allocated land for free parties+festivals

The idea is to approach local farmers,land owners, for earmarked plots of land that are suitable and not too near residential areas,to organise free parties & festivals,most free parties operate  on a donation basis,or generate free enterprise income with food,tea n coffee,clothes,and jewellery stalls,and i'm sure the landowner could make some profit too.These events would operate on a non over the top exploitative basis .All operations would be organised through nonrestrictive local council (cooperation in conjunction with experienced free party organisers).One of the main things the idea would negate is what we are experiencing now = binge drinking and all its problems in our towns and cities.I cannot emphasize enough the  need for these type of events ,i am not talking about commercial exploitation for these events.During the thatcher years after these type of events were stamped on via the CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL , the country was suffering recession and cutbacks.The youth culture had all its expression taken away  .This resulted in riots up and down the country..!. And the residue from this as a direct result wich we are suffering now is a culture of directionless youth who cant express themselves any other way than Binge drinking +all its antisocial connotations.This idea cannot &should not be taken as shallow or petty it is fundamental human right.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is to approach local farmers,land owners, for earmarked plots of land that are suitable and not too near residential areas,to organise free parties & festivals,most free parties operate  on a donation basis,or generate free enterprise income with food,tea n coffee,clothes,and jewellery stalls,and i'm sure the landowner could make some profit too.These events would operate on a non over the top exploitative basis .All operations would be organised through nonrestrictive local council (cooperation in conjunction with experienced free party organisers).One of the main things the idea would negate is what we are experiencing now = binge drinking and all its problems in our towns and cities.I cannot emphasize enough the  need for these type of events ,i am not talking about commercial exploitation for these events.During the thatcher years after these type of events were stamped on via the CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL , the country was suffering recession and cutbacks.The youth culture had all its expression taken away  .This resulted in riots up and down the country..!. And the residue from this as a direct result wich we are suffering now is a culture of directionless youth who cant express themselves any other way than Binge drinking +all its antisocial connotations.This idea cannot &should not be taken as shallow or petty it is fundamental human right.

Repeal the Academies Act

OK, it hasn't even made it to the statute book yet but it is a total disaster for ALL our children, especially those with any sort of difficulty or special need. It's a recipe for widening, not narrowing all the social gaps in our society. I know this govt is trying to out-Thatcher Thatcher but surely they don't still believe in that hoary and long discredited notion of trickle down?!

Education provision for ALL children will be improved by making state education better. This means that the local authority can plan coherently for the places they need, in the places they need them, can ensure that support services are sensibly and rationally planned to meet the needs of all schools in the area, and better schools can support and help those that – for whatever reason – do less well. We want to return to the notion of neighbourhood schools, with the presumption that most children will go to their local school because it's as good as any other nearby. Giving the middle classes a free for all to do their own thing will not help those that need it in any way.

Why is this idea important?

OK, it hasn't even made it to the statute book yet but it is a total disaster for ALL our children, especially those with any sort of difficulty or special need. It's a recipe for widening, not narrowing all the social gaps in our society. I know this govt is trying to out-Thatcher Thatcher but surely they don't still believe in that hoary and long discredited notion of trickle down?!

Education provision for ALL children will be improved by making state education better. This means that the local authority can plan coherently for the places they need, in the places they need them, can ensure that support services are sensibly and rationally planned to meet the needs of all schools in the area, and better schools can support and help those that – for whatever reason – do less well. We want to return to the notion of neighbourhood schools, with the presumption that most children will go to their local school because it's as good as any other nearby. Giving the middle classes a free for all to do their own thing will not help those that need it in any way.

Tax evasion by churches

I suppose it would be too much to ask for churches to lose their tax exempt status, even though the rest of us will end up paying more. But many borderline organisations should be checked out.

The cult otherwise known as the church of Scientology is not even a real religion, but because it does a bit of drug rehab work to give it credibility, it is a registered charity.

If this continues then it should apply to Jedis, Trekkies and other UFO believers

Why is this idea important?

I suppose it would be too much to ask for churches to lose their tax exempt status, even though the rest of us will end up paying more. But many borderline organisations should be checked out.

The cult otherwise known as the church of Scientology is not even a real religion, but because it does a bit of drug rehab work to give it credibility, it is a registered charity.

If this continues then it should apply to Jedis, Trekkies and other UFO believers

smoking ban

to bring in seperate areas within air conditioned pubs to allow smokers back into pub society. the smoking ban affects a large minority of customers who also tend to be pub characters at the heart of pub society. or allow more substantinal provision for shelter and protection from the elements for outside smoking. stop making life hard for a large minority of pub goers. 

Why is this idea important?

to bring in seperate areas within air conditioned pubs to allow smokers back into pub society. the smoking ban affects a large minority of customers who also tend to be pub characters at the heart of pub society. or allow more substantinal provision for shelter and protection from the elements for outside smoking. stop making life hard for a large minority of pub goers. 

Reducing administrative burdens

We've heard some very inflammatory statements about the "administrative burden" in some areas of the N.H.S. but there are large industries growing up around Health & Safety Law, Human Rights, Political Correctness, Compensation Culture etc. employing a myriad of non-productive and irrelevant people jumping onto bandwagons.

It is now time that there is a responsible and objective review of all laws in these areas.

It cannot be right that if I ask for a black coffee I am accused of being a racist! What happened to "being responsible for your own safety" as described in H.A.S.A.W. Act? I hope my grandchildren will play conkers! All women shortlists irrespective of talent and capability!

Why is this idea important?

We've heard some very inflammatory statements about the "administrative burden" in some areas of the N.H.S. but there are large industries growing up around Health & Safety Law, Human Rights, Political Correctness, Compensation Culture etc. employing a myriad of non-productive and irrelevant people jumping onto bandwagons.

It is now time that there is a responsible and objective review of all laws in these areas.

It cannot be right that if I ask for a black coffee I am accused of being a racist! What happened to "being responsible for your own safety" as described in H.A.S.A.W. Act? I hope my grandchildren will play conkers! All women shortlists irrespective of talent and capability!

Delete criminal records relating to repealed laws eg gross indecency

Convictions criminalising gay men issued before legal changes and esp. before 1967 in effect just for being Gay  should be deleted from criminal records.

Why is this idea important?

Convictions criminalising gay men issued before legal changes and esp. before 1967 in effect just for being Gay  should be deleted from criminal records.

Free Speech Against Feminism

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

Why is this idea important?

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

Repeal the criminal justice bill laws relating to free parties & raves

Allocate by order areas of land through out the country where free parties festvals &raves can take place without the draconian criminal justice bill criminalising good organisers of these events,it will stop binge drinking culture ,local organisers can access these plots by applying to thier local council &working with them ,this also encourages true free enterprise with many opportunities for ordinary people to earn a living.Its not rocket science,true free enterprise can free people from benefit culture.

Why is this idea important?

Allocate by order areas of land through out the country where free parties festvals &raves can take place without the draconian criminal justice bill criminalising good organisers of these events,it will stop binge drinking culture ,local organisers can access these plots by applying to thier local council &working with them ,this also encourages true free enterprise with many opportunities for ordinary people to earn a living.Its not rocket science,true free enterprise can free people from benefit culture.

Calculate benefits and tax credits per individual, not per couple

Calculate jobseekers allowance and working tax credits on adults' individual NI contributions and work history – not on what their partner earns.

Why is this idea important?

Calculate jobseekers allowance and working tax credits on adults' individual NI contributions and work history – not on what their partner earns.

Reducing Reoffending – Employing Ex Offenders and Equality Legislation

There are two important issues that stimulates re-offending.  The first is a lack of suitable accomodation and the second being unable to secure meaningful employment.

Ex-offenders are required to declare all unspent criminal convictions if asked on an application form.  Research undertaken by CIPD (Chartered Institute for Professional Development) and the Social Exclusion Unit (Previously based in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) acknowledges that the vast majority of employers disregard applications where declarations of criminal convictions are provided, regardless of the position that an ex-offender is applying for.

Would there be some merit in including ex-offenders in equality law to ensure that disposing of application forms soley on a criminal record being declared is simply not acceptable?  Whilst I appreciate that some may argue that equality law is not about what 'one' has done but is about who one is I would suggest that the disproportional number of BME boys in prison reflects that in some cases people are more likely to obtain a criminal record than others because of who they are.

Why is this idea important?

There are two important issues that stimulates re-offending.  The first is a lack of suitable accomodation and the second being unable to secure meaningful employment.

Ex-offenders are required to declare all unspent criminal convictions if asked on an application form.  Research undertaken by CIPD (Chartered Institute for Professional Development) and the Social Exclusion Unit (Previously based in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) acknowledges that the vast majority of employers disregard applications where declarations of criminal convictions are provided, regardless of the position that an ex-offender is applying for.

Would there be some merit in including ex-offenders in equality law to ensure that disposing of application forms soley on a criminal record being declared is simply not acceptable?  Whilst I appreciate that some may argue that equality law is not about what 'one' has done but is about who one is I would suggest that the disproportional number of BME boys in prison reflects that in some cases people are more likely to obtain a criminal record than others because of who they are.

NO U-TURN ON ANYONYMITY FOR RAPE ACCUSED!!!

It is totally outrageous that after the Coalition government promising to give anonymity to (almost entirely MALE) ALLAGED male rapists it has now CAVED IN TO PRESSURE from FEMINIST EXTREMISTS.

According to the BBC News – the grounds for this u-turn have been "Labour and women Tory MPs said it could send a negative signal about women who accuse men of rape."

Could you tell us please what kind of "signal" gets sent about MEN WHO GET FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE?

Pretty negative I'd say.

And just WHO is running this country? Labour feminist MPs? Feminist women who have sneaked into seats in the Conservative party now that there's little point them infiltrating the Labour party any more AS THEY DID, I watched it happen since the 70s, as there's no POWER in it for them.

So the partly Liberal Coalition gets elected, but it still does what it is told by a bunch of shrieking feminist activists, who endlessly criticise it simply because there aren't enough (in THEIR opinion) women in the cabinet???  What an IMPOTENT excercise of "power" by the Coalition, first making a decision which was a FAIR, JUST ONE, properly acknowledging the EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS of men and then caving in at the first sign of protests from shrieking, deeply unjust, feminist women.

It's THESE kind of people, largely a feminist government we've been living under in the Blair era, with their hypocrisy, more interested in their job titles, their salaries and perks, and their reflections in the mirror, and fiddling their expenses, who have got us in this mess in the first place – our disrespectful, crime ridden, badly behaved, debt ridden, teenage pregnant,m dryg addcuted, unsafe to walk the streets, etc, society  -, and now they have not been ELECTED as a government ,  they are simply INTIMIDATING/BULLYING to get what they want by shrieking propaganda at the government who have!

And of course, the great irony is that ACCUSERS (almost entirely women), THEY get anonymity, but the men ACCUSED don't!

Astounding!

i.e. a man can be FALSELY accused on any petty, malevolent whim of a woman who is upset with him, and HE gets publicly shamed, made a leper in  his community and maybe even subject to attack from gangs of yobs who are always looking for an excuse to attack some innocent person, while SHE hides laughing in the shadows, as he gets tortured and publicly ridiculed, and maybe never trusted again by other women in the community where he lives, even if found totally innocent of the crime.

So a case was given to justify this shrieking protest from the feminists, of a taxi driver who raped 80 women (so THEY tell us, I wasn't there), and until his name was published, all the other women who had been raped didn't come forward.

Yes – well, what a TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ARGUMENT. Once the guy had been CONVICTED his name would have been published ANYWAY. So THEN they would have had their opportunity to come forward.

And in any case, this is no grounds to lift anonymity from accused men, because what the government should be seeking to do is to PREVENT RAPE rather than all the emphasis being on CONVICTING RAPISTS.

Because these feminists are apparently too stupid to realise that once a woman has actually been raped (if it REALLY happend that is, and it's not just a malevolent false accusation) it's actually TOO LATE.

Sure, if he is caught and convicted, it will (for a time) prevent him raping other women, but that won't ever make it right for the woman who has been raped ALREADY.

So let's take the example of this taxi driver rapist. Firstly, women have to start taking FAR MORE RESPONSIBLITY for their own actions. If a drunken woman is going home from a nightclub or party and  she goes home ALONE in a taxi or even car driven by ANY man she is not "asking for it", but she is TAKING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK.

Men in general are not saints, as no more so are women, and x percent of men will feel tempted when a woman's defences are down like that, knowing that due to drink she might not even REMEMBER who he is.

So the solution to preventing women being raped, is not to keep printing the names and pictures in Newspapers or showing on TV men who just MIGHT have done a rape, but it's not proven, but to educate women to take more responsibility for their own actions, and also put in place practical steps like WOMEN ONLY TAXI SERVICES with women only drivers.

Or you know, why don't we give the feminists what they REALLY want? Which is to basically have every man wear a warning sign on him wherever he goes, hanging around his neck, that says RAPIST UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, and there should be a big database of EVERY  male over 10  giving  his name and address, and a photo of him, and if a woman doesn't like a particular man, all she has to do is email in (ANONYMOUSLY OF COURSE) a rape accusation, and then minutes later, the police will be kicking in his door, and hauling him off for interrogation, assuming him guilty until proven iinnocent.

I assure all the men and sane non-feminist women, that if the feminsits had their way, the above scenario would be pretty much a reality, and I am not joking.

Because think about it logically, and it's easy to see such a publicly accessible database of men that women could search through, would surely make it much easier to find any man they believe has raped them, so surely if it would prevent ONE SINGLE WOMAN getting raped, that justifies it being done?

No, IT DOES NOT.  That's ALWAYS the excuse.

e.g. why not take EVERYBODY'S DNA at birth? Surely that would make ALL criminals easier to catch?

Why? Because we've got HUMAN RIGHTS, the rigbht to lvie in freedom unless it's PROVEN we are some kind of threat to society.

The feminsts are interesting only in  WOMEN'S RIGHTS, not MEN'S RIGHTS, and not only that, they are shrieking endlessly about women's RIGHTS, but what they DON'T talk about, is women's RESPONSIBILITIES. E.G. to take care of their children properly, or be fair to men, or to not act stupidly getting drunk and going home in a man's car alone or going back to the flat/home of a man they hardly know, and expecting there to be no risk in such an unwise course of action.

And I'm appalled that so many men are so mute and meek on this subject, because they foolishly imagine  a false couldn't happen to THEM.

(well yes, just hide in your home, never go out, never be anywhere near the company of women, never answer the door to a woman caller (let alone let her in – NUCLEAR ALERT!) don't go anywhere near your daughter, sister, mothers, grandmothers, aunt, girl cousin, sister in law,  a mixed sex work place, bar, public park, cinema, concert, theatre, shopping centre, or place of worship, and you just MIGHT be in with a chance that you'll NEVER be accused of rape/sexual aasault).

Whereas the fact is, that women are routinely accusing men of all kinds of things, and using the police against men, just to get their own way, or to "punish" a man who displeases them in some way, make his life a misery, it's not only rape accusations.

It could be because IN HER OPINION he is disciplining a misbehaving child in a way SHE doesn't agree with, and because she uses the law to stop him controlling the child, we end up with a society of out of control children, who become vandals, hooligans, violent thugs, gang members, and yes, even RAPISTS, because she used the feminist controlled law against a man who was trying to keep a child in hand, teach it to have RESPECT for other human beings.

So few men are really THINKING what a serious issue this is: it's not just about rape, it's a whole flotilla of infringinments and inequalities against men's rights, and this is just the most obvious example.

One more REAL LIFE example of someone I know, what happened to him recently to illustrate the point. He allowed a woman to share his flat, the relationship failed and he told her to leave. She then reported him to the police, accused him of kidnapping and raping her and the police came to take him away. He was saved ONLY by the fact there were messages from her on his mobile phone which showed they obviously had an ongoing CONSENSUAL relationship.

So without that slender but VITAL evidence, only available incidentaly since the mobile phone era, he would likely have been imprisoned until trial, and possibly even sentenced to many years as a convicted rapist and kidnapper, and his life would have been over, all on HER MALEVOLENT WHIM and FALSE ACCUSATION.

And all the while SHE would have (and as far as I know, still IS) remained TOTALLY ANONYMOUS and able to do exactly the same to any number of future male victims.

As is usual, with the feminists, we only ever here ONE HALF of the story, only about men's crimes (alleged) against women, but NEVER about  women's  numerous crimes against men in all kinds of ways, false accusations to police, social workers and other authorities being a very favourite one at the present.

That this Coalition is continuing the DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 50 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION (Ii.e MEN) started mainly by the New Labour Feminists, is a totally appalling injustice, and failure of them to uphold CIVIL LIBERTIES as they have promised, the very thing this website is supposed to be about.
 

 

Why is this idea important?

It is totally outrageous that after the Coalition government promising to give anonymity to (almost entirely MALE) ALLAGED male rapists it has now CAVED IN TO PRESSURE from FEMINIST EXTREMISTS.

According to the BBC News – the grounds for this u-turn have been "Labour and women Tory MPs said it could send a negative signal about women who accuse men of rape."

Could you tell us please what kind of "signal" gets sent about MEN WHO GET FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE?

Pretty negative I'd say.

And just WHO is running this country? Labour feminist MPs? Feminist women who have sneaked into seats in the Conservative party now that there's little point them infiltrating the Labour party any more AS THEY DID, I watched it happen since the 70s, as there's no POWER in it for them.

So the partly Liberal Coalition gets elected, but it still does what it is told by a bunch of shrieking feminist activists, who endlessly criticise it simply because there aren't enough (in THEIR opinion) women in the cabinet???  What an IMPOTENT excercise of "power" by the Coalition, first making a decision which was a FAIR, JUST ONE, properly acknowledging the EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS of men and then caving in at the first sign of protests from shrieking, deeply unjust, feminist women.

It's THESE kind of people, largely a feminist government we've been living under in the Blair era, with their hypocrisy, more interested in their job titles, their salaries and perks, and their reflections in the mirror, and fiddling their expenses, who have got us in this mess in the first place – our disrespectful, crime ridden, badly behaved, debt ridden, teenage pregnant,m dryg addcuted, unsafe to walk the streets, etc, society  -, and now they have not been ELECTED as a government ,  they are simply INTIMIDATING/BULLYING to get what they want by shrieking propaganda at the government who have!

And of course, the great irony is that ACCUSERS (almost entirely women), THEY get anonymity, but the men ACCUSED don't!

Astounding!

i.e. a man can be FALSELY accused on any petty, malevolent whim of a woman who is upset with him, and HE gets publicly shamed, made a leper in  his community and maybe even subject to attack from gangs of yobs who are always looking for an excuse to attack some innocent person, while SHE hides laughing in the shadows, as he gets tortured and publicly ridiculed, and maybe never trusted again by other women in the community where he lives, even if found totally innocent of the crime.

So a case was given to justify this shrieking protest from the feminists, of a taxi driver who raped 80 women (so THEY tell us, I wasn't there), and until his name was published, all the other women who had been raped didn't come forward.

Yes – well, what a TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ARGUMENT. Once the guy had been CONVICTED his name would have been published ANYWAY. So THEN they would have had their opportunity to come forward.

And in any case, this is no grounds to lift anonymity from accused men, because what the government should be seeking to do is to PREVENT RAPE rather than all the emphasis being on CONVICTING RAPISTS.

Because these feminists are apparently too stupid to realise that once a woman has actually been raped (if it REALLY happend that is, and it's not just a malevolent false accusation) it's actually TOO LATE.

Sure, if he is caught and convicted, it will (for a time) prevent him raping other women, but that won't ever make it right for the woman who has been raped ALREADY.

So let's take the example of this taxi driver rapist. Firstly, women have to start taking FAR MORE RESPONSIBLITY for their own actions. If a drunken woman is going home from a nightclub or party and  she goes home ALONE in a taxi or even car driven by ANY man she is not "asking for it", but she is TAKING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK.

Men in general are not saints, as no more so are women, and x percent of men will feel tempted when a woman's defences are down like that, knowing that due to drink she might not even REMEMBER who he is.

So the solution to preventing women being raped, is not to keep printing the names and pictures in Newspapers or showing on TV men who just MIGHT have done a rape, but it's not proven, but to educate women to take more responsibility for their own actions, and also put in place practical steps like WOMEN ONLY TAXI SERVICES with women only drivers.

Or you know, why don't we give the feminists what they REALLY want? Which is to basically have every man wear a warning sign on him wherever he goes, hanging around his neck, that says RAPIST UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, and there should be a big database of EVERY  male over 10  giving  his name and address, and a photo of him, and if a woman doesn't like a particular man, all she has to do is email in (ANONYMOUSLY OF COURSE) a rape accusation, and then minutes later, the police will be kicking in his door, and hauling him off for interrogation, assuming him guilty until proven iinnocent.

I assure all the men and sane non-feminist women, that if the feminsits had their way, the above scenario would be pretty much a reality, and I am not joking.

Because think about it logically, and it's easy to see such a publicly accessible database of men that women could search through, would surely make it much easier to find any man they believe has raped them, so surely if it would prevent ONE SINGLE WOMAN getting raped, that justifies it being done?

No, IT DOES NOT.  That's ALWAYS the excuse.

e.g. why not take EVERYBODY'S DNA at birth? Surely that would make ALL criminals easier to catch?

Why? Because we've got HUMAN RIGHTS, the rigbht to lvie in freedom unless it's PROVEN we are some kind of threat to society.

The feminsts are interesting only in  WOMEN'S RIGHTS, not MEN'S RIGHTS, and not only that, they are shrieking endlessly about women's RIGHTS, but what they DON'T talk about, is women's RESPONSIBILITIES. E.G. to take care of their children properly, or be fair to men, or to not act stupidly getting drunk and going home in a man's car alone or going back to the flat/home of a man they hardly know, and expecting there to be no risk in such an unwise course of action.

And I'm appalled that so many men are so mute and meek on this subject, because they foolishly imagine  a false couldn't happen to THEM.

(well yes, just hide in your home, never go out, never be anywhere near the company of women, never answer the door to a woman caller (let alone let her in – NUCLEAR ALERT!) don't go anywhere near your daughter, sister, mothers, grandmothers, aunt, girl cousin, sister in law,  a mixed sex work place, bar, public park, cinema, concert, theatre, shopping centre, or place of worship, and you just MIGHT be in with a chance that you'll NEVER be accused of rape/sexual aasault).

Whereas the fact is, that women are routinely accusing men of all kinds of things, and using the police against men, just to get their own way, or to "punish" a man who displeases them in some way, make his life a misery, it's not only rape accusations.

It could be because IN HER OPINION he is disciplining a misbehaving child in a way SHE doesn't agree with, and because she uses the law to stop him controlling the child, we end up with a society of out of control children, who become vandals, hooligans, violent thugs, gang members, and yes, even RAPISTS, because she used the feminist controlled law against a man who was trying to keep a child in hand, teach it to have RESPECT for other human beings.

So few men are really THINKING what a serious issue this is: it's not just about rape, it's a whole flotilla of infringinments and inequalities against men's rights, and this is just the most obvious example.

One more REAL LIFE example of someone I know, what happened to him recently to illustrate the point. He allowed a woman to share his flat, the relationship failed and he told her to leave. She then reported him to the police, accused him of kidnapping and raping her and the police came to take him away. He was saved ONLY by the fact there were messages from her on his mobile phone which showed they obviously had an ongoing CONSENSUAL relationship.

So without that slender but VITAL evidence, only available incidentaly since the mobile phone era, he would likely have been imprisoned until trial, and possibly even sentenced to many years as a convicted rapist and kidnapper, and his life would have been over, all on HER MALEVOLENT WHIM and FALSE ACCUSATION.

And all the while SHE would have (and as far as I know, still IS) remained TOTALLY ANONYMOUS and able to do exactly the same to any number of future male victims.

As is usual, with the feminists, we only ever here ONE HALF of the story, only about men's crimes (alleged) against women, but NEVER about  women's  numerous crimes against men in all kinds of ways, false accusations to police, social workers and other authorities being a very favourite one at the present.

That this Coalition is continuing the DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 50 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION (Ii.e MEN) started mainly by the New Labour Feminists, is a totally appalling injustice, and failure of them to uphold CIVIL LIBERTIES as they have promised, the very thing this website is supposed to be about.
 

 

How to reform the foreign aid to better help the third world develop, increase food security, reduce CO2, increase forest cover in the UK and build cheap and affordable houses for British people.

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why is this idea important?

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Freedom / Pope / don’t dig-away human rights law

There are few rights for world prosecutors to arrest UK visitors, such as Pinochet.

Howoever,  one in Spain did manage to arrest Pinochet here.

The supreme court or law lords did a very unusual thing in first allowing arrest, then reversing the decision on the grounds that one of the judges was active in amnesty international, like that's such a bad thing.

Love it or hate it, this judgement gave the impression to dictators round the world that if they want to evade arrest in the UK they may not lucky next time. This has saved us a lot of police protection bills and saved the taxpayers of dictators the cost of a lot of trips to Harrods. In the mind of a dictator, the self-deception that he is somehow doing a bad thing for a good reason or that he can so easily get away with it can no longer be backed-up by a shopping trip to London.

Imagine my surprise to read a watering-down of the compromise position. From now on, any attempt to arrest a Mr Ratzinger will be a private matter between himself, the government and a man called Mr Kier Starmer who is hired by the government to say he's independent.

That's no way to promote equality before the law.

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/3497/23/07/2010/government-plan-could-prevent-pope-benedict-arrest.aspx

I propose we restore powers of arrest on human rights charges – even if this is nothing to do with the Pope and his name should not be dragged into it – because these powers prevent dictators from coming here and asking for expensive police protection while they shop at Harrods.

Why is this idea important?

There are few rights for world prosecutors to arrest UK visitors, such as Pinochet.

Howoever,  one in Spain did manage to arrest Pinochet here.

The supreme court or law lords did a very unusual thing in first allowing arrest, then reversing the decision on the grounds that one of the judges was active in amnesty international, like that's such a bad thing.

Love it or hate it, this judgement gave the impression to dictators round the world that if they want to evade arrest in the UK they may not lucky next time. This has saved us a lot of police protection bills and saved the taxpayers of dictators the cost of a lot of trips to Harrods. In the mind of a dictator, the self-deception that he is somehow doing a bad thing for a good reason or that he can so easily get away with it can no longer be backed-up by a shopping trip to London.

Imagine my surprise to read a watering-down of the compromise position. From now on, any attempt to arrest a Mr Ratzinger will be a private matter between himself, the government and a man called Mr Kier Starmer who is hired by the government to say he's independent.

That's no way to promote equality before the law.

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/3497/23/07/2010/government-plan-could-prevent-pope-benedict-arrest.aspx

I propose we restore powers of arrest on human rights charges – even if this is nothing to do with the Pope and his name should not be dragged into it – because these powers prevent dictators from coming here and asking for expensive police protection while they shop at Harrods.

Why do we need a new version of the abolished blasphemy laws?

The Blasphemy Law was abolished in 2008, but has re-emerged in a new and radically
augmented guise. Today, individuals are not charged with blasphemy, but with causing
'religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress' under the Public Order Act. The growth in accusations of 'hate crime' threatens freedom of speech because they destroy the possibility and practice of open, sociable and critical discussion of religion. One of the great triumphs of liberalism has been to separate the discovery of factual truth from the assertion of religious doctrine. We do not need these ridiculous and backward laws in an advanced society, it is a step back to the dark ages.

Why is this idea important?

The Blasphemy Law was abolished in 2008, but has re-emerged in a new and radically
augmented guise. Today, individuals are not charged with blasphemy, but with causing
'religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress' under the Public Order Act. The growth in accusations of 'hate crime' threatens freedom of speech because they destroy the possibility and practice of open, sociable and critical discussion of religion. One of the great triumphs of liberalism has been to separate the discovery of factual truth from the assertion of religious doctrine. We do not need these ridiculous and backward laws in an advanced society, it is a step back to the dark ages.

UK citizens’ right to find a job: punishments for dodgy Agencies who recruit abroad first

Introduce a policing aspect (of advertising and interviewing etc) to Job Centre functions.  Protect the Human Rights of our own Nationals to find a job.  Send investigators abroad to find out who is luring people to come – for a fee – to UK .

Investigate and punish organisations, such as "employment agencies"  and gangmasters which are wielding unfair hold over the job market.  Fines imposed if correct advertising within the locality of the job in the UK and also nationally are not followed.

Agencies are allied to criminal gangmasters and pimps.  They have caused many illegal immigrants to enter the UK as cheap labour, which is against our traditional rules of "queueing" and fairness. Bring back moral principles and remove any rewards for cheating to the detriment of others.

It is lies that farmers cannot find local youths, housewives, pensioners and others to pick fruit and crops locally.  Farmers and food factories just don't bother  to advertise near themselves at all.  They go overseas to recruit immediately, bypassing this country always, because it is cheaper for them to do this and to exploit foreigners.  One rarely sees any jobs advertised in rural towns or their local papers – because such employers are too stingey even to bother to place ads.

Agencies have a stranglehold over all IT workers in London.  IT professionals are only able to find short term contracts. Few of these workers can find their own career or work directly for a company for longer periods of time, because the Agencies impose penalties upon companies who do not do what they require.  Thus the agencies are getting huge wads of cash from all that brain work of hundreds of graduates within our capital. If any of the IT workers are reasonably paid now, just think how much money Agencies are creaming off from the banks and other organisations their contracts are with.

The top owners and executives of such parasitical Agencies are the Big Business once worshipped by the Tony Blair Labour government.

It must be "down" to Agencies that Chief executives (eg of local Councils) are receiving such massively high salaries.  Have you read the smarmy adverts for such "top" posts?

"Employment" agencies use devious methods and are responsible for the fact that the youth of Britain, including most of its graduates, are left on the scapheap.

Many of the methods which agencies use are unfair, ageist, and prejudiced (interviewing and decision making methods).  Why are Agencies permitted to insert/intrude themselves between people,  and to make such life-important decisions about peoples' lives; rather than permitting the actual companies to talk and negotiate directly with candidates?

Workers on short-term Agency contracts do not belong to Trade Unions.

Agency methods may have permitted some of the best jobs to go to liars and criminals.  How else would somebody like Fred the Shred have got away with all that he did ..

 

Why is this idea important?

Introduce a policing aspect (of advertising and interviewing etc) to Job Centre functions.  Protect the Human Rights of our own Nationals to find a job.  Send investigators abroad to find out who is luring people to come – for a fee – to UK .

Investigate and punish organisations, such as "employment agencies"  and gangmasters which are wielding unfair hold over the job market.  Fines imposed if correct advertising within the locality of the job in the UK and also nationally are not followed.

Agencies are allied to criminal gangmasters and pimps.  They have caused many illegal immigrants to enter the UK as cheap labour, which is against our traditional rules of "queueing" and fairness. Bring back moral principles and remove any rewards for cheating to the detriment of others.

It is lies that farmers cannot find local youths, housewives, pensioners and others to pick fruit and crops locally.  Farmers and food factories just don't bother  to advertise near themselves at all.  They go overseas to recruit immediately, bypassing this country always, because it is cheaper for them to do this and to exploit foreigners.  One rarely sees any jobs advertised in rural towns or their local papers – because such employers are too stingey even to bother to place ads.

Agencies have a stranglehold over all IT workers in London.  IT professionals are only able to find short term contracts. Few of these workers can find their own career or work directly for a company for longer periods of time, because the Agencies impose penalties upon companies who do not do what they require.  Thus the agencies are getting huge wads of cash from all that brain work of hundreds of graduates within our capital. If any of the IT workers are reasonably paid now, just think how much money Agencies are creaming off from the banks and other organisations their contracts are with.

The top owners and executives of such parasitical Agencies are the Big Business once worshipped by the Tony Blair Labour government.

It must be "down" to Agencies that Chief executives (eg of local Councils) are receiving such massively high salaries.  Have you read the smarmy adverts for such "top" posts?

"Employment" agencies use devious methods and are responsible for the fact that the youth of Britain, including most of its graduates, are left on the scapheap.

Many of the methods which agencies use are unfair, ageist, and prejudiced (interviewing and decision making methods).  Why are Agencies permitted to insert/intrude themselves between people,  and to make such life-important decisions about peoples' lives; rather than permitting the actual companies to talk and negotiate directly with candidates?

Workers on short-term Agency contracts do not belong to Trade Unions.

Agency methods may have permitted some of the best jobs to go to liars and criminals.  How else would somebody like Fred the Shred have got away with all that he did ..

 

If Cannabis Could Cure Cancer, Would’nt You Want It To Be Legal?

Vote Yes and allow the research to be done, there is already evidence that cannabis causes the growth in tumours and cancers to stop.

http://leavesofgrass.info/info/Non-Psychoactive-Cannabinoids.pdf

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Vote Yes and allow the research to be done, there is already evidence that cannabis causes the growth in tumours and cancers to stop.

http://leavesofgrass.info/info/Non-Psychoactive-Cannabinoids.pdf

 

 

 

Personal choice in ending life when terminally ill or with extreme disabillity

I t should not be for others to decide whether we continue to suffer physically and mentally when terminally ill without quality of life,independance or dignity.Equally it should be a personel decision as to whether we continue suffering in a extreme physical and mental  condition that renders life without quality, any form of independance or dignity, and no possibillity of improvement.

Those against assisted dying usually have religious and ethical reasons to support their objections. However, it is not for them to decide  that others with unbearable conditions continue to suffer terminally or without hope of any improvement in their appalling condition.

The disingenuous argument continually used by those against is that  many old people would be coerced to end their lives takes no account that just being old would not be a condition for requesting the ending of life.

I suggest for such for an important act potentially affecting us all individually  a referendum is most appropriate rather than 650 MPs casting  votes according to their own views on how we should all be treated if in such a critical situation.    

Why is this idea important?

I t should not be for others to decide whether we continue to suffer physically and mentally when terminally ill without quality of life,independance or dignity.Equally it should be a personel decision as to whether we continue suffering in a extreme physical and mental  condition that renders life without quality, any form of independance or dignity, and no possibillity of improvement.

Those against assisted dying usually have religious and ethical reasons to support their objections. However, it is not for them to decide  that others with unbearable conditions continue to suffer terminally or without hope of any improvement in their appalling condition.

The disingenuous argument continually used by those against is that  many old people would be coerced to end their lives takes no account that just being old would not be a condition for requesting the ending of life.

I suggest for such for an important act potentially affecting us all individually  a referendum is most appropriate rather than 650 MPs casting  votes according to their own views on how we should all be treated if in such a critical situation.    

Same punishment at school for homophobia and racism

Why is there no punishment at schools for using 'gay' in the wrong context?

Or using the word 'Faggot'. How and why is it possible for someone of 16 or any age to get away with using 'faggot' to describe someone whereas if anyone used the word 'ni**a' they would be fined or kicked out of class or worse?

I want to know why there is not a suitable punishment for homophobia compared the punishment of racism? 

There is already a lot more homophobic bullying in schools and i want to know what this new government is going to do to try and change that.

Why is this idea important?

Why is there no punishment at schools for using 'gay' in the wrong context?

Or using the word 'Faggot'. How and why is it possible for someone of 16 or any age to get away with using 'faggot' to describe someone whereas if anyone used the word 'ni**a' they would be fined or kicked out of class or worse?

I want to know why there is not a suitable punishment for homophobia compared the punishment of racism? 

There is already a lot more homophobic bullying in schools and i want to know what this new government is going to do to try and change that.

Employment Referencing Law

Employment Referencing Law
 
Make a law about employment referencing.
 
For example, all the information an employer can give out for a reference is date started, date left and position held.
 

Why is this idea important?

Employment Referencing Law
 
Make a law about employment referencing.
 
For example, all the information an employer can give out for a reference is date started, date left and position held.
 

Rethink invisable straight jackets – CTO

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

Why is this idea important?

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

Repeal Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.

Due to the manner in which some local authorities interpret the legislation Part 8 of the Act needs to be repealed in the interests of justice. Alternatively it should be central government and not the local authority or council with the responsibility to enforce the regulations. Currently some local authorities and councils are ignoring what it actually states in the body of the statute and forcing law abiding citizens to destroy kill and remove alleged hedges and conifers even where vexatious complaints have been received from others with a complant. The statute expressly forbids any remedial action that will result in the death of an alleged hedge or conifers and yet remedial notices are being used to criminalise law abiding citizens who refuse to obey the orders of a local authority or council even where this goes against what is actually required by statute. It is as if the planning departments of some local authorities and councils can act in a way that is above the law. It is for Parliament and not the local authority or council to enact statutory legislation and all MP's need to be made aware of just how some local authorities seem to be acting ultra vires and with maladministration.

Why is this idea important?

Due to the manner in which some local authorities interpret the legislation Part 8 of the Act needs to be repealed in the interests of justice. Alternatively it should be central government and not the local authority or council with the responsibility to enforce the regulations. Currently some local authorities and councils are ignoring what it actually states in the body of the statute and forcing law abiding citizens to destroy kill and remove alleged hedges and conifers even where vexatious complaints have been received from others with a complant. The statute expressly forbids any remedial action that will result in the death of an alleged hedge or conifers and yet remedial notices are being used to criminalise law abiding citizens who refuse to obey the orders of a local authority or council even where this goes against what is actually required by statute. It is as if the planning departments of some local authorities and councils can act in a way that is above the law. It is for Parliament and not the local authority or council to enact statutory legislation and all MP's need to be made aware of just how some local authorities seem to be acting ultra vires and with maladministration.

Reform of the Juries Act 1974

To give the background:

I am the the Technical Manager for Medical Devices at a major UK firm supplying surgical gloves to the NHS.  I am a member of the Royal Society of Medicine and The Royal Society of Chemistry.  I am an acknowledged United Kingdom expert on medical device legislation and have lectured on the subject at the request of the Malaysian government.  I have assissted the HSE in writing critical safety documentation and regularly give advice to both the Health Service and Industrial safety equipment users that, if incorrect, could endanger their lives.

I also suffer from bipolar depression and therefore I am not considered to be mentally capable of serving on a jury.

My condition is fully controlled by the medication I take and I am entrusted with life or death situations in other spheres.  However, the blanket banning of all people being treated for a mental condition as part of the juries act 1974 means that I cannot do my civic duty in this regard.  i strongly object to this degree of disenfranchisement and feel the act should be reformed.

This argument applies equally not to a minority of the mentally unwell but to a majority.

Thank you.

Why is this idea important?

To give the background:

I am the the Technical Manager for Medical Devices at a major UK firm supplying surgical gloves to the NHS.  I am a member of the Royal Society of Medicine and The Royal Society of Chemistry.  I am an acknowledged United Kingdom expert on medical device legislation and have lectured on the subject at the request of the Malaysian government.  I have assissted the HSE in writing critical safety documentation and regularly give advice to both the Health Service and Industrial safety equipment users that, if incorrect, could endanger their lives.

I also suffer from bipolar depression and therefore I am not considered to be mentally capable of serving on a jury.

My condition is fully controlled by the medication I take and I am entrusted with life or death situations in other spheres.  However, the blanket banning of all people being treated for a mental condition as part of the juries act 1974 means that I cannot do my civic duty in this regard.  i strongly object to this degree of disenfranchisement and feel the act should be reformed.

This argument applies equally not to a minority of the mentally unwell but to a majority.

Thank you.

Enforce anti-homophobia policies and activities in schools through Ofsted.

All schools, including faith schools and independent schools should be forced through Ofsted to have policies in place for dealing with homophobic bullying, including positive action such as activities to celebrate Gay History Month with a prominence equal to that given to Black History Month. Gay teachers should be encouraged to be out and to provide role models. There should be identified teachers for students to come to with issues and relationships should be established with local gay youth groups. Sex education should cover same sex relationships and explain how to pratice safer sex.

Why is this idea important?

All schools, including faith schools and independent schools should be forced through Ofsted to have policies in place for dealing with homophobic bullying, including positive action such as activities to celebrate Gay History Month with a prominence equal to that given to Black History Month. Gay teachers should be encouraged to be out and to provide role models. There should be identified teachers for students to come to with issues and relationships should be established with local gay youth groups. Sex education should cover same sex relationships and explain how to pratice safer sex.

Follow through on repealing 08 Numbers used by GP Practices

GPs in this country are the highest paid in Europe. On top of this the recently announced changes, I believe, may be exploited by GPs to increase their earnings at taxpayers expense even further if adequate safeguards are not put in place. 

Why is it then that the previous govt, with support from both the Conservatives and Lib Dems, proposed to outlaw GP Practices using 08 numbers to increase the practices profits at the expense of its patients. I popped into my practice to make an appointment and was told to ring up in the morning using an 08 number. It cannot be right or just that the highest paid GPs in Europe continue to rip off the elderly,  pensioned, disabled and less fortunate in this manner. Honour the original proposal to ban this practice and protect those that are at their most vulnerable – lets be honest the GP practices that continue doing this do not have their patients interests above their own self interest.

Why is this idea important?

GPs in this country are the highest paid in Europe. On top of this the recently announced changes, I believe, may be exploited by GPs to increase their earnings at taxpayers expense even further if adequate safeguards are not put in place. 

Why is it then that the previous govt, with support from both the Conservatives and Lib Dems, proposed to outlaw GP Practices using 08 numbers to increase the practices profits at the expense of its patients. I popped into my practice to make an appointment and was told to ring up in the morning using an 08 number. It cannot be right or just that the highest paid GPs in Europe continue to rip off the elderly,  pensioned, disabled and less fortunate in this manner. Honour the original proposal to ban this practice and protect those that are at their most vulnerable – lets be honest the GP practices that continue doing this do not have their patients interests above their own self interest.