dignity by everyone else, with no exceptions!

Repeal British law allowing for accumulation of extreme wealth

Free-speech is only as free as the guidelines that determine freedom.
Freedom is in doing.

As an activist for reinstating God's Law, one need not know God, to know God's Law is right.

Under God's Law, the poverty we've grown accustomed to, would not be allowed to continue.

British law that allows castle owners and the like to gain influence and effect law is immoral.
By effecting law, a massive amount of injustice occurs, and each contribution explains how.
For this reason, under God's Law, there is to be no altering of The Law, for benefit of the few.
In fact, no altering of The Law at all, because this is the means by which injustice flourishes.
Currently, British law demands that we observe only it, and forbids The Law it was based on.
The Law is the Law of God, and British law, as it stands now, is law that is altered for the benefit of an elite few.

British law is illegally suppressing a God-given inherent right, entitling everyone to the "Release of Debt".
British law, effected by castle owners, supports law in their favor, whilst denying the people.
To maintain an objective reality, there must be a realistic starting point to begin the process.
Re-distribution of wealth is the first priority, in the commencement of re-instating God's Law.

15:4 To the end that there be no poor among you. – Deuteronomy.
 

Why is this idea important?

Free-speech is only as free as the guidelines that determine freedom.
Freedom is in doing.

As an activist for reinstating God's Law, one need not know God, to know God's Law is right.

Under God's Law, the poverty we've grown accustomed to, would not be allowed to continue.

British law that allows castle owners and the like to gain influence and effect law is immoral.
By effecting law, a massive amount of injustice occurs, and each contribution explains how.
For this reason, under God's Law, there is to be no altering of The Law, for benefit of the few.
In fact, no altering of The Law at all, because this is the means by which injustice flourishes.
Currently, British law demands that we observe only it, and forbids The Law it was based on.
The Law is the Law of God, and British law, as it stands now, is law that is altered for the benefit of an elite few.

British law is illegally suppressing a God-given inherent right, entitling everyone to the "Release of Debt".
British law, effected by castle owners, supports law in their favor, whilst denying the people.
To maintain an objective reality, there must be a realistic starting point to begin the process.
Re-distribution of wealth is the first priority, in the commencement of re-instating God's Law.

15:4 To the end that there be no poor among you. – Deuteronomy.
 

Compulsory paternity tests

With statistics as high as 1 in 20 fathers not being the biological father of their child and the implimentation of a DNA database I think it's time we began DNA testing all fathers.  This will help prevent  storys such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10845112

The law would help protect mothers, fathers and children and in most cases cement the bond between father and child and in 5% of cases allow the parner to choose or not to choose to undertake the task of raising a child that is not biologicly his own. 

Why is this idea important?

With statistics as high as 1 in 20 fathers not being the biological father of their child and the implimentation of a DNA database I think it's time we began DNA testing all fathers.  This will help prevent  storys such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10845112

The law would help protect mothers, fathers and children and in most cases cement the bond between father and child and in 5% of cases allow the parner to choose or not to choose to undertake the task of raising a child that is not biologicly his own. 

Abolish the Government

Why not abolish the government and institute some form of direct democracy to enhance our freedoms.

We the people can create petitions and gather sufficient signatures to invoke a local or national ballot.

Clearly the current oligarchy will perenially ignore the people on some of the most important issues:

1. Mass immigration

2. Offshoring of jobs

3. Working hours

4. Tuition fees

5. Regressive taxation

6. Redistribution of wealth

7. Corporate monopolies

8. Corporate lobbying and 'access'

9. EU membership

10. War on drugs

11. War on smoking

12. War on terror

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera..

Why is this idea important?

Why not abolish the government and institute some form of direct democracy to enhance our freedoms.

We the people can create petitions and gather sufficient signatures to invoke a local or national ballot.

Clearly the current oligarchy will perenially ignore the people on some of the most important issues:

1. Mass immigration

2. Offshoring of jobs

3. Working hours

4. Tuition fees

5. Regressive taxation

6. Redistribution of wealth

7. Corporate monopolies

8. Corporate lobbying and 'access'

9. EU membership

10. War on drugs

11. War on smoking

12. War on terror

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera..

Repeal smoking ban in pubs, bingo halls and restaurants

Prisoners are allowed to smoke – why not the general public? Pubs would stop closing by the dozen every week, bingo halls would open again, and trade would pick up in restaurants. Let people choose where they wish to work, they might be smokers who want to work in a smoke filled environment. Private rooms for smoking should be allowed in hotels or wherever people congregate. The government should not decide where you can smoke and where you can't unless there is a critical danger to the public i.e. a petrol station. There are few freedoms left and the Smoking ban is a very recent and unneccessary law.

Why is this idea important?

Prisoners are allowed to smoke – why not the general public? Pubs would stop closing by the dozen every week, bingo halls would open again, and trade would pick up in restaurants. Let people choose where they wish to work, they might be smokers who want to work in a smoke filled environment. Private rooms for smoking should be allowed in hotels or wherever people congregate. The government should not decide where you can smoke and where you can't unless there is a critical danger to the public i.e. a petrol station. There are few freedoms left and the Smoking ban is a very recent and unneccessary law.

New English language requirement for partners

From 29 November 2010, you will need to show that you can speak and understand English if you want to enter or remain in the UK as the partner of a British citizen or a person settled here.

I wish to change the new requirement so a person does not need to pass any test before any  power so that they may live there life together.

Why is this idea important?

From 29 November 2010, you will need to show that you can speak and understand English if you want to enter or remain in the UK as the partner of a British citizen or a person settled here.

I wish to change the new requirement so a person does not need to pass any test before any  power so that they may live there life together.

Bar signatories to the Scottish Claim of Right (1988) from holding office in British government.

 
 
Signatories to the Scottish Claim of Right affirm that the interests of Scotland are paramount over those of all other countries, including those of other parts countries in the United Kingdom.
 
The claim states:
 
"We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount."
 

Why is this idea important?

 
 
Signatories to the Scottish Claim of Right affirm that the interests of Scotland are paramount over those of all other countries, including those of other parts countries in the United Kingdom.
 
The claim states:
 
"We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount."
 

Equality for all regardless of Religous Denomination

I would like to be as equal as you. I would like my son to be an equal to you.

But we are not, we by religous denomination are not extended the same rights and freedoms as you and yours.To be Catholic in your 21st Century modern society where equality issues are dominant in your social policies, is to be invisible.The great undiscussed. The only religion where the law of the land itself discriminates against you rather than society itself .It is easily solved. Repeal the Act of Settlement and do it willingly under the grounds that we are all equal and that my son should have the right to stand shoulder to shoulder with yours on the steps of Downing Street.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to be as equal as you. I would like my son to be an equal to you.

But we are not, we by religous denomination are not extended the same rights and freedoms as you and yours.To be Catholic in your 21st Century modern society where equality issues are dominant in your social policies, is to be invisible.The great undiscussed. The only religion where the law of the land itself discriminates against you rather than society itself .It is easily solved. Repeal the Act of Settlement and do it willingly under the grounds that we are all equal and that my son should have the right to stand shoulder to shoulder with yours on the steps of Downing Street.

re: smoking in public houses

Public Houses should be allowed to have a smoking room or there should be the freedom of each publican to decide if they want smoking in their pub. If they don't that is fair enough but then we have the choice in which Pub we go to.I was a Publican myself for more than twenty years and i think it is wicked to see what is happening to Pubs now, more and more are closing every week. It is surely up to each individual to have the choice of whether they smoke or not and we should not be dictated to by Government. All of us that smoke know the risk to our health but that is our choice to make and not the Governments.

Why is this idea important?

Public Houses should be allowed to have a smoking room or there should be the freedom of each publican to decide if they want smoking in their pub. If they don't that is fair enough but then we have the choice in which Pub we go to.I was a Publican myself for more than twenty years and i think it is wicked to see what is happening to Pubs now, more and more are closing every week. It is surely up to each individual to have the choice of whether they smoke or not and we should not be dictated to by Government. All of us that smoke know the risk to our health but that is our choice to make and not the Governments.

End legal privilege of religious over non-religious views

Laws and regulations which give special privelege and protection to religious beliefs should be amended, such as Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam and 2003 Employment Equality regulations.

The argument is not that discrimination against religious views should be lawful, but privilege given to  religious views over others, is wrong.

Why is this idea important?

Laws and regulations which give special privelege and protection to religious beliefs should be amended, such as Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam and 2003 Employment Equality regulations.

The argument is not that discrimination against religious views should be lawful, but privilege given to  religious views over others, is wrong.

Repeal or amend the smoking ban

This must be the most socially divisive legislation ever enacted by a British Government. I find it ironic that the first government to enact such legislation in my lifetime was Nazi Germany, and the present German courts have declared a ban in small bars unconstitutional. Pubs in this country are closing at the rate of 40 a week, something must be done to rectify this appalling situation. 

Why is this idea important?

This must be the most socially divisive legislation ever enacted by a British Government. I find it ironic that the first government to enact such legislation in my lifetime was Nazi Germany, and the present German courts have declared a ban in small bars unconstitutional. Pubs in this country are closing at the rate of 40 a week, something must be done to rectify this appalling situation. 

Improve local choice for parents to send their children to non-faith, co-educational schools

In some areas almost half the local schools are either faith schools or single-sex. This restricts the choice for parents who wish their children to attend a non-faith, co-educational school. Camden and Hackney are two examples. Often these schools are successful leaving parents with a small choice of less good schools. It has been proven that faith schools discriminate against non-middle class families, increasing social division. The state education system should ensure full choice for all by limiting the number of faith and single-sex schools and ensuring a balance of boys’ and girls’ schools in each area, if indeed we need them at all. Non-faith, co-educational schools attracting fewer applicants should be supported financially to improve, until parents no longer feel the need to pretend to go to church to get their children into a better school.

Why is this idea important?

In some areas almost half the local schools are either faith schools or single-sex. This restricts the choice for parents who wish their children to attend a non-faith, co-educational school. Camden and Hackney are two examples. Often these schools are successful leaving parents with a small choice of less good schools. It has been proven that faith schools discriminate against non-middle class families, increasing social division. The state education system should ensure full choice for all by limiting the number of faith and single-sex schools and ensuring a balance of boys’ and girls’ schools in each area, if indeed we need them at all. Non-faith, co-educational schools attracting fewer applicants should be supported financially to improve, until parents no longer feel the need to pretend to go to church to get their children into a better school.

Cancel the Barnet Formula

This outdated legislation has no place in the democracy called The United Kingdom.

It is not right that one country of the UK should subsidise another to the extent that that subsidised country can afford to provide services that the donor cannot. There was £26 Billion in subsidies paid by English taxpayers to the Scottish assembly in 2009.

Why is this idea important?

This outdated legislation has no place in the democracy called The United Kingdom.

It is not right that one country of the UK should subsidise another to the extent that that subsidised country can afford to provide services that the donor cannot. There was £26 Billion in subsidies paid by English taxpayers to the Scottish assembly in 2009.

Lets have Mr. Cameron and Mr. Clegg stand up to the U.S and disassociate the U.K with their policing of the world.

Over  the years since the Tony Blair became Prime Minister, there has been much talk of this 'special relationship' between the U.S.A and the U.K, which has essentially meant that whenever America wants something they can just turn to their little whipping boy, the U.K., for support.  Whether it has been over the BP spill (for which I feel America should be solely blamed, it is not Tony Hayward's fault, it was the fault of a negligent safety inspector who is no doubt American) or taking us into conflicts we have no reason to be involved in.

This is a country that has caused numerous instances of unrest across the world in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cyprus just to name a few, and each time we are there tarnishing our name, too. In America's 'war on terror' we were there behind them, weakly smiling and ready to jump: this is a particularly sore point as the IRA had been funded by the U.S, and the so called 'war on terror' led to the loss of innocent lives on July 7th in London. Where was the U.S to back us up when the terrorism of the IRA was directed at us?

Why is this idea important?

Over  the years since the Tony Blair became Prime Minister, there has been much talk of this 'special relationship' between the U.S.A and the U.K, which has essentially meant that whenever America wants something they can just turn to their little whipping boy, the U.K., for support.  Whether it has been over the BP spill (for which I feel America should be solely blamed, it is not Tony Hayward's fault, it was the fault of a negligent safety inspector who is no doubt American) or taking us into conflicts we have no reason to be involved in.

This is a country that has caused numerous instances of unrest across the world in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cyprus just to name a few, and each time we are there tarnishing our name, too. In America's 'war on terror' we were there behind them, weakly smiling and ready to jump: this is a particularly sore point as the IRA had been funded by the U.S, and the so called 'war on terror' led to the loss of innocent lives on July 7th in London. Where was the U.S to back us up when the terrorism of the IRA was directed at us?

Allow Public Nudity (continuation)

To REPEAL all legislation hindering one's civil right to wear whatever one wants to wear (or not) in public (including libraries and other buildings deemed to be 'public')*.

* While total freedom should be a right, there needs to be legislation to 'deal with' 'suspicious clothing' e.g. full motorcycle helmet without a motorcycle, hoodies, other identity-concealing clothing for the intent or purpose to deceive; or worn for the purpose of hiding oneself or property likely to be used for a criminal act.

Why is this idea important?

To REPEAL all legislation hindering one's civil right to wear whatever one wants to wear (or not) in public (including libraries and other buildings deemed to be 'public')*.

* While total freedom should be a right, there needs to be legislation to 'deal with' 'suspicious clothing' e.g. full motorcycle helmet without a motorcycle, hoodies, other identity-concealing clothing for the intent or purpose to deceive; or worn for the purpose of hiding oneself or property likely to be used for a criminal act.

Immediate Clean Slate for all Non-Fraudulent Tax Credit Overpayments

Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud.  This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have.  Compassion and sound economics all in one!

Why is this idea important?

Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud.  This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have.  Compassion and sound economics all in one!

Public Performances +

Allow buskers/street artists to perform wherever they like without being moved on by the police, but, also if people think they're rubbish they should be allowed to throw things at them – for example turnips and tomato's – to dicourage them. Perhaps we could also bring back the stocks in town centre for drunks, should be a good bit of entertainment

Why is this idea important?

Allow buskers/street artists to perform wherever they like without being moved on by the police, but, also if people think they're rubbish they should be allowed to throw things at them – for example turnips and tomato's – to dicourage them. Perhaps we could also bring back the stocks in town centre for drunks, should be a good bit of entertainment

Religion is a lifestyle choice

Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me, but it is after all a lifestyle choice. Any perceived conflict between religious beliefs and equality are non existant, simply because people cannot choose, their colour, age, disability, sex, or sexual orientation (normally)

The law does not compel you to believe in a superior being, it is your choice, therefore it cannot trump someone else who cannot change themselves to suit a 2000 year old Abrahamic teachings, written at a time when a wheel barrow was state of the art science.

Why is this idea important?

Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me, but it is after all a lifestyle choice. Any perceived conflict between religious beliefs and equality are non existant, simply because people cannot choose, their colour, age, disability, sex, or sexual orientation (normally)

The law does not compel you to believe in a superior being, it is your choice, therefore it cannot trump someone else who cannot change themselves to suit a 2000 year old Abrahamic teachings, written at a time when a wheel barrow was state of the art science.