Repeal Section 97 Children Act1989

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Why is this idea important?

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

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!

Control Orders

Given the recent decision over the death of Ian Tomlinson, and others in the recent past, it seems this country is in danger of becoming a police state. Where we have the opportunity to rein in the powers of the police (and associated authorities) and ensure their accountability to the British public and to the law they are sworn to uphold, we should take it.  A small example. The police have been given clear guidelines on people's right to take photographs in public places, yet they continue to ignore these instructions by stopping and harrassing photographers, ostensibly under Sections 43 & 44 of the Terrorism Bill. The police, it seems, are becoming a law unto themselves.

Why is this idea important?

Given the recent decision over the death of Ian Tomlinson, and others in the recent past, it seems this country is in danger of becoming a police state. Where we have the opportunity to rein in the powers of the police (and associated authorities) and ensure their accountability to the British public and to the law they are sworn to uphold, we should take it.  A small example. The police have been given clear guidelines on people's right to take photographs in public places, yet they continue to ignore these instructions by stopping and harrassing photographers, ostensibly under Sections 43 & 44 of the Terrorism Bill. The police, it seems, are becoming a law unto themselves.

Is there justice in the UK

The Crown Prosecution Service will tomorrow make its long-awaited announcement about whether a police officer will face criminal charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson.

After Tomlinson died at the G20 protests in London last year, video obtained by the Guardian showed that an officer had attacked him, undermining the authorities' initial version of events.

His family will be informed on Thursday morning if criminal charges will be brought over the death, the CPS has confirmed.

The possible charges include manslaughter, assault and misconduct in public office. Or, the CPS may decide not to bring any charges.

Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper seller, had been walking home from work through the protests in the City on 1 April 2009 when he was struck from behind by a member of the Metropolitan police's territorial support group (TSG).

In deciding whether the officer should face trial, CPS lawyers have examined the video footage along with other documents and witness statements. The high-profile nature of the case means the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, is believed to have been involved in deciding whether charges should be brought.

Starmer is expected to announce personally whether any charges will be brought.

If the CPS successfully prosecutes the officer over Tomlinson's death he would become the first British police officer ever convicted for manslaughter committed while on duty. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

The Tomlinson family have been critical of the time taken for the CPS to reach its decision. A criminal investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission was completed in August 2009. The CPS has been asking investigators for extra work and inquiries to be carried out since the IPCC handed over its file of evidence.

The officer struck Tomlinson with a baton and shoved him to the ground shortly before the newspaper seller collapsed and died. The officer's badge numbers were covered and his face concealed beneath a balaclava.

Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and his back to the officer when he was struck. No police officer went to his aid and it was left to a bystander to lift him to his feet. He stumbled about 100 metres down Cornhill, clutching his side, before collapsing a second time.

Police initially led Tomlinson's wife and nine children to believe he died of a heart attack after being caught up in the protest. In statements to the press, police claimed attempts by officers to save his life by resuscitation were impeded by protesters.

The IPCC did not launch its criminal inquiry until six days after Tomlinson's death, when the Guardian gave the watchdog a dossier of evidence including video footage and witness statements that contradicted the police version of events.

Before then, City of London police were allowed to run the inquiry with some supervision from IPCC investigators. After watching the video of the attack a senior City of London investigator told the family that Tomlinson's assailant could be a member of the public "dressed in police uniform".

The Tomlinson family say they were led by the CPS to believe that a decision would be reached by Christmas 2009.

They fear a cover-up and in March Tomlinson's widow, Julia, attacked Starmer's handling of the case. "Why did he say there would be a decision around Christmas? Why are we still waiting? My kids need to move on from this. They're left without a dad now and their lives have been turned upside down over the last year, especially the four girls. He doesn't seem to realise the pain we're going through.

"We feel like there was a cover-up from day one and we didn't see it because we were nervous about the police. Now a year on it still feels like all of that is still going on. If it had been someone on the street, a civilian, who had pushed and hit Ian just before he died and it was all caught on video, surely something would have happened by now. The officer needs to go before a jury. Let them decide what should happen to him

Why is this idea important?

The Crown Prosecution Service will tomorrow make its long-awaited announcement about whether a police officer will face criminal charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson.

After Tomlinson died at the G20 protests in London last year, video obtained by the Guardian showed that an officer had attacked him, undermining the authorities' initial version of events.

His family will be informed on Thursday morning if criminal charges will be brought over the death, the CPS has confirmed.

The possible charges include manslaughter, assault and misconduct in public office. Or, the CPS may decide not to bring any charges.

Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper seller, had been walking home from work through the protests in the City on 1 April 2009 when he was struck from behind by a member of the Metropolitan police's territorial support group (TSG).

In deciding whether the officer should face trial, CPS lawyers have examined the video footage along with other documents and witness statements. The high-profile nature of the case means the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, is believed to have been involved in deciding whether charges should be brought.

Starmer is expected to announce personally whether any charges will be brought.

If the CPS successfully prosecutes the officer over Tomlinson's death he would become the first British police officer ever convicted for manslaughter committed while on duty. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

The Tomlinson family have been critical of the time taken for the CPS to reach its decision. A criminal investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission was completed in August 2009. The CPS has been asking investigators for extra work and inquiries to be carried out since the IPCC handed over its file of evidence.

The officer struck Tomlinson with a baton and shoved him to the ground shortly before the newspaper seller collapsed and died. The officer's badge numbers were covered and his face concealed beneath a balaclava.

Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and his back to the officer when he was struck. No police officer went to his aid and it was left to a bystander to lift him to his feet. He stumbled about 100 metres down Cornhill, clutching his side, before collapsing a second time.

Police initially led Tomlinson's wife and nine children to believe he died of a heart attack after being caught up in the protest. In statements to the press, police claimed attempts by officers to save his life by resuscitation were impeded by protesters.

The IPCC did not launch its criminal inquiry until six days after Tomlinson's death, when the Guardian gave the watchdog a dossier of evidence including video footage and witness statements that contradicted the police version of events.

Before then, City of London police were allowed to run the inquiry with some supervision from IPCC investigators. After watching the video of the attack a senior City of London investigator told the family that Tomlinson's assailant could be a member of the public "dressed in police uniform".

The Tomlinson family say they were led by the CPS to believe that a decision would be reached by Christmas 2009.

They fear a cover-up and in March Tomlinson's widow, Julia, attacked Starmer's handling of the case. "Why did he say there would be a decision around Christmas? Why are we still waiting? My kids need to move on from this. They're left without a dad now and their lives have been turned upside down over the last year, especially the four girls. He doesn't seem to realise the pain we're going through.

"We feel like there was a cover-up from day one and we didn't see it because we were nervous about the police. Now a year on it still feels like all of that is still going on. If it had been someone on the street, a civilian, who had pushed and hit Ian just before he died and it was all caught on video, surely something would have happened by now. The officer needs to go before a jury. Let them decide what should happen to him

review or repeal law on harrassment

i would like to see the law on harrassment repealed, or at least rviewed.I was convicted of this so called crime in 2006. The way this law stands at present, anybody can make an accusation,with little or no proof, and it is a virtual conviction. In my own case,Ihad protested to a neighbour about her 14 year old daughter, assaulting my 9 year old daughter,and I threatened to call the  Police. Several days later I was arrested and charged, with no evidence whatsoever,except for thier allegation against me.At the trial,again no evidence or witnesses were called against me , except for the mother and daughter, and their allegations. Ihave since spoken to another man,who was also convicted under similar circumstances.It seems ridiculous, that in this day and age,anybody can be forced into a criminal on the say so of another person with no proof whatsoever.  I would like to see the law at least changed so that the burden of proof is placed on the police and prosecution to prove a crime has been committed,and not just some petty act of revenge by some person who feels slighted, or an easy conviction for the police. Also the whole system of C.R.B. checks should be reviewed. It is my understanding that C.R.B. checks were originally brought in to stop sex offenders working with children,and not for someone working in a factory or warehouse.                        

 

Why is this idea important?

i would like to see the law on harrassment repealed, or at least rviewed.I was convicted of this so called crime in 2006. The way this law stands at present, anybody can make an accusation,with little or no proof, and it is a virtual conviction. In my own case,Ihad protested to a neighbour about her 14 year old daughter, assaulting my 9 year old daughter,and I threatened to call the  Police. Several days later I was arrested and charged, with no evidence whatsoever,except for thier allegation against me.At the trial,again no evidence or witnesses were called against me , except for the mother and daughter, and their allegations. Ihave since spoken to another man,who was also convicted under similar circumstances.It seems ridiculous, that in this day and age,anybody can be forced into a criminal on the say so of another person with no proof whatsoever.  I would like to see the law at least changed so that the burden of proof is placed on the police and prosecution to prove a crime has been committed,and not just some petty act of revenge by some person who feels slighted, or an easy conviction for the police. Also the whole system of C.R.B. checks should be reviewed. It is my understanding that C.R.B. checks were originally brought in to stop sex offenders working with children,and not for someone working in a factory or warehouse.                        

 

Hate crime ..add disability

Presently if its deemed a crime was committed against someone mainly because of their race or sexuality the sentence can be more severe than if the crime was committed on other grounds . Disability tho isnt included on this list even tho attacks on disabled people because of their impairments arent infrequent.

The case of the mother who killed herself and her disabled child because of constant harassment by locals  was one which shocked and horrified many yet if those people are caught they can only be charged with public order offences not hate crimes.

Had this been a racially based or homophobic couple based harrassment they could have been charged with hate crime and been given a heavier penalty.

Why is this idea important?

Presently if its deemed a crime was committed against someone mainly because of their race or sexuality the sentence can be more severe than if the crime was committed on other grounds . Disability tho isnt included on this list even tho attacks on disabled people because of their impairments arent infrequent.

The case of the mother who killed herself and her disabled child because of constant harassment by locals  was one which shocked and horrified many yet if those people are caught they can only be charged with public order offences not hate crimes.

Had this been a racially based or homophobic couple based harrassment they could have been charged with hate crime and been given a heavier penalty.

At the Chief officers discretion Police Act 1997 Section 113 A & B

Inclusion of non convictions Section 113 A & 113B previously 115(7) Police Act 1997 seriously needs to be addressed the Secretary of state give the police the powers to disclose ALL information on an Enhanced Criminal records disclsoure.

This includes allegations even when the Crown Prosecution service have carried out the basic tests of the evidential test and the public interest test and they are unable to reprimand, give warning, caution or convict. (They are the Crown's lawyers, yet they do not see it in the publics interest or based on the evidence)

The Chief officer is allowed to disclose material that he/she thinks might be true but not factually true or it it ought to be included.It allows the Chief Constable to form an opinion.

( so why have the CPS?)

Under this law you are Guilty regardless even though the tests applied clearly show you are innocent.

Under the subject access you are not allowed ALL the information against you but yet the government allow them this power of disclosure.

You are not entitled to all the information because it never went to court and you were never charged; therefore you are never allowed to challenge an opinion, decision.

And lets face it the police even recently sentenced a man to 3 years 4 months that was innocent because the police never disclosed all the information, especially as it supported him in the case and not the police.

This is a massive injustice.

They do not inform the person that this disclosure will be made.

A CRB disclosure asks about convictions, reprimands, warnings, cautions it DOES NOT ask about allegations.

The police do not give you the opportunity to represent yourself, share all the evidence so that you can challenge it and the ICO have their hands tied because you the government allow an individual (chief officer)protection to disclose whatever they like, it is  ridicolous.

It also needs to be made clear to the public that if a CRB is inaccurate that they only have 3 months to seek a judicial review, considering that you allow the subject access 40days in which to reply it does not leave the ordinary lay person much time to prepare a case, how convienent. The CRB is clearly flawed and constantly making mistakes making peoples lives unbearable even suicidal.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states the right to respect for a persons family life. This is not often used because the police have an opinion so there is no actual correct position in law especially for the innocent, so not allowing the person to make representation.

However I must applaude Theresa May in the recent suspension of the Independent safeguarding Authority. What a stupid idea that was; Sir Roger claiming that 200 caseworkers will make a decision based on rumours and allegations and have an understanding of risk assessing an individual based on facts again that might not be true

Why is this idea important?

Inclusion of non convictions Section 113 A & 113B previously 115(7) Police Act 1997 seriously needs to be addressed the Secretary of state give the police the powers to disclose ALL information on an Enhanced Criminal records disclsoure.

This includes allegations even when the Crown Prosecution service have carried out the basic tests of the evidential test and the public interest test and they are unable to reprimand, give warning, caution or convict. (They are the Crown's lawyers, yet they do not see it in the publics interest or based on the evidence)

The Chief officer is allowed to disclose material that he/she thinks might be true but not factually true or it it ought to be included.It allows the Chief Constable to form an opinion.

( so why have the CPS?)

Under this law you are Guilty regardless even though the tests applied clearly show you are innocent.

Under the subject access you are not allowed ALL the information against you but yet the government allow them this power of disclosure.

You are not entitled to all the information because it never went to court and you were never charged; therefore you are never allowed to challenge an opinion, decision.

And lets face it the police even recently sentenced a man to 3 years 4 months that was innocent because the police never disclosed all the information, especially as it supported him in the case and not the police.

This is a massive injustice.

They do not inform the person that this disclosure will be made.

A CRB disclosure asks about convictions, reprimands, warnings, cautions it DOES NOT ask about allegations.

The police do not give you the opportunity to represent yourself, share all the evidence so that you can challenge it and the ICO have their hands tied because you the government allow an individual (chief officer)protection to disclose whatever they like, it is  ridicolous.

It also needs to be made clear to the public that if a CRB is inaccurate that they only have 3 months to seek a judicial review, considering that you allow the subject access 40days in which to reply it does not leave the ordinary lay person much time to prepare a case, how convienent. The CRB is clearly flawed and constantly making mistakes making peoples lives unbearable even suicidal.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states the right to respect for a persons family life. This is not often used because the police have an opinion so there is no actual correct position in law especially for the innocent, so not allowing the person to make representation.

However I must applaude Theresa May in the recent suspension of the Independent safeguarding Authority. What a stupid idea that was; Sir Roger claiming that 200 caseworkers will make a decision based on rumours and allegations and have an understanding of risk assessing an individual based on facts again that might not be true

Legalise Cannabis

The dutch system would work fine in the UK apart from that there the cannabis is still supplyed illegally. This is why I sugest full legalisation as it would remove the criminal element and create a fully taxable market.

 

Note/

Cannabis is less harmfull than alcohol and tobacco (two bigest killers in the uk, bigger than ALL illegal drugs combined) with 0 deaths in all its hystory of use. It has no overdose limit.

Also the link betwenn cannabis and schizophrenia is non existant. As cannabis use has rapidly increased, the cases of schizophreniahave remain the same (3%-4% of the population).

Why is this idea important?

The dutch system would work fine in the UK apart from that there the cannabis is still supplyed illegally. This is why I sugest full legalisation as it would remove the criminal element and create a fully taxable market.

 

Note/

Cannabis is less harmfull than alcohol and tobacco (two bigest killers in the uk, bigger than ALL illegal drugs combined) with 0 deaths in all its hystory of use. It has no overdose limit.

Also the link betwenn cannabis and schizophrenia is non existant. As cannabis use has rapidly increased, the cases of schizophreniahave remain the same (3%-4% of the population).

Smoking licenses for pubs

I know there are a lot of similar ideas to this one, but I want to make it very clear that I nor any other smokers would call for a complete repeal on the smoking ban, it has already gone to far , it is too late, in hindsight maybe we should of stood up before the ban and said "this is not right, we want equal rights" etc, anyway i digress,  My proposal is a system wear a pub owner will apply for a "smoking license" where there will be a set of regulations the pub must follow in order to attain this license, also to keep it. The license could be for either of two things or even both, A full smoke friendly premises, a non smoking premises, or a mix of the two, this would obviously include well ventilated rooms with extractor fans and other measures to prevent smoke from entering the non smoking area ( i am sure this is not beyond the technological ability of a race that sent a man to the moon lol). I am fairly sure that the only people who will object to this idea will be the Anti-smokers, having said that , lets keep this debate civil and proper. NOTE: Nick Clegg has already said that he will not be considering altering the ban, however if we are loud enough maybe we can at least trigger a debate in the commons.

Why is this idea important?

I know there are a lot of similar ideas to this one, but I want to make it very clear that I nor any other smokers would call for a complete repeal on the smoking ban, it has already gone to far , it is too late, in hindsight maybe we should of stood up before the ban and said "this is not right, we want equal rights" etc, anyway i digress,  My proposal is a system wear a pub owner will apply for a "smoking license" where there will be a set of regulations the pub must follow in order to attain this license, also to keep it. The license could be for either of two things or even both, A full smoke friendly premises, a non smoking premises, or a mix of the two, this would obviously include well ventilated rooms with extractor fans and other measures to prevent smoke from entering the non smoking area ( i am sure this is not beyond the technological ability of a race that sent a man to the moon lol). I am fairly sure that the only people who will object to this idea will be the Anti-smokers, having said that , lets keep this debate civil and proper. NOTE: Nick Clegg has already said that he will not be considering altering the ban, however if we are loud enough maybe we can at least trigger a debate in the commons.

Repeal Ombudsman Laws/ Rules

I would like to see the repeal of the law and or rules, that stop a judicial review having full powers to oversee and reverse any of the various Ombudsman's decisions.

Widely seen as biased and untrustworthy, Most people who have had to deal with any Ombudsman department would like the total power held over them by the Ombudsman and be association, the power of big business to act as they please, to be moderated and overseen by Judicial review or by going through some other suitable route.

The way the present Laws, rules and process moves, there is no protection for the public from even the most obviously ridiculous one sided rulings the ombudsman's bodies make.

So I, and a huge body of the British public urge a reform over the Laws and rules governing the way the Ombudsman and courts interact with the pubic once a complaint about a business, council, or utility service, has been made. 

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the repeal of the law and or rules, that stop a judicial review having full powers to oversee and reverse any of the various Ombudsman's decisions.

Widely seen as biased and untrustworthy, Most people who have had to deal with any Ombudsman department would like the total power held over them by the Ombudsman and be association, the power of big business to act as they please, to be moderated and overseen by Judicial review or by going through some other suitable route.

The way the present Laws, rules and process moves, there is no protection for the public from even the most obviously ridiculous one sided rulings the ombudsman's bodies make.

So I, and a huge body of the British public urge a reform over the Laws and rules governing the way the Ombudsman and courts interact with the pubic once a complaint about a business, council, or utility service, has been made. 

Freedom of Choice

Foxes need culling and there is no better way to have this done than by hunting. Hunts are run by responsible people who live in, and understand the countryside.  They have the welfare of all animals at heart.

Why is this idea important?

Foxes need culling and there is no better way to have this done than by hunting. Hunts are run by responsible people who live in, and understand the countryside.  They have the welfare of all animals at heart.

Repealing & Changing Laws

Change:2002 Proceeds of Crime Act, so that it is only dedicated to what it was meant for :- Drug Dealers, Organized Crime and V.A.T. scams not for anything else".

Change: 2006 Fraud Act – Too many Grey Areas tht allow Criminal Prosecutions in regard to Commercial Transactions, that should be Civil Matters.

Repeal: 2003 Extradition Treaty with the U.S.A., as already promised by both CONSERVATIVES and LIB/DEMS, prior to the ELECTION.  This was meant for Terrorist Activities only and should not be used for anything else.  As this was an ELECTION pledge what is taking so long ?

Why is this idea important?

Change:2002 Proceeds of Crime Act, so that it is only dedicated to what it was meant for :- Drug Dealers, Organized Crime and V.A.T. scams not for anything else".

Change: 2006 Fraud Act – Too many Grey Areas tht allow Criminal Prosecutions in regard to Commercial Transactions, that should be Civil Matters.

Repeal: 2003 Extradition Treaty with the U.S.A., as already promised by both CONSERVATIVES and LIB/DEMS, prior to the ELECTION.  This was meant for Terrorist Activities only and should not be used for anything else.  As this was an ELECTION pledge what is taking so long ?

Repeal Of The Foxhunting Ban

Repeal this ban that is necessary for the control of foxes throughout England ,Scotland and Wales.Not only is it necessary to bring back foxhunting but also to restore it back to an integral part of our heritage.

Restoring this will bring back a wrongly banned sport which was only banned because of the class inferiority that labour felt it had and had nothing to do with animal welfare.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal this ban that is necessary for the control of foxes throughout England ,Scotland and Wales.Not only is it necessary to bring back foxhunting but also to restore it back to an integral part of our heritage.

Restoring this will bring back a wrongly banned sport which was only banned because of the class inferiority that labour felt it had and had nothing to do with animal welfare.

Curtail Tax Enforcement Powers

Civil Libertes are not something separate to tax enforcement. You can now invade our homes and take what you like anytime you feel like it; if we are stupid enough to try to run a business or pay rates. The legal system, flawed as it is, is expediently dispensed with. So – as with the dunking stool – we get to pay for our own harrassment and possible demise. I've seen a raid close up and the Police used it as an exercise to vent their frustration. The raid became a way for them to administer summary, unmoderated and – in this instance – wholly unjustified punishment. Irrespective of how well or otherwise the process is administered and enforced how can you as a coalition claim to be restoring civil liberties when it was you who have added to their erosion at such a fundamental level by widening powers of home entry to include any business operating from home? That's just cynical hypocracy.

Why is this idea important?

Civil Libertes are not something separate to tax enforcement. You can now invade our homes and take what you like anytime you feel like it; if we are stupid enough to try to run a business or pay rates. The legal system, flawed as it is, is expediently dispensed with. So – as with the dunking stool – we get to pay for our own harrassment and possible demise. I've seen a raid close up and the Police used it as an exercise to vent their frustration. The raid became a way for them to administer summary, unmoderated and – in this instance – wholly unjustified punishment. Irrespective of how well or otherwise the process is administered and enforced how can you as a coalition claim to be restoring civil liberties when it was you who have added to their erosion at such a fundamental level by widening powers of home entry to include any business operating from home? That's just cynical hypocracy.

Repeal the obscene publication act

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

Why is this idea important?

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

Miscarriages of Justice

 

The appeals system needs overhauling. Evidence used in the trial should not, automatically be excluded from an appeal.

 

Identification evidence needs to be positive, not partial, if the case is murder. Witnesses who attend ID parades should, absolutely, not meet each other; discuss or qualify the accuracy of each other’s choices. This is in our laws but, is not adhered to in police stations or in court.

 

In murder cases, circumstantial evidence should not be used to seek a conviction, there must be something to, unequivocally, link the defendant to the crime, not just hearsay or an imaginative prosecutor.

 

If a defendant/appellant can show poor or negligent defending, they should be able to appeal. 

 

Alleged 'cell confessions' should be inadmissable in court.

 

If a witness is shown, in court and under oath, to have lied, their evidence should be stricken from the case. Especially if they are Police Officers.

 

There are many more problems with the justice system, these are just the ones I have experienced myself, in a Miscarriage of Justice case.

Why is this idea important?

 

The appeals system needs overhauling. Evidence used in the trial should not, automatically be excluded from an appeal.

 

Identification evidence needs to be positive, not partial, if the case is murder. Witnesses who attend ID parades should, absolutely, not meet each other; discuss or qualify the accuracy of each other’s choices. This is in our laws but, is not adhered to in police stations or in court.

 

In murder cases, circumstantial evidence should not be used to seek a conviction, there must be something to, unequivocally, link the defendant to the crime, not just hearsay or an imaginative prosecutor.

 

If a defendant/appellant can show poor or negligent defending, they should be able to appeal. 

 

Alleged 'cell confessions' should be inadmissable in court.

 

If a witness is shown, in court and under oath, to have lied, their evidence should be stricken from the case. Especially if they are Police Officers.

 

There are many more problems with the justice system, these are just the ones I have experienced myself, in a Miscarriage of Justice case.

s.145-146 SOCPA

S.145 & S.146 SOCPA makes it an offence to interfere with a contractual relationship of an animal research organisation.

These are the core reasons I propose these sections be scrapped and for animal research organisations to remain protected under existing laws:

1. The law singles out one class of victim as deserving special protection over another. It singles out a class of protester as deserving particular penalties over others and wrongly politicizes the criminal justice system.

EG: If a person trespasses on company X due to it's links to animal research they can be sent to prison for up to five years. If hours later another person trespasses at the same company for it's links to climate change they would not go to prison or have broken this law.

2. Part of this law makes it an offence to committ actions which are already unlawful.

EG: A person committing a serious act of criminal damage can be charged with s.145 SOCPA and face up to five years in prison, instead of up to ten years if prosecuted for criminal damage. However for a less serious crime such as a public order offence a person can face prison instead of facing a financial penalty.

3. This law turns civil and tortious acts in to criminal offences.

EG: Torts are normally civil wrongs and what is and is not a tort is much less clearly defined than what is a crime – it is not easy to assess whether a statement is defamatory or not. This means that it will be much harder for members of the public protesting to gauge in advance what conduct will or will not be a criminal offence.

4. This law allows the Secretary of State to extend the class of protected organisations, and so create new criminal offences, without any Parliamentary debate.

EG: This law at a moments notice could be extended to cover environmental, anti war, anti poverty, anti GM, human rights campaigners and there would be nothing anyone could do to challenge it or open up a debate on the issue. 

Why is this idea important?

S.145 & S.146 SOCPA makes it an offence to interfere with a contractual relationship of an animal research organisation.

These are the core reasons I propose these sections be scrapped and for animal research organisations to remain protected under existing laws:

1. The law singles out one class of victim as deserving special protection over another. It singles out a class of protester as deserving particular penalties over others and wrongly politicizes the criminal justice system.

EG: If a person trespasses on company X due to it's links to animal research they can be sent to prison for up to five years. If hours later another person trespasses at the same company for it's links to climate change they would not go to prison or have broken this law.

2. Part of this law makes it an offence to committ actions which are already unlawful.

EG: A person committing a serious act of criminal damage can be charged with s.145 SOCPA and face up to five years in prison, instead of up to ten years if prosecuted for criminal damage. However for a less serious crime such as a public order offence a person can face prison instead of facing a financial penalty.

3. This law turns civil and tortious acts in to criminal offences.

EG: Torts are normally civil wrongs and what is and is not a tort is much less clearly defined than what is a crime – it is not easy to assess whether a statement is defamatory or not. This means that it will be much harder for members of the public protesting to gauge in advance what conduct will or will not be a criminal offence.

4. This law allows the Secretary of State to extend the class of protected organisations, and so create new criminal offences, without any Parliamentary debate.

EG: This law at a moments notice could be extended to cover environmental, anti war, anti poverty, anti GM, human rights campaigners and there would be nothing anyone could do to challenge it or open up a debate on the issue. 

Withdraw the Victim Surcharge

At present all offenders receiving a Fine in Court, irrespective of the nature of their offence or any specific award for compensation to their victim(s), are by law ordered to pay an additional £15 surcharge to the Victim Support fund.  Judges and Magistrates have no discretion in the matter. This Victim Surcharge as it is presently enacted, undermines the principles of Justice and should be withdrawn on the basis that it is unfair, inefficient, ineffective and illogical.

Why is this idea important?

At present all offenders receiving a Fine in Court, irrespective of the nature of their offence or any specific award for compensation to their victim(s), are by law ordered to pay an additional £15 surcharge to the Victim Support fund.  Judges and Magistrates have no discretion in the matter. This Victim Surcharge as it is presently enacted, undermines the principles of Justice and should be withdrawn on the basis that it is unfair, inefficient, ineffective and illogical.

Victims at the Heart of the Criminal Justice System

They CJS was originally designed around the alleged offender. The CJS needs to be overhauled to place the victim at the centre of the process. Only recently have victims had statutory rights under the Code of Practice for Victims however it is questionable as to who acutally montiors this. I have worked within the CJS for 8 years. Although there have been slight improvements, I can personally only remember a handful of victims who have had a postive experience. 

The alleged offenders rights seem to always be given priority over the victims rights. I understand that people are treated as 'innocent until proven gulity' however the correct balance needs to be struck. Victims are constantly left feeling bewidered and shocked by a system that seems to put them last. Their views and opinions are almost always ignored or insignificant to the process. The view of the current CJS is that victims are no longer seen as victims, they are now seen as witnesses to a crime that has been committed against the Crown. Try explaining that to a victim of crime attending court!  

Alleged and convicted offenders have multiple government funded agencies supporting them thorugh the CJS. Who do victims of crime have? A National Charity called Victim Support which is only 75% funded by the government. There is 'end-to-end' offender management. What about 'end-to-end' victim support?

Why is this idea important?

They CJS was originally designed around the alleged offender. The CJS needs to be overhauled to place the victim at the centre of the process. Only recently have victims had statutory rights under the Code of Practice for Victims however it is questionable as to who acutally montiors this. I have worked within the CJS for 8 years. Although there have been slight improvements, I can personally only remember a handful of victims who have had a postive experience. 

The alleged offenders rights seem to always be given priority over the victims rights. I understand that people are treated as 'innocent until proven gulity' however the correct balance needs to be struck. Victims are constantly left feeling bewidered and shocked by a system that seems to put them last. Their views and opinions are almost always ignored or insignificant to the process. The view of the current CJS is that victims are no longer seen as victims, they are now seen as witnesses to a crime that has been committed against the Crown. Try explaining that to a victim of crime attending court!  

Alleged and convicted offenders have multiple government funded agencies supporting them thorugh the CJS. Who do victims of crime have? A National Charity called Victim Support which is only 75% funded by the government. There is 'end-to-end' offender management. What about 'end-to-end' victim support?

That we return to the culture that people are innocent until proven guilty

THAT WE RETURN TO THE CULTURE THAT PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

The plain clothes police are not interested in the truth of any situation in which a person has been accused. Once they have apprehended a person who has been accused, by using the most up to date serious criminal arrest systems, they are then only interested in arranging words and personal interpretations that will lead to convictions, a pursuit that clearly abandons the concept of innocent until proven guilty. They do not seek the truth they seek only a conviction which attempt to fit into targets agreed by their bosses has if in a factory working on a bonus system chasing targets set by top bosses.

 

It seems the peoples Justice System is locked into a persecution culture, that like a personal bonus system, rewards conviction targets which means it has forgotten its purpose— which is to protect the people from injustice based upon compassion and understanding.

 

This was when I was wrongfully arrested upon arriving at Newcastle Airport and taken to jail. I was accused of not appearing at a court when demanded to do so. Apparently there had been a warrant issued for my arrest for not attending this court hearing. This court appearance demand had been sent to an address I had not lived in for nearly two years despite the fact that they had my correct address on file.    I was handcuffed so many times I lost count and after a horrible night in a cell I was taken 90 miles to Leeds being the only one taken by police lorry which contained 8 cells. I have full disability because of my left leg is badly damaged and unable to bend fully. When I stated that I could not sit down in this small cell I was told “Get in – we will sort it out later” it never was sorted and upon arriving to Leeds three hours later, I found great difficulty in walking. The judge found I had done nothing wrong and I was realised with my heavy case which I had to fill from the plastic bags that all my belongings had been placed in.   I asked “How do I get home?” I was told “There is the back door” and I was released to find my own way home. It was difficult with a big case that a policeman had previously complained about its weight – – and I am 71 years of age.

 

People should be treated has innocent until proven guilty. Yet I witnessed were people, particularly young people had been locked into cells and were treated WORSE than animals. I was even told by the jailer, when stating his negligence to duty, just has he was placing hand cuffs upon me, that “You will not change it, for many have tried”.

 

I have also found previously and I have definite proof of this that the plain clothes police and uniformed police protocols are acting has the first department of the CPS. That is they are not the defenders of the faithful but an extension of the CPS – this is wrong.

 

 I will bring to your notice far more evidence has to these facts at the end of July, when I can speak more freely.

 

So yes!  We have entered “covertly” into a culture in which people are guilty until they can be proven innocent.

Why is this idea important?

THAT WE RETURN TO THE CULTURE THAT PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

The plain clothes police are not interested in the truth of any situation in which a person has been accused. Once they have apprehended a person who has been accused, by using the most up to date serious criminal arrest systems, they are then only interested in arranging words and personal interpretations that will lead to convictions, a pursuit that clearly abandons the concept of innocent until proven guilty. They do not seek the truth they seek only a conviction which attempt to fit into targets agreed by their bosses has if in a factory working on a bonus system chasing targets set by top bosses.

 

It seems the peoples Justice System is locked into a persecution culture, that like a personal bonus system, rewards conviction targets which means it has forgotten its purpose— which is to protect the people from injustice based upon compassion and understanding.

 

This was when I was wrongfully arrested upon arriving at Newcastle Airport and taken to jail. I was accused of not appearing at a court when demanded to do so. Apparently there had been a warrant issued for my arrest for not attending this court hearing. This court appearance demand had been sent to an address I had not lived in for nearly two years despite the fact that they had my correct address on file.    I was handcuffed so many times I lost count and after a horrible night in a cell I was taken 90 miles to Leeds being the only one taken by police lorry which contained 8 cells. I have full disability because of my left leg is badly damaged and unable to bend fully. When I stated that I could not sit down in this small cell I was told “Get in – we will sort it out later” it never was sorted and upon arriving to Leeds three hours later, I found great difficulty in walking. The judge found I had done nothing wrong and I was realised with my heavy case which I had to fill from the plastic bags that all my belongings had been placed in.   I asked “How do I get home?” I was told “There is the back door” and I was released to find my own way home. It was difficult with a big case that a policeman had previously complained about its weight – – and I am 71 years of age.

 

People should be treated has innocent until proven guilty. Yet I witnessed were people, particularly young people had been locked into cells and were treated WORSE than animals. I was even told by the jailer, when stating his negligence to duty, just has he was placing hand cuffs upon me, that “You will not change it, for many have tried”.

 

I have also found previously and I have definite proof of this that the plain clothes police and uniformed police protocols are acting has the first department of the CPS. That is they are not the defenders of the faithful but an extension of the CPS – this is wrong.

 

 I will bring to your notice far more evidence has to these facts at the end of July, when I can speak more freely.

 

So yes!  We have entered “covertly” into a culture in which people are guilty until they can be proven innocent.

Acts of Union

The annexation of Wales by the English crown, first of all by the Statute of Rhuddlan at the end of the 13th Century and later on by the Acts of Union in the 16th Century (Laws in Wales Acts 1536–1543) would be illegal under international law if it happened today.  I suggest therefore, in the interest of civil liberties, that these oppressive laws be completely expunged from the statute books.  The existence of these unwanted and unjust laws has severely impinged upon the civil liberties of Welsh people for centuries.  The fact that the government has not produced a Welsh language version of this website further underlines this fact. 

Why is this idea important?

The annexation of Wales by the English crown, first of all by the Statute of Rhuddlan at the end of the 13th Century and later on by the Acts of Union in the 16th Century (Laws in Wales Acts 1536–1543) would be illegal under international law if it happened today.  I suggest therefore, in the interest of civil liberties, that these oppressive laws be completely expunged from the statute books.  The existence of these unwanted and unjust laws has severely impinged upon the civil liberties of Welsh people for centuries.  The fact that the government has not produced a Welsh language version of this website further underlines this fact. 

Repeal the Hunting Act 2004

The Hunting Act was the single largest waste of Parlimentary time during the last Government. It was not introduced to improve Animal Welfare but simply camouflaged as such to hide the true Class discrimination that was so blatantly behind it. Not only is it unworkable but it Crimalises Law Abiding Citizens and wastes Police and Courts time to placate those people who believe that everydoby who rides a horse in the countryside is a "Toff" .

It has been shown by a Government Enquiry that it has no purpose and no evidence was given to prove Hunting is less Humane than any other methods of controlling the numbers of animal species that no longer have natural preditors.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act was the single largest waste of Parlimentary time during the last Government. It was not introduced to improve Animal Welfare but simply camouflaged as such to hide the true Class discrimination that was so blatantly behind it. Not only is it unworkable but it Crimalises Law Abiding Citizens and wastes Police and Courts time to placate those people who believe that everydoby who rides a horse in the countryside is a "Toff" .

It has been shown by a Government Enquiry that it has no purpose and no evidence was given to prove Hunting is less Humane than any other methods of controlling the numbers of animal species that no longer have natural preditors.