Repeal the obscene publication act

This supposes that adult public must be protected from material that may  tend to deprave or  corrupt them.  Yet the same material is openly published in many other countries without anyone becoming depraved or corrupted. Offending material has been  available through the internet  and satellite TV for decades, and has not resulted in the mass populous  being depraved  or  corrupted.

Why is this idea important?

This supposes that adult public must be protected from material that may  tend to deprave or  corrupt them.  Yet the same material is openly published in many other countries without anyone becoming depraved or corrupted. Offending material has been  available through the internet  and satellite TV for decades, and has not resulted in the mass populous  being depraved  or  corrupted.

Ethical and impartial accountability of the police

This is not an idea it is an absolute must. The police must be subjected to more accountability and must have transparent penalties for misconduct. The police are almost impossible to remove whatever the offence. They are regularly subjected to "words of advice" for even serious misconduct or incompetence and this isn't even a discilinary sanction. The current system actually perpetuates and reinforces police misconduct and does not deal with it at all. The IPCC are almost always seen as biased by anyone who comes into contact with it. However the IPCC prefers to only ask people their opinion who have heard of it which is very, very different. Thus creating a massively misleading set of statistics which are shouted from the rooftops by the IPCC. This is basically the way that the IPCC operates in practice as regards police scrutiny. The default position of the police now is to vitually "non investigate" citizen allegations and take a chance at the IPCC on appeal. The IPCC almost invariably come down on the side of the police resulting in a very disgruntled complainant. There is absolutely no incentive for the police in any force to investigate complaints properly, ethically or even honestly because they almost always get a result from the IPCC. This is why the organisation is so overstretched at almost every level. Almost every investigation by the police ends up with some kind of appeal to the IPCC. Then the appeal is not dealt with properly because the IPCC are so overstretched because of their own previous failings. The whole system is retrograde and needs strengthening throughout in the public interest.

The law needs toughening up surrounding the IPCC and it has to be implemented quickly. The ideal position would be appropriate, reasonable, proper and ethical investigations by the police. This will never happen which is why the IPCC is in existence in the first place. However there is no incentive to the police to do any of this because the IPCC is so toothless and biased by default. This quango is essential in a democracy but it needs to be better, more impartial and stronger. One example of intrinsic bias that has to be addressed surrounds appeal documentation. The IPCC by default automatically sends the full appeal and full evidential documentation provided with the appeal to the force in question. However the appellant is not told this and the available IPCC publications actually mislead. Then the appellant is not even allowed to see the response from the police to the appeal and has no knowledge of what weight is given to it by the IPCC or even whether the police response is the truth. Effectively the police are given two bites at the cherry in a supposedly impartial and independent appeal by the IPCC. That is just one example of a procedural and systemic bias against the complainant at the IPCC. This contributes to a massive proportion of good appeals being rejected. This inbuilt type of bias has to be stopped by statute. An organisation cannot be impartial when the respondent gets two bites at the cherry and the appellant one.

Why is this idea important?

This is not an idea it is an absolute must. The police must be subjected to more accountability and must have transparent penalties for misconduct. The police are almost impossible to remove whatever the offence. They are regularly subjected to "words of advice" for even serious misconduct or incompetence and this isn't even a discilinary sanction. The current system actually perpetuates and reinforces police misconduct and does not deal with it at all. The IPCC are almost always seen as biased by anyone who comes into contact with it. However the IPCC prefers to only ask people their opinion who have heard of it which is very, very different. Thus creating a massively misleading set of statistics which are shouted from the rooftops by the IPCC. This is basically the way that the IPCC operates in practice as regards police scrutiny. The default position of the police now is to vitually "non investigate" citizen allegations and take a chance at the IPCC on appeal. The IPCC almost invariably come down on the side of the police resulting in a very disgruntled complainant. There is absolutely no incentive for the police in any force to investigate complaints properly, ethically or even honestly because they almost always get a result from the IPCC. This is why the organisation is so overstretched at almost every level. Almost every investigation by the police ends up with some kind of appeal to the IPCC. Then the appeal is not dealt with properly because the IPCC are so overstretched because of their own previous failings. The whole system is retrograde and needs strengthening throughout in the public interest.

The law needs toughening up surrounding the IPCC and it has to be implemented quickly. The ideal position would be appropriate, reasonable, proper and ethical investigations by the police. This will never happen which is why the IPCC is in existence in the first place. However there is no incentive to the police to do any of this because the IPCC is so toothless and biased by default. This quango is essential in a democracy but it needs to be better, more impartial and stronger. One example of intrinsic bias that has to be addressed surrounds appeal documentation. The IPCC by default automatically sends the full appeal and full evidential documentation provided with the appeal to the force in question. However the appellant is not told this and the available IPCC publications actually mislead. Then the appellant is not even allowed to see the response from the police to the appeal and has no knowledge of what weight is given to it by the IPCC or even whether the police response is the truth. Effectively the police are given two bites at the cherry in a supposedly impartial and independent appeal by the IPCC. That is just one example of a procedural and systemic bias against the complainant at the IPCC. This contributes to a massive proportion of good appeals being rejected. This inbuilt type of bias has to be stopped by statute. An organisation cannot be impartial when the respondent gets two bites at the cherry and the appellant one.

reinstate firearms act 1968

As the Firearms Act 1968 was never inforced correctly, both the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies occured, which resulted in two over reactionary legislation changes, resulting after Dunblane with the ban on handgun ownership.

Why is this idea important?

As the Firearms Act 1968 was never inforced correctly, both the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies occured, which resulted in two over reactionary legislation changes, resulting after Dunblane with the ban on handgun ownership.

PC laws

Repeal the sexual orientation regulations which forced catholic adoption agencies to close. Repeal the gender recognition act. Repeal the that part of the human fertilisation regulations which dropped the the need for a father in a child's life. Drop the equality bill in how it affects churches. Drop the smoking ban in pubs.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the sexual orientation regulations which forced catholic adoption agencies to close. Repeal the gender recognition act. Repeal the that part of the human fertilisation regulations which dropped the the need for a father in a child's life. Drop the equality bill in how it affects churches. Drop the smoking ban in pubs.

Make the path to citizenship fair, clear and transparent

The government should re-examine the previous government's proposals regarding the path to gaining UK citizenship. These introduced the idea of "probationary" citizenship and the fast-tracking of applications by those who had been deemed to perform community service. However no definition of what will be regarded as appropriate community service has been forthcoming from either the current or previous government leaving those currently on the path to citizenship confused and embittered. The path to gaining UK citizenship should be aspirational and positive yet it has turned into a legalistic, expensive, bureaucratically opaque and negative journey for those currently contributing to this society and seeking to become permanent members of the British family.

The government should scrap the requirement for community service as no such requirement exists for existing UK citizens, thereby creating a two-tiered notion of citizenship. It should also bear in mind that existing community based organisations are in no place to deal with the (likely cyclical and short term) volunteering that would result under such a scheme and nor are they experts in providing community or civics education. The requirement for community service will also act as a severe disincentive for highly skilled professionals to make the commitment of becoming UK nationals (and potentially long-term UK taxpayers).

Why is this idea important?

The government should re-examine the previous government's proposals regarding the path to gaining UK citizenship. These introduced the idea of "probationary" citizenship and the fast-tracking of applications by those who had been deemed to perform community service. However no definition of what will be regarded as appropriate community service has been forthcoming from either the current or previous government leaving those currently on the path to citizenship confused and embittered. The path to gaining UK citizenship should be aspirational and positive yet it has turned into a legalistic, expensive, bureaucratically opaque and negative journey for those currently contributing to this society and seeking to become permanent members of the British family.

The government should scrap the requirement for community service as no such requirement exists for existing UK citizens, thereby creating a two-tiered notion of citizenship. It should also bear in mind that existing community based organisations are in no place to deal with the (likely cyclical and short term) volunteering that would result under such a scheme and nor are they experts in providing community or civics education. The requirement for community service will also act as a severe disincentive for highly skilled professionals to make the commitment of becoming UK nationals (and potentially long-term UK taxpayers).

Police Cautions Need an Urgent Review

Up until recently a Police caution stood for five years and then it came off. Now in my own case I have a police caution for assault based purely on the say so of the alleged assaultee- and it appears that it stands not for five years but for life.

Now, I am about to finish a degree and start my career which is now severely hampered by this unjustified caution and for the rest of my life I have to explain this asault that i did not commit to potential empolyers again on the say so of someone I ended a relationship with and who thought it a fitting act of revenge to get me this caution.

Surely given the nature of a caution, i.e its a pretty flimsy non event that doesnt warrant court action, hampering a persons career for life when there is the distinct possibility of innocence, is just wrong?

It is wrong, we all know its wrong. Limiting it to 5 years would adequately act as a deterrent for those that commit minor offences but a lifetime caution is a punishment for life based on flimsy and questionable evidence and decided by the hunches of two police officers.

I would reccomend changing this.

 

Why is this idea important?

Up until recently a Police caution stood for five years and then it came off. Now in my own case I have a police caution for assault based purely on the say so of the alleged assaultee- and it appears that it stands not for five years but for life.

Now, I am about to finish a degree and start my career which is now severely hampered by this unjustified caution and for the rest of my life I have to explain this asault that i did not commit to potential empolyers again on the say so of someone I ended a relationship with and who thought it a fitting act of revenge to get me this caution.

Surely given the nature of a caution, i.e its a pretty flimsy non event that doesnt warrant court action, hampering a persons career for life when there is the distinct possibility of innocence, is just wrong?

It is wrong, we all know its wrong. Limiting it to 5 years would adequately act as a deterrent for those that commit minor offences but a lifetime caution is a punishment for life based on flimsy and questionable evidence and decided by the hunches of two police officers.

I would reccomend changing this.

 

Revoke Sarah’s Law, The Children’s Act (2004) et al

Much of the rhetoric governing all things child abuse evolves from roots borne out of the Feminist movement of the 1960's.  As a result, it is almost impossible to effectively challenge any degree of thinking that contradicts or conflicts with what is stated as a given today.  For example, in the climate of fear which now exists if a child is murdered, the instant national hysteria that erupts is fuelled not by a media clamouring for something newsworthy but largely by those who claim to be 'campaigners' for children's rights/issues.

The list includes the NSPCC, Barnado's, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (most notably Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall), and the children's charity set up by Michele Elliott, Kidscape, as well as several other individuals – including Esther Rantzen and Sara Payne.  Together, we are informed by them that child abuse or child death is akin to a nightmare being visited upon us all and one from which there is no escape.  Collectively, we shirk back in fear, because the words come from credible sources.  So we dare not challenge them.

Over the past 20-30 years, these once respected organisations, along with some of the newer ones, have been in receipt of ever-growing state funding, (actual amounts to be found  in accounts submitted to the Charities Commission on an annual basis) and this is overlooked on the basis that children are being protected.  But what are children being protected from?  And why are they being protected?  What is this danger that now exists?  What happened a generation ago that seemingly eradicated common-sense and replaced it with a mindset that now wishes to submit Society to evermore stringent requirements, so much so that no-one can be seen to be innocent, without first be able to prove it?  Of equal importance, is that as state funding increases, these organisations and individuals have become evermore duplicitious given that any independence they once enjoyed has been so compromised.

Child abuse is real.  For those of us who know what it feels like, there is no doubt that it influences our lives.  But so what?  There are many, many people, children included, who have experienced far worse, such as the death of a parent, or no parents, yet scant if any attention is afforded them.  Instead, we substitute reason with an alarmist modus operandi bordering on vigilantiism at times – for the sake of 50 – 200 children a year who die at the hands of adults, depending on the accuracy of figures used.

It is this lack of perspective that gives rise to laws that never should have come into being; such as the Children's Act of 1989, given Royal Assent in 2004, and later, Sarah's Law, indirectly as a result of the death of Sarah Payne.  What is not acknowledged is that there is no law which ever could prevent all child deaths, any more than murder can be prevented, or rape can be, or that drug addiction can be fully eradicated.  Yet we allow ourselves to be collectively misled by those who suggest that 'if only' we adopted 'this law' or 'that criminal check', then such pain could be avoided.  It cannot – and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.  The best any of us can hope to achieve is to perhaps ameliorate the level of child abuse but we cannot and never will eradicate it, and nor should we seek to do so as it is this wrongful degree of emphasis that gives rise to the fear of paedophilia that we see today.  There should be a level of acceptance that at some point that acknowledges our limits and abilities, and it is because we do not have such limits that we then have expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

What if many of the laws and checks now in place actually contribute to a rise in children being harmed?  What if, in their constant competition to win public support, bodies such as the NSPCC and Barnado's have gone too far with 'raising people's awareness'?  That instead of gently letting the population know they are there should people require their support, they realised that they were being left behind when a more aggressive stance was adopted by some, such as Esther Rantzen and Michele Elliott?  Who, between them have succeeded in raising people's awareness so acutely that most adults are terrified, lest they step out of line by doing something as innocuous as taking a photograph of their children in a park for example.  This is not raising awareness, it may have been once, twenty-five years ago but it has morphed into a zealousness bordering on obsession. 

We are encouraged to teach our children that we – that they must not discriminate.  We do this in part, because of the growing numbers of immigrants within our population and we do not want to be seen to be intolerant of them.  Yet those who teach such rhetoric fail on two counts.  They first do not understand what the original problem is, if any and secondly, make pronouncements based upon biased thinking.  Long before it became 'illegal' to discriminate, we all got along pretty nicely.  The English hated the Irish and the Scots and the Welsh for one reason or another and the Irish, Scots and Welsh all hated the English.  It worked quite well for hundreds of years, until we are told, that it is a criminal offence to say that we hated one or the other.

The result is that children are now not taught how to discriminate because it is seen as a 'dirty' word.  One consequence is that children are now collectively so immature that their age of maturity has been reduced by two years in the past 20 years.  This does little to prepare them for the world.  It may also give some insight as to why so many children seem to lose sight of all reason when on the internet – that because they do not discriminate, they no longer know how to in order to retain a basic level of safety.

Yet human survival is based upon an ability to distinguish between friend and foe.

To all the child abuse agencies and 'do-gooders' who want to 'help' – if the intent is genuine, it can best be achieved by leaving 'us' alone and instead focussing on that which hurts children most, for it is not child abuse, it is children's parents marriages breaking up or not having parents (i.e. mother and father) at all – this is far more devastating than any abuse and has far greater repercussions in later life.  Although it is widely known, this cultural shift over the last 30 years is rarely focussed on, for there are many more people who would then be 'guilty' of harming their children in this way than abuse by a paedophile ever could be.

An abuser may sometimes victimise children but it is the agencies and charities who ensure that children remain as victims.  Nasty things sometimes happen to some people, but victims do have a choice.  We can acknowledge (if not fully accept) what happens or we can fight it.  If we accept it, this leads to understanding and insight, sometimes forgiveness – but what is not forgiveable is those who tell us that it is acceptable to remain as victims. 

Even a paedophile does not leave this kind of stigma on those who have been abused.

Why is this idea important?

Much of the rhetoric governing all things child abuse evolves from roots borne out of the Feminist movement of the 1960's.  As a result, it is almost impossible to effectively challenge any degree of thinking that contradicts or conflicts with what is stated as a given today.  For example, in the climate of fear which now exists if a child is murdered, the instant national hysteria that erupts is fuelled not by a media clamouring for something newsworthy but largely by those who claim to be 'campaigners' for children's rights/issues.

The list includes the NSPCC, Barnado's, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (most notably Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall), and the children's charity set up by Michele Elliott, Kidscape, as well as several other individuals – including Esther Rantzen and Sara Payne.  Together, we are informed by them that child abuse or child death is akin to a nightmare being visited upon us all and one from which there is no escape.  Collectively, we shirk back in fear, because the words come from credible sources.  So we dare not challenge them.

Over the past 20-30 years, these once respected organisations, along with some of the newer ones, have been in receipt of ever-growing state funding, (actual amounts to be found  in accounts submitted to the Charities Commission on an annual basis) and this is overlooked on the basis that children are being protected.  But what are children being protected from?  And why are they being protected?  What is this danger that now exists?  What happened a generation ago that seemingly eradicated common-sense and replaced it with a mindset that now wishes to submit Society to evermore stringent requirements, so much so that no-one can be seen to be innocent, without first be able to prove it?  Of equal importance, is that as state funding increases, these organisations and individuals have become evermore duplicitious given that any independence they once enjoyed has been so compromised.

Child abuse is real.  For those of us who know what it feels like, there is no doubt that it influences our lives.  But so what?  There are many, many people, children included, who have experienced far worse, such as the death of a parent, or no parents, yet scant if any attention is afforded them.  Instead, we substitute reason with an alarmist modus operandi bordering on vigilantiism at times – for the sake of 50 – 200 children a year who die at the hands of adults, depending on the accuracy of figures used.

It is this lack of perspective that gives rise to laws that never should have come into being; such as the Children's Act of 1989, given Royal Assent in 2004, and later, Sarah's Law, indirectly as a result of the death of Sarah Payne.  What is not acknowledged is that there is no law which ever could prevent all child deaths, any more than murder can be prevented, or rape can be, or that drug addiction can be fully eradicated.  Yet we allow ourselves to be collectively misled by those who suggest that 'if only' we adopted 'this law' or 'that criminal check', then such pain could be avoided.  It cannot – and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.  The best any of us can hope to achieve is to perhaps ameliorate the level of child abuse but we cannot and never will eradicate it, and nor should we seek to do so as it is this wrongful degree of emphasis that gives rise to the fear of paedophilia that we see today.  There should be a level of acceptance that at some point that acknowledges our limits and abilities, and it is because we do not have such limits that we then have expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

What if many of the laws and checks now in place actually contribute to a rise in children being harmed?  What if, in their constant competition to win public support, bodies such as the NSPCC and Barnado's have gone too far with 'raising people's awareness'?  That instead of gently letting the population know they are there should people require their support, they realised that they were being left behind when a more aggressive stance was adopted by some, such as Esther Rantzen and Michele Elliott?  Who, between them have succeeded in raising people's awareness so acutely that most adults are terrified, lest they step out of line by doing something as innocuous as taking a photograph of their children in a park for example.  This is not raising awareness, it may have been once, twenty-five years ago but it has morphed into a zealousness bordering on obsession. 

We are encouraged to teach our children that we – that they must not discriminate.  We do this in part, because of the growing numbers of immigrants within our population and we do not want to be seen to be intolerant of them.  Yet those who teach such rhetoric fail on two counts.  They first do not understand what the original problem is, if any and secondly, make pronouncements based upon biased thinking.  Long before it became 'illegal' to discriminate, we all got along pretty nicely.  The English hated the Irish and the Scots and the Welsh for one reason or another and the Irish, Scots and Welsh all hated the English.  It worked quite well for hundreds of years, until we are told, that it is a criminal offence to say that we hated one or the other.

The result is that children are now not taught how to discriminate because it is seen as a 'dirty' word.  One consequence is that children are now collectively so immature that their age of maturity has been reduced by two years in the past 20 years.  This does little to prepare them for the world.  It may also give some insight as to why so many children seem to lose sight of all reason when on the internet – that because they do not discriminate, they no longer know how to in order to retain a basic level of safety.

Yet human survival is based upon an ability to distinguish between friend and foe.

To all the child abuse agencies and 'do-gooders' who want to 'help' – if the intent is genuine, it can best be achieved by leaving 'us' alone and instead focussing on that which hurts children most, for it is not child abuse, it is children's parents marriages breaking up or not having parents (i.e. mother and father) at all – this is far more devastating than any abuse and has far greater repercussions in later life.  Although it is widely known, this cultural shift over the last 30 years is rarely focussed on, for there are many more people who would then be 'guilty' of harming their children in this way than abuse by a paedophile ever could be.

An abuser may sometimes victimise children but it is the agencies and charities who ensure that children remain as victims.  Nasty things sometimes happen to some people, but victims do have a choice.  We can acknowledge (if not fully accept) what happens or we can fight it.  If we accept it, this leads to understanding and insight, sometimes forgiveness – but what is not forgiveable is those who tell us that it is acceptable to remain as victims. 

Even a paedophile does not leave this kind of stigma on those who have been abused.

Cut Police red tape so they can do their job without spending all their time filling in forms

Police red tape has increased massivly into the last 4 years. Police officers spending 50% of their time filling forms. As a result of this, social problems have grown all over the country.
Many people have forgotten how to be good neighbours & bare responsibility for their actions.
If police officers were able to spend more time on the street, social crime WOULD fall.
Police officers are constantly under attack for not doing the job in sorting out social crime, we are all responsible but the goverment we have had for the last 13 years have tied the hands of police forces all over they country.
Children in schools are taught, at the age of 10, what their rights are under arrest, as a result police officers are constantly ignored by young people.

Why is this idea important?

Police red tape has increased massivly into the last 4 years. Police officers spending 50% of their time filling forms. As a result of this, social problems have grown all over the country.
Many people have forgotten how to be good neighbours & bare responsibility for their actions.
If police officers were able to spend more time on the street, social crime WOULD fall.
Police officers are constantly under attack for not doing the job in sorting out social crime, we are all responsible but the goverment we have had for the last 13 years have tied the hands of police forces all over they country.
Children in schools are taught, at the age of 10, what their rights are under arrest, as a result police officers are constantly ignored by young people.

Stop outlawing drinking alcohol in a public place

Having a drink is not a crime. The current law is confusing: it is illegal to drink in a designated public place only after a police officer has told you not to. However, the way police officers use the law is confusing. They often tell you it is illegal to drink here, when it’s not true. They can often use the law to target young people. Confiscating alcohol, or worse, handing out £50 fixed penalty notices for disorder, ends up being a matter of prejudice and intimidation, rather than a legitimate way to stop anti-social behaviour. A group of people enjoying a quiet drink in a park is not a social problem, and should not be penalised in this way.

Why is this idea important?

Having a drink is not a crime. The current law is confusing: it is illegal to drink in a designated public place only after a police officer has told you not to. However, the way police officers use the law is confusing. They often tell you it is illegal to drink here, when it’s not true. They can often use the law to target young people. Confiscating alcohol, or worse, handing out £50 fixed penalty notices for disorder, ends up being a matter of prejudice and intimidation, rather than a legitimate way to stop anti-social behaviour. A group of people enjoying a quiet drink in a park is not a social problem, and should not be penalised in this way.

Repeal Religious Discrimination Employment Legislation

Of all of the employment discrimination legislation the protection of religious beleif is the only one that is about choice. Employees (or potential employees) are not able to choose their gender. age, race, sexual orientation etc and as such thses pieces of legislation are necessary. People choose their religious belief and, as such, should accept that all choice brings consequences.

This does not mean that I advocate any form of bullying, harrasment or other nasty things towards people who hold particular beliefs – this would all remain covered by other laws anyway. However, I do think we should have the right to consider a person's beliefs (if relevant) when making recruitment and career decisions about them.

Why is this idea important?

Of all of the employment discrimination legislation the protection of religious beleif is the only one that is about choice. Employees (or potential employees) are not able to choose their gender. age, race, sexual orientation etc and as such thses pieces of legislation are necessary. People choose their religious belief and, as such, should accept that all choice brings consequences.

This does not mean that I advocate any form of bullying, harrasment or other nasty things towards people who hold particular beliefs – this would all remain covered by other laws anyway. However, I do think we should have the right to consider a person's beliefs (if relevant) when making recruitment and career decisions about them.

Abolish the vetting and barring database

 

As one who undertakes voluntary tasks in the community I recognize that it is sensible that a check should be made against a database of convicted criminals to ensure that children and vulnerable adults are protected. However I see no reason why innocent people should be expected to be placed on a database which in effect says that they are acceptable but which nevertheless requires their details to be held. It is this idea which underlies the Vetting and Barring Database and I hope that you will consider abolishing this iniquitous and bureaucratic insult to decent people who only wish to give of their time for good causes.

Why is this idea important?

 

As one who undertakes voluntary tasks in the community I recognize that it is sensible that a check should be made against a database of convicted criminals to ensure that children and vulnerable adults are protected. However I see no reason why innocent people should be expected to be placed on a database which in effect says that they are acceptable but which nevertheless requires their details to be held. It is this idea which underlies the Vetting and Barring Database and I hope that you will consider abolishing this iniquitous and bureaucratic insult to decent people who only wish to give of their time for good causes.

Defending your property

The law should be tightened up about unwanted people on your property. You have the right under any circumstance to defend & protect your property and anybody on it that you consent to. Anybody going on to private property does so at thier own risk.

Why should you have to think if your actions will be within the law when you are being threatened or intimidated?

I know I wouldn't hesitate if my family or property were at risk.

Why is this idea important?

The law should be tightened up about unwanted people on your property. You have the right under any circumstance to defend & protect your property and anybody on it that you consent to. Anybody going on to private property does so at thier own risk.

Why should you have to think if your actions will be within the law when you are being threatened or intimidated?

I know I wouldn't hesitate if my family or property were at risk.

End Church-State Link

Repeal all laws and sub-sections of laws which create a formal tie between the established Church of England and the mechanisms of the State.

End the practice of Prime Ministers exercising the Royal Prerogative to appoint senior church officials

Remove the right of Bishops to sit in the House of Lords

End the state recognition of marriage and strike out all reference to marriage in any act of parliament.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all laws and sub-sections of laws which create a formal tie between the established Church of England and the mechanisms of the State.

End the practice of Prime Ministers exercising the Royal Prerogative to appoint senior church officials

Remove the right of Bishops to sit in the House of Lords

End the state recognition of marriage and strike out all reference to marriage in any act of parliament.

Revoke the decision to keep the post mortem results for the death of Dr. David Kelly to be kept secret for 70 years.

Important information regarding the death of weapons expert, Dr David Kelly will not be revealed for 70 years.

It is claimed by doctors that he could not have comitted suicide.

With the Iraq enquiry now on going again, this man's death should be properly investigated.

Why is this idea important?

Important information regarding the death of weapons expert, Dr David Kelly will not be revealed for 70 years.

It is claimed by doctors that he could not have comitted suicide.

With the Iraq enquiry now on going again, this man's death should be properly investigated.

Repeal Section 63, Criminal Justice Act

 

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (2008) includes a Section 63 that prohibits a range of images, whether still or moving, possessed digitally or physically, as ‘extreme pornography’, exposing those found 'in possession' to  fines or up to five years in prison. 

 

Prohibited Images must satisfy four tests:

1. The image must be pornographic: ‘must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or mainly for the purpose of sexual arousal’.

2. The image portrays at least one of the following:

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).

3. The portrayal must be ‘explicit and realistic’; a reasonable person must believe the actors (and animals) involved are real.

4. The image must be ‘grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character’.

Defences include having a legitimate reason for possessing images, accidental access of images, or the possessor having taken part in the images with other consenting adults. Complete works that have been classified by the BBFC are exempt (although extracts of classified films are not).

 

It seems to me (and many others) that this is thoroughly bad law. not only is it selective and arbitrary but also creates a new category of 'thought crime'. 

The law takes little account of whether the images are the product of actual dangerous and abusive activities, or merely realistic depictions or acted scenes. It also fails to take account of whether the images were produced consensually. What it does, therefore, is to make some perfectly legal acts into illegal ones when recorded or viewed. And it makes the viewer the criminal, rather than the producer. 

However, to muddy the waters even further, Section 66 of the Act provides a defence in relation to participation in consensual acts. In order for it to be present the following elements must be established:

– That the defendant directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed

– That the act or the acts did not involve the infliction of non-consensual harm on any person

– That acts involving the portrayal of a human corpse was not in fact a human corpse

Given that all pornography sites explicitly state that all acts depicted are both non-harming and consensual, it seems that the law fails even to address properly the anti-porn campaigners stated target.

The law is meant to be limited by an 'obscenity test' similar to that used for prosecuting publications. However, the history of obscenity laws (Lady Chatterley's Lover, the Oz Trial, etc) shows that obscenity is arbitrary. Therefore most people will not know whether they have broken the law before they have been prosecuted.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (2008) includes a Section 63 that prohibits a range of images, whether still or moving, possessed digitally or physically, as ‘extreme pornography’, exposing those found 'in possession' to  fines or up to five years in prison. 

 

Prohibited Images must satisfy four tests:

1. The image must be pornographic: ‘must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or mainly for the purpose of sexual arousal’.

2. The image portrays at least one of the following:

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).

3. The portrayal must be ‘explicit and realistic’; a reasonable person must believe the actors (and animals) involved are real.

4. The image must be ‘grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character’.

Defences include having a legitimate reason for possessing images, accidental access of images, or the possessor having taken part in the images with other consenting adults. Complete works that have been classified by the BBFC are exempt (although extracts of classified films are not).

 

It seems to me (and many others) that this is thoroughly bad law. not only is it selective and arbitrary but also creates a new category of 'thought crime'. 

The law takes little account of whether the images are the product of actual dangerous and abusive activities, or merely realistic depictions or acted scenes. It also fails to take account of whether the images were produced consensually. What it does, therefore, is to make some perfectly legal acts into illegal ones when recorded or viewed. And it makes the viewer the criminal, rather than the producer. 

However, to muddy the waters even further, Section 66 of the Act provides a defence in relation to participation in consensual acts. In order for it to be present the following elements must be established:

– That the defendant directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed

– That the act or the acts did not involve the infliction of non-consensual harm on any person

– That acts involving the portrayal of a human corpse was not in fact a human corpse

Given that all pornography sites explicitly state that all acts depicted are both non-harming and consensual, it seems that the law fails even to address properly the anti-porn campaigners stated target.

The law is meant to be limited by an 'obscenity test' similar to that used for prosecuting publications. However, the history of obscenity laws (Lady Chatterley's Lover, the Oz Trial, etc) shows that obscenity is arbitrary. Therefore most people will not know whether they have broken the law before they have been prosecuted.

 

Cautions on CRBs

I thougth that CRB checks were to protect children from paedophiles. I know someone who had a caution for having a small amount of cannabis at a music festival as a 18 year old. This was a mistake, and he has learnt a hard lesson as he has been penalised for this in the jobs market even though he has gone onto get a Degree and does not have a drugs problem at all. Is it necessary for this and other minor cautions to go on record? The police should be able to use their discretion a bit more and give one off offences a 'ticking off' without it blighting their lives and ruining their chances. The majority of youths make a mistake and learn form it, they should not be criminalised.

Why is this idea important?

I thougth that CRB checks were to protect children from paedophiles. I know someone who had a caution for having a small amount of cannabis at a music festival as a 18 year old. This was a mistake, and he has learnt a hard lesson as he has been penalised for this in the jobs market even though he has gone onto get a Degree and does not have a drugs problem at all. Is it necessary for this and other minor cautions to go on record? The police should be able to use their discretion a bit more and give one off offences a 'ticking off' without it blighting their lives and ruining their chances. The majority of youths make a mistake and learn form it, they should not be criminalised.

Controls on mass surveillance & ANPR system

We need legislation to control and limit the use of mass surveillance databases, for example the ANPR database. 

Data held by the police (or any other government body) must be subject to the data protection act: it must be available to the suspect, it must be proved to be appropriate and accurate, and it must be subject to change if innaccurate. 

Entry on these databases must not be made without genuine grounds to suspect criminal activity.  No fishing expiditions.

Police should be subject to prosecution themselves if the data is misused to harrass the innocent.

Why is this idea important?

We need legislation to control and limit the use of mass surveillance databases, for example the ANPR database. 

Data held by the police (or any other government body) must be subject to the data protection act: it must be available to the suspect, it must be proved to be appropriate and accurate, and it must be subject to change if innaccurate. 

Entry on these databases must not be made without genuine grounds to suspect criminal activity.  No fishing expiditions.

Police should be subject to prosecution themselves if the data is misused to harrass the innocent.

Abolish bans for speeding offences caught on cameras

Tricky one, this. Some people definitely deserve to have their license taken away from them, but this is usally due to dangerous driving, rather than the act of exceeding the speed limit.

Why is this idea important?

Tricky one, this. Some people definitely deserve to have their license taken away from them, but this is usally due to dangerous driving, rather than the act of exceeding the speed limit.

Reforming CRB checks

The current system of an individual needing seperate CRB checks for various activities is a waste of money & builds in unnecessary beaurocracy & costs; particularly in the public sector. Examples are:

  • A member of staff within the NHS who is changing roles (even within the same environment) is required to obtain a further CRB before being allowed to work unsupervised with the same patients she were working with previously.
  • A hospital chaplain is required to have a seperate check for each environment he works in  – I have heard of someone requiring 6 sepaerate checks.
  • Someone CRB checked for their employment still needs a further check for any voluntary work. E.g a Nurse who then wants to help at Brownies or similar.

It would make sense for this document to be a personally held check that is transferable with perhaps an on line or telephone check to obtain an update from centrally held records from time to time. 

Why is this idea important?

The current system of an individual needing seperate CRB checks for various activities is a waste of money & builds in unnecessary beaurocracy & costs; particularly in the public sector. Examples are:

  • A member of staff within the NHS who is changing roles (even within the same environment) is required to obtain a further CRB before being allowed to work unsupervised with the same patients she were working with previously.
  • A hospital chaplain is required to have a seperate check for each environment he works in  – I have heard of someone requiring 6 sepaerate checks.
  • Someone CRB checked for their employment still needs a further check for any voluntary work. E.g a Nurse who then wants to help at Brownies or similar.

It would make sense for this document to be a personally held check that is transferable with perhaps an on line or telephone check to obtain an update from centrally held records from time to time. 

Repeal Law To Remove Police Powers to Arrest for All Offences

I submit that the legislation enacted by a former, now utterly disgraced, Home Secretary which gave our Police the power to arrest for any offence at all is being grossly abused by some officers and should be repealed forthwith.

Prior to the bringing into force of this legislation, there were arrestable and non-arrestable offences. I submit that such differentiation should be restored immediately and the powers of Police to arrest be restricted to arrestable offences only, as before.

At the same time, we might give due consideration to further clarity on  the so-called 'necessity to arrest' and the grounds upon which arrest can be deemed necessary.

Why is this idea important?

I submit that the legislation enacted by a former, now utterly disgraced, Home Secretary which gave our Police the power to arrest for any offence at all is being grossly abused by some officers and should be repealed forthwith.

Prior to the bringing into force of this legislation, there were arrestable and non-arrestable offences. I submit that such differentiation should be restored immediately and the powers of Police to arrest be restricted to arrestable offences only, as before.

At the same time, we might give due consideration to further clarity on  the so-called 'necessity to arrest' and the grounds upon which arrest can be deemed necessary.