Independent body to hold CCTV footage

The police have demonstrated that they can't be trusted with CCTV footage, as on many occasions when it might have provided evidence of wrong-doing by them, it has been "lost", "damaged" or they say the equipment just happened not to be working at the time (see the recent case of the two brothers at the Gaza protest, where the CCTV captured them just before and after they were assaulted, but apparently not at the time of the incident!).

I suggest that an independent body is set-up, with the power to seize and store CCTV footage after an incident (whether from public or private systems), removing this power from the police. This body can then make copies of this footage available to the police and solicitors.

Why is this idea important?

The police have demonstrated that they can't be trusted with CCTV footage, as on many occasions when it might have provided evidence of wrong-doing by them, it has been "lost", "damaged" or they say the equipment just happened not to be working at the time (see the recent case of the two brothers at the Gaza protest, where the CCTV captured them just before and after they were assaulted, but apparently not at the time of the incident!).

I suggest that an independent body is set-up, with the power to seize and store CCTV footage after an incident (whether from public or private systems), removing this power from the police. This body can then make copies of this footage available to the police and solicitors.

How to reform the foreign aid to better help the third world develop, increase food security, reduce CO2, increase forest cover in the UK and build cheap and affordable houses for British people.

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why is this idea important?

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why our drug laws are not working

Drugs should be legalized, now, i know that's a very strong statement, however if you take into account the sheer scale of drug use in the uk, and the negative aspects associated with the prohibition of drugs, you quickly realise the positivity that can be extracted from the decriminalization of cannabis, and more understanding drug laws for harder drug use.

Now, consider this, if cannabis was legalized (perhaps along with MDMA pills & psilocybin mushrooms) the revenue that could be made in tax from the sale of cannabis is huge. 27% of the uk population regularly smoke cannabis, that means that 16,683,840 people in the uk use cannabis on a regular basis  and 14% of under 13 year olds have tried cannabis, you understand that the younger you are the more likely you are to begin using cannabis. Therefore it seems to me that children under 18 are using drugs as a form of rebellion, i know, i'm 16..

16,683,840 people use cannabis, if cannabis costs £10 per gram and each of them buy £70 (7 gram or quarter ounce) per week, and the government tax at 17.5% (V.A.T) that's £204,377,040 per week in tax, multiply that by 52 and you get a staggering £10,627,606,080 in tax per year, I won't go on in figures but imagine what David cameron could do with £10,627,606,080 per year?

If £10,627,606,080 a year COULD be going into public tax money, then consider that these people that use cannabis at the moment, are using it illegally, and if the criminals are making 100% profit, as legally it can't be coming from a taxable source, then that means that £60,729,177,600 per year is going into REAL criminals pockets every year, that's nearly 61 BILLION pounds sterling. This money could be going to fund terrorism, child trafficking, organised crime, murder and gun trafficking/production, no matter how much of a fool we may think David Cameron to be, don't you believe that this money should be going to him rather than the forementioned causes?

Now my personal opinion is that the money in tax (a considerably large sum) can be used to help ease the burden out of harder drug use and be used to make this country a place with less heroin and crack cocaine addicts, through legalization and controlled S.I.S (safe injection sites) the epidemic of heroin sweeping through the world may be doctored in the UK.

I shall now point out the fact that 9000 people a year in the UK die annualy from alcohol related illnesses, and the most common cause of death for 13-18 year olds in the UK is alcohol poisoning. Take that into consideration there is evidence to show that not one single person, in the history of cannabis use, has died from a THC overdose.

My father used to tell me as a child, that all things in life are good in moderation, perhaps i took this a little TOO literally, however i believe i could go as far as to say that it's become my motto, please take this into consideration when reading this.

The fact that also, cannabis has been shown to have very few derogatory side effects and there is NO proof that cannabis has been shown to cause schitzophrenia.

If drugs are controlled themselves then the abuse of drugs can be controlled and drugs, perhaps all drugs, can be enjoyed in a more safe, healthy manner.

Why is this idea important?

Drugs should be legalized, now, i know that's a very strong statement, however if you take into account the sheer scale of drug use in the uk, and the negative aspects associated with the prohibition of drugs, you quickly realise the positivity that can be extracted from the decriminalization of cannabis, and more understanding drug laws for harder drug use.

Now, consider this, if cannabis was legalized (perhaps along with MDMA pills & psilocybin mushrooms) the revenue that could be made in tax from the sale of cannabis is huge. 27% of the uk population regularly smoke cannabis, that means that 16,683,840 people in the uk use cannabis on a regular basis  and 14% of under 13 year olds have tried cannabis, you understand that the younger you are the more likely you are to begin using cannabis. Therefore it seems to me that children under 18 are using drugs as a form of rebellion, i know, i'm 16..

16,683,840 people use cannabis, if cannabis costs £10 per gram and each of them buy £70 (7 gram or quarter ounce) per week, and the government tax at 17.5% (V.A.T) that's £204,377,040 per week in tax, multiply that by 52 and you get a staggering £10,627,606,080 in tax per year, I won't go on in figures but imagine what David cameron could do with £10,627,606,080 per year?

If £10,627,606,080 a year COULD be going into public tax money, then consider that these people that use cannabis at the moment, are using it illegally, and if the criminals are making 100% profit, as legally it can't be coming from a taxable source, then that means that £60,729,177,600 per year is going into REAL criminals pockets every year, that's nearly 61 BILLION pounds sterling. This money could be going to fund terrorism, child trafficking, organised crime, murder and gun trafficking/production, no matter how much of a fool we may think David Cameron to be, don't you believe that this money should be going to him rather than the forementioned causes?

Now my personal opinion is that the money in tax (a considerably large sum) can be used to help ease the burden out of harder drug use and be used to make this country a place with less heroin and crack cocaine addicts, through legalization and controlled S.I.S (safe injection sites) the epidemic of heroin sweeping through the world may be doctored in the UK.

I shall now point out the fact that 9000 people a year in the UK die annualy from alcohol related illnesses, and the most common cause of death for 13-18 year olds in the UK is alcohol poisoning. Take that into consideration there is evidence to show that not one single person, in the history of cannabis use, has died from a THC overdose.

My father used to tell me as a child, that all things in life are good in moderation, perhaps i took this a little TOO literally, however i believe i could go as far as to say that it's become my motto, please take this into consideration when reading this.

The fact that also, cannabis has been shown to have very few derogatory side effects and there is NO proof that cannabis has been shown to cause schitzophrenia.

If drugs are controlled themselves then the abuse of drugs can be controlled and drugs, perhaps all drugs, can be enjoyed in a more safe, healthy manner.

Repeal British Parliament sovereignty

Repeal British parliament sovereignty to restore civil liberties (and more).

Parliament has passed laws that limit parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament can repeal any of these limitations. Therefore, they continue to create and end any law, lacking Lawfulness.

It is quite clear, regardless what millions say, that no authority was granted to Parliament
to repeal and create new laws if they follow God as the queen and parliament attest to do.

5:17-20 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass
from The Law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break
one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be
called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and
teach [them], the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the
righteousness] of the lawyers and politicians (who were also priests
because the church and the state were one at that time), ye shall in
no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven. – Matthew.

Based on this proof (and there is more), the people who choose to live by The Law of God, have every right to do so. Parliament is forbidding followers of Christ, by all their legislation.
Hence the contribution, challenging (again) the British Parliament to relinquish sovereignty.

On 13/June/1988, 40 years from the Fig Tree putting forth its new shoots in 1948, Christ served a High Court Writ upon the British Parliament, at court in the City of Sheffield, where his new body hadbeen born in 1948, as prophesied, demanding that he be acknowledged by
Parliament as the Rightful British-Israel King.
http://jahtruth.net/emmau2.htm

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Repeal British parliament sovereignty to restore civil liberties (and more).

Parliament has passed laws that limit parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament can repeal any of these limitations. Therefore, they continue to create and end any law, lacking Lawfulness.

It is quite clear, regardless what millions say, that no authority was granted to Parliament
to repeal and create new laws if they follow God as the queen and parliament attest to do.

5:17-20 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass
from The Law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break
one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be
called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and
teach [them], the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the
righteousness] of the lawyers and politicians (who were also priests
because the church and the state were one at that time), ye shall in
no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven. – Matthew.

Based on this proof (and there is more), the people who choose to live by The Law of God, have every right to do so. Parliament is forbidding followers of Christ, by all their legislation.
Hence the contribution, challenging (again) the British Parliament to relinquish sovereignty.

On 13/June/1988, 40 years from the Fig Tree putting forth its new shoots in 1948, Christ served a High Court Writ upon the British Parliament, at court in the City of Sheffield, where his new body hadbeen born in 1948, as prophesied, demanding that he be acknowledged by
Parliament as the Rightful British-Israel King.
http://jahtruth.net/emmau2.htm

 

 

If it’s good enough for Mr. Barak Obama & Mr. Cameron then it’s reasonable to assume that it’s good enough for the rest of us! Legalise Cannabis.

Barack Obama said: "When I was younger I inhaled (cannabis) frequently, that was the point!"

Mr. Cameron was caught using cannabis at Eaton school and has admitted to inhaling. That's also only going on the one time he was caught and so doubtless he has also "inhaled frequently" just like his American counterpart.

If our elected leaders have committed a criminal act yet have gone on to succeed in the manner that they have then it is simply immoral and utterly unjustified to continue locking people up for doing no less than they have also done. It is a disgrace to our modern values that all are equal yet some seems to be more equal than others.

I demand either the immediate resignation of our criminal Prime Minister or (far more rationally) an immediate end to prohibition and the release of all prisoners of conscience along with the destruction of their criminal records.

Why is this idea important?

Barack Obama said: "When I was younger I inhaled (cannabis) frequently, that was the point!"

Mr. Cameron was caught using cannabis at Eaton school and has admitted to inhaling. That's also only going on the one time he was caught and so doubtless he has also "inhaled frequently" just like his American counterpart.

If our elected leaders have committed a criminal act yet have gone on to succeed in the manner that they have then it is simply immoral and utterly unjustified to continue locking people up for doing no less than they have also done. It is a disgrace to our modern values that all are equal yet some seems to be more equal than others.

I demand either the immediate resignation of our criminal Prime Minister or (far more rationally) an immediate end to prohibition and the release of all prisoners of conscience along with the destruction of their criminal records.

Abolish the Metropolitan Police

The Metropolitan Police has become a self serving gang of thugs.  Their agenda is overtly political.  They protect their own through the practice of omerta, the code of silence they have copied from the mafia.  The Met is frankly to big to be answerable to anyone and should be abolished and replaced by smaller, borough based forces answerable to the Borough Councils.

Why is this idea important?

The Metropolitan Police has become a self serving gang of thugs.  Their agenda is overtly political.  They protect their own through the practice of omerta, the code of silence they have copied from the mafia.  The Met is frankly to big to be answerable to anyone and should be abolished and replaced by smaller, borough based forces answerable to the Borough Councils.

Re-try the policeman who killed Ian Tomlinson

Advice to charge police officer over Ian Tomlinson death ignored

“Police watchdog and pathologist favoured tougher line than CPS as Tomlinson's family accuse authorities of cover-up

An official decision to bring no charges against the policeman who struck Ian Tomlinsonminutes before he died at the G20protests is under intense scrutiny as it emerged that the Independent Police Complaints Commissionhad backed a prosecution for manslaughter.

Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, acknowledged there was evidence that the officer, named as PC Simon Harwood, assaulted Tomlinson, 47, minutes before he died. But he said there was no realistic prospect of conviction because of "sharp disagreements" between pathologists.

The decision was met with fury by Tomlinson's family, who accused the authorities of a 16-month cover-up over the death of the seller on 1 April last year, when he was seen on video being struck by an officer and then shoved to the ground, despite behaving peacefully.

The Crown Prosecution Service's view clashes with that of an investigation by the Independent PoliceComplaints Commission. The Guardian has learned the IPCC concluded there was sufficient evidence to charge the officer with manslaughter, and told Tomlinson's family so.

The first postmortem by Dr Freddy Patel endorsed the police's version of events, ruling that he died from a heart attack.

But a direct challenge to the CPS also emerged last night from Dr Nat Cary, the second forensic pathologist who examined Tomlinson's body. He told the Guardian prosecutors made a factual error in dismissing a charge of actual bodily harm.

He said his report contained clear evidence that Tomlinson suffered injuries sufficient to support an ABHcharge. The CPS dismissed the injuries as "relatively minor" and thus not enough to support a charge of ABH in its written reasons given to the family.

Cary, speaking for the first time about the case, said: "I'm quite happy to challenge that. The injuries were not relatively minor. He sustained quite a large area of bruising. Such injuries are consistent with a baton strike, which could amount to ABH. It's extraordinary. If that's not ABH I would like to know what is."

The CPS said Patel's findings would provide a jury with enough reasonable doubt that the officer's strike contributed to the death, and as a result they would acquit. By coincidence Patel yesterday faced a disciplinary hearing at the General Medical Council for allegedly conducting four other autopsies incompetently. He could be struck off and the Home Office has suspended him from its approved list.

Starmer said the CPS could not bring a charge of common assault because it failed to do so within a legal time limit .

Tomlinson's family accused the authorities of a "big cover-up" and there were heated exchanges as they met with prosecutors after being told the news.

Tomlinson's stepson Paul King said: "It's outrageous. We feel like it was not a full investigation from the beginning. It's a big cover-up.

"He has just admitted on TV that a copper assaulted our dad. But he hasn't done anything. He's the man in charge … why hasn't he charged him.?

The Tomlinsons' solicitor, Jules Carey, said the decision was disgraceful and said an inquiry must examine if it was due to a "lack of will or incompetence".

The solicitor said Cary's view that the CPS made factual errors would be examined to see if it could form part of a legal challenge: "The family were surprised about how the extent of the injuries were minimised by the CPS."

The family's expectation that the officer would be charged was built on the video evidence and because of what the IPCC told them about its investigation.

The IPCC concluded its investigation into the death and handed its file to the CPS in August 2009. Shortly after, senior investigators held a meeting with the family to discuss their findings. While they made clear the CPS was responsible for charging decisions, IPCC officials told the family they believed there was sufficient evidence to charge the officer with manslaughter.

Last night the IPCC said: "The officer was interviewed for the offence of manslaughter under caution." An inquest will now be held into the death, where the family will hope a jury hear the case. The officer remains suspended and is expected to face a disciplinary hearing.

Deborah Coles of the Inquest charity said: "The eyes of the world will be looking on with incredulity as yet again a police officer is not facing any criminal charges after what is one of the most clear-cut and graphic examples of police violence that has led to death. This decision is a shameful indictment of the way police criminality is investigated."

The CPS lawyer who made the decision was the same one who decided no officer should face charges for the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes by police who mistook him for a terrorist. That shooting happened five years ago yesterday.

The Met commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, said he regretted Tomlinson's death and offered his sympathy to his family. He said he was concerned by the video footage but that it was not appropriate for him to comment on the outcome of the IPCC inquiry or the CPS decision”……..Taken from The Guardian online 23/07/2010

 

The British Public are outraged!!

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Advice to charge police officer over Ian Tomlinson death ignored

“Police watchdog and pathologist favoured tougher line than CPS as Tomlinson's family accuse authorities of cover-up

An official decision to bring no charges against the policeman who struck Ian Tomlinsonminutes before he died at the G20protests is under intense scrutiny as it emerged that the Independent Police Complaints Commissionhad backed a prosecution for manslaughter.

Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, acknowledged there was evidence that the officer, named as PC Simon Harwood, assaulted Tomlinson, 47, minutes before he died. But he said there was no realistic prospect of conviction because of "sharp disagreements" between pathologists.

The decision was met with fury by Tomlinson's family, who accused the authorities of a 16-month cover-up over the death of the seller on 1 April last year, when he was seen on video being struck by an officer and then shoved to the ground, despite behaving peacefully.

The Crown Prosecution Service's view clashes with that of an investigation by the Independent PoliceComplaints Commission. The Guardian has learned the IPCC concluded there was sufficient evidence to charge the officer with manslaughter, and told Tomlinson's family so.

The first postmortem by Dr Freddy Patel endorsed the police's version of events, ruling that he died from a heart attack.

But a direct challenge to the CPS also emerged last night from Dr Nat Cary, the second forensic pathologist who examined Tomlinson's body. He told the Guardian prosecutors made a factual error in dismissing a charge of actual bodily harm.

He said his report contained clear evidence that Tomlinson suffered injuries sufficient to support an ABHcharge. The CPS dismissed the injuries as "relatively minor" and thus not enough to support a charge of ABH in its written reasons given to the family.

Cary, speaking for the first time about the case, said: "I'm quite happy to challenge that. The injuries were not relatively minor. He sustained quite a large area of bruising. Such injuries are consistent with a baton strike, which could amount to ABH. It's extraordinary. If that's not ABH I would like to know what is."

The CPS said Patel's findings would provide a jury with enough reasonable doubt that the officer's strike contributed to the death, and as a result they would acquit. By coincidence Patel yesterday faced a disciplinary hearing at the General Medical Council for allegedly conducting four other autopsies incompetently. He could be struck off and the Home Office has suspended him from its approved list.

Starmer said the CPS could not bring a charge of common assault because it failed to do so within a legal time limit .

Tomlinson's family accused the authorities of a "big cover-up" and there were heated exchanges as they met with prosecutors after being told the news.

Tomlinson's stepson Paul King said: "It's outrageous. We feel like it was not a full investigation from the beginning. It's a big cover-up.

"He has just admitted on TV that a copper assaulted our dad. But he hasn't done anything. He's the man in charge … why hasn't he charged him.?

The Tomlinsons' solicitor, Jules Carey, said the decision was disgraceful and said an inquiry must examine if it was due to a "lack of will or incompetence".

The solicitor said Cary's view that the CPS made factual errors would be examined to see if it could form part of a legal challenge: "The family were surprised about how the extent of the injuries were minimised by the CPS."

The family's expectation that the officer would be charged was built on the video evidence and because of what the IPCC told them about its investigation.

The IPCC concluded its investigation into the death and handed its file to the CPS in August 2009. Shortly after, senior investigators held a meeting with the family to discuss their findings. While they made clear the CPS was responsible for charging decisions, IPCC officials told the family they believed there was sufficient evidence to charge the officer with manslaughter.

Last night the IPCC said: "The officer was interviewed for the offence of manslaughter under caution." An inquest will now be held into the death, where the family will hope a jury hear the case. The officer remains suspended and is expected to face a disciplinary hearing.

Deborah Coles of the Inquest charity said: "The eyes of the world will be looking on with incredulity as yet again a police officer is not facing any criminal charges after what is one of the most clear-cut and graphic examples of police violence that has led to death. This decision is a shameful indictment of the way police criminality is investigated."

The CPS lawyer who made the decision was the same one who decided no officer should face charges for the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes by police who mistook him for a terrorist. That shooting happened five years ago yesterday.

The Met commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, said he regretted Tomlinson's death and offered his sympathy to his family. He said he was concerned by the video footage but that it was not appropriate for him to comment on the outcome of the IPCC inquiry or the CPS decision”……..Taken from The Guardian online 23/07/2010

 

The British Public are outraged!!

 

 

Revoke firearm permits of convicted violent criminals and seize all their weapons

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Why is this idea important?

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Repeal the trend of never charging the police with murder / manslaughter.

After it was decided today not to press charges regarding the killing of the man who was walking by the G20 protest last year (but not a partaking in it) by a police officer, is it not about time that the police were subject to the same rule of law as that which they so vindictively enforce?

Charges are rarely if ever brought against violent and offensive police officers, not even in the case of Juan Charles de Mendez did a single police officer get charged with murder. They put 7 bullets into that poor innocent man's head and the resulting enquiry found none guilty of (at the very least) manslaughter. Indeed, the female police officer in charge of that operation was later promoted.

I am utterly fed up with the attitude of the CPS. They send out a message to other police persons that they have Cart Blanche to act in any manner of their choosing and this is resulting in far to many innocent people getting hurt.

The UK public have rightly lost all respect for the law due to ridiculous and unnecessary pseudo-fascist legislation that impinge on every aspect of civilian life. Mixed with the total impunity of the police force, this creates a population that has no respect, admiration or trust in their police.

Currently they are seen as oppressive enforcers of often unlawful, irrational and unjust laws yet simultaneously it is noted that they are not bound by the same rule of law as the public have to suffer on a daily basis.

Repeal the absurdly unjustifiable constant impunity of the police and have them subject to the same law as everybody else in order to restore some kind of faith in the police within British society.

Why is this idea important?

After it was decided today not to press charges regarding the killing of the man who was walking by the G20 protest last year (but not a partaking in it) by a police officer, is it not about time that the police were subject to the same rule of law as that which they so vindictively enforce?

Charges are rarely if ever brought against violent and offensive police officers, not even in the case of Juan Charles de Mendez did a single police officer get charged with murder. They put 7 bullets into that poor innocent man's head and the resulting enquiry found none guilty of (at the very least) manslaughter. Indeed, the female police officer in charge of that operation was later promoted.

I am utterly fed up with the attitude of the CPS. They send out a message to other police persons that they have Cart Blanche to act in any manner of their choosing and this is resulting in far to many innocent people getting hurt.

The UK public have rightly lost all respect for the law due to ridiculous and unnecessary pseudo-fascist legislation that impinge on every aspect of civilian life. Mixed with the total impunity of the police force, this creates a population that has no respect, admiration or trust in their police.

Currently they are seen as oppressive enforcers of often unlawful, irrational and unjust laws yet simultaneously it is noted that they are not bound by the same rule of law as the public have to suffer on a daily basis.

Repeal the absurdly unjustifiable constant impunity of the police and have them subject to the same law as everybody else in order to restore some kind of faith in the police within British society.

IPCC and CPS Clearly Not Fit For Purpose

Once more, an innocent man has died after being clearly assaulted by the Police (caught on countless cameras), and no action is taken by the IPCC or the CPS, who have dragged their feet to ensure that the officer involved doesn't even face a charge of common assault.  How many more have to die before we see a Police Officer in the dock?  The IPCC are ineffective as they have no real teeth, and the CPS seem very loathe to charge blatantly corrupt and violent Police Officers.  A truly independent body that investigates and decides on charges is now required.

Why is this idea important?

Once more, an innocent man has died after being clearly assaulted by the Police (caught on countless cameras), and no action is taken by the IPCC or the CPS, who have dragged their feet to ensure that the officer involved doesn't even face a charge of common assault.  How many more have to die before we see a Police Officer in the dock?  The IPCC are ineffective as they have no real teeth, and the CPS seem very loathe to charge blatantly corrupt and violent Police Officers.  A truly independent body that investigates and decides on charges is now required.

If Cannabis Could Cure Cancer, Would’nt You Want It To Be Legal?

Vote Yes and allow the research to be done, there is already evidence that cannabis causes the growth in tumours and cancers to stop.

http://leavesofgrass.info/info/Non-Psychoactive-Cannabinoids.pdf

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Vote Yes and allow the research to be done, there is already evidence that cannabis causes the growth in tumours and cancers to stop.

http://leavesofgrass.info/info/Non-Psychoactive-Cannabinoids.pdf

 

 

 

Hold the American Government responsible for IRA Funding

 

I feel this is a strong moral principle for MANY British person today

 

I say the British Government MUST call the American government into question of allowing its people to fund terrorism, namely the provincial IRA during the 1970's to late 90's Not just me but MANY British people today held Tony Blair in contempt for cuddling up to the Americans whilst they were ALLOWING their citizens to fund and support the IRA via NORAID!

During the 1970's 80#s and early 90's we ALL lived under the IRA threat, with each bullet funded by Libya and the United States. We have held Libya to account now the same must be done for America!

As in all western governments they work for the PEOPLE and not the other way around, ergo the goverment is also representitive OF the people and that means by definition the US. Goverment MUST be held accountable for its OWN peoples Actions!

I say compensation MUST be paid to all effected famalies by the actions of Barry Flannery and Noraid/IRA to all VICTIMS of IRA attrocities.

By the way I am not from ulster (though i lived there for a couple of years in the 70's) I am English, my father was a royal marine/ Special Boat Squadron commando stationed in Belfast! Serial number HM24656

 

Though the IRA is noW a so called peaceful organisation, the crimes that the US people laid  against every single British Person is intolerable.

I will not take this administration seriously, until it has the courage to stand UP, rise UP for the people and say NO to America until Barak Obama Apologies for crimes commited against Ulster and the British people by memebers of the American public whom held fund raising dinners to help NORAID!

This in the minds of every british citizen today Mr Cameron. I employ please hold the United States government into question over the actions of its people!

Mr Cameron DO NOT stand shoulder to shoulder with America. Stand firm head held high with the BRITISH people, STAND with them and FOR THEM and the best way to do that is hold THEM accountable for IRA actions!

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

 

I feel this is a strong moral principle for MANY British person today

 

I say the British Government MUST call the American government into question of allowing its people to fund terrorism, namely the provincial IRA during the 1970's to late 90's Not just me but MANY British people today held Tony Blair in contempt for cuddling up to the Americans whilst they were ALLOWING their citizens to fund and support the IRA via NORAID!

During the 1970's 80#s and early 90's we ALL lived under the IRA threat, with each bullet funded by Libya and the United States. We have held Libya to account now the same must be done for America!

As in all western governments they work for the PEOPLE and not the other way around, ergo the goverment is also representitive OF the people and that means by definition the US. Goverment MUST be held accountable for its OWN peoples Actions!

I say compensation MUST be paid to all effected famalies by the actions of Barry Flannery and Noraid/IRA to all VICTIMS of IRA attrocities.

By the way I am not from ulster (though i lived there for a couple of years in the 70's) I am English, my father was a royal marine/ Special Boat Squadron commando stationed in Belfast! Serial number HM24656

 

Though the IRA is noW a so called peaceful organisation, the crimes that the US people laid  against every single British Person is intolerable.

I will not take this administration seriously, until it has the courage to stand UP, rise UP for the people and say NO to America until Barak Obama Apologies for crimes commited against Ulster and the British people by memebers of the American public whom held fund raising dinners to help NORAID!

This in the minds of every british citizen today Mr Cameron. I employ please hold the United States government into question over the actions of its people!

Mr Cameron DO NOT stand shoulder to shoulder with America. Stand firm head held high with the BRITISH people, STAND with them and FOR THEM and the best way to do that is hold THEM accountable for IRA actions!

 

 

 

Tighten Regulations INSTEAD of relaxing them.

Social Fabric is being eroded.  With laws being introduced to 'protect' the rights of some the rights of others are being removed and this needs to be reversed.  Civilisation was built by law, order and discipline.  Ask individuals is they want more freedom they will always say YES but true freedom comes at too high a price for some and government MUST return to a much tighter regime or our society will disintegrate and social regression will set in.

Why is this idea important?

Social Fabric is being eroded.  With laws being introduced to 'protect' the rights of some the rights of others are being removed and this needs to be reversed.  Civilisation was built by law, order and discipline.  Ask individuals is they want more freedom they will always say YES but true freedom comes at too high a price for some and government MUST return to a much tighter regime or our society will disintegrate and social regression will set in.

Rethink invisable straight jackets – CTO

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

Why is this idea important?

1:4 of us maybe at one or more times in our lives vulnerable to mental ill health.  We maybe law abiding citizens who may lose our human right of freedom and liberty if we experience mental health deterioration and seek professional intervention.  The NHS may routinely use community treatment orders (CTO) to monitor patients within the community and control medication "compliance"  which could conversely be compared to the monitoring of ex offenders? which could increase risk and reduce benefits for all. People may no longer have choice, autonomy, or what they feel in their heart and mind is in their best interest. CTO's may be  misused, misunderstood and misinterpreted.  Diagnosis of mental illness changes and evolves, it is subjective by nature, as it is based on professional opinion which may or may not consider unique personality traits and life experience which could be a blessing and/or a curse.  Imagine an invisable tag/straight jacket – that may or may not be in a persons "best interest"  Rarely are conditions set out formerly, often conditions appear vague, people can easily be recalled back to psychiatric hospital,  physically and chemically forced to accept treatment in "their best interest".  It could be argued that people have less human and civil rights than  a person who has been convicted of something unlawful.  There maybe no such comparison of time "spent" or true recovery in the 21st century, a diagnosis based on expert assessment, rather than science is for life. imagine being given a life sentence? The enigma, perhaps myth, of disease prevails, lucrative pharmaceutical companys may not be thoroughly regulated by government and inconclusive studies reveal there is no conclusive evidence, blood test or brain scan that can detect the "chicken or egg"  dis – ease. Historically and to this day low expectations prevail within the westernised health service and society, and serve to compound a self fulfiling prophecy of undervaluisation of human beings. Sometimes it can be difficult  for us all to balance wellbeing.  Life's adversity can lead us all to an episode or episodes of mental health deterioration.  Given effective support of a genuine nature can be healing.  Those who are prepared to normalise rather than categorise/demonsie law abiding citizens' feelings, emotions and actions maybe few and far between.  Empathetic understanding, tolerance, protection  and effective treatment may enable many people to gain strength and resilience to overcome difficulties and learn to accept and move on with life.  An invisable straight jacket within the community we live in that compels a life of compulsory medication/stigma and discrimination can lead to the very same side effects the intervention is hailed to treat, which may impact on mortality. Imagine having no or little say in what pills to take,  imagine not being informed of the potential side effects, being told where to live, when to be home, who you can and cant mix with.  is this really treatment in our best interest  and good for our wellbeing?   dont we have a right to democracy, freedom of choice and freedom from covert, coersive oppression,. A disregard for fundamental human rights maybe inconceivable in our 21st century… 

All Proposed Laws Should Attain ‘Crystal Mark’ (As per the Plain English Campaign) Before Being Added To The Statute Books

I propose a requirement that all new legislation must be written clearly and in plain English so as to be be readily understood.

I also propose that existing legislation be gradually translated/rewritten into plain English until such time as all Laws are similarly accessible.

Why is this idea important?

I propose a requirement that all new legislation must be written clearly and in plain English so as to be be readily understood.

I also propose that existing legislation be gradually translated/rewritten into plain English until such time as all Laws are similarly accessible.

Repeal Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.

Due to the manner in which some local authorities interpret the legislation Part 8 of the Act needs to be repealed in the interests of justice. Alternatively it should be central government and not the local authority or council with the responsibility to enforce the regulations. Currently some local authorities and councils are ignoring what it actually states in the body of the statute and forcing law abiding citizens to destroy kill and remove alleged hedges and conifers even where vexatious complaints have been received from others with a complant. The statute expressly forbids any remedial action that will result in the death of an alleged hedge or conifers and yet remedial notices are being used to criminalise law abiding citizens who refuse to obey the orders of a local authority or council even where this goes against what is actually required by statute. It is as if the planning departments of some local authorities and councils can act in a way that is above the law. It is for Parliament and not the local authority or council to enact statutory legislation and all MP's need to be made aware of just how some local authorities seem to be acting ultra vires and with maladministration.

Why is this idea important?

Due to the manner in which some local authorities interpret the legislation Part 8 of the Act needs to be repealed in the interests of justice. Alternatively it should be central government and not the local authority or council with the responsibility to enforce the regulations. Currently some local authorities and councils are ignoring what it actually states in the body of the statute and forcing law abiding citizens to destroy kill and remove alleged hedges and conifers even where vexatious complaints have been received from others with a complant. The statute expressly forbids any remedial action that will result in the death of an alleged hedge or conifers and yet remedial notices are being used to criminalise law abiding citizens who refuse to obey the orders of a local authority or council even where this goes against what is actually required by statute. It is as if the planning departments of some local authorities and councils can act in a way that is above the law. It is for Parliament and not the local authority or council to enact statutory legislation and all MP's need to be made aware of just how some local authorities seem to be acting ultra vires and with maladministration.

Front line Troops should be over 21

I should like to see all front line troops at least 22 or over as there are far to many youngsters coming home in boxes. This must be very distressing for their mothers and the rest of the family. I have a son of 21 and it would devastate me to loose him.

Why is this idea important?

I should like to see all front line troops at least 22 or over as there are far to many youngsters coming home in boxes. This must be very distressing for their mothers and the rest of the family. I have a son of 21 and it would devastate me to loose him.

Question for Mr. Clegg RE: Why am I a criminal?

A quick question to you Mr. Clegg to which I would appreciate a straight answer.

I am a hard working citizen who is also in adult education at the moment, studying hard for a Gas Safety qualification. I have never taken any form of welfare from the state as an adult and therefore have cost the state nothing. I am morally adept, ethically minded and a responsible adult. I care for those around me, I help other people wherever and whenever I can whether that's by lifting a heavy suit case down some stairs for a mother who was also trying to look after her child (my most recent good deed) or by any other means. I am an upstanding member of society, I have passed my first aid qualifications and I try to be as good a person as I can be. I actively contribute to the society that I am part of. I used to smoke cannabis regularly and still do on occasion. I am "T" total, I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't indulge in any other drug habit. I speak well, am educated and well read. Lastly, I have never caused disruption of the peace, I have never been in a fight nor raised my hand against any other person.

Therefore, my question to you Mr. Clegg is: Please would you describe exactly why the state insists on criminalising me as well as millions like me and, furthermore, please explain in full the criminal act that I am accused of?

If you cannot justify my enduring criminalisation then perhaps you have just answered the question of the immorality of the Misuse of Drugs Act and also why it should be immediately repealed.

Why is this idea important?

A quick question to you Mr. Clegg to which I would appreciate a straight answer.

I am a hard working citizen who is also in adult education at the moment, studying hard for a Gas Safety qualification. I have never taken any form of welfare from the state as an adult and therefore have cost the state nothing. I am morally adept, ethically minded and a responsible adult. I care for those around me, I help other people wherever and whenever I can whether that's by lifting a heavy suit case down some stairs for a mother who was also trying to look after her child (my most recent good deed) or by any other means. I am an upstanding member of society, I have passed my first aid qualifications and I try to be as good a person as I can be. I actively contribute to the society that I am part of. I used to smoke cannabis regularly and still do on occasion. I am "T" total, I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't indulge in any other drug habit. I speak well, am educated and well read. Lastly, I have never caused disruption of the peace, I have never been in a fight nor raised my hand against any other person.

Therefore, my question to you Mr. Clegg is: Please would you describe exactly why the state insists on criminalising me as well as millions like me and, furthermore, please explain in full the criminal act that I am accused of?

If you cannot justify my enduring criminalisation then perhaps you have just answered the question of the immorality of the Misuse of Drugs Act and also why it should be immediately repealed.

Follow through on repealing 08 Numbers used by GP Practices

GPs in this country are the highest paid in Europe. On top of this the recently announced changes, I believe, may be exploited by GPs to increase their earnings at taxpayers expense even further if adequate safeguards are not put in place. 

Why is it then that the previous govt, with support from both the Conservatives and Lib Dems, proposed to outlaw GP Practices using 08 numbers to increase the practices profits at the expense of its patients. I popped into my practice to make an appointment and was told to ring up in the morning using an 08 number. It cannot be right or just that the highest paid GPs in Europe continue to rip off the elderly,  pensioned, disabled and less fortunate in this manner. Honour the original proposal to ban this practice and protect those that are at their most vulnerable – lets be honest the GP practices that continue doing this do not have their patients interests above their own self interest.

Why is this idea important?

GPs in this country are the highest paid in Europe. On top of this the recently announced changes, I believe, may be exploited by GPs to increase their earnings at taxpayers expense even further if adequate safeguards are not put in place. 

Why is it then that the previous govt, with support from both the Conservatives and Lib Dems, proposed to outlaw GP Practices using 08 numbers to increase the practices profits at the expense of its patients. I popped into my practice to make an appointment and was told to ring up in the morning using an 08 number. It cannot be right or just that the highest paid GPs in Europe continue to rip off the elderly,  pensioned, disabled and less fortunate in this manner. Honour the original proposal to ban this practice and protect those that are at their most vulnerable – lets be honest the GP practices that continue doing this do not have their patients interests above their own self interest.

Abolish/amend joint enterprise law

The Joint Enterprise law is such an unfair law which creates many miscarriages of justice. This unjust law convicts innocent bystanders of grave crimes such as murder when the bystander had no idea the crime was going to take place and further more played no part in it. These people are being given life sentences for simply being in the wrong place and the wrong time with the wrong people. I do not agree with law of joint enterprise as I do not believe you should be held responcible for another person's crime and I would love to see this law abolished, as would many others. However having been told this is an unrealistic option an amendment of the Joint Enterprise law is what is needed. This problem is widespread and is affecting more and more people each day, there are young people all over the country serving life sentences for crimes they took no part in. An amendment of this law is a must so innocent bystanders are protected. Joint Enterprise law sets the standard of proof way to low and casts the net far too wide, it is supposed to be used where there has been gang violence but it is being used to basically convict anyone.

Why is this idea important?

The Joint Enterprise law is such an unfair law which creates many miscarriages of justice. This unjust law convicts innocent bystanders of grave crimes such as murder when the bystander had no idea the crime was going to take place and further more played no part in it. These people are being given life sentences for simply being in the wrong place and the wrong time with the wrong people. I do not agree with law of joint enterprise as I do not believe you should be held responcible for another person's crime and I would love to see this law abolished, as would many others. However having been told this is an unrealistic option an amendment of the Joint Enterprise law is what is needed. This problem is widespread and is affecting more and more people each day, there are young people all over the country serving life sentences for crimes they took no part in. An amendment of this law is a must so innocent bystanders are protected. Joint Enterprise law sets the standard of proof way to low and casts the net far too wide, it is supposed to be used where there has been gang violence but it is being used to basically convict anyone.

Less Tax

The new government initiative to hand over the running of some services to local groups/volunteers etc is a very good idea. Except that they will then be doing less for us in return for the same money – more money actually because they have announced tax rises.

So in the name of fairness and freedom they should reduce taxes; and if we take in to account that every government has shed the running of something or other since the seventies, we, the taxpayer should actulally be getting a rebate. (I will take 1.5 million of mine in share options and the rest in cash: thanks very much)

OK I know some bankers have ruined the government and now they have to ruin us in turn so we will soon pay everything in return for nothing but ths site IS about freedom and fairness isnt it?

Why is this idea important?

The new government initiative to hand over the running of some services to local groups/volunteers etc is a very good idea. Except that they will then be doing less for us in return for the same money – more money actually because they have announced tax rises.

So in the name of fairness and freedom they should reduce taxes; and if we take in to account that every government has shed the running of something or other since the seventies, we, the taxpayer should actulally be getting a rebate. (I will take 1.5 million of mine in share options and the rest in cash: thanks very much)

OK I know some bankers have ruined the government and now they have to ruin us in turn so we will soon pay everything in return for nothing but ths site IS about freedom and fairness isnt it?