Repossession – “a convenient Debt Collection Mechanism”

How many have heard this definition and excuse over recent years?  Is a spouse really legally responsible for debts incurred by a spouse/partner?  If so, is this reasonable and under what law?

In the interest of justice, fairness, human rights and basic human decency in a civilised society, please repeal whatever law exists and stop any legal practice currently used in the, so called, Civil Courts to oust innocent spouses from their homes, regardless of circumstances, with the excuse that repossession is a "convenient debt collection mechanism" and otherwise the debtor spouse would "hide" behind the other.  To ensure justice is carried out rather than mere convenience, juries may need to be introduced in Civil Courts to raise the bar of proof (now woefully inadequate) to match what appears to be  higher standards in Criminal Courts.  The case management conferences could be stopped to save costs.

Lawmaking MPs have demonstrated that they can't get enough "homes" for themselves but appear to consider the homes of the rest of the population expendable and of little consequence.

Why is this idea important?

How many have heard this definition and excuse over recent years?  Is a spouse really legally responsible for debts incurred by a spouse/partner?  If so, is this reasonable and under what law?

In the interest of justice, fairness, human rights and basic human decency in a civilised society, please repeal whatever law exists and stop any legal practice currently used in the, so called, Civil Courts to oust innocent spouses from their homes, regardless of circumstances, with the excuse that repossession is a "convenient debt collection mechanism" and otherwise the debtor spouse would "hide" behind the other.  To ensure justice is carried out rather than mere convenience, juries may need to be introduced in Civil Courts to raise the bar of proof (now woefully inadequate) to match what appears to be  higher standards in Criminal Courts.  The case management conferences could be stopped to save costs.

Lawmaking MPs have demonstrated that they can't get enough "homes" for themselves but appear to consider the homes of the rest of the population expendable and of little consequence.

Removal of Parental Responsibilty for Long term Prisoners

Civil liberties gone mad, in the eyes of the law no matter what you do you will unless your child is put up for adoption have responsibilty for your child.

This means you can abuse children be prosecuted and still have parental responsibilty, you can murder somebody, rape somebody and god knows what else but it would never be removed.

This means a child or a partner who has endured years of abuse still has to seek permission to take there child out of the country by somebody who is in prison, the only steps you can have put in place are no contact orders and prohibitive steps order, even then if you were to leave the country for longer than a month you would have to still seek permission from the other parent who could be more of a danger to the childs well being.

Your liberties are taken away when you goto prison and i feel if it is a long term sentence parental responsibility should be removed especially if the imprisoned parent is not released until after the child is of adult age.

Why is this idea important?

Civil liberties gone mad, in the eyes of the law no matter what you do you will unless your child is put up for adoption have responsibilty for your child.

This means you can abuse children be prosecuted and still have parental responsibilty, you can murder somebody, rape somebody and god knows what else but it would never be removed.

This means a child or a partner who has endured years of abuse still has to seek permission to take there child out of the country by somebody who is in prison, the only steps you can have put in place are no contact orders and prohibitive steps order, even then if you were to leave the country for longer than a month you would have to still seek permission from the other parent who could be more of a danger to the childs well being.

Your liberties are taken away when you goto prison and i feel if it is a long term sentence parental responsibility should be removed especially if the imprisoned parent is not released until after the child is of adult age.

Criminal Injustice

Change the law that means that someone who damages an old book gets a longer prison sentence than a real criminal one who commits unprovoked GBH on a defenceless woman and murders her husband

Why is this idea important?

Change the law that means that someone who damages an old book gets a longer prison sentence than a real criminal one who commits unprovoked GBH on a defenceless woman and murders her husband

Repeal British law allowing for accumulation of extreme wealth

Free-speech is only as free as the guidelines that determine freedom.
Freedom is in doing.

As an activist for reinstating God's Law, one need not know God, to know God's Law is right.

Under God's Law, the poverty we've grown accustomed to, would not be allowed to continue.

British law that allows castle owners and the like to gain influence and effect law is immoral.
By effecting law, a massive amount of injustice occurs, and each contribution explains how.
For this reason, under God's Law, there is to be no altering of The Law, for benefit of the few.
In fact, no altering of The Law at all, because this is the means by which injustice flourishes.
Currently, British law demands that we observe only it, and forbids The Law it was based on.
The Law is the Law of God, and British law, as it stands now, is law that is altered for the benefit of an elite few.

British law is illegally suppressing a God-given inherent right, entitling everyone to the "Release of Debt".
British law, effected by castle owners, supports law in their favor, whilst denying the people.
To maintain an objective reality, there must be a realistic starting point to begin the process.
Re-distribution of wealth is the first priority, in the commencement of re-instating God's Law.

15:4 To the end that there be no poor among you. – Deuteronomy.
 

Why is this idea important?

Free-speech is only as free as the guidelines that determine freedom.
Freedom is in doing.

As an activist for reinstating God's Law, one need not know God, to know God's Law is right.

Under God's Law, the poverty we've grown accustomed to, would not be allowed to continue.

British law that allows castle owners and the like to gain influence and effect law is immoral.
By effecting law, a massive amount of injustice occurs, and each contribution explains how.
For this reason, under God's Law, there is to be no altering of The Law, for benefit of the few.
In fact, no altering of The Law at all, because this is the means by which injustice flourishes.
Currently, British law demands that we observe only it, and forbids The Law it was based on.
The Law is the Law of God, and British law, as it stands now, is law that is altered for the benefit of an elite few.

British law is illegally suppressing a God-given inherent right, entitling everyone to the "Release of Debt".
British law, effected by castle owners, supports law in their favor, whilst denying the people.
To maintain an objective reality, there must be a realistic starting point to begin the process.
Re-distribution of wealth is the first priority, in the commencement of re-instating God's Law.

15:4 To the end that there be no poor among you. – Deuteronomy.
 

Compulsory paternity tests

With statistics as high as 1 in 20 fathers not being the biological father of their child and the implimentation of a DNA database I think it's time we began DNA testing all fathers.  This will help prevent  storys such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10845112

The law would help protect mothers, fathers and children and in most cases cement the bond between father and child and in 5% of cases allow the parner to choose or not to choose to undertake the task of raising a child that is not biologicly his own. 

Why is this idea important?

With statistics as high as 1 in 20 fathers not being the biological father of their child and the implimentation of a DNA database I think it's time we began DNA testing all fathers.  This will help prevent  storys such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10845112

The law would help protect mothers, fathers and children and in most cases cement the bond between father and child and in 5% of cases allow the parner to choose or not to choose to undertake the task of raising a child that is not biologicly his own. 

Abolish the Government

Why not abolish the government and institute some form of direct democracy to enhance our freedoms.

We the people can create petitions and gather sufficient signatures to invoke a local or national ballot.

Clearly the current oligarchy will perenially ignore the people on some of the most important issues:

1. Mass immigration

2. Offshoring of jobs

3. Working hours

4. Tuition fees

5. Regressive taxation

6. Redistribution of wealth

7. Corporate monopolies

8. Corporate lobbying and 'access'

9. EU membership

10. War on drugs

11. War on smoking

12. War on terror

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera..

Why is this idea important?

Why not abolish the government and institute some form of direct democracy to enhance our freedoms.

We the people can create petitions and gather sufficient signatures to invoke a local or national ballot.

Clearly the current oligarchy will perenially ignore the people on some of the most important issues:

1. Mass immigration

2. Offshoring of jobs

3. Working hours

4. Tuition fees

5. Regressive taxation

6. Redistribution of wealth

7. Corporate monopolies

8. Corporate lobbying and 'access'

9. EU membership

10. War on drugs

11. War on smoking

12. War on terror

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera..

Photographers are *still* being harrassed by police – 2nd August.

Despite the coalition's efforts in this area, the police still don't get it: they are our public servants, paid for by taxpayers, and not the Stasi in some police state or other.

This article describes how a photographer was treated by police in Hackney, London, on 31st July 2010 – well after new guidelines had been issued:

(It's also really annoying that you can't cut & paste things to/from this site, by the way!)

You need to remind the police – YET AGAIN – of the law in this area and how they are meant to be implementing it in the public interest, not in their interest – or ignoring the law for no reason at all!

Why is this idea important?

Despite the coalition's efforts in this area, the police still don't get it: they are our public servants, paid for by taxpayers, and not the Stasi in some police state or other.

This article describes how a photographer was treated by police in Hackney, London, on 31st July 2010 – well after new guidelines had been issued:

(It's also really annoying that you can't cut & paste things to/from this site, by the way!)

You need to remind the police – YET AGAIN – of the law in this area and how they are meant to be implementing it in the public interest, not in their interest – or ignoring the law for no reason at all!

Reform family courts and the conduct of social workers

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Why is this idea important?

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Stop rich foreign investors from buying land in poor countries

" Which regulations do you think should be removed or changed to make
running your business or organisation as simple as possible? '

An article in the Financial Times, at ft.com and published 18 July
2010, states the following:

A farmland development group backed by Jacob Rothschild is hoping to
become the first Brazilian company to list on the Hong Kong stock
exchange, after attracting investments from some of the territory’s
largest tycoons.  ——- end of the first sentence of the FT article.

Rothschild is a prime example of a castle owner, that by accumulation
controls other people.
It is by legislation, that extreme wealth remains in the hands of the
few, benefited by poverty.

Lacking in the article, is Rothschild control and influence over
educational outlets and media.

Not surprising, a donation of a Supreme Court building, in Israel, is
a working monument to legislation. They believe that the best way to
control the opposition is by leading it. Agreed.

Why is this idea important?

" Which regulations do you think should be removed or changed to make
running your business or organisation as simple as possible? '

An article in the Financial Times, at ft.com and published 18 July
2010, states the following:

A farmland development group backed by Jacob Rothschild is hoping to
become the first Brazilian company to list on the Hong Kong stock
exchange, after attracting investments from some of the territory’s
largest tycoons.  ——- end of the first sentence of the FT article.

Rothschild is a prime example of a castle owner, that by accumulation
controls other people.
It is by legislation, that extreme wealth remains in the hands of the
few, benefited by poverty.

Lacking in the article, is Rothschild control and influence over
educational outlets and media.

Not surprising, a donation of a Supreme Court building, in Israel, is
a working monument to legislation. They believe that the best way to
control the opposition is by leading it. Agreed.

MSG To The Government – RE: The Public Are Aware That You Have Been Purposely Deceiving Us For 70 Years!

Dear Public Servants, the Government of The United Kingdom,

I write to inform you that we, the public of Great Britain, are growing ever more aware of the fact that successive governments have been purposely deceiving us regarding the prohibition of cannabis for approximately 70 years.

We are aware of the racist, unethical, immoral, unjust, unlawful and wholly discriminate propaganda that revolves around the entire issue of the state's attempt to hood-wink society. Almost every conceivable prejudice has been thrown at the issue, no matter how absurd, in an attempt for the state to protect the lie. Such illogical maintenance of the lie continues to this day and we, your electorate, are fully aware of your futile attempts to keep your necks above the waters of public knowledge. It is a dangerous situation to have the electorate over-take it's government in this manner.

The Internet is alive with overwhelming evidence to counter each and every one of the state's unsubstantiated claims against cannabis. Such evidence has also been provided by your electorate here on this website and under this topic. The "free" citizen is easily able to research evidence that will acknowledge that, indeed, they are trusting an untrustworthy government.

We, the people and your electorate, demand that you immediately cease lying to us and begin a process of reconciliation with your electorate so that we may once again be able to trust the people that we elect. We demand an apology and an admission of complicity in the corrupt deceit of society. We also demand an immediate repeal of cannabis prohibition and it's full legalisation.

An open lie cannot be upheld! The State has been found out! WE KNOW!!! Continuation of such deceit of the public in the face of overwhelming and publicly accessible evidence to the contrary will simply result in an ever diminishing respect, confidence and trust of the state by the electorate. The lie simply cannot be maintained.

Yours sincerely,

Rationalist.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Public Servants, the Government of The United Kingdom,

I write to inform you that we, the public of Great Britain, are growing ever more aware of the fact that successive governments have been purposely deceiving us regarding the prohibition of cannabis for approximately 70 years.

We are aware of the racist, unethical, immoral, unjust, unlawful and wholly discriminate propaganda that revolves around the entire issue of the state's attempt to hood-wink society. Almost every conceivable prejudice has been thrown at the issue, no matter how absurd, in an attempt for the state to protect the lie. Such illogical maintenance of the lie continues to this day and we, your electorate, are fully aware of your futile attempts to keep your necks above the waters of public knowledge. It is a dangerous situation to have the electorate over-take it's government in this manner.

The Internet is alive with overwhelming evidence to counter each and every one of the state's unsubstantiated claims against cannabis. Such evidence has also been provided by your electorate here on this website and under this topic. The "free" citizen is easily able to research evidence that will acknowledge that, indeed, they are trusting an untrustworthy government.

We, the people and your electorate, demand that you immediately cease lying to us and begin a process of reconciliation with your electorate so that we may once again be able to trust the people that we elect. We demand an apology and an admission of complicity in the corrupt deceit of society. We also demand an immediate repeal of cannabis prohibition and it's full legalisation.

An open lie cannot be upheld! The State has been found out! WE KNOW!!! Continuation of such deceit of the public in the face of overwhelming and publicly accessible evidence to the contrary will simply result in an ever diminishing respect, confidence and trust of the state by the electorate. The lie simply cannot be maintained.

Yours sincerely,

Rationalist.

Prohibit cell confessions now!

I run the Michael Stone website: http//www.ismichaelstoneguilty.info/

Michael Stone is the longest serving miscarriage of justice prisoner in the UK. He has been convicted twice of the Chillenden Murders, the first time on the basis of concocted prison confessions, the second time on the basis of one confession he is alleged to have shouted through a cell wall.

Although Stone is the most high profile case he is far from the only one. Prior to the 1984 Police And Criminal Evidence Act, police officers would routinely "verbal up" suspects, especially suspects of bad character. When tape recording of police interrogations was introduced, verbally disappeared literally overnight.

We are now in the invidious position that the word of a convicted criminal, including persons of very bad character and with their own agendas or axes to grind, are held in higher esteem by the courts. If a police inspector or indeed a chief constable claims a suspect confessed to him in the back of a police car, this alleged confession will be ruled inadmissible by the trial judge. Whereas a convicted drug dealer or even a convicted murderer who claims the same confession was made in a police cell will be allowed to testify. Obviously this is ludicrous, even to people like myself who hold the police in low esteem.

Prison confessions are extremely difficult to manufacture and almost impossible to refute.

I would suggest that in future, before a prison or cell confession is admitted in evidence that it fulfils certain criteria. The famous "Christian Burial Speech" in Brewer v Williams, an American case in which an accused confessed to a police officer while being transferred, is a good template for what should be admitted in evidence and what should not. In this case, the accused not only confessed to the murder but led the police to the victim's body.

In effect, I am arguing that no prison or cell confession should be admissible in a criminal case unless it adduces meaningful evidence not already in the public domain that can be proved in a court of law.

Why is this idea important?

I run the Michael Stone website: http//www.ismichaelstoneguilty.info/

Michael Stone is the longest serving miscarriage of justice prisoner in the UK. He has been convicted twice of the Chillenden Murders, the first time on the basis of concocted prison confessions, the second time on the basis of one confession he is alleged to have shouted through a cell wall.

Although Stone is the most high profile case he is far from the only one. Prior to the 1984 Police And Criminal Evidence Act, police officers would routinely "verbal up" suspects, especially suspects of bad character. When tape recording of police interrogations was introduced, verbally disappeared literally overnight.

We are now in the invidious position that the word of a convicted criminal, including persons of very bad character and with their own agendas or axes to grind, are held in higher esteem by the courts. If a police inspector or indeed a chief constable claims a suspect confessed to him in the back of a police car, this alleged confession will be ruled inadmissible by the trial judge. Whereas a convicted drug dealer or even a convicted murderer who claims the same confession was made in a police cell will be allowed to testify. Obviously this is ludicrous, even to people like myself who hold the police in low esteem.

Prison confessions are extremely difficult to manufacture and almost impossible to refute.

I would suggest that in future, before a prison or cell confession is admitted in evidence that it fulfils certain criteria. The famous "Christian Burial Speech" in Brewer v Williams, an American case in which an accused confessed to a police officer while being transferred, is a good template for what should be admitted in evidence and what should not. In this case, the accused not only confessed to the murder but led the police to the victim's body.

In effect, I am arguing that no prison or cell confession should be admissible in a criminal case unless it adduces meaningful evidence not already in the public domain that can be proved in a court of law.

Abolish the 30 Year Rule

I think people should know the history of their own country as it happens and not 30 years after the event.

 

I know some amendments to this were made recently but far too much of what is done in our name is kept secret for too long.  The 30 year rule can of course be extended so some documents, for instance those dealing with high ranking Nazi sympthizers in British society in the 1930's, are still classified.

Why is this idea important?

I think people should know the history of their own country as it happens and not 30 years after the event.

 

I know some amendments to this were made recently but far too much of what is done in our name is kept secret for too long.  The 30 year rule can of course be extended so some documents, for instance those dealing with high ranking Nazi sympthizers in British society in the 1930's, are still classified.

Energy companies must pay YOU interest if they hold your money.

Energy companies hold billions of pounds of money of our money.  They are earning profit interest on these holdings.

In the same way that companies can charge interest on outstanding invoices, energy companies should be forced to pay interest on balances on energy accounts (I suggest 5% above BoE base rate)..

Why is this idea important?

Energy companies hold billions of pounds of money of our money.  They are earning profit interest on these holdings.

In the same way that companies can charge interest on outstanding invoices, energy companies should be forced to pay interest on balances on energy accounts (I suggest 5% above BoE base rate)..

Removal of the innocent from Databases

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

Immediate Clean Slate for all Non-Fraudulent Tax Credit Overpayments

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

Why is this idea important?

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

Public Performances +

Allow buskers/street artists to perform wherever they like without being moved on by the police, but, also if people think they're rubbish they should be allowed to throw things at them – for example turnips and tomato's – to dicourage them. Perhaps we could also bring back the stocks in town centre for drunks, should be a good bit of entertainment

Why is this idea important?

Allow buskers/street artists to perform wherever they like without being moved on by the police, but, also if people think they're rubbish they should be allowed to throw things at them – for example turnips and tomato's – to dicourage them. Perhaps we could also bring back the stocks in town centre for drunks, should be a good bit of entertainment

Religion is a lifestyle choice

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

allocated land for free parties+festivals

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

Why is this idea important?

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

smoking ban

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

Why is this idea important?

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

Restore the right to be tried by a jury

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 removed one of our fundamental rights, the right to be tried by a jury, and allows a judge to decide to dispense with the jury if there are allegations of jury tampering. This must be repealed and the right to jury trial restored.

It is easy to see how dangerous this is. Imagine the authorities believe they will have difficulty convincing a jury of someone's guilt and think they will have a better chance with just a judge. All they have to do is arrange, secretly and unofficially of course, for someone to phone one of the jurors and threaten them and as soon as the juror reports this, the judge can order a jury-less trial.

I appreciate that jury intimidation can be a problem, so if there are no better ideas, perhaps in cases where it's felt necessary, we could keep the jurors identities secret, by having them behind a one-way screen in court and escorted to and from court in windowless vehicles. This might not be ideal, but at least it preserves the right to trial by jury, which many people much wiser than myself have said is absolutely vital to freedom, such as Lord Devlin who described it as "the lamp that shows freedom lives".

Why is this idea important?

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 removed one of our fundamental rights, the right to be tried by a jury, and allows a judge to decide to dispense with the jury if there are allegations of jury tampering. This must be repealed and the right to jury trial restored.

It is easy to see how dangerous this is. Imagine the authorities believe they will have difficulty convincing a jury of someone's guilt and think they will have a better chance with just a judge. All they have to do is arrange, secretly and unofficially of course, for someone to phone one of the jurors and threaten them and as soon as the juror reports this, the judge can order a jury-less trial.

I appreciate that jury intimidation can be a problem, so if there are no better ideas, perhaps in cases where it's felt necessary, we could keep the jurors identities secret, by having them behind a one-way screen in court and escorted to and from court in windowless vehicles. This might not be ideal, but at least it preserves the right to trial by jury, which many people much wiser than myself have said is absolutely vital to freedom, such as Lord Devlin who described it as "the lamp that shows freedom lives".

Delete criminal records relating to repealed laws eg gross indecency

Convictions criminalising gay men issued before legal changes and esp. before 1967 in effect just for being Gay  should be deleted from criminal records.

Why is this idea important?

Convictions criminalising gay men issued before legal changes and esp. before 1967 in effect just for being Gay  should be deleted from criminal records.

Amendment or repeal of POCA 2002

The POCA 2002 needs to be either repealed or dramatically amended as it is a conviluted

 contradictary Act that is drafted in the most fragmented and unclear way.

  The wisest members of the judiciary strugle to make complete sence of various sections, so what chance does the average Crown Court judge or defence advocate have of attempting to ensure justice is fairly done.Especially when the poor old judge is given little training on this outlandish Act, and is so busy dealing with other duties. 

Why is this idea important?

The POCA 2002 needs to be either repealed or dramatically amended as it is a conviluted

 contradictary Act that is drafted in the most fragmented and unclear way.

  The wisest members of the judiciary strugle to make complete sence of various sections, so what chance does the average Crown Court judge or defence advocate have of attempting to ensure justice is fairly done.Especially when the poor old judge is given little training on this outlandish Act, and is so busy dealing with other duties. 

Abolish Control Orders

Control Orders go against everything that we once understood as 'British justice' and thus endanger putting Britain amongst those countries with the worst records on human rights. Is this how the government wants Britain to be viewed?

Why is this idea important?

Control Orders go against everything that we once understood as 'British justice' and thus endanger putting Britain amongst those countries with the worst records on human rights. Is this how the government wants Britain to be viewed?