re: smoking in public houses

Public Houses should be allowed to have a smoking room or there should be the freedom of each publican to decide if they want smoking in their pub. If they don't that is fair enough but then we have the choice in which Pub we go to.I was a Publican myself for more than twenty years and i think it is wicked to see what is happening to Pubs now, more and more are closing every week. It is surely up to each individual to have the choice of whether they smoke or not and we should not be dictated to by Government. All of us that smoke know the risk to our health but that is our choice to make and not the Governments.

Why is this idea important?

Public Houses should be allowed to have a smoking room or there should be the freedom of each publican to decide if they want smoking in their pub. If they don't that is fair enough but then we have the choice in which Pub we go to.I was a Publican myself for more than twenty years and i think it is wicked to see what is happening to Pubs now, more and more are closing every week. It is surely up to each individual to have the choice of whether they smoke or not and we should not be dictated to by Government. All of us that smoke know the risk to our health but that is our choice to make and not the Governments.

REPEAL THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT ( POCA)

The proceeds of crime act ( poca ) was as i see it  origanley introduced to deal with drug dealers and fraudsters,as time has gone by this act has been abused by the authorities ,this act gives the courts the power to cease peoples assets and money on a pure   suspicion that these items were gained from an illegal act  without the court having to prove so. I always thought that the british justice system was about people being presumed innocent until proven guilty, this no longer seems to be the case , a drug dealer can get convicted and loose nothing because he knows how to use the system , a person can buy something innocently and  find out that the items are stolen and be convicted of movement of stolen goods and possibly loose thousands of pounds regardless of the value of the items purchased . This act also gives the courts the power to freeze peoples assetts without them even being charged with a criminal offence and refusing them legal aid to challenge this decision therefor leaving them unable to pay to challenge this decision, this to me is a gross breach of peoples human rights and not what the british justice system was designed for. My idea is to repeal this act and introduce a different act that is more just and fair on innocent people,an act that will punish the criminals it is designed to deal with without the chance of it being abused by the courts because they can't get the criminals it is designed for. 

Why is this idea important?

The proceeds of crime act ( poca ) was as i see it  origanley introduced to deal with drug dealers and fraudsters,as time has gone by this act has been abused by the authorities ,this act gives the courts the power to cease peoples assets and money on a pure   suspicion that these items were gained from an illegal act  without the court having to prove so. I always thought that the british justice system was about people being presumed innocent until proven guilty, this no longer seems to be the case , a drug dealer can get convicted and loose nothing because he knows how to use the system , a person can buy something innocently and  find out that the items are stolen and be convicted of movement of stolen goods and possibly loose thousands of pounds regardless of the value of the items purchased . This act also gives the courts the power to freeze peoples assetts without them even being charged with a criminal offence and refusing them legal aid to challenge this decision therefor leaving them unable to pay to challenge this decision, this to me is a gross breach of peoples human rights and not what the british justice system was designed for. My idea is to repeal this act and introduce a different act that is more just and fair on innocent people,an act that will punish the criminals it is designed to deal with without the chance of it being abused by the courts because they can't get the criminals it is designed for. 

Restore real laws. Abolish all Criminal Courts de-facto,statutes, acts.

Restore the Common law to the land mass of Great Britain and it's citizens.

There is need only for three laws.

1) Do no harm to other humans.

2) Do not damage the property of other humans.

3) Honour all your contracts.

All law applying to citizens should be Civil law in Civil Courts Courts Du-jour.

Judges should be Umpires/ arbiters of civil Courts, where the offender is faced by the offended before a jury of their peers where the offence is tested for it's veracity or otherwise on the evidence presented by both parties and a constabulary of peace officers.

Discussions of reparations are presented dependent on the decision of the jury. The reparations being enforceable by a constabulary who honour their oaths to keep the peoples peace and act to establish evidence and facts in any particular case.

Only corporations can be criminal in their behaviour or can possibly be criminal.

Why is this idea important?

Restore the Common law to the land mass of Great Britain and it's citizens.

There is need only for three laws.

1) Do no harm to other humans.

2) Do not damage the property of other humans.

3) Honour all your contracts.

All law applying to citizens should be Civil law in Civil Courts Courts Du-jour.

Judges should be Umpires/ arbiters of civil Courts, where the offender is faced by the offended before a jury of their peers where the offence is tested for it's veracity or otherwise on the evidence presented by both parties and a constabulary of peace officers.

Discussions of reparations are presented dependent on the decision of the jury. The reparations being enforceable by a constabulary who honour their oaths to keep the peoples peace and act to establish evidence and facts in any particular case.

Only corporations can be criminal in their behaviour or can possibly be criminal.

Anti Social behaviour – food for thought

I welcome the decision to re-think ASBOs and find better ways to tackle anti social behaviour.

Research has shown conclusively that mal-nutrition leads to aggressive behaviour and lack of self control, yet, although the statistics are amazing, apparently no-one in authority has taken this research on board.

An article in The Guardian in 2006 goes into this in depth.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/oct/17/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime

Since the results of this research were so startling and so significant, a good starting point in tackling bad behaviour would be to make sure children eat proper food.  The cold water poured on Jamie Oliver's efforts by the new government was disappointing and frankly surprising.  Common sense tells us children need nourishment, and many are living on complete junk.  As a result their brains are starved and dysfunctional.  Go into any problem school and ask a child what they eat and you will be shocked. Maybe instead of an ASBO they should be ordered to report for supplements daily!  ASBOs have become almost fashionable – something to boast about.  How about if they were boasting that they were having to take fish oil capsules and multi vitamins. 

With some help, local communities could start their own schemes to get parents together to learn how and what to feed their children,  talk to the young people about their aggression and try to get them on board a great nutritional experiment.  Something along the lines of what Jamie Oliver started to do. The fact that adults would begin communicating with young people would bring positive side effects.  If a community managed to clear up its anti social behaviour problem it would be worth any effort and expense they have to put in.  And the authorities should be willing to contribute at least to the cost of supplements since they will save the cost of dealing with so much crime.  Companies who sell these supplements might even sponsor such a project in return for the publicity it would generate, especially if project is a big success and well reported.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I welcome the decision to re-think ASBOs and find better ways to tackle anti social behaviour.

Research has shown conclusively that mal-nutrition leads to aggressive behaviour and lack of self control, yet, although the statistics are amazing, apparently no-one in authority has taken this research on board.

An article in The Guardian in 2006 goes into this in depth.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/oct/17/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime

Since the results of this research were so startling and so significant, a good starting point in tackling bad behaviour would be to make sure children eat proper food.  The cold water poured on Jamie Oliver's efforts by the new government was disappointing and frankly surprising.  Common sense tells us children need nourishment, and many are living on complete junk.  As a result their brains are starved and dysfunctional.  Go into any problem school and ask a child what they eat and you will be shocked. Maybe instead of an ASBO they should be ordered to report for supplements daily!  ASBOs have become almost fashionable – something to boast about.  How about if they were boasting that they were having to take fish oil capsules and multi vitamins. 

With some help, local communities could start their own schemes to get parents together to learn how and what to feed their children,  talk to the young people about their aggression and try to get them on board a great nutritional experiment.  Something along the lines of what Jamie Oliver started to do. The fact that adults would begin communicating with young people would bring positive side effects.  If a community managed to clear up its anti social behaviour problem it would be worth any effort and expense they have to put in.  And the authorities should be willing to contribute at least to the cost of supplements since they will save the cost of dealing with so much crime.  Companies who sell these supplements might even sponsor such a project in return for the publicity it would generate, especially if project is a big success and well reported.

 

 

Decriminalize being naked in public

Laws specifically criminalizing being naked or undressed in public should be abolished. The Public Order Act of 1986 is sufficient in regards to preventing inappropriate naked behavior.

 

Why is this idea important?

Laws specifically criminalizing being naked or undressed in public should be abolished. The Public Order Act of 1986 is sufficient in regards to preventing inappropriate naked behavior.

 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

When it comes to the publishing of any comments or articles in the national newspapers about Gordon Brown & the Labour party, or indeed shameful public figures such as Tony Hayward, all restrictions on foul language & insults should be lifted.

Why is this idea important?

When it comes to the publishing of any comments or articles in the national newspapers about Gordon Brown & the Labour party, or indeed shameful public figures such as Tony Hayward, all restrictions on foul language & insults should be lifted.

Thatcher’s Needle Exchange Was Revolutionary

In 1986, Margaret Thatcher initiated a scheme to prevent the spread of HIV and protect society. In its day, the Needle Exchange Programme was hailed as debauchery and was seen to condone drug use.

Margaret Thatcher, love her or hate her, took charge and did was right for the people, she took a brave step and stuck by her guns.

Regulation of drugs is the inevitable and logical conclusion to this "revolutionary" programme.

We are now 24 years into this programme, and the UK and Thatcher are hailed as flag bearers to a modern day stance on health related drug use. As cited in the source below, many countries still do not have such programmes and refuse to do so, the U.S and Russia being most notable. The evidence speaks volumes, there is not a single person that can argue the programme has not worked and is an overwhelming success. The UK has kept HIV rates in drug use down to a steady 1%- compared to Russia who have no interest in anything but judicial stance, they have a 60% HIV rate.

Regulating and controlling drugs in the UK is not revolutionary, it is a continuation of the exchange programme in its essence. We look to Portugal, Holland, Italy, Czech Republic, these countries have decriminalised; drug use has lowered, crime has dropped dramatically, HIV rates have plummeted, harms reduced considerably, and every area of society has benefited. Abuse in children has also seen a noticeable change for the better.

Continue Thatcher's legacy, her work remains unfinished. Clean up our country and take drugs away from cartels and gangs. Regulate, decriminalise, and control that which has been uncontrollable under prohibition.

Thatcher, for better or for worse, was a leader, not afraid of media bias. We need leading, we cry out for leadership:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/needle_exchange_drug_czar_dec03_08.html

Why is this idea important?

In 1986, Margaret Thatcher initiated a scheme to prevent the spread of HIV and protect society. In its day, the Needle Exchange Programme was hailed as debauchery and was seen to condone drug use.

Margaret Thatcher, love her or hate her, took charge and did was right for the people, she took a brave step and stuck by her guns.

Regulation of drugs is the inevitable and logical conclusion to this "revolutionary" programme.

We are now 24 years into this programme, and the UK and Thatcher are hailed as flag bearers to a modern day stance on health related drug use. As cited in the source below, many countries still do not have such programmes and refuse to do so, the U.S and Russia being most notable. The evidence speaks volumes, there is not a single person that can argue the programme has not worked and is an overwhelming success. The UK has kept HIV rates in drug use down to a steady 1%- compared to Russia who have no interest in anything but judicial stance, they have a 60% HIV rate.

Regulating and controlling drugs in the UK is not revolutionary, it is a continuation of the exchange programme in its essence. We look to Portugal, Holland, Italy, Czech Republic, these countries have decriminalised; drug use has lowered, crime has dropped dramatically, HIV rates have plummeted, harms reduced considerably, and every area of society has benefited. Abuse in children has also seen a noticeable change for the better.

Continue Thatcher's legacy, her work remains unfinished. Clean up our country and take drugs away from cartels and gangs. Regulate, decriminalise, and control that which has been uncontrollable under prohibition.

Thatcher, for better or for worse, was a leader, not afraid of media bias. We need leading, we cry out for leadership:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/needle_exchange_drug_czar_dec03_08.html

Restrict vehicle tracking to emergencies only

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is used by all varieties of organisations to track us, so that we are never truly free to go about our business without being monitored by the state.  It's a great opportunity to free us from surveillance by denying access to ANPR for all except genuine anti-terrorist activity and genuine police emergencies.

Why is this idea important?

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is used by all varieties of organisations to track us, so that we are never truly free to go about our business without being monitored by the state.  It's a great opportunity to free us from surveillance by denying access to ANPR for all except genuine anti-terrorist activity and genuine police emergencies.

above the law

At the present time in the UK particularly so in urban communities there is and has been for many years a police presence on the roads and in the skies.But very little response to local crime or concerns of local people.Because theres police cars speeding through all our roads constantly with sirens and speed limits completely oblivious to local  speed limits or time of day or night.The majority of residents obviously assume that theres therefore  lots of crime.The police helicopters with their loud noise and beams are constatly swooping into our communities.Police will only respond to actual emergencies and not to noisy youth or neighbours etc etc.So it is that we rarely see a police officer though we do see them whizzing through our roads with sirens on full and speeding in areas of speed limits.The police are no longer in touch with local people and are more concerned getting through traffic from A to B.We need a new relationship with the police as custodians of law and order not as loud traffic wardens.

Why is this idea important?

At the present time in the UK particularly so in urban communities there is and has been for many years a police presence on the roads and in the skies.But very little response to local crime or concerns of local people.Because theres police cars speeding through all our roads constantly with sirens and speed limits completely oblivious to local  speed limits or time of day or night.The majority of residents obviously assume that theres therefore  lots of crime.The police helicopters with their loud noise and beams are constatly swooping into our communities.Police will only respond to actual emergencies and not to noisy youth or neighbours etc etc.So it is that we rarely see a police officer though we do see them whizzing through our roads with sirens on full and speeding in areas of speed limits.The police are no longer in touch with local people and are more concerned getting through traffic from A to B.We need a new relationship with the police as custodians of law and order not as loud traffic wardens.

Stop & search with no suspicion

This sort of thing proved useless in the past through inappropriate and over the top use against ethnic minorities.  It caused massive ill feeling between those people and the police which has never been resolved.  There must be an appropriate reason for it and it must be done in a respectful professional way.

 

Why is this idea important?

This sort of thing proved useless in the past through inappropriate and over the top use against ethnic minorities.  It caused massive ill feeling between those people and the police which has never been resolved.  There must be an appropriate reason for it and it must be done in a respectful professional way.

 

Repeal or amend the smoking ban

This must be the most socially divisive legislation ever enacted by a British Government. I find it ironic that the first government to enact such legislation in my lifetime was Nazi Germany, and the present German courts have declared a ban in small bars unconstitutional. Pubs in this country are closing at the rate of 40 a week, something must be done to rectify this appalling situation. 

Why is this idea important?

This must be the most socially divisive legislation ever enacted by a British Government. I find it ironic that the first government to enact such legislation in my lifetime was Nazi Germany, and the present German courts have declared a ban in small bars unconstitutional. Pubs in this country are closing at the rate of 40 a week, something must be done to rectify this appalling situation. 

Repeal the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

The right to join a trade union, and the right to strike, are as fundamental as free speech. If you don't have them, you're not an employee but a serf, and a society that outlaws strikes isn't free.  Where individual bargaining power is weak – perhaps because the employer is a quasi-monopoly purchaser of an employee's particular skill, collective bargaining power is all that employees have.

Yet the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes strikes, in effect, illegal.

Why is this idea important?

The right to join a trade union, and the right to strike, are as fundamental as free speech. If you don't have them, you're not an employee but a serf, and a society that outlaws strikes isn't free.  Where individual bargaining power is weak – perhaps because the employer is a quasi-monopoly purchaser of an employee's particular skill, collective bargaining power is all that employees have.

Yet the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes strikes, in effect, illegal.

“Life” sentences








Life Sentences.

 

Mandatory sentences prevent the judge from carrying out his duties and make a mockery of our homicide laws. The life sentence is a mandatory sentence where a person found guilty of murder is not given a sentence but sent to prison without one to be sentenced retrospectively

 

Justice should not only be done but seen to be done, and the proper place to sentence a convicted prisoner is in the court at the time of the offence when all the evidence is fresh, and where the judge, in all his wisdom and experience, can award an appropriate sentence. Not years later by a secret court called the Parole Board who might consider a person’s behaviour in prison more important than the offence itself.

 

Homicides are different as chalk and cheese in their seriousness, ranging from pub brawls to the murder of little children. If the judge’s sentencing powers were restored he could award sentences ranging from probation to 99 years and thus satisfy the public‘s desire for retribution.

Mike Freeman.

Why is this idea important?








Life Sentences.

 

Mandatory sentences prevent the judge from carrying out his duties and make a mockery of our homicide laws. The life sentence is a mandatory sentence where a person found guilty of murder is not given a sentence but sent to prison without one to be sentenced retrospectively

 

Justice should not only be done but seen to be done, and the proper place to sentence a convicted prisoner is in the court at the time of the offence when all the evidence is fresh, and where the judge, in all his wisdom and experience, can award an appropriate sentence. Not years later by a secret court called the Parole Board who might consider a person’s behaviour in prison more important than the offence itself.

 

Homicides are different as chalk and cheese in their seriousness, ranging from pub brawls to the murder of little children. If the judge’s sentencing powers were restored he could award sentences ranging from probation to 99 years and thus satisfy the public‘s desire for retribution.

Mike Freeman.

New Social Liberties By the Coalition Government

The proposal by the coalition government is surely a step in the right direction, though it needs I feel to be watch, as words do not always become actions and policies.

Somehow I am rather concerned about the idea of having 'British Liberties' and not following the Human Right Act, I do not think that we can actually just allow the UK to fade away from the HRA.

This would be very dangerous and also a very big contradiction with the coalition government's proposal to re-intruduce fairer civil liberties, stop ID cards and all other proposals and promises they have made to us.

Moody56

Why is this idea important?

The proposal by the coalition government is surely a step in the right direction, though it needs I feel to be watch, as words do not always become actions and policies.

Somehow I am rather concerned about the idea of having 'British Liberties' and not following the Human Right Act, I do not think that we can actually just allow the UK to fade away from the HRA.

This would be very dangerous and also a very big contradiction with the coalition government's proposal to re-intruduce fairer civil liberties, stop ID cards and all other proposals and promises they have made to us.

Moody56

A fair trial is a fundamental right

If evidence exists then the person should have a trial.  Even Winston Churchill was keen to end any detention without trial very soon after WW2. 

Trial before a jury is a fundamental right in the UK.  

Why is this idea important?

If evidence exists then the person should have a trial.  Even Winston Churchill was keen to end any detention without trial very soon after WW2. 

Trial before a jury is a fundamental right in the UK.  

Here’s my list of laws to repeal or modify

 

Dear Mr Clegg

The previous government was careless of our ancient freedoms and rights. It was probably the most authoritarian government since Pitt’s administration of the 1790s. Freedom of speech, assembly and thought have been violated by legislation brought in by the Blair/Brown governments. The police have used measures designed to curb terrorist acts in normal police work. The state prosecutor has shown an unwelcome, but wholly predictable, appetite for non-jury trials. Surveillance has become the default behaviour of the State be it through the proliferation of CCTV, wire taps and interception of communication. There is no effective oversight of these activities. Like much (that is admirable) in the British state it depends on goodwill, adherence to convention and the exercise of conscience to ensure no abuse. Sadly for our country the previous government was almost wholly negligent of those characteristics, and I say that as someone who voted for Blair. The result is a break in trust with the people that I hope is not irreparable.

Simon H

Why is this idea important?

 

Dear Mr Clegg

The previous government was careless of our ancient freedoms and rights. It was probably the most authoritarian government since Pitt’s administration of the 1790s. Freedom of speech, assembly and thought have been violated by legislation brought in by the Blair/Brown governments. The police have used measures designed to curb terrorist acts in normal police work. The state prosecutor has shown an unwelcome, but wholly predictable, appetite for non-jury trials. Surveillance has become the default behaviour of the State be it through the proliferation of CCTV, wire taps and interception of communication. There is no effective oversight of these activities. Like much (that is admirable) in the British state it depends on goodwill, adherence to convention and the exercise of conscience to ensure no abuse. Sadly for our country the previous government was almost wholly negligent of those characteristics, and I say that as someone who voted for Blair. The result is a break in trust with the people that I hope is not irreparable.

Simon H

FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers) calls for repealo of Section 115 Police Act

I am national secretary of FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers) www.factuk.org and run their help line. Virtually every day someone rings us over CRB issues affecting Enhanced Certificates of Disclosure. 

At present the law allows Chief Constables to share police intelligence with prospective employers for individuals who require an enhanced certificate of disclosure,

Enhanced CRB's are required by all teachers, care workers, health care professionals, youth workers, workers engaged in community activities with children and/or vulnerable adults/groups – vast numbers of people.

The Chief Constable has absolute discretion to share what ever information he/she feels is relevant. This could include mere gossip, information shared with the police by other agencies e.g social services, or information gathered by the police in the course of their work and irrespective of whether the prospective employer was involved in criminal activity or not.

As a result the police now routinely record the fact that an allegation was made against the prospective employee on enhanced CRBs even though they may have been cleared of any wrong doing by an employer or by a Court.

They also routinely record the fact that a person appeared before a Court even if he/she was found not guilty and was told they leave the Court with their reputation intact. 

Adverse comments on a CRB basically result in that person being unemployable. What is needed is complete repeal of Section 115(7) of the Police Act 1997 or some kind of system which allows for only such information to be placed on it for a limited time (as is the case in the rehab of offenders act)and provides for a proper appeal process. At the moment all you can do is make representation about the content of the disclosure which is invariably ignored. There is no right of appeal. 

THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM WHICH AFFECTS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR AND FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. 


For further information you might like to read the report of the Children, Schools and Families Subcommittee Report in 2009 which touched on indiscipline in schools which referred to this matter and the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Past Abuse in Children's Homes (on which David Cameron served) which was published in 2002. Both these reports highlight some of the injustices felt by carers and teachers on these issues. 

Our organisation FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers)would be pleased to provide further information mailto:sec@factuk.org

Why is this idea important?

I am national secretary of FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers) www.factuk.org and run their help line. Virtually every day someone rings us over CRB issues affecting Enhanced Certificates of Disclosure. 

At present the law allows Chief Constables to share police intelligence with prospective employers for individuals who require an enhanced certificate of disclosure,

Enhanced CRB's are required by all teachers, care workers, health care professionals, youth workers, workers engaged in community activities with children and/or vulnerable adults/groups – vast numbers of people.

The Chief Constable has absolute discretion to share what ever information he/she feels is relevant. This could include mere gossip, information shared with the police by other agencies e.g social services, or information gathered by the police in the course of their work and irrespective of whether the prospective employer was involved in criminal activity or not.

As a result the police now routinely record the fact that an allegation was made against the prospective employee on enhanced CRBs even though they may have been cleared of any wrong doing by an employer or by a Court.

They also routinely record the fact that a person appeared before a Court even if he/she was found not guilty and was told they leave the Court with their reputation intact. 

Adverse comments on a CRB basically result in that person being unemployable. What is needed is complete repeal of Section 115(7) of the Police Act 1997 or some kind of system which allows for only such information to be placed on it for a limited time (as is the case in the rehab of offenders act)and provides for a proper appeal process. At the moment all you can do is make representation about the content of the disclosure which is invariably ignored. There is no right of appeal. 

THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM WHICH AFFECTS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR AND FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. 


For further information you might like to read the report of the Children, Schools and Families Subcommittee Report in 2009 which touched on indiscipline in schools which referred to this matter and the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Past Abuse in Children's Homes (on which David Cameron served) which was published in 2002. Both these reports highlight some of the injustices felt by carers and teachers on these issues. 

Our organisation FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers)would be pleased to provide further information mailto:sec@factuk.org

Convictions for MINOR offences like shoplifting……..

Not to be placed on the PCN

well, another good area is for anyone being arrested for a first time offence invovling shoplifting should be not placed on the PCN but on soft intelligence for 5 years and than erased.  Also if they are fined only in the courts than the fine needs to be doubled each time they get arrested for a similiar offence, and each time they get arrested than you add 5 years on, but the record only gets added to the PCN when re-offending occurs more than 2 times, so that means someone who keeps shoplifting or pick a pocket ot two than he gets heavily fined, and only after 3 offences of the same nature he/she will get placed on the PCN.

This is common sense, as (a) here you spot who is re-offending and (b) know who is a real thief or petty criminal, but each time he/she re-offends than the 5+5 rule applies and after the third offence of the same nature it gets added on the PCN and keeps incrementing 5+5+5+.  So if they never offend again i.e become a good person, than the record comes off after 10 years

Why is this idea important?

Not to be placed on the PCN

well, another good area is for anyone being arrested for a first time offence invovling shoplifting should be not placed on the PCN but on soft intelligence for 5 years and than erased.  Also if they are fined only in the courts than the fine needs to be doubled each time they get arrested for a similiar offence, and each time they get arrested than you add 5 years on, but the record only gets added to the PCN when re-offending occurs more than 2 times, so that means someone who keeps shoplifting or pick a pocket ot two than he gets heavily fined, and only after 3 offences of the same nature he/she will get placed on the PCN.

This is common sense, as (a) here you spot who is re-offending and (b) know who is a real thief or petty criminal, but each time he/she re-offends than the 5+5 rule applies and after the third offence of the same nature it gets added on the PCN and keeps incrementing 5+5+5+.  So if they never offend again i.e become a good person, than the record comes off after 10 years

Criminal Records for petty crimes MUST be deleted

Petty petty crimes for one time offenders for people who have paid there time by spent convictions or cautions must be deleted off the PNC as a routine every decade, its simple and like our European countries, like Germany, Portugal, Greece, Spain they all delete these records apart from the French ( no wonder they are a littel backwards)  I feel that 10 years is a perfect time for records to be erased.

I think Nick Clegg can make the different i.e our deputy prime minister and not Cameron as he is a conservative, and Nick Glegg is a proper Democrat who we can trust properly.  I am sorry for these comments but my trust against Cameron has dissapeared as he has made some serious blunders and I dont think the Criminal records will be deleted if Cameron decides.

I will never vote for conservatives ever again, he is David Cameron not capabale of leading the country, hence both Nick Glegg and he are running the country. 

Why is this idea important?

Petty petty crimes for one time offenders for people who have paid there time by spent convictions or cautions must be deleted off the PNC as a routine every decade, its simple and like our European countries, like Germany, Portugal, Greece, Spain they all delete these records apart from the French ( no wonder they are a littel backwards)  I feel that 10 years is a perfect time for records to be erased.

I think Nick Clegg can make the different i.e our deputy prime minister and not Cameron as he is a conservative, and Nick Glegg is a proper Democrat who we can trust properly.  I am sorry for these comments but my trust against Cameron has dissapeared as he has made some serious blunders and I dont think the Criminal records will be deleted if Cameron decides.

I will never vote for conservatives ever again, he is David Cameron not capabale of leading the country, hence both Nick Glegg and he are running the country. 

Remove the ability of private parking contractors to levy fines

Remove the ability of private parking contractors to obtain private data from government bodies such as the DVLA so as to enable them to levy fines.

Also – on a similar theme – remove from these people the ability to remove motor vehicles from places which they deem to be an inappropriate parking place.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the ability of private parking contractors to obtain private data from government bodies such as the DVLA so as to enable them to levy fines.

Also – on a similar theme – remove from these people the ability to remove motor vehicles from places which they deem to be an inappropriate parking place.

Repeal those parts which enable unwarranted snooping

Repeal those parts of the "anti-terrorism" laws which enable local council personnel, amongst others, to spy upon the population. It is ridiculous to use this legislation for such crimes asa over-loading wheelie bins, leaving bags of donated items outside charity shops overnight and dog owners for not providing their pets with collars and tags.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal those parts of the "anti-terrorism" laws which enable local council personnel, amongst others, to spy upon the population. It is ridiculous to use this legislation for such crimes asa over-loading wheelie bins, leaving bags of donated items outside charity shops overnight and dog owners for not providing their pets with collars and tags.