Balanced Approach to Drugs

All forms of cannabis and MDMA should be de-criminalised

HOWEVER:

a) Crack should remain illegal;

b) The amount of cannabis, MDMA or alcohol you take before getting behind the wheel of a car should be zero;

c) Where smoking bans exist they should be extended to encompass cannabis as well as nicotine;

d) Alcohol, cigarettes and the two newly-de-criminalised drugs should all have really high taxes levied on them.

Why is this idea important?

All forms of cannabis and MDMA should be de-criminalised

HOWEVER:

a) Crack should remain illegal;

b) The amount of cannabis, MDMA or alcohol you take before getting behind the wheel of a car should be zero;

c) Where smoking bans exist they should be extended to encompass cannabis as well as nicotine;

d) Alcohol, cigarettes and the two newly-de-criminalised drugs should all have really high taxes levied on them.

Enhanced CRB Checks (Unproven malicious allegations)

It is not right that allegations made against a person, which have been investigated by the police and no further action taken should show up on an enhanced CRB check for future employers to see and potentially provent a person from getting a job.

If you are accused of a crime and charged you can go to court and defend yourself and potentially be exhonorated. If you are accused of a crime and there is no basis to it, no further action and no charge it lingers over you for the rest of your days. It shows up on enhanced CRB checks and irrespective of what people say, if something negative comes back people do think "theres no smoke without fire", you are not going to get a job.

What happend to the presumption that you are inncocent until proven guilty? I agree we should protect the vulnerable but there has to be a better way of doing it.

Why is this idea important?

It is not right that allegations made against a person, which have been investigated by the police and no further action taken should show up on an enhanced CRB check for future employers to see and potentially provent a person from getting a job.

If you are accused of a crime and charged you can go to court and defend yourself and potentially be exhonorated. If you are accused of a crime and there is no basis to it, no further action and no charge it lingers over you for the rest of your days. It shows up on enhanced CRB checks and irrespective of what people say, if something negative comes back people do think "theres no smoke without fire", you are not going to get a job.

What happend to the presumption that you are inncocent until proven guilty? I agree we should protect the vulnerable but there has to be a better way of doing it.

Allow 30mph speed limit signs on lit streets

To scrap the sections of the Road Traffic Act of 1934 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which make it illegal for councils to put-up 30 mph speed limit signs where there are street lights.

Amazingly, drivers are supposed to know that the lights mean the limit is 30 mph. It may be obvious in towns, but in suburbs or more rural areas with lights it isn't. Consequently people speed. I live on a straight stretch of road where cars do 40 mph or more most of the time. It's a 30mph limit, but the lack of 30 mph signs means everyone ignores that. The paths are narrow and it's almost impossible for children to cross safely. There must be lots of roads like this around the UK.

Given how hard successive Governments have worked to reduce the numbers of people killed on the roads – and given speed is a factor in so many accidents – it seems completely mad not to scrap this law. It's a simple, cheap way of helping drivers remember what the speed limit is. Please support this proposal – and help reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on our roads.

Why is this idea important?

To scrap the sections of the Road Traffic Act of 1934 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which make it illegal for councils to put-up 30 mph speed limit signs where there are street lights.

Amazingly, drivers are supposed to know that the lights mean the limit is 30 mph. It may be obvious in towns, but in suburbs or more rural areas with lights it isn't. Consequently people speed. I live on a straight stretch of road where cars do 40 mph or more most of the time. It's a 30mph limit, but the lack of 30 mph signs means everyone ignores that. The paths are narrow and it's almost impossible for children to cross safely. There must be lots of roads like this around the UK.

Given how hard successive Governments have worked to reduce the numbers of people killed on the roads – and given speed is a factor in so many accidents – it seems completely mad not to scrap this law. It's a simple, cheap way of helping drivers remember what the speed limit is. Please support this proposal – and help reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on our roads.

Repeal all anti-discrimination THOUGHTCRIME legislation

should be repealed because they are THOUGHTCRIME legislation

Why is this idea important?

should be repealed because they are THOUGHTCRIME legislation

with the comming of the 2012 Olympics and the hand gun ban

Yes this will creat some remarks,after the Dunblaine shootings the then goverment organised a report on the use of all firearms at a cost of I beleave 5 -6 £ millions and then took no notice of the Cullen report, who stated that small calibre hand guns that are used on ranges could still be used under strict controls as we are now. What I would like is the Cullen report inplimemted and allow us british shooters to have the same right as our cousins in europe enjoy and can practice for sporting events

Why is this idea important?

Yes this will creat some remarks,after the Dunblaine shootings the then goverment organised a report on the use of all firearms at a cost of I beleave 5 -6 £ millions and then took no notice of the Cullen report, who stated that small calibre hand guns that are used on ranges could still be used under strict controls as we are now. What I would like is the Cullen report inplimemted and allow us british shooters to have the same right as our cousins in europe enjoy and can practice for sporting events

Consolidate police forces in the UK

In England we have 42 separate police forces who have individual infrastructures comprising, headquarters (including staff and buildings) which also have different policies (purchasing,building management, storage of property,vehicles etc), organisational structures, and uniforms.

Why is this idea important?

In England we have 42 separate police forces who have individual infrastructures comprising, headquarters (including staff and buildings) which also have different policies (purchasing,building management, storage of property,vehicles etc), organisational structures, and uniforms.

Review Mandatory Firearms sentences

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Why is this idea important?

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Make tinted motorcycle helmet visors legal

Law says its illegal to wear a tinted visor on motorcycle helmet but not illegal to wear sun glasses under the helmet. Hello nanny state wakey wakey you would prefer us to be blinded by strong sun and crash than have the common sense NOT to wear a tinted visor when the sun goes down. And before anyone says it you can't always get sun glasses on, when wearing a helmet. I know I just broke an expensive pair of Oakleys trying. We can legally wear our sun glases when the sun goes down but most bikers with a little wit would not ride with sun glasses on in the dark. Ok some dim wits will ride with tinted visors in the dark but why punish the many because of the few. What about cars with tinted windows driving in the dark? And yes I know there is a limit to their level of tint to front and front sides but what about seeing out the back at night? If caught out by poor visibillity while wearing a tinted visor you can always open your visor slightly to assist your view. Yes I know you stand a chance of being hit by a fly but many times in heavy rain even with a clear visor you have to open your visor because the water attached to the visor leaves you blinded. (thought—-maybe we should have a law that requires visor wipers)  

Why is this idea important?

Law says its illegal to wear a tinted visor on motorcycle helmet but not illegal to wear sun glasses under the helmet. Hello nanny state wakey wakey you would prefer us to be blinded by strong sun and crash than have the common sense NOT to wear a tinted visor when the sun goes down. And before anyone says it you can't always get sun glasses on, when wearing a helmet. I know I just broke an expensive pair of Oakleys trying. We can legally wear our sun glases when the sun goes down but most bikers with a little wit would not ride with sun glasses on in the dark. Ok some dim wits will ride with tinted visors in the dark but why punish the many because of the few. What about cars with tinted windows driving in the dark? And yes I know there is a limit to their level of tint to front and front sides but what about seeing out the back at night? If caught out by poor visibillity while wearing a tinted visor you can always open your visor slightly to assist your view. Yes I know you stand a chance of being hit by a fly but many times in heavy rain even with a clear visor you have to open your visor because the water attached to the visor leaves you blinded. (thought—-maybe we should have a law that requires visor wipers)  

Reclasification of Cannabis to Class “C”

I strongly belive that Cannabis should be reclasified to a class "C" Drug and for the UK to follow the example of other developed countries such as Canada, USA(Calafornia), and the Netherlands by allowing those who are severly in pain and the terminaly ill acsess to cheap, effective pain relief with little or no side affects. Infact in the sad cases of those people who have Cancer, Cannabis has a positive effect by releving pain, other symptoms and increasing body weight. This could be done by simply visiting a GP Practice and the GP issuing a certificate which allows members of the public to purchase cannabis(Cannabis Dispensary), posess, grow and use legaly to relive pain.

This reclasification could also free up UK Drug Enforcment Agencys time and cut expenses and allow the relevent agencys to tackle real drug offenders.

Cannabis has no or very little side effects and cannot be used in such a way to overdose and as such is not a drug that is associated with any fatality(s). 

Why is this idea important?

I strongly belive that Cannabis should be reclasified to a class "C" Drug and for the UK to follow the example of other developed countries such as Canada, USA(Calafornia), and the Netherlands by allowing those who are severly in pain and the terminaly ill acsess to cheap, effective pain relief with little or no side affects. Infact in the sad cases of those people who have Cancer, Cannabis has a positive effect by releving pain, other symptoms and increasing body weight. This could be done by simply visiting a GP Practice and the GP issuing a certificate which allows members of the public to purchase cannabis(Cannabis Dispensary), posess, grow and use legaly to relive pain.

This reclasification could also free up UK Drug Enforcment Agencys time and cut expenses and allow the relevent agencys to tackle real drug offenders.

Cannabis has no or very little side effects and cannot be used in such a way to overdose and as such is not a drug that is associated with any fatality(s). 

Terrorism Act 2000

I qoute from the act.

 

Terrorism Act 2000 Part 6

54 Weapons training

(1) A person commits an offence if he provides instruction or training in the making or use of—

(a) firearms,

(b) explosives, or

(c) chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

(2) A person commits an offence if he receives instruction or training in the making or use of—

(a) firearms,

(b) explosives, or

(c) chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Why is this idea important?

I qoute from the act.

 

Terrorism Act 2000 Part 6

54 Weapons training

(1) A person commits an offence if he provides instruction or training in the making or use of—

(a) firearms,

(b) explosives, or

(c) chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

(2) A person commits an offence if he receives instruction or training in the making or use of—

(a) firearms,

(b) explosives, or

(c) chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Policing

Police stations being located within the underground,bus and main rail stations instead of police staions which cost a fortune located in the middle of no-where and these days often closed

Why is this idea important?

Police stations being located within the underground,bus and main rail stations instead of police staions which cost a fortune located in the middle of no-where and these days often closed

Unfair Dog Legislation

I do not understand why it all has to be so complicated and focussed around the dog.  

If one vauxhall cavalier kills someone, the owner is on trial, not the car. And they do not seize all vauxhalls from their owners  because of it!!!!!

Make it compulsory for all dogs to be chipped at birth.  Owners must show proof of ID when registering their pup, much like the vehicle registering system. They are then responsible for their dogs behaviour. It will be the owners responsibility to ensure, when they transfer ownership of the dog, that they send details of the new owner to the central body and the new owner must show proof of ID when confirming ownership. Fines for all dogs who do not do this. Vets, dog wardens, police, can scan dogs to determine who is the owner.  Owners should take reasonable steps to check potential new owners are suitable and knowledgeable about the breed/general petcare before passing over. When new owners register, any previous bad ownership will flag up on file. Failure to register previous dogs will also show, and alert the authorities to a potential problem.

Anyone buying a dog should check it has been chipped, and report the previous owner if not.

I do not believe owners should pay vast sums for licences to own a dog. Many poor people are wonderful owners and gain much pleasure from owning a pet. There are enough expenses to pet ownership which prove a problem without adding to the burden.

The potential is there for fines to those flouting the rules, and the income generated from this, and the drop in disastrous incidents costing the taxpayer thousands, should be sufficient to cover the cost.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I know this idea may need adjusting, it IS just an off the cuff idea. I also know dogs are different to cars; very much so, they are more like children….

 But, the law currently treats them more like cars… a dangerous car unfit for public roads  is seized and destroyed, or impounded, just as a dog is.

A child is not put down because it bites someone! A child is taken from an irresponsible/neglectful/abusive parent (well, SHOULD be!) and rehabilitated, nurtured, and so it should be with dogs.

My border collie, I was told, was a breed not really good with young children. She is wonderful with my grand daughter.  I couldn't ask for a more loving, patient, tolerant dog.  That poem, about, if a child lives with patience, etc etc applies to dogs also.

Not an infallible system, but it would be better than what is currently in place.

Why is this idea important?

I do not understand why it all has to be so complicated and focussed around the dog.  

If one vauxhall cavalier kills someone, the owner is on trial, not the car. And they do not seize all vauxhalls from their owners  because of it!!!!!

Make it compulsory for all dogs to be chipped at birth.  Owners must show proof of ID when registering their pup, much like the vehicle registering system. They are then responsible for their dogs behaviour. It will be the owners responsibility to ensure, when they transfer ownership of the dog, that they send details of the new owner to the central body and the new owner must show proof of ID when confirming ownership. Fines for all dogs who do not do this. Vets, dog wardens, police, can scan dogs to determine who is the owner.  Owners should take reasonable steps to check potential new owners are suitable and knowledgeable about the breed/general petcare before passing over. When new owners register, any previous bad ownership will flag up on file. Failure to register previous dogs will also show, and alert the authorities to a potential problem.

Anyone buying a dog should check it has been chipped, and report the previous owner if not.

I do not believe owners should pay vast sums for licences to own a dog. Many poor people are wonderful owners and gain much pleasure from owning a pet. There are enough expenses to pet ownership which prove a problem without adding to the burden.

The potential is there for fines to those flouting the rules, and the income generated from this, and the drop in disastrous incidents costing the taxpayer thousands, should be sufficient to cover the cost.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I know this idea may need adjusting, it IS just an off the cuff idea. I also know dogs are different to cars; very much so, they are more like children….

 But, the law currently treats them more like cars… a dangerous car unfit for public roads  is seized and destroyed, or impounded, just as a dog is.

A child is not put down because it bites someone! A child is taken from an irresponsible/neglectful/abusive parent (well, SHOULD be!) and rehabilitated, nurtured, and so it should be with dogs.

My border collie, I was told, was a breed not really good with young children. She is wonderful with my grand daughter.  I couldn't ask for a more loving, patient, tolerant dog.  That poem, about, if a child lives with patience, etc etc applies to dogs also.

Not an infallible system, but it would be better than what is currently in place.

Public Order Act 1986 Section 5

Unfortunately used to enforce 'speech crime' (as an excuse to arrest usually) – anything said or written on a placard (i.e. during protest) that may cause 'offence' is an arrestable offence.

Why is this idea important?

Unfortunately used to enforce 'speech crime' (as an excuse to arrest usually) – anything said or written on a placard (i.e. during protest) that may cause 'offence' is an arrestable offence.

Reduce Channel Island flight arrival and departure delays

Inbound and Outbound flights between UK and Channel Islands currently require a 12 hour pre-notification advice to Customs/Immigration/Special Branch when arriving/departing from non-designated airports in UK. Whereas flights from UK to rest of EU require no advance notification on departure and only 4 hours on arrival.

This regulation is justified supposedly due to the enhanced terrorist risks on flights to/from Channel Islands but is clearly absurd and rules should be made the same as rest of EU.  

Why is this idea important?

Inbound and Outbound flights between UK and Channel Islands currently require a 12 hour pre-notification advice to Customs/Immigration/Special Branch when arriving/departing from non-designated airports in UK. Whereas flights from UK to rest of EU require no advance notification on departure and only 4 hours on arrival.

This regulation is justified supposedly due to the enhanced terrorist risks on flights to/from Channel Islands but is clearly absurd and rules should be made the same as rest of EU.  

REPLACE CAMERAS WITH REAL COPPERS…

I have held a driving licence for 26 years and have been a proffessional driver for 22 without,touch wood,a conviction or any points.I would like to see cameras scrapped in favour of real traffic police visible on the roads.The previous government used cameras as a stealth tax and nothing more,this has caused the public to lose trust in the law,as somebody that spends the majority of my working day behind the wheel I have seen driving standards drop dramatically over the past 10 years or so,a camera cannot tell you what you are doing wrong a traffic policeman can.

Why is this idea important?

I have held a driving licence for 26 years and have been a proffessional driver for 22 without,touch wood,a conviction or any points.I would like to see cameras scrapped in favour of real traffic police visible on the roads.The previous government used cameras as a stealth tax and nothing more,this has caused the public to lose trust in the law,as somebody that spends the majority of my working day behind the wheel I have seen driving standards drop dramatically over the past 10 years or so,a camera cannot tell you what you are doing wrong a traffic policeman can.

police costs

We have the most expensive police service in the world. They have every conceivable device and protection and almost every officer has their own car, or so it seems.

The cars for instance in one depot i saw were all BMW's or Mercedes, with the odd Range Rover alongside. What is wrong with other more reliable makes that are less expensive.

Why do the police have to have the flourescent jacket? Why do they all have to be individually embossed with names and numbers. All that costs a fortune.

Why do some forces have Tailors inside the HQ for uniform adjustments?

I know of a case where on a stakeout the police were cold and so had a new central heating boiler installed as the old one in the property was broken. What!!!!! what was wrong with an electric fan heater?

The police should not be in control of the their expences, their tastes are too rich. All purchases should be more centrally controlled to get the best prices. I would love to choose my new car too if someone else was paying.

Why should they be better protected and paid for patrolling quiet towns and villages than our soldiers get paid for dying every day.

Why is this idea important?

We have the most expensive police service in the world. They have every conceivable device and protection and almost every officer has their own car, or so it seems.

The cars for instance in one depot i saw were all BMW's or Mercedes, with the odd Range Rover alongside. What is wrong with other more reliable makes that are less expensive.

Why do the police have to have the flourescent jacket? Why do they all have to be individually embossed with names and numbers. All that costs a fortune.

Why do some forces have Tailors inside the HQ for uniform adjustments?

I know of a case where on a stakeout the police were cold and so had a new central heating boiler installed as the old one in the property was broken. What!!!!! what was wrong with an electric fan heater?

The police should not be in control of the their expences, their tastes are too rich. All purchases should be more centrally controlled to get the best prices. I would love to choose my new car too if someone else was paying.

Why should they be better protected and paid for patrolling quiet towns and villages than our soldiers get paid for dying every day.

Bring back the cane to restore order in schools

 
 

More than 20 years after corporal punishment was banned in state schools, many teachers said it was acceptable to hit children "in extreme cases".

The majority of those backing the cane said it was needed to crackdown on bad behaviour in British schools.

It follows a Government-backed study last year which found many parents believed discipline had deteriorated since the cane was abolished.

In the latest poll, 20.3 per cent of teachers said it should be reintroduced.

One supply teacher told researchers: "Children's behaviour is now absolutely outrageous in the majority of schools. I am a supply teacher, so I see very many schools and there are no sanctions. There are too many anger management people and their ilk who give children the idea that it is their right to flounce out of lessons for time out because they have problems with their temper. They should be caned instead."

And a primary teacher, said: "There is justification, or an argument, for bringing back corporal punishment, if only as a deterrent. I believe some children just don't respond to the current sanctions."

The Times Educational Supplement surveyed 6,162 teachers.

Support for a return to corporal punishment was strongest among secondary teachers, with 22 per cent backing the idea compared with 16 per cent of those in primary schools.

But support was lower among senior staff – head teachers and deputies – with just 12 per cent supported the caning of pupils.

The cane was abolished in state schools in 1987 and 1998 in the fee-paying sector.

John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Thankfully, corporal punishment is no longer on the agenda, except in the most uncivilised countries. I am sure that this barbaric punishment has disappeared forever."

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Violence against children is clearly unacceptable and illegal."

Why is this idea important?

 
 

More than 20 years after corporal punishment was banned in state schools, many teachers said it was acceptable to hit children "in extreme cases".

The majority of those backing the cane said it was needed to crackdown on bad behaviour in British schools.

It follows a Government-backed study last year which found many parents believed discipline had deteriorated since the cane was abolished.

In the latest poll, 20.3 per cent of teachers said it should be reintroduced.

One supply teacher told researchers: "Children's behaviour is now absolutely outrageous in the majority of schools. I am a supply teacher, so I see very many schools and there are no sanctions. There are too many anger management people and their ilk who give children the idea that it is their right to flounce out of lessons for time out because they have problems with their temper. They should be caned instead."

And a primary teacher, said: "There is justification, or an argument, for bringing back corporal punishment, if only as a deterrent. I believe some children just don't respond to the current sanctions."

The Times Educational Supplement surveyed 6,162 teachers.

Support for a return to corporal punishment was strongest among secondary teachers, with 22 per cent backing the idea compared with 16 per cent of those in primary schools.

But support was lower among senior staff – head teachers and deputies – with just 12 per cent supported the caning of pupils.

The cane was abolished in state schools in 1987 and 1998 in the fee-paying sector.

John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Thankfully, corporal punishment is no longer on the agenda, except in the most uncivilised countries. I am sure that this barbaric punishment has disappeared forever."

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Violence against children is clearly unacceptable and illegal."

Criminal Justice Rules – GROSS INDECENCY

Amend the Criminal Justice rules to allow men convicted of engaging in consensual adult sex with another man (an activity no longer illegal since the full decriminalisation of gross indecency in 2003) to return to court and have their convictions quashed.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the Criminal Justice rules to allow men convicted of engaging in consensual adult sex with another man (an activity no longer illegal since the full decriminalisation of gross indecency in 2003) to return to court and have their convictions quashed.

Freedom to assemble

In 2005, the Labour Government – as part of a series of measures which have eroded British citizens' civil rights – passed the Serious Organised Crime Act.

Section 132 (demonstrating without authorisation in designated area), s.133 (notice of demonstrations in designated area), s.134 (authorisation of demonstrations in designated area), s.135 (supplementary directions) and s.136 (offences under sections 132 to 135: penalties) all effectively ban peaceful demonstrations outside Parliament and within one kilometre of Parliament unless–

  • authorised by the Met Commissioner,
  • notice has been given to him at least 6 days before the demonstration is planned to take place
  • the Commissioner authorises the demonstration.

The Commissioner may impose any conditions he thinks fit and, in addition to the Commissioner's conditions, a senior police officer at the actual demonstration can impose any further conditions he thinks fit.

Section 138(3) defines the "designated area" as being one kilometre from any point in Parliament Square.  This effectively means that it is illegal to peacefully protest outside the Houses of Parliament without prior permission. 

Organising, taking part in or carrying on a demonstration without the Commissioner's permission within one km of Parliament is a crime punishable by 51 weeks' imprisonment, or a fine.  Failing to comply with any of the Commissioner's conditions is a crime, punishable with a fine.  Failing to comply with a senior police officer's conditions is a crime, also punishable with a fine.  Inciting someone to commit a "crime" under these sections, or to fail to do anything that he is required by these sections to fo, is also guilty of a crime, and is punishable with 51 weeks' imprisonment or a fine.

Why is this idea important?

In 2005, the Labour Government – as part of a series of measures which have eroded British citizens' civil rights – passed the Serious Organised Crime Act.

Section 132 (demonstrating without authorisation in designated area), s.133 (notice of demonstrations in designated area), s.134 (authorisation of demonstrations in designated area), s.135 (supplementary directions) and s.136 (offences under sections 132 to 135: penalties) all effectively ban peaceful demonstrations outside Parliament and within one kilometre of Parliament unless–

  • authorised by the Met Commissioner,
  • notice has been given to him at least 6 days before the demonstration is planned to take place
  • the Commissioner authorises the demonstration.

The Commissioner may impose any conditions he thinks fit and, in addition to the Commissioner's conditions, a senior police officer at the actual demonstration can impose any further conditions he thinks fit.

Section 138(3) defines the "designated area" as being one kilometre from any point in Parliament Square.  This effectively means that it is illegal to peacefully protest outside the Houses of Parliament without prior permission. 

Organising, taking part in or carrying on a demonstration without the Commissioner's permission within one km of Parliament is a crime punishable by 51 weeks' imprisonment, or a fine.  Failing to comply with any of the Commissioner's conditions is a crime, punishable with a fine.  Failing to comply with a senior police officer's conditions is a crime, also punishable with a fine.  Inciting someone to commit a "crime" under these sections, or to fail to do anything that he is required by these sections to fo, is also guilty of a crime, and is punishable with 51 weeks' imprisonment or a fine.

repeal the ban on using a hand held mobile ‘phones when you’re driving

 

I’m a cyclist and a lawyer, so this is directly contrary to my beliefs: It’s clearly dangerous to drive while you’re using a hand held mobile ‘phone. But:

  1. This law is rarely enforced. Stand on any street corner & count the number of vehicles with a driver using a handheld mobile phone – it’s usually between 20 and 30 an hour. The failure to prosecute this number of ‘daylight’ offences brings the law into disrepute;

 

  1.  When the law is enforced, it’s usually only because there’s been an accident and it’s usually accompanied by a charge of dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention. But driving while you’re using a hand held mobile ‘phone is driving dangerously or driving without due care and attention.

We don’t therefore need the absolute ban on driving while using a handheld mobile phone; we just need to enforce the driving without due care and attention (etc) laws we already have.  And we should certainly do.

Why is this idea important?

 

I’m a cyclist and a lawyer, so this is directly contrary to my beliefs: It’s clearly dangerous to drive while you’re using a hand held mobile ‘phone. But:

  1. This law is rarely enforced. Stand on any street corner & count the number of vehicles with a driver using a handheld mobile phone – it’s usually between 20 and 30 an hour. The failure to prosecute this number of ‘daylight’ offences brings the law into disrepute;

 

  1.  When the law is enforced, it’s usually only because there’s been an accident and it’s usually accompanied by a charge of dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention. But driving while you’re using a hand held mobile ‘phone is driving dangerously or driving without due care and attention.

We don’t therefore need the absolute ban on driving while using a handheld mobile phone; we just need to enforce the driving without due care and attention (etc) laws we already have.  And we should certainly do.

Remove all speed limits & instead police dangerous driving

I would like all speed limits removed, and replace them with laws created to punish people who drive dangerously, where "dangerous" is defined as what would reasonably regarded as an action likely to cause harm by a group of one's peers.

I would like the new laws to include harsh penalties (incarceration) for people who cause accidents when driving "dangerously."

Police could apply standard "rules-of-thumb" to identify "dangerous" driving, which would be commonly understood by the public.

Why is this idea important?

I would like all speed limits removed, and replace them with laws created to punish people who drive dangerously, where "dangerous" is defined as what would reasonably regarded as an action likely to cause harm by a group of one's peers.

I would like the new laws to include harsh penalties (incarceration) for people who cause accidents when driving "dangerously."

Police could apply standard "rules-of-thumb" to identify "dangerous" driving, which would be commonly understood by the public.

Repeal legislation requiring firms to reveal what they pay men & women.

I'm amazed the coalition are going to go-ahead with this law proposed by Labour, where employers must publish what they pay male versus female staff.

Why is this idea important?

I'm amazed the coalition are going to go-ahead with this law proposed by Labour, where employers must publish what they pay male versus female staff.