Legalise all Drugs

I believe not all drugs, even the harmful ones should be legalised. Why? Because while something is illegal there is NO regulation of it. Which is why it is so harmful to users and so profitable to sellers.

Legalisation does not have to mean encourage the use of drugs. It can mean make it a medical problem, rather then a legal one, when the only person an addict harms through their drug use is themselves. All drug related crime, be it addicts stealing for a fix or gang related crime, all come from the legal status of drugs. If there was legal, safe, regulated access to drugs, then the only problem remaining is treating the addicts. Which would be far cheaper for the tax payer then funding a hopeless drug war. Especially considering the potential money there is to be made from taxing the mostly harmless drugs such as cannabis.

The final point I have to make is that it is very foolish to keeps drugs illegal when after years of fighting to end drug use it has only inreased. It is impossible to stop people using drugs. Even in places such as China where drug users are executed, there are still plenty who use them anyway.

So please, lets change our drug policy from one based on racism and propaganda to one based on scientific evidence. Before too much damage is done.

Why is this idea important?

I believe not all drugs, even the harmful ones should be legalised. Why? Because while something is illegal there is NO regulation of it. Which is why it is so harmful to users and so profitable to sellers.

Legalisation does not have to mean encourage the use of drugs. It can mean make it a medical problem, rather then a legal one, when the only person an addict harms through their drug use is themselves. All drug related crime, be it addicts stealing for a fix or gang related crime, all come from the legal status of drugs. If there was legal, safe, regulated access to drugs, then the only problem remaining is treating the addicts. Which would be far cheaper for the tax payer then funding a hopeless drug war. Especially considering the potential money there is to be made from taxing the mostly harmless drugs such as cannabis.

The final point I have to make is that it is very foolish to keeps drugs illegal when after years of fighting to end drug use it has only inreased. It is impossible to stop people using drugs. Even in places such as China where drug users are executed, there are still plenty who use them anyway.

So please, lets change our drug policy from one based on racism and propaganda to one based on scientific evidence. Before too much damage is done.

DELIVER JUSTICE, PROTECT THE PUBLIC: MANDATORY LENGHTY CUSTODIAL SENTENCES FOR UNPROVOKED VIOLENCE

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

Why is this idea important?

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

The government should encourage self-moderated forums

Many site users here including myself have had posts removed by the moderators for in our view inadequate reasons, based on other protests I've seen here.

Moderated forums in general present a problem, because the moderator is constantly asked to take sides – i.e. decide between somebody's right to post, and the rights of somebody complaining about a post.

The best solution would be SELF-MODERATED forums, such as exist on the BBC 606 site, so that whoever starts a thread can delete abusive comments on it if they please, as the BBC put it "are in control of their space."

Because otherwise we just have the constant DENIAL OF FREE SPEECH.

To put it simply, I want the right to say what I want on MY idea page without being abused, and I give in return the right to everybody else to do the same, say what they like on THEIR PAGE, and delete any comments they find abusive.

The tag system on this site is for example a major source of ANONYMOUS ABUSE, and once again, should be under the control of whoever starts the page, unless the site administrators are quite happy about the poster being abused, as appears to be the case on this site to date.

Why is this idea important?

Many site users here including myself have had posts removed by the moderators for in our view inadequate reasons, based on other protests I've seen here.

Moderated forums in general present a problem, because the moderator is constantly asked to take sides – i.e. decide between somebody's right to post, and the rights of somebody complaining about a post.

The best solution would be SELF-MODERATED forums, such as exist on the BBC 606 site, so that whoever starts a thread can delete abusive comments on it if they please, as the BBC put it "are in control of their space."

Because otherwise we just have the constant DENIAL OF FREE SPEECH.

To put it simply, I want the right to say what I want on MY idea page without being abused, and I give in return the right to everybody else to do the same, say what they like on THEIR PAGE, and delete any comments they find abusive.

The tag system on this site is for example a major source of ANONYMOUS ABUSE, and once again, should be under the control of whoever starts the page, unless the site administrators are quite happy about the poster being abused, as appears to be the case on this site to date.

Return local authorities to their role as service providers

I am no longer concerned about nanny state. What concerns me is the increasingly authoritarian attitude of local authorities. It is time that their powers to introduce "criminal" offences such as putting out rubbish on the  wrong day and imposing politically motivated parking restrictions and twenty mile speed limits were curbed. No bye-laws should ever be criminal offences.

They should be forced back to performing their proper role as service providers to the local community and should be held properly accountable for doing so.

Perhaps a change of name from "local authority" to "local service provider" would be a good starting point in delivering the message.

Why is this idea important?

I am no longer concerned about nanny state. What concerns me is the increasingly authoritarian attitude of local authorities. It is time that their powers to introduce "criminal" offences such as putting out rubbish on the  wrong day and imposing politically motivated parking restrictions and twenty mile speed limits were curbed. No bye-laws should ever be criminal offences.

They should be forced back to performing their proper role as service providers to the local community and should be held properly accountable for doing so.

Perhaps a change of name from "local authority" to "local service provider" would be a good starting point in delivering the message.

Review the activities of the borders agency

UK Borders staff should treat UK nationals returning to teh country with greater respect and efficiency. Remove the stupid rule that says you can't use a mobile phone in an arrivals hall and return to a wave through system for people with UK passports. Also revise their search powers- I was stopped by a UK Border Agency official at Portrmouth because he wanted to see where the engine of my car was!!

Why is this idea important?

UK Borders staff should treat UK nationals returning to teh country with greater respect and efficiency. Remove the stupid rule that says you can't use a mobile phone in an arrivals hall and return to a wave through system for people with UK passports. Also revise their search powers- I was stopped by a UK Border Agency official at Portrmouth because he wanted to see where the engine of my car was!!

Bringing ancient justice back to the modern justice system

I would like to see five points reflected in the new justice legislation created by the Coalition government:

1.. A swift return to the ancient instruction from all judges to jurors allocated to criminal prosecution cases that in order to convict, the balance of evidence must have caused them to believe that a defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', and that this means that if they have any doubts at all that they should not convict, bearing in mind that the underpinning foundation of our legal system is that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

2. The removal of all banana republic inspired New Labour 'complaint to conviction' targets created for police and CPS. The target for any democratic society's criminal justice system should be to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, not to frog march anyone who is the subject of a complaint through to a 'guilty' verdict as swiftly as possible.

3. A thorough investigation of the victim compensation system in terms of any potential for abuse, followed by a move to balance legislation so that people who make false allegations due to malice and/ or to fraudulently claim compensation face heavy penalties, which grow heavier the later this comes to light (as the person they have accused will have suffered for a longer time due to their allegations). This should be clearly explained to people at the point they make a complaint to the police by a professional mediator, not a police officer.

4. That no person is imprisoned without charge for longer than the 36 hours that was the limit before New Labour legislation.

5. That no person is ever subject to government employees of any description circulating information about him or her that has been gathered through rumour and unsubstantiated allegation (as can be the case on the enhanced CRB).

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see five points reflected in the new justice legislation created by the Coalition government:

1.. A swift return to the ancient instruction from all judges to jurors allocated to criminal prosecution cases that in order to convict, the balance of evidence must have caused them to believe that a defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', and that this means that if they have any doubts at all that they should not convict, bearing in mind that the underpinning foundation of our legal system is that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

2. The removal of all banana republic inspired New Labour 'complaint to conviction' targets created for police and CPS. The target for any democratic society's criminal justice system should be to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, not to frog march anyone who is the subject of a complaint through to a 'guilty' verdict as swiftly as possible.

3. A thorough investigation of the victim compensation system in terms of any potential for abuse, followed by a move to balance legislation so that people who make false allegations due to malice and/ or to fraudulently claim compensation face heavy penalties, which grow heavier the later this comes to light (as the person they have accused will have suffered for a longer time due to their allegations). This should be clearly explained to people at the point they make a complaint to the police by a professional mediator, not a police officer.

4. That no person is imprisoned without charge for longer than the 36 hours that was the limit before New Labour legislation.

5. That no person is ever subject to government employees of any description circulating information about him or her that has been gathered through rumour and unsubstantiated allegation (as can be the case on the enhanced CRB).

freedom to peaceful demonstration.

the right to peacefully demonstrate for any reason should be restored as a cornerstone to our democratic  system. for demonstrations to be restricted under the heading of anti terrorism is a  restriction of my right to make an active statement of my approval or disapproval. i have only once in my life felt moved to demonstrate (and i am 60 years of age) the only terrorists present were disguised as police officers.

greenham common. ghandi. there are many examples of peaceful protest changing our world. protests are a window to peoples viewes. they should be viewed as a citizens right and not as a terrorist activity.

laws that relate to demonstration could be viewed as a governments level of paranoia or a guage of the supression intended by the state upon its citizens

you need to display confidence………   not control

p.s. point of information. i protested against the invasion of iraq. also , should i ever feel so angry again i will bloody well protest anyway.

Why is this idea important?

the right to peacefully demonstrate for any reason should be restored as a cornerstone to our democratic  system. for demonstrations to be restricted under the heading of anti terrorism is a  restriction of my right to make an active statement of my approval or disapproval. i have only once in my life felt moved to demonstrate (and i am 60 years of age) the only terrorists present were disguised as police officers.

greenham common. ghandi. there are many examples of peaceful protest changing our world. protests are a window to peoples viewes. they should be viewed as a citizens right and not as a terrorist activity.

laws that relate to demonstration could be viewed as a governments level of paranoia or a guage of the supression intended by the state upon its citizens

you need to display confidence………   not control

p.s. point of information. i protested against the invasion of iraq. also , should i ever feel so angry again i will bloody well protest anyway.

Stop censorship of those seeking to uphold the Coronation Oath

The Coronation Oath –
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and
Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"
Elizabeth 2: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Elizabeth 2: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here
before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."

Those who want to follow the Laws of God, clearly stated in the Oath, are not being allowed.
At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse, according to this Oath, to God's Laws.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow The Law seek a single Court-room. Support the effort.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/know-your-rights-and-give-judges-less-discretion

Why is this idea important?

The Coronation Oath –
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and
Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"
Elizabeth 2: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Elizabeth 2: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here
before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."

Those who want to follow the Laws of God, clearly stated in the Oath, are not being allowed.
At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse, according to this Oath, to God's Laws.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow The Law seek a single Court-room. Support the effort.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/know-your-rights-and-give-judges-less-discretion

remove photography from anti-terror legislation

 




Several years ago, my girlfriend was working in a large shopping centre and asked me to take a photo of her and a friend.  As I was about to take the photo, I was approached by a security man who asked me to stop taking photos as it was not allowed due to anti-terror laws.  I thought this was a pretty awful imposition on my freedom.  If I came back later and planted a bomb then I would have committed a crime, but it is not a crime to simply take photos.

'My idea' as I am asked to put it in this form, is to allow photography in such situations, which is a completely harmless activity – no-one is being hurt or threatened, or having possessions stolen etc.

Why is this idea important?

 




Several years ago, my girlfriend was working in a large shopping centre and asked me to take a photo of her and a friend.  As I was about to take the photo, I was approached by a security man who asked me to stop taking photos as it was not allowed due to anti-terror laws.  I thought this was a pretty awful imposition on my freedom.  If I came back later and planted a bomb then I would have committed a crime, but it is not a crime to simply take photos.

'My idea' as I am asked to put it in this form, is to allow photography in such situations, which is a completely harmless activity – no-one is being hurt or threatened, or having possessions stolen etc.

Freedom of movement

Get rid of all the guard railing and the regs. and narrow safty audit contexts that result in significant restiction of the basic right that is the freedom of movement. Reintroduce common sense, follow best practise and safe millions if not billions of pounds between now and the next election. Imagine Places without guard railings!

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of all the guard railing and the regs. and narrow safty audit contexts that result in significant restiction of the basic right that is the freedom of movement. Reintroduce common sense, follow best practise and safe millions if not billions of pounds between now and the next election. Imagine Places without guard railings!

Atlas Shrugged (or Why We Need to Crack Down on Government Control Freakery)

Crime is a serious problem, right?

The fact is that the problem governments now face is that there is too LITTLE crime. THIS is what is threatening them. Not too much crime, as they tell you through their mouthpiece, the press.

Just imagine a paradisic country where everyone is living a happy moral life. There is no crime.

What need would there be for government? Perhaps to run the schools, transport, hospitals, clean the streets and a few other bits and bobs.

There would be no need, however, for a home secretary. You would not need police or prisons. And you would not need big government departments to oversee the police and the prisons.

Government would be significantly smaller. (And your taxes proportionately less.)

In short, if crime went down, large sections of government would have to go. Right?

Well, not quite. Both property and violent crime have been dropping steadily since they peaked in the early-to-mid 90s. These are now at the same level they were in 1980.

But we also have TWICE the number of people incarcerated than in 1980, despite property and violent crime having dropped back down to this level. (America has FOUR times its 1980 level.)

We also have 4000 new laws since Labour came into power.

And we have more prisons, far more police and massive government departments than we ever had in this area.

Government is thriving. (And your tax is high.)

Here is a rather chilling quote from the classic 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand:

 

<i>"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game…"</i>

Sound familiar?

Why is this idea important?

Crime is a serious problem, right?

The fact is that the problem governments now face is that there is too LITTLE crime. THIS is what is threatening them. Not too much crime, as they tell you through their mouthpiece, the press.

Just imagine a paradisic country where everyone is living a happy moral life. There is no crime.

What need would there be for government? Perhaps to run the schools, transport, hospitals, clean the streets and a few other bits and bobs.

There would be no need, however, for a home secretary. You would not need police or prisons. And you would not need big government departments to oversee the police and the prisons.

Government would be significantly smaller. (And your taxes proportionately less.)

In short, if crime went down, large sections of government would have to go. Right?

Well, not quite. Both property and violent crime have been dropping steadily since they peaked in the early-to-mid 90s. These are now at the same level they were in 1980.

But we also have TWICE the number of people incarcerated than in 1980, despite property and violent crime having dropped back down to this level. (America has FOUR times its 1980 level.)

We also have 4000 new laws since Labour came into power.

And we have more prisons, far more police and massive government departments than we ever had in this area.

Government is thriving. (And your tax is high.)

Here is a rather chilling quote from the classic 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand:

 

<i>"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game…"</i>

Sound familiar?

Repeal the 1972 Communities Act and withdraw from the E.U.

Britains Freedoms and Traditions have been created through the centuries and are based on our ancient Constitution, which has yet to be codified.  The fact that no-one in Government is even interested nor has found the time to do so in the 21st Century is shameful and a sad reflection on today's politicians, who appear to have little or no knowledge of our history.  The fact that many countries around the world have used much of our Constitution to create their own, speaks for itself.  European countries on the other hand alter their Constitutions whenever they have a change of Government, what does that tell you?   

It is a fact that Britain's Freedoms and Traditions cannot be restored until we come out of the European Union because the continental way of life is totally different from ours.  In fact this was confirmed by one of the Roux brothers on BBC T.V. recently when he said he came to live in Britain because he liked the way of life and the freedoms that it gave him; he also went on to say that the E.U. was passing laws and creating leglisation that was unlawfully taking away the protections and freedoms that the British citizen had always enjoyed and it was totally undemocratic.  Good for Mr. Roux I say – well done!

Why is this idea important?

Britains Freedoms and Traditions have been created through the centuries and are based on our ancient Constitution, which has yet to be codified.  The fact that no-one in Government is even interested nor has found the time to do so in the 21st Century is shameful and a sad reflection on today's politicians, who appear to have little or no knowledge of our history.  The fact that many countries around the world have used much of our Constitution to create their own, speaks for itself.  European countries on the other hand alter their Constitutions whenever they have a change of Government, what does that tell you?   

It is a fact that Britain's Freedoms and Traditions cannot be restored until we come out of the European Union because the continental way of life is totally different from ours.  In fact this was confirmed by one of the Roux brothers on BBC T.V. recently when he said he came to live in Britain because he liked the way of life and the freedoms that it gave him; he also went on to say that the E.U. was passing laws and creating leglisation that was unlawfully taking away the protections and freedoms that the British citizen had always enjoyed and it was totally undemocratic.  Good for Mr. Roux I say – well done!

WHY PUT MORE OUT OF WORK

In the first year Scotland band smoking over two thousand pubs went out of business, if each of those employed 3 staff, 6000 out of work, how many have been put on the dole since the overall ban was introduced in England and Wales.

How many tobacco workers would be out of work, how many drivers out of work, the list of people that would end up on the dole and that’s just our country, would be criminal.

Note to all in favour of an overall ban!

DO YOU WANT TO PAY MORE TAX?

Why is this idea important?

In the first year Scotland band smoking over two thousand pubs went out of business, if each of those employed 3 staff, 6000 out of work, how many have been put on the dole since the overall ban was introduced in England and Wales.

How many tobacco workers would be out of work, how many drivers out of work, the list of people that would end up on the dole and that’s just our country, would be criminal.

Note to all in favour of an overall ban!

DO YOU WANT TO PAY MORE TAX?

Turn off the talking trains, train stations and buses

For the past two years or so we have been forced to suffer a womans voice telling us from a satellite (I believe…?)  in space the same boring, intrusive messages about the stops or stations we are approaching, the final destination of the public vehicle which we are sitting down. Even while we wait for trains a man's voice tells us not to leave luggage on platforms, etc,etc. It's too much. When I recently went to Lymington, the lovely old fashioned train rendered a silent journey but the new train with un openable doors which requires the employment of an extra guard to open and close the doors has the ruddy female voice on it. There's too MUCH noise telling us to do this and not to do that. Its like the Nanny State via the invisible faceless voice. Do we really need this? Apart from the unnecessary noise it intrudes constantly upon our thoughts and right to peace and quiet .

Why is this idea important?

For the past two years or so we have been forced to suffer a womans voice telling us from a satellite (I believe…?)  in space the same boring, intrusive messages about the stops or stations we are approaching, the final destination of the public vehicle which we are sitting down. Even while we wait for trains a man's voice tells us not to leave luggage on platforms, etc,etc. It's too much. When I recently went to Lymington, the lovely old fashioned train rendered a silent journey but the new train with un openable doors which requires the employment of an extra guard to open and close the doors has the ruddy female voice on it. There's too MUCH noise telling us to do this and not to do that. Its like the Nanny State via the invisible faceless voice. Do we really need this? Apart from the unnecessary noise it intrudes constantly upon our thoughts and right to peace and quiet .

Naturism in Public Places

 s.5 Public Order Act 1986 should be clarified to reduce the scope for abuse. It must be made clear that this offence concerns behaviour which would cause significant offence to most reasonable people and terms such as disorderly should be clarified or removed.

s.4, s.4A Public Order Act 1986 and s.66 Sexual Offences Act should be clarified. Nudity is not in itself evidence of the intent required by these offences.

The common law offence of Outraging Public Decency should be repealed as it duplicates statutory offences (see BN response to Law Commission consultation) and it is inherently vague.

Repeal bye law enabling powers and revoke any associated bye laws, which are unused or vulnerable to abuse.

The ASBO system should be clarified and reduced in scope to prevent abuse.

Abolish all fixed penalties for which a realistic means of appeal can not be provided.

Police cautions should have a cooling off period. There must be a statutory duty for the police to ensure that the accused understands the consequences of accepting a caution.

Provide an accessible means of appeal against police records.

Why is this idea important?

 s.5 Public Order Act 1986 should be clarified to reduce the scope for abuse. It must be made clear that this offence concerns behaviour which would cause significant offence to most reasonable people and terms such as disorderly should be clarified or removed.

s.4, s.4A Public Order Act 1986 and s.66 Sexual Offences Act should be clarified. Nudity is not in itself evidence of the intent required by these offences.

The common law offence of Outraging Public Decency should be repealed as it duplicates statutory offences (see BN response to Law Commission consultation) and it is inherently vague.

Repeal bye law enabling powers and revoke any associated bye laws, which are unused or vulnerable to abuse.

The ASBO system should be clarified and reduced in scope to prevent abuse.

Abolish all fixed penalties for which a realistic means of appeal can not be provided.

Police cautions should have a cooling off period. There must be a statutory duty for the police to ensure that the accused understands the consequences of accepting a caution.

Provide an accessible means of appeal against police records.

Censorship

 Repeal or reform all law which facilitates censorship based on prejudice. For example aspects of the broadcasting acts, Video Recordings Act 1984, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

Protect freedom-of-speech by requiring censors to provide an accessible and single route for appeal. This must apply to all censors that operate in the UK including overseas corporations.

Require censorship to be founded on evidence of harm and set legally enforcible minimum standards for that evidence.

Why is this idea important?

 Repeal or reform all law which facilitates censorship based on prejudice. For example aspects of the broadcasting acts, Video Recordings Act 1984, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

Protect freedom-of-speech by requiring censors to provide an accessible and single route for appeal. This must apply to all censors that operate in the UK including overseas corporations.

Require censorship to be founded on evidence of harm and set legally enforcible minimum standards for that evidence.

Restoration of the Right to Silence

Please re-instate the right to silence of anyone charged with an offence. It would seem in today’s society we are heading inexorably towards a situation where the police (and other bodies with similar powers) can do no wrong. Whilst they are placed on a metaphorical pedestal, even when in the public perception they have gravely erred, and there always seems to be some reason why they cannot be charged or there is an alleged justification for their actions, it is a completely different ballgame when members of the general public are concerned. Our rights are being eroded and the police allowed every opportunity to erode them further such that DNA samples can be taken when someone is arrested for even the most trivial offence; e.g. taking innocent photographs can now land you in trouble. Time expired records are still not being destroyed as directed by the European Court.
The ending of the right to silence was in many ways the precursor to this gradual erosion of our civil liberties and it should be restored forthwith. With the balance having been tilted in favour of the police at the expense of those civil liberties for so long now it is high time that those facing charge for any offence are legally entitled to once again not prejudice themselves and be entitled to a right of silence; it is an inalienable human right. If the police have enough evidence to charge someone with an offence then the right to silence should not be an issue for them because the evidence should be compelling. If the police have an issue with the right to silence it can only be because they cannot bring sufficient evidence to bear on a case and have to rely on weight not being attached to something the accused brings to the courts later on.
If the police can get away with acts which are plainly caught on video and flashed around the world; then surely the great British public are entitled to the right of silence when accused of an offence. It should then be up to the police or other relevant authority to prove them guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by using their own investigative skills and techniques.
 

Why is this idea important?

Please re-instate the right to silence of anyone charged with an offence. It would seem in today’s society we are heading inexorably towards a situation where the police (and other bodies with similar powers) can do no wrong. Whilst they are placed on a metaphorical pedestal, even when in the public perception they have gravely erred, and there always seems to be some reason why they cannot be charged or there is an alleged justification for their actions, it is a completely different ballgame when members of the general public are concerned. Our rights are being eroded and the police allowed every opportunity to erode them further such that DNA samples can be taken when someone is arrested for even the most trivial offence; e.g. taking innocent photographs can now land you in trouble. Time expired records are still not being destroyed as directed by the European Court.
The ending of the right to silence was in many ways the precursor to this gradual erosion of our civil liberties and it should be restored forthwith. With the balance having been tilted in favour of the police at the expense of those civil liberties for so long now it is high time that those facing charge for any offence are legally entitled to once again not prejudice themselves and be entitled to a right of silence; it is an inalienable human right. If the police have enough evidence to charge someone with an offence then the right to silence should not be an issue for them because the evidence should be compelling. If the police have an issue with the right to silence it can only be because they cannot bring sufficient evidence to bear on a case and have to rely on weight not being attached to something the accused brings to the courts later on.
If the police can get away with acts which are plainly caught on video and flashed around the world; then surely the great British public are entitled to the right of silence when accused of an offence. It should then be up to the police or other relevant authority to prove them guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by using their own investigative skills and techniques.
 

Stop the Government acting against the majority wishes of the people

The largest response is to amend the smoking ban. Nick Clegg say they will not repeal the ban and he won't amend it either – yet it is what the majority of the people want. He was not elected to act against the people's wishes.

Why is this idea important?

The largest response is to amend the smoking ban. Nick Clegg say they will not repeal the ban and he won't amend it either – yet it is what the majority of the people want. He was not elected to act against the people's wishes.

Free the innocent to alleviate prison overcrowding

U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.

Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.

It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.

Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.

The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.

Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.

For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.

As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.

There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.

Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.

I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.

Why is this idea important?

U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.

Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.

It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.

Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.

The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.

Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.

For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.

As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.

There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.

Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.

I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.