Cannabis and the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
 

 

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
 

Why is this idea important?

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
 

 

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
 

Get rid of the Human Rights Act

Get rid of the Human Rights Act in the UK….get out of European Laws too and get back to our own Justice, where only the perpetrators of crime are punished.

Also 'cap' compensation' the courts can apply…..and stop us going down the American route of sueing for every penny one can.

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of the Human Rights Act in the UK….get out of European Laws too and get back to our own Justice, where only the perpetrators of crime are punished.

Also 'cap' compensation' the courts can apply…..and stop us going down the American route of sueing for every penny one can.

Removal of the innocent from Databases

All innocent people must be taken off all data bases, including those found innocent of sexually related incidents and violent crime, because innocent is innocent regardless of what.

These innocent people are given a life sentence in effect because their names remain linked to crimes they did not commit, but are seen by anyone checking at job interviews and other such occasions.

They must be removed from CRB lists, DNA bases and police records of all types including arrest reports.

Please see to this as a matter of urgency  and restore some faith in British justice, which I thought was a model for other countries.

Why is this idea important?

All innocent people must be taken off all data bases, including those found innocent of sexually related incidents and violent crime, because innocent is innocent regardless of what.

These innocent people are given a life sentence in effect because their names remain linked to crimes they did not commit, but are seen by anyone checking at job interviews and other such occasions.

They must be removed from CRB lists, DNA bases and police records of all types including arrest reports.

Please see to this as a matter of urgency  and restore some faith in British justice, which I thought was a model for other countries.

Re-arrange these words: room, elephant, in…

It is about time that you lot in Westminster, as well as the fat cat mandarins in the MoD and Whitehall, stopped pretending that the solution to unrest in the UK can be solved by toadying up to Uncle Sam and slaughtering Afghanis, Iraqis, Pakistanis and Palestinians? For nine years you lot have been licking the ass of the Great Satan. Here's an idea: give the Palestinians their land back and stop persecuting Muslims. Try to embrace people who have a different skin colour and do not share your views nor politics (there was once a time when globalisation was no more than just a big word). Oh, by the way, Jesus didn't come from Surrey, he was brown and poor and spoke a foreign language. Stop praying for "Our Heroes" and start praying for all victims. Better still, get the hell out of other people's countries, you murderous bastards.

Why is this idea important?

It is about time that you lot in Westminster, as well as the fat cat mandarins in the MoD and Whitehall, stopped pretending that the solution to unrest in the UK can be solved by toadying up to Uncle Sam and slaughtering Afghanis, Iraqis, Pakistanis and Palestinians? For nine years you lot have been licking the ass of the Great Satan. Here's an idea: give the Palestinians their land back and stop persecuting Muslims. Try to embrace people who have a different skin colour and do not share your views nor politics (there was once a time when globalisation was no more than just a big word). Oh, by the way, Jesus didn't come from Surrey, he was brown and poor and spoke a foreign language. Stop praying for "Our Heroes" and start praying for all victims. Better still, get the hell out of other people's countries, you murderous bastards.

Allow Public Nudity (continuation)

To REPEAL all legislation hindering one's civil right to wear whatever one wants to wear (or not) in public (including libraries and other buildings deemed to be 'public')*.

* While total freedom should be a right, there needs to be legislation to 'deal with' 'suspicious clothing' e.g. full motorcycle helmet without a motorcycle, hoodies, other identity-concealing clothing for the intent or purpose to deceive; or worn for the purpose of hiding oneself or property likely to be used for a criminal act.

Why is this idea important?

To REPEAL all legislation hindering one's civil right to wear whatever one wants to wear (or not) in public (including libraries and other buildings deemed to be 'public')*.

* While total freedom should be a right, there needs to be legislation to 'deal with' 'suspicious clothing' e.g. full motorcycle helmet without a motorcycle, hoodies, other identity-concealing clothing for the intent or purpose to deceive; or worn for the purpose of hiding oneself or property likely to be used for a criminal act.

Stop the Judiciary giving Sadistic Jail Terms..Make sentencing more consistent with the Offences.

Because it's ok everyone jumping on the Band Wagon saying Prisoners are treat to leniently there are people handed sentences in this Country so called England a free Democracy that you would'nt sentence an Animal too i mean harsh manifestly excessive is too trivial a word some Defendants are Buggered good and proper by the system. The Magistrates Court's should be renamed Police Courts because in their eyes the Corrupt Police can do no wrong "yeah right" also the Crown Court Judges are just poor Evil and don't sentence Criminals fairly some do get far more a severe sentence than the Crime they'd actually committed. I'm not saying let everyone off scott free but at least let the sentence relfect the crime fairly after all justice is all about a balance.. 

Why is this idea important?

Because it's ok everyone jumping on the Band Wagon saying Prisoners are treat to leniently there are people handed sentences in this Country so called England a free Democracy that you would'nt sentence an Animal too i mean harsh manifestly excessive is too trivial a word some Defendants are Buggered good and proper by the system. The Magistrates Court's should be renamed Police Courts because in their eyes the Corrupt Police can do no wrong "yeah right" also the Crown Court Judges are just poor Evil and don't sentence Criminals fairly some do get far more a severe sentence than the Crime they'd actually committed. I'm not saying let everyone off scott free but at least let the sentence relfect the crime fairly after all justice is all about a balance.. 

Immediate Clean Slate for all Non-Fraudulent Tax Credit Overpayments

Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud.  This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have.  Compassion and sound economics all in one!

Why is this idea important?

Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud.  This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have.  Compassion and sound economics all in one!

Change the Human Rights Act 1998

If you have committed a criminal offence or anything deemed unlawful then you are not entitled to human rights but basic rights.

Only the innocent or those innocent until proved guilty should be afforded the full rights.

British people have precedence in rights issues as they are citizens of this country. Other nationalities have their own rights under their constitution or nation.

Why is this idea important?

If you have committed a criminal offence or anything deemed unlawful then you are not entitled to human rights but basic rights.

Only the innocent or those innocent until proved guilty should be afforded the full rights.

British people have precedence in rights issues as they are citizens of this country. Other nationalities have their own rights under their constitution or nation.

Religion is a lifestyle choice

Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me, but it is after all a lifestyle choice. Any perceived conflict between religious beliefs and equality are non existant, simply because people cannot choose, their colour, age, disability, sex, or sexual orientation (normally)

The law does not compel you to believe in a superior being, it is your choice, therefore it cannot trump someone else who cannot change themselves to suit a 2000 year old Abrahamic teachings, written at a time when a wheel barrow was state of the art science.

Why is this idea important?

Whatever gets you through the day is fine by me, but it is after all a lifestyle choice. Any perceived conflict between religious beliefs and equality are non existant, simply because people cannot choose, their colour, age, disability, sex, or sexual orientation (normally)

The law does not compel you to believe in a superior being, it is your choice, therefore it cannot trump someone else who cannot change themselves to suit a 2000 year old Abrahamic teachings, written at a time when a wheel barrow was state of the art science.

allocated land for free parties+festivals

The idea is to approach local farmers,land owners, for earmarked plots of land that are suitable and not too near residential areas,to organise free parties & festivals,most free parties operate  on a donation basis,or generate free enterprise income with food,tea n coffee,clothes,and jewellery stalls,and i'm sure the landowner could make some profit too.These events would operate on a non over the top exploitative basis .All operations would be organised through nonrestrictive local council (cooperation in conjunction with experienced free party organisers).One of the main things the idea would negate is what we are experiencing now = binge drinking and all its problems in our towns and cities.I cannot emphasize enough the  need for these type of events ,i am not talking about commercial exploitation for these events.During the thatcher years after these type of events were stamped on via the CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL , the country was suffering recession and cutbacks.The youth culture had all its expression taken away  .This resulted in riots up and down the country..!. And the residue from this as a direct result wich we are suffering now is a culture of directionless youth who cant express themselves any other way than Binge drinking +all its antisocial connotations.This idea cannot &should not be taken as shallow or petty it is fundamental human right.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is to approach local farmers,land owners, for earmarked plots of land that are suitable and not too near residential areas,to organise free parties & festivals,most free parties operate  on a donation basis,or generate free enterprise income with food,tea n coffee,clothes,and jewellery stalls,and i'm sure the landowner could make some profit too.These events would operate on a non over the top exploitative basis .All operations would be organised through nonrestrictive local council (cooperation in conjunction with experienced free party organisers).One of the main things the idea would negate is what we are experiencing now = binge drinking and all its problems in our towns and cities.I cannot emphasize enough the  need for these type of events ,i am not talking about commercial exploitation for these events.During the thatcher years after these type of events were stamped on via the CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL , the country was suffering recession and cutbacks.The youth culture had all its expression taken away  .This resulted in riots up and down the country..!. And the residue from this as a direct result wich we are suffering now is a culture of directionless youth who cant express themselves any other way than Binge drinking +all its antisocial connotations.This idea cannot &should not be taken as shallow or petty it is fundamental human right.

Review the laws surrounding offences against the person

A complete overhaul of the whole raft of legislation surrounding offences against the person to include strong support for those using force to prevent crime, disorder and in self defence.

At the lowest level consider removing completely the offence of common assault. This makes it an offence to bump into someone in the street and it is only the increasingly rare practice of common sense that prevents someone being prosecuted for a rugby tackle during a match or a minor squabble between school kids. Common assault is an assault where there is no injury and sometimes not even any contact between two people. People need to be more tolerant! Replace it with indictable offences of assault with a weapon, resisting arrest(sentence not to be served concurrently) and domestic assault.

In the middle we have ABH and GBH. These offences can often be very arbitray. Where similar acts can be charged very differently and the intent or possibilities are secondary. It is possible to attack someone with a sword and cause a minor cut thus being charged with ABH or common assault whilst someone else has a minor punch up often where both parties are equally to blame and the victim ends up (most often through drunkenness) falling and injuring themselves thus gaining the other party a charge of GBH. I believe that the whole raft of different offences should be condensed into one charge of assault where injury is caused and leave it for the court to decide an appropriate sentence based on all the surrounding facts.

At the top end we have Manslaughter and Murder. In my experience these work well and should remain largely unchanged though there is a strange quirk of the system where the same sentence is applied to those that commit the most serious of serial offences and those that commit their offence, for example, after extreme provocation and present little ongoing risk.

This review needs to clear up the ambiguity surrounding the lawful use of force and apply strong safeguards to those who find themselves using force because they felt they had to in order to prevent crime, disorder and make arrests. There should be a strong bias against prosecuting such people even if they are mistaken. This should apply to the Police and other members of the public and should reflect the fact that people have to react quickly, on instinct, and don't have the time to weigh up the pros and cons.

Finally offences involving violence should be fast tracked through the court system as they pose the stongest threat to our society with the highest risk offenders.

Why is this idea important?

A complete overhaul of the whole raft of legislation surrounding offences against the person to include strong support for those using force to prevent crime, disorder and in self defence.

At the lowest level consider removing completely the offence of common assault. This makes it an offence to bump into someone in the street and it is only the increasingly rare practice of common sense that prevents someone being prosecuted for a rugby tackle during a match or a minor squabble between school kids. Common assault is an assault where there is no injury and sometimes not even any contact between two people. People need to be more tolerant! Replace it with indictable offences of assault with a weapon, resisting arrest(sentence not to be served concurrently) and domestic assault.

In the middle we have ABH and GBH. These offences can often be very arbitray. Where similar acts can be charged very differently and the intent or possibilities are secondary. It is possible to attack someone with a sword and cause a minor cut thus being charged with ABH or common assault whilst someone else has a minor punch up often where both parties are equally to blame and the victim ends up (most often through drunkenness) falling and injuring themselves thus gaining the other party a charge of GBH. I believe that the whole raft of different offences should be condensed into one charge of assault where injury is caused and leave it for the court to decide an appropriate sentence based on all the surrounding facts.

At the top end we have Manslaughter and Murder. In my experience these work well and should remain largely unchanged though there is a strange quirk of the system where the same sentence is applied to those that commit the most serious of serial offences and those that commit their offence, for example, after extreme provocation and present little ongoing risk.

This review needs to clear up the ambiguity surrounding the lawful use of force and apply strong safeguards to those who find themselves using force because they felt they had to in order to prevent crime, disorder and make arrests. There should be a strong bias against prosecuting such people even if they are mistaken. This should apply to the Police and other members of the public and should reflect the fact that people have to react quickly, on instinct, and don't have the time to weigh up the pros and cons.

Finally offences involving violence should be fast tracked through the court system as they pose the stongest threat to our society with the highest risk offenders.

Apply Rehabilitation of Offenders Act to retention of DNA records

Some time ago Lord Justice Sedley suggested that everyone in the UK should be placed on a DNA database.  He was right to point up the present unfairness in the way that genetic information is stored at present.  However, we must be very wary of moving to complete recording, which would take us a very long way in the direction of a police state.

It would be best to go back and review what we are trying to achieve by recording DNA information, and to set in place some straightforward rules.  I suggest the following, which might strike a successful balance between our civil rights and our need to detect crime:

Rule 1.  All DNA samples taken from a crime scene may be retained until the crime is solved and prosecuted successfully (or is otherwise concluded satisfactorily).

Rule 2.  All DNA samples taken from suspects may be retained until the crime is solved and prosecuted successfully (or is otherwise concluded satisfactorily).

Rule 3.  All DNA samples taken from suspects who are not convicted are to be destroyed at the conclusion of the court case and any immediate appeals.

Rule 4.  All DNA taken from convicted persons may be retained only for the period that is defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and thereafter must be destroyed.

These rules would seem to allow the Police to make valid cross-comparisons with other cases during the period that they hold the samples.  By the same token, samples are not held longer than they need to be.
 

Why is this idea important?

Some time ago Lord Justice Sedley suggested that everyone in the UK should be placed on a DNA database.  He was right to point up the present unfairness in the way that genetic information is stored at present.  However, we must be very wary of moving to complete recording, which would take us a very long way in the direction of a police state.

It would be best to go back and review what we are trying to achieve by recording DNA information, and to set in place some straightforward rules.  I suggest the following, which might strike a successful balance between our civil rights and our need to detect crime:

Rule 1.  All DNA samples taken from a crime scene may be retained until the crime is solved and prosecuted successfully (or is otherwise concluded satisfactorily).

Rule 2.  All DNA samples taken from suspects may be retained until the crime is solved and prosecuted successfully (or is otherwise concluded satisfactorily).

Rule 3.  All DNA samples taken from suspects who are not convicted are to be destroyed at the conclusion of the court case and any immediate appeals.

Rule 4.  All DNA taken from convicted persons may be retained only for the period that is defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and thereafter must be destroyed.

These rules would seem to allow the Police to make valid cross-comparisons with other cases during the period that they hold the samples.  By the same token, samples are not held longer than they need to be.
 

Demand a full, international, unbiased investigation into 9/11

9/11 was the excuse for the introduction of many of the anti-terrorist laws which have eroded our civil liberties at an alarming speed.

There is a growing, massive amount of evidence that this was a terrorist attack carried out by the US/Israel mossad on US soil against US citizens and other foreign nationals.

Given the pivotal role 9/11 has had in the erosion of our liberties, in the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to carry out a thorough and honest investigation into this huge crime is in itself a crime and a gross abuse of civil liberties.

The people of the world have the RIGHT to have all the information examined and investigated.

 

Why is this idea important?

9/11 was the excuse for the introduction of many of the anti-terrorist laws which have eroded our civil liberties at an alarming speed.

There is a growing, massive amount of evidence that this was a terrorist attack carried out by the US/Israel mossad on US soil against US citizens and other foreign nationals.

Given the pivotal role 9/11 has had in the erosion of our liberties, in the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to carry out a thorough and honest investigation into this huge crime is in itself a crime and a gross abuse of civil liberties.

The people of the world have the RIGHT to have all the information examined and investigated.

 

Change the laws regarding ‘classified’ information

The laws governing what information is deemed 'classified' are clearly being abused. One example is the withholding of the information surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly.   Another is the information on the investigation into child pornography in which Government ministers were implicated and which Tony Blair buried as 'classified' , not to be made public for 70 years. 

The 'excuse' was that many of the prominent people whose names appeared on the list of those who had accessed a child pornography site, and paid with their credit card, had had their identities stolen.  This is YET TO BE PROVED.  In US charges have been filed against people on that list and are being pursued through the courts.  So, either there was some validity in the information or there wasn't.

If this had happened to ordinary people, there would, rightly, have been a ful criminal enquiry.  Unless you advocate one law for the ordinary people and one law for those in positions of power and trust, these and other issues must be declassified and investigated thoroughly.

The laws as they stand are being used to protect members of our Government from the public scutiny to which they should be subjected in any real Democracy.

As a UK national, I must insist on the principle that the Government's duty is to serve the people, and that it is the duty of the public to scrutinise the Government and impose checks and penalites where that is necessary.

The abuse of the 'national security' laws to bury and hide wrong doing on the part of this Government is a gross infringement of our civil liberties and effectively prevents the public from doing its very important duty of scrutinising and monitoring Government activities and Government Ministers.  Therefore it is a crime against the UK people and against democracy.

According to research which has been done, only about 5% of the information which is being withheld from the British pubic  relates to genuine 'national security' issues.

The other 95% of that wrongly withheld information should be released, so that we the public can do our very important duty of monitoring our representatives.

So I call on you, Deputy Prime Minister, to restore our democratic and civil rights and release all the information improperly held as classified and repeal the laws which make this abuse possible.

Why is this idea important?

The laws governing what information is deemed 'classified' are clearly being abused. One example is the withholding of the information surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly.   Another is the information on the investigation into child pornography in which Government ministers were implicated and which Tony Blair buried as 'classified' , not to be made public for 70 years. 

The 'excuse' was that many of the prominent people whose names appeared on the list of those who had accessed a child pornography site, and paid with their credit card, had had their identities stolen.  This is YET TO BE PROVED.  In US charges have been filed against people on that list and are being pursued through the courts.  So, either there was some validity in the information or there wasn't.

If this had happened to ordinary people, there would, rightly, have been a ful criminal enquiry.  Unless you advocate one law for the ordinary people and one law for those in positions of power and trust, these and other issues must be declassified and investigated thoroughly.

The laws as they stand are being used to protect members of our Government from the public scutiny to which they should be subjected in any real Democracy.

As a UK national, I must insist on the principle that the Government's duty is to serve the people, and that it is the duty of the public to scrutinise the Government and impose checks and penalites where that is necessary.

The abuse of the 'national security' laws to bury and hide wrong doing on the part of this Government is a gross infringement of our civil liberties and effectively prevents the public from doing its very important duty of scrutinising and monitoring Government activities and Government Ministers.  Therefore it is a crime against the UK people and against democracy.

According to research which has been done, only about 5% of the information which is being withheld from the British pubic  relates to genuine 'national security' issues.

The other 95% of that wrongly withheld information should be released, so that we the public can do our very important duty of monitoring our representatives.

So I call on you, Deputy Prime Minister, to restore our democratic and civil rights and release all the information improperly held as classified and repeal the laws which make this abuse possible.

CODIFICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW

All criminal laws should be repealed.  A new 'Criminal Code' should be introduced, defining all crimes and their respective penalties.  All future changes to the criminal law should be by a change to the 'Criminal Code', rather than by stand alone Act.  The 'Code' should set out, in its first part, the basic principles and tenets of criminal law in England & Wales.

In respect of punishment, I would suggest that prison should be reserved for those cases where there is a very high element of mens rea, ie that intent is established, or where there is a well founded need for the protection of the public from harm (individual or in general).  All other cases should be handled without custody, with a strong emphasis on compensation to victims, restorative justice and rehabilitation.  We should not be imprisoning people because the victims, or their families, expect it.  (Note, wilful failure to pay compensation, or to comply with other disposals ordered by the court, indicates a high level of mens rea)  I would contend that the adoption of such principles would minimise short term custodial sentences and reduce the prison population significantly.  Sentences should reflect the act/failing of the offender, and their culpability, not the outcome of the act/failing.

All penalties for eg failure to put household rubbish in the right bag, should be abolished and replaced with a system of discounted council tax/rates for doing the right thing (ie carrot, not stick).

Consideration should be given to how much of an overlap there is between the Harrassment Act 1997 and Common Assault (Criminal Justice Act 1988).  Common Assault does not require physical contact, apprehension of immediate physical contact is sufficient.  Any overlap should be eliminated by cutting back the Harrassment Act and relying on Common Assault.  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 should be redrafted to make less likely the successful prosecution of trivial offences, or prosecution where there is no compelling evidence of real 'harassment, alarm or distress' to a genuine victim.  In my area, a few years ago, someone was prosecuted successfully for saying 'oink oink', as he walked past a policeman.  I'm not saying that this is desirable behaviour, but it does not require the application of the criminal law.  Prosecution in such cases merely serves to bring ridicule on the Criminal Justice system.

Whilst it is important to take account of the needs of victims, we should be careful not to go too far.  We are, at present, in danger of institutionalizing victimhood.  The outcome is that victims are unable to move on and get on with their lives.  We need to be opening up avenues of restorative justice, with the objective of genuine remorse on the behalf of the offender, and genuine forgiveness on the part of the victim.  Only through forgiveness is it possible for victims to leave their victimhood behind them, and to get on with the rest of their lives.

Why is this idea important?

All criminal laws should be repealed.  A new 'Criminal Code' should be introduced, defining all crimes and their respective penalties.  All future changes to the criminal law should be by a change to the 'Criminal Code', rather than by stand alone Act.  The 'Code' should set out, in its first part, the basic principles and tenets of criminal law in England & Wales.

In respect of punishment, I would suggest that prison should be reserved for those cases where there is a very high element of mens rea, ie that intent is established, or where there is a well founded need for the protection of the public from harm (individual or in general).  All other cases should be handled without custody, with a strong emphasis on compensation to victims, restorative justice and rehabilitation.  We should not be imprisoning people because the victims, or their families, expect it.  (Note, wilful failure to pay compensation, or to comply with other disposals ordered by the court, indicates a high level of mens rea)  I would contend that the adoption of such principles would minimise short term custodial sentences and reduce the prison population significantly.  Sentences should reflect the act/failing of the offender, and their culpability, not the outcome of the act/failing.

All penalties for eg failure to put household rubbish in the right bag, should be abolished and replaced with a system of discounted council tax/rates for doing the right thing (ie carrot, not stick).

Consideration should be given to how much of an overlap there is between the Harrassment Act 1997 and Common Assault (Criminal Justice Act 1988).  Common Assault does not require physical contact, apprehension of immediate physical contact is sufficient.  Any overlap should be eliminated by cutting back the Harrassment Act and relying on Common Assault.  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 should be redrafted to make less likely the successful prosecution of trivial offences, or prosecution where there is no compelling evidence of real 'harassment, alarm or distress' to a genuine victim.  In my area, a few years ago, someone was prosecuted successfully for saying 'oink oink', as he walked past a policeman.  I'm not saying that this is desirable behaviour, but it does not require the application of the criminal law.  Prosecution in such cases merely serves to bring ridicule on the Criminal Justice system.

Whilst it is important to take account of the needs of victims, we should be careful not to go too far.  We are, at present, in danger of institutionalizing victimhood.  The outcome is that victims are unable to move on and get on with their lives.  We need to be opening up avenues of restorative justice, with the objective of genuine remorse on the behalf of the offender, and genuine forgiveness on the part of the victim.  Only through forgiveness is it possible for victims to leave their victimhood behind them, and to get on with the rest of their lives.

Whats so funny about peace, love and understanding?

In using the title from Nick Lowe's/Elvis Costello's iconic song about the need for freedom and radical change I want to support the scrapping of the oppressive and unjust Control Laws as proposed by Amnesty International.  Surely a system whereby citizens, even though suspected of being our enemies, can have their freedom of thought and movement so constrained flies against all decent liberal vales?  Furthermore when these citizens have no way of ascertaining what charges/evidence has been brought against them, we are effectively living in a Kafkasesque police state.  The very chains with which we bind others simultaneously bind us.  The key to the lock we throw away is the key to our own freedom.

Why is this idea important?

In using the title from Nick Lowe's/Elvis Costello's iconic song about the need for freedom and radical change I want to support the scrapping of the oppressive and unjust Control Laws as proposed by Amnesty International.  Surely a system whereby citizens, even though suspected of being our enemies, can have their freedom of thought and movement so constrained flies against all decent liberal vales?  Furthermore when these citizens have no way of ascertaining what charges/evidence has been brought against them, we are effectively living in a Kafkasesque police state.  The very chains with which we bind others simultaneously bind us.  The key to the lock we throw away is the key to our own freedom.

smoking ban

to bring in seperate areas within air conditioned pubs to allow smokers back into pub society. the smoking ban affects a large minority of customers who also tend to be pub characters at the heart of pub society. or allow more substantinal provision for shelter and protection from the elements for outside smoking. stop making life hard for a large minority of pub goers. 

Why is this idea important?

to bring in seperate areas within air conditioned pubs to allow smokers back into pub society. the smoking ban affects a large minority of customers who also tend to be pub characters at the heart of pub society. or allow more substantinal provision for shelter and protection from the elements for outside smoking. stop making life hard for a large minority of pub goers. 

control orders are undemocratic

change the law – surely sensitive evidence can be given in private.

Even better also change the hawkish militiaristic approach our government  has taken towards the islamic world since 9/11 ( that is how it is perceived, and that is why the UK is inviting attacks). UK is punching above its weight now – Iraq war was illegal and Afghanistan is a disaster. We are no longer  a world power and cannot afford to behave like one: neither is it in the interests of the people in this crowded island – UK should concentrate on nurturing and healing its own alienated young people, and move away from US policy abroad.

I write this as a white 60 year old professional , mother of two and with no religion. born and bred in GB. I do not support terrorism at all, in any guise. 

Why is this idea important?

change the law – surely sensitive evidence can be given in private.

Even better also change the hawkish militiaristic approach our government  has taken towards the islamic world since 9/11 ( that is how it is perceived, and that is why the UK is inviting attacks). UK is punching above its weight now – Iraq war was illegal and Afghanistan is a disaster. We are no longer  a world power and cannot afford to behave like one: neither is it in the interests of the people in this crowded island – UK should concentrate on nurturing and healing its own alienated young people, and move away from US policy abroad.

I write this as a white 60 year old professional , mother of two and with no religion. born and bred in GB. I do not support terrorism at all, in any guise. 

Policing the Police

The so-called "Independent" Police Complaints Commission is a joke.

Being run by former bent cops, it does nothing but cover up for bent cops, who, in Tony Blair's Brave New Britain, are allowed to kill passers-by at random and with impunity.

If public confidence in the Police is ever to be restored, then there needs to be a genuinely independent supervisory body.

 

Why is this idea important?

The so-called "Independent" Police Complaints Commission is a joke.

Being run by former bent cops, it does nothing but cover up for bent cops, who, in Tony Blair's Brave New Britain, are allowed to kill passers-by at random and with impunity.

If public confidence in the Police is ever to be restored, then there needs to be a genuinely independent supervisory body.

 

Dump all equality quangos

Equaaity quangos, for ethnic minorities, gays, etc., become constantly self-epanding pressure groups.  We have the ancient laws of England to safeguard rights.  They are enough. 

Why is this idea important?

Equaaity quangos, for ethnic minorities, gays, etc., become constantly self-epanding pressure groups.  We have the ancient laws of England to safeguard rights.  They are enough. 

Reducing administrative burdens

We've heard some very inflammatory statements about the "administrative burden" in some areas of the N.H.S. but there are large industries growing up around Health & Safety Law, Human Rights, Political Correctness, Compensation Culture etc. employing a myriad of non-productive and irrelevant people jumping onto bandwagons.

It is now time that there is a responsible and objective review of all laws in these areas.

It cannot be right that if I ask for a black coffee I am accused of being a racist! What happened to "being responsible for your own safety" as described in H.A.S.A.W. Act? I hope my grandchildren will play conkers! All women shortlists irrespective of talent and capability!

Why is this idea important?

We've heard some very inflammatory statements about the "administrative burden" in some areas of the N.H.S. but there are large industries growing up around Health & Safety Law, Human Rights, Political Correctness, Compensation Culture etc. employing a myriad of non-productive and irrelevant people jumping onto bandwagons.

It is now time that there is a responsible and objective review of all laws in these areas.

It cannot be right that if I ask for a black coffee I am accused of being a racist! What happened to "being responsible for your own safety" as described in H.A.S.A.W. Act? I hope my grandchildren will play conkers! All women shortlists irrespective of talent and capability!