Decrease alcohol and anti social behaviour

Stupid people think the world revolves around money is why businesses who sell alcohol think its better to sell alcohol later and later into the day.

It shouldn't be sold or made full stop. But I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

In the meantime, businesses should be made to stop selling alcohol at early evening, late afternoon.

Why is this idea important?

Stupid people think the world revolves around money is why businesses who sell alcohol think its better to sell alcohol later and later into the day.

It shouldn't be sold or made full stop. But I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

In the meantime, businesses should be made to stop selling alcohol at early evening, late afternoon.

Re Structuring of Police Rank Structure

Having served in the Police Service as a Police Constable for over 32 years I have seen a marked change in the way that careers/promotion have changed the way in which Policing is carried out.

I would like to propose that a change is made in looking at the rank structure within the Police service with a view to making the most of people skills as they develop within the service.

At present the rank structure includes both the Chief Inspector rank and Chief Superintendent rank. I would propose that these ranks are done away with and the workload is shared with the other ranks.

A Police Constable as he/she approaches the 25year mark should be promoted to Senior Constable at which time he/she receives the top pay scale for a Constable. This Senior Constable would then take on some of the supervisory duties of the next rank. this would allow the Segeant to take on some of the Inspectors work.  This would allow the Inspector to share the workload of the now defunct Chief Inspector with the Superintendent. The Superintendent would then share the workload with Assistant Chief Constable.

Although this sound simplistic I feel that it should be looked at seriously as the wages that all ranks within the Police Service receive are quite rightly above what other people in the private or public sector receive, however like every other form of service the higher up the ladder you go the further you aare from the shop floor.

As Chief Inspectors earn around £60,000 and Chief Superintendents around £80,000 this would mean a substantial saving in wages not only for each individual force but if implemented nationally would be well into many millions of pounds.

Why is this idea important?

Having served in the Police Service as a Police Constable for over 32 years I have seen a marked change in the way that careers/promotion have changed the way in which Policing is carried out.

I would like to propose that a change is made in looking at the rank structure within the Police service with a view to making the most of people skills as they develop within the service.

At present the rank structure includes both the Chief Inspector rank and Chief Superintendent rank. I would propose that these ranks are done away with and the workload is shared with the other ranks.

A Police Constable as he/she approaches the 25year mark should be promoted to Senior Constable at which time he/she receives the top pay scale for a Constable. This Senior Constable would then take on some of the supervisory duties of the next rank. this would allow the Segeant to take on some of the Inspectors work.  This would allow the Inspector to share the workload of the now defunct Chief Inspector with the Superintendent. The Superintendent would then share the workload with Assistant Chief Constable.

Although this sound simplistic I feel that it should be looked at seriously as the wages that all ranks within the Police Service receive are quite rightly above what other people in the private or public sector receive, however like every other form of service the higher up the ladder you go the further you aare from the shop floor.

As Chief Inspectors earn around £60,000 and Chief Superintendents around £80,000 this would mean a substantial saving in wages not only for each individual force but if implemented nationally would be well into many millions of pounds.

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!

Stop the UKBA from socially and economically excluding highly skilled migrants

I would like the UK Border Agency to be fairer and more transparent in its treatement of highly skilled migrants when they are subject to visa renewals.

On 17 June 2010, I applied for a Leave to Remain under Tier 1 General of the Points-based system. On 08 July 2010, my visa application was turned down under the same circumstances that happened over a year ago when I applied for an extension of stay under Tier 1 Post-study Work of the Points-based system.

The ground for refusal being that my salary is lawfully being paid into my brother's bank account due to the predicament I have with UK high street banks and CIFAS (the UK Fraud Prevention Service).  The UKBA refuses to acknowledge the fact that the money held into my brother's bank account is lawfully mine in accordance with Part II (7), point (c), page 22 of the Wages Act 1986 c.48, which states that an employee’s “money payment” can lawfully be made “into any account kept with a bank or other institution”. 

This Article of Law contradicts the UKBA guidance on Tier 1 General of the Points-based System, which requires visa applicants to submit personal bank statements as evidence of earnings claimed. 

Almost a year ago, I had the UKBA decision overturned in AIT Courts by two immigration judges subsequent to two Court Hearings.  All documentary evidence had respectively been provided to relevant ministers more than 10 days ago and I am still awaiting their replies.  Not one of them has been polite enough to acknoledge receipt of my letter supported with documentary eveidence.  I am apolitical but this was a lot better with a single party in power; decisions were far better and quicker.

In the meantine, I am likely to incur £55,000 loss in furture earning from September 2010, as I have a firm job offer at £40,000 and a renegotiated contract with my current employer at £15,000.  Finally, I am likely to secure a £35,000 job position from September or October 2010.

In its witch hunt, the UK Border Agency is making the taxpaper lose extraordinary amounts of money by constraining me to appeal against its unfair decision.  Rather than allowing me to have access to administrative review as an in-country applicant to reduce costs and bureaucracy, the UKBA prefers to automatically refer me to the AIT Tribunal.

Why is this idea important?

I would like the UK Border Agency to be fairer and more transparent in its treatement of highly skilled migrants when they are subject to visa renewals.

On 17 June 2010, I applied for a Leave to Remain under Tier 1 General of the Points-based system. On 08 July 2010, my visa application was turned down under the same circumstances that happened over a year ago when I applied for an extension of stay under Tier 1 Post-study Work of the Points-based system.

The ground for refusal being that my salary is lawfully being paid into my brother's bank account due to the predicament I have with UK high street banks and CIFAS (the UK Fraud Prevention Service).  The UKBA refuses to acknowledge the fact that the money held into my brother's bank account is lawfully mine in accordance with Part II (7), point (c), page 22 of the Wages Act 1986 c.48, which states that an employee’s “money payment” can lawfully be made “into any account kept with a bank or other institution”. 

This Article of Law contradicts the UKBA guidance on Tier 1 General of the Points-based System, which requires visa applicants to submit personal bank statements as evidence of earnings claimed. 

Almost a year ago, I had the UKBA decision overturned in AIT Courts by two immigration judges subsequent to two Court Hearings.  All documentary evidence had respectively been provided to relevant ministers more than 10 days ago and I am still awaiting their replies.  Not one of them has been polite enough to acknoledge receipt of my letter supported with documentary eveidence.  I am apolitical but this was a lot better with a single party in power; decisions were far better and quicker.

In the meantine, I am likely to incur £55,000 loss in furture earning from September 2010, as I have a firm job offer at £40,000 and a renegotiated contract with my current employer at £15,000.  Finally, I am likely to secure a £35,000 job position from September or October 2010.

In its witch hunt, the UK Border Agency is making the taxpaper lose extraordinary amounts of money by constraining me to appeal against its unfair decision.  Rather than allowing me to have access to administrative review as an in-country applicant to reduce costs and bureaucracy, the UKBA prefers to automatically refer me to the AIT Tribunal.

28 Day Terrorism Detention Without Charge or Trial

The government's 28 day detention for Terrorism without charge or trial is unacceptable.

Britain has the longest period of detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world and this legislation has often been misused and abused by the police and other statutory authorities and that is a flagrant abuse of power and curtailment of civil liberties.

Why is this idea important?

The government's 28 day detention for Terrorism without charge or trial is unacceptable.

Britain has the longest period of detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world and this legislation has often been misused and abused by the police and other statutory authorities and that is a flagrant abuse of power and curtailment of civil liberties.

2003 USA Extradition treaty

2003 USA extradition act. This law must be repealed. Even if the Americans don't want to 'play ball', it is so one sided, we just need to pass a law stating that no one can be extradited from the UK to a foreign nation without the case for extradition being heard first in a UK court.

Why is this idea important?

2003 USA extradition act. This law must be repealed. Even if the Americans don't want to 'play ball', it is so one sided, we just need to pass a law stating that no one can be extradited from the UK to a foreign nation without the case for extradition being heard first in a UK court.

If People want Cannabis to be illegal, i want alcohol to be banned!

The harm that alcohol does to society is paramount – dont quote me on this, but alcohol causes about 30 billion pounds worth of damage to our society, but is available freely and almost 24 hours a day. I am willing to let alcohol remain legal but i want it to be a schedule A drug on the MDA.

See, i am being reasonable – so why can't you be reasonable with regards to cannabis?

Why is this idea important?

The harm that alcohol does to society is paramount – dont quote me on this, but alcohol causes about 30 billion pounds worth of damage to our society, but is available freely and almost 24 hours a day. I am willing to let alcohol remain legal but i want it to be a schedule A drug on the MDA.

See, i am being reasonable – so why can't you be reasonable with regards to cannabis?

Medical?OrRecreational?Both Will Work

Either legalize cannabis for recreational use or as a Medical drug. I have been to Amsterdam and i could actually walk into a shop and buy cannabis without worrying whether i will be locked up for it, it makes sense. Ask yourself this why is alcohol and tobacco still legal when they kill many many more people than cannabis? Or go the American way and legalize medical cannabis and sell it as a pharmaceutical Drug. We need to get out of our Daily Mail mind set when we look at cannabis, and look at it in Hope and NOT FEAR.. If cannabis is not legalized then i want alcohol and tobacco to be made illegal…. If cannabis is tolerated in Amsterdam and sold, then why can't it be done Here?

Why is this idea important?

Either legalize cannabis for recreational use or as a Medical drug. I have been to Amsterdam and i could actually walk into a shop and buy cannabis without worrying whether i will be locked up for it, it makes sense. Ask yourself this why is alcohol and tobacco still legal when they kill many many more people than cannabis? Or go the American way and legalize medical cannabis and sell it as a pharmaceutical Drug. We need to get out of our Daily Mail mind set when we look at cannabis, and look at it in Hope and NOT FEAR.. If cannabis is not legalized then i want alcohol and tobacco to be made illegal…. If cannabis is tolerated in Amsterdam and sold, then why can't it be done Here?

Lift off the ‘restriction to work as a doctor in training’ from Tier 1 general visa

I suggest lifting off the 'restriction to work as a doctor in training' from Tier 1 general visa.

NHS is facing a recruitment crisis at the junior doctor's level as there are not enough UK/ EEA candidates to fill the junior posts and we still rely on International Medical Graduates (IMGs) to run the service smoothly.

High standards of training was one of the main charms for IMGs to come and work as a doctor in the UK and this attraction is lost now because IMGs are barred from taking up training posts because of the above visa rules. Since overseas doctors do not have the opportunity of training and progression in the UK it has become extremely difficult to attract them, hence accentuating the recruitment crisis. 

In order to meet the demand NHS trusts are having to sponsor work permits to recruit doctors in training jobs . This makes the recruitment process more complicated and expensive taking into account the cost of repeatedly advertising the posts to prove that the resident labour market test has been applied, organising several rounds of recruitment and finally the cost of sponsoring the visa. Whereas if the restriction from Tier1 visa is lifted off a reasonable number of doctors will be able to apply under this category without jeopardising their progression and they will pay for their own visas with no need for their employer (NHS) to waste money on sponsoring and arranging a visa.

With the introduction of a cap on immigration, recruiting doctors on short term work permits may mean a very unstable medical workforce in the country. And  if doctors are needed in the country whether they are on a work permit or Tier 1 does not alter the number of immigrants by any means.

I would like to site my example to prove the above, I was appointed as a junior doctor on the PMETB approved core medical training programme in Sheffield in August 2009 on a work permit for 2 years to cover the 2 year duration of my core medical training. At the end of these 2 years, I need to reapply for further 5 years of training to become a specialist. I am eligible for a Tier 1 visa but if I take this type of visa I will not be able to continue my training. If I do not apply for this visa I will not be eligible to apply for the first round of training recruitment despite of my knowledge and skills which make me a highly appointable candidate. I will have to wait for an employer to prove that I have passed the resident labour market test and then sponsor my visa. This may lead to a gap or perhaps discontinuation of my training in the UK, forcing me to leave and continue my training in another country. It also brings in a lot of uncertainty about my leave to remain in the UK in case I do not find an employer to sponsor me. 

Having completed the United States Medical Licensing Exam, I would rather apply for a training job in The States than go through the stress of uncertainities about my future in the UK. Most of the doctors in my situation feel the same way and this is how UK is losing its medical workforce to The States or to Australia and Newzealand.

Had there not been the restriction on Tier 1 visa preventing doctors to work in training posts, I would have been able to shape my future in the UK and have the privilege of staying close to my siblings who are doctors on the old unrestricted HSMP visa!

Why is this idea important?

I suggest lifting off the 'restriction to work as a doctor in training' from Tier 1 general visa.

NHS is facing a recruitment crisis at the junior doctor's level as there are not enough UK/ EEA candidates to fill the junior posts and we still rely on International Medical Graduates (IMGs) to run the service smoothly.

High standards of training was one of the main charms for IMGs to come and work as a doctor in the UK and this attraction is lost now because IMGs are barred from taking up training posts because of the above visa rules. Since overseas doctors do not have the opportunity of training and progression in the UK it has become extremely difficult to attract them, hence accentuating the recruitment crisis. 

In order to meet the demand NHS trusts are having to sponsor work permits to recruit doctors in training jobs . This makes the recruitment process more complicated and expensive taking into account the cost of repeatedly advertising the posts to prove that the resident labour market test has been applied, organising several rounds of recruitment and finally the cost of sponsoring the visa. Whereas if the restriction from Tier1 visa is lifted off a reasonable number of doctors will be able to apply under this category without jeopardising their progression and they will pay for their own visas with no need for their employer (NHS) to waste money on sponsoring and arranging a visa.

With the introduction of a cap on immigration, recruiting doctors on short term work permits may mean a very unstable medical workforce in the country. And  if doctors are needed in the country whether they are on a work permit or Tier 1 does not alter the number of immigrants by any means.

I would like to site my example to prove the above, I was appointed as a junior doctor on the PMETB approved core medical training programme in Sheffield in August 2009 on a work permit for 2 years to cover the 2 year duration of my core medical training. At the end of these 2 years, I need to reapply for further 5 years of training to become a specialist. I am eligible for a Tier 1 visa but if I take this type of visa I will not be able to continue my training. If I do not apply for this visa I will not be eligible to apply for the first round of training recruitment despite of my knowledge and skills which make me a highly appointable candidate. I will have to wait for an employer to prove that I have passed the resident labour market test and then sponsor my visa. This may lead to a gap or perhaps discontinuation of my training in the UK, forcing me to leave and continue my training in another country. It also brings in a lot of uncertainty about my leave to remain in the UK in case I do not find an employer to sponsor me. 

Having completed the United States Medical Licensing Exam, I would rather apply for a training job in The States than go through the stress of uncertainities about my future in the UK. Most of the doctors in my situation feel the same way and this is how UK is losing its medical workforce to The States or to Australia and Newzealand.

Had there not been the restriction on Tier 1 visa preventing doctors to work in training posts, I would have been able to shape my future in the UK and have the privilege of staying close to my siblings who are doctors on the old unrestricted HSMP visa!

Repeal Regulation Of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA)

RIPA should be repealed along with all the existing Anti-terroism laws, to allow a new more proportionate and necessary anti-terrorism laws to be brought in.

Why is this idea important?

RIPA should be repealed along with all the existing Anti-terroism laws, to allow a new more proportionate and necessary anti-terrorism laws to be brought in.

Repeal those parts of the ‘Equalities Bill which make sex and race discrimination legal in certain circumstances.

Parts of the 'Equality Bill' made it legal to engage in sex and race discrimination. This is typically used to discriminate against white male job applicants, though females and blacks could also occasionally fall foul of it. This is clearly a violation of the fundamental rights of citizens. It is deeply morally wrong. Therefore the relevant parts of the 'Equalities Bill' should be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

Parts of the 'Equality Bill' made it legal to engage in sex and race discrimination. This is typically used to discriminate against white male job applicants, though females and blacks could also occasionally fall foul of it. This is clearly a violation of the fundamental rights of citizens. It is deeply morally wrong. Therefore the relevant parts of the 'Equalities Bill' should be repealed.

simplify changing your name

When we get married we have to take all legal documents – proof of identity, proof of residency, proof of divorce etc to the registrar who checks and agrees they are legal, enters the information onto their computer system and then legalises the marriage and issues the marriage certificate.

 

Following the marriage some individuals want to take their partners name. So far I have had to inform 22+ separate organisations and agencies of my name change, send original certificates by recorded delivery (get the certificate back by recorded delivery), send certified copies of my marriage certificate to other organisations. I had an on-line form to complete for the tax office (good and sensible) but had to write separately to the national insurance office!

 

My idea is that once formally married (marriage certificate issued) a USB s given to the married couple (same sex or different sex) and that is all the proof needed. On line forms could then easily be completed with a check system completed by the receiving organisation e.g. the passport office would put the usb through their system and ot would confirm or not whether the marriage was valid and the change of name legitimate

Why is this idea important?

When we get married we have to take all legal documents – proof of identity, proof of residency, proof of divorce etc to the registrar who checks and agrees they are legal, enters the information onto their computer system and then legalises the marriage and issues the marriage certificate.

 

Following the marriage some individuals want to take their partners name. So far I have had to inform 22+ separate organisations and agencies of my name change, send original certificates by recorded delivery (get the certificate back by recorded delivery), send certified copies of my marriage certificate to other organisations. I had an on-line form to complete for the tax office (good and sensible) but had to write separately to the national insurance office!

 

My idea is that once formally married (marriage certificate issued) a USB s given to the married couple (same sex or different sex) and that is all the proof needed. On line forms could then easily be completed with a check system completed by the receiving organisation e.g. the passport office would put the usb through their system and ot would confirm or not whether the marriage was valid and the change of name legitimate

What are our drug laws for ?

What are our drug laws for ? What purpose are they meant to serve ?

Are they to protect individuals (from themselves) or to protect society ?

Either way it is obvious that our current policies have failed on both counts.

 How are individuals protected if

  • they are forced to deal with criminal gangs
  • the drugs they buy are contaminated
  • the drugs they buy are of unknown strength
  • they are discouraged from seeking medical help (for fear of attracting police attention)
  • they are forced into prostitution or theft to “feed” their habit

 How is society protected if

  • criminal gangs make huge profits
  • organised gangs compete for these profits
  • police time is spent arresting and prosecuting users
  • muggings, thefts and burglaries are carried out by drug users
  • prisons are filled with drug users
  • criminal and terrorist groups (in e.g. Colombia and Afghanistan) get massive funding

Our laws should be based on a proper, scientific investigation into the potential harm to individuals that drugs may cause. We have to accept that banning certain drugs has not stopped large numbers of people experimenting with them. We must also accept that of all the potential health and social problems caused by drug use by far the greatest harm results from criminalising users. 

There is also an elephant in the room ignored by all politicians and newspaper editors. Tobacco and alcohol cause far more individual harm and expense to society than illegal drugs, but they are tolerated on the grounds of personal freedom. It is merely historical accident that these two were in widespread use before tabloid hysteria dictated political policy.

If the distribution and sale of drugs was controlled in the same way as alcohol and tobacco, society would save the millions currently spent on the futile attempt to eradicate their use. It would also make fiscal sense in the current climate to tax drug sales. I would much rather the huge profits went to the exchequer rather than some drug baron (and, somewhere up the supply chain, the Taleban).

The potential dangers must of course be made very clear and steps taken to prevent use by children, but surely it is not beyond us to put controls in place.

Are any politicians willing to face up to the inevitable tabloid outrage and propose a rational drugs policy ?

Why is this idea important?

What are our drug laws for ? What purpose are they meant to serve ?

Are they to protect individuals (from themselves) or to protect society ?

Either way it is obvious that our current policies have failed on both counts.

 How are individuals protected if

  • they are forced to deal with criminal gangs
  • the drugs they buy are contaminated
  • the drugs they buy are of unknown strength
  • they are discouraged from seeking medical help (for fear of attracting police attention)
  • they are forced into prostitution or theft to “feed” their habit

 How is society protected if

  • criminal gangs make huge profits
  • organised gangs compete for these profits
  • police time is spent arresting and prosecuting users
  • muggings, thefts and burglaries are carried out by drug users
  • prisons are filled with drug users
  • criminal and terrorist groups (in e.g. Colombia and Afghanistan) get massive funding

Our laws should be based on a proper, scientific investigation into the potential harm to individuals that drugs may cause. We have to accept that banning certain drugs has not stopped large numbers of people experimenting with them. We must also accept that of all the potential health and social problems caused by drug use by far the greatest harm results from criminalising users. 

There is also an elephant in the room ignored by all politicians and newspaper editors. Tobacco and alcohol cause far more individual harm and expense to society than illegal drugs, but they are tolerated on the grounds of personal freedom. It is merely historical accident that these two were in widespread use before tabloid hysteria dictated political policy.

If the distribution and sale of drugs was controlled in the same way as alcohol and tobacco, society would save the millions currently spent on the futile attempt to eradicate their use. It would also make fiscal sense in the current climate to tax drug sales. I would much rather the huge profits went to the exchequer rather than some drug baron (and, somewhere up the supply chain, the Taleban).

The potential dangers must of course be made very clear and steps taken to prevent use by children, but surely it is not beyond us to put controls in place.

Are any politicians willing to face up to the inevitable tabloid outrage and propose a rational drugs policy ?

Scrap all activities associated with the “prevent agender”.

As above, the targeting and surveillance of groups of BRITISH people will only alienate these groups further, perhaps that's what the establishment want. Hitler wanted a mythical enemy within and tapping into long held prejudice, he chose Jewish peoples, and we all know the vile outcome.

We as a society must not make our own version

Why is this idea important?

As above, the targeting and surveillance of groups of BRITISH people will only alienate these groups further, perhaps that's what the establishment want. Hitler wanted a mythical enemy within and tapping into long held prejudice, he chose Jewish peoples, and we all know the vile outcome.

We as a society must not make our own version

Repeal the criminal offense of touching a mobile phone in a car

It should be an offence to make a mobile call while pressing a phone to your ear with one hand. 

It should not be an offence to touch a phone once (as I have to) to make or receive a hands free call. 

Then, actually enforce the law.  I have been overtaken by more white van drivers and school run mums who are chatting on their mobiles with their hands to their ears, than I have had hot dinners!

Why is this idea important?

It should be an offence to make a mobile call while pressing a phone to your ear with one hand. 

It should not be an offence to touch a phone once (as I have to) to make or receive a hands free call. 

Then, actually enforce the law.  I have been overtaken by more white van drivers and school run mums who are chatting on their mobiles with their hands to their ears, than I have had hot dinners!

End the failed war on drugs, new approach is needed

Prohibition has failed, as shown in studies (http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking10/CAN_Drug_Crime_Crackdown.html) harder laws on drugs do not decrease supply, demand or violence, on the contrary they may cause an increase in gang violence. Street drugs are unregulated with regards to contents and billions of pounds are being poured into criminal gangs while the taxpayer has to pay the bill for failed government prohibition policies.
What is required is an end to red-top hysteria and political point scoring and an objective, scientific approach to drug policy.

Why is this idea important?

Prohibition has failed, as shown in studies (http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking10/CAN_Drug_Crime_Crackdown.html) harder laws on drugs do not decrease supply, demand or violence, on the contrary they may cause an increase in gang violence. Street drugs are unregulated with regards to contents and billions of pounds are being poured into criminal gangs while the taxpayer has to pay the bill for failed government prohibition policies.
What is required is an end to red-top hysteria and political point scoring and an objective, scientific approach to drug policy.

Prevent the Police from tracing Ip computer addresses without a court order

ths gross invasion of our privacy goes on all the time, under the guise of prevention of terrorism, if the police have evidence and just cause they can present this to a court to obtain an order. How many officers abuse this and use it for their own personal reasons…i am aware of this happening and frankly it is an abuse of there authority and power

Why is this idea important?

ths gross invasion of our privacy goes on all the time, under the guise of prevention of terrorism, if the police have evidence and just cause they can present this to a court to obtain an order. How many officers abuse this and use it for their own personal reasons…i am aware of this happening and frankly it is an abuse of there authority and power

European Arrest Warrant

The European Arrest Warrant has replaceed extradition within the EU. It is based on the idea of all states having a high standard of justice. It is being abused, judicial systems are not equal and people are being tried and convicted in absentia so an arrest warrant can be issued for something you know nothing about. This has got to be suspended until safeguards for the ordinary person are implemented.

Why is this idea important?

The European Arrest Warrant has replaceed extradition within the EU. It is based on the idea of all states having a high standard of justice. It is being abused, judicial systems are not equal and people are being tried and convicted in absentia so an arrest warrant can be issued for something you know nothing about. This has got to be suspended until safeguards for the ordinary person are implemented.