Reparations should be made when the justice system imprisons the innocent

 

No amount of financial compensation can ever be any consolation for the time stolen from an innocent person's life when they have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted. A huge amount of money of course will help to re-establish a life; it can pay for somewhere to live outright and it will enable the released prisoner to purchase whatever is needed before finding suitable employment. This monetary compensation is therefore necessary but can in no way make up for the lost and stolen years.

On average in the UK, it takes an innocent person twelve years to overturn a wrongful conviction when imprisoned. What if that innocent person was you? Think about it… that's twelve long years deprived of your freedom for crimes you never committed – a murderer will only get fourteen years at the most nowadays.

During that time you may miss your children's entire childhood, friends and family may abandon or forget you or even worse they may start to disbelieve you. The world will move on without you and you are languishing in jail paying for a crime someone else committed or perhaps one that didn't happen at all. Twelve years battling through legal paperwork to prove your innocence.

Twelve years of being called an offender when you have done nothing wrong and twelve years of being browbeaten into admitting guilt for something you haven't done because the justice system does not like to admit it makes mistakes.

It's a sad but little known fact but it is far easier to get released from prison if you are guilty than if you are innocent. After all a jury has found you guilty and a judge has convicted you. Who's going to believe you now? The prison and probation officials will not hear the pleas of the innocent as they can only abide by the Court's decision so you are well and truly stitched up.

Your only hope is to find a good legal representative who believes in you. If you are mega rich, then money could be your saviour but for the poor, innocent prisoner on legal aid, you can bet your bottom dollar you will be in prison for a very long time.

As an innocent person wrongly convicted, it's as if you have been a God- fearing Christian all your life and have been thrown into Hell by mistake on the day you die, so how can money in the form of compensation ever make reparation for that?

Guilty prisoners know they have been incarcerated for a reason and they have to make amends for the harm they have done to society. They have their debt to pay in years and liberty, but what can an innocent prisoner do other than endeavour to prove that innocence?

The current justice system should be changed so that more help is given to those prisoners who claim they are morally innocent of all they have been accused of. Whilst in prison they should be given every resource available to help them with their case so that it is resolved swiftly and they are not caught up for many years in a system designed for the guilty.

This would be beneficial to all concerned and would perhaps dispense with the need for vast amounts of compensation at the end of a long and unnecessary sentence.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

No amount of financial compensation can ever be any consolation for the time stolen from an innocent person's life when they have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted. A huge amount of money of course will help to re-establish a life; it can pay for somewhere to live outright and it will enable the released prisoner to purchase whatever is needed before finding suitable employment. This monetary compensation is therefore necessary but can in no way make up for the lost and stolen years.

On average in the UK, it takes an innocent person twelve years to overturn a wrongful conviction when imprisoned. What if that innocent person was you? Think about it… that's twelve long years deprived of your freedom for crimes you never committed – a murderer will only get fourteen years at the most nowadays.

During that time you may miss your children's entire childhood, friends and family may abandon or forget you or even worse they may start to disbelieve you. The world will move on without you and you are languishing in jail paying for a crime someone else committed or perhaps one that didn't happen at all. Twelve years battling through legal paperwork to prove your innocence.

Twelve years of being called an offender when you have done nothing wrong and twelve years of being browbeaten into admitting guilt for something you haven't done because the justice system does not like to admit it makes mistakes.

It's a sad but little known fact but it is far easier to get released from prison if you are guilty than if you are innocent. After all a jury has found you guilty and a judge has convicted you. Who's going to believe you now? The prison and probation officials will not hear the pleas of the innocent as they can only abide by the Court's decision so you are well and truly stitched up.

Your only hope is to find a good legal representative who believes in you. If you are mega rich, then money could be your saviour but for the poor, innocent prisoner on legal aid, you can bet your bottom dollar you will be in prison for a very long time.

As an innocent person wrongly convicted, it's as if you have been a God- fearing Christian all your life and have been thrown into Hell by mistake on the day you die, so how can money in the form of compensation ever make reparation for that?

Guilty prisoners know they have been incarcerated for a reason and they have to make amends for the harm they have done to society. They have their debt to pay in years and liberty, but what can an innocent prisoner do other than endeavour to prove that innocence?

The current justice system should be changed so that more help is given to those prisoners who claim they are morally innocent of all they have been accused of. Whilst in prison they should be given every resource available to help them with their case so that it is resolved swiftly and they are not caught up for many years in a system designed for the guilty.

This would be beneficial to all concerned and would perhaps dispense with the need for vast amounts of compensation at the end of a long and unnecessary sentence.

 

Repeal or Redraft Bad Character and Sex Laws

Here are some suggestions, borne out of my own experience, as well as those of a few others, to reduce the number of miscarriages of justice:

In full support of the SAFARI campaign, I believe anonymity should be afforded to all defendants accused of any crime until conviction, not just those accused of rape, and not just until they are charged. This would ensure that nobody’s trial, whatever they are accused of, would be prejudiced by misinformation or outrage stirred up by the media or by any other means. It would also prevent situations in which bogus ‘other victims’ ”come forward” after a media trawl by the police, in the hope of receiving compensation; this is a deeply wicked crime that has emerged in recent years and, apart from wrecking the lives of the innocent accused and their families, devalues and places in jeopardy those genuine victims who simply want justice, closure, and the appropriate treatment/therapy to help them cope with the trauma they have suffered. It is this treatment and therapy that any compensation money should be used for; it should not be given to the victim to spend like a lottery win. 

Government must treat sexual offences the same as other types of offence in terms of early release and recognition of rehabilitation, and cease using them for political gain. The Sex Offenders’ Register should be scrapped, or, in the alternative, there should be registration provisions for all  types of offences. Registration is an imposition with the threat of imprisonment and a stigma attached; it therefore amounts to additional punishment. It is also a life sentence in itself, because the police, being more interested in the soft option of profiling than proper investigation of the facts, can use it to “round up the usual suspects”.

The provisions for the admission of  bad character evidence in the CJA2003 should be abolished, since such evidence, when used to decide guilt in the instant case, can only be prejudicial; in the alternative, this evidence must be used very sparingly, as Parliament intended, and not dished out to prosecutors like sweets by pro-prosecution judges.

The application by the prosecution to adduce bad character evidence should be fully defendable in a voire direthe prosecution being held to strict proof of any facts claimed in the comments on the PNC record, for example. Any mitigating circumstances or unresolved disputes as to the facts relating to the ancient matters should be identified when the evidence is adduced. In the alternative, the case should proceed without the jury’s knowledge of the defendant’s bad character, if not until all the evidence has been heard, then at least until the prosecution’s case is complete, so that a proper assessment of the strength of the case against the defendant can be made by the judge before he decides whether bad character should go in. The whole of a person’s bad character should not be routinely used, but only such part of it as is sufficient for probity, and no more. In some cases this may only amount to naming some of the offences. Bad character evidence should never be used to bolster a weak case, as happens wholesale at present. The principle is well established, but judges are not abiding by it. Due consideration should be given to the time since the old offences were committed; if this time is in decades, then this should be recognised as signalling a significant reduction in propensity to commit offences of the kind charged. This is given scant consideration by judges at present. Prosecutors should not be allowed to adduce whatever type of conviction they like in their relentless effort to prejudice the jurors. In particular, if the previous offences are recognised as being of a type that engender public outrage, so that the prejudicial effect on the jury is overwhelming, then this should be a compelling reason for the judge to keep the evidence out, lest, as happens all too frequently, the defendant be robbed of a fair trial. It cannot be fair that a suspected burglar with a string of previous similar offences is more likely to be acquitted than somebody with previous sexual offences not necessarily similar or even related to the offence he is now accused of, simply because the jury will be more prejudiced by the latter’s past history.

In rape cases, s.41 provides that only the complainant’s sexual history is inadmissible. However, judges are taking it a stage further by not allowing any evidence against her to be adduced, evidence that may well go to her credibility/motives. This practice should cease.

Meeting a child following sexual grooming, etc. (s.15 SOA2003). This law is capable of being used against people who have literally done nothing wrong, but who simply have good relationships with children. Since what distinguishes innocent friendship from malign intent is the sexual element, this offence should only be made out if that element is present at some point during the episode complained of. It is ludicrous that a person can be convicted of a serious specified sexual offence carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years when there was never the slightest suggestion of anything sexual in the instant case. Moreover, bad character evidence is at present frequently used to decide guilt, making it very definitely a “thought-crime”. If we can now convict people for what we think they might do, then this becomes a life sentence for those on the sex offenders’ register, who, at the mercy of police profiling, are likely to be rounded up as one of the “usual suspects” if there is an incident near where they live.                                                                           

Meeting a child following sexual grooming, etc(s.73 CJIA2008). This amended version of the original s.15 needs to be redrafted as it introduces a dangerous recipe for further injustice, namely the possibility that if the child calls on his adult neighbour unannounced and without the adult’s prior knowledge, having said hello to him when with his family on two prior occasions in Tesco, a case against the adult could be made out. It means that an adult can be in trouble for the innocent friendly intentions of another (in this case, the child), intentions that were completely unknown to him. There is also the danger that, in trying to discourage the child, an adult might say “I’ll see you next week”, having no intention of sticking to it, yet he could be accused of “arranging” a meeting. Whilst there can obviously be no objection to a ‘grooming law’, it is clear that the present statute is highly capable of criminalising innocent people engaged in ordinary behaviour, and must, as a matter of urgency, if justice is what we want, be rewritten or have strict new guidelines appended to it.

Meeting a child following sexual grooming (both versions). Judges are ignoring the statute in cases where no relevant offence ensues. The statute clearly states that there must be evidence, at the indicted meeting, of the suspect’s intention to commit a relevant offence. This evidence must be tangible and incontrovertible. But what is happening in practice is that juries are being told, quite incorrectly, that they can convict if they merely think the suspect “was grooming” the child. Again, this is a recipe for injustice; redrafted guidelines in stricter terms may encourage judges to direct juries properly on this vital point of law.

A defendant should not be penalised at appeal for the poor performance of his counsel; this includes damaging tactical decisions such as not adducing evidence that could have assisted the defence case, and should apply even if the defendant has taken the advice of his counsel. Only if he makes a decision against the advice of counsel should he take responsibility, in which case, counsel should obtain a signed statement from him to that effect.

Convicted persons should be given ample opportunity to challenge reports from probation officers, particularly the pre-sentence report; probation officers should be accountable for the contents of their reports, and for their actions. The reports should take the form of sworn statements. The defendant should have the right to have a solicitor or McKenzie friend present at interviews.

These are just a few suggestions based on areas of the law I have come into contact with by one means or another.

However, I would really like to see the legislators scrap the CJA2003 and the SOA2003 and start again. These two appalling documents will be regarded in times to come, I fear, as New Labour’s true legacy, with 2003 the darkest year in recent times for fairness, justice, and Human Rights.

Why is this idea important?

Here are some suggestions, borne out of my own experience, as well as those of a few others, to reduce the number of miscarriages of justice:

In full support of the SAFARI campaign, I believe anonymity should be afforded to all defendants accused of any crime until conviction, not just those accused of rape, and not just until they are charged. This would ensure that nobody’s trial, whatever they are accused of, would be prejudiced by misinformation or outrage stirred up by the media or by any other means. It would also prevent situations in which bogus ‘other victims’ ”come forward” after a media trawl by the police, in the hope of receiving compensation; this is a deeply wicked crime that has emerged in recent years and, apart from wrecking the lives of the innocent accused and their families, devalues and places in jeopardy those genuine victims who simply want justice, closure, and the appropriate treatment/therapy to help them cope with the trauma they have suffered. It is this treatment and therapy that any compensation money should be used for; it should not be given to the victim to spend like a lottery win. 

Government must treat sexual offences the same as other types of offence in terms of early release and recognition of rehabilitation, and cease using them for political gain. The Sex Offenders’ Register should be scrapped, or, in the alternative, there should be registration provisions for all  types of offences. Registration is an imposition with the threat of imprisonment and a stigma attached; it therefore amounts to additional punishment. It is also a life sentence in itself, because the police, being more interested in the soft option of profiling than proper investigation of the facts, can use it to “round up the usual suspects”.

The provisions for the admission of  bad character evidence in the CJA2003 should be abolished, since such evidence, when used to decide guilt in the instant case, can only be prejudicial; in the alternative, this evidence must be used very sparingly, as Parliament intended, and not dished out to prosecutors like sweets by pro-prosecution judges.

The application by the prosecution to adduce bad character evidence should be fully defendable in a voire direthe prosecution being held to strict proof of any facts claimed in the comments on the PNC record, for example. Any mitigating circumstances or unresolved disputes as to the facts relating to the ancient matters should be identified when the evidence is adduced. In the alternative, the case should proceed without the jury’s knowledge of the defendant’s bad character, if not until all the evidence has been heard, then at least until the prosecution’s case is complete, so that a proper assessment of the strength of the case against the defendant can be made by the judge before he decides whether bad character should go in. The whole of a person’s bad character should not be routinely used, but only such part of it as is sufficient for probity, and no more. In some cases this may only amount to naming some of the offences. Bad character evidence should never be used to bolster a weak case, as happens wholesale at present. The principle is well established, but judges are not abiding by it. Due consideration should be given to the time since the old offences were committed; if this time is in decades, then this should be recognised as signalling a significant reduction in propensity to commit offences of the kind charged. This is given scant consideration by judges at present. Prosecutors should not be allowed to adduce whatever type of conviction they like in their relentless effort to prejudice the jurors. In particular, if the previous offences are recognised as being of a type that engender public outrage, so that the prejudicial effect on the jury is overwhelming, then this should be a compelling reason for the judge to keep the evidence out, lest, as happens all too frequently, the defendant be robbed of a fair trial. It cannot be fair that a suspected burglar with a string of previous similar offences is more likely to be acquitted than somebody with previous sexual offences not necessarily similar or even related to the offence he is now accused of, simply because the jury will be more prejudiced by the latter’s past history.

In rape cases, s.41 provides that only the complainant’s sexual history is inadmissible. However, judges are taking it a stage further by not allowing any evidence against her to be adduced, evidence that may well go to her credibility/motives. This practice should cease.

Meeting a child following sexual grooming, etc. (s.15 SOA2003). This law is capable of being used against people who have literally done nothing wrong, but who simply have good relationships with children. Since what distinguishes innocent friendship from malign intent is the sexual element, this offence should only be made out if that element is present at some point during the episode complained of. It is ludicrous that a person can be convicted of a serious specified sexual offence carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years when there was never the slightest suggestion of anything sexual in the instant case. Moreover, bad character evidence is at present frequently used to decide guilt, making it very definitely a “thought-crime”. If we can now convict people for what we think they might do, then this becomes a life sentence for those on the sex offenders’ register, who, at the mercy of police profiling, are likely to be rounded up as one of the “usual suspects” if there is an incident near where they live.                                                                           

Meeting a child following sexual grooming, etc(s.73 CJIA2008). This amended version of the original s.15 needs to be redrafted as it introduces a dangerous recipe for further injustice, namely the possibility that if the child calls on his adult neighbour unannounced and without the adult’s prior knowledge, having said hello to him when with his family on two prior occasions in Tesco, a case against the adult could be made out. It means that an adult can be in trouble for the innocent friendly intentions of another (in this case, the child), intentions that were completely unknown to him. There is also the danger that, in trying to discourage the child, an adult might say “I’ll see you next week”, having no intention of sticking to it, yet he could be accused of “arranging” a meeting. Whilst there can obviously be no objection to a ‘grooming law’, it is clear that the present statute is highly capable of criminalising innocent people engaged in ordinary behaviour, and must, as a matter of urgency, if justice is what we want, be rewritten or have strict new guidelines appended to it.

Meeting a child following sexual grooming (both versions). Judges are ignoring the statute in cases where no relevant offence ensues. The statute clearly states that there must be evidence, at the indicted meeting, of the suspect’s intention to commit a relevant offence. This evidence must be tangible and incontrovertible. But what is happening in practice is that juries are being told, quite incorrectly, that they can convict if they merely think the suspect “was grooming” the child. Again, this is a recipe for injustice; redrafted guidelines in stricter terms may encourage judges to direct juries properly on this vital point of law.

A defendant should not be penalised at appeal for the poor performance of his counsel; this includes damaging tactical decisions such as not adducing evidence that could have assisted the defence case, and should apply even if the defendant has taken the advice of his counsel. Only if he makes a decision against the advice of counsel should he take responsibility, in which case, counsel should obtain a signed statement from him to that effect.

Convicted persons should be given ample opportunity to challenge reports from probation officers, particularly the pre-sentence report; probation officers should be accountable for the contents of their reports, and for their actions. The reports should take the form of sworn statements. The defendant should have the right to have a solicitor or McKenzie friend present at interviews.

These are just a few suggestions based on areas of the law I have come into contact with by one means or another.

However, I would really like to see the legislators scrap the CJA2003 and the SOA2003 and start again. These two appalling documents will be regarded in times to come, I fear, as New Labour’s true legacy, with 2003 the darkest year in recent times for fairness, justice, and Human Rights.

SAVE MONEY & ABOLISH THE YOUTH JUSTICE BOARD

Save money and scrap the ineffective Youth Justice Board. This Labour quango has cost the Public Purse huge sums of money and achieved very little except provide generous salaries to its management.

The youth Justice Board functions should be handed back to the Ministry of Justice asap and save us money.

Why is this idea important?

Save money and scrap the ineffective Youth Justice Board. This Labour quango has cost the Public Purse huge sums of money and achieved very little except provide generous salaries to its management.

The youth Justice Board functions should be handed back to the Ministry of Justice asap and save us money.

GET RID OF LAW OF JOINT ENTERPRISE

The law relating to Joint Enterprise is a mess. Currently, someone who is miles away from the scene of the crime can be convicted of planning and abetting the crime on the "evidence" of the perpetrator and circumstantial evidence. The person who is supposed to have planned the crime can get a sentence equal to or even in excess of the sentence handed to the perpetrator.

There are already existing laws relating to aiding and abetting the commission of a crime or being an accessory. The law relating to Joint Enterprise has led to miscarriages of justice.

Why is this idea important?

The law relating to Joint Enterprise is a mess. Currently, someone who is miles away from the scene of the crime can be convicted of planning and abetting the crime on the "evidence" of the perpetrator and circumstantial evidence. The person who is supposed to have planned the crime can get a sentence equal to or even in excess of the sentence handed to the perpetrator.

There are already existing laws relating to aiding and abetting the commission of a crime or being an accessory. The law relating to Joint Enterprise has led to miscarriages of justice.

The justice system

The law is not respected by anyone these days – and many of the younger generation go out of their way to break it. This is purely and simply because of the rules saying that no one is allowed to get hurt in any way or do anything remotely dangerous. These health and safety rules backfire terribly though. For example, our soldiers are not trained properly at home because it's too dangerous, so when they go to afghanistan or wherever else they get killed because they're not used to danger. Same with the public. If they commit a crime they should be disciplined physically, otherwise they will learn that there is no real punishment for crime and they will be horribly surprised when someone goes over the top one day and beats them to death or something. People need to get used to the idea that if they do something wrong they will be physically punished so they don't commit crimes in the first place. There also needs to be a disincentive to commit serious crime – the easiest way to do this being to reintroduce the death penalty.

The types and severity of crimes punished in this way should be thought out properly, though. The police should learn to be friendly and helpful to the public and bargain with petty criminals who didn't know any better, or committed only one minor offence. For example, someone smoking weed in a back alley doesn't cause anyone any harm, so it shouldn't be punished. However, UAF protests (which are personally supported by david cameron) should be outlawed with tough penalties due to their regularly violent and disruptive nature. Particularly against the common person who is starting to realise the benefits of nationalism, these protests/organised street fights are a potential death threat and quite often leave people on both sides with nasty injuries. The police need to be in touch with the public and know that cannabis has more benefits and does far less harm than alcohol. They need to know that muslim do-gooders often spit at and attack soldiers in the street when they return home from duty (which I find utterly disgusting! Attacking our forces is included in the 'death penalty' punishment category)
And above all, any important government ministers should have been officers in HM British forces for at least 5 years before even thinking of politics. Anyone else has no idea of what's really happening in the world or how to communicate with the public!

Why is this idea important?

The law is not respected by anyone these days – and many of the younger generation go out of their way to break it. This is purely and simply because of the rules saying that no one is allowed to get hurt in any way or do anything remotely dangerous. These health and safety rules backfire terribly though. For example, our soldiers are not trained properly at home because it's too dangerous, so when they go to afghanistan or wherever else they get killed because they're not used to danger. Same with the public. If they commit a crime they should be disciplined physically, otherwise they will learn that there is no real punishment for crime and they will be horribly surprised when someone goes over the top one day and beats them to death or something. People need to get used to the idea that if they do something wrong they will be physically punished so they don't commit crimes in the first place. There also needs to be a disincentive to commit serious crime – the easiest way to do this being to reintroduce the death penalty.

The types and severity of crimes punished in this way should be thought out properly, though. The police should learn to be friendly and helpful to the public and bargain with petty criminals who didn't know any better, or committed only one minor offence. For example, someone smoking weed in a back alley doesn't cause anyone any harm, so it shouldn't be punished. However, UAF protests (which are personally supported by david cameron) should be outlawed with tough penalties due to their regularly violent and disruptive nature. Particularly against the common person who is starting to realise the benefits of nationalism, these protests/organised street fights are a potential death threat and quite often leave people on both sides with nasty injuries. The police need to be in touch with the public and know that cannabis has more benefits and does far less harm than alcohol. They need to know that muslim do-gooders often spit at and attack soldiers in the street when they return home from duty (which I find utterly disgusting! Attacking our forces is included in the 'death penalty' punishment category)
And above all, any important government ministers should have been officers in HM British forces for at least 5 years before even thinking of politics. Anyone else has no idea of what's really happening in the world or how to communicate with the public!

Foreign affairs

Firstly, pull out of the EU. This monster is slowly but surely eroding our rights and liberties at home while ensuring business is more difficult to sustain than ever before. The public want to be governed at a local level where politicians can see what needs to be done and effect it, not at an international "one-size-fits-all" level. All the unnecessary and restrictive red tape and over-regulation that brussels keeps pouring out is doing us only harm. For example, recently sodium chlorate weedkiller was banned. I'm sure this came about because of what looked like a good idea on paper, but in reality the only effect of this decision is that the public have to break their backs trying to manually pull weeds out of their gardens. I say rid us of this beast not only because of this, but also because it is taking more money off us than has been ring-fenced for the foreign aid budget. A large portion of the planned spending cuts could be scrapped by simply ditching the masses of dead weight helpfully being generously provided to us by the EU. Note the sarcasm.
And speaking of the foreign aid budget, get rid of that, effective from yesterday! Just throwing money at other countries that often don't need it (example india with its own space programme and new multi-million-pound airports) is a waste of our hard-earned cash that we need to keep for ourselves, so it just beggars belief that "foreign aid" is the only budget that isn't going to be cut – and is possibly even to be increased!
Free haandouts don't stop there though. Immigrants of all sorts get thousands in benefits each week that they don't need – and even the ones that do find their own work take the opportunity away from brits that deserve it! There simply isn't enough money or space and there aren't enough jobs or houses for the british people as it is, let alone giving all sorts leave to roam our space and squat in our sheds. I call for an immediate halt to all immigration and start to a scheme of assisted repatriation for those who want to go home. That is the only way we will get rid of the excess population that is causing our once-great nation so much distress. And finally, stop racism! And I don't mean your sort of "racism", I mean the real discrimination that is happening against white British men all the time. The sort of racism that you lot seem to support and enjoy!

Why is this idea important?

Firstly, pull out of the EU. This monster is slowly but surely eroding our rights and liberties at home while ensuring business is more difficult to sustain than ever before. The public want to be governed at a local level where politicians can see what needs to be done and effect it, not at an international "one-size-fits-all" level. All the unnecessary and restrictive red tape and over-regulation that brussels keeps pouring out is doing us only harm. For example, recently sodium chlorate weedkiller was banned. I'm sure this came about because of what looked like a good idea on paper, but in reality the only effect of this decision is that the public have to break their backs trying to manually pull weeds out of their gardens. I say rid us of this beast not only because of this, but also because it is taking more money off us than has been ring-fenced for the foreign aid budget. A large portion of the planned spending cuts could be scrapped by simply ditching the masses of dead weight helpfully being generously provided to us by the EU. Note the sarcasm.
And speaking of the foreign aid budget, get rid of that, effective from yesterday! Just throwing money at other countries that often don't need it (example india with its own space programme and new multi-million-pound airports) is a waste of our hard-earned cash that we need to keep for ourselves, so it just beggars belief that "foreign aid" is the only budget that isn't going to be cut – and is possibly even to be increased!
Free haandouts don't stop there though. Immigrants of all sorts get thousands in benefits each week that they don't need – and even the ones that do find their own work take the opportunity away from brits that deserve it! There simply isn't enough money or space and there aren't enough jobs or houses for the british people as it is, let alone giving all sorts leave to roam our space and squat in our sheds. I call for an immediate halt to all immigration and start to a scheme of assisted repatriation for those who want to go home. That is the only way we will get rid of the excess population that is causing our once-great nation so much distress. And finally, stop racism! And I don't mean your sort of "racism", I mean the real discrimination that is happening against white British men all the time. The sort of racism that you lot seem to support and enjoy!

care for the victims!

I am speaking from personal experience:

There should be a law against convicted criminals getting free speech onto the press and such sites as facebook and even their own websites.

My family was bruitally murdered in the house where I still live, but the family member who did this is allowed to have his say over and over again, fabricating evidence, making outragious claims, shouldnt my family be able to rest in peace and from harrasment from the press?

He is supposed to have given away his rights to freedom of speech when he murdered my family, but instead he makes our lives hell and its killing us all.

Please let us live our lives, we never asked for any of this.

Why is this idea important?

I am speaking from personal experience:

There should be a law against convicted criminals getting free speech onto the press and such sites as facebook and even their own websites.

My family was bruitally murdered in the house where I still live, but the family member who did this is allowed to have his say over and over again, fabricating evidence, making outragious claims, shouldnt my family be able to rest in peace and from harrasment from the press?

He is supposed to have given away his rights to freedom of speech when he murdered my family, but instead he makes our lives hell and its killing us all.

Please let us live our lives, we never asked for any of this.

Devise a fair justice system which convicts the guilty and acquits the innocent

 

The people who suffer most at the hands of the UK Criminal Justice System are the innocent law-abiding citizens who have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted.

We all pay a price for these miscarriages of justice as ultimately it is the tax payer who has to foot the bill for wrongful convictions at a cost of more than 30,000 GB Pounds per prisoner.

The Justice System in the UK is convicting too many innocent people. This needs to change; prisons exist to reform and punish the guilty and are not intended to house the innocent because a faulty justice system keeps getting it wrong.

An accused person can be left in a police cell for three hours without food and water and interrogated even though they are innocent. Whatever they say in their defence can be twisted. It is far better to remain silent. The police don't concern themselves with either truth or innocence. Their job is to gather as much evidence as possible in order to secure a conviction. They will collect as many lies as they can and will treat the accused as guilty from day one with their "No smoke without fire" attitude.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

"Don't worry," you will tell yourself, if ever you have the misfortune to be falsely accused. "I'm innocent… I'll be O.K… my innocence will be my best defence."

WRONG!

Every citizen should have a right to a fair trial. This means that a jury should be able to question any unfairness by both prosecution and defence barristers. The accused should not be denied a proper defence due to inadequate legal funding or representation or on grounds of lack of time and resources. They should not be fobbed off with excuses every step of the way and be led like a lamb to the slaughter.

Justice is supposed to be all about balance; the jury must be permitted to assess the situation by weighing everything in the balance. But how can it be weighed in the balance correctly when the jury are only presented with one side of the story? A conviction is only supposed to happen when the jury are convinced "Beyond all reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty but if they are only presented with lies what hope is there for the innocent? Surely a verdict of "Not proven" would be far more sensible in cases of accusation alone?

A trial I attended recently devoted three days to the prosecution and less than two hours to the defence. It was a complete farce and a travesty of justice. There was no justice in the courtroom that day. Needless to say there was a conviction solely on the grounds of hearsay and collaboration of liars. The defendant, who was as innocent as Jesus, was convicted on words alone. There was no DNA evidence in the case of a rape or a body as in the case of a murder; the Verdict was based entirely on what the accusers had said the accused had done… because the jury believed without question every lie they uttered. The defendant was not allowed a proper defence. All the people who could have vouched for his innocence were not permitted to be present. The whole episode was engineered by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Services in order to secure a conviction. The defendant's accusers were even seen smirking from their position in the public gallery after appearing for the prosecution and making a mockery of the real truth.

Both accusers and accused should be willing to take lie detector tests and the ones found to be liars should be imprisoned. This would make liars think twice about making false allegations in order to gain monetary compensation and cause the life of an innocent person to be utterly ruined.

Every citizen should be able to demand the right to defend another citizen if they know the accused has been a victim of false allegations. The innocent should be protected by the law and not hounded by a system which makes them feel in a perpetual state of torment from the very day they are arrested.

Innocent citizens should not be forced into signing innocence away and accepting guilt and responsibility for crimes that never happened in order to get parole or a shorter sentence.

"Plead guilty and you will get a lighter sentence!" Innocent people are given this advice by their legal representatives every day. What madness is that? Admit to something you didn't do and you might get your sentence reduced to four years instead of six?

In prison it gets even worse… "Admit guilt and we will treat you well, but protest your innocence and you might never get out of here."

Little has changed since the witch hunts of the Middle Ages in some respects. Do you remember the "Ducking stools" from your History books? The guilty were supposed to survive the procedure but the innocent drowned!

The Spanish inquisition is still alive and well and dwells at the very heart of the UK Criminal Justice System. Its methods of securing a conviction are outdated and fallible and it allows itself to be corrupted by unscrupulous people whose sole aim is to deceive. Every law abiding citizen should demand a radical overhaul in order to protect the innocent and provide a better justice system for all.

Why is this idea important?

 

The people who suffer most at the hands of the UK Criminal Justice System are the innocent law-abiding citizens who have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted.

We all pay a price for these miscarriages of justice as ultimately it is the tax payer who has to foot the bill for wrongful convictions at a cost of more than 30,000 GB Pounds per prisoner.

The Justice System in the UK is convicting too many innocent people. This needs to change; prisons exist to reform and punish the guilty and are not intended to house the innocent because a faulty justice system keeps getting it wrong.

An accused person can be left in a police cell for three hours without food and water and interrogated even though they are innocent. Whatever they say in their defence can be twisted. It is far better to remain silent. The police don't concern themselves with either truth or innocence. Their job is to gather as much evidence as possible in order to secure a conviction. They will collect as many lies as they can and will treat the accused as guilty from day one with their "No smoke without fire" attitude.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

"Don't worry," you will tell yourself, if ever you have the misfortune to be falsely accused. "I'm innocent… I'll be O.K… my innocence will be my best defence."

WRONG!

Every citizen should have a right to a fair trial. This means that a jury should be able to question any unfairness by both prosecution and defence barristers. The accused should not be denied a proper defence due to inadequate legal funding or representation or on grounds of lack of time and resources. They should not be fobbed off with excuses every step of the way and be led like a lamb to the slaughter.

Justice is supposed to be all about balance; the jury must be permitted to assess the situation by weighing everything in the balance. But how can it be weighed in the balance correctly when the jury are only presented with one side of the story? A conviction is only supposed to happen when the jury are convinced "Beyond all reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty but if they are only presented with lies what hope is there for the innocent? Surely a verdict of "Not proven" would be far more sensible in cases of accusation alone?

A trial I attended recently devoted three days to the prosecution and less than two hours to the defence. It was a complete farce and a travesty of justice. There was no justice in the courtroom that day. Needless to say there was a conviction solely on the grounds of hearsay and collaboration of liars. The defendant, who was as innocent as Jesus, was convicted on words alone. There was no DNA evidence in the case of a rape or a body as in the case of a murder; the Verdict was based entirely on what the accusers had said the accused had done… because the jury believed without question every lie they uttered. The defendant was not allowed a proper defence. All the people who could have vouched for his innocence were not permitted to be present. The whole episode was engineered by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Services in order to secure a conviction. The defendant's accusers were even seen smirking from their position in the public gallery after appearing for the prosecution and making a mockery of the real truth.

Both accusers and accused should be willing to take lie detector tests and the ones found to be liars should be imprisoned. This would make liars think twice about making false allegations in order to gain monetary compensation and cause the life of an innocent person to be utterly ruined.

Every citizen should be able to demand the right to defend another citizen if they know the accused has been a victim of false allegations. The innocent should be protected by the law and not hounded by a system which makes them feel in a perpetual state of torment from the very day they are arrested.

Innocent citizens should not be forced into signing innocence away and accepting guilt and responsibility for crimes that never happened in order to get parole or a shorter sentence.

"Plead guilty and you will get a lighter sentence!" Innocent people are given this advice by their legal representatives every day. What madness is that? Admit to something you didn't do and you might get your sentence reduced to four years instead of six?

In prison it gets even worse… "Admit guilt and we will treat you well, but protest your innocence and you might never get out of here."

Little has changed since the witch hunts of the Middle Ages in some respects. Do you remember the "Ducking stools" from your History books? The guilty were supposed to survive the procedure but the innocent drowned!

The Spanish inquisition is still alive and well and dwells at the very heart of the UK Criminal Justice System. Its methods of securing a conviction are outdated and fallible and it allows itself to be corrupted by unscrupulous people whose sole aim is to deceive. Every law abiding citizen should demand a radical overhaul in order to protect the innocent and provide a better justice system for all.

GIVE JUDGES MORE DISCRETION

Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 fetters trial judges unnecessarily in handing down sentences for murder. They are the ones who have sat through the case and they are the experts as to the level of sentencing. The last government listened to fears in the tabloid press and passed this populist measure. They should not have interfered as they are amateurs in this important decision-making process. Leave sentencing to the professionals. The schedule is vague, complicated and unnecessary.

Why is this idea important?

Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 fetters trial judges unnecessarily in handing down sentences for murder. They are the ones who have sat through the case and they are the experts as to the level of sentencing. The last government listened to fears in the tabloid press and passed this populist measure. They should not have interfered as they are amateurs in this important decision-making process. Leave sentencing to the professionals. The schedule is vague, complicated and unnecessary.

Stop control by the Patent System

Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.

Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.

The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm

How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.

Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.

"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

Why is this idea important?

Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.

Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.

The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm

How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.

Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.

"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

CRB has ruined lives.

Please review the current system whereas every crime committed is recorded on a CRB check, regardless of the nature of the crime, the harm to the public, and the possibilty that it may prevent that person from ever being able to gain employment ever again. The CRB system is crippling many in an already impossible world to achieve a healthy working career, that otherwise would'nt have a problem.

A job application always asks do you have any criminal convictions. If the answer is yes, I'm sure the application goes straight in the bin. and that person remains on JSA.

Is it fair that someone with a minor conviction such as possesion of a small amount of cannabis, is deamed to dangerous to work, for the rest of their life.

I know some employers are open minded, and may overlook such an offence. But the truth is they don't . not when there are so many other applicants.  The aim of reducing the deficit in the economy, and getting people back into work would be so much easier if the CRB system was overhauled and minor criminals were not kept in the poverty trap and relying on the state to keep them, when all they want is to work. 

Why is this idea important?

Please review the current system whereas every crime committed is recorded on a CRB check, regardless of the nature of the crime, the harm to the public, and the possibilty that it may prevent that person from ever being able to gain employment ever again. The CRB system is crippling many in an already impossible world to achieve a healthy working career, that otherwise would'nt have a problem.

A job application always asks do you have any criminal convictions. If the answer is yes, I'm sure the application goes straight in the bin. and that person remains on JSA.

Is it fair that someone with a minor conviction such as possesion of a small amount of cannabis, is deamed to dangerous to work, for the rest of their life.

I know some employers are open minded, and may overlook such an offence. But the truth is they don't . not when there are so many other applicants.  The aim of reducing the deficit in the economy, and getting people back into work would be so much easier if the CRB system was overhauled and minor criminals were not kept in the poverty trap and relying on the state to keep them, when all they want is to work. 

Control orders have no place in a democratic society

Britain's interventions overseas, for example in Iraq and Afghanistan, are usually claimed to seek to establish or support democratic processes and the rule of law. Evidence of anti-democratic practices in other countries includes imprisonment without trial; to maintain the same system here undermines our claims to democracy. One feature of legal systems in democracies is openness: a trial involves an open declaration of the accusation and supporting arguments and evidence on both sides. Control orders exist precisely because the government does not have enough evidence to bring the accused to court. The government provides a mechanism to safeguard against unfairness in the form of an independent reviewer of the evidence, but since that process is secret, it remains anti-democratic.

If the 'controlled' person is indeed guilty of planning or supporting attacks on us, then removing control orders increases the risk, but that is a risk worth taking. Defending our society includes defending our civil liberties and democracy.  We have been here before: secret IRA trials did nothing to make us safer.

Why is this idea important?

Britain's interventions overseas, for example in Iraq and Afghanistan, are usually claimed to seek to establish or support democratic processes and the rule of law. Evidence of anti-democratic practices in other countries includes imprisonment without trial; to maintain the same system here undermines our claims to democracy. One feature of legal systems in democracies is openness: a trial involves an open declaration of the accusation and supporting arguments and evidence on both sides. Control orders exist precisely because the government does not have enough evidence to bring the accused to court. The government provides a mechanism to safeguard against unfairness in the form of an independent reviewer of the evidence, but since that process is secret, it remains anti-democratic.

If the 'controlled' person is indeed guilty of planning or supporting attacks on us, then removing control orders increases the risk, but that is a risk worth taking. Defending our society includes defending our civil liberties and democracy.  We have been here before: secret IRA trials did nothing to make us safer.

Repeal the laws that allowe Members of Parliament to abstain from obeying certain selected British laws

MPs must not be allow to vote themselves and parliament parliamentory immunity from prosecution or to be outside of laws and or regulations that they set for the rest of the citizens of this country

Why is this idea important?

MPs must not be allow to vote themselves and parliament parliamentory immunity from prosecution or to be outside of laws and or regulations that they set for the rest of the citizens of this country

Religious liberty and the rights of others

There has been a tendency by some people who have chosen a religious lifestyle to seek to opt out of affording respect for the rights and freedoms of certain others whilst demanding respect for their own rights and freedoms.

EU law does not allow the United Kingdom to deny groups rights because they deny the legitimacy of rights or liberty to others. However if we are to be consistent, people with non-religious philosophical beliefs (eg Humanists) should be allowed to opt of of those Christian laws that conflict with the sincerely, strongly held secular beliefs of a significant number of their adherents. Thus a Humanist would be entitled to avail themselves of active voluntary euthanasia and enter into a heterosexual civil partnership. Meanwhile Christian laws would only in future be applicable to those who have chosen a scripturally consistent, Christian lifestyle. Marriage should therefore be decoupled from faith.

Equally, if a Christian offering bed and breakfast wishes to decide on faith grounds who to admit, they should be allowed to do so subject to being theologically consistent. Thus whilst they may exclude homosexuals, they must also be required treat divorcees, adulterers, menstuating women and other unions that conflict with, say Leviticus, in exactly the same way, or risk prosecution for religious abuse. The abuse of religion to justify enforcing some beliefs whilst ignoring others that may be personally inconvenient to the holder of those beliefs has led to the moderate Christian majority being seen as complicit in discrimination and double standards, thus undermining Christian legitimacy.

Alternately there should be no special rights for those who have chosen a particular religious lifestyle and the law should apply equally to all and be faith neutral.

Why is this idea important?

There has been a tendency by some people who have chosen a religious lifestyle to seek to opt out of affording respect for the rights and freedoms of certain others whilst demanding respect for their own rights and freedoms.

EU law does not allow the United Kingdom to deny groups rights because they deny the legitimacy of rights or liberty to others. However if we are to be consistent, people with non-religious philosophical beliefs (eg Humanists) should be allowed to opt of of those Christian laws that conflict with the sincerely, strongly held secular beliefs of a significant number of their adherents. Thus a Humanist would be entitled to avail themselves of active voluntary euthanasia and enter into a heterosexual civil partnership. Meanwhile Christian laws would only in future be applicable to those who have chosen a scripturally consistent, Christian lifestyle. Marriage should therefore be decoupled from faith.

Equally, if a Christian offering bed and breakfast wishes to decide on faith grounds who to admit, they should be allowed to do so subject to being theologically consistent. Thus whilst they may exclude homosexuals, they must also be required treat divorcees, adulterers, menstuating women and other unions that conflict with, say Leviticus, in exactly the same way, or risk prosecution for religious abuse. The abuse of religion to justify enforcing some beliefs whilst ignoring others that may be personally inconvenient to the holder of those beliefs has led to the moderate Christian majority being seen as complicit in discrimination and double standards, thus undermining Christian legitimacy.

Alternately there should be no special rights for those who have chosen a particular religious lifestyle and the law should apply equally to all and be faith neutral.

Waiting time 3 months for spouse visa appeals

My idea is to reduce the amount of time it takes for appealed cases to be reviewed. It takes up to 1 year for the person to be granted a visa this is too long. 3 to 6 months is more like it.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to reduce the amount of time it takes for appealed cases to be reviewed. It takes up to 1 year for the person to be granted a visa this is too long. 3 to 6 months is more like it.

Ensure all ex-pats receive their full indexed pension

Brits who have paid the mandatory NI pension contributions are being cheated if they move to certain countries…specifically some Commonwealth countries. Their pensions are FROZEN at the amount they first receive. This is outright robbery. These people have paid the exact same amount as all other Brits and yet are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs. For instance, those who emigrate to Canada or Australia have their pensions frozen. While those who move to the USA do not. This is outrageous and goes against all Human Rights.

It's time the new Government did the RIGHT and MORAL thing and righted this wrong.

Why is this idea important?

Brits who have paid the mandatory NI pension contributions are being cheated if they move to certain countries…specifically some Commonwealth countries. Their pensions are FROZEN at the amount they first receive. This is outright robbery. These people have paid the exact same amount as all other Brits and yet are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs. For instance, those who emigrate to Canada or Australia have their pensions frozen. While those who move to the USA do not. This is outrageous and goes against all Human Rights.

It's time the new Government did the RIGHT and MORAL thing and righted this wrong.

Reform ASBO’s but don’t get rid of them!

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

Why is this idea important?

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

Restore Human Rights to those declared innocent by judge only

Dear Sir
The Law change which is very urgent involves a particularly destructive law, which is a travesty of justice and so perverse that it promotes an oxymoron. It reduces innocent people to remaining “guilty of being falsely accused.”
This comes about when a judge refuses to try a case, after legal argument, because it is revealed as an obvious miscarriage of justice and the judge refuses to put the case before a jury. It is thrown out of court and the innocent victim of the false allegation is freed.
However these victims never regain their innocent status in the way that those tried by a jury do.
They remain guilty of not being tried by a jury, despite the judge proving their innocence.
This situation remains, even though there have now been judge only cases tried, without a jury involved at all.
The cases to which I refer are not those where judges “stay the proceedings” but cases where the Prosecution offers ‘ no evidence ’ after a judge disputes authenticity and subsequent admissibility of certain evidence. The judge may declare for example “ In that case I have to find the defendant not guilty.” Or “There is no case to answer.”
( An example of the above situation might occur when evidence which has been withheld by the CPS is finally revealed on day one of the trial. )
Consequently, the issues which need to be addressed is whether the judge’s opinion alone is sufficient in these cases and whether this law change as and when it is convenient? I’m sure you agree that if this is the situation the law is truly unworthy of remaining as it is deeply flawed.
There can’t be one law applicable to some and another law applicable to other innocent people, justice must be available to all those falsely accused.
A defendant found not guilty and acquitted by a judge in these circumstances should have their full rights restored and should not have any matters recorded against them that would come up on Criminal Records Bureaux (CRB) checks or extended CRB checks. There should be complete admonishment and all records wiped, so the person returns to their rightful innocent status.
The matter to be concluded as the alleged offence having never happened.

Currently these people remain “guilty of not being tried by a jury.”
They are often victims of false allegations made by a person seeking personal gain and self interest.
(For example a wife wanting to gain a divorce in an all win situation, so falsely accuses the husband of sexually assaulting herself or their children. )
Thus the victim remains “Guilty of being falsely accused” and their full liberty is not restored to them. The accuser often gets away with perverting the course of justice and illegally obtains their goal, making them above the law. It also results in so much public money being wasted in the process.

It is of concern that so many innocent people have been falsely accused in this manner, their lives shattered and yet they cannot regain their Human Rights, freedom and truly innocent status.
I would like to encourage the Government to do everything necessary to ensure the change of the archaic law and release these victims from a life of misery.
May I respectfully suggest that an easy process be put in place, which will allow those declared innocent by a judge, to regain their freedom, their civil rights and their truly innocent status, in the same way as those found innocent by a jury.
I suggest that these victims, who have been subjected to the above travesty of justice, should be issued with a Certificate of Acquittal” in order that their full civil liberties and Human Rights are restored to them and it is ascertained that they are not affected in the future.

I’m reassured that the present government are keen to listen and set a process of this sort in action and restore the lives of thousands of victims of false allegations etc. who are waiting to have their truly innocent status restored to them, but cannot afford a “Finding of Fact” to achieve this.
You will give them the means to start rebuilding their shattered lives by redressing this injustice.
With many thanks and looking forward to the worthwhile, new, trustworthy government who will right injustice by abolishing perverse Laws.
 

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir
The Law change which is very urgent involves a particularly destructive law, which is a travesty of justice and so perverse that it promotes an oxymoron. It reduces innocent people to remaining “guilty of being falsely accused.”
This comes about when a judge refuses to try a case, after legal argument, because it is revealed as an obvious miscarriage of justice and the judge refuses to put the case before a jury. It is thrown out of court and the innocent victim of the false allegation is freed.
However these victims never regain their innocent status in the way that those tried by a jury do.
They remain guilty of not being tried by a jury, despite the judge proving their innocence.
This situation remains, even though there have now been judge only cases tried, without a jury involved at all.
The cases to which I refer are not those where judges “stay the proceedings” but cases where the Prosecution offers ‘ no evidence ’ after a judge disputes authenticity and subsequent admissibility of certain evidence. The judge may declare for example “ In that case I have to find the defendant not guilty.” Or “There is no case to answer.”
( An example of the above situation might occur when evidence which has been withheld by the CPS is finally revealed on day one of the trial. )
Consequently, the issues which need to be addressed is whether the judge’s opinion alone is sufficient in these cases and whether this law change as and when it is convenient? I’m sure you agree that if this is the situation the law is truly unworthy of remaining as it is deeply flawed.
There can’t be one law applicable to some and another law applicable to other innocent people, justice must be available to all those falsely accused.
A defendant found not guilty and acquitted by a judge in these circumstances should have their full rights restored and should not have any matters recorded against them that would come up on Criminal Records Bureaux (CRB) checks or extended CRB checks. There should be complete admonishment and all records wiped, so the person returns to their rightful innocent status.
The matter to be concluded as the alleged offence having never happened.

Currently these people remain “guilty of not being tried by a jury.”
They are often victims of false allegations made by a person seeking personal gain and self interest.
(For example a wife wanting to gain a divorce in an all win situation, so falsely accuses the husband of sexually assaulting herself or their children. )
Thus the victim remains “Guilty of being falsely accused” and their full liberty is not restored to them. The accuser often gets away with perverting the course of justice and illegally obtains their goal, making them above the law. It also results in so much public money being wasted in the process.

It is of concern that so many innocent people have been falsely accused in this manner, their lives shattered and yet they cannot regain their Human Rights, freedom and truly innocent status.
I would like to encourage the Government to do everything necessary to ensure the change of the archaic law and release these victims from a life of misery.
May I respectfully suggest that an easy process be put in place, which will allow those declared innocent by a judge, to regain their freedom, their civil rights and their truly innocent status, in the same way as those found innocent by a jury.
I suggest that these victims, who have been subjected to the above travesty of justice, should be issued with a Certificate of Acquittal” in order that their full civil liberties and Human Rights are restored to them and it is ascertained that they are not affected in the future.

I’m reassured that the present government are keen to listen and set a process of this sort in action and restore the lives of thousands of victims of false allegations etc. who are waiting to have their truly innocent status restored to them, but cannot afford a “Finding of Fact” to achieve this.
You will give them the means to start rebuilding their shattered lives by redressing this injustice.
With many thanks and looking forward to the worthwhile, new, trustworthy government who will right injustice by abolishing perverse Laws.
 

Protection From Harassment Act 1997

This act should be repealed, or, at the very least, heavily amended.

While the reasoning behind the introduction of this act is sound its use and implementation is not.

I know to my cost that anyone can go to the police and make an allegation of harassment against anyone who has incurred their displeasure.  The complainant requires no evidence to support their accusations.  The police will then contact the accused and issue a Harassment Warning Notice.  This takes the form of a piece of paper the accused is required to sign and return to the policeman.  At no point is the accused informed of the nature of the allegation made against him, nor indeed, do the police seem to know what it is.  Nor is tha accused afforded any opportunity to defend himself.  This, in itself, seems an unfair and unreasonable way to proceed.

Why is this idea important?

This act should be repealed, or, at the very least, heavily amended.

While the reasoning behind the introduction of this act is sound its use and implementation is not.

I know to my cost that anyone can go to the police and make an allegation of harassment against anyone who has incurred their displeasure.  The complainant requires no evidence to support their accusations.  The police will then contact the accused and issue a Harassment Warning Notice.  This takes the form of a piece of paper the accused is required to sign and return to the policeman.  At no point is the accused informed of the nature of the allegation made against him, nor indeed, do the police seem to know what it is.  Nor is tha accused afforded any opportunity to defend himself.  This, in itself, seems an unfair and unreasonable way to proceed.

Repeal the laws which require offenders to register beyond ten years without a review

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which supported a High Court ruling against the Home Office/Government, stated that sex offenders should not be required to continue registering each year without having their case reviewed to see if they still pose a threat. They ruled that this requirement conflicted with EC Human Rights Article 8, therefore that part of the Sex Offenders Act which makes lifelong registration without the possibility of review must be removed from UK law.

The Supreme Court ruled that every case should be reviewed after ten years, and each year thereafter if necessary, which would reduce the workload of the police having to monitor those who no longer pose a threat, or never posed a threat in the first place. The Government have yet to implement this ruling.
 

Why is this idea important?

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which supported a High Court ruling against the Home Office/Government, stated that sex offenders should not be required to continue registering each year without having their case reviewed to see if they still pose a threat. They ruled that this requirement conflicted with EC Human Rights Article 8, therefore that part of the Sex Offenders Act which makes lifelong registration without the possibility of review must be removed from UK law.

The Supreme Court ruled that every case should be reviewed after ten years, and each year thereafter if necessary, which would reduce the workload of the police having to monitor those who no longer pose a threat, or never posed a threat in the first place. The Government have yet to implement this ruling.
 

Freedom from Police Brutality

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Why is this idea important?

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Repeal The Latest Gimmick In The Drugs War – Drug Driving Testing Kits To Be Issued To The Police.

It has just been announced that the government are to introduce drug driving test kits for traffic police. While I agree with the principle of not lawfully being allowed to drive whilst intoxicated with any substance, pharmaceutical or illicit, I cannot agree to the introduction of  this latest drugs war gimmick. It is simply not ethical or justifiable to issue police with drugs test kits without also utterly reforming drugs policy at the same time.

One of the myriad of complications regarding enforcement of positive tests is the fact that substances dissolve in the blood stream at different rates and, therefore, such policy would immediately discriminate against one specific population of drugs user. For example, I would like to know how they intend to prosecute somebody for driving on cannabis when cannabis takes up to 4 weeks to leave the blood system? This is unlike far more powerful substances like cocaine which dissolve in the blood stream within a few days and become undetectable thereafter. This means that this new introductory scheme would weigh heaviest against cannabis users and allow the real dangerous drug users to largely get away with drug driving.

Yet again the innocent cannabis user becomes the government scape goat, even though it has been proven that cannabis not only doesn't impair your driving ability but also, in most cases, it increases the drivers capacity for safe driving.

Repeal the introduction of these unworkable systems for further terrorising cannabis users until such time as you ALSO introduce drug policy reform and regulation. Thus ensuring that along with regulation comes a drug drive limit, just like there is with the far more impairing substance of alcohol. Note would also be taken of the dispersal rate of the drug in question before any arrest could be made. This would ensure that that the victimisation of the cannabis user was not an issue.
 

Why is this idea important?

It has just been announced that the government are to introduce drug driving test kits for traffic police. While I agree with the principle of not lawfully being allowed to drive whilst intoxicated with any substance, pharmaceutical or illicit, I cannot agree to the introduction of  this latest drugs war gimmick. It is simply not ethical or justifiable to issue police with drugs test kits without also utterly reforming drugs policy at the same time.

One of the myriad of complications regarding enforcement of positive tests is the fact that substances dissolve in the blood stream at different rates and, therefore, such policy would immediately discriminate against one specific population of drugs user. For example, I would like to know how they intend to prosecute somebody for driving on cannabis when cannabis takes up to 4 weeks to leave the blood system? This is unlike far more powerful substances like cocaine which dissolve in the blood stream within a few days and become undetectable thereafter. This means that this new introductory scheme would weigh heaviest against cannabis users and allow the real dangerous drug users to largely get away with drug driving.

Yet again the innocent cannabis user becomes the government scape goat, even though it has been proven that cannabis not only doesn't impair your driving ability but also, in most cases, it increases the drivers capacity for safe driving.

Repeal the introduction of these unworkable systems for further terrorising cannabis users until such time as you ALSO introduce drug policy reform and regulation. Thus ensuring that along with regulation comes a drug drive limit, just like there is with the far more impairing substance of alcohol. Note would also be taken of the dispersal rate of the drug in question before any arrest could be made. This would ensure that that the victimisation of the cannabis user was not an issue.
 

Stop government letters which threaten fines

"Respond to this letter or be fined £xxxx.xx amounts of money. Yours faithfully, the State."

These kinds of threats belong in the mafia or other crime syndicates who 'know where you live'.

The government is using the law to literally rip the shirt off peoples backs simply for not replying to a letter which could get lost in the post anyway.

This type of state interference and bullying is a infringement of civil liberties and is a psychological weapon. It has to stop!

Why is this idea important?

"Respond to this letter or be fined £xxxx.xx amounts of money. Yours faithfully, the State."

These kinds of threats belong in the mafia or other crime syndicates who 'know where you live'.

The government is using the law to literally rip the shirt off peoples backs simply for not replying to a letter which could get lost in the post anyway.

This type of state interference and bullying is a infringement of civil liberties and is a psychological weapon. It has to stop!

Require All New Laws to pass the Liberty Test

Any criminalisation of any action should be required to fall under one of the following four categories:

  1. Infringement upon another person or company
  2. Infringement upon another person or company's land
  3. Infringement upon another person or company's property
  4. Infringement upon another person or company's privacy (this would cover slander, libel etc as well as copyright infringements)

Why is this idea important?

Any criminalisation of any action should be required to fall under one of the following four categories:

  1. Infringement upon another person or company
  2. Infringement upon another person or company's land
  3. Infringement upon another person or company's property
  4. Infringement upon another person or company's privacy (this would cover slander, libel etc as well as copyright infringements)

Reform the Criminal Justice System to serve the victim

Change sentencing to prefer restitution to the victim, over prison and community sentences.

This would obviously not apply to extremely violent crimes i.e. rape or murder, in which case the public needs to be protected.

Why is this idea important?

Change sentencing to prefer restitution to the victim, over prison and community sentences.

This would obviously not apply to extremely violent crimes i.e. rape or murder, in which case the public needs to be protected.