Allow airgun owner to take responsibility

I am not sure of the actual act but I think it is the VCR bill , but it creates a contradiction where the responsibility for a pre-charged airgun being within the legal limit of 12ft/lb is rightly with the owner however all new pre-charged rifles must have tamper proof fittings to prevent adjustment .

Whilst it is sensible to prevent such items being substantially changed as to be dangerous it is ludicrous to prevent fine tuning to account for the fluctuations that occur through natural conditions in the guns output and then hold the owner responsible .

It seems not unreasonable to maintain tamper proof fittings so as to prevent the replacement of critical parts valve/regulator other than by  a professional and this was the first stage of changes but allow the fine tuning adjustment to be accessed by the owner to carry out their responsibilty. If unscrupulous individuals wanted to make the item dangerous the fine tuning element would not be very effective  .

Why is this idea important?

I am not sure of the actual act but I think it is the VCR bill , but it creates a contradiction where the responsibility for a pre-charged airgun being within the legal limit of 12ft/lb is rightly with the owner however all new pre-charged rifles must have tamper proof fittings to prevent adjustment .

Whilst it is sensible to prevent such items being substantially changed as to be dangerous it is ludicrous to prevent fine tuning to account for the fluctuations that occur through natural conditions in the guns output and then hold the owner responsible .

It seems not unreasonable to maintain tamper proof fittings so as to prevent the replacement of critical parts valve/regulator other than by  a professional and this was the first stage of changes but allow the fine tuning adjustment to be accessed by the owner to carry out their responsibilty. If unscrupulous individuals wanted to make the item dangerous the fine tuning element would not be very effective  .

Repeal Dangerous Dogs act

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs act and the "banned" status of some breeds.  All dogs can bite.  Repeal this useless legislation and introduce proper legislation to make the dog owners responsible for the actions of their dogs.  NB: the proposals for tagging/chipping of dogs won't work, as, in the main, law abiding people with dogs, who don't cause a problem, will get their dogs chipped, but those that cause a problem won't so it will not do any good whatsoever.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Dangerous Dogs act and the "banned" status of some breeds.  All dogs can bite.  Repeal this useless legislation and introduce proper legislation to make the dog owners responsible for the actions of their dogs.  NB: the proposals for tagging/chipping of dogs won't work, as, in the main, law abiding people with dogs, who don't cause a problem, will get their dogs chipped, but those that cause a problem won't so it will not do any good whatsoever.

Bring back corporal punishment

As there seems to no deterrent to minor criminal acts, as prison usually creates a martyr of anybody who receives a sentence. Bring back the CANE and use it for these types of crimes.

This seems old-fashioned but I never knew of anybody re-offending after receiving strokes from the cane.

Possibly introduce it’s use on a regular basis in prison (monthly), this would stop people from returning to prison. Do away with ASBOS and give the miscreants strokes with the cane- they will not be in such a hurry to re-offend.

Why is this idea important?

As there seems to no deterrent to minor criminal acts, as prison usually creates a martyr of anybody who receives a sentence. Bring back the CANE and use it for these types of crimes.

This seems old-fashioned but I never knew of anybody re-offending after receiving strokes from the cane.

Possibly introduce it’s use on a regular basis in prison (monthly), this would stop people from returning to prison. Do away with ASBOS and give the miscreants strokes with the cane- they will not be in such a hurry to re-offend.

Review of Human Rights Act

A review of the Human Rights Act to consider that there has to be a balance between an individual's human rights and those of any victims of crimes they perpetrate or could perpetrate.

Humans do need rights and morally we have to extend them to criminals. However, the pendulum has swung too far and people must be able to be held accountable for crimes they have committed, crimes they are enticing others to commit and also where clear common sense dictates that people are using and abusing the legal system.

Why is this idea important?

A review of the Human Rights Act to consider that there has to be a balance between an individual's human rights and those of any victims of crimes they perpetrate or could perpetrate.

Humans do need rights and morally we have to extend them to criminals. However, the pendulum has swung too far and people must be able to be held accountable for crimes they have committed, crimes they are enticing others to commit and also where clear common sense dictates that people are using and abusing the legal system.

Allow sex workers to work together for their own safety

The laws on prostitution are outdated and need reform. While it is legal for a person to accept money in exchange for sexual services, it is only legal if there is noone else in the premises.

If two or more people work together then the law classes the premises as a brothel and that is illegal.

Not all prostitutes are forced into the profession against their will, many enter into it freely and willingly despite the impression given in some parts of the media. These workers have the right to work safely and without fear of attack

I know that any proposals to liberalise the laws on prostitution will be met with moral outrage in some sections of the press but in my view, people's safety must come first

Why is this idea important?

The laws on prostitution are outdated and need reform. While it is legal for a person to accept money in exchange for sexual services, it is only legal if there is noone else in the premises.

If two or more people work together then the law classes the premises as a brothel and that is illegal.

Not all prostitutes are forced into the profession against their will, many enter into it freely and willingly despite the impression given in some parts of the media. These workers have the right to work safely and without fear of attack

I know that any proposals to liberalise the laws on prostitution will be met with moral outrage in some sections of the press but in my view, people's safety must come first

Self Protection

I think that individuals should have the right to defend themselves against personal attack – with reasonable force – and also to make a citizens arrest with, or without, reasonable force when their homes are invaded by burglars, without the fear of recrimination by the perpetrator.  Anyone committing such offences should forfeit their rights to seek redress against the innocent party.  We should return to the idea that "an Englishman's home is his castle" – this idea to include their person.

Why is this idea important?

I think that individuals should have the right to defend themselves against personal attack – with reasonable force – and also to make a citizens arrest with, or without, reasonable force when their homes are invaded by burglars, without the fear of recrimination by the perpetrator.  Anyone committing such offences should forfeit their rights to seek redress against the innocent party.  We should return to the idea that "an Englishman's home is his castle" – this idea to include their person.

Invert Speed Cameras

i like the US recycle bank idea where people get paid to recycle, taking this approach to motoring we could invert speed cameras so that every time you drive past one you gain points on your nectar card for going at the right speed

 

reward people instead of fining them, its much more fun

Why is this idea important?

i like the US recycle bank idea where people get paid to recycle, taking this approach to motoring we could invert speed cameras so that every time you drive past one you gain points on your nectar card for going at the right speed

 

reward people instead of fining them, its much more fun

Legalising not legalizing drugs.

I have paracetamols at home which can be dangerous but no one comes and breaks my door also I like the comment of the person who spoke of poisonous flowers in peoples gardens no one does anything about. But I doubt any policy won’t come with it’s own problems, you could get lots of people on mind altering drugs surely not agreeing with those who aren’t on any. If you put a tax there will be a black market too. If you legalize them the nhs would suffer and if you put a limit on consumption they ‘ ll find it funny

Why is this idea important?

I have paracetamols at home which can be dangerous but no one comes and breaks my door also I like the comment of the person who spoke of poisonous flowers in peoples gardens no one does anything about. But I doubt any policy won’t come with it’s own problems, you could get lots of people on mind altering drugs surely not agreeing with those who aren’t on any. If you put a tax there will be a black market too. If you legalize them the nhs would suffer and if you put a limit on consumption they ‘ ll find it funny

remove non nationals that transgress the law

People that transgress the law that are not born in the UK should not serve time in British prisons and cost the british taxpayer money, they should be removed to the country of birth

Why is this idea important?

People that transgress the law that are not born in the UK should not serve time in British prisons and cost the british taxpayer money, they should be removed to the country of birth

Repeal laws that deny equal civil rights to disabled people

Repeal section 21ZA of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, and also repeal the equivalent sections from the Equality Act 2010.

This sections permit airlines, cruise liners and ferries to discriminate against disabled people by refusing them carriage even when there is no safety justification whatsoever for the less favourable treatment.

This would give disabled people the same right not to be discriminated against when travelling by air or sea as they already enjoy when using any other method of transport.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal section 21ZA of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, and also repeal the equivalent sections from the Equality Act 2010.

This sections permit airlines, cruise liners and ferries to discriminate against disabled people by refusing them carriage even when there is no safety justification whatsoever for the less favourable treatment.

This would give disabled people the same right not to be discriminated against when travelling by air or sea as they already enjoy when using any other method of transport.

Anti Social Policy

Dear Sir/Madam, in the last en years there seems to have been a surge in the amount of offences committed by youths. Various ideas to tackle this problem have failed. Because the tactics used to not work on the youths comitting them. Asbos are worn as badges of honour. However I believe I know what would indeed work. If a anti-social crime is commited by an individual then any benefit they receive or whomever they live with receives is cut for one week. This would surely make these kids wake up and think twice before commiting such acts again.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir/Madam, in the last en years there seems to have been a surge in the amount of offences committed by youths. Various ideas to tackle this problem have failed. Because the tactics used to not work on the youths comitting them. Asbos are worn as badges of honour. However I believe I know what would indeed work. If a anti-social crime is commited by an individual then any benefit they receive or whomever they live with receives is cut for one week. This would surely make these kids wake up and think twice before commiting such acts again.

Let foreign students back in!

The Border Agency has recently changed its entry requirements for foreign students so that only those with a high level of English can come in to the country to study. This is supposed to be an 'anti-terrorism' and illegal immigration measure which will only affect  'bogus' colleges.

Why is this idea important?

The Border Agency has recently changed its entry requirements for foreign students so that only those with a high level of English can come in to the country to study. This is supposed to be an 'anti-terrorism' and illegal immigration measure which will only affect  'bogus' colleges.

Revoke the law that allows court bailiffs to break into your home.

Revoke the law that allows court bailiffs (different to debt collectors) to break and enter someones home (not necessarily the person who accumulated the debts as they may have moved home) to take possessions to the value of the debt.  At the moment innocent people are being victimised by debt collectors and bailiffs because the previous tenant in their home accumulated debts.

Why is this idea important?

Revoke the law that allows court bailiffs (different to debt collectors) to break and enter someones home (not necessarily the person who accumulated the debts as they may have moved home) to take possessions to the value of the debt.  At the moment innocent people are being victimised by debt collectors and bailiffs because the previous tenant in their home accumulated debts.

Nip the Equality (anti-men) legislation in the bud

Stop the introduction of the proposed laws scrutinising the average wage paid to women, as opposed to men.

Why say you are cutting down on pointless legislation and then propose this nonsense?

As someone has already pointed out, average earnings based on sex does not reflect the numbers in top jobs. The problem is that women have more fractured careers and therefore have less experience. They are also more likely to take lower paid (ie less skilled or less responsibility) or part time.

My wife doesn't WANT full time work. She doesn't WANT a stressful job and so deliberately takes work at £8 ph – when she could easily do work at £15-20 ph … but which would give her an ulcer.

Why bully employers to pay women over the odds? Why pay someone with 2 years experience the same as someone with 25 years – just because they are a woman? This discriminates against men (and their women partners!) because it will tend to  reduce their wages.

Why would the market pay an individual more because he is a man? Or less because she is a woman? The price mechanism is not that stupid.

Bin this legislation – drafted by those who profess to be gender neutral but who are determined to continue driving a wedge between men and women, undermining society.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the introduction of the proposed laws scrutinising the average wage paid to women, as opposed to men.

Why say you are cutting down on pointless legislation and then propose this nonsense?

As someone has already pointed out, average earnings based on sex does not reflect the numbers in top jobs. The problem is that women have more fractured careers and therefore have less experience. They are also more likely to take lower paid (ie less skilled or less responsibility) or part time.

My wife doesn't WANT full time work. She doesn't WANT a stressful job and so deliberately takes work at £8 ph – when she could easily do work at £15-20 ph … but which would give her an ulcer.

Why bully employers to pay women over the odds? Why pay someone with 2 years experience the same as someone with 25 years – just because they are a woman? This discriminates against men (and their women partners!) because it will tend to  reduce their wages.

Why would the market pay an individual more because he is a man? Or less because she is a woman? The price mechanism is not that stupid.

Bin this legislation – drafted by those who profess to be gender neutral but who are determined to continue driving a wedge between men and women, undermining society.

Knife laws are stupid and infringe on fishermen and hunters.

Yes i want to carry a hunting knife when i go hunting illegal or not yet if i carry a fixed blade or locking knife over 3 inches out of the house i am imediatelly criminalised i want these laws scrapped.

Why is this idea important?

Yes i want to carry a hunting knife when i go hunting illegal or not yet if i carry a fixed blade or locking knife over 3 inches out of the house i am imediatelly criminalised i want these laws scrapped.

prevent children aged 10 and over becoming schedule one offenders




As the current law stands any person over age 10 who harms a child,  if found guilty by the Court can be charged under the schedule one offence which remains on their record for life.

The term schedual one offender has since been changed to "risk to children". Unlike the sex offender, it this status means any harm to a child including

  • Any offence involving bodily injury to a person under 18

Why is this idea important?




As the current law stands any person over age 10 who harms a child,  if found guilty by the Court can be charged under the schedule one offence which remains on their record for life.

The term schedual one offender has since been changed to "risk to children". Unlike the sex offender, it this status means any harm to a child including

  • Any offence involving bodily injury to a person under 18

Repeal the ban on TAC airguns (ie: Brocock)

Part 5 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 added airguns that use a self-contained air cartridge system to Section 5 of the Firearms Act, alongside real handguns, thus made practically totally illegal. Only around 1500 were surrendered and 6000 put on a firearm license. BASC estimates that around 68000 are still in circulation, the owners of which will face prosecution should they be found in possession or decide to hand them in to the police. Essentially, somewhere near 70000 new criminals were created overnight. Another 'feel-good' law that achieved nothing but the destruction of people's hobbies and property.

Why is this idea important?

Part 5 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 added airguns that use a self-contained air cartridge system to Section 5 of the Firearms Act, alongside real handguns, thus made practically totally illegal. Only around 1500 were surrendered and 6000 put on a firearm license. BASC estimates that around 68000 are still in circulation, the owners of which will face prosecution should they be found in possession or decide to hand them in to the police. Essentially, somewhere near 70000 new criminals were created overnight. Another 'feel-good' law that achieved nothing but the destruction of people's hobbies and property.

Burglars Rights

I know burglars are human beings and it doesn't mean that they have any less rights – but by intently breaking into someone's property (and therefore disregarding others rights i.e privacy) it doesn't seem fair that their rights are defendable just as much as a citizen who respects others rights. surely a society that is better is one where everybody respects everybody – therefore a burglar wouldn't contribute holistically to a better society. i believe a deterrent to this is if the burglar doesn't have as many rights as they have today – therefore reducing the amount of burglars and the increasing the contribution towards a better society.

i'm not a lawyer and don't know any loopholes or cases but you do hear of those where a burglar injure his toe or falls on something sharp when breaking in and claims against the owner of the property. other laws have received criticism for not allowing an owner of a home to react against a criminal intruder OR making the owner feel like they cannot react because if they do they will be subject to the judicial system. 

to conclude, i believe that burglars should have less rights than they do currently. although killing another human is wrong – owners should have more rights against intruders; such as reasonable force or harm, i.e being able to hurt an intruders arm or leg in order to disarm them or encourage them to leave or use force to hold them until police arrive. not only this but any accidental harm a burglar experiences would be seen as there own fault as it was there decision to break into a property. finally, i propose that an owner isn't scrutinized because they may keep an object of protection with them in their bedroom – it may be forward planned but it doesn't mean they WANT to use it.

Why is this idea important?

I know burglars are human beings and it doesn't mean that they have any less rights – but by intently breaking into someone's property (and therefore disregarding others rights i.e privacy) it doesn't seem fair that their rights are defendable just as much as a citizen who respects others rights. surely a society that is better is one where everybody respects everybody – therefore a burglar wouldn't contribute holistically to a better society. i believe a deterrent to this is if the burglar doesn't have as many rights as they have today – therefore reducing the amount of burglars and the increasing the contribution towards a better society.

i'm not a lawyer and don't know any loopholes or cases but you do hear of those where a burglar injure his toe or falls on something sharp when breaking in and claims against the owner of the property. other laws have received criticism for not allowing an owner of a home to react against a criminal intruder OR making the owner feel like they cannot react because if they do they will be subject to the judicial system. 

to conclude, i believe that burglars should have less rights than they do currently. although killing another human is wrong – owners should have more rights against intruders; such as reasonable force or harm, i.e being able to hurt an intruders arm or leg in order to disarm them or encourage them to leave or use force to hold them until police arrive. not only this but any accidental harm a burglar experiences would be seen as there own fault as it was there decision to break into a property. finally, i propose that an owner isn't scrutinized because they may keep an object of protection with them in their bedroom – it may be forward planned but it doesn't mean they WANT to use it.

De-criminalise carrying of knives, but…

A four-year sentence for carrying a knife is ridiculous; no judge could recommend that and the kids know it. But there should be a penalty for threatening someone with a knife, even if no knife is visible.

Why is this idea important?

A four-year sentence for carrying a knife is ridiculous; no judge could recommend that and the kids know it. But there should be a penalty for threatening someone with a knife, even if no knife is visible.

repeal music licensing laws

As a musician I have watched my work  diminish as government interference through the complex procedure of music licensing has led to venues simply giving up live music. This coupled with the complete smoking ban has had a disastrous effect on the entertainment industry and coupled with the closure of 50 potential venues a week has literally robbed many musicians and entertainers of their livelihood. Now I know Ken Clarke is a keen jazz fan and I am sure that he would agree that anything that restricts live entertainment like this should be scrapped,because many budding musicians first experiences of live performance is often in pubs. In Ireland musicians can get together and provide inpromptu entertainment in a hostelry with no restrictions,this is impossible in England today.The law that restricts musical activity should be scrapped.

Why is this idea important?

As a musician I have watched my work  diminish as government interference through the complex procedure of music licensing has led to venues simply giving up live music. This coupled with the complete smoking ban has had a disastrous effect on the entertainment industry and coupled with the closure of 50 potential venues a week has literally robbed many musicians and entertainers of their livelihood. Now I know Ken Clarke is a keen jazz fan and I am sure that he would agree that anything that restricts live entertainment like this should be scrapped,because many budding musicians first experiences of live performance is often in pubs. In Ireland musicians can get together and provide inpromptu entertainment in a hostelry with no restrictions,this is impossible in England today.The law that restricts musical activity should be scrapped.

Non Resident Landlord’s Duty of Care to Neighbours.

In the area in which I live, which is a tourist area, there are a lot of flats and bed and breakfast accomodation amongst people trying to make a living from Guest Houses.  From time to time miscreants and anti social people are housed in these properties by various agencies.    When these people act in an anti social way there does not seem to be an easy way of dealing with a) the person or b) the landlord.  I think that the laws need to be looked at to help the long suffering residents, and Guest House owners, do something about these properties.

Why is this idea important?

In the area in which I live, which is a tourist area, there are a lot of flats and bed and breakfast accomodation amongst people trying to make a living from Guest Houses.  From time to time miscreants and anti social people are housed in these properties by various agencies.    When these people act in an anti social way there does not seem to be an easy way of dealing with a) the person or b) the landlord.  I think that the laws need to be looked at to help the long suffering residents, and Guest House owners, do something about these properties.

CRB checks are too elaborate and don’t work

CRB checking legislation, a bureaucrat's wet dream, was introduced in the wake of anti-paedophile hysteria and if I doubt if it has actually protected more than a tiny handful of children, while causing inconvenience and expense to literally millions of caring people.   I do not belittle pedophilia, having met a few paedophiles in the line of my professional work: their seeming normality and moral blindness is scary and vigilance is certainly called for.  However, children are not at risk from the sort of people who will honestly and painstaking fill in a CRB form.  They are at risk from the sort of people who will give false information on a CRB form, which is then worthless; from the sort of offenders who are clever enough to have avoided arrest and conviction for their crimes of abuse; or – particularly – from family members who will not have been asked to fill in a CRB form in the first place.

Obviously there needs to be a sex offenders register and employers need to know if any of their staff are on it.  So a simple form is required that allows them to ask the police if that is so. And that's it.  And you only need to be checked once, or at periodic intervals, by one authority.  I am CRB checked for work.  I now need to be CRB checked again for a voluntary organisation; – why?  What is that organisation going to find out that isn't already known about me?  I might feel different if I had something to hide, but then one check would expose my secret, if I had one.

So, simplify the system, end all the duplication of form-filling but above all: let's see the evidence that CRB checking has done anything to protect children or curb pedophilia.  There's an ongoing protest against Catholic priests, some of whom have abused children for years.  Question, if CRB checking had been in place would it have exposed or prevented their misdemeanours?  Of course not, because all a CRB check does is establish whether you have been convicted of any offence – but these priests, with the collusion of Mother Church and sometimes even the victims themselves, have gone to great pains to ensure that their abuse has never come to light.

Why is this idea important?

CRB checking legislation, a bureaucrat's wet dream, was introduced in the wake of anti-paedophile hysteria and if I doubt if it has actually protected more than a tiny handful of children, while causing inconvenience and expense to literally millions of caring people.   I do not belittle pedophilia, having met a few paedophiles in the line of my professional work: their seeming normality and moral blindness is scary and vigilance is certainly called for.  However, children are not at risk from the sort of people who will honestly and painstaking fill in a CRB form.  They are at risk from the sort of people who will give false information on a CRB form, which is then worthless; from the sort of offenders who are clever enough to have avoided arrest and conviction for their crimes of abuse; or – particularly – from family members who will not have been asked to fill in a CRB form in the first place.

Obviously there needs to be a sex offenders register and employers need to know if any of their staff are on it.  So a simple form is required that allows them to ask the police if that is so. And that's it.  And you only need to be checked once, or at periodic intervals, by one authority.  I am CRB checked for work.  I now need to be CRB checked again for a voluntary organisation; – why?  What is that organisation going to find out that isn't already known about me?  I might feel different if I had something to hide, but then one check would expose my secret, if I had one.

So, simplify the system, end all the duplication of form-filling but above all: let's see the evidence that CRB checking has done anything to protect children or curb pedophilia.  There's an ongoing protest against Catholic priests, some of whom have abused children for years.  Question, if CRB checking had been in place would it have exposed or prevented their misdemeanours?  Of course not, because all a CRB check does is establish whether you have been convicted of any offence – but these priests, with the collusion of Mother Church and sometimes even the victims themselves, have gone to great pains to ensure that their abuse has never come to light.

Right of each and every child born in UK to know his/her biological parents

I believe the very first right of a child is being able to know who his or her biological parents (i stress parents, both man and woman) are. I can understand that there are exceptional circumstances like rape in which case the identity of one parent may be concealed from the child.

 

It is weird that we live in an age where we have the right to know details as to who manufactured a product worth less than a pound. However, a child born outside wedlock is in the dark as to the two individuals responsible for his/her birth, unless born to a married couple or those in civil partnership.

 

Current Law: As i understand, under current UK (and i presume most of Europe) law, if a couple is married or in civil partnership both parents have to register their names as parents of the child. However, if the couple is neither in marriage nor civil partnership, the mother has the right to decide whether or not to include the father's (man) name.

 

My Petition: My conviction and argument is that each and every child (irrespective of whether he or she is born to parents who are married, in civil partnership or neither) has the right to know both biological parents. I know in many cases the mother may herself not know who the father is but shouldn't every effort be made under law to ensure that every child born in this country (and hopefully in the world) knows both biological parents? Does not the right of the child in this case supersede the rights of one parent who does not wish to disclose the information about the other parent? I use the term mother and father for everyone who has a child.

 

In a nutshell, are we not discriminating against children born outside wedlock or civil partnership by letting their mother choose whether or not to disclose the father's name? Also, it is possibly a discrimination against women as well in that they are forced to have parental responsibility of a child whereas the father (man) goes scot-free.

 

In cases where the woman fears her or the child’s safety, the man (father) should lose the privilege of having contact with either of them but continue to bear the responsibility of supporting the child just as it happens in certain divorce cases. This way the child’s expenses is taken care first by his/her biological or adopted parents and only in exceptional cases by others. This would also reduce burden of the taxpayer as there will be no single parent anymore as even if the second parent of the child is not physically present, he/she will be forced to support the maintenance of the child, just as a divorced parent would.

I believe if this is set right, a lot of social ills blighting our society will be a thing of the past.

Why is this idea important?

I believe the very first right of a child is being able to know who his or her biological parents (i stress parents, both man and woman) are. I can understand that there are exceptional circumstances like rape in which case the identity of one parent may be concealed from the child.

 

It is weird that we live in an age where we have the right to know details as to who manufactured a product worth less than a pound. However, a child born outside wedlock is in the dark as to the two individuals responsible for his/her birth, unless born to a married couple or those in civil partnership.

 

Current Law: As i understand, under current UK (and i presume most of Europe) law, if a couple is married or in civil partnership both parents have to register their names as parents of the child. However, if the couple is neither in marriage nor civil partnership, the mother has the right to decide whether or not to include the father's (man) name.

 

My Petition: My conviction and argument is that each and every child (irrespective of whether he or she is born to parents who are married, in civil partnership or neither) has the right to know both biological parents. I know in many cases the mother may herself not know who the father is but shouldn't every effort be made under law to ensure that every child born in this country (and hopefully in the world) knows both biological parents? Does not the right of the child in this case supersede the rights of one parent who does not wish to disclose the information about the other parent? I use the term mother and father for everyone who has a child.

 

In a nutshell, are we not discriminating against children born outside wedlock or civil partnership by letting their mother choose whether or not to disclose the father's name? Also, it is possibly a discrimination against women as well in that they are forced to have parental responsibility of a child whereas the father (man) goes scot-free.

 

In cases where the woman fears her or the child’s safety, the man (father) should lose the privilege of having contact with either of them but continue to bear the responsibility of supporting the child just as it happens in certain divorce cases. This way the child’s expenses is taken care first by his/her biological or adopted parents and only in exceptional cases by others. This would also reduce burden of the taxpayer as there will be no single parent anymore as even if the second parent of the child is not physically present, he/she will be forced to support the maintenance of the child, just as a divorced parent would.

I believe if this is set right, a lot of social ills blighting our society will be a thing of the past.