In most of Europe, it is currently perfectly legal to live in a caravan or camper or log cabin, any temporary dwelling in fact, without planning or other permissions on land which you own.
In this country it is not allowed. What I would like to see is the abilty for those who wished to, to live full time on their own land, in a temporary dwelling.
Why is this idea important?
In most of Europe, it is currently perfectly legal to live in a caravan or camper or log cabin, any temporary dwelling in fact, without planning or other permissions on land which you own.
In this country it is not allowed. What I would like to see is the abilty for those who wished to, to live full time on their own land, in a temporary dwelling.
Dear All I was given a police caution for a very minor event which I cannot go into details for legal reasons. This has dramatically changed my life because although I have numerous degrees behind me it was all for nothing because it seems as if no one is interested in employing me. I am currently being treated by psychologists for depression and trauma.
However, there are many of us who were given or accepted a police caution for numerous reasons. This includes signing the form under pressure by a police officer, being given the wrong information such as the caution would be removed within a period of time (mainly 5years), or for fear of being kept in a cell for over a night. Whatever the reason may be, I am of the opinion that those who have received a police caution particular for minor offences should not be punished for the rest of their life. Though the police have the power to caution individuals, they are not judges and it is not certain that if you have gone ahead with court proceedings you would be convicted. I am sure that many of us now wished that we went ahead with court proceedings because in my case I was advised that CPS would not accept my case but now is too late. A CAUTION IS AS GOOD AS A CONVICTION. My only problem is I cannot live under this oppression of being labelled a criminal by employers and other members
of the public. I much prefer to get a prison life sentence than to live in this society being turned down jobs after jobs and having only one option of depending in benefits. As you may be aware the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011-2012 maintains that adults with cautions will have their records kept indefinitely which is disproportionate. Therefore, I am asking those who have not got a chance to come before a judge to sign a caution Epetition at HM Government. Website is: Epetitions.direct.uk/petitions. 100.000 signatures are required for the government to consider the discussion in the parliament. Let us do something or lets us live in rejection, discrimination, and in misery for the rest of our lives for a minor mistake or choice that we have taken. Thanks
Why is this idea important?
Dear All I was given a police caution for a very minor event which I cannot go into details for legal reasons. This has dramatically changed my life because although I have numerous degrees behind me it was all for nothing because it seems as if no one is interested in employing me. I am currently being treated by psychologists for depression and trauma.
However, there are many of us who were given or accepted a police caution for numerous reasons. This includes signing the form under pressure by a police officer, being given the wrong information such as the caution would be removed within a period of time (mainly 5years), or for fear of being kept in a cell for over a night. Whatever the reason may be, I am of the opinion that those who have received a police caution particular for minor offences should not be punished for the rest of their life. Though the police have the power to caution individuals, they are not judges and it is not certain that if you have gone ahead with court proceedings you would be convicted. I am sure that many of us now wished that we went ahead with court proceedings because in my case I was advised that CPS would not accept my case but now is too late. A CAUTION IS AS GOOD AS A CONVICTION. My only problem is I cannot live under this oppression of being labelled a criminal by employers and other members
of the public. I much prefer to get a prison life sentence than to live in this society being turned down jobs after jobs and having only one option of depending in benefits. As you may be aware the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011-2012 maintains that adults with cautions will have their records kept indefinitely which is disproportionate. Therefore, I am asking those who have not got a chance to come before a judge to sign a caution Epetition at HM Government. Website is: Epetitions.direct.uk/petitions. 100.000 signatures are required for the government to consider the discussion in the parliament. Let us do something or lets us live in rejection, discrimination, and in misery for the rest of our lives for a minor mistake or choice that we have taken. Thanks
After 5 years of clear behaviour for people with a caution it should be automatically removed from a crb as long as it doesn’t involve children or vulnerable adults.
Why is this idea important?
After 5 years of clear behaviour for people with a caution it should be automatically removed from a crb as long as it doesn’t involve children or vulnerable adults.
In my opinion the death sentence should be brought back for premeditated murders, mass murderers, drug barons and peadophiles. There are many peadophiles who have ruined people's lives, not just the victims, but their families too.
Why is this idea important?
In my opinion the death sentence should be brought back for premeditated murders, mass murderers, drug barons and peadophiles. There are many peadophiles who have ruined people's lives, not just the victims, but their families too.
Several posts on the site imply or claim that social workers and other officials misrepresent what has taken place during dealings with members of the public. When ringing many organisations we are told that our calls may be recorded.
Please repeal the laws that prevent members of the general public from recording telephone calls which they make or receive, and recording or filming interviews with Social Workers, Occupational Therapists, etc. with the intention of using such recordings in evidence if this becomes necessary.
We have probably all had experience of salespeople who miss-sell, miss-describe the product or the payment methods, etc. often by telephone. Please repeal the laws that prevent us from recording these calls and using them as evidence if necessary.
Why is this idea important?
Several posts on the site imply or claim that social workers and other officials misrepresent what has taken place during dealings with members of the public. When ringing many organisations we are told that our calls may be recorded.
Please repeal the laws that prevent members of the general public from recording telephone calls which they make or receive, and recording or filming interviews with Social Workers, Occupational Therapists, etc. with the intention of using such recordings in evidence if this becomes necessary.
We have probably all had experience of salespeople who miss-sell, miss-describe the product or the payment methods, etc. often by telephone. Please repeal the laws that prevent us from recording these calls and using them as evidence if necessary.
On recent inspection and experience the answers are …. UNANSWERED! The following text is quoted literally, and grounded in factual evidence, not confabulations of the mind.
The IDEA is very old, it is about the quality and essence of Justice, as apparently enshrined in Magna Carta (40), and Paragraph 6 of he UK Human Rights Act 1988, which relates to Article 1, and the remainder of the Articles we are allegedly upholding.
The question is not rhetorical, and almost ridiculously easy to understand.
Here it is, it has been swimming, better perhaps – circumlocuting, around circles in the Lower and Upper Tribunals, ending up with the Ministry of Justice at Petty France, There is a certain adjectival quality underlined that's relevant, where one would expect the question to be answered with righteous indignation, but clearly the process is inured so that no person as yet recognises its importance for the individual. This is a sample, and there is worse experienced at the Royal Court's of Justice.
I wonder if you are interested. It's about the individual.
The text is a literal quote from the Tribunal Manager, re-quoting my question, which has been lying around these past two years.
'I am writing to you as the tribunal manager of the Upper Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Chamber. I have seen the response that you have
been sent by B….. P.. in regards to the internal review of your freedom
of information request. Within this response it states the
administration of the Upper Tribunal will respond to the following
questions:
"DOES the UK uphold its covenants with the EU Conventions?"
If the answer is NO or silence then no need to answer the next, you have
just answered article 10, to publish all, where you deny article 6.
“WILL I EVER get a hearing?" [ Let alone an independent and impartial one whose qualities are luminescent, this one has been floating since the beginning of this year. ]
As an administrator I am unable to answer these questions and I have
referred them to a legal officer in order to help with my response.
This has been disparately predicated in a/an [L] awful mess, by several judges, lastly whose decisions were unsigned, and the contrarieties internally so inconsistent as to contradict themselves from one sentence to another, the First Judges was an impossibility.
Why is this idea important?
On recent inspection and experience the answers are …. UNANSWERED! The following text is quoted literally, and grounded in factual evidence, not confabulations of the mind.
The IDEA is very old, it is about the quality and essence of Justice, as apparently enshrined in Magna Carta (40), and Paragraph 6 of he UK Human Rights Act 1988, which relates to Article 1, and the remainder of the Articles we are allegedly upholding.
The question is not rhetorical, and almost ridiculously easy to understand.
Here it is, it has been swimming, better perhaps – circumlocuting, around circles in the Lower and Upper Tribunals, ending up with the Ministry of Justice at Petty France, There is a certain adjectival quality underlined that's relevant, where one would expect the question to be answered with righteous indignation, but clearly the process is inured so that no person as yet recognises its importance for the individual. This is a sample, and there is worse experienced at the Royal Court's of Justice.
I wonder if you are interested. It's about the individual.
The text is a literal quote from the Tribunal Manager, re-quoting my question, which has been lying around these past two years.
'I am writing to you as the tribunal manager of the Upper Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Chamber. I have seen the response that you have
been sent by B….. P.. in regards to the internal review of your freedom
of information request. Within this response it states the
administration of the Upper Tribunal will respond to the following
questions:
"DOES the UK uphold its covenants with the EU Conventions?"
If the answer is NO or silence then no need to answer the next, you have
just answered article 10, to publish all, where you deny article 6.
“WILL I EVER get a hearing?" [ Let alone an independent and impartial one whose qualities are luminescent, this one has been floating since the beginning of this year. ]
As an administrator I am unable to answer these questions and I have
referred them to a legal officer in order to help with my response.
This has been disparately predicated in a/an [L] awful mess, by several judges, lastly whose decisions were unsigned, and the contrarieties internally so inconsistent as to contradict themselves from one sentence to another, the First Judges was an impossibility.
No extradition without evidence being tested in UK courts.
No extradition for things that are not offences under UK law.
No extradition for offences that took place in the UK (USA wire transfer, computer, hacking, antiques purchases, etc).
This should apply equally within the EU and outside. Should apply even if a Eurpean Arrest Warrant has been issued.
Extradition should also be subject to a UK Public Interest test and the Home Secretary should have the right (rarely used) to quash it.
Why is this idea important?
No extradition without evidence being tested in UK courts.
No extradition for things that are not offences under UK law.
No extradition for offences that took place in the UK (USA wire transfer, computer, hacking, antiques purchases, etc).
This should apply equally within the EU and outside. Should apply even if a Eurpean Arrest Warrant has been issued.
Extradition should also be subject to a UK Public Interest test and the Home Secretary should have the right (rarely used) to quash it.
PEOPLE THAT OWE MONIES ..SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO PRISON UNLESS FOR FRAUD. THE BBC LICENCE. TV LICENCE. COUNCIL TAX .. CSA ARREARS.. ITS A WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY. I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO MEET THE PERSON WHO MAKES THESE RULES UP . HOW DO THEY COME TO AGREE ON SUCH STUPID IDEAS ..
Why is this idea important?
PEOPLE THAT OWE MONIES ..SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO PRISON UNLESS FOR FRAUD. THE BBC LICENCE. TV LICENCE. COUNCIL TAX .. CSA ARREARS.. ITS A WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY. I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO MEET THE PERSON WHO MAKES THESE RULES UP . HOW DO THEY COME TO AGREE ON SUCH STUPID IDEAS ..
Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet, sulking like a naughty school boy who’s been discovered pedaling lies and deceit?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-relaxes-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana-1.312347
So the media makes Israel out to be some sort of monster when in actual fact the evidence suggests that they are far more reasonable, compassionate and concerned for liberty and justice than we are here in the UK!
Israel realises the senseless injustice of criminalising the sick.
Israel understands that it is not humane to remove the right of the sick to be treated by possibly the best natural medication known to man.
Israel has dealt a significant blow to greedy, self obsessed political / corporate agendas because they see such action as NECESSARY and IMPORTANT, indeed, the Jewish people have a saying: "If you haven't got your health, than what have you got?".
They replaced greedy drug policy with humane and compassionate treatment.
Israel sees the hypocrisy. Israel sees the blatant bigotry. Israel sees the complete and utter failure of the drug war.
Israel is doing something about it.
Is the UK really to be the elephant in the room? Standing on our outdated, prejudicial and, frankly, insane principles we are begging to be left behind by other more evolved, liberated and compassionate societies.
The UK government are a disgrace for while the world is turning to a more liberal future, the UK is so steeped in the web of deceit, propaganda, political complicity and corruption that it would seem they cannot untangle themselves from it without also ruining their own careers. Well, personally, I think that any prohibitionist should be forced from their disgraceful and hateful position of power so that they no longer infect reason with their corrupt, illogical, irrational and perverse sense of justice.
Why is this idea important?
Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet, sulking like a naughty school boy who’s been discovered pedaling lies and deceit?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-relaxes-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana-1.312347
So the media makes Israel out to be some sort of monster when in actual fact the evidence suggests that they are far more reasonable, compassionate and concerned for liberty and justice than we are here in the UK!
Israel realises the senseless injustice of criminalising the sick.
Israel understands that it is not humane to remove the right of the sick to be treated by possibly the best natural medication known to man.
Israel has dealt a significant blow to greedy, self obsessed political / corporate agendas because they see such action as NECESSARY and IMPORTANT, indeed, the Jewish people have a saying: "If you haven't got your health, than what have you got?".
They replaced greedy drug policy with humane and compassionate treatment.
Israel sees the hypocrisy. Israel sees the blatant bigotry. Israel sees the complete and utter failure of the drug war.
Israel is doing something about it.
Is the UK really to be the elephant in the room? Standing on our outdated, prejudicial and, frankly, insane principles we are begging to be left behind by other more evolved, liberated and compassionate societies.
The UK government are a disgrace for while the world is turning to a more liberal future, the UK is so steeped in the web of deceit, propaganda, political complicity and corruption that it would seem they cannot untangle themselves from it without also ruining their own careers. Well, personally, I think that any prohibitionist should be forced from their disgraceful and hateful position of power so that they no longer infect reason with their corrupt, illogical, irrational and perverse sense of justice.
Child Abandonment Law states that all mothers who abandon their babies under 2 years of age are prosecuted. I would like this to be amended so that a mother who leaves her unwanted baby in a "safe" place, i.e. an NHS facility, fire station, police station or church, can do so without the fear of being prosecuted.
Why is this idea important?
Child Abandonment Law states that all mothers who abandon their babies under 2 years of age are prosecuted. I would like this to be amended so that a mother who leaves her unwanted baby in a "safe" place, i.e. an NHS facility, fire station, police station or church, can do so without the fear of being prosecuted.
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?
Scrap the law which permits for schools to take parents' religion or church attendance record into account as a valid admissions criteria.
Why is this idea important?
Scrap the law which permits for schools to take parents' religion or church attendance record into account as a valid admissions criteria.
Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.
Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.
Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.
Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!
Why is this idea important?
Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.
Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.
Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.
Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!
Regulate clamping companies and release fees and/or strengthen private PCN's and put them on the same footing as local authority parking charge notices (i.e. criminal not civil law).
Why is this idea important?
Regulate clamping companies and release fees and/or strengthen private PCN's and put them on the same footing as local authority parking charge notices (i.e. criminal not civil law).
Section 11.1 of the Football Spectators Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate that certain football grounds are all-seated, a power that is currently applied to the top two divisions. This section should be repealed.
Practical experience shows that the all-seater rules are unenforceable. Every week, thousands of people stand in front of their seats for the duration of the game. Many who would like to sit down are unable to use their seats, as they find their view blocked. Varied and repeated attempts to tackle this practice have failed.
The evidence demonstrates that when those who wish to stand are provided with designated Safe Standing areas, the issue of standing in seated areas largely goes away. This benefits everyone.
In England and Wales, Safe Standing areas are permitted at rugby union and rugby league venues, as well as at speedway and horse racing events. Safe Standing is also allowed at football grounds outside the top two divisions, subject to the stringent standards laid down in the Government's Green Guide. The idea that the safety of an stadium depends on the type and quality of event happening on the pitch is absurd. This anomoly can best be tackled by removing section 11.1.
Why is this idea important?
Section 11.1 of the Football Spectators Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate that certain football grounds are all-seated, a power that is currently applied to the top two divisions. This section should be repealed.
Practical experience shows that the all-seater rules are unenforceable. Every week, thousands of people stand in front of their seats for the duration of the game. Many who would like to sit down are unable to use their seats, as they find their view blocked. Varied and repeated attempts to tackle this practice have failed.
The evidence demonstrates that when those who wish to stand are provided with designated Safe Standing areas, the issue of standing in seated areas largely goes away. This benefits everyone.
In England and Wales, Safe Standing areas are permitted at rugby union and rugby league venues, as well as at speedway and horse racing events. Safe Standing is also allowed at football grounds outside the top two divisions, subject to the stringent standards laid down in the Government's Green Guide. The idea that the safety of an stadium depends on the type and quality of event happening on the pitch is absurd. This anomoly can best be tackled by removing section 11.1.
Get rid of the Child Support Agency / Child Support Enforcement Commission
Rewrite or repeal and recreate a new Child Support Bill that will maintain civil liberties, make private arrangements the default way to support children, give any future child support public services arbitration powers ONLY and ensure that payments / maintenance is ongoing but otherwise keep out of the publics lives. Enforcements will be arbitrated fairly through the courts but no type of financial blackmail will be made. Natural justice will allow the absent parent to be allowed to defend themselves in a fair trial and his or her circumstances will be taken into consideration against any liability which at present is not what is happening in the current system as courts must pass any liability order passed once received by the CSA / CMEC. This is a bar and denial to natural justice, since a fair trial is not granted to the non resident parent at present.
No funds will be made available for the state from maintenance payments even if the parent with care of the children is on benefits. This is to prevent abuse of power and making up amounts that are owed, which has led to exploitation of non resident parents and using the courts to blackmail them or fleece them. To prevent such corruption from occurring and the temptation to exploit financially, this costly measure must be made.
100% of the maintenance will go to the child's support through a public sector created bank account or post office account. The child when old enough will be able to also draw out the money when deemed responsible enough.
Why is this idea important?
Get rid of the Child Support Agency / Child Support Enforcement Commission
Rewrite or repeal and recreate a new Child Support Bill that will maintain civil liberties, make private arrangements the default way to support children, give any future child support public services arbitration powers ONLY and ensure that payments / maintenance is ongoing but otherwise keep out of the publics lives. Enforcements will be arbitrated fairly through the courts but no type of financial blackmail will be made. Natural justice will allow the absent parent to be allowed to defend themselves in a fair trial and his or her circumstances will be taken into consideration against any liability which at present is not what is happening in the current system as courts must pass any liability order passed once received by the CSA / CMEC. This is a bar and denial to natural justice, since a fair trial is not granted to the non resident parent at present.
No funds will be made available for the state from maintenance payments even if the parent with care of the children is on benefits. This is to prevent abuse of power and making up amounts that are owed, which has led to exploitation of non resident parents and using the courts to blackmail them or fleece them. To prevent such corruption from occurring and the temptation to exploit financially, this costly measure must be made.
100% of the maintenance will go to the child's support through a public sector created bank account or post office account. The child when old enough will be able to also draw out the money when deemed responsible enough.
I would like to see five points reflected in the new justice legislation created by the Coalition government:
1.. A swift return to the ancient instruction from all judges to jurors allocated to criminal prosecution cases that in order to convict, the balance of evidence must have caused them to believe that a defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', and that this means that if they have any doubts at all that they should not convict, bearing in mind that the underpinning foundation of our legal system is that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
2. The removal of all banana republic inspired New Labour 'complaint to conviction' targets created for police and CPS. The target for any democratic society's criminal justice system should be to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, not to frog march anyone who is the subject of a complaint through to a 'guilty' verdict as swiftly as possible.
3. A thorough investigation of the victim compensation system in terms of any potential for abuse, followed by a move to balance legislation so that people who make false allegations due to malice and/ or to fraudulently claim compensation face heavy penalties, which grow heavier the later this comes to light (as the person they have accused will have suffered for a longer time due to their allegations). This should be clearly explained to people at the point they make a complaint to the police by a professional mediator, not a police officer.
4. That no person is imprisoned without charge for longer than the 36 hours that was the limit before New Labour legislation.
5. That no person is ever subject to government employees of any description circulating information about him or her that has been gathered through rumour and unsubstantiated allegation (as can be the case on the enhanced CRB).
Why is this idea important?
I would like to see five points reflected in the new justice legislation created by the Coalition government:
1.. A swift return to the ancient instruction from all judges to jurors allocated to criminal prosecution cases that in order to convict, the balance of evidence must have caused them to believe that a defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', and that this means that if they have any doubts at all that they should not convict, bearing in mind that the underpinning foundation of our legal system is that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
2. The removal of all banana republic inspired New Labour 'complaint to conviction' targets created for police and CPS. The target for any democratic society's criminal justice system should be to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, not to frog march anyone who is the subject of a complaint through to a 'guilty' verdict as swiftly as possible.
3. A thorough investigation of the victim compensation system in terms of any potential for abuse, followed by a move to balance legislation so that people who make false allegations due to malice and/ or to fraudulently claim compensation face heavy penalties, which grow heavier the later this comes to light (as the person they have accused will have suffered for a longer time due to their allegations). This should be clearly explained to people at the point they make a complaint to the police by a professional mediator, not a police officer.
4. That no person is imprisoned without charge for longer than the 36 hours that was the limit before New Labour legislation.
5. That no person is ever subject to government employees of any description circulating information about him or her that has been gathered through rumour and unsubstantiated allegation (as can be the case on the enhanced CRB).
Very recently parents have been handcuffed and jailed for contacting their own children,by sending a birthday card,waving as they passed by,or communicating via u-tube !
Judges should NO LONGER have the power to issue injunctions forbidding contact between parents and children unless the parent in question has been convicted of a criminal offence on a child .
Right now, the power of family court judges over parents is overwhelming,intimidating,and unjust.If a parent has never been convicted of an offence on any child there is no reason why they should be refused all contact for up to 18 years and sometimes for life , and worse still jailed if they so much as wave a hand or send a card !
The law that allows judges to issue draconian injuctions forbidding parents from contacting their own children should be repealed ! Only if a criminal offence has been committed against a child (any child) can such an injunction be justified.
Why is this idea important?
Very recently parents have been handcuffed and jailed for contacting their own children,by sending a birthday card,waving as they passed by,or communicating via u-tube !
Judges should NO LONGER have the power to issue injunctions forbidding contact between parents and children unless the parent in question has been convicted of a criminal offence on a child .
Right now, the power of family court judges over parents is overwhelming,intimidating,and unjust.If a parent has never been convicted of an offence on any child there is no reason why they should be refused all contact for up to 18 years and sometimes for life , and worse still jailed if they so much as wave a hand or send a card !
The law that allows judges to issue draconian injuctions forbidding parents from contacting their own children should be repealed ! Only if a criminal offence has been committed against a child (any child) can such an injunction be justified.
The Coronation Oath –
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and
Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"
Elizabeth 2: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Elizabeth 2: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here
before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."
Those who want to follow the Laws of God, clearly stated in the Oath, are not being allowed.
At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse, according to this Oath, to God's Laws.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow The Law seek a single Court-room. Support the effort.
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/know-your-rights-and-give-judges-less-discretion
Why is this idea important?
The Coronation Oath –
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and
Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"
Elizabeth 2: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Elizabeth 2: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here
before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."
Those who want to follow the Laws of God, clearly stated in the Oath, are not being allowed.
At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse, according to this Oath, to God's Laws.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow The Law seek a single Court-room. Support the effort.
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/know-your-rights-and-give-judges-less-discretion
Imagine this: You are a law-abiding citizen, an upright man with no previous convictions. One day the police break into your house with no search warrant and confiscate all your computer equipment.
They haul you off to the cells for several hours and interrogate you, allowing you nothing to eat or drink. You are totally confused. Since you are innocent, you obviously have no idea what you have been accused of.
A few days later you find someone has made an allegation of sexual abuse against you, The Police raid your house again, carting off anything they think can be used in evidence and you are taken back to the cells for further questioning. If you say "No comment" to every question fired at you, you will stand a far better chance of staying out of jail but being innocent and eager for the truth to be known, you give them too much information about yourself, thus allowing them to twist your words to ensure a conviction.
Your friends are interrogated too. If any of them say anything good about you when they provide a statement, it is disregarded or conveniently placed at the bottom of the pile – The Police are only looking for the bad. For months nothing happens and you get very little legal advice as the duty solicitor you have been allocated is always "Very busy," only allowing you five minutes of his valuable time. But meanwhile The Police and the Crown Prosecution Service are gathering together as many lies as they can and they are extremely proficient at it with unlimited resources at their disposal. They are slowly but surely making you fit the profile.
A few months later the police again take you in for further questioning. Suddenly, out of the blue, further allegations are brought – "Crimes" allegedly committed by you way back in the past.
Now any logical-thinking human being would see a connection between the recent accusations and the ones from the past. But no, the police say the allegations are entirely separate and they will swear your accusers do not know each other although you know full well that they do… after all it was you who introduced them in the first place! You were all good friends at one point. But with the lure of compensation packages, unscrupulous people have no qualms about dragging an innocent man's name through the mud and sending him to jail for things that never happened.
At present in the UK it is quite possible to be branded a sex offender and be imprisoned indefinitely purely on the basis of hearsay, collusion, and bare-faced lies. If several people conspire against you they can get compensation… you get incarceration.
You will soon find that nearly everyone will desert you. Most people will not want to be associated with you anymore. They will not take the risk. The amount of lies spread about you will result in a "No smoke without fire" attitude, instigated by The Police.
Even at this point you still place enormous trust in the Justice System to clear your good name and wholeheartedly believe that your innocence will be your best defence – the fact that you did nothing wrong will surely win the day. But you will soon find no one has any faith in you. Even your defence barrister will tell you it would be better to plead guilty to get a lighter sentence.
You have no way of proving your innocence and then you find to your horror that the people who know the real truth are not allowed to appear in your defence as apparently, you are told, there is not enough legal funding.
You will not be given a fair trial; you will be processed and perhaps be imprisoned indefinitely for crimes that never happened. Then you will find there are more horrors to come. Once wrongly convicted you now discover you are the lowest of the low in the hierarchy of convicted men. Now deemed worse than murderers and multiple rapists, you are a "Vulnerable" prisoner who has to be segregated for his own protection.
Nobody loves a convicted paedophile which is what you are now even though you have never been sexually attracted to children. Robbers of banks and launderers of money can achieve hero status within prison walls but not you. If you still choose to maintain your innocence you are now viewed as "In denial" and not addressing your offending behaviour. In prison, cries of: "I'm innocent!" carry no weight. The answer you will get is: "We all are!" The prison system in the UK has virtually no strategy for dealing with the wrongly convicted. Together with the Probation office and Parole Board, the prison system is obliged to uphold the decision of the courts. Any loyal friends and family members who have not yet abandoned you will now also be viewed as being "In denial."
You are still alive, and at least there is not a death sentence hanging over your head, but your life has been cruelly snatched away nonetheless and now you will have another nightmare scenario on your hands. You will constantly be asked to admit guilt and accept responsibility for your "Crimes." You will be told to feel remorse for those crimes that never happened, and show empathy towards your "Victims" who by now are probably living the high life, enjoying their compensation money. They have no conscience and have no trouble in sleeping soundly at night without a thought for you.
If at this point you still choose to maintain your innocence you soon discover you may never be released! Uncompromising officers will continually try to get you to sign your innocence away. Coercive and brutal tactics are not unheard of. And on the outside the few remaining people who have stood by you no matter what, are powerless to do anything which will make any real difference. You are now in the unenviable position of having to choose between maintaining your integrity at the expense of your freedom or pretending to be a criminal in order to regain it. Most people would say they would never admit to doing anything they hadn't done but when forced with such a "Catch 22" situation it is understandable that some break under the strain and consider it fair trade for the hope of parole.
As you have had the misfortune of being falsely accused of something as damming as sex offences there is yet another sentence to serve if you ever regain your freedom. The day you walk through those prison gates is the day society will get its opportunity to pass judgment.
Your life will never be as it was before your conviction. By now institutionalised, you will be cast out into a vigilante world where every mother in the neighbourhood will be eager to avoid you and one where ordinary people would be quite happy to see you hung, drawn and quartered for fear of what you might do to their precious offspring. If a child goes missing, yours will be the first door the police will knock upon and then you will find you are right back to square one.
Why is this idea important?
Imagine this: You are a law-abiding citizen, an upright man with no previous convictions. One day the police break into your house with no search warrant and confiscate all your computer equipment.
They haul you off to the cells for several hours and interrogate you, allowing you nothing to eat or drink. You are totally confused. Since you are innocent, you obviously have no idea what you have been accused of.
A few days later you find someone has made an allegation of sexual abuse against you, The Police raid your house again, carting off anything they think can be used in evidence and you are taken back to the cells for further questioning. If you say "No comment" to every question fired at you, you will stand a far better chance of staying out of jail but being innocent and eager for the truth to be known, you give them too much information about yourself, thus allowing them to twist your words to ensure a conviction.
Your friends are interrogated too. If any of them say anything good about you when they provide a statement, it is disregarded or conveniently placed at the bottom of the pile – The Police are only looking for the bad. For months nothing happens and you get very little legal advice as the duty solicitor you have been allocated is always "Very busy," only allowing you five minutes of his valuable time. But meanwhile The Police and the Crown Prosecution Service are gathering together as many lies as they can and they are extremely proficient at it with unlimited resources at their disposal. They are slowly but surely making you fit the profile.
A few months later the police again take you in for further questioning. Suddenly, out of the blue, further allegations are brought – "Crimes" allegedly committed by you way back in the past.
Now any logical-thinking human being would see a connection between the recent accusations and the ones from the past. But no, the police say the allegations are entirely separate and they will swear your accusers do not know each other although you know full well that they do… after all it was you who introduced them in the first place! You were all good friends at one point. But with the lure of compensation packages, unscrupulous people have no qualms about dragging an innocent man's name through the mud and sending him to jail for things that never happened.
At present in the UK it is quite possible to be branded a sex offender and be imprisoned indefinitely purely on the basis of hearsay, collusion, and bare-faced lies. If several people conspire against you they can get compensation… you get incarceration.
You will soon find that nearly everyone will desert you. Most people will not want to be associated with you anymore. They will not take the risk. The amount of lies spread about you will result in a "No smoke without fire" attitude, instigated by The Police.
Even at this point you still place enormous trust in the Justice System to clear your good name and wholeheartedly believe that your innocence will be your best defence – the fact that you did nothing wrong will surely win the day. But you will soon find no one has any faith in you. Even your defence barrister will tell you it would be better to plead guilty to get a lighter sentence.
You have no way of proving your innocence and then you find to your horror that the people who know the real truth are not allowed to appear in your defence as apparently, you are told, there is not enough legal funding.
You will not be given a fair trial; you will be processed and perhaps be imprisoned indefinitely for crimes that never happened. Then you will find there are more horrors to come. Once wrongly convicted you now discover you are the lowest of the low in the hierarchy of convicted men. Now deemed worse than murderers and multiple rapists, you are a "Vulnerable" prisoner who has to be segregated for his own protection.
Nobody loves a convicted paedophile which is what you are now even though you have never been sexually attracted to children. Robbers of banks and launderers of money can achieve hero status within prison walls but not you. If you still choose to maintain your innocence you are now viewed as "In denial" and not addressing your offending behaviour. In prison, cries of: "I'm innocent!" carry no weight. The answer you will get is: "We all are!" The prison system in the UK has virtually no strategy for dealing with the wrongly convicted. Together with the Probation office and Parole Board, the prison system is obliged to uphold the decision of the courts. Any loyal friends and family members who have not yet abandoned you will now also be viewed as being "In denial."
You are still alive, and at least there is not a death sentence hanging over your head, but your life has been cruelly snatched away nonetheless and now you will have another nightmare scenario on your hands. You will constantly be asked to admit guilt and accept responsibility for your "Crimes." You will be told to feel remorse for those crimes that never happened, and show empathy towards your "Victims" who by now are probably living the high life, enjoying their compensation money. They have no conscience and have no trouble in sleeping soundly at night without a thought for you.
If at this point you still choose to maintain your innocence you soon discover you may never be released! Uncompromising officers will continually try to get you to sign your innocence away. Coercive and brutal tactics are not unheard of. And on the outside the few remaining people who have stood by you no matter what, are powerless to do anything which will make any real difference. You are now in the unenviable position of having to choose between maintaining your integrity at the expense of your freedom or pretending to be a criminal in order to regain it. Most people would say they would never admit to doing anything they hadn't done but when forced with such a "Catch 22" situation it is understandable that some break under the strain and consider it fair trade for the hope of parole.
As you have had the misfortune of being falsely accused of something as damming as sex offences there is yet another sentence to serve if you ever regain your freedom. The day you walk through those prison gates is the day society will get its opportunity to pass judgment.
Your life will never be as it was before your conviction. By now institutionalised, you will be cast out into a vigilante world where every mother in the neighbourhood will be eager to avoid you and one where ordinary people would be quite happy to see you hung, drawn and quartered for fear of what you might do to their precious offspring. If a child goes missing, yours will be the first door the police will knock upon and then you will find you are right back to square one.
U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.
Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.
It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.
Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.
The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.
Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.
For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.
As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.
There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.
Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.
I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.
Why is this idea important?
U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.
Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.
It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.
Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.
The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.
Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.
For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.
As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.
There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.
Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.
I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.
I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.
Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'
So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:
The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.
Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.
If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.
Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.
The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'
The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'
After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'
And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.
It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.
The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?
In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.
All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.
Why is this idea important?
I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.
Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'
So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:
The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.
Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.
If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.
Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.
The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'
The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'
After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'
And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.
It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.
The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?
In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.
All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.
Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.
Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.
The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.
No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.
If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.
If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.
While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.
Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.
EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.
A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.
A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.
If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.
The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.
Interim Care Orders should be abolished.
No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.
Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.
A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.
While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.
The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.
The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.
The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.
Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!
Why is this idea important?
Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.
Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.
The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.
No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.
If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.
If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.
While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.
Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.
EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.
A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.
A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.
If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.
The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.
Interim Care Orders should be abolished.
No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.
Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.
A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.
While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.
The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.
The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.
The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.
Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!
In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.
The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.
Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.
It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.
The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.
Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.
The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.
Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.
Why is this idea important?
In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.
The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.
Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.
It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.
The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.
Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.
The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.
Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.
This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.
Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.
Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.
In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?
Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!
Why is this idea important?
This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.
Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.
Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.
In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?
Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!