Abolish Cycling on the footway (pavement) is an offence under Section 72 ofthe Highways Act 1835 as amended by Section 85 (1) of the Local GovernmentAct 1888

this law dates back to 19th century when it made sense as people walked everywhere and was the only way to go from A to B.

These days pavements are hardly used by people as nowdays everyone drives. In addition, roads are very dangerous for cyclists as drivers dont leave enough space and can easily clip the handles with their side mirrors.

Looking at the Continent, no one seem to have an issue with cycling on the pavement. Duch seem to cope very well with cycling on the pavement so the Germans the French, Italians, Spanish, etc.

So this is an out dated law which doesn not make sense anymore.

Sometimes I can see people being stop for cycling along the pedestrianised high street when there is hardly anyone around. To me this does not make sense.

Same applies when cycling along the promenade. It is ok to cycle on a sunny Sunday with loads of people in May but it is not ok to cycle during the week in a cloudy day in July when there are few people walking on the beach……. 

Why is this idea important?

this law dates back to 19th century when it made sense as people walked everywhere and was the only way to go from A to B.

These days pavements are hardly used by people as nowdays everyone drives. In addition, roads are very dangerous for cyclists as drivers dont leave enough space and can easily clip the handles with their side mirrors.

Looking at the Continent, no one seem to have an issue with cycling on the pavement. Duch seem to cope very well with cycling on the pavement so the Germans the French, Italians, Spanish, etc.

So this is an out dated law which doesn not make sense anymore.

Sometimes I can see people being stop for cycling along the pedestrianised high street when there is hardly anyone around. To me this does not make sense.

Same applies when cycling along the promenade. It is ok to cycle on a sunny Sunday with loads of people in May but it is not ok to cycle during the week in a cloudy day in July when there are few people walking on the beach……. 

Stop the Police National Crime Recording Standards

The best thing about the British Police was the basis that a Police Officer could use his/her common sense to resolve a matter or problem.

The Officer could make th decision if a person needed arresting or summons to Court.

The National Crime recording standards has put a stop to common sense Policing and dealing with matters that are clearly not in the publics  interest.

For example a person steals an onion from a shop. Under these guide lines it has to be crimed as a theft and the suspect interviewed if located.

In a time when Officer numbers may be getting lower getting rid of this system would free up so much Police time to allow them to concentrate on more serious and life changing problems.

 

Why is this idea important?

The best thing about the British Police was the basis that a Police Officer could use his/her common sense to resolve a matter or problem.

The Officer could make th decision if a person needed arresting or summons to Court.

The National Crime recording standards has put a stop to common sense Policing and dealing with matters that are clearly not in the publics  interest.

For example a person steals an onion from a shop. Under these guide lines it has to be crimed as a theft and the suspect interviewed if located.

In a time when Officer numbers may be getting lower getting rid of this system would free up so much Police time to allow them to concentrate on more serious and life changing problems.

 

Repeal the rushed anti-mephedrone legislation

In early 2010 a media frenzy surrounding the use of a new legal high known as M-CAT (or "meow" in the tabloids) led to the criminalisation of the entire cathinone class of drugs.

This legislation was rushed through in a way that made a mockery of the very concept of due process, even before toxicology reports were available for the deaths that had caused the mass-media outcry.

These reports have now been made available and mephedrone has been completely exonerated. It is my proposal that this draconian legislation should now be reversed in light of the scientific evidence that is now available.

Why is this idea important?

In early 2010 a media frenzy surrounding the use of a new legal high known as M-CAT (or "meow" in the tabloids) led to the criminalisation of the entire cathinone class of drugs.

This legislation was rushed through in a way that made a mockery of the very concept of due process, even before toxicology reports were available for the deaths that had caused the mass-media outcry.

These reports have now been made available and mephedrone has been completely exonerated. It is my proposal that this draconian legislation should now be reversed in light of the scientific evidence that is now available.

Review The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in relation to ‘raves’ / ‘free parties’

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act is a waste of tax-payer's money and police time.

'Free parties' / 'raves' and their attendees seldom cause any real harm.   Despite this, huge amounts of money are spent on a massive police presence to shut down these events – including masses of police, helicopters, riot police etc.  For what?  A bunch of people trying to have a good time.  Just because these event are not held in stuffy clubs and pubs where most of the violence and nuisance happens anyway.  Raves are mostly full peace-loving, friendly folk who don't want to cause any trouble, yet the police turn up all fired up, ready for a fight and their behaviour is getting increasingly violent, provocative and brutal, just as they are at protests/demonstrations.    However, I do think the council / police should issue penalties (fines) to parties that don't clear up after themselves (although most do).

The question is: WHAT IS THE PERCEIVED THREAT which justifies this act and the huge amount of money spent enforcing it? 

These events certainly do not threaten your average citizen are generally peaceful gatherings.

Why is this idea important?

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act is a waste of tax-payer's money and police time.

'Free parties' / 'raves' and their attendees seldom cause any real harm.   Despite this, huge amounts of money are spent on a massive police presence to shut down these events – including masses of police, helicopters, riot police etc.  For what?  A bunch of people trying to have a good time.  Just because these event are not held in stuffy clubs and pubs where most of the violence and nuisance happens anyway.  Raves are mostly full peace-loving, friendly folk who don't want to cause any trouble, yet the police turn up all fired up, ready for a fight and their behaviour is getting increasingly violent, provocative and brutal, just as they are at protests/demonstrations.    However, I do think the council / police should issue penalties (fines) to parties that don't clear up after themselves (although most do).

The question is: WHAT IS THE PERCEIVED THREAT which justifies this act and the huge amount of money spent enforcing it? 

These events certainly do not threaten your average citizen are generally peaceful gatherings.

Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum Seekers

The ‘The Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Regulations 2005’ provide for failed asylum seekers to be forced to undertake community work in exchange for accomodation. These regulations have never been enforced and so should repealed.

Why is this idea important?

The ‘The Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Regulations 2005’ provide for failed asylum seekers to be forced to undertake community work in exchange for accomodation. These regulations have never been enforced and so should repealed.

Making police work easier

Anyone who's ever had to give the police a formal statement (I did yesterday), knows how painful it is watching an under-trained officer trying to type in your statement.  My statement took almost 3 hours – I could have typed it myself and e-mailed it to the station in under 20 minutes! Apparently, I'm not allowed to do this.  Surely it would make more sense to allow me to email my statement, which can then be pasted into official Police software and I can attend the station to sign the statement and make any necessary legal declarations.

Assuming that every officer has, at some point, had to deal with taking statements, think how many man-hours this one little step could save for EVERY force EVERY DAY!

Why is this idea important?

Anyone who's ever had to give the police a formal statement (I did yesterday), knows how painful it is watching an under-trained officer trying to type in your statement.  My statement took almost 3 hours – I could have typed it myself and e-mailed it to the station in under 20 minutes! Apparently, I'm not allowed to do this.  Surely it would make more sense to allow me to email my statement, which can then be pasted into official Police software and I can attend the station to sign the statement and make any necessary legal declarations.

Assuming that every officer has, at some point, had to deal with taking statements, think how many man-hours this one little step could save for EVERY force EVERY DAY!

Repeal the new law on owning “obscene” material

The recent law banning the owning of so-called "obscene" pornography is an affront to civil liberties and must be repealed.

This new law makes it a criminal offence for anyone to own depictions of sexual acts incorporating violent behaviour or bestiality.  It bans not only photos, but also drawings, cartoons and movies.  In fact, you cannot even cut an "obscene" clip from a lawfully distributed movie and keep it separately.

For instance, in the film "Hostel 2" there is a scene where a woman gets sexual gratification from bathing in the blood of a victim who is suspended from the ceiling, and whose throat she cuts, and then lies underneath while the blood runs onto her body.

The film was certificated and released and is legal to own, but if I were to take a copy just of that scene and store it, I would be breaking the law as the scene involves murder for sexual gratification.  This is clearly ridiculous, as all I have done is to edit a piece of video, and that act alone makes me a criminal.

Also if I were to create, say, a CGI rendition of someone having sex with a donkey, that too would make me a criminal, even though no bestial offence has actually been committed.

What adults look at in their own homes is entirely up to them – as long as no offence has been committed in the creation of the images, and as long as the images don't involve children, there shouldn't be a problem.

Let's drop this utterly pointless law – it's devisive, it's meddlesome, it interferes with people's rights, it's malicious, and it serves no purpose for the public good.  How it ever got passed into law in the first place is beyond my comprehension.

Why is this idea important?

The recent law banning the owning of so-called "obscene" pornography is an affront to civil liberties and must be repealed.

This new law makes it a criminal offence for anyone to own depictions of sexual acts incorporating violent behaviour or bestiality.  It bans not only photos, but also drawings, cartoons and movies.  In fact, you cannot even cut an "obscene" clip from a lawfully distributed movie and keep it separately.

For instance, in the film "Hostel 2" there is a scene where a woman gets sexual gratification from bathing in the blood of a victim who is suspended from the ceiling, and whose throat she cuts, and then lies underneath while the blood runs onto her body.

The film was certificated and released and is legal to own, but if I were to take a copy just of that scene and store it, I would be breaking the law as the scene involves murder for sexual gratification.  This is clearly ridiculous, as all I have done is to edit a piece of video, and that act alone makes me a criminal.

Also if I were to create, say, a CGI rendition of someone having sex with a donkey, that too would make me a criminal, even though no bestial offence has actually been committed.

What adults look at in their own homes is entirely up to them – as long as no offence has been committed in the creation of the images, and as long as the images don't involve children, there shouldn't be a problem.

Let's drop this utterly pointless law – it's devisive, it's meddlesome, it interferes with people's rights, it's malicious, and it serves no purpose for the public good.  How it ever got passed into law in the first place is beyond my comprehension.

Make prostitution and drugs legal

As per the tittle.

It's about time protistution was legalised regulated and taxed. better for the boys and girls involved and better for the punters.

Legalise drugs because making them illegal does not stop people from using them.

If drugs were legal, you could sell "clean" drugs from the local chemist, tax it and bring a whole section of the global comunity into a legitimate regulated industry, this would save billions every year as the money currently spent on detection, enforcement and overseas crop destruction could be better spent else where.

Yes the daily mail and anyone over 65 would think this was a bad idea but making something illegal does not make it go away., bring it on board, regulate and tax, everyones a winner.

Why is this idea important?

As per the tittle.

It's about time protistution was legalised regulated and taxed. better for the boys and girls involved and better for the punters.

Legalise drugs because making them illegal does not stop people from using them.

If drugs were legal, you could sell "clean" drugs from the local chemist, tax it and bring a whole section of the global comunity into a legitimate regulated industry, this would save billions every year as the money currently spent on detection, enforcement and overseas crop destruction could be better spent else where.

Yes the daily mail and anyone over 65 would think this was a bad idea but making something illegal does not make it go away., bring it on board, regulate and tax, everyones a winner.

Abolish Home Office Counting Rules

Police crime recording systems quite frequently have no direct reference to the legislative arm of United Kingdom statute. As an example a person might have been arrested for an offence of robbery (legislative) but the actual crime recorded as theft from the person of another (HOCR). This is done so that quite often crime figures can be manipulated by central government mandarins. This has to stop. If the arresting officer, a custody sergeant and a CPS solicitor are happy to charge for the offence of robbery as per the above example then the crime statistic submitted to the Home Office should reflect exactly that, the legislation and not some counting rule that can be used to manipulate perceptions of crime and anti-social behaviour.

Why is this idea important?

Police crime recording systems quite frequently have no direct reference to the legislative arm of United Kingdom statute. As an example a person might have been arrested for an offence of robbery (legislative) but the actual crime recorded as theft from the person of another (HOCR). This is done so that quite often crime figures can be manipulated by central government mandarins. This has to stop. If the arresting officer, a custody sergeant and a CPS solicitor are happy to charge for the offence of robbery as per the above example then the crime statistic submitted to the Home Office should reflect exactly that, the legislation and not some counting rule that can be used to manipulate perceptions of crime and anti-social behaviour.

My list of ideas.

Coroner Inquests with Juries
No torture
No "control orders" without trial
No imprisonment without trial
No stop and search without reasonable suspicion
No detention without charge
Freedom to live and work anywhere in the UK
The right to remain silent
The right to a lawyer of MY choice
The right to freedom of association
The right to Free Speech
The removal of RIPA powers
Freedom to communicate in private
The right to receive unopened Mail
The right to freely leave the UK
The right to check into a hotel anonymously
The removal of all surviellance databases, including fingerprinting children
Removal of RFID chips from documents
Removal of the National Identity Register
Ridiculous CRB checks
Forcing private companies such as banks to record "terrorist like" behaviour
Criticism of sexual behaviour is not a hate crime
The right to peaceful protest
Police able to disperse "groups of people"
Bailiffs able to "restrain" people in their own homes
Terror laws used to freeze Icelandic bank accounts
Civil Contingencies Act
Removal of ANPR tracking software
Trial by Jury
The right to defend myself on my own property
Curfews for entire communities

Why is this idea important?

Coroner Inquests with Juries
No torture
No "control orders" without trial
No imprisonment without trial
No stop and search without reasonable suspicion
No detention without charge
Freedom to live and work anywhere in the UK
The right to remain silent
The right to a lawyer of MY choice
The right to freedom of association
The right to Free Speech
The removal of RIPA powers
Freedom to communicate in private
The right to receive unopened Mail
The right to freely leave the UK
The right to check into a hotel anonymously
The removal of all surviellance databases, including fingerprinting children
Removal of RFID chips from documents
Removal of the National Identity Register
Ridiculous CRB checks
Forcing private companies such as banks to record "terrorist like" behaviour
Criticism of sexual behaviour is not a hate crime
The right to peaceful protest
Police able to disperse "groups of people"
Bailiffs able to "restrain" people in their own homes
Terror laws used to freeze Icelandic bank accounts
Civil Contingencies Act
Removal of ANPR tracking software
Trial by Jury
The right to defend myself on my own property
Curfews for entire communities

Repeal CRB – Part V of the Police Act 1997

The notion behind CRB checks may seem sensible, but in practice there is almost an presumption of guilt about the whole thing. One cna be ina  job and be requierd to repeaetdly prove one's innocence throughout one's tenure – it's unnecessary, embarassing, costly and intrusive for the majority of innocent people. How much money could be saved by the closure of the CRB quango?

Why is this idea important?

The notion behind CRB checks may seem sensible, but in practice there is almost an presumption of guilt about the whole thing. One cna be ina  job and be requierd to repeaetdly prove one's innocence throughout one's tenure – it's unnecessary, embarassing, costly and intrusive for the majority of innocent people. How much money could be saved by the closure of the CRB quango?

Remove the Harrassment Act

I believe that we should repeal the Harassment Act.

This act was designed to protect vunerable people from the serious stalkers who are no doubt a terrifying issue for anyone who has such a problem

However this act has been completely taken over by petty squabbles over facebook or text messages resulting in the following taking up huge amounts of police time

unnecessarily

Joe Bloggs – "John smith is harassing me – He sent me text messages calling me a (insert random expletives here) and slagged me off on facebook – "I want him done"

Clearly anyone with any common sense would block the person on facebook and change their number (or get it blocked by their service provider) but that never happens and the first port of call is to ring police get

This gets recorded as a crime (because crime recording standards state it must be) and huge amounts of police time is wasted on dealing with this stupid petty squabbling. To make matters worse usually it turns out Joe Bloggs has actually been "harassing" John Smith too so TWO crimes are recorded. This is clearly stupid and not what teh act was designed for.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that we should repeal the Harassment Act.

This act was designed to protect vunerable people from the serious stalkers who are no doubt a terrifying issue for anyone who has such a problem

However this act has been completely taken over by petty squabbles over facebook or text messages resulting in the following taking up huge amounts of police time

unnecessarily

Joe Bloggs – "John smith is harassing me – He sent me text messages calling me a (insert random expletives here) and slagged me off on facebook – "I want him done"

Clearly anyone with any common sense would block the person on facebook and change their number (or get it blocked by their service provider) but that never happens and the first port of call is to ring police get

This gets recorded as a crime (because crime recording standards state it must be) and huge amounts of police time is wasted on dealing with this stupid petty squabbling. To make matters worse usually it turns out Joe Bloggs has actually been "harassing" John Smith too so TWO crimes are recorded. This is clearly stupid and not what teh act was designed for.

Ban the covering of the face in public places

If we are to have the prolifferation of CCTV etc then it should be an offense to mask your features in any way. You should always be identifiable in public with NO exceptions.

You  should always be liable for your actions and this would include the veil, BP protestors hoods, G20 rioters face masks etc.

Why is this idea important?

If we are to have the prolifferation of CCTV etc then it should be an offense to mask your features in any way. You should always be identifiable in public with NO exceptions.

You  should always be liable for your actions and this would include the veil, BP protestors hoods, G20 rioters face masks etc.

Taking photographs of a police officer

Please amend the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to make it clear that members of the public can photograph police officers without fear of harassment or prosecution.  At the moment it can be (ab)used by police to stop people taking photos of police officers.  See http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1644048/jail-photographing-police

Why is this idea important?

Please amend the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to make it clear that members of the public can photograph police officers without fear of harassment or prosecution.  At the moment it can be (ab)used by police to stop people taking photos of police officers.  See http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1644048/jail-photographing-police

Racially-aggravated Crime Sections of 1998 Crime & Disorder Act

Scrap the concept of a racially aggravated offense, including racially aggravated assault and racially aggravated criminal damage.

The seriousness of an assault or criminal damage is increased because of the alledged opinions or attitudes of the criminal towards the victim. This section of the Act effectively  introduced "Thought Crime".

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the concept of a racially aggravated offense, including racially aggravated assault and racially aggravated criminal damage.

The seriousness of an assault or criminal damage is increased because of the alledged opinions or attitudes of the criminal towards the victim. This section of the Act effectively  introduced "Thought Crime".

Make our home our castle again

Please remove the following laws which go against the english philosphy and democratic right that our home is our castle:

The sections in the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 which give greater rights to bailiffs to make forced entries should be removed.

Why is this idea important?

Please remove the following laws which go against the english philosphy and democratic right that our home is our castle:

The sections in the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 which give greater rights to bailiffs to make forced entries should be removed.

Licensing Act 2003 “Entertainment”

The Licensing Act 2003 introduced licensing for "entertainment" almost anywhere, including open spaces which had never previously required licensing.

In Scotland, there is no requirement to get a licence for "entertainment", existing public nuisance and public safety laws (the same as in England and Wales) being considered sufficient to prevent any difficulties. 

Though the 2003 act exempted a small number of activities (church services and morris dancing) other similar "entertainments" (for example mummers plays and other traditional pastimes) are still effectively banned by the act, even in the open air where they have always traditionally been allowed.

There’s no evidence that staging live entertainment leads to crime or disorder any more than other kinds of public gathering. Excessively noisy premises can already be served noise abatement orders under the Environmental Protection Act, or fined under the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.  There is also no evidence that there is a crisis of public disorder in Scotland caused by the act not applying there.

All of the "entertainment" clauses in the Licensing Act 2003 should simply be repealed.  It's hard to understand how they should be needed in England and Wales but not in Scotland.

Why is this idea important?

The Licensing Act 2003 introduced licensing for "entertainment" almost anywhere, including open spaces which had never previously required licensing.

In Scotland, there is no requirement to get a licence for "entertainment", existing public nuisance and public safety laws (the same as in England and Wales) being considered sufficient to prevent any difficulties. 

Though the 2003 act exempted a small number of activities (church services and morris dancing) other similar "entertainments" (for example mummers plays and other traditional pastimes) are still effectively banned by the act, even in the open air where they have always traditionally been allowed.

There’s no evidence that staging live entertainment leads to crime or disorder any more than other kinds of public gathering. Excessively noisy premises can already be served noise abatement orders under the Environmental Protection Act, or fined under the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.  There is also no evidence that there is a crisis of public disorder in Scotland caused by the act not applying there.

All of the "entertainment" clauses in the Licensing Act 2003 should simply be repealed.  It's hard to understand how they should be needed in England and Wales but not in Scotland.

scrap ban on all seater football stadia

I feel the law on banning standing in football stadia should be scrapped, and the alternative safe standing terraces which are used widley in europe can then be introcuced.

Why is this idea important?

I feel the law on banning standing in football stadia should be scrapped, and the alternative safe standing terraces which are used widley in europe can then be introcuced.