Freedom from Police Brutality

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Why is this idea important?

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Stop government letters which threaten fines

"Respond to this letter or be fined £xxxx.xx amounts of money. Yours faithfully, the State."

These kinds of threats belong in the mafia or other crime syndicates who 'know where you live'.

The government is using the law to literally rip the shirt off peoples backs simply for not replying to a letter which could get lost in the post anyway.

This type of state interference and bullying is a infringement of civil liberties and is a psychological weapon. It has to stop!

Why is this idea important?

"Respond to this letter or be fined £xxxx.xx amounts of money. Yours faithfully, the State."

These kinds of threats belong in the mafia or other crime syndicates who 'know where you live'.

The government is using the law to literally rip the shirt off peoples backs simply for not replying to a letter which could get lost in the post anyway.

This type of state interference and bullying is a infringement of civil liberties and is a psychological weapon. It has to stop!

Require All New Laws to pass the Liberty Test

Any criminalisation of any action should be required to fall under one of the following four categories:

  1. Infringement upon another person or company
  2. Infringement upon another person or company's land
  3. Infringement upon another person or company's property
  4. Infringement upon another person or company's privacy (this would cover slander, libel etc as well as copyright infringements)

Why is this idea important?

Any criminalisation of any action should be required to fall under one of the following four categories:

  1. Infringement upon another person or company
  2. Infringement upon another person or company's land
  3. Infringement upon another person or company's property
  4. Infringement upon another person or company's privacy (this would cover slander, libel etc as well as copyright infringements)

End the Police State

Police can (and do) arrest law-abiding citizens knowing they are innocent and then put them on databases as 'court convictions'. In theory the innocent can apply to have their Samples deleted. In practice it is next to impossible. a) A malcious complaint is made b) The police arrest 'to preserve the evidence c)  The allegation is disproved d) The police NFA leaving samples on the databases and inaccurate input based on the complaint e) Details of the complaint are refused citing the Data Protection Act and the malicious complainant is not pursued f) if the Accused manages (despite Westcott b Westcott) to prove that arrest was not necessary ('exceptional case') samples might be removed. Compenation: peanuts. Cost to innocent: tens of thousands. Career and earnings limitations: enhanced CRB checks = a whole industry with some 300,000+ in annually Essex alone. Police should be made to examine the evidence before arrest wherever possible and allow the 'suspect' to disprove the allegation BEFORE being put on the databases.

Why is this idea important?

Police can (and do) arrest law-abiding citizens knowing they are innocent and then put them on databases as 'court convictions'. In theory the innocent can apply to have their Samples deleted. In practice it is next to impossible. a) A malcious complaint is made b) The police arrest 'to preserve the evidence c)  The allegation is disproved d) The police NFA leaving samples on the databases and inaccurate input based on the complaint e) Details of the complaint are refused citing the Data Protection Act and the malicious complainant is not pursued f) if the Accused manages (despite Westcott b Westcott) to prove that arrest was not necessary ('exceptional case') samples might be removed. Compenation: peanuts. Cost to innocent: tens of thousands. Career and earnings limitations: enhanced CRB checks = a whole industry with some 300,000+ in annually Essex alone. Police should be made to examine the evidence before arrest wherever possible and allow the 'suspect' to disprove the allegation BEFORE being put on the databases.

Repossession – “a convenient Debt Collection Mechanism”

How many have heard this definition and excuse over recent years?  Is a spouse really legally responsible for debts incurred by a spouse/partner?  If so, is this reasonable and under what law?

In the interest of justice, fairness, human rights and basic human decency in a civilised society, please repeal whatever law exists and stop any legal practice currently used in the, so called, Civil Courts to oust innocent spouses from their homes, regardless of circumstances, with the excuse that repossession is a "convenient debt collection mechanism" and otherwise the debtor spouse would "hide" behind the other.  To ensure justice is carried out rather than mere convenience, juries may need to be introduced in Civil Courts to raise the bar of proof (now woefully inadequate) to match what appears to be  higher standards in Criminal Courts.  The case management conferences could be stopped to save costs.

Lawmaking MPs have demonstrated that they can't get enough "homes" for themselves but appear to consider the homes of the rest of the population expendable and of little consequence.

Why is this idea important?

How many have heard this definition and excuse over recent years?  Is a spouse really legally responsible for debts incurred by a spouse/partner?  If so, is this reasonable and under what law?

In the interest of justice, fairness, human rights and basic human decency in a civilised society, please repeal whatever law exists and stop any legal practice currently used in the, so called, Civil Courts to oust innocent spouses from their homes, regardless of circumstances, with the excuse that repossession is a "convenient debt collection mechanism" and otherwise the debtor spouse would "hide" behind the other.  To ensure justice is carried out rather than mere convenience, juries may need to be introduced in Civil Courts to raise the bar of proof (now woefully inadequate) to match what appears to be  higher standards in Criminal Courts.  The case management conferences could be stopped to save costs.

Lawmaking MPs have demonstrated that they can't get enough "homes" for themselves but appear to consider the homes of the rest of the population expendable and of little consequence.

Abandon CRB Checking as a routine

CRB checks are of limited use, they take time to process and mean that you cannot do any work with children even on a stand in basis without the check.

I cannot help out in any community activity even on a temporary one-off basis without the check and this means there is no relief available for people in charge. 

Why is this idea important?

CRB checks are of limited use, they take time to process and mean that you cannot do any work with children even on a stand in basis without the check.

I cannot help out in any community activity even on a temporary one-off basis without the check and this means there is no relief available for people in charge. 

Compulsory paternity tests

With statistics as high as 1 in 20 fathers not being the biological father of their child and the implimentation of a DNA database I think it's time we began DNA testing all fathers.  This will help prevent  storys such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10845112

The law would help protect mothers, fathers and children and in most cases cement the bond between father and child and in 5% of cases allow the parner to choose or not to choose to undertake the task of raising a child that is not biologicly his own. 

Why is this idea important?

With statistics as high as 1 in 20 fathers not being the biological father of their child and the implimentation of a DNA database I think it's time we began DNA testing all fathers.  This will help prevent  storys such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10845112

The law would help protect mothers, fathers and children and in most cases cement the bond between father and child and in 5% of cases allow the parner to choose or not to choose to undertake the task of raising a child that is not biologicly his own. 

Animal rights and good morals.

  I am Juliet Tun.  I think all countries on Earth including the

United Kingdom should have a law that saids eating animals is illegal.  I think

there should be laws in the United Kingdom that say drinking alcohol, smoking cigars or cigarettes, chewing gum and chewing betel is illegal.  I think gay marriages and bisexual marriages in the

United Kingdom should be illegal if it is legal.

Why is this idea important?

  I am Juliet Tun.  I think all countries on Earth including the

United Kingdom should have a law that saids eating animals is illegal.  I think

there should be laws in the United Kingdom that say drinking alcohol, smoking cigars or cigarettes, chewing gum and chewing betel is illegal.  I think gay marriages and bisexual marriages in the

United Kingdom should be illegal if it is legal.

Give us the right to law by public petition.

Our politicians tell us they believe in democracy. I propose they stop bandying words and set a number of verified signatures that will give any petition the right to a parliamentary debate and free vote in the Commons?

Smaller government? Decentralisation? Giving power back to the people? Pretty words. Is that all they are?

Why is this idea important?

Our politicians tell us they believe in democracy. I propose they stop bandying words and set a number of verified signatures that will give any petition the right to a parliamentary debate and free vote in the Commons?

Smaller government? Decentralisation? Giving power back to the people? Pretty words. Is that all they are?

The right to privacy in Jobcentres

Whilst there is a lot of hype in the media about benefit thieves, more should be done to protect the dignity and the right to privacy of the unemployed, especially at a time of rising unemployment. The current system at Jobcentre Plus offices across Britain violates the right to privacy on a daily basis, and therefore requires immediate review.   

Why is this idea important?

Whilst there is a lot of hype in the media about benefit thieves, more should be done to protect the dignity and the right to privacy of the unemployed, especially at a time of rising unemployment. The current system at Jobcentre Plus offices across Britain violates the right to privacy on a daily basis, and therefore requires immediate review.   

Impose more restrictions on tabloid media.

First of all, this is not about restricting freedom of speech, which is something that I hold in the highest regard.

However, I propose that tabloid press/news media in general should be somehow forced to be more objective in the way they report current affairs.

I have abolutely no faith in any of the UK's news media because I see them as nothing more than vehicles to push certain opinions and agendas.

Do a little research on popular propaganda technique and read your favourite rag with a new perspective, it is amazing just how seriously biased the news reporting is in this country, it doesn't matter which paper you read, or what your political/philosophical views are, they're all at it.

I propose that newpapers should come with warnings just like cigarettes and alcohol.

The viewer/reader should be warned that the information contained within is little more than a particular camps favoured interpretation of events.

Tabloid press should be forced to mark their newspapers as nothing more than entertainment, as that is all they really are.

Why is this idea important?

First of all, this is not about restricting freedom of speech, which is something that I hold in the highest regard.

However, I propose that tabloid press/news media in general should be somehow forced to be more objective in the way they report current affairs.

I have abolutely no faith in any of the UK's news media because I see them as nothing more than vehicles to push certain opinions and agendas.

Do a little research on popular propaganda technique and read your favourite rag with a new perspective, it is amazing just how seriously biased the news reporting is in this country, it doesn't matter which paper you read, or what your political/philosophical views are, they're all at it.

I propose that newpapers should come with warnings just like cigarettes and alcohol.

The viewer/reader should be warned that the information contained within is little more than a particular camps favoured interpretation of events.

Tabloid press should be forced to mark their newspapers as nothing more than entertainment, as that is all they really are.

Photographers are *still* being harrassed by police – 2nd August.

Despite the coalition's efforts in this area, the police still don't get it: they are our public servants, paid for by taxpayers, and not the Stasi in some police state or other.

This article describes how a photographer was treated by police in Hackney, London, on 31st July 2010 – well after new guidelines had been issued:

(It's also really annoying that you can't cut & paste things to/from this site, by the way!)

You need to remind the police – YET AGAIN – of the law in this area and how they are meant to be implementing it in the public interest, not in their interest – or ignoring the law for no reason at all!

Why is this idea important?

Despite the coalition's efforts in this area, the police still don't get it: they are our public servants, paid for by taxpayers, and not the Stasi in some police state or other.

This article describes how a photographer was treated by police in Hackney, London, on 31st July 2010 – well after new guidelines had been issued:

(It's also really annoying that you can't cut & paste things to/from this site, by the way!)

You need to remind the police – YET AGAIN – of the law in this area and how they are meant to be implementing it in the public interest, not in their interest – or ignoring the law for no reason at all!

too much emphasis on autonomy prevents protection of the vulnerable

to re-write the Human Rights Act to allow concerned friends and family of vulnerable individuals to use common sense. Or educate institutions and organisations to interpet and apply the present Act correctly with regard to vulnerable individuals without having to wait for powers of attorney or guardianship to be in force- these take up to 18 months if the vulnerable individual has no insight that thay are being abused.

Why is this idea important?

to re-write the Human Rights Act to allow concerned friends and family of vulnerable individuals to use common sense. Or educate institutions and organisations to interpet and apply the present Act correctly with regard to vulnerable individuals without having to wait for powers of attorney or guardianship to be in force- these take up to 18 months if the vulnerable individual has no insight that thay are being abused.

REPEAL THE RULES THAT MAKE VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS DESTITUTE

Our asylum system is a mess and certainly breaches many of our obligations under international law.

People have a right to claim asylum and to have their claims properly considered. The grounds for being granted asylum are tightly defined and include torture, persecution etc because of one's ethnicity,m religion, political affiliations etc.

UKBA has an appalling record for being extraordinarily slow and making demonstrably wrong decisions based on prejudice, ignorance and failure to acknowledge authoritative international evidence. Decision letters naming the  worng country are commonplace as are decisions that ignore overwhelming evidence of torture.

Against this background it is not surprising that there are so many appeals. 

The other fact that is seldom appreciated is that, even if a decision has been made to remove ,this cannot always happen. There may be a dispute about country of origin. The other country may refuse to accept. Most commonly there are many circumstances in which, although asylum has been refused, even the UK (and both this govt and the previous one are equally heartless) recognises that return is unsafe.

Yet whatever the circumstances people who have reached the end of the process have their access to benefits removed. The consequence is that destitute asylum seekers, many of them victims of persecution, violence, even torture, many suffering mental health problems, are at the mercy of friends for the most basic needs. Many sleep rough and some have to prostitute themselves.

It is appalling that a so-called civilised country can treat people this way. Benefits (and they are very stingy) should continue until removal. More importantly, ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WORK. This would benefit UK, because people would be less dependent on benefit, and it would benefit the people concerned, many of whom are well educated: they want to make a contribution; it would improve their mental health and improve integration. The only reason why governments would fail to make this change is that, actually, they don't want people to put down any roots at all.

Some people wait years and years (up to 7, maybe longer) for a decision. It is grossly inhumane to refuse people in this bureaucratic nightmare the right to start to make a life for themselves in UK.

Why is this idea important?

Our asylum system is a mess and certainly breaches many of our obligations under international law.

People have a right to claim asylum and to have their claims properly considered. The grounds for being granted asylum are tightly defined and include torture, persecution etc because of one's ethnicity,m religion, political affiliations etc.

UKBA has an appalling record for being extraordinarily slow and making demonstrably wrong decisions based on prejudice, ignorance and failure to acknowledge authoritative international evidence. Decision letters naming the  worng country are commonplace as are decisions that ignore overwhelming evidence of torture.

Against this background it is not surprising that there are so many appeals. 

The other fact that is seldom appreciated is that, even if a decision has been made to remove ,this cannot always happen. There may be a dispute about country of origin. The other country may refuse to accept. Most commonly there are many circumstances in which, although asylum has been refused, even the UK (and both this govt and the previous one are equally heartless) recognises that return is unsafe.

Yet whatever the circumstances people who have reached the end of the process have their access to benefits removed. The consequence is that destitute asylum seekers, many of them victims of persecution, violence, even torture, many suffering mental health problems, are at the mercy of friends for the most basic needs. Many sleep rough and some have to prostitute themselves.

It is appalling that a so-called civilised country can treat people this way. Benefits (and they are very stingy) should continue until removal. More importantly, ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WORK. This would benefit UK, because people would be less dependent on benefit, and it would benefit the people concerned, many of whom are well educated: they want to make a contribution; it would improve their mental health and improve integration. The only reason why governments would fail to make this change is that, actually, they don't want people to put down any roots at all.

Some people wait years and years (up to 7, maybe longer) for a decision. It is grossly inhumane to refuse people in this bureaucratic nightmare the right to start to make a life for themselves in UK.

human rights act should not be allowed for terrorism convicts

The Human Rights Act should be withdrawn from those who have been convicted of terrorism-related offences. If people are overtly and explicitly hostile to the welfare of this country, then why do we have to spend our taxes on giving them shelter, rather than returning them to their country of origin. If you are a terrorist, you should be incarcerated for your term with no access to claims for your continued stay in this country upon your release. Once released, you are gone from these shores and your claims of possible torture are another reflection on your own earlier behaviour and something for which it is your responsibility to face the consequences.

Why is this idea important?

The Human Rights Act should be withdrawn from those who have been convicted of terrorism-related offences. If people are overtly and explicitly hostile to the welfare of this country, then why do we have to spend our taxes on giving them shelter, rather than returning them to their country of origin. If you are a terrorist, you should be incarcerated for your term with no access to claims for your continued stay in this country upon your release. Once released, you are gone from these shores and your claims of possible torture are another reflection on your own earlier behaviour and something for which it is your responsibility to face the consequences.

Impose a statute on rape claims

Tohelp stop the imprisonment of the innocent there needs to be set by statute a timescale for reporting the offence(s). This is not said to help the guilty or punish a victim. But the facts remain clear.

1. It is virtually impossible to prove the offence happened without substantial evidence (DNA) after a short period of time.

2. It is virtually impossible to prove you did not do it after a short period of time.

Do you remember what you were doing 2 years ago? for the full 12 months? each and every day? and have witnesses to prove what you are saying?

NO? I rest my case.

Now go and see what is happening all the time in Crown Courts and thereafter the Courts of Appeal. A complete waste of taxpayers money to lock someone up for a very long time on no evidence, only to clear them years later, lives destroyed. Check out the CCRC website and recent cases, many are of rape and indecent assault convictions overturned.

Why is this idea important?

Tohelp stop the imprisonment of the innocent there needs to be set by statute a timescale for reporting the offence(s). This is not said to help the guilty or punish a victim. But the facts remain clear.

1. It is virtually impossible to prove the offence happened without substantial evidence (DNA) after a short period of time.

2. It is virtually impossible to prove you did not do it after a short period of time.

Do you remember what you were doing 2 years ago? for the full 12 months? each and every day? and have witnesses to prove what you are saying?

NO? I rest my case.

Now go and see what is happening all the time in Crown Courts and thereafter the Courts of Appeal. A complete waste of taxpayers money to lock someone up for a very long time on no evidence, only to clear them years later, lives destroyed. Check out the CCRC website and recent cases, many are of rape and indecent assault convictions overturned.

Restore the right to be innocent until proven guilty

Sarah’s law and the legislation surrounding it do no more than ensure that convicted sex offenders are viewed as wanting to commit further crimes, no matter if they have been rehabilitated or reformed.

I strongly feel that this is wrong for a number of reasons, as not only is the rate of re-offending smaller in this group than several others, but most sexual offences against children are committed by family members and relatives.

All these laws do is pander to the lowest common denominator, keep parents in a state of fear and isolate people who have committed sex crimes but who have reformed themselves.

We don’t assume that people who have been jailed for drug offences will repeat their past behaviour after rehabilitation, so why sexual offences?

Why is this idea important?

Sarah’s law and the legislation surrounding it do no more than ensure that convicted sex offenders are viewed as wanting to commit further crimes, no matter if they have been rehabilitated or reformed.

I strongly feel that this is wrong for a number of reasons, as not only is the rate of re-offending smaller in this group than several others, but most sexual offences against children are committed by family members and relatives.

All these laws do is pander to the lowest common denominator, keep parents in a state of fear and isolate people who have committed sex crimes but who have reformed themselves.

We don’t assume that people who have been jailed for drug offences will repeat their past behaviour after rehabilitation, so why sexual offences?

New English language requirement for partners

From 29 November 2010, you will need to show that you can speak and understand English if you want to enter or remain in the UK as the partner of a British citizen or a person settled here.

I wish to change the new requirement so a person does not need to pass any test before any  power so that they may live there life together.

Why is this idea important?

From 29 November 2010, you will need to show that you can speak and understand English if you want to enter or remain in the UK as the partner of a British citizen or a person settled here.

I wish to change the new requirement so a person does not need to pass any test before any  power so that they may live there life together.

NHS central database

Uploads of patients records is proceeding apace,  even though many people are unaware that their records are being uploaded, and have not had the chance to make an informed choice as to whether they want this: I understand this database contains many errors, and once you are on it your medical details are accessible to hundreds of thousands of people working for the NHS.

Why is this idea important?

Uploads of patients records is proceeding apace,  even though many people are unaware that their records are being uploaded, and have not had the chance to make an informed choice as to whether they want this: I understand this database contains many errors, and once you are on it your medical details are accessible to hundreds of thousands of people working for the NHS.

civil contingencies act 2004

This terrifying law needs looking at urgently: it gives the prime ministert the power to dismantle the Rule of Law overnight: on his mere say-so that a national emergency is about to take place, they can declare martial law,  seize property, force evacuation, stop people travelling, special courts and arbitrary detention and arrest.

Why is this idea important?

This terrifying law needs looking at urgently: it gives the prime ministert the power to dismantle the Rule of Law overnight: on his mere say-so that a national emergency is about to take place, they can declare martial law,  seize property, force evacuation, stop people travelling, special courts and arbitrary detention and arrest.

Stop rich foreign investors from buying land in poor countries

" Which regulations do you think should be removed or changed to make
running your business or organisation as simple as possible? '

An article in the Financial Times, at ft.com and published 18 July
2010, states the following:

A farmland development group backed by Jacob Rothschild is hoping to
become the first Brazilian company to list on the Hong Kong stock
exchange, after attracting investments from some of the territory’s
largest tycoons.  ——- end of the first sentence of the FT article.

Rothschild is a prime example of a castle owner, that by accumulation
controls other people.
It is by legislation, that extreme wealth remains in the hands of the
few, benefited by poverty.

Lacking in the article, is Rothschild control and influence over
educational outlets and media.

Not surprising, a donation of a Supreme Court building, in Israel, is
a working monument to legislation. They believe that the best way to
control the opposition is by leading it. Agreed.

Why is this idea important?

" Which regulations do you think should be removed or changed to make
running your business or organisation as simple as possible? '

An article in the Financial Times, at ft.com and published 18 July
2010, states the following:

A farmland development group backed by Jacob Rothschild is hoping to
become the first Brazilian company to list on the Hong Kong stock
exchange, after attracting investments from some of the territory’s
largest tycoons.  ——- end of the first sentence of the FT article.

Rothschild is a prime example of a castle owner, that by accumulation
controls other people.
It is by legislation, that extreme wealth remains in the hands of the
few, benefited by poverty.

Lacking in the article, is Rothschild control and influence over
educational outlets and media.

Not surprising, a donation of a Supreme Court building, in Israel, is
a working monument to legislation. They believe that the best way to
control the opposition is by leading it. Agreed.