Freedom from Police Brutality

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Why is this idea important?

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Travel Anonymously By Rail

1. Eurostar tickets bought in the UK have to, by law, have your name printed on them. (Although not if purchased on the more freedom-respecting continent.)

2. London Transport tracks your whereabouts, if not any longer by CCTV camera, certainly still by computer every time you enter or leave a station or board a bus.

This should be abolished.

Why is this idea important?

1. Eurostar tickets bought in the UK have to, by law, have your name printed on them. (Although not if purchased on the more freedom-respecting continent.)

2. London Transport tracks your whereabouts, if not any longer by CCTV camera, certainly still by computer every time you enter or leave a station or board a bus.

This should be abolished.

Repeal The Latest Gimmick In The Drugs War – Drug Driving Testing Kits To Be Issued To The Police.

It has just been announced that the government are to introduce drug driving test kits for traffic police. While I agree with the principle of not lawfully being allowed to drive whilst intoxicated with any substance, pharmaceutical or illicit, I cannot agree to the introduction of  this latest drugs war gimmick. It is simply not ethical or justifiable to issue police with drugs test kits without also utterly reforming drugs policy at the same time.

One of the myriad of complications regarding enforcement of positive tests is the fact that substances dissolve in the blood stream at different rates and, therefore, such policy would immediately discriminate against one specific population of drugs user. For example, I would like to know how they intend to prosecute somebody for driving on cannabis when cannabis takes up to 4 weeks to leave the blood system? This is unlike far more powerful substances like cocaine which dissolve in the blood stream within a few days and become undetectable thereafter. This means that this new introductory scheme would weigh heaviest against cannabis users and allow the real dangerous drug users to largely get away with drug driving.

Yet again the innocent cannabis user becomes the government scape goat, even though it has been proven that cannabis not only doesn't impair your driving ability but also, in most cases, it increases the drivers capacity for safe driving.

Repeal the introduction of these unworkable systems for further terrorising cannabis users until such time as you ALSO introduce drug policy reform and regulation. Thus ensuring that along with regulation comes a drug drive limit, just like there is with the far more impairing substance of alcohol. Note would also be taken of the dispersal rate of the drug in question before any arrest could be made. This would ensure that that the victimisation of the cannabis user was not an issue.
 

Why is this idea important?

It has just been announced that the government are to introduce drug driving test kits for traffic police. While I agree with the principle of not lawfully being allowed to drive whilst intoxicated with any substance, pharmaceutical or illicit, I cannot agree to the introduction of  this latest drugs war gimmick. It is simply not ethical or justifiable to issue police with drugs test kits without also utterly reforming drugs policy at the same time.

One of the myriad of complications regarding enforcement of positive tests is the fact that substances dissolve in the blood stream at different rates and, therefore, such policy would immediately discriminate against one specific population of drugs user. For example, I would like to know how they intend to prosecute somebody for driving on cannabis when cannabis takes up to 4 weeks to leave the blood system? This is unlike far more powerful substances like cocaine which dissolve in the blood stream within a few days and become undetectable thereafter. This means that this new introductory scheme would weigh heaviest against cannabis users and allow the real dangerous drug users to largely get away with drug driving.

Yet again the innocent cannabis user becomes the government scape goat, even though it has been proven that cannabis not only doesn't impair your driving ability but also, in most cases, it increases the drivers capacity for safe driving.

Repeal the introduction of these unworkable systems for further terrorising cannabis users until such time as you ALSO introduce drug policy reform and regulation. Thus ensuring that along with regulation comes a drug drive limit, just like there is with the far more impairing substance of alcohol. Note would also be taken of the dispersal rate of the drug in question before any arrest could be made. This would ensure that that the victimisation of the cannabis user was not an issue.
 

Stop government letters which threaten fines

"Respond to this letter or be fined £xxxx.xx amounts of money. Yours faithfully, the State."

These kinds of threats belong in the mafia or other crime syndicates who 'know where you live'.

The government is using the law to literally rip the shirt off peoples backs simply for not replying to a letter which could get lost in the post anyway.

This type of state interference and bullying is a infringement of civil liberties and is a psychological weapon. It has to stop!

Why is this idea important?

"Respond to this letter or be fined £xxxx.xx amounts of money. Yours faithfully, the State."

These kinds of threats belong in the mafia or other crime syndicates who 'know where you live'.

The government is using the law to literally rip the shirt off peoples backs simply for not replying to a letter which could get lost in the post anyway.

This type of state interference and bullying is a infringement of civil liberties and is a psychological weapon. It has to stop!

the governement anser to cannabis users on 6/08/2010

so that's it finally we got the answer and here it is

 

Drugalysers to be issued over the next two years to detect drugs such as cocaine and cannabis

Testing kits designed to catch motorists driving while under the influence of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, and ecstasy are to be issued to police over the next two years, the government announced today.

Ministers are due to give details of research funding to develop "drugalysers" which will be initially used in police stations, but later for roadside testing.

The plan follows a review by Sir Peter North, who in June called for tougher drug driving laws and the development of a roadside saliva test for those suspected of driving after taking drugs.

He called for screening devices to be available in police stations within two years to test for drugs including amphetamines, methadone, ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis and heroin.

The testing kits will mean that police officers no longer have to wait for permission from a doctor before a blood test can be taken to be used as evidence in court.

The road safety minister, Mike Penning, said: "This equipment will make it easier for the police to prosecute the irresponsible minority who put the lives of the law-abiding majority at risk.

"We are taking urgent steps to make drug screening technology available as soon as possible."

The Home Office expects to issue manufacturers with a final draft specification by the end of September.

Along with the Department for Transport and the Technology Strategy Board, it also announced a £300,000 investment for further research into drug-testing technology.

The aim is to develop equipment that can test for a wider range of drugs and is suitable for roadside testing.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Motorists who drive while under the influence of drugs are a menace to the roads and we have already given the police powers to test drivers for signs of impairment.

"We also want them to be able to test drivers for drugs in their system. By the end of September we aim to have issued a final draft specification for a testing device, setting out the drugs we want to detect. As soon as manufacturers have produced devices that satisfy our specification, we will approve them for police to use."

Research shows that 10% of drivers aged between 18 and 29 have admitted driving after taking illegal drugs.

So far, no device that meets the Home Office and Department for Transport's requirements has been identified.

source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-testing-kits-drivers-drugs

Why is this idea important?

so that's it finally we got the answer and here it is

 

Drugalysers to be issued over the next two years to detect drugs such as cocaine and cannabis

Testing kits designed to catch motorists driving while under the influence of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, and ecstasy are to be issued to police over the next two years, the government announced today.

Ministers are due to give details of research funding to develop "drugalysers" which will be initially used in police stations, but later for roadside testing.

The plan follows a review by Sir Peter North, who in June called for tougher drug driving laws and the development of a roadside saliva test for those suspected of driving after taking drugs.

He called for screening devices to be available in police stations within two years to test for drugs including amphetamines, methadone, ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis and heroin.

The testing kits will mean that police officers no longer have to wait for permission from a doctor before a blood test can be taken to be used as evidence in court.

The road safety minister, Mike Penning, said: "This equipment will make it easier for the police to prosecute the irresponsible minority who put the lives of the law-abiding majority at risk.

"We are taking urgent steps to make drug screening technology available as soon as possible."

The Home Office expects to issue manufacturers with a final draft specification by the end of September.

Along with the Department for Transport and the Technology Strategy Board, it also announced a £300,000 investment for further research into drug-testing technology.

The aim is to develop equipment that can test for a wider range of drugs and is suitable for roadside testing.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Motorists who drive while under the influence of drugs are a menace to the roads and we have already given the police powers to test drivers for signs of impairment.

"We also want them to be able to test drivers for drugs in their system. By the end of September we aim to have issued a final draft specification for a testing device, setting out the drugs we want to detect. As soon as manufacturers have produced devices that satisfy our specification, we will approve them for police to use."

Research shows that 10% of drivers aged between 18 and 29 have admitted driving after taking illegal drugs.

So far, no device that meets the Home Office and Department for Transport's requirements has been identified.

source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-testing-kits-drivers-drugs

Scrap Sunday opening restrictions

The Government has no business telling people what they can and can't do on Sundays.  If there are enough people who want to shop on Sundays to make it worthwhile opening the shops then shopkeepers should be free to open whenever they want.  The current position is quite illogical.  The principle of Sunday shopping is accepted, and small shops can open all hours; but ludicrous restrictions are put on large shops.  If shopping is OK in a small shop then it's OK in a large one.

Why is this idea important?

The Government has no business telling people what they can and can't do on Sundays.  If there are enough people who want to shop on Sundays to make it worthwhile opening the shops then shopkeepers should be free to open whenever they want.  The current position is quite illogical.  The principle of Sunday shopping is accepted, and small shops can open all hours; but ludicrous restrictions are put on large shops.  If shopping is OK in a small shop then it's OK in a large one.

Address Government’s limited power to block or repeal EU Regulations

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to block new EU Regulations.

Protect and Restore our Sovereign Rights. 

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to repeal existing EU Regulations.

More time and attention should be given to negotiate and release our nation from the Red Tape that the EU has imposed, so that our elected government has more room to manoeuvre in introducing new domestic regulations.

Why is this idea important?

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to block new EU Regulations.

Protect and Restore our Sovereign Rights. 

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to repeal existing EU Regulations.

More time and attention should be given to negotiate and release our nation from the Red Tape that the EU has imposed, so that our elected government has more room to manoeuvre in introducing new domestic regulations.

Rethink drug laws

The drug laws have failed. Use of drugs has soared under a regime of prohibition. Crimes of acquisition go up as a result. People feel less safe in their communities. Gangsters get rich. Disaster! We need to tell people the truth. Prohibition has failed. The 'war on drugs' is just a useless slogan. Another truth: 99% of people take  drugs recreationally WITHOUT immediately falling dead or becoming ill or commtting other crimes. Another truth: Drugs are not equally harmful. Some illegal drugs are safer then alcohol or tobacco. Another truth: Most people on the very dangerous drugs of heroin and crack want to stop. A few don't. We need to be able to help those who want to stop and lock up those who don't.  People are not interested in another lurid Daily Mail headline. They just want to feel safe in their homes and neighbourhoods – that's what really matters.

The solution? Small quantities of all drugs for personal use should be decriminalised IF there is no other offence being committed. If there is another offence then drug possession should act as an aggravating factor for that offence. By decriminilasing small quantiites for personal use we allow agencies and support groups to go to work to help those what want help. It has worked for Portugal so it will work for Britain if only we are brave enough to tell the public the truth.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The drug laws have failed. Use of drugs has soared under a regime of prohibition. Crimes of acquisition go up as a result. People feel less safe in their communities. Gangsters get rich. Disaster! We need to tell people the truth. Prohibition has failed. The 'war on drugs' is just a useless slogan. Another truth: 99% of people take  drugs recreationally WITHOUT immediately falling dead or becoming ill or commtting other crimes. Another truth: Drugs are not equally harmful. Some illegal drugs are safer then alcohol or tobacco. Another truth: Most people on the very dangerous drugs of heroin and crack want to stop. A few don't. We need to be able to help those who want to stop and lock up those who don't.  People are not interested in another lurid Daily Mail headline. They just want to feel safe in their homes and neighbourhoods – that's what really matters.

The solution? Small quantities of all drugs for personal use should be decriminalised IF there is no other offence being committed. If there is another offence then drug possession should act as an aggravating factor for that offence. By decriminilasing small quantiites for personal use we allow agencies and support groups to go to work to help those what want help. It has worked for Portugal so it will work for Britain if only we are brave enough to tell the public the truth.

 

 

Abolish 50% penalty duty on cider over 7.5% vol

It's high time the 50% penalty duty on cider over 7.5% vol was abolished. This extra duty was imposed by former Chancellor Ken Clarke under the last Conservative government. It was in response to the beer lobby. Beer brewers are free to produce beers over 7.5% vol with no extra duty, but there are hardly any of these beers! Since this duty came in, various ciders which had been over 7.5% vol have restricted themselves to 7.5%. Currently, only K cider is over 7.5% vol. This is an attack on the cider brewers, apple producers, and people with a sweet tooth who want a large cool drink. 

Why is this idea important?

It's high time the 50% penalty duty on cider over 7.5% vol was abolished. This extra duty was imposed by former Chancellor Ken Clarke under the last Conservative government. It was in response to the beer lobby. Beer brewers are free to produce beers over 7.5% vol with no extra duty, but there are hardly any of these beers! Since this duty came in, various ciders which had been over 7.5% vol have restricted themselves to 7.5%. Currently, only K cider is over 7.5% vol. This is an attack on the cider brewers, apple producers, and people with a sweet tooth who want a large cool drink. 

Smoking should be allowed to any citizen of age

SMOKING SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ANY CITIZEN IN THE UK.    MY

OPINION IS THE GOVERMENT GOING OVERBOARD ON UK CITIZENS, WE ARE ADULT ENOUGH TO KNOW IF IT IS GOOD OR BAD FOR US.
RESTAURANTS , CLUBS, HOTELS, ETC.. NON SMOKING WHY?? WE AS HUMANS HAVE OUR ON CHOICE IN WHAT WE DO, NOT BEING ORDERED ON WHAT THEY OBLIGE US TO DO.
20YRS AGO EVERY PERSON ,SMOKING EVERYWHER, HAPPY COUNTRY, NOW SETTING RULES WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE CAN NOT DO IS RIDECULIOUSE
ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO HAVE RESTURANTS/COFFEE SHOPS ECT… HAS TAKEN BUSINESS DRASTICLLEY DOWN IN THER BUSINESS, WHICH MY OPINIUM DISCRASFULL.
I HAVE STOPPED GOING OUT FOR A NICE MEAL DUE TO THIS, AND I PROMISE MILLIONS MORE ARE DOING THE SAME.
THIS LAW SHOULD BE REVERSED

Why is this idea important?

SMOKING SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ANY CITIZEN IN THE UK.    MY

OPINION IS THE GOVERMENT GOING OVERBOARD ON UK CITIZENS, WE ARE ADULT ENOUGH TO KNOW IF IT IS GOOD OR BAD FOR US.
RESTAURANTS , CLUBS, HOTELS, ETC.. NON SMOKING WHY?? WE AS HUMANS HAVE OUR ON CHOICE IN WHAT WE DO, NOT BEING ORDERED ON WHAT THEY OBLIGE US TO DO.
20YRS AGO EVERY PERSON ,SMOKING EVERYWHER, HAPPY COUNTRY, NOW SETTING RULES WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE CAN NOT DO IS RIDECULIOUSE
ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO HAVE RESTURANTS/COFFEE SHOPS ECT… HAS TAKEN BUSINESS DRASTICLLEY DOWN IN THER BUSINESS, WHICH MY OPINIUM DISCRASFULL.
I HAVE STOPPED GOING OUT FOR A NICE MEAL DUE TO THIS, AND I PROMISE MILLIONS MORE ARE DOING THE SAME.
THIS LAW SHOULD BE REVERSED

Take all UK land into public ownership

It is unjust that current generations are born into a country where all the land was appropriated (often by violence, or by the legalised violence of the enclosures movement) before their birth, and that consequently they have to pay what are often absurd amounts of money for the privilege of occupying, in the shape of a house or flat, a tiny portion of the country they are supposed to be able to call their own.

Hence my idea is to nationalise all land without compensation, so as to turn it into a public asset from which all can benefit.   Rents should be on a sliding scale, such that ordinary citizens who are content to live in a small flat or family house need pay very little – far less than at present when land is used as a source of private profit – while any individuals and companies that wish to occupy sizeable tracts of land would be required to pay very handsomely for the privilege. 

Thus land would be converted from being a source of private profit through exploiting the housing needs of the unpossessed, and change instead into a useful source of income for the public purse and hence for society generally.   

Why is this idea important?

It is unjust that current generations are born into a country where all the land was appropriated (often by violence, or by the legalised violence of the enclosures movement) before their birth, and that consequently they have to pay what are often absurd amounts of money for the privilege of occupying, in the shape of a house or flat, a tiny portion of the country they are supposed to be able to call their own.

Hence my idea is to nationalise all land without compensation, so as to turn it into a public asset from which all can benefit.   Rents should be on a sliding scale, such that ordinary citizens who are content to live in a small flat or family house need pay very little – far less than at present when land is used as a source of private profit – while any individuals and companies that wish to occupy sizeable tracts of land would be required to pay very handsomely for the privilege. 

Thus land would be converted from being a source of private profit through exploiting the housing needs of the unpossessed, and change instead into a useful source of income for the public purse and hence for society generally.   

Repeal British law allowing for accumulation of extreme wealth

Free-speech is only as free as the guidelines that determine freedom.
Freedom is in doing.

As an activist for reinstating God's Law, one need not know God, to know God's Law is right.

Under God's Law, the poverty we've grown accustomed to, would not be allowed to continue.

British law that allows castle owners and the like to gain influence and effect law is immoral.
By effecting law, a massive amount of injustice occurs, and each contribution explains how.
For this reason, under God's Law, there is to be no altering of The Law, for benefit of the few.
In fact, no altering of The Law at all, because this is the means by which injustice flourishes.
Currently, British law demands that we observe only it, and forbids The Law it was based on.
The Law is the Law of God, and British law, as it stands now, is law that is altered for the benefit of an elite few.

British law is illegally suppressing a God-given inherent right, entitling everyone to the "Release of Debt".
British law, effected by castle owners, supports law in their favor, whilst denying the people.
To maintain an objective reality, there must be a realistic starting point to begin the process.
Re-distribution of wealth is the first priority, in the commencement of re-instating God's Law.

15:4 To the end that there be no poor among you. – Deuteronomy.
 

Why is this idea important?

Free-speech is only as free as the guidelines that determine freedom.
Freedom is in doing.

As an activist for reinstating God's Law, one need not know God, to know God's Law is right.

Under God's Law, the poverty we've grown accustomed to, would not be allowed to continue.

British law that allows castle owners and the like to gain influence and effect law is immoral.
By effecting law, a massive amount of injustice occurs, and each contribution explains how.
For this reason, under God's Law, there is to be no altering of The Law, for benefit of the few.
In fact, no altering of The Law at all, because this is the means by which injustice flourishes.
Currently, British law demands that we observe only it, and forbids The Law it was based on.
The Law is the Law of God, and British law, as it stands now, is law that is altered for the benefit of an elite few.

British law is illegally suppressing a God-given inherent right, entitling everyone to the "Release of Debt".
British law, effected by castle owners, supports law in their favor, whilst denying the people.
To maintain an objective reality, there must be a realistic starting point to begin the process.
Re-distribution of wealth is the first priority, in the commencement of re-instating God's Law.

15:4 To the end that there be no poor among you. – Deuteronomy.
 

Land Registry

Make it compulsory to register all land with the land registry within 5 years, with any land unregistered by that date to be regarded as common (state owned) land. 

The land registry should also be placed on-line for anyone to access free of charge. 

Why is this idea important?

Make it compulsory to register all land with the land registry within 5 years, with any land unregistered by that date to be regarded as common (state owned) land. 

The land registry should also be placed on-line for anyone to access free of charge. 

Compulsory paternity tests

With statistics as high as 1 in 20 fathers not being the biological father of their child and the implimentation of a DNA database I think it's time we began DNA testing all fathers.  This will help prevent  storys such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10845112

The law would help protect mothers, fathers and children and in most cases cement the bond between father and child and in 5% of cases allow the parner to choose or not to choose to undertake the task of raising a child that is not biologicly his own. 

Why is this idea important?

With statistics as high as 1 in 20 fathers not being the biological father of their child and the implimentation of a DNA database I think it's time we began DNA testing all fathers.  This will help prevent  storys such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10845112

The law would help protect mothers, fathers and children and in most cases cement the bond between father and child and in 5% of cases allow the parner to choose or not to choose to undertake the task of raising a child that is not biologicly his own. 

Animal rights and good morals.

  I am Juliet Tun.  I think all countries on Earth including the

United Kingdom should have a law that saids eating animals is illegal.  I think

there should be laws in the United Kingdom that say drinking alcohol, smoking cigars or cigarettes, chewing gum and chewing betel is illegal.  I think gay marriages and bisexual marriages in the

United Kingdom should be illegal if it is legal.

Why is this idea important?

  I am Juliet Tun.  I think all countries on Earth including the

United Kingdom should have a law that saids eating animals is illegal.  I think

there should be laws in the United Kingdom that say drinking alcohol, smoking cigars or cigarettes, chewing gum and chewing betel is illegal.  I think gay marriages and bisexual marriages in the

United Kingdom should be illegal if it is legal.

Give us the right to law by public petition.

Our politicians tell us they believe in democracy. I propose they stop bandying words and set a number of verified signatures that will give any petition the right to a parliamentary debate and free vote in the Commons?

Smaller government? Decentralisation? Giving power back to the people? Pretty words. Is that all they are?

Why is this idea important?

Our politicians tell us they believe in democracy. I propose they stop bandying words and set a number of verified signatures that will give any petition the right to a parliamentary debate and free vote in the Commons?

Smaller government? Decentralisation? Giving power back to the people? Pretty words. Is that all they are?

The right to privacy in Jobcentres

Whilst there is a lot of hype in the media about benefit thieves, more should be done to protect the dignity and the right to privacy of the unemployed, especially at a time of rising unemployment. The current system at Jobcentre Plus offices across Britain violates the right to privacy on a daily basis, and therefore requires immediate review.   

Why is this idea important?

Whilst there is a lot of hype in the media about benefit thieves, more should be done to protect the dignity and the right to privacy of the unemployed, especially at a time of rising unemployment. The current system at Jobcentre Plus offices across Britain violates the right to privacy on a daily basis, and therefore requires immediate review.   

repeal the smoking ban

I believe that the main reason so many pubs and clubs have closed is the smoking ban and not the price of drinks. Thousands of smokers had their social lives ruined with the ban because for a smoker a drink without a cigarette is like an unsalted meal – bland and not worth the bother. I appreciate that some non-smokers find cigarette smoke unpleasant but a way can be found to keep all of us happy, Landlords could choose whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub or a pub which caters for both with designated areas for each. If this even-handed approach had been adopted from the outset we would not have seen so many people made miserable by taking away one of their main pleasures in life. Neither would there have been the closure of so many great traditional pubs which had been the mainstay of their local communities.

The type of smoker who has stayed away from the pubs since the ban is more often than not a hard-working taxpayer whose only vice is having a drink in one hand and a cigarette (or pipe or cigar) in the other – not a drug-raddled lunatic. We have lost so many of our beloved traditions in this country and I believe this ban is a step too close to a Big Brother society which hopefully no right-minded person wants.

Lastly, it has been a great relief to have the opportunity to voice the feelings of an ordinary person and believe it will be listened to. I think this sort of platform is a good way for the powers-that-be ascertain the feelings of the man-in the street.

Many thanks – and hopefully see you in the pub before very long!

 

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the main reason so many pubs and clubs have closed is the smoking ban and not the price of drinks. Thousands of smokers had their social lives ruined with the ban because for a smoker a drink without a cigarette is like an unsalted meal – bland and not worth the bother. I appreciate that some non-smokers find cigarette smoke unpleasant but a way can be found to keep all of us happy, Landlords could choose whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub or a pub which caters for both with designated areas for each. If this even-handed approach had been adopted from the outset we would not have seen so many people made miserable by taking away one of their main pleasures in life. Neither would there have been the closure of so many great traditional pubs which had been the mainstay of their local communities.

The type of smoker who has stayed away from the pubs since the ban is more often than not a hard-working taxpayer whose only vice is having a drink in one hand and a cigarette (or pipe or cigar) in the other – not a drug-raddled lunatic. We have lost so many of our beloved traditions in this country and I believe this ban is a step too close to a Big Brother society which hopefully no right-minded person wants.

Lastly, it has been a great relief to have the opportunity to voice the feelings of an ordinary person and believe it will be listened to. I think this sort of platform is a good way for the powers-that-be ascertain the feelings of the man-in the street.

Many thanks – and hopefully see you in the pub before very long!

 

Abolish the Government

Why not abolish the government and institute some form of direct democracy to enhance our freedoms.

We the people can create petitions and gather sufficient signatures to invoke a local or national ballot.

Clearly the current oligarchy will perenially ignore the people on some of the most important issues:

1. Mass immigration

2. Offshoring of jobs

3. Working hours

4. Tuition fees

5. Regressive taxation

6. Redistribution of wealth

7. Corporate monopolies

8. Corporate lobbying and 'access'

9. EU membership

10. War on drugs

11. War on smoking

12. War on terror

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera..

Why is this idea important?

Why not abolish the government and institute some form of direct democracy to enhance our freedoms.

We the people can create petitions and gather sufficient signatures to invoke a local or national ballot.

Clearly the current oligarchy will perenially ignore the people on some of the most important issues:

1. Mass immigration

2. Offshoring of jobs

3. Working hours

4. Tuition fees

5. Regressive taxation

6. Redistribution of wealth

7. Corporate monopolies

8. Corporate lobbying and 'access'

9. EU membership

10. War on drugs

11. War on smoking

12. War on terror

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera..

Photographers are *still* being harrassed by police – 2nd August.

Despite the coalition's efforts in this area, the police still don't get it: they are our public servants, paid for by taxpayers, and not the Stasi in some police state or other.

This article describes how a photographer was treated by police in Hackney, London, on 31st July 2010 – well after new guidelines had been issued:

(It's also really annoying that you can't cut & paste things to/from this site, by the way!)

You need to remind the police – YET AGAIN – of the law in this area and how they are meant to be implementing it in the public interest, not in their interest – or ignoring the law for no reason at all!

Why is this idea important?

Despite the coalition's efforts in this area, the police still don't get it: they are our public servants, paid for by taxpayers, and not the Stasi in some police state or other.

This article describes how a photographer was treated by police in Hackney, London, on 31st July 2010 – well after new guidelines had been issued:

(It's also really annoying that you can't cut & paste things to/from this site, by the way!)

You need to remind the police – YET AGAIN – of the law in this area and how they are meant to be implementing it in the public interest, not in their interest – or ignoring the law for no reason at all!

too much emphasis on autonomy prevents protection of the vulnerable

to re-write the Human Rights Act to allow concerned friends and family of vulnerable individuals to use common sense. Or educate institutions and organisations to interpet and apply the present Act correctly with regard to vulnerable individuals without having to wait for powers of attorney or guardianship to be in force- these take up to 18 months if the vulnerable individual has no insight that thay are being abused.

Why is this idea important?

to re-write the Human Rights Act to allow concerned friends and family of vulnerable individuals to use common sense. Or educate institutions and organisations to interpet and apply the present Act correctly with regard to vulnerable individuals without having to wait for powers of attorney or guardianship to be in force- these take up to 18 months if the vulnerable individual has no insight that thay are being abused.

human rights act should not be allowed for terrorism convicts

The Human Rights Act should be withdrawn from those who have been convicted of terrorism-related offences. If people are overtly and explicitly hostile to the welfare of this country, then why do we have to spend our taxes on giving them shelter, rather than returning them to their country of origin. If you are a terrorist, you should be incarcerated for your term with no access to claims for your continued stay in this country upon your release. Once released, you are gone from these shores and your claims of possible torture are another reflection on your own earlier behaviour and something for which it is your responsibility to face the consequences.

Why is this idea important?

The Human Rights Act should be withdrawn from those who have been convicted of terrorism-related offences. If people are overtly and explicitly hostile to the welfare of this country, then why do we have to spend our taxes on giving them shelter, rather than returning them to their country of origin. If you are a terrorist, you should be incarcerated for your term with no access to claims for your continued stay in this country upon your release. Once released, you are gone from these shores and your claims of possible torture are another reflection on your own earlier behaviour and something for which it is your responsibility to face the consequences.

Reform family courts and the conduct of social workers

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

Why is this idea important?

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