Abolish Control Orders.

Control Orders are incompatible with human rights, civil liberties, and Common Law.  Their existence brings our judicial system into disrepute, and I believe that they should be abolished forthwith.

Why is this idea important?

Control Orders are incompatible with human rights, civil liberties, and Common Law.  Their existence brings our judicial system into disrepute, and I believe that they should be abolished forthwith.

Restore civil liberties eroded by last government

The introduction of Control Orders which can severely restrict individual freedoms, and deny even family access, without any convictions against a person, was a shameful piece of legislation – and its practice demonstrated how degrading it was – and should be repealed.

Further, the widespread introduction of surveillance cameras and of sound monitoring as well, and the far too 'liberal' discretion with which police forces can employ such methods in comparison with the denial of ordinary civil rights, through the guise of anti-terrorism, needs to be brought to a halt, and reasonable presumptions of innocence restored.

Why is this idea important?

The introduction of Control Orders which can severely restrict individual freedoms, and deny even family access, without any convictions against a person, was a shameful piece of legislation – and its practice demonstrated how degrading it was – and should be repealed.

Further, the widespread introduction of surveillance cameras and of sound monitoring as well, and the far too 'liberal' discretion with which police forces can employ such methods in comparison with the denial of ordinary civil rights, through the guise of anti-terrorism, needs to be brought to a halt, and reasonable presumptions of innocence restored.

Why Control Orders should be scrapped

There is no place for 'laws' which are internationally illegal. Their effects shame me and all citizens of this country and I wish no part of Government actions which do this.

Why is this idea important?

There is no place for 'laws' which are internationally illegal. Their effects shame me and all citizens of this country and I wish no part of Government actions which do this.

no republic for any commonwealth country state or territory

until all such entities adhere to the westminster system and all checks and balances are in place. without a bicameral system in place a republic is a distinct possibility and all that that implies i.e. dictatorship, loss of liberty, freedom of speech, indoctrination etc.

suggest all those entities which do not adhere are subjected to trade embargos or some similar sanction. the rule of law is essential for a truly democratic system and the right of an individual to a fair trial, and to be able to appeal to a higher authority against a sentence length. deprivation of liberty in prison is punnishment enough. humiliation, torture are not the hallmarks of a civilised society which should have detention facilities with the minimal facilities in place.

Why is this idea important?

until all such entities adhere to the westminster system and all checks and balances are in place. without a bicameral system in place a republic is a distinct possibility and all that that implies i.e. dictatorship, loss of liberty, freedom of speech, indoctrination etc.

suggest all those entities which do not adhere are subjected to trade embargos or some similar sanction. the rule of law is essential for a truly democratic system and the right of an individual to a fair trial, and to be able to appeal to a higher authority against a sentence length. deprivation of liberty in prison is punnishment enough. humiliation, torture are not the hallmarks of a civilised society which should have detention facilities with the minimal facilities in place.

REDUCE CORRUPTION AND ABUSE BY SCALING OFFENCES

I WAS JAILED FOR BLACKMAIL IN 2007 – FOR THE PROSECUTION IT WAS THE SIMPLEST THING – I HAD MADE DEMANDS MY EMPLOYER PAID ME FOR WORK UNPAID

ALL THE CROWN PROSECUTION HAD TO DO WAS FEIGN AND PRETEND THE WORK UNPAID WAS NOT UNPAID AND THEY HIT ME WITH BLACKMAIL WHICH CARRIES A 14 YEAR TERM OF IMPRISONMENT

WE HAVE BEEN AT THE MERCY OF A STUPID CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DESIGNED BY THE LORDS TO KEEP THE PEASANTS IN THEIR PLACE AND CRUSH AND IMPRISON THEM IF THEY DARE TO RISE

MY EMPLOYER MADE HIMSELF INTO A LORD AND TOLD THE POLICE TO ARREST ME

IN PRISON I MET A LAD THAT ONE DAY HAD A JEALOUS QUARREL WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND – HE WAS IN THE KITCHEN AND HE TOOK A HOT POTATO OFF A TRAY AND SMEARED IT ON HER FACE IN A JEALOUS RAGE

SHE DID NOT TREAT THE BURN PROPERLY AND THE BURN INFECTED – WHEN IT INFECTED IT BURST THE SKIN AND BECAME ACTUAL BODILY HARM TO GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM – HE STUPIDLY WAS TOLD TO PLEAD GUILTY TO GBH NOT KNOWING WHAT HE WAS GETTING HIMSELF IN TO – HE GOT 8 YEARS

HE WAS A BIRMINGHAM COUNCIL CLERK WITH NO PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

MY IDEA IS YOU BREAK DOWN EACH OF THESE STUPID SERIOUS OFFENCES INTO GRADE 1, 2 AND 3 WHERE 3 IS VERY SERIOUS AND 1 NOT SERIOUS

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I WAS JAILED FOR BLACKMAIL IN 2007 – FOR THE PROSECUTION IT WAS THE SIMPLEST THING – I HAD MADE DEMANDS MY EMPLOYER PAID ME FOR WORK UNPAID

ALL THE CROWN PROSECUTION HAD TO DO WAS FEIGN AND PRETEND THE WORK UNPAID WAS NOT UNPAID AND THEY HIT ME WITH BLACKMAIL WHICH CARRIES A 14 YEAR TERM OF IMPRISONMENT

WE HAVE BEEN AT THE MERCY OF A STUPID CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DESIGNED BY THE LORDS TO KEEP THE PEASANTS IN THEIR PLACE AND CRUSH AND IMPRISON THEM IF THEY DARE TO RISE

MY EMPLOYER MADE HIMSELF INTO A LORD AND TOLD THE POLICE TO ARREST ME

IN PRISON I MET A LAD THAT ONE DAY HAD A JEALOUS QUARREL WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND – HE WAS IN THE KITCHEN AND HE TOOK A HOT POTATO OFF A TRAY AND SMEARED IT ON HER FACE IN A JEALOUS RAGE

SHE DID NOT TREAT THE BURN PROPERLY AND THE BURN INFECTED – WHEN IT INFECTED IT BURST THE SKIN AND BECAME ACTUAL BODILY HARM TO GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM – HE STUPIDLY WAS TOLD TO PLEAD GUILTY TO GBH NOT KNOWING WHAT HE WAS GETTING HIMSELF IN TO – HE GOT 8 YEARS

HE WAS A BIRMINGHAM COUNCIL CLERK WITH NO PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

MY IDEA IS YOU BREAK DOWN EACH OF THESE STUPID SERIOUS OFFENCES INTO GRADE 1, 2 AND 3 WHERE 3 IS VERY SERIOUS AND 1 NOT SERIOUS

 

 

 

 

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial

The government  must not deny people  a fair hearing in a court of law.  Everyone is supposedly innocent until proved guilty.  This must apply without exception to everyone. 

Why is this idea important?

The government  must not deny people  a fair hearing in a court of law.  Everyone is supposedly innocent until proved guilty.  This must apply without exception to everyone. 

Create a British “Bill of Rights”

A lot of the ideas submitted here for repealing laws etc are good. But they will inevitably involve a huge amount of work by government to modify/change/alter existing laws and some of that will unlikely achieve what many people want, which is to roll back the state and limit its powers in a number of areas.

IMV a far better idea is to draft a "British Bill of Rights" which would cut right across many of the intrusive and police-state laws we have seen introduced over the last 13 years.

Why is this idea important?

A lot of the ideas submitted here for repealing laws etc are good. But they will inevitably involve a huge amount of work by government to modify/change/alter existing laws and some of that will unlikely achieve what many people want, which is to roll back the state and limit its powers in a number of areas.

IMV a far better idea is to draft a "British Bill of Rights" which would cut right across many of the intrusive and police-state laws we have seen introduced over the last 13 years.

Fair trial

I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to a fair and open trial if suspected of wrong doing, what ever that may be. If someone is accused of a crime they must be given a fair trial, no excuses, no detention without a fair and open trial. Our freedom is one of the most important values of living in the UK and I fear it is slowly being eroded.

Susan Gilchrist

Why is this idea important?

I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to a fair and open trial if suspected of wrong doing, what ever that may be. If someone is accused of a crime they must be given a fair trial, no excuses, no detention without a fair and open trial. Our freedom is one of the most important values of living in the UK and I fear it is slowly being eroded.

Susan Gilchrist

NO U-TURN ON ANYONYMITY FOR RAPE ACCUSED!!!

It is totally outrageous that after the Coalition government promising to give anonymity to (almost entirely MALE) ALLAGED male rapists it has now CAVED IN TO PRESSURE from FEMINIST EXTREMISTS.

According to the BBC News – the grounds for this u-turn have been "Labour and women Tory MPs said it could send a negative signal about women who accuse men of rape."

Could you tell us please what kind of "signal" gets sent about MEN WHO GET FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE?

Pretty negative I'd say.

And just WHO is running this country? Labour feminist MPs? Feminist women who have sneaked into seats in the Conservative party now that there's little point them infiltrating the Labour party any more AS THEY DID, I watched it happen since the 70s, as there's no POWER in it for them.

So the partly Liberal Coalition gets elected, but it still does what it is told by a bunch of shrieking feminist activists, who endlessly criticise it simply because there aren't enough (in THEIR opinion) women in the cabinet???  What an IMPOTENT excercise of "power" by the Coalition, first making a decision which was a FAIR, JUST ONE, properly acknowledging the EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS of men and then caving in at the first sign of protests from shrieking, deeply unjust, feminist women.

It's THESE kind of people, largely a feminist government we've been living under in the Blair era, with their hypocrisy, more interested in their job titles, their salaries and perks, and their reflections in the mirror, and fiddling their expenses, who have got us in this mess in the first place – our disrespectful, crime ridden, badly behaved, debt ridden, teenage pregnant,m dryg addcuted, unsafe to walk the streets, etc, society  -, and now they have not been ELECTED as a government ,  they are simply INTIMIDATING/BULLYING to get what they want by shrieking propaganda at the government who have!

And of course, the great irony is that ACCUSERS (almost entirely women), THEY get anonymity, but the men ACCUSED don't!

Astounding!

i.e. a man can be FALSELY accused on any petty, malevolent whim of a woman who is upset with him, and HE gets publicly shamed, made a leper in  his community and maybe even subject to attack from gangs of yobs who are always looking for an excuse to attack some innocent person, while SHE hides laughing in the shadows, as he gets tortured and publicly ridiculed, and maybe never trusted again by other women in the community where he lives, even if found totally innocent of the crime.

So a case was given to justify this shrieking protest from the feminists, of a taxi driver who raped 80 women (so THEY tell us, I wasn't there), and until his name was published, all the other women who had been raped didn't come forward.

Yes – well, what a TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ARGUMENT. Once the guy had been CONVICTED his name would have been published ANYWAY. So THEN they would have had their opportunity to come forward.

And in any case, this is no grounds to lift anonymity from accused men, because what the government should be seeking to do is to PREVENT RAPE rather than all the emphasis being on CONVICTING RAPISTS.

Because these feminists are apparently too stupid to realise that once a woman has actually been raped (if it REALLY happend that is, and it's not just a malevolent false accusation) it's actually TOO LATE.

Sure, if he is caught and convicted, it will (for a time) prevent him raping other women, but that won't ever make it right for the woman who has been raped ALREADY.

So let's take the example of this taxi driver rapist. Firstly, women have to start taking FAR MORE RESPONSIBLITY for their own actions. If a drunken woman is going home from a nightclub or party and  she goes home ALONE in a taxi or even car driven by ANY man she is not "asking for it", but she is TAKING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK.

Men in general are not saints, as no more so are women, and x percent of men will feel tempted when a woman's defences are down like that, knowing that due to drink she might not even REMEMBER who he is.

So the solution to preventing women being raped, is not to keep printing the names and pictures in Newspapers or showing on TV men who just MIGHT have done a rape, but it's not proven, but to educate women to take more responsibility for their own actions, and also put in place practical steps like WOMEN ONLY TAXI SERVICES with women only drivers.

Or you know, why don't we give the feminists what they REALLY want? Which is to basically have every man wear a warning sign on him wherever he goes, hanging around his neck, that says RAPIST UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, and there should be a big database of EVERY  male over 10  giving  his name and address, and a photo of him, and if a woman doesn't like a particular man, all she has to do is email in (ANONYMOUSLY OF COURSE) a rape accusation, and then minutes later, the police will be kicking in his door, and hauling him off for interrogation, assuming him guilty until proven iinnocent.

I assure all the men and sane non-feminist women, that if the feminsits had their way, the above scenario would be pretty much a reality, and I am not joking.

Because think about it logically, and it's easy to see such a publicly accessible database of men that women could search through, would surely make it much easier to find any man they believe has raped them, so surely if it would prevent ONE SINGLE WOMAN getting raped, that justifies it being done?

No, IT DOES NOT.  That's ALWAYS the excuse.

e.g. why not take EVERYBODY'S DNA at birth? Surely that would make ALL criminals easier to catch?

Why? Because we've got HUMAN RIGHTS, the rigbht to lvie in freedom unless it's PROVEN we are some kind of threat to society.

The feminsts are interesting only in  WOMEN'S RIGHTS, not MEN'S RIGHTS, and not only that, they are shrieking endlessly about women's RIGHTS, but what they DON'T talk about, is women's RESPONSIBILITIES. E.G. to take care of their children properly, or be fair to men, or to not act stupidly getting drunk and going home in a man's car alone or going back to the flat/home of a man they hardly know, and expecting there to be no risk in such an unwise course of action.

And I'm appalled that so many men are so mute and meek on this subject, because they foolishly imagine  a false couldn't happen to THEM.

(well yes, just hide in your home, never go out, never be anywhere near the company of women, never answer the door to a woman caller (let alone let her in – NUCLEAR ALERT!) don't go anywhere near your daughter, sister, mothers, grandmothers, aunt, girl cousin, sister in law,  a mixed sex work place, bar, public park, cinema, concert, theatre, shopping centre, or place of worship, and you just MIGHT be in with a chance that you'll NEVER be accused of rape/sexual aasault).

Whereas the fact is, that women are routinely accusing men of all kinds of things, and using the police against men, just to get their own way, or to "punish" a man who displeases them in some way, make his life a misery, it's not only rape accusations.

It could be because IN HER OPINION he is disciplining a misbehaving child in a way SHE doesn't agree with, and because she uses the law to stop him controlling the child, we end up with a society of out of control children, who become vandals, hooligans, violent thugs, gang members, and yes, even RAPISTS, because she used the feminist controlled law against a man who was trying to keep a child in hand, teach it to have RESPECT for other human beings.

So few men are really THINKING what a serious issue this is: it's not just about rape, it's a whole flotilla of infringinments and inequalities against men's rights, and this is just the most obvious example.

One more REAL LIFE example of someone I know, what happened to him recently to illustrate the point. He allowed a woman to share his flat, the relationship failed and he told her to leave. She then reported him to the police, accused him of kidnapping and raping her and the police came to take him away. He was saved ONLY by the fact there were messages from her on his mobile phone which showed they obviously had an ongoing CONSENSUAL relationship.

So without that slender but VITAL evidence, only available incidentaly since the mobile phone era, he would likely have been imprisoned until trial, and possibly even sentenced to many years as a convicted rapist and kidnapper, and his life would have been over, all on HER MALEVOLENT WHIM and FALSE ACCUSATION.

And all the while SHE would have (and as far as I know, still IS) remained TOTALLY ANONYMOUS and able to do exactly the same to any number of future male victims.

As is usual, with the feminists, we only ever here ONE HALF of the story, only about men's crimes (alleged) against women, but NEVER about  women's  numerous crimes against men in all kinds of ways, false accusations to police, social workers and other authorities being a very favourite one at the present.

That this Coalition is continuing the DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 50 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION (Ii.e MEN) started mainly by the New Labour Feminists, is a totally appalling injustice, and failure of them to uphold CIVIL LIBERTIES as they have promised, the very thing this website is supposed to be about.
 

 

Why is this idea important?

It is totally outrageous that after the Coalition government promising to give anonymity to (almost entirely MALE) ALLAGED male rapists it has now CAVED IN TO PRESSURE from FEMINIST EXTREMISTS.

According to the BBC News – the grounds for this u-turn have been "Labour and women Tory MPs said it could send a negative signal about women who accuse men of rape."

Could you tell us please what kind of "signal" gets sent about MEN WHO GET FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE?

Pretty negative I'd say.

And just WHO is running this country? Labour feminist MPs? Feminist women who have sneaked into seats in the Conservative party now that there's little point them infiltrating the Labour party any more AS THEY DID, I watched it happen since the 70s, as there's no POWER in it for them.

So the partly Liberal Coalition gets elected, but it still does what it is told by a bunch of shrieking feminist activists, who endlessly criticise it simply because there aren't enough (in THEIR opinion) women in the cabinet???  What an IMPOTENT excercise of "power" by the Coalition, first making a decision which was a FAIR, JUST ONE, properly acknowledging the EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS of men and then caving in at the first sign of protests from shrieking, deeply unjust, feminist women.

It's THESE kind of people, largely a feminist government we've been living under in the Blair era, with their hypocrisy, more interested in their job titles, their salaries and perks, and their reflections in the mirror, and fiddling their expenses, who have got us in this mess in the first place – our disrespectful, crime ridden, badly behaved, debt ridden, teenage pregnant,m dryg addcuted, unsafe to walk the streets, etc, society  -, and now they have not been ELECTED as a government ,  they are simply INTIMIDATING/BULLYING to get what they want by shrieking propaganda at the government who have!

And of course, the great irony is that ACCUSERS (almost entirely women), THEY get anonymity, but the men ACCUSED don't!

Astounding!

i.e. a man can be FALSELY accused on any petty, malevolent whim of a woman who is upset with him, and HE gets publicly shamed, made a leper in  his community and maybe even subject to attack from gangs of yobs who are always looking for an excuse to attack some innocent person, while SHE hides laughing in the shadows, as he gets tortured and publicly ridiculed, and maybe never trusted again by other women in the community where he lives, even if found totally innocent of the crime.

So a case was given to justify this shrieking protest from the feminists, of a taxi driver who raped 80 women (so THEY tell us, I wasn't there), and until his name was published, all the other women who had been raped didn't come forward.

Yes – well, what a TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ARGUMENT. Once the guy had been CONVICTED his name would have been published ANYWAY. So THEN they would have had their opportunity to come forward.

And in any case, this is no grounds to lift anonymity from accused men, because what the government should be seeking to do is to PREVENT RAPE rather than all the emphasis being on CONVICTING RAPISTS.

Because these feminists are apparently too stupid to realise that once a woman has actually been raped (if it REALLY happend that is, and it's not just a malevolent false accusation) it's actually TOO LATE.

Sure, if he is caught and convicted, it will (for a time) prevent him raping other women, but that won't ever make it right for the woman who has been raped ALREADY.

So let's take the example of this taxi driver rapist. Firstly, women have to start taking FAR MORE RESPONSIBLITY for their own actions. If a drunken woman is going home from a nightclub or party and  she goes home ALONE in a taxi or even car driven by ANY man she is not "asking for it", but she is TAKING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK.

Men in general are not saints, as no more so are women, and x percent of men will feel tempted when a woman's defences are down like that, knowing that due to drink she might not even REMEMBER who he is.

So the solution to preventing women being raped, is not to keep printing the names and pictures in Newspapers or showing on TV men who just MIGHT have done a rape, but it's not proven, but to educate women to take more responsibility for their own actions, and also put in place practical steps like WOMEN ONLY TAXI SERVICES with women only drivers.

Or you know, why don't we give the feminists what they REALLY want? Which is to basically have every man wear a warning sign on him wherever he goes, hanging around his neck, that says RAPIST UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, and there should be a big database of EVERY  male over 10  giving  his name and address, and a photo of him, and if a woman doesn't like a particular man, all she has to do is email in (ANONYMOUSLY OF COURSE) a rape accusation, and then minutes later, the police will be kicking in his door, and hauling him off for interrogation, assuming him guilty until proven iinnocent.

I assure all the men and sane non-feminist women, that if the feminsits had their way, the above scenario would be pretty much a reality, and I am not joking.

Because think about it logically, and it's easy to see such a publicly accessible database of men that women could search through, would surely make it much easier to find any man they believe has raped them, so surely if it would prevent ONE SINGLE WOMAN getting raped, that justifies it being done?

No, IT DOES NOT.  That's ALWAYS the excuse.

e.g. why not take EVERYBODY'S DNA at birth? Surely that would make ALL criminals easier to catch?

Why? Because we've got HUMAN RIGHTS, the rigbht to lvie in freedom unless it's PROVEN we are some kind of threat to society.

The feminsts are interesting only in  WOMEN'S RIGHTS, not MEN'S RIGHTS, and not only that, they are shrieking endlessly about women's RIGHTS, but what they DON'T talk about, is women's RESPONSIBILITIES. E.G. to take care of their children properly, or be fair to men, or to not act stupidly getting drunk and going home in a man's car alone or going back to the flat/home of a man they hardly know, and expecting there to be no risk in such an unwise course of action.

And I'm appalled that so many men are so mute and meek on this subject, because they foolishly imagine  a false couldn't happen to THEM.

(well yes, just hide in your home, never go out, never be anywhere near the company of women, never answer the door to a woman caller (let alone let her in – NUCLEAR ALERT!) don't go anywhere near your daughter, sister, mothers, grandmothers, aunt, girl cousin, sister in law,  a mixed sex work place, bar, public park, cinema, concert, theatre, shopping centre, or place of worship, and you just MIGHT be in with a chance that you'll NEVER be accused of rape/sexual aasault).

Whereas the fact is, that women are routinely accusing men of all kinds of things, and using the police against men, just to get their own way, or to "punish" a man who displeases them in some way, make his life a misery, it's not only rape accusations.

It could be because IN HER OPINION he is disciplining a misbehaving child in a way SHE doesn't agree with, and because she uses the law to stop him controlling the child, we end up with a society of out of control children, who become vandals, hooligans, violent thugs, gang members, and yes, even RAPISTS, because she used the feminist controlled law against a man who was trying to keep a child in hand, teach it to have RESPECT for other human beings.

So few men are really THINKING what a serious issue this is: it's not just about rape, it's a whole flotilla of infringinments and inequalities against men's rights, and this is just the most obvious example.

One more REAL LIFE example of someone I know, what happened to him recently to illustrate the point. He allowed a woman to share his flat, the relationship failed and he told her to leave. She then reported him to the police, accused him of kidnapping and raping her and the police came to take him away. He was saved ONLY by the fact there were messages from her on his mobile phone which showed they obviously had an ongoing CONSENSUAL relationship.

So without that slender but VITAL evidence, only available incidentaly since the mobile phone era, he would likely have been imprisoned until trial, and possibly even sentenced to many years as a convicted rapist and kidnapper, and his life would have been over, all on HER MALEVOLENT WHIM and FALSE ACCUSATION.

And all the while SHE would have (and as far as I know, still IS) remained TOTALLY ANONYMOUS and able to do exactly the same to any number of future male victims.

As is usual, with the feminists, we only ever here ONE HALF of the story, only about men's crimes (alleged) against women, but NEVER about  women's  numerous crimes against men in all kinds of ways, false accusations to police, social workers and other authorities being a very favourite one at the present.

That this Coalition is continuing the DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 50 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION (Ii.e MEN) started mainly by the New Labour Feminists, is a totally appalling injustice, and failure of them to uphold CIVIL LIBERTIES as they have promised, the very thing this website is supposed to be about.
 

 

Scrap Controls

We can't become a nation which imposes an unfair trial on who we suppose to be guilty. We used to pride ourselves on innocent until proven guilty. This involves applying dignity.

Why is this idea important?

We can't become a nation which imposes an unfair trial on who we suppose to be guilty. We used to pride ourselves on innocent until proven guilty. This involves applying dignity.

right to fair trial

Any policy however packgaed in terms of 'national security' which results in any individual or individuals not being brought into open court for any allegation against them without it being openly laid out and their being given the normal facilities of legal representation and defense, such a policy is inherently unjust.

Why is this idea important?

Any policy however packgaed in terms of 'national security' which results in any individual or individuals not being brought into open court for any allegation against them without it being openly laid out and their being given the normal facilities of legal representation and defense, such a policy is inherently unjust.

End Control Orders legislation

Abolish current legislation which should be replaced with use of existing powers and any additional powers that are transparent and allow challenge and appeal in a just manner.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish current legislation which should be replaced with use of existing powers and any additional powers that are transparent and allow challenge and appeal in a just manner.

Abolish control orders

Current control orders are certainly a violation of human right, denying a fair trial to terrorism suspects. They do not favour good relations with the ethnic/religious groups suspects belong to, but exhacerbate current negative feelings against state and police.

Why is this idea important?

Current control orders are certainly a violation of human right, denying a fair trial to terrorism suspects. They do not favour good relations with the ethnic/religious groups suspects belong to, but exhacerbate current negative feelings against state and police.

Abolish Control orders

Control orders are fundamentally undemocratic because they impose what is essentially a punishment without a proper judicial process. and damage the human rights of us all.  The impact on the family is huge with the person subject to the control order finding it difficult to work because of the impact of curfews and reporting restrictions.  Families are restricted by, among other things, being unable to access computers and the internet: this has a particularly detrimental effect on the education of children in the family.  the whole family is stigmatised.  Control orders should be scrapped immediately. 

Why is this idea important?

Control orders are fundamentally undemocratic because they impose what is essentially a punishment without a proper judicial process. and damage the human rights of us all.  The impact on the family is huge with the person subject to the control order finding it difficult to work because of the impact of curfews and reporting restrictions.  Families are restricted by, among other things, being unable to access computers and the internet: this has a particularly detrimental effect on the education of children in the family.  the whole family is stigmatised.  Control orders should be scrapped immediately. 

Block/Repeal the European Investigation Order/European Arrest Warrant

For both the European Investigation Order (EIO) and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) laws to be blocked from coming into force or repealed. Both are highly damaging to our Civil Liberties and Freedoms as a Nation. European police forces will be/are able to undermine our own when it comes to investigating cases.

Why is this idea important?

For both the European Investigation Order (EIO) and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) laws to be blocked from coming into force or repealed. Both are highly damaging to our Civil Liberties and Freedoms as a Nation. European police forces will be/are able to undermine our own when it comes to investigating cases.

Reform of UK’s sentencing system

Three teenagers have been found guilty of subjecting a young woman with learning difficulties to three days of sadistic physical and sexual torture.
Darren Hodgkinson, 18, and girls Chelsea Mills, 16, and Chelsea Williams, 14, bruised their victim so severely that people thought she was black.
Nail varnish and cream were rubbed into the woman’s hair, which was then shaved off along with her eyebrows.

On Friday ringleader Hodgkinson was jailed at Southampton Crown Court for a minimum of four years. Mills was given a two-year detention and training order, and Williams was given an 18-month detention and training order.

Judge Peter Ralls said: ‘This poor woman may never recover from the psychological damage. You picked on her because she was odd and for no motivation other than to satisfy some depraved wish to cause harm.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297462/Trio-guilty-torturing-woman-days.html#ixzz0uhVuvZhD

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297462/Trio-guilty-torturing-woman-days.html#ixzz0uhVqWe7c

Why is this idea important?

Three teenagers have been found guilty of subjecting a young woman with learning difficulties to three days of sadistic physical and sexual torture.
Darren Hodgkinson, 18, and girls Chelsea Mills, 16, and Chelsea Williams, 14, bruised their victim so severely that people thought she was black.
Nail varnish and cream were rubbed into the woman’s hair, which was then shaved off along with her eyebrows.

On Friday ringleader Hodgkinson was jailed at Southampton Crown Court for a minimum of four years. Mills was given a two-year detention and training order, and Williams was given an 18-month detention and training order.

Judge Peter Ralls said: ‘This poor woman may never recover from the psychological damage. You picked on her because she was odd and for no motivation other than to satisfy some depraved wish to cause harm.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297462/Trio-guilty-torturing-woman-days.html#ixzz0uhVuvZhD

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297462/Trio-guilty-torturing-woman-days.html#ixzz0uhVqWe7c