Right to privacy

With the increase of third party quangos having more and more access to your personal records.   This can only be bad and open to clear violations of an individuals right to privacy.

 

The Terrorism powers allow more snooping into peoples private lives.

 

The use of Third party providers. Profit making companies to provide help for the unemployed.  This gives them more and more accesss to your personal info. With the latest coerced labour scenario you have no right to silence,no privacy, you have to tell them everything you do. Infact the only thing that aint regulated ans sanctions imposed for as far as I am aware is flatulence.

Why is this idea important?

With the increase of third party quangos having more and more access to your personal records.   This can only be bad and open to clear violations of an individuals right to privacy.

 

The Terrorism powers allow more snooping into peoples private lives.

 

The use of Third party providers. Profit making companies to provide help for the unemployed.  This gives them more and more accesss to your personal info. With the latest coerced labour scenario you have no right to silence,no privacy, you have to tell them everything you do. Infact the only thing that aint regulated ans sanctions imposed for as far as I am aware is flatulence.

Get former drink drivers off the DNA database

Though nobody personally wants to be identified as a convicted drink driver, the fact and truth is that at one time or another millions of people have fallen foul of this law, including many celebrities, and otherwise good citizens like doctors, teachers and many others.

There are NO legal defences to this law, no extenuating circumstances (e.g. even taking the wife to the hospital when she's about to give birth) which makes it one of the most suspicious laws on the entire statute books.

So although everybody accepts that seriously drunk drivers, or even possible those narrowly over the limit are a potential danger to the public, it  remains mostly "a victimless crime."

It is of course very popular with the police, who are very keen to use it to swell their arrest and conviction statistics, whereas what the public really cares about is muggers, vandals, car thiefs, burglars, rapists, muderers and so on, where in each case there IS a genuine and often very traumatised or harmed victim.

At present, the situation is that a convicted drink driver will have this noted on their license for around 10 years, and could even end up in prison on repeat offences, even though they have not ever injured or killed anybody.

But worst of all it means that though they have harmed or stolen from nobody, they have a permnanent criminal record.

So I don't object to drink driving over a certain limit being a criminal offence, because it is a danger to the public, but it may interest readers to know that at least 90% and as many in places as 96% or more of road accidents, and in particular DEATHS, are NOT caused by drink drivers, but simply by incompetent or careless motorists, and drink drivers are scape goated en masse for serious problems they are rarely causing, and even in cases where drink drivers have caused injury or death, it has rarely been shown that alcohol was THE CAUSE, but only that drink was INVOLVED in the offence.

So at the very least please, can we have people who are otherwise good citizens, who made maybe one mistake and ended up criminalised after being accidentally over the limit on perhaps a single occasion years or decades ago, taken off the DNA database and have their criminal record struck off (let's say after 3 years perhaps if they don't reoffend), when they are not common criminals, who have never actually committed any serious crime against any other citizen, and pose no threat to the public?

Because on the whole, these people are not genuine criminals, simply people who made an error of judgement on a single occasion and harmed nobody.

Why is this idea important?

Though nobody personally wants to be identified as a convicted drink driver, the fact and truth is that at one time or another millions of people have fallen foul of this law, including many celebrities, and otherwise good citizens like doctors, teachers and many others.

There are NO legal defences to this law, no extenuating circumstances (e.g. even taking the wife to the hospital when she's about to give birth) which makes it one of the most suspicious laws on the entire statute books.

So although everybody accepts that seriously drunk drivers, or even possible those narrowly over the limit are a potential danger to the public, it  remains mostly "a victimless crime."

It is of course very popular with the police, who are very keen to use it to swell their arrest and conviction statistics, whereas what the public really cares about is muggers, vandals, car thiefs, burglars, rapists, muderers and so on, where in each case there IS a genuine and often very traumatised or harmed victim.

At present, the situation is that a convicted drink driver will have this noted on their license for around 10 years, and could even end up in prison on repeat offences, even though they have not ever injured or killed anybody.

But worst of all it means that though they have harmed or stolen from nobody, they have a permnanent criminal record.

So I don't object to drink driving over a certain limit being a criminal offence, because it is a danger to the public, but it may interest readers to know that at least 90% and as many in places as 96% or more of road accidents, and in particular DEATHS, are NOT caused by drink drivers, but simply by incompetent or careless motorists, and drink drivers are scape goated en masse for serious problems they are rarely causing, and even in cases where drink drivers have caused injury or death, it has rarely been shown that alcohol was THE CAUSE, but only that drink was INVOLVED in the offence.

So at the very least please, can we have people who are otherwise good citizens, who made maybe one mistake and ended up criminalised after being accidentally over the limit on perhaps a single occasion years or decades ago, taken off the DNA database and have their criminal record struck off (let's say after 3 years perhaps if they don't reoffend), when they are not common criminals, who have never actually committed any serious crime against any other citizen, and pose no threat to the public?

Because on the whole, these people are not genuine criminals, simply people who made an error of judgement on a single occasion and harmed nobody.

remove out of job centre placements such as A4e.

Remove all the tin pot unemployment courses such as A4E.  who sit at least 20 unemployed into a small room sharing a couple of computers. its unproductive with a  verrrrrry remote chance of gaining employment. STOP THESE COURSES THEY DO NOT WORK……..

 CREATE PROPER SENIOR APPRENTICE COURSES FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.

Why is this idea important?

Remove all the tin pot unemployment courses such as A4E.  who sit at least 20 unemployed into a small room sharing a couple of computers. its unproductive with a  verrrrrry remote chance of gaining employment. STOP THESE COURSES THEY DO NOT WORK……..

 CREATE PROPER SENIOR APPRENTICE COURSES FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.