Free Speech – Review Section 4a and 5 of the Public Order Act

The European Commissioner for Human Rights said that Liam Stacey’s sentence under 4a of the Public Order Act was “wrong”.

If a judge has the power to send someone to prison for a minor speech offence under this Act, then there is something very wrong with the Public Order Act.

I think the government should urgently review these laws.

Why is this idea important?

The European Commissioner for Human Rights said that Liam Stacey’s sentence under 4a of the Public Order Act was “wrong”.

If a judge has the power to send someone to prison for a minor speech offence under this Act, then there is something very wrong with the Public Order Act.

I think the government should urgently review these laws.

Gagging Clauses and Compensation Payments

All too often, someone is offered compensation by a big company, but only if they sign a gagging clause. For ever after they cannot alledge that chemical X produced by company Y caused birth defect Z, so similar. They cannot say company M has unsafe working practices. Even to a Parliamentary investigation. Certainly not to a TV journalist or scientific researcher.

If they are offered compensation but refuse to sign the gagging clause, courts will refuse to grant their legal costs, on the grounds that they could have settled.

Change the law. Limit compensation terms to finance and expicitly ban any restrictions on speech.

Why is this idea important?

All too often, someone is offered compensation by a big company, but only if they sign a gagging clause. For ever after they cannot alledge that chemical X produced by company Y caused birth defect Z, so similar. They cannot say company M has unsafe working practices. Even to a Parliamentary investigation. Certainly not to a TV journalist or scientific researcher.

If they are offered compensation but refuse to sign the gagging clause, courts will refuse to grant their legal costs, on the grounds that they could have settled.

Change the law. Limit compensation terms to finance and expicitly ban any restrictions on speech.

Public Sector Workers and Political Activity

Public sector workers – civil servants, council employees and others – are banned from any kind of "political" activity if above a particular grade. They may not "engaging in a range of political activities" even if they do not brief elected officers, the press or public, and the activity is totally unrelated to their work or even the work of their employer. For example, a computer technician on spinal point 44 and working for the local council cannot legally write to the local newspaper supporting a campaign to keep a local school open because political parties at the education authority would have differing views, making the matter "political".  If just one MP or councillor expresses a dissenting opinion the matter is political.

Technically it is not even legal for any public sector worker on Scale Point 44 or above (about £30,000) to post an idea here or even click on the vote button. This is absurd. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (section 2) was introduced to stop abuses where council workers had phantom jobs and were really party workers getting council pay. This abuse is rare today and well understood to be corrupt.

It might be argued that exemptions can be obtained by applying. But in many cases people want to keep work and politics separate, and applying for official permission ends up labelling people.

In some organisations people on SC44 are many levels below the top of the organisation, have never met the elected officers and do not brief press, public or elected officials. The definition needs to be tightened. The top 2 tiers of management should be banned from political activity. Departments and people specifically involved in briefing elected officers, public or press on political matters should be banned. Other people should NOT be banned.

Why is this idea important?

Public sector workers – civil servants, council employees and others – are banned from any kind of "political" activity if above a particular grade. They may not "engaging in a range of political activities" even if they do not brief elected officers, the press or public, and the activity is totally unrelated to their work or even the work of their employer. For example, a computer technician on spinal point 44 and working for the local council cannot legally write to the local newspaper supporting a campaign to keep a local school open because political parties at the education authority would have differing views, making the matter "political".  If just one MP or councillor expresses a dissenting opinion the matter is political.

Technically it is not even legal for any public sector worker on Scale Point 44 or above (about £30,000) to post an idea here or even click on the vote button. This is absurd. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (section 2) was introduced to stop abuses where council workers had phantom jobs and were really party workers getting council pay. This abuse is rare today and well understood to be corrupt.

It might be argued that exemptions can be obtained by applying. But in many cases people want to keep work and politics separate, and applying for official permission ends up labelling people.

In some organisations people on SC44 are many levels below the top of the organisation, have never met the elected officers and do not brief press, public or elected officials. The definition needs to be tightened. The top 2 tiers of management should be banned from political activity. Departments and people specifically involved in briefing elected officers, public or press on political matters should be banned. Other people should NOT be banned.

Repeal Section 97 Children Act1989

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Why is this idea important?

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

let us have bent beans, and bent cucumbers.

get rid of eu rules that say we cannot possibly eat a bent cucumber or a curly french bean. yes we can. i grow veg and bent  beans taste the same as straight ones. this insane ruling just increases prices. get rid. give us the choice of a bent or straight bean.

Why is this idea important?

get rid of eu rules that say we cannot possibly eat a bent cucumber or a curly french bean. yes we can. i grow veg and bent  beans taste the same as straight ones. this insane ruling just increases prices. get rid. give us the choice of a bent or straight bean.

Reform family courts and the conduct of social workers

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Why is this idea important?

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Freedom of speech

Negotiate an amendment to the Human Rights Convention which deletes the qualifications to Article 9, Freedom of Expression. The Americans manage perfectly well without them in The First Amendment to their constitution.

May I remind you of the following remarks of Lord Chief Justice LIght in the leading case of R v Haddock (1922):

 

‘The appellant made the general answer that this was a free country and a man can do what he likes if he does nobody any harm…. It cannot be too clearly understood that this is not a free country, and it will be an evil day for the legal profession when it is. The citizens of London must realize that there is almost nothing that they are allowed to do. Prima facie all actions are illegal, if not by an Act of Parliament, by Order of Council, or if not by Departmental regulations or Police regulations, or bye-laws. They may not eat what they like, drink where they like, walk where they like, drive where they like, sing where they like or sleep where they like. And least of all may they do unusual actions "for fun". People must not do things for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament. If anything is said in this court to encourage a belief that Englishmen are entitled to jump off bridges for their own amusement the next thing to go will be the Constitution.’ 

Why is this idea important?

Negotiate an amendment to the Human Rights Convention which deletes the qualifications to Article 9, Freedom of Expression. The Americans manage perfectly well without them in The First Amendment to their constitution.

May I remind you of the following remarks of Lord Chief Justice LIght in the leading case of R v Haddock (1922):

 

‘The appellant made the general answer that this was a free country and a man can do what he likes if he does nobody any harm…. It cannot be too clearly understood that this is not a free country, and it will be an evil day for the legal profession when it is. The citizens of London must realize that there is almost nothing that they are allowed to do. Prima facie all actions are illegal, if not by an Act of Parliament, by Order of Council, or if not by Departmental regulations or Police regulations, or bye-laws. They may not eat what they like, drink where they like, walk where they like, drive where they like, sing where they like or sleep where they like. And least of all may they do unusual actions "for fun". People must not do things for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament. If anything is said in this court to encourage a belief that Englishmen are entitled to jump off bridges for their own amusement the next thing to go will be the Constitution.’ 

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?

Enable Criticism of Religions and Cults

At the moment a Welsh councillor John Dixon is being hauled before a disciplinary hearing for tweeting that he thought Scientology was stupid.

Irrespective of the accuracy of his opinion (he happens he be right Scientology is Stupid) he, and everyone else, should be entitled to express an opinion honestly held and no self proclaimed religion or cult, or in the case of Scientology, marketing scam, should be able to prevent them or take action against them.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment a Welsh councillor John Dixon is being hauled before a disciplinary hearing for tweeting that he thought Scientology was stupid.

Irrespective of the accuracy of his opinion (he happens he be right Scientology is Stupid) he, and everyone else, should be entitled to express an opinion honestly held and no self proclaimed religion or cult, or in the case of Scientology, marketing scam, should be able to prevent them or take action against them.

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.

Protect the right to criticise religion and the state

I propose to abolish any law that restricts the right to criticise religions or the authorisies or any other group or creed as this restricts a person's right to free speech

Why is this idea important?

I propose to abolish any law that restricts the right to criticise religions or the authorisies or any other group or creed as this restricts a person's right to free speech

Repeal of “hate crime” legislation

I would like to see the Government repeal recent legislation which has established the idea of a hate crime.  As long as they do not specifically incite violence, people should be free to voice an opinion, however strong, about religion, sexuality etc.  and should be able ot do so with the full protection of the law. 

The idea that a policemen can arrest a person, and that person be charged and convicted becasue they called another peorsn a "coconut", which happened recently, has no place in British society.

We should be allowed to say what we please, when we please, to whomsoever we please.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the Government repeal recent legislation which has established the idea of a hate crime.  As long as they do not specifically incite violence, people should be free to voice an opinion, however strong, about religion, sexuality etc.  and should be able ot do so with the full protection of the law. 

The idea that a policemen can arrest a person, and that person be charged and convicted becasue they called another peorsn a "coconut", which happened recently, has no place in British society.

We should be allowed to say what we please, when we please, to whomsoever we please.

Abolish Theatre Licences

Why are Theatre licences necessary?

This is not Eastern Europe under Stalin, or England under Elizabeth the First. "Apply for a licence so we can control what you say and monitor it".

If content is not state-regulated and state-monitored that only leaves impact on neighbours and health and safety as legitimate reasons for control, both areas that also need simplification.

Why is this idea important?

Why are Theatre licences necessary?

This is not Eastern Europe under Stalin, or England under Elizabeth the First. "Apply for a licence so we can control what you say and monitor it".

If content is not state-regulated and state-monitored that only leaves impact on neighbours and health and safety as legitimate reasons for control, both areas that also need simplification.

Subsume the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred into the existing, and perfectly adequate Incitement to Racial Hatred legislation.

The crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred was created to close a loophole in the previous law. The crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred already protected Jewish and Hindu people from hate-speech (being both races and religions) so the BNP decided to change their tactics to attacking Muslims (because Islam isn't a race and so they could get away with it).

 

As with the old adage, exceptions make bad law. The idea of this massive legal apparatus just to stop a BNP hate campaign that few will listen to is ill thought through. As a result of badly-drafted law, it is now illegal to criticise another's religious beliefs too strongly. Religion, unlike race, is based on belief, and is not merely a tribal affiliation – people should have the freedom to discuss the basis of their beliefs freely without fear, in order for religious groups to remain grounded in reason and avoid fundamentalism.

 

I propose that the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred be abolished, and the crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred amended to cover not only those groups that are a 'race' by ethnicity, but also any group that views itself as connected by a filial bond in its' belief system (such as Christians, who see themselves as the adopted family of God, or Muslims, who see themselves as the spiritual descendents of Ishmael – this would also cover hatred against other groups like the Freemasons, who see themselves as brothers, or Americans, who are not a single race, but have a common affinity through their constitution and its values). This would mean it would still be a crime to incite hatred against Muslims just for being Muslims, but it would not be a crime to suggest that the belief in polygamy is a degrading idea to women.

Why is this idea important?

The crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred was created to close a loophole in the previous law. The crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred already protected Jewish and Hindu people from hate-speech (being both races and religions) so the BNP decided to change their tactics to attacking Muslims (because Islam isn't a race and so they could get away with it).

 

As with the old adage, exceptions make bad law. The idea of this massive legal apparatus just to stop a BNP hate campaign that few will listen to is ill thought through. As a result of badly-drafted law, it is now illegal to criticise another's religious beliefs too strongly. Religion, unlike race, is based on belief, and is not merely a tribal affiliation – people should have the freedom to discuss the basis of their beliefs freely without fear, in order for religious groups to remain grounded in reason and avoid fundamentalism.

 

I propose that the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred be abolished, and the crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred amended to cover not only those groups that are a 'race' by ethnicity, but also any group that views itself as connected by a filial bond in its' belief system (such as Christians, who see themselves as the adopted family of God, or Muslims, who see themselves as the spiritual descendents of Ishmael – this would also cover hatred against other groups like the Freemasons, who see themselves as brothers, or Americans, who are not a single race, but have a common affinity through their constitution and its values). This would mean it would still be a crime to incite hatred against Muslims just for being Muslims, but it would not be a crime to suggest that the belief in polygamy is a degrading idea to women.

Request for the government to respect our right to debate and take heed.

LoLopants I hope you read this as I first want to apologise for stealing your title.  However, I did so deliberately to get your attention when I was a bit miffed that I was unable to give your IDEA 5 stars as the moderators have cut you off after only a couple of responses because, they say, what you have written is not an idea but a general comment (or words to that effect).

So I would like to state my IDEA which is that I think elected government officials should no longer ask for IDEAS  and then go on the public record (Nick Cleggs' video undertaking blatently obvious damage control re:  an overwhelming majority wanting at least debate on the smoking ban) saying that some IDEAS will never be considered.  Never is a very long time in politics.

So, just in case the moderators are unsure here what an IDEA is, I will bullet point the main IDEA put forward by myself and originally by username LoLopants.

  • IDEA 1…. From now on in a British democracy no IDEA should be deemed unsuitable for discussion and debate among its adult voting populace. Freedom of speech in other words.

 

  • IDEA. 2…From now on no MP should laughingly deny their responsibility to listen to the ideas of the people who elected him//her, even if those IDEAS may make them nervous because they are scared of doing anything about them. 

Hope that covers what you meant to be considered and commented upon LoLo, and 5 ***** for your great comments and IDEAS.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

LoLopants I hope you read this as I first want to apologise for stealing your title.  However, I did so deliberately to get your attention when I was a bit miffed that I was unable to give your IDEA 5 stars as the moderators have cut you off after only a couple of responses because, they say, what you have written is not an idea but a general comment (or words to that effect).

So I would like to state my IDEA which is that I think elected government officials should no longer ask for IDEAS  and then go on the public record (Nick Cleggs' video undertaking blatently obvious damage control re:  an overwhelming majority wanting at least debate on the smoking ban) saying that some IDEAS will never be considered.  Never is a very long time in politics.

So, just in case the moderators are unsure here what an IDEA is, I will bullet point the main IDEA put forward by myself and originally by username LoLopants.

  • IDEA 1…. From now on in a British democracy no IDEA should be deemed unsuitable for discussion and debate among its adult voting populace. Freedom of speech in other words.

 

  • IDEA. 2…From now on no MP should laughingly deny their responsibility to listen to the ideas of the people who elected him//her, even if those IDEAS may make them nervous because they are scared of doing anything about them. 

Hope that covers what you meant to be considered and commented upon LoLo, and 5 ***** for your great comments and IDEAS.

 

 

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'.

The right to protest and free speech..

Repeal laws in relation to:-

Protest and free speech are crucial parts of political life, with a strong British history, yet a variety of measures undermine them.
 
Laws intended to combat anti-social behaviour, terrorism and serious crime are routinely used against legitimate protesters.
 
Free Speech has been a victim on the 'War on Terror', with offences of 'encouragement' and 'glorification' of terrorism threatening to make careless talk a crime.
 
Non-violent political organisations can be classified along with Al-Quaeda, with membership or association with them a serious criminal offence.
 
Meanwhile, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 has extended the offence of incitement to racial hatred to cover religion, threatening to seriously undermine legitimate debate.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal laws in relation to:-

Protest and free speech are crucial parts of political life, with a strong British history, yet a variety of measures undermine them.
 
Laws intended to combat anti-social behaviour, terrorism and serious crime are routinely used against legitimate protesters.
 
Free Speech has been a victim on the 'War on Terror', with offences of 'encouragement' and 'glorification' of terrorism threatening to make careless talk a crime.
 
Non-violent political organisations can be classified along with Al-Quaeda, with membership or association with them a serious criminal offence.
 
Meanwhile, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 has extended the offence of incitement to racial hatred to cover religion, threatening to seriously undermine legitimate debate.

Remove Michael Savage from Banned in Britain List for exercising Free Speech

Immediately remove top 4 American Radio Talk Show Host Michael Savage from the UK's Banned List for exercising Free Speech.

Apologize to him for printing false and damaging libelous accusations that he has called for and incited violence, as well as putting him on a list of known murderers and terrorists.

For over a decade and a half, Michael has always been against violence on his talk show, and regularly cuts off callers who even hint at violence.

The U.S. FCC laws are clear, and he would have been taken off the radio if he had suggested or incited violence of any kind. 

Why is this idea important?

Immediately remove top 4 American Radio Talk Show Host Michael Savage from the UK's Banned List for exercising Free Speech.

Apologize to him for printing false and damaging libelous accusations that he has called for and incited violence, as well as putting him on a list of known murderers and terrorists.

For over a decade and a half, Michael has always been against violence on his talk show, and regularly cuts off callers who even hint at violence.

The U.S. FCC laws are clear, and he would have been taken off the radio if he had suggested or incited violence of any kind. 

Amendments to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

Although there are many strong arguments in favour of shielding the adherents of a religious ideology from hatred, these arguments should not extend to the protection of ideas that constitute that religious ideology. To do so would be to the detriment of our democratic way of life, and would disproportionally inhibit those of us (myself included) who wish to tackle the unwarranted hatred espoused by certain religious ideologies, whether that be towards the gay community, women or other sub-groups in our society. There are many religious texts in Britain today whose verses are at best ambiguious, or at worst inciteful so as to provide a justification for one section of society to oppress another, or to commit horrendous acts of terrorism. This ambiguity, and the empirical evidence that corroborates these assertions in the form of 9/11 or IRA terrorism, could lead quite justifiably to an athiest such as myself, to conclude that they "hate" a religious ideology, or even all religious ideologies if hateful sentiments can be inferred from them across the board. Currently however, only expressions of "antipathy" are allowed against religious texts, not "hatred". While I do not personally advocate "hatred" against a religious ideology, I can see why an individual might feel that way inclined, and therefore do not believe they should be arrested for this. Accordingly, I believe a supplementary protection for freedom of speech should be added to section 29J of the Act, as highlighted in bold:

"29J Protection of freedom of expression

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of hatred, antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."
 

Why is this idea important?

Although there are many strong arguments in favour of shielding the adherents of a religious ideology from hatred, these arguments should not extend to the protection of ideas that constitute that religious ideology. To do so would be to the detriment of our democratic way of life, and would disproportionally inhibit those of us (myself included) who wish to tackle the unwarranted hatred espoused by certain religious ideologies, whether that be towards the gay community, women or other sub-groups in our society. There are many religious texts in Britain today whose verses are at best ambiguious, or at worst inciteful so as to provide a justification for one section of society to oppress another, or to commit horrendous acts of terrorism. This ambiguity, and the empirical evidence that corroborates these assertions in the form of 9/11 or IRA terrorism, could lead quite justifiably to an athiest such as myself, to conclude that they "hate" a religious ideology, or even all religious ideologies if hateful sentiments can be inferred from them across the board. Currently however, only expressions of "antipathy" are allowed against religious texts, not "hatred". While I do not personally advocate "hatred" against a religious ideology, I can see why an individual might feel that way inclined, and therefore do not believe they should be arrested for this. Accordingly, I believe a supplementary protection for freedom of speech should be added to section 29J of the Act, as highlighted in bold:

"29J Protection of freedom of expression

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of hatred, antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."
 

Free Speech

How about restoring a human being's right to freely express their ideas, without being oppressed by a government that doesn't agree with them? Your continued ban of Michael Savage is outrageous! As an American soldier, I fought alongside our British allies in Iraq in 2003, and am immensely proud of both our country's joint stand against the Nazis and Imperial Japan in WWII. As an American citizen of Irish ancestry, I am fully aware of both the wrongs your government committed against the Irish people, and the wrongs currently being committed against all free people by Islamic extremists. That you would group Mr. Savage with these terrorists shows the lunacy of the current wave of political correctness.  It pains me to see the direction your country is headed in response to the growth of radical Islam.

Why is this idea important?

How about restoring a human being's right to freely express their ideas, without being oppressed by a government that doesn't agree with them? Your continued ban of Michael Savage is outrageous! As an American soldier, I fought alongside our British allies in Iraq in 2003, and am immensely proud of both our country's joint stand against the Nazis and Imperial Japan in WWII. As an American citizen of Irish ancestry, I am fully aware of both the wrongs your government committed against the Irish people, and the wrongs currently being committed against all free people by Islamic extremists. That you would group Mr. Savage with these terrorists shows the lunacy of the current wave of political correctness.  It pains me to see the direction your country is headed in response to the growth of radical Islam.

This “consultation” is a sham – give us free speech

So many closed off ideas, nowhere to comment. I've just read one labelled "smoking only pubs" and it has no rating and no comments. Is it because of the subject matter? Are smoking or pro choice subjects routinely gagged. What sort of democracy is that?

Restore the right to free speech before it's too late to save your tissue thin reputation.

Why is this idea important?

So many closed off ideas, nowhere to comment. I've just read one labelled "smoking only pubs" and it has no rating and no comments. Is it because of the subject matter? Are smoking or pro choice subjects routinely gagged. What sort of democracy is that?

Restore the right to free speech before it's too late to save your tissue thin reputation.

Where has the “CANNABIS” Tag gone???

There used to be a Tag entitled “Cannabis” located on the right hand side of the index page. It was useful as it directed thousands of people to the place where they felt most concern regarding current unethical and unlawful discriminative legislation towards innocent cannabis users.

Why is this idea important?

There used to be a Tag entitled “Cannabis” located on the right hand side of the index page. It was useful as it directed thousands of people to the place where they felt most concern regarding current unethical and unlawful discriminative legislation towards innocent cannabis users.

Allow scientists to study what they want

Funding for science is dictated by the government (or a body acting on behalf of the government). This is carried out by calling for research proposals in a particular area of science chosen by the government-often chosen by particular buzzwords seen in the media.

It wasn’t always like this, it was possible to have your own idea then ask for funds. Now we must wait until the government has the idea before we can get it funded.

Please increase the funds for “responsive mode” research and cut back on tHose which promote the government agenda.

Why is this idea important?

Funding for science is dictated by the government (or a body acting on behalf of the government). This is carried out by calling for research proposals in a particular area of science chosen by the government-often chosen by particular buzzwords seen in the media.

It wasn’t always like this, it was possible to have your own idea then ask for funds. Now we must wait until the government has the idea before we can get it funded.

Please increase the funds for “responsive mode” research and cut back on tHose which promote the government agenda.

Reduce Police Costs AND Improve Freedom of Speech

Reduce Protest confrontations by limiting same day or location of secondary counter demonstrations from occuring and thus save money as well as reduce friction in the community, and agression and violence on our streets.

Example:-

1/ Those who protest agains the war should not be permitted to protest at the same places and times where soldiers are marching to commemorate losses/celebrate their bravery.

2/ BNP and anti-BNP groups should have seperate protests either by the location or the date.

The tests I would apply is here is one of historical violence and size of protest as well as whether the secondary protest will prevent the first from freedom of expression at all. If the groups are known to be peaceful and of a reasonable size then this change should not be applied.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce Protest confrontations by limiting same day or location of secondary counter demonstrations from occuring and thus save money as well as reduce friction in the community, and agression and violence on our streets.

Example:-

1/ Those who protest agains the war should not be permitted to protest at the same places and times where soldiers are marching to commemorate losses/celebrate their bravery.

2/ BNP and anti-BNP groups should have seperate protests either by the location or the date.

The tests I would apply is here is one of historical violence and size of protest as well as whether the secondary protest will prevent the first from freedom of expression at all. If the groups are known to be peaceful and of a reasonable size then this change should not be applied.