Freedom before ‘Equality’

The EU, slavishly followed by the last Labour Government, implemented directives on 'Equality & Diversity' and 'Health & Safety' in such as a way as to seriously hinder individual freedom and common senses. The worst has been 'equality' legislation which seems to promote the interests of particular groups, e.g. homosexuals, lesbians, 'transgendered' individuals, bisexuals – at the expense of those who do not approve of the life-styles of these groups. It is not self-evident that these life-styles are healthy and normal whatever the incessant propaganda tells us. Probably the majority of the population disapproves of them. But increasingly 'equality' legislation has been used to silence and marginalse those who object, e.g. the Christian Churchs and orthodox Jews, Muslims and Hindus. Judges have recently decided that the right to 'equality' trumps the right to have a religious belief and to act on that belief (Art. 9 of the European Charter of Human Rights). This cannot be right as it simply creates new inequalities which is why I have placed the word 'equality' in inverted commas throughout this posting.

Why is this idea important?

The EU, slavishly followed by the last Labour Government, implemented directives on 'Equality & Diversity' and 'Health & Safety' in such as a way as to seriously hinder individual freedom and common senses. The worst has been 'equality' legislation which seems to promote the interests of particular groups, e.g. homosexuals, lesbians, 'transgendered' individuals, bisexuals – at the expense of those who do not approve of the life-styles of these groups. It is not self-evident that these life-styles are healthy and normal whatever the incessant propaganda tells us. Probably the majority of the population disapproves of them. But increasingly 'equality' legislation has been used to silence and marginalse those who object, e.g. the Christian Churchs and orthodox Jews, Muslims and Hindus. Judges have recently decided that the right to 'equality' trumps the right to have a religious belief and to act on that belief (Art. 9 of the European Charter of Human Rights). This cannot be right as it simply creates new inequalities which is why I have placed the word 'equality' in inverted commas throughout this posting.

repeal the extradition treaty with the US

The last Government told us that it needed a new extradition treaty with the US in order to combat terrorism.  We were told that we were passing it first, and that the Americans would introduce match legislation immediately thereafter.  This is clearly all based on a lie.  The ASmericans did not pass the matching legislation, so they clearly consider it unimportant.  It has not been used to extradite any terrorists – as far as I know.  All that it has been used for it to persue businessmen who have (the Americans claim) offended their laws (but perhaps not English law).

Why is this idea important?

The last Government told us that it needed a new extradition treaty with the US in order to combat terrorism.  We were told that we were passing it first, and that the Americans would introduce match legislation immediately thereafter.  This is clearly all based on a lie.  The ASmericans did not pass the matching legislation, so they clearly consider it unimportant.  It has not been used to extradite any terrorists – as far as I know.  All that it has been used for it to persue businessmen who have (the Americans claim) offended their laws (but perhaps not English law).

Repeal the Law for Aggravated Offences

The idea that crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred should attract a differential sentencing premium of 40% to 70% should be scrapped.  Justice should be blind.  It is no business of the State to punish 'thought crimes' which is what these laws try to do.

If I murdered a Jew because I hated Jews (I don't actually), why should I be punished more severely than if I murdered a prostitute because I hate prostitutes (which, I hasten to add, I don't).

The State is creating favoured Client groups who will use there 'protected status' to obtain advatanges over unprotected groups.

Britain must become again a Free and Fair country.  Ban these divisive laws that seek to punish 'thought crimes'.

Why is this idea important?

The idea that crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred should attract a differential sentencing premium of 40% to 70% should be scrapped.  Justice should be blind.  It is no business of the State to punish 'thought crimes' which is what these laws try to do.

If I murdered a Jew because I hated Jews (I don't actually), why should I be punished more severely than if I murdered a prostitute because I hate prostitutes (which, I hasten to add, I don't).

The State is creating favoured Client groups who will use there 'protected status' to obtain advatanges over unprotected groups.

Britain must become again a Free and Fair country.  Ban these divisive laws that seek to punish 'thought crimes'.

Set us Free

 

Repeal all laws that limit freedom of speech and freedom to read any written material. This to include all prohibitions on any aspect of 'incitement' , 'encouraging', and 'causing offence'.Outside of protecting children,It is not for the state to control what I read or say. 

Repeal the new regulations which means  an innocent citizen cannot recover all the costs they incur (legal plus other) when defending themselves. All accused should be completely reimbursed  for all costs incurred when found innocent of committing an offence. 

Repeal all laws that make it near impossible/costly to have live music in a venue open to the public.

Repeal all Health and safety legislation –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that allows ministers and others in authority to change legislation passed by parliament – the so called Henry V111 clauses.

Repeal all laws that allow government functionaries the right to forcibly enter my home –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that demand  a citizen has to prove his innocence rather than the state prove them guilty.

Repeal ASBO legislation –  and start again, so that no one can be imprisoned based solely on hearsay evidence.

Repeal all employment legislation –  and start again, so that a more just and equitable system pertains. In order that employers do not feel that it is heads they lose and tails they lose and employees aren't encouraged to think that there is no penalty for vexatious claims.

Repeal Working Time Regulations – people should be free to work overtime if they wish. This single item was the biggest extra burden on business in the last 13 years.

Repeal the anti-smoking legislation so that if citizens want to meet in a public place to smoke then it should be no business of the state to intrude – particularly if it is a private club. Equally, there should be no obstacles put in the way of people who wish to open non-smoking establishments.

Repeal Data Protection Act. Keep a requirement on data holders to look after data, and keep a citizen’s right to their data and its fair handling, but eliminate the quango and licensing regime.

Repeal the Money laundering regulations. Requiring people to supply a passport and utility bill does not stop money laundering but does create a lot of extra cost in the system and is further theft of an individual's time by the state.

Remove recent over the top regulation of herbal medicines.

Opt out of Food Supplements Directive.

Restore statutory dismissal procedures to pre 2000 position.

Restore social chapter opt out and define UK rules in these areas.

Repeal compulsory metrication.

Combine disclosure to the Inland Revenue and Companies House for smaller companies – one form fits all
Repeal IR 35.

Abolish Best Value regime for local government

Abolish Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime for Councils.

Abolish Regional Housing Boards and regional targets and Abolish Regional Development Agencies.

Repeal Legislative and Regulatory reform Act.

Amend Waste Incineration Regulations 2002 to allow more recycling

Repeal Investigatory powers Act 2000 – too intrusive.

Repeal Charities Act 2006 – too bureaucratic.

Repeal Labour’s Terrorism Acts and replace with simpler system which damages the civil liberties of the innocent majority less.

Repeal 'one size fits all' motorway speed limits. Why is there the the same limit at 10.00am in the busy morning rush as 3.00am in the middle of the night?

Repeal the SI requiring 11 million people to have CRB checks before helping children.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

Repeal all laws that limit freedom of speech and freedom to read any written material. This to include all prohibitions on any aspect of 'incitement' , 'encouraging', and 'causing offence'.Outside of protecting children,It is not for the state to control what I read or say. 

Repeal the new regulations which means  an innocent citizen cannot recover all the costs they incur (legal plus other) when defending themselves. All accused should be completely reimbursed  for all costs incurred when found innocent of committing an offence. 

Repeal all laws that make it near impossible/costly to have live music in a venue open to the public.

Repeal all Health and safety legislation –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that allows ministers and others in authority to change legislation passed by parliament – the so called Henry V111 clauses.

Repeal all laws that allow government functionaries the right to forcibly enter my home –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that demand  a citizen has to prove his innocence rather than the state prove them guilty.

Repeal ASBO legislation –  and start again, so that no one can be imprisoned based solely on hearsay evidence.

Repeal all employment legislation –  and start again, so that a more just and equitable system pertains. In order that employers do not feel that it is heads they lose and tails they lose and employees aren't encouraged to think that there is no penalty for vexatious claims.

Repeal Working Time Regulations – people should be free to work overtime if they wish. This single item was the biggest extra burden on business in the last 13 years.

Repeal the anti-smoking legislation so that if citizens want to meet in a public place to smoke then it should be no business of the state to intrude – particularly if it is a private club. Equally, there should be no obstacles put in the way of people who wish to open non-smoking establishments.

Repeal Data Protection Act. Keep a requirement on data holders to look after data, and keep a citizen’s right to their data and its fair handling, but eliminate the quango and licensing regime.

Repeal the Money laundering regulations. Requiring people to supply a passport and utility bill does not stop money laundering but does create a lot of extra cost in the system and is further theft of an individual's time by the state.

Remove recent over the top regulation of herbal medicines.

Opt out of Food Supplements Directive.

Restore statutory dismissal procedures to pre 2000 position.

Restore social chapter opt out and define UK rules in these areas.

Repeal compulsory metrication.

Combine disclosure to the Inland Revenue and Companies House for smaller companies – one form fits all
Repeal IR 35.

Abolish Best Value regime for local government

Abolish Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime for Councils.

Abolish Regional Housing Boards and regional targets and Abolish Regional Development Agencies.

Repeal Legislative and Regulatory reform Act.

Amend Waste Incineration Regulations 2002 to allow more recycling

Repeal Investigatory powers Act 2000 – too intrusive.

Repeal Charities Act 2006 – too bureaucratic.

Repeal Labour’s Terrorism Acts and replace with simpler system which damages the civil liberties of the innocent majority less.

Repeal 'one size fits all' motorway speed limits. Why is there the the same limit at 10.00am in the busy morning rush as 3.00am in the middle of the night?

Repeal the SI requiring 11 million people to have CRB checks before helping children.

 

Repeal the Child Support Act

The Child Support Act 1991 (Amended 2008)  Is  an oppressive and draconian piece of legislation, and in direct contravention of The Human rights Act,  The European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal declaration of Human Rights.  The government has no business interfering in family life.  This legislation and the corrupt run for profit company that enforces it have ruined the lives of parents, children and families.   It has forced innocent, law abiding people into poverty, destitution and suicide.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  All the while Mr Steven Geraghty  sleeps tightly at night with his, deficit crunching, £250,000 + wages to keep him warm.

Families should be left to reach agreements without government interference.  If they cannot then it should be decided in a courtroom in an un-biased, fair and impartial way.

If the coalition wants to give back freedom.  This is a good starting point!

Why is this idea important?

The Child Support Act 1991 (Amended 2008)  Is  an oppressive and draconian piece of legislation, and in direct contravention of The Human rights Act,  The European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal declaration of Human Rights.  The government has no business interfering in family life.  This legislation and the corrupt run for profit company that enforces it have ruined the lives of parents, children and families.   It has forced innocent, law abiding people into poverty, destitution and suicide.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  All the while Mr Steven Geraghty  sleeps tightly at night with his, deficit crunching, £250,000 + wages to keep him warm.

Families should be left to reach agreements without government interference.  If they cannot then it should be decided in a courtroom in an un-biased, fair and impartial way.

If the coalition wants to give back freedom.  This is a good starting point!

Restore power to the teachers

I am currently a sixth former at my local state school and am appauled daily by the lack of control the teachers feel they have over pupils who are consequently allowed to run riot. This needs to be stopped. Teachers should definately be given the moral highground once again, they need to know that the Government are backing them and giving them the power to enforce discipline properly, rather then sending for higher members of staff who recieve exactly the same treatment. The pupils know they can cause trouble without facing any real implications and therefore enjoy roaming the school doing as they please, with the occasional after school detention as their only punishment. The whole system needs to be looked into, and the nanny state needs to be clamped, pupils constantly use their human rights and the fact that 'they'll take you to court' if you as far as touch them, to acknowledge their power within the classroom and students who want to learn and are not at all disrupted find themselves recieving low quality education as a result of this. I'm not suggesting pupils should be smacked by a slipper everytime they speak out of turn, but for the teachers to regain control in the classroom and for constantly disruptive pupils to be secluded or excluded once and for all, as the current charges on schools that exclude pupils means that troublesome youngsters are being allowed back time and time again so that the school can escape the fine.

Why is this idea important?

I am currently a sixth former at my local state school and am appauled daily by the lack of control the teachers feel they have over pupils who are consequently allowed to run riot. This needs to be stopped. Teachers should definately be given the moral highground once again, they need to know that the Government are backing them and giving them the power to enforce discipline properly, rather then sending for higher members of staff who recieve exactly the same treatment. The pupils know they can cause trouble without facing any real implications and therefore enjoy roaming the school doing as they please, with the occasional after school detention as their only punishment. The whole system needs to be looked into, and the nanny state needs to be clamped, pupils constantly use their human rights and the fact that 'they'll take you to court' if you as far as touch them, to acknowledge their power within the classroom and students who want to learn and are not at all disrupted find themselves recieving low quality education as a result of this. I'm not suggesting pupils should be smacked by a slipper everytime they speak out of turn, but for the teachers to regain control in the classroom and for constantly disruptive pupils to be secluded or excluded once and for all, as the current charges on schools that exclude pupils means that troublesome youngsters are being allowed back time and time again so that the school can escape the fine.

INCOME BASED BENEFITS ‘UNFAIRLY’ NOT CONSEDERED ON PREVIOUSLY PAID NATIONAL INSURANCE STAMPS

If for any reason a UK citizen has been unable to pay their NI stamps for two years their entitlement to contribution based benefits is no longer available. This would include people  who are disabled who have returned from abroad or any other person unable to afford to pay their national insurance stanps for any other reason.

It does not matter how long you had previously paid your National insurance stamps, it could be 41 years! yet if you return to the UK and were unable to pay your stamps while abroad you will be entitled to no contribution  based benefits whatsoever. This would leave a person in a position of being treated entirely differently to all other UK citizens.

Why is this idea important?

If for any reason a UK citizen has been unable to pay their NI stamps for two years their entitlement to contribution based benefits is no longer available. This would include people  who are disabled who have returned from abroad or any other person unable to afford to pay their national insurance stanps for any other reason.

It does not matter how long you had previously paid your National insurance stamps, it could be 41 years! yet if you return to the UK and were unable to pay your stamps while abroad you will be entitled to no contribution  based benefits whatsoever. This would leave a person in a position of being treated entirely differently to all other UK citizens.

Tax Foreign Lorries

Introduce a specific tax for foreign lorries who constantly work here in the UK, whilst they refuel abroad, don't pay road tax and push the smaller national transport companies out of business.

Why is this idea important?

Introduce a specific tax for foreign lorries who constantly work here in the UK, whilst they refuel abroad, don't pay road tax and push the smaller national transport companies out of business.

Repeal the Equalities Act

This act does nothing to acheive its stated objectives, indeed it does the oposite. It explicitly allows discrimination against the ethnic majority, against males and against heterosexuals. It promotes so called "positive" discrimination on all sorts of grounds, so of which are merely choices made by individuals (eg sexuality, religion).

Far from promoting equality, it actually creates situations where the law is bound to treat people with differences in different ways.

Why is this idea important?

This act does nothing to acheive its stated objectives, indeed it does the oposite. It explicitly allows discrimination against the ethnic majority, against males and against heterosexuals. It promotes so called "positive" discrimination on all sorts of grounds, so of which are merely choices made by individuals (eg sexuality, religion).

Far from promoting equality, it actually creates situations where the law is bound to treat people with differences in different ways.

What’s the point in Law if you can’t get it upheld.

This is a call for a review basically.

 

One of the biggest problems I have found with Legal Aid is how it leaves you having to do everything yourself.  15 minutes with a lawyer and that's about it.  The Citizens Advice Bureas are also not up to scratch either.  Due to a massive lack of resources.

Legal Aid is vital to every citizen, yet the poor reliably get dumped to the bottom.  Even though the poor are often caught in the most violent and lawless places.

The idea is to make sure everyone gets Legal Aid.  By re-enforcing the existing system.  So that's review, revoke where required, and add some new bits.

Why is this idea important?

This is a call for a review basically.

 

One of the biggest problems I have found with Legal Aid is how it leaves you having to do everything yourself.  15 minutes with a lawyer and that's about it.  The Citizens Advice Bureas are also not up to scratch either.  Due to a massive lack of resources.

Legal Aid is vital to every citizen, yet the poor reliably get dumped to the bottom.  Even though the poor are often caught in the most violent and lawless places.

The idea is to make sure everyone gets Legal Aid.  By re-enforcing the existing system.  So that's review, revoke where required, and add some new bits.

Smoking licenses for pubs

I know there are a lot of similar ideas to this one, but I want to make it very clear that I nor any other smokers would call for a complete repeal on the smoking ban, it has already gone to far , it is too late, in hindsight maybe we should of stood up before the ban and said "this is not right, we want equal rights" etc, anyway i digress,  My proposal is a system wear a pub owner will apply for a "smoking license" where there will be a set of regulations the pub must follow in order to attain this license, also to keep it. The license could be for either of two things or even both, A full smoke friendly premises, a non smoking premises, or a mix of the two, this would obviously include well ventilated rooms with extractor fans and other measures to prevent smoke from entering the non smoking area ( i am sure this is not beyond the technological ability of a race that sent a man to the moon lol). I am fairly sure that the only people who will object to this idea will be the Anti-smokers, having said that , lets keep this debate civil and proper. NOTE: Nick Clegg has already said that he will not be considering altering the ban, however if we are loud enough maybe we can at least trigger a debate in the commons.

Why is this idea important?

I know there are a lot of similar ideas to this one, but I want to make it very clear that I nor any other smokers would call for a complete repeal on the smoking ban, it has already gone to far , it is too late, in hindsight maybe we should of stood up before the ban and said "this is not right, we want equal rights" etc, anyway i digress,  My proposal is a system wear a pub owner will apply for a "smoking license" where there will be a set of regulations the pub must follow in order to attain this license, also to keep it. The license could be for either of two things or even both, A full smoke friendly premises, a non smoking premises, or a mix of the two, this would obviously include well ventilated rooms with extractor fans and other measures to prevent smoke from entering the non smoking area ( i am sure this is not beyond the technological ability of a race that sent a man to the moon lol). I am fairly sure that the only people who will object to this idea will be the Anti-smokers, having said that , lets keep this debate civil and proper. NOTE: Nick Clegg has already said that he will not be considering altering the ban, however if we are loud enough maybe we can at least trigger a debate in the commons.

Repeal the law that forbids those religions that support same sex marriages performing those marriages in their own places of worship

This is a repost of http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/allow-same-sex-marriage-ceremonies-in-places-of-worship after that title seemed to cause some confusion.

Why is this idea important?

This is a repost of http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/allow-same-sex-marriage-ceremonies-in-places-of-worship after that title seemed to cause some confusion.

Save government money, cut crime, control drugs rather than fight them

There was a time when the number of addicts in thius country was very small, there were no people living on the proceeds of drug dealing and no crime committed to provide money for addicts to buy drugs.

Unfortunately because only a few doctors were prepared to prescribe, and they would only do so privately, the few addicts sold a very small amount of their pharmaceutically pure prescription to pay the doctor. So the number of addicts increased to approximately 200 UK-wide.

Then the media created a frenzyn and the government of the day reacted by making it illegal for doctors to prescribe Class A drugs to addicts unless they were specially licensed psychiatrists operating in drug dependancy centres. There was a waiting period for these centres and the drugs became difficult to obtain. So, initially illegal heroin known as 'Chinese' appeared on the streets of London. More addicts were created and these addicts had to commit crimes in order to buy drugs.

This has now reached a point where at least 70% of all crime is drug-related and addicts plus dealers can be found everywhere, even in the smallest village.

The special centres rarely get addicts clean. Instead they often supply methadone, a drug that has only been used long-term comparitively recently, for the life of the addict. How long that addict lives depends on whether they are ready to stop, and so become addicted to methadone, which has a longer withdrawal period and a risk of an irregular heartbeat, or if they sell the methadone, commit crimes, and buy illegal heroin.

My proposal is to repeal the laws banning ordinary doctors from prescribing these drugs, instead educating and ensuring that NHS GPs in all areas are willing to prescribe.

That would remove the market for illegal drugs so there would be no drug dealers. It would remove all crime associated with the taking of these drugs by addicts because they wouldn't need large amounts of money to buy them, therefore saving money and freeing a great deal of police resources for other things. It would also ease pressure on hospitals that have to deal with the results of addicts taking impure drugs with unknown strength. It would also free up a large number of prison places.

Also, such a step would remove a great deal of the glamour that many young people see in taking these drugs. Instewad, with the right education, addiction would be seen as an illness, and what young person wants to be ill?

I believe this would save the government several billions to start with, taken from savin gs in the health service, police, and prisons. Eventually the number of addicts would drop considerably and the government would gain money from prescription charges.

Of course drugs that are currently illegal could be sold in appropriate places, taxed, with the price controlled by the state, but unless the cost was very low crime would continue, although probably to a lessser degree. I don'yt think pensioners (the number of whom are growing) dependant on these drugs for most of their lives should have to pay, especially if they have worked and paid taxes for most of their lives.

Why is this idea important?

There was a time when the number of addicts in thius country was very small, there were no people living on the proceeds of drug dealing and no crime committed to provide money for addicts to buy drugs.

Unfortunately because only a few doctors were prepared to prescribe, and they would only do so privately, the few addicts sold a very small amount of their pharmaceutically pure prescription to pay the doctor. So the number of addicts increased to approximately 200 UK-wide.

Then the media created a frenzyn and the government of the day reacted by making it illegal for doctors to prescribe Class A drugs to addicts unless they were specially licensed psychiatrists operating in drug dependancy centres. There was a waiting period for these centres and the drugs became difficult to obtain. So, initially illegal heroin known as 'Chinese' appeared on the streets of London. More addicts were created and these addicts had to commit crimes in order to buy drugs.

This has now reached a point where at least 70% of all crime is drug-related and addicts plus dealers can be found everywhere, even in the smallest village.

The special centres rarely get addicts clean. Instead they often supply methadone, a drug that has only been used long-term comparitively recently, for the life of the addict. How long that addict lives depends on whether they are ready to stop, and so become addicted to methadone, which has a longer withdrawal period and a risk of an irregular heartbeat, or if they sell the methadone, commit crimes, and buy illegal heroin.

My proposal is to repeal the laws banning ordinary doctors from prescribing these drugs, instead educating and ensuring that NHS GPs in all areas are willing to prescribe.

That would remove the market for illegal drugs so there would be no drug dealers. It would remove all crime associated with the taking of these drugs by addicts because they wouldn't need large amounts of money to buy them, therefore saving money and freeing a great deal of police resources for other things. It would also ease pressure on hospitals that have to deal with the results of addicts taking impure drugs with unknown strength. It would also free up a large number of prison places.

Also, such a step would remove a great deal of the glamour that many young people see in taking these drugs. Instewad, with the right education, addiction would be seen as an illness, and what young person wants to be ill?

I believe this would save the government several billions to start with, taken from savin gs in the health service, police, and prisons. Eventually the number of addicts would drop considerably and the government would gain money from prescription charges.

Of course drugs that are currently illegal could be sold in appropriate places, taxed, with the price controlled by the state, but unless the cost was very low crime would continue, although probably to a lessser degree. I don'yt think pensioners (the number of whom are growing) dependant on these drugs for most of their lives should have to pay, especially if they have worked and paid taxes for most of their lives.

Reject Refugees

The UK needs to reject all applications for refugee status and expel all those currently residing here in the name of asylum. The UK is an Island nation, surrounded by free countries. In order to be deemed a refugee you're supposed to claim asylum in the first free country you encounter. As there are no countries surrounding the the UK where people are being persecuted, then there is no legitimate claim to asylum in the UK. 

Why is this idea important?

The UK needs to reject all applications for refugee status and expel all those currently residing here in the name of asylum. The UK is an Island nation, surrounded by free countries. In order to be deemed a refugee you're supposed to claim asylum in the first free country you encounter. As there are no countries surrounding the the UK where people are being persecuted, then there is no legitimate claim to asylum in the UK. 

Freedom of speech

I would like to have back my right to express an opinion please.

 

Under Labour's social engineering agenda they made certain belief systems and lifestyles invulnerable to any kind of critique or debate. For example saying that you disagreed with Islam for ANY reason could result in being accused of racism, hate crime, bigotry and lack of understanding, without any consideration of the possible right and wrongs of this or any other belief or way of life…and most importantly the right of people to express disagreement, provided this is not ironically in the case of Islam, accompanied by violence against those who do not share your view.

The result is that certain groups are given a platform to espouse and indoctrinate without any fear of accountability or need for explanation….I suspect this was Labour's intention all along…after all they all but ignored Parliament for 13 years…the very crucible of debate and democracy in this country.

 

Can I have my rights to free speech back please?

Why is this idea important?

I would like to have back my right to express an opinion please.

 

Under Labour's social engineering agenda they made certain belief systems and lifestyles invulnerable to any kind of critique or debate. For example saying that you disagreed with Islam for ANY reason could result in being accused of racism, hate crime, bigotry and lack of understanding, without any consideration of the possible right and wrongs of this or any other belief or way of life…and most importantly the right of people to express disagreement, provided this is not ironically in the case of Islam, accompanied by violence against those who do not share your view.

The result is that certain groups are given a platform to espouse and indoctrinate without any fear of accountability or need for explanation….I suspect this was Labour's intention all along…after all they all but ignored Parliament for 13 years…the very crucible of debate and democracy in this country.

 

Can I have my rights to free speech back please?

male female equality

With all the talk about male female equality. If females expect equal pay with men, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE TO WORK UNTIL THEY ARE 65 JUST AS THE MEN HAVE TO, after all stastics show they are in general fitter than men and LIVE LONGER too.

Why is this idea important?

With all the talk about male female equality. If females expect equal pay with men, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE TO WORK UNTIL THEY ARE 65 JUST AS THE MEN HAVE TO, after all stastics show they are in general fitter than men and LIVE LONGER too.

NATIONALITY: CHILDREN OF BRITISH MOTHERS

The ongoing discrimination against the right of British women to pass on their nationality to children born abroad before 1983 should be scrapped. While this was partially rectified in 2010, this "category" of citizen has to pay a registration fee, and is subject to screening by the Home Office before thay can claim their birthright.  Children born to British fathers are automatically British and merely have to apply for a passport.  This renders British mothers and their children born before 1983  second class citizens.

Why is this idea important?

The ongoing discrimination against the right of British women to pass on their nationality to children born abroad before 1983 should be scrapped. While this was partially rectified in 2010, this "category" of citizen has to pay a registration fee, and is subject to screening by the Home Office before thay can claim their birthright.  Children born to British fathers are automatically British and merely have to apply for a passport.  This renders British mothers and their children born before 1983  second class citizens.

Stop forcing disabled children to attend mainstream schools

Scrap the assumption that disabled children should be taught in mainstream schools (Education Act 1981).

Give parents, and their child themselves, the choice to either send their child to mainstream school or specialist education. Scrap the need to attend a tribunal which is lengthy and expensive, and entirely unnecessary.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the assumption that disabled children should be taught in mainstream schools (Education Act 1981).

Give parents, and their child themselves, the choice to either send their child to mainstream school or specialist education. Scrap the need to attend a tribunal which is lengthy and expensive, and entirely unnecessary.

Unfair Racial Equality Laws

The so called equal opportunities law is anything but equal. Just because there are disproportionately low numbers of women, gays and ethnic minorities in certain occupations is no excuse for “positive action” (which is just another word for anti-white discrimination). There are a disproportionately high numbers of women nurses and black footballers yet we don’t ever see and “positive action” being taken on behalf of white males. If two people are equally qualified for the job then the employer should set further tests or toss a coin. Giving the job to ethnics by default is anti-white racism!

Why is this idea important?

The so called equal opportunities law is anything but equal. Just because there are disproportionately low numbers of women, gays and ethnic minorities in certain occupations is no excuse for “positive action” (which is just another word for anti-white discrimination). There are a disproportionately high numbers of women nurses and black footballers yet we don’t ever see and “positive action” being taken on behalf of white males. If two people are equally qualified for the job then the employer should set further tests or toss a coin. Giving the job to ethnics by default is anti-white racism!

Government’s reasons for keeping cannbis illegal

To really make sense of these arguments members of the Government need to take part in the discussion, to present in this forum their thinking and reasons and the obstacles they would encounter in changing the laws.

This applies to all of the proposals actually, because otherwise we are just going round in circles.

Their feedback would be helpful.

With regard to cannabis for example, I heard one MP who is known to have smoked "in his youth"  (and not one of those who just "didnt inhale"!) say he opposed it because "someone has to do the work…"   i.e. an assumption, probably based on his own experience, that users are just doped out and that he, by being a politician, is taking responsibility for society or something.

Another reason would be pressure for the US, who started the prohibition.  At the time they were still a very young, wild culture, who had only just stopped shooting "Red Indians".  They needed controls.  Now their Adminstration are agressive, arrogant bullies but the "special relationship" still counts and we do what they do in everything.

Incidentally, one of the things smoking creatively does is enable you to think for yourself: possibly some in government would prefer us not to?

Presumeably there are EU laws too.

But whatever the obstacles are, our message must have got across by now so it would be great if they could use this site to join in and answer.

Why is this idea important?

To really make sense of these arguments members of the Government need to take part in the discussion, to present in this forum their thinking and reasons and the obstacles they would encounter in changing the laws.

This applies to all of the proposals actually, because otherwise we are just going round in circles.

Their feedback would be helpful.

With regard to cannabis for example, I heard one MP who is known to have smoked "in his youth"  (and not one of those who just "didnt inhale"!) say he opposed it because "someone has to do the work…"   i.e. an assumption, probably based on his own experience, that users are just doped out and that he, by being a politician, is taking responsibility for society or something.

Another reason would be pressure for the US, who started the prohibition.  At the time they were still a very young, wild culture, who had only just stopped shooting "Red Indians".  They needed controls.  Now their Adminstration are agressive, arrogant bullies but the "special relationship" still counts and we do what they do in everything.

Incidentally, one of the things smoking creatively does is enable you to think for yourself: possibly some in government would prefer us not to?

Presumeably there are EU laws too.

But whatever the obstacles are, our message must have got across by now so it would be great if they could use this site to join in and answer.

Enact legislation to free Black and Ethnic Minority People

Review reveals racism claims at GCHQ

Anti-terrorism efforts at GCHQ – Britain's secret eavesdropping centre – are being undermined by failing to recruit enough ethnic minority staff, according to a new report. Skip related content

The review found that black and Asian intelligence officers complained of a racist culture at the complex near Cheltenham, in Gloucestershire.

It also said that GCHQ had only a "very small pool" of black and Asian staff among its 5,000 workers – while all of the agency's senior staff were white.

Much of the agency's work involves monitoring calls and emails from terror suspects, but a lack of officers with specialist knowledge of languages like Urdu and Arabic was found to be harming efforts to spot codes and cultural nuances in intercepted conversations.

"It is critical to have a diverse staff group who are able to profile and recognise certain behaviour patterns and communications," the document said.

The report recommends better engagement with ethnic minority communities in order to boost recruitment and improve the image of the organisation, adding: "This is critical to good national security intelligence."
 

Why is this idea important?

Review reveals racism claims at GCHQ

Anti-terrorism efforts at GCHQ – Britain's secret eavesdropping centre – are being undermined by failing to recruit enough ethnic minority staff, according to a new report. Skip related content

The review found that black and Asian intelligence officers complained of a racist culture at the complex near Cheltenham, in Gloucestershire.

It also said that GCHQ had only a "very small pool" of black and Asian staff among its 5,000 workers – while all of the agency's senior staff were white.

Much of the agency's work involves monitoring calls and emails from terror suspects, but a lack of officers with specialist knowledge of languages like Urdu and Arabic was found to be harming efforts to spot codes and cultural nuances in intercepted conversations.

"It is critical to have a diverse staff group who are able to profile and recognise certain behaviour patterns and communications," the document said.

The report recommends better engagement with ethnic minority communities in order to boost recruitment and improve the image of the organisation, adding: "This is critical to good national security intelligence."
 

Ban patents on medical equipment, treatments and drugs.

The financial cost of the NHS is growing at such a rate that, increasingly, the government will struggle to fund it. Looking for new ways to raise capitol will not solve the underlying issues . We must uphold our traditional values about the NHS and the rights of all citizens to free healthcare; I propose we achieve this by banning patent rights on pharmaceuticals.

By removing medical patents pharmaceutical companies would provide "for strong price competition between pharmaceutical suppliers and result in considerable savings to the NHS", they would be unable to make profit from manipulating the status of their products, or to deny their products to the poor. 

A great deal of medical research comes from tax-payer funded universities and charities; pharmaceutical companies then fund the trials, gain the patent and then hold a monopoly on the treatment that people rely on to survive.

If financial rewards are to be given they should go to the doctors, nurses and other professionals who research, diagnose and administer treatment, not to usurious shareholders.

Available treatments, often costing pennies to manufacture, are sold at such prices that PCT's are unable to afford them, often leading to regional variabilities and postcode lotteries.

Why is this idea important?

The financial cost of the NHS is growing at such a rate that, increasingly, the government will struggle to fund it. Looking for new ways to raise capitol will not solve the underlying issues . We must uphold our traditional values about the NHS and the rights of all citizens to free healthcare; I propose we achieve this by banning patent rights on pharmaceuticals.

By removing medical patents pharmaceutical companies would provide "for strong price competition between pharmaceutical suppliers and result in considerable savings to the NHS", they would be unable to make profit from manipulating the status of their products, or to deny their products to the poor. 

A great deal of medical research comes from tax-payer funded universities and charities; pharmaceutical companies then fund the trials, gain the patent and then hold a monopoly on the treatment that people rely on to survive.

If financial rewards are to be given they should go to the doctors, nurses and other professionals who research, diagnose and administer treatment, not to usurious shareholders.

Available treatments, often costing pennies to manufacture, are sold at such prices that PCT's are unable to afford them, often leading to regional variabilities and postcode lotteries.