Re-evaluate the use of juries

 

I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.

Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'

So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:

The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.

Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.

If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.

Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.

The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'

The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'

After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'

And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.

It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.

The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?

In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.

All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.

Why is this idea important?

 

I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.

Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'

So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:

The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.

Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.

If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.

Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.

The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'

The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'

After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'

And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.

It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.

The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?

In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.

All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.

Stop the Government Stealing ‘Adoptable’ Children

Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.

Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.

The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.

No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.

If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.

If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.

While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.

Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.

EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.

A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.

A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.

If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.

The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.

Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.

A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.

While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.

The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.

The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.

The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.

Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!

Why is this idea important?

Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.

Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.

The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.

No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.

If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.

If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.

While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.

Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.

EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.

A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.

A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.

If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.

The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.

Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.

A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.

While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.

The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.

The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.

The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.

Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!

Make it impossible to be proven guilty by accusation alone

 

In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.

The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.

Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.

It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.

The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.

Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.

The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.

Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.

Why is this idea important?

 

In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.

The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.

Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.

It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.

The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.

Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.

The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.

Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.

The Home Office will lead the new Drug Strategy to disrupt drug supply and strengthen enforcement

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-drug-strategy-2010/drugs-consultation?view=Binary

unfortunatly what have been said in here has not been taken into consideration. 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-drug-strategy-2010/

Why is this idea important?

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-drug-strategy-2010/drugs-consultation?view=Binary

unfortunatly what have been said in here has not been taken into consideration. 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-drug-strategy-2010/

The Government needs to acknowledge the plight of innocent prisoners


This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.

Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.

Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.

In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?

Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!

Why is this idea important?


This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.

Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.

Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.

In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?

Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!

Reparations should be made when the justice system imprisons the innocent

 

No amount of financial compensation can ever be any consolation for the time stolen from an innocent person's life when they have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted. A huge amount of money of course will help to re-establish a life; it can pay for somewhere to live outright and it will enable the released prisoner to purchase whatever is needed before finding suitable employment. This monetary compensation is therefore necessary but can in no way make up for the lost and stolen years.

On average in the UK, it takes an innocent person twelve years to overturn a wrongful conviction when imprisoned. What if that innocent person was you? Think about it… that's twelve long years deprived of your freedom for crimes you never committed – a murderer will only get fourteen years at the most nowadays.

During that time you may miss your children's entire childhood, friends and family may abandon or forget you or even worse they may start to disbelieve you. The world will move on without you and you are languishing in jail paying for a crime someone else committed or perhaps one that didn't happen at all. Twelve years battling through legal paperwork to prove your innocence.

Twelve years of being called an offender when you have done nothing wrong and twelve years of being browbeaten into admitting guilt for something you haven't done because the justice system does not like to admit it makes mistakes.

It's a sad but little known fact but it is far easier to get released from prison if you are guilty than if you are innocent. After all a jury has found you guilty and a judge has convicted you. Who's going to believe you now? The prison and probation officials will not hear the pleas of the innocent as they can only abide by the Court's decision so you are well and truly stitched up.

Your only hope is to find a good legal representative who believes in you. If you are mega rich, then money could be your saviour but for the poor, innocent prisoner on legal aid, you can bet your bottom dollar you will be in prison for a very long time.

As an innocent person wrongly convicted, it's as if you have been a God- fearing Christian all your life and have been thrown into Hell by mistake on the day you die, so how can money in the form of compensation ever make reparation for that?

Guilty prisoners know they have been incarcerated for a reason and they have to make amends for the harm they have done to society. They have their debt to pay in years and liberty, but what can an innocent prisoner do other than endeavour to prove that innocence?

The current justice system should be changed so that more help is given to those prisoners who claim they are morally innocent of all they have been accused of. Whilst in prison they should be given every resource available to help them with their case so that it is resolved swiftly and they are not caught up for many years in a system designed for the guilty.

This would be beneficial to all concerned and would perhaps dispense with the need for vast amounts of compensation at the end of a long and unnecessary sentence.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

No amount of financial compensation can ever be any consolation for the time stolen from an innocent person's life when they have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted. A huge amount of money of course will help to re-establish a life; it can pay for somewhere to live outright and it will enable the released prisoner to purchase whatever is needed before finding suitable employment. This monetary compensation is therefore necessary but can in no way make up for the lost and stolen years.

On average in the UK, it takes an innocent person twelve years to overturn a wrongful conviction when imprisoned. What if that innocent person was you? Think about it… that's twelve long years deprived of your freedom for crimes you never committed – a murderer will only get fourteen years at the most nowadays.

During that time you may miss your children's entire childhood, friends and family may abandon or forget you or even worse they may start to disbelieve you. The world will move on without you and you are languishing in jail paying for a crime someone else committed or perhaps one that didn't happen at all. Twelve years battling through legal paperwork to prove your innocence.

Twelve years of being called an offender when you have done nothing wrong and twelve years of being browbeaten into admitting guilt for something you haven't done because the justice system does not like to admit it makes mistakes.

It's a sad but little known fact but it is far easier to get released from prison if you are guilty than if you are innocent. After all a jury has found you guilty and a judge has convicted you. Who's going to believe you now? The prison and probation officials will not hear the pleas of the innocent as they can only abide by the Court's decision so you are well and truly stitched up.

Your only hope is to find a good legal representative who believes in you. If you are mega rich, then money could be your saviour but for the poor, innocent prisoner on legal aid, you can bet your bottom dollar you will be in prison for a very long time.

As an innocent person wrongly convicted, it's as if you have been a God- fearing Christian all your life and have been thrown into Hell by mistake on the day you die, so how can money in the form of compensation ever make reparation for that?

Guilty prisoners know they have been incarcerated for a reason and they have to make amends for the harm they have done to society. They have their debt to pay in years and liberty, but what can an innocent prisoner do other than endeavour to prove that innocence?

The current justice system should be changed so that more help is given to those prisoners who claim they are morally innocent of all they have been accused of. Whilst in prison they should be given every resource available to help them with their case so that it is resolved swiftly and they are not caught up for many years in a system designed for the guilty.

This would be beneficial to all concerned and would perhaps dispense with the need for vast amounts of compensation at the end of a long and unnecessary sentence.

 

Removal of police power to sieze vehicles used off road

I would like to suggest the re-wording of the Road Traffic Act sec 34. This law makes it a criminal offence to ride motorcycles over the thousands of square miles of moorland in the uk. Added to the trouble this law causes is the power given to Police in the Police Reform Act 2003 sec 59 and 60 where Police are given the power to sieze vehicles based on some very subjective and unproveable criteria. In theory the power sounded like a good idea but in practice we find that law abiding citizens are discriminated against and dare not use the countryside because of fear of siezure. Due to the lack of appeal (once a bike has been crushed it's too late) this does seem like a sledgehammer to crack a nut and has been proved to be abused by officers. Both the law and the siezure powers should be repealed

Why is this idea important?

I would like to suggest the re-wording of the Road Traffic Act sec 34. This law makes it a criminal offence to ride motorcycles over the thousands of square miles of moorland in the uk. Added to the trouble this law causes is the power given to Police in the Police Reform Act 2003 sec 59 and 60 where Police are given the power to sieze vehicles based on some very subjective and unproveable criteria. In theory the power sounded like a good idea but in practice we find that law abiding citizens are discriminated against and dare not use the countryside because of fear of siezure. Due to the lack of appeal (once a bike has been crushed it's too late) this does seem like a sledgehammer to crack a nut and has been proved to be abused by officers. Both the law and the siezure powers should be repealed

Foreign affairs

Firstly, pull out of the EU. This monster is slowly but surely eroding our rights and liberties at home while ensuring business is more difficult to sustain than ever before. The public want to be governed at a local level where politicians can see what needs to be done and effect it, not at an international "one-size-fits-all" level. All the unnecessary and restrictive red tape and over-regulation that brussels keeps pouring out is doing us only harm. For example, recently sodium chlorate weedkiller was banned. I'm sure this came about because of what looked like a good idea on paper, but in reality the only effect of this decision is that the public have to break their backs trying to manually pull weeds out of their gardens. I say rid us of this beast not only because of this, but also because it is taking more money off us than has been ring-fenced for the foreign aid budget. A large portion of the planned spending cuts could be scrapped by simply ditching the masses of dead weight helpfully being generously provided to us by the EU. Note the sarcasm.
And speaking of the foreign aid budget, get rid of that, effective from yesterday! Just throwing money at other countries that often don't need it (example india with its own space programme and new multi-million-pound airports) is a waste of our hard-earned cash that we need to keep for ourselves, so it just beggars belief that "foreign aid" is the only budget that isn't going to be cut – and is possibly even to be increased!
Free haandouts don't stop there though. Immigrants of all sorts get thousands in benefits each week that they don't need – and even the ones that do find their own work take the opportunity away from brits that deserve it! There simply isn't enough money or space and there aren't enough jobs or houses for the british people as it is, let alone giving all sorts leave to roam our space and squat in our sheds. I call for an immediate halt to all immigration and start to a scheme of assisted repatriation for those who want to go home. That is the only way we will get rid of the excess population that is causing our once-great nation so much distress. And finally, stop racism! And I don't mean your sort of "racism", I mean the real discrimination that is happening against white British men all the time. The sort of racism that you lot seem to support and enjoy!

Why is this idea important?

Firstly, pull out of the EU. This monster is slowly but surely eroding our rights and liberties at home while ensuring business is more difficult to sustain than ever before. The public want to be governed at a local level where politicians can see what needs to be done and effect it, not at an international "one-size-fits-all" level. All the unnecessary and restrictive red tape and over-regulation that brussels keeps pouring out is doing us only harm. For example, recently sodium chlorate weedkiller was banned. I'm sure this came about because of what looked like a good idea on paper, but in reality the only effect of this decision is that the public have to break their backs trying to manually pull weeds out of their gardens. I say rid us of this beast not only because of this, but also because it is taking more money off us than has been ring-fenced for the foreign aid budget. A large portion of the planned spending cuts could be scrapped by simply ditching the masses of dead weight helpfully being generously provided to us by the EU. Note the sarcasm.
And speaking of the foreign aid budget, get rid of that, effective from yesterday! Just throwing money at other countries that often don't need it (example india with its own space programme and new multi-million-pound airports) is a waste of our hard-earned cash that we need to keep for ourselves, so it just beggars belief that "foreign aid" is the only budget that isn't going to be cut – and is possibly even to be increased!
Free haandouts don't stop there though. Immigrants of all sorts get thousands in benefits each week that they don't need – and even the ones that do find their own work take the opportunity away from brits that deserve it! There simply isn't enough money or space and there aren't enough jobs or houses for the british people as it is, let alone giving all sorts leave to roam our space and squat in our sheds. I call for an immediate halt to all immigration and start to a scheme of assisted repatriation for those who want to go home. That is the only way we will get rid of the excess population that is causing our once-great nation so much distress. And finally, stop racism! And I don't mean your sort of "racism", I mean the real discrimination that is happening against white British men all the time. The sort of racism that you lot seem to support and enjoy!

Automate the Dartford Tolls to the Congestion Charge Standard

No amount of government pledges on climate change are credible until the biggest man-made traffic jam in Europe is abolished.  Every day, thousands of cars are trapped in an impossed jam, pumping thousands of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere and losing industry and commerce millions.  I am not suggesting scrapping the charge but simply implementing the London congestion charge system.  After all, I am sure every number plate is read when a car uses the booths now.

There is no excuse for not changing this.  If the goverment is serious about the environment and wants the population to do its bit, then the goverment should lead by example and implement a system to remove this MAN MADE traffic jam that is a huge embarrassment on the largest artery from Europe to the UK.  No where else in Europe can be seen such a poor example of road management. Its time government stepped up to the plate and tackled this blot on the landscape.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

No amount of government pledges on climate change are credible until the biggest man-made traffic jam in Europe is abolished.  Every day, thousands of cars are trapped in an impossed jam, pumping thousands of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere and losing industry and commerce millions.  I am not suggesting scrapping the charge but simply implementing the London congestion charge system.  After all, I am sure every number plate is read when a car uses the booths now.

There is no excuse for not changing this.  If the goverment is serious about the environment and wants the population to do its bit, then the goverment should lead by example and implement a system to remove this MAN MADE traffic jam that is a huge embarrassment on the largest artery from Europe to the UK.  No where else in Europe can be seen such a poor example of road management. Its time government stepped up to the plate and tackled this blot on the landscape.

 

 

Devise a fair justice system which convicts the guilty and acquits the innocent

 

The people who suffer most at the hands of the UK Criminal Justice System are the innocent law-abiding citizens who have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted.

We all pay a price for these miscarriages of justice as ultimately it is the tax payer who has to foot the bill for wrongful convictions at a cost of more than 30,000 GB Pounds per prisoner.

The Justice System in the UK is convicting too many innocent people. This needs to change; prisons exist to reform and punish the guilty and are not intended to house the innocent because a faulty justice system keeps getting it wrong.

An accused person can be left in a police cell for three hours without food and water and interrogated even though they are innocent. Whatever they say in their defence can be twisted. It is far better to remain silent. The police don't concern themselves with either truth or innocence. Their job is to gather as much evidence as possible in order to secure a conviction. They will collect as many lies as they can and will treat the accused as guilty from day one with their "No smoke without fire" attitude.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

"Don't worry," you will tell yourself, if ever you have the misfortune to be falsely accused. "I'm innocent… I'll be O.K… my innocence will be my best defence."

WRONG!

Every citizen should have a right to a fair trial. This means that a jury should be able to question any unfairness by both prosecution and defence barristers. The accused should not be denied a proper defence due to inadequate legal funding or representation or on grounds of lack of time and resources. They should not be fobbed off with excuses every step of the way and be led like a lamb to the slaughter.

Justice is supposed to be all about balance; the jury must be permitted to assess the situation by weighing everything in the balance. But how can it be weighed in the balance correctly when the jury are only presented with one side of the story? A conviction is only supposed to happen when the jury are convinced "Beyond all reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty but if they are only presented with lies what hope is there for the innocent? Surely a verdict of "Not proven" would be far more sensible in cases of accusation alone?

A trial I attended recently devoted three days to the prosecution and less than two hours to the defence. It was a complete farce and a travesty of justice. There was no justice in the courtroom that day. Needless to say there was a conviction solely on the grounds of hearsay and collaboration of liars. The defendant, who was as innocent as Jesus, was convicted on words alone. There was no DNA evidence in the case of a rape or a body as in the case of a murder; the Verdict was based entirely on what the accusers had said the accused had done… because the jury believed without question every lie they uttered. The defendant was not allowed a proper defence. All the people who could have vouched for his innocence were not permitted to be present. The whole episode was engineered by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Services in order to secure a conviction. The defendant's accusers were even seen smirking from their position in the public gallery after appearing for the prosecution and making a mockery of the real truth.

Both accusers and accused should be willing to take lie detector tests and the ones found to be liars should be imprisoned. This would make liars think twice about making false allegations in order to gain monetary compensation and cause the life of an innocent person to be utterly ruined.

Every citizen should be able to demand the right to defend another citizen if they know the accused has been a victim of false allegations. The innocent should be protected by the law and not hounded by a system which makes them feel in a perpetual state of torment from the very day they are arrested.

Innocent citizens should not be forced into signing innocence away and accepting guilt and responsibility for crimes that never happened in order to get parole or a shorter sentence.

"Plead guilty and you will get a lighter sentence!" Innocent people are given this advice by their legal representatives every day. What madness is that? Admit to something you didn't do and you might get your sentence reduced to four years instead of six?

In prison it gets even worse… "Admit guilt and we will treat you well, but protest your innocence and you might never get out of here."

Little has changed since the witch hunts of the Middle Ages in some respects. Do you remember the "Ducking stools" from your History books? The guilty were supposed to survive the procedure but the innocent drowned!

The Spanish inquisition is still alive and well and dwells at the very heart of the UK Criminal Justice System. Its methods of securing a conviction are outdated and fallible and it allows itself to be corrupted by unscrupulous people whose sole aim is to deceive. Every law abiding citizen should demand a radical overhaul in order to protect the innocent and provide a better justice system for all.

Why is this idea important?

 

The people who suffer most at the hands of the UK Criminal Justice System are the innocent law-abiding citizens who have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted.

We all pay a price for these miscarriages of justice as ultimately it is the tax payer who has to foot the bill for wrongful convictions at a cost of more than 30,000 GB Pounds per prisoner.

The Justice System in the UK is convicting too many innocent people. This needs to change; prisons exist to reform and punish the guilty and are not intended to house the innocent because a faulty justice system keeps getting it wrong.

An accused person can be left in a police cell for three hours without food and water and interrogated even though they are innocent. Whatever they say in their defence can be twisted. It is far better to remain silent. The police don't concern themselves with either truth or innocence. Their job is to gather as much evidence as possible in order to secure a conviction. They will collect as many lies as they can and will treat the accused as guilty from day one with their "No smoke without fire" attitude.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

"Don't worry," you will tell yourself, if ever you have the misfortune to be falsely accused. "I'm innocent… I'll be O.K… my innocence will be my best defence."

WRONG!

Every citizen should have a right to a fair trial. This means that a jury should be able to question any unfairness by both prosecution and defence barristers. The accused should not be denied a proper defence due to inadequate legal funding or representation or on grounds of lack of time and resources. They should not be fobbed off with excuses every step of the way and be led like a lamb to the slaughter.

Justice is supposed to be all about balance; the jury must be permitted to assess the situation by weighing everything in the balance. But how can it be weighed in the balance correctly when the jury are only presented with one side of the story? A conviction is only supposed to happen when the jury are convinced "Beyond all reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty but if they are only presented with lies what hope is there for the innocent? Surely a verdict of "Not proven" would be far more sensible in cases of accusation alone?

A trial I attended recently devoted three days to the prosecution and less than two hours to the defence. It was a complete farce and a travesty of justice. There was no justice in the courtroom that day. Needless to say there was a conviction solely on the grounds of hearsay and collaboration of liars. The defendant, who was as innocent as Jesus, was convicted on words alone. There was no DNA evidence in the case of a rape or a body as in the case of a murder; the Verdict was based entirely on what the accusers had said the accused had done… because the jury believed without question every lie they uttered. The defendant was not allowed a proper defence. All the people who could have vouched for his innocence were not permitted to be present. The whole episode was engineered by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Services in order to secure a conviction. The defendant's accusers were even seen smirking from their position in the public gallery after appearing for the prosecution and making a mockery of the real truth.

Both accusers and accused should be willing to take lie detector tests and the ones found to be liars should be imprisoned. This would make liars think twice about making false allegations in order to gain monetary compensation and cause the life of an innocent person to be utterly ruined.

Every citizen should be able to demand the right to defend another citizen if they know the accused has been a victim of false allegations. The innocent should be protected by the law and not hounded by a system which makes them feel in a perpetual state of torment from the very day they are arrested.

Innocent citizens should not be forced into signing innocence away and accepting guilt and responsibility for crimes that never happened in order to get parole or a shorter sentence.

"Plead guilty and you will get a lighter sentence!" Innocent people are given this advice by their legal representatives every day. What madness is that? Admit to something you didn't do and you might get your sentence reduced to four years instead of six?

In prison it gets even worse… "Admit guilt and we will treat you well, but protest your innocence and you might never get out of here."

Little has changed since the witch hunts of the Middle Ages in some respects. Do you remember the "Ducking stools" from your History books? The guilty were supposed to survive the procedure but the innocent drowned!

The Spanish inquisition is still alive and well and dwells at the very heart of the UK Criminal Justice System. Its methods of securing a conviction are outdated and fallible and it allows itself to be corrupted by unscrupulous people whose sole aim is to deceive. Every law abiding citizen should demand a radical overhaul in order to protect the innocent and provide a better justice system for all.

Stop control by the Patent System

Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.

Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.

The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm

How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.

Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.

"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

Why is this idea important?

Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.

Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.

The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm

How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.

Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.

"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

Religious liberty and the rights of others

There has been a tendency by some people who have chosen a religious lifestyle to seek to opt out of affording respect for the rights and freedoms of certain others whilst demanding respect for their own rights and freedoms.

EU law does not allow the United Kingdom to deny groups rights because they deny the legitimacy of rights or liberty to others. However if we are to be consistent, people with non-religious philosophical beliefs (eg Humanists) should be allowed to opt of of those Christian laws that conflict with the sincerely, strongly held secular beliefs of a significant number of their adherents. Thus a Humanist would be entitled to avail themselves of active voluntary euthanasia and enter into a heterosexual civil partnership. Meanwhile Christian laws would only in future be applicable to those who have chosen a scripturally consistent, Christian lifestyle. Marriage should therefore be decoupled from faith.

Equally, if a Christian offering bed and breakfast wishes to decide on faith grounds who to admit, they should be allowed to do so subject to being theologically consistent. Thus whilst they may exclude homosexuals, they must also be required treat divorcees, adulterers, menstuating women and other unions that conflict with, say Leviticus, in exactly the same way, or risk prosecution for religious abuse. The abuse of religion to justify enforcing some beliefs whilst ignoring others that may be personally inconvenient to the holder of those beliefs has led to the moderate Christian majority being seen as complicit in discrimination and double standards, thus undermining Christian legitimacy.

Alternately there should be no special rights for those who have chosen a particular religious lifestyle and the law should apply equally to all and be faith neutral.

Why is this idea important?

There has been a tendency by some people who have chosen a religious lifestyle to seek to opt out of affording respect for the rights and freedoms of certain others whilst demanding respect for their own rights and freedoms.

EU law does not allow the United Kingdom to deny groups rights because they deny the legitimacy of rights or liberty to others. However if we are to be consistent, people with non-religious philosophical beliefs (eg Humanists) should be allowed to opt of of those Christian laws that conflict with the sincerely, strongly held secular beliefs of a significant number of their adherents. Thus a Humanist would be entitled to avail themselves of active voluntary euthanasia and enter into a heterosexual civil partnership. Meanwhile Christian laws would only in future be applicable to those who have chosen a scripturally consistent, Christian lifestyle. Marriage should therefore be decoupled from faith.

Equally, if a Christian offering bed and breakfast wishes to decide on faith grounds who to admit, they should be allowed to do so subject to being theologically consistent. Thus whilst they may exclude homosexuals, they must also be required treat divorcees, adulterers, menstuating women and other unions that conflict with, say Leviticus, in exactly the same way, or risk prosecution for religious abuse. The abuse of religion to justify enforcing some beliefs whilst ignoring others that may be personally inconvenient to the holder of those beliefs has led to the moderate Christian majority being seen as complicit in discrimination and double standards, thus undermining Christian legitimacy.

Alternately there should be no special rights for those who have chosen a particular religious lifestyle and the law should apply equally to all and be faith neutral.

Dangerous Drawings

The Dangerous Drawings Act

The term dangerous drawing is a contradiction in itself because a drawing is merely marks on paper that represent and idea. No children are used in its making and therefore no children are in danger from a drawing.

It is absurd to say that children could be “groomed” by a drawing because any child old enough to realise the sexual connotations would see that it is not real. If one is to ban drawings then a child old enough to understand them could read the same ideas in a book and the written word would have to be banned.

Sexual mores can and do change and it is an artist’s prerogative to express ideas by making marks on paper of taboo subjects that the artist desires to change by putting these ideas forward. One uses drawings to express ideas that would not be legally possible using children. For example the act states that for the purpose of the act any representation of a person under the age of eighteen would be considered to be a representation of a child. I myself think that this is wrong and that it is my prerogative as an artist to make an image of a person of sixteen engaged in sexual acts because sex at that age is legal.

Freedom of Expression is a quintessential part any democracy. Furthermore
Banning ideas is I breach of Article 10 ECHR Freedom of Expression.

Why is this idea important?

The Dangerous Drawings Act

The term dangerous drawing is a contradiction in itself because a drawing is merely marks on paper that represent and idea. No children are used in its making and therefore no children are in danger from a drawing.

It is absurd to say that children could be “groomed” by a drawing because any child old enough to realise the sexual connotations would see that it is not real. If one is to ban drawings then a child old enough to understand them could read the same ideas in a book and the written word would have to be banned.

Sexual mores can and do change and it is an artist’s prerogative to express ideas by making marks on paper of taboo subjects that the artist desires to change by putting these ideas forward. One uses drawings to express ideas that would not be legally possible using children. For example the act states that for the purpose of the act any representation of a person under the age of eighteen would be considered to be a representation of a child. I myself think that this is wrong and that it is my prerogative as an artist to make an image of a person of sixteen engaged in sexual acts because sex at that age is legal.

Freedom of Expression is a quintessential part any democracy. Furthermore
Banning ideas is I breach of Article 10 ECHR Freedom of Expression.

Licensing live music

I’m not sure what was hoped to be achieved by these more recent music licensing laws but I do know the effect it has had on the small amateur musical band I play in. We no longer are able to sing and play at our local old folk’s homes and similar venues. Everyone got lots of enjoyment from our visits and it was for the love of music not money. Surely that’s what making music should be about. We no longer have anywhere to play without breaking the law and I feel it is an infringement on our freedom of expression.
The final nail went in the coffin, when I found out that the children from the local school won’t be making their annual visit to sing carols at the library Christmas coffee morning due to the music licensing laws. The young are unfortunately not exempt.
Youngsters love music and being free to play and sing in bands etc. It’s what made the 60’s come alive and be remembered as good times. Not so now, hey! It’s probably more a kin to Cromwell’s puritan times.
Change the music licensing laws so that everyone can enjoy playing and listening to live music!

Why is this idea important?

I’m not sure what was hoped to be achieved by these more recent music licensing laws but I do know the effect it has had on the small amateur musical band I play in. We no longer are able to sing and play at our local old folk’s homes and similar venues. Everyone got lots of enjoyment from our visits and it was for the love of music not money. Surely that’s what making music should be about. We no longer have anywhere to play without breaking the law and I feel it is an infringement on our freedom of expression.
The final nail went in the coffin, when I found out that the children from the local school won’t be making their annual visit to sing carols at the library Christmas coffee morning due to the music licensing laws. The young are unfortunately not exempt.
Youngsters love music and being free to play and sing in bands etc. It’s what made the 60’s come alive and be remembered as good times. Not so now, hey! It’s probably more a kin to Cromwell’s puritan times.
Change the music licensing laws so that everyone can enjoy playing and listening to live music!

Waiting time 3 months for spouse visa appeals

My idea is to reduce the amount of time it takes for appealed cases to be reviewed. It takes up to 1 year for the person to be granted a visa this is too long. 3 to 6 months is more like it.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to reduce the amount of time it takes for appealed cases to be reviewed. It takes up to 1 year for the person to be granted a visa this is too long. 3 to 6 months is more like it.

that polluters should be the ones to remove pollution and not the innocent (particularly as it applies to the smoking ban).

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

Why is this idea important?

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

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.

Ensure all ex-pats receive their full indexed pension

Brits who have paid the mandatory NI pension contributions are being cheated if they move to certain countries…specifically some Commonwealth countries. Their pensions are FROZEN at the amount they first receive. This is outright robbery. These people have paid the exact same amount as all other Brits and yet are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs. For instance, those who emigrate to Canada or Australia have their pensions frozen. While those who move to the USA do not. This is outrageous and goes against all Human Rights.

It's time the new Government did the RIGHT and MORAL thing and righted this wrong.

Why is this idea important?

Brits who have paid the mandatory NI pension contributions are being cheated if they move to certain countries…specifically some Commonwealth countries. Their pensions are FROZEN at the amount they first receive. This is outright robbery. These people have paid the exact same amount as all other Brits and yet are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs. For instance, those who emigrate to Canada or Australia have their pensions frozen. While those who move to the USA do not. This is outrageous and goes against all Human Rights.

It's time the new Government did the RIGHT and MORAL thing and righted this wrong.

Reform ASBO’s but don’t get rid of them!

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

Why is this idea important?

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

Repeal/Amendment to the Smoking Ban

As an ex Publican I saw first hand the destruction of a once thriving industry. I lay 90% of the blame at the feet of the Smoking Ban. To this end I have a solution.

All pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere that serves alcohol has to, by law, have a premises licence to trade alcohol. My solution to the smoking ban would be to do the same thing – licence it! The government could use it as a stick to beat the industry with in terms of tax generation, however that would be offset by the turnover that would undoubtedly be increased.

With the licensing would obviously come restrictions; pubs and restaurants with x% turnover on food (say for instance a pub with a 50/50 split on food against drink) would not be eligable for the licence. The scheme in my mind would be for the pubs with the greatest dangers – the drinkers pubs, or the pubs with kitchens too small to give a suitable food offering. Also, the requirements would have to mean that pubs taking part would have to have a set standard of air filtration and extraction, which would again mean investment. However, with the proposition of bringing supermarket alcohol prices in line with the rest of the industry it would offer a greater level of choice.

All my idea is, is a chance to give a bit of choice back to people, there wouldn't be a requirement for every pub to take this on as a compulsory measure, indeed, if pubs felt they were better off catering to the non smoking community then there would be no requirement for it. However, many of the smaller, drinkers pubs have found serious hardship and difficulty in maintaining revenue due to the lack of choice afforded to a large percentage of customers.

Why is this idea important?

As an ex Publican I saw first hand the destruction of a once thriving industry. I lay 90% of the blame at the feet of the Smoking Ban. To this end I have a solution.

All pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere that serves alcohol has to, by law, have a premises licence to trade alcohol. My solution to the smoking ban would be to do the same thing – licence it! The government could use it as a stick to beat the industry with in terms of tax generation, however that would be offset by the turnover that would undoubtedly be increased.

With the licensing would obviously come restrictions; pubs and restaurants with x% turnover on food (say for instance a pub with a 50/50 split on food against drink) would not be eligable for the licence. The scheme in my mind would be for the pubs with the greatest dangers – the drinkers pubs, or the pubs with kitchens too small to give a suitable food offering. Also, the requirements would have to mean that pubs taking part would have to have a set standard of air filtration and extraction, which would again mean investment. However, with the proposition of bringing supermarket alcohol prices in line with the rest of the industry it would offer a greater level of choice.

All my idea is, is a chance to give a bit of choice back to people, there wouldn't be a requirement for every pub to take this on as a compulsory measure, indeed, if pubs felt they were better off catering to the non smoking community then there would be no requirement for it. However, many of the smaller, drinkers pubs have found serious hardship and difficulty in maintaining revenue due to the lack of choice afforded to a large percentage of customers.

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

My two ideas are

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

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

Why is this idea important?

My two ideas are

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

Remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes

Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.

There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.

If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside. 

Why is this idea important?

Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.

There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.

If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside.