Simplification of the Law

The law as it stands either criminal or otherwise is far too complicated to understand. Some laws even qualified lawyers find it hard to understand. Surely this could and should be changed & the sum of all the people in our country made aware of it.

Why is this idea important?

The law as it stands either criminal or otherwise is far too complicated to understand. Some laws even qualified lawyers find it hard to understand. Surely this could and should be changed & the sum of all the people in our country made aware of it.

Support the right and practice of Private Prosecutions

Guarantee the right of private individuals or organisations to bring a private prosecution, subject to sufficient evidence being presented and accepted by a judge/justice of the peace,  even if against the wishes of the Crown Prosecution Service or other government or political authorities.

If said prosecution should be successful compensate the private parties for the financial costs outlaid.

Why is this idea important?

Guarantee the right of private individuals or organisations to bring a private prosecution, subject to sufficient evidence being presented and accepted by a judge/justice of the peace,  even if against the wishes of the Crown Prosecution Service or other government or political authorities.

If said prosecution should be successful compensate the private parties for the financial costs outlaid.

BRING IN THE EEC CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF PERSONAL FAVOURING

THE EEC IMPOSED ON SEVERAL EU CANDIDATE MEMBERS THAT COUNTRIES WITH HIGH LEVEL OF CORRUPTION IN THEIR JUDICIARY HAD TO CREATE A PENAL CODE FIGURE OF PERSONAL FAVOURING

IN A NUTSHELL THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE IS WHEN A JUDICIARY AUTHORITY MAKES A JUDGMENT OR AN ORDER WHICH IS SCANDALOUS AND NORMALLY THIS PROCEEDS FROM GRANTING A SPECIAL FAVOUR TO ONE OF THE PARTIES – NORMALLY THE PARTY THAT WOULD BE A DEFENDANT

BY BRINGING IN THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE JUDGES WOULD THINK TWICE BEFORE DOING FAVOURS AND THE COURTS WOULD BE RETURNED TO THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE SELECT FEW

Why is this idea important?

THE EEC IMPOSED ON SEVERAL EU CANDIDATE MEMBERS THAT COUNTRIES WITH HIGH LEVEL OF CORRUPTION IN THEIR JUDICIARY HAD TO CREATE A PENAL CODE FIGURE OF PERSONAL FAVOURING

IN A NUTSHELL THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE IS WHEN A JUDICIARY AUTHORITY MAKES A JUDGMENT OR AN ORDER WHICH IS SCANDALOUS AND NORMALLY THIS PROCEEDS FROM GRANTING A SPECIAL FAVOUR TO ONE OF THE PARTIES – NORMALLY THE PARTY THAT WOULD BE A DEFENDANT

BY BRINGING IN THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE JUDGES WOULD THINK TWICE BEFORE DOING FAVOURS AND THE COURTS WOULD BE RETURNED TO THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE SELECT FEW

Distinction in Law

Lets have a clear distinction between common law and corporate legislation so everyone knows where they stand in the country. A person leaves school at 16 and has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the law or what their rights are so how about basic law on the school curriculum?  The first thing a person does when they are caught committing a crime is to exert their rights in one way or another or to protest for rights. It is a 'no brainer' psychologically speaking that the person commiting the crime actually did it as a protest for their rights (complicated but true). Basic psychology.

One of the biggest shams in this country regarding legislation is The Courts and Legal Services Act including any related act such as the Solicitors Act etc. To think that in the year 2010, a person only has the right to audience in court and payment of their fee's if they have been deemed worthy of a roll number given by the Law Society. That makes the legal system no more than a 'golf club' where certain people are accepted or rejected from the club. The right to audience should be available to any literate person, not just the selected few who are making lots of money from this law. In the age of internet any person can research law and make a presentation and they should have the automatic right to represent themselves or others and be funded for their efforts.

Why is this idea important?

Lets have a clear distinction between common law and corporate legislation so everyone knows where they stand in the country. A person leaves school at 16 and has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the law or what their rights are so how about basic law on the school curriculum?  The first thing a person does when they are caught committing a crime is to exert their rights in one way or another or to protest for rights. It is a 'no brainer' psychologically speaking that the person commiting the crime actually did it as a protest for their rights (complicated but true). Basic psychology.

One of the biggest shams in this country regarding legislation is The Courts and Legal Services Act including any related act such as the Solicitors Act etc. To think that in the year 2010, a person only has the right to audience in court and payment of their fee's if they have been deemed worthy of a roll number given by the Law Society. That makes the legal system no more than a 'golf club' where certain people are accepted or rejected from the club. The right to audience should be available to any literate person, not just the selected few who are making lots of money from this law. In the age of internet any person can research law and make a presentation and they should have the automatic right to represent themselves or others and be funded for their efforts.

Every man has the right to a Fair Trial/Hearing ????????????

The Law says Every man has the right to a fair trial /hearing,the law The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.

Government totaly disregards these laws backed and covered up by its own departments.

Read more  

http://goo.gl/VpI9

 

Why is this idea important?

The Law says Every man has the right to a fair trial /hearing,the law The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.

Government totaly disregards these laws backed and covered up by its own departments.

Read more  

http://goo.gl/VpI9

 

Law of common sense

If the appliance of any law dictates that the ruling / outcome is an affront to the public then the letter of the law should be overturned

A judge should not be bound to rule in favour of something that he believes will fall into this category and a Common sense committee should be enabled to stop bad decisions being made.

Why is this idea important?

If the appliance of any law dictates that the ruling / outcome is an affront to the public then the letter of the law should be overturned

A judge should not be bound to rule in favour of something that he believes will fall into this category and a Common sense committee should be enabled to stop bad decisions being made.

Fewer better laws

We need to take more time to have better laws. ow many local government and criminal justice acts do we have that have been partially repealed. Let's have one of each. If you must have a new one, then do not repeal the odd section of various acts, get rid of the lot, and take your time to get it right. .

Why is this idea important?

We need to take more time to have better laws. ow many local government and criminal justice acts do we have that have been partially repealed. Let's have one of each. If you must have a new one, then do not repeal the odd section of various acts, get rid of the lot, and take your time to get it right. .

Repeal anti-discrimination laws

All laws forbidding discrimination (at least in the private sector) should be repealed.  This would apply to discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

Why is this idea important?

All laws forbidding discrimination (at least in the private sector) should be repealed.  This would apply to discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

Government to operate in accordance with Law of Thelema

We are weighed down with laws about victimless pseudo crimes – drug laws, seat belts and crash helmets, pornography  and so forth – largely based on an outdated "moral" code where some people set themselves up as the arbiters of others behaviour. At best these laws allow fools to flourish, at worst they constrain and pervert the natural will of the best of us.

To address this we need to establish the law of Thelema as the sole basis of law.  This may be summarised as follows:

Liber LXXVII

 

"the law of
the strong:
this is our law
and the joy
of the world."
      —AL. II. 2

 

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." —AL. I. 40

"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." —AL. I. 42–3

"Every man and every woman is a star." —AL. I. 3

There is no god but man.

1. Man has the right to live by his own law—
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:—
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." —AL. I. 51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.

"the slaves shall serve." —AL. II. 58

"Love is the law, love under will." —AL. I. 57

 

 

Why is this idea important?

We are weighed down with laws about victimless pseudo crimes – drug laws, seat belts and crash helmets, pornography  and so forth – largely based on an outdated "moral" code where some people set themselves up as the arbiters of others behaviour. At best these laws allow fools to flourish, at worst they constrain and pervert the natural will of the best of us.

To address this we need to establish the law of Thelema as the sole basis of law.  This may be summarised as follows:

Liber LXXVII

 

"the law of
the strong:
this is our law
and the joy
of the world."
      —AL. II. 2

 

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." —AL. I. 40

"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." —AL. I. 42–3

"Every man and every woman is a star." —AL. I. 3

There is no god but man.

1. Man has the right to live by his own law—
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:—
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." —AL. I. 51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.

"the slaves shall serve." —AL. II. 58

"Love is the law, love under will." —AL. I. 57

 

 

Practical alternative to repeal of complex laws.

In many everyday situations, such as the laws and regulations governing the running of businesses, many business people find that the existing laws and regulations are expensive “red tape.”

The existing UK, complex, case law based laws and regulations should be replaced by Code Law similar in operation to the codes in law used by continental Europe. Not simple Codes of Practice but a Code Law. The Code Law would be a Code written in plain English and in particular would be tailored to meet the operational and particular needs of SME`s. Larger and more established companies would continue to be governed by the existing law applicable to corporations. The Code would be different for different types of business; restaurants as compared to small engineering/ manufacturing companies. The Code would include all the good ideas posted on this site.

Why is this idea important?

In many everyday situations, such as the laws and regulations governing the running of businesses, many business people find that the existing laws and regulations are expensive “red tape.”

The existing UK, complex, case law based laws and regulations should be replaced by Code Law similar in operation to the codes in law used by continental Europe. Not simple Codes of Practice but a Code Law. The Code Law would be a Code written in plain English and in particular would be tailored to meet the operational and particular needs of SME`s. Larger and more established companies would continue to be governed by the existing law applicable to corporations. The Code would be different for different types of business; restaurants as compared to small engineering/ manufacturing companies. The Code would include all the good ideas posted on this site.

Cap compensation payments

We are fast becoming a nation that resorts to suing corporations, public bodies etc at the drop of the hat.  This has resulted in a mass of health and safety regulations and rules that are designed to protect public bodies from being sued. Bodies have become over cautious to the point of being ridiculous – e.g. the teacher who saw a child climbing a tree on school property, who went into the school and closed the door for fear of frightening the child into falling from the tree, whilst a passer by came and helped the child out of the tree and was warned for his reckless behaviour!  

These rules and regulations defy common sense and add millions if not billions to our overheads.   If we introduce a cap on the amount of compensation payment people can recieve for minor injuries or injustices to £1,000, it might deter people from suing with the aim of making a fast buck.  This would allow public bodies and government departments to cut through the swathes of ridiculous rules and let common sense prevail.  

There would have to be a proper definition of minor injuries and injustices, but it should not involve people being compensated for inconvenience.  That is part of life and we should live with it.  In capping compensation, we should also introduce more stringent rules about when a no win no fee agreement can be entered into – that should reduce the number of 'have you had an accident at work?' adverts too, which would be an added bonus!

 


 

Why is this idea important?

We are fast becoming a nation that resorts to suing corporations, public bodies etc at the drop of the hat.  This has resulted in a mass of health and safety regulations and rules that are designed to protect public bodies from being sued. Bodies have become over cautious to the point of being ridiculous – e.g. the teacher who saw a child climbing a tree on school property, who went into the school and closed the door for fear of frightening the child into falling from the tree, whilst a passer by came and helped the child out of the tree and was warned for his reckless behaviour!  

These rules and regulations defy common sense and add millions if not billions to our overheads.   If we introduce a cap on the amount of compensation payment people can recieve for minor injuries or injustices to £1,000, it might deter people from suing with the aim of making a fast buck.  This would allow public bodies and government departments to cut through the swathes of ridiculous rules and let common sense prevail.  

There would have to be a proper definition of minor injuries and injustices, but it should not involve people being compensated for inconvenience.  That is part of life and we should live with it.  In capping compensation, we should also introduce more stringent rules about when a no win no fee agreement can be entered into – that should reduce the number of 'have you had an accident at work?' adverts too, which would be an added bonus!

 


 

Stop Pandering to the Minorities while Ignoring the Majority

I don't want to pick on any specific laws or legislation as it will engender unhelpful dialogue.  The principle here is that our country is being ruled by the minorities, not the majority.  I have been reading the various suggestions on this site and clearly the minority groups are rubbing their hands in glee at the idea that their minority view will be given consideration.

Obviously it is very tempting to quote a specific change that our country has seen in recent years but I will refrain, this is about protecting the majority.  I would therefore ask you the reader to spend a few minutes thinking about the changes we have seen in this country over the past 10 years introduced by minority pressure groups and you will understand what I mean.

Why is this idea important?

I don't want to pick on any specific laws or legislation as it will engender unhelpful dialogue.  The principle here is that our country is being ruled by the minorities, not the majority.  I have been reading the various suggestions on this site and clearly the minority groups are rubbing their hands in glee at the idea that their minority view will be given consideration.

Obviously it is very tempting to quote a specific change that our country has seen in recent years but I will refrain, this is about protecting the majority.  I would therefore ask you the reader to spend a few minutes thinking about the changes we have seen in this country over the past 10 years introduced by minority pressure groups and you will understand what I mean.

A mixture of suggestions.

Here are a mixture of suggestions for laws to abolish and ideas to help sort out our society. I know that they may sound as if I am ranting on but I am just horrified at the mindless way in which our country has been run for many years. Here goes :-

CCTV – Abolish the law that allows the unjustified mass surveillance of innocent people by CCTV so that we can be free again. That includes all police, council, NHS and privately held CCTV as well as those in and on buses and trains. CCTV cameras are one of the most anti-social forms of behaviour that I can think of yet there is no one to whom we can turn to for protection. I am sick and tired of being treated like a criminal!

ANPR – Abolish the ANPR CCTV system on our roads for the same reason as above.

Surveillance – Abolish all laws which permit unwarranted surveillance of any kind and, guarantee the privacy of all communications. Stop spying on us!

Digital Economy Bill – Repeal the Digital Economy Bill.

DNA – Abolish the law that allows the DNA & fingerprints of innocent people to be held.

RIPA – RIPA must go!

ASBOs – ASBOs must go too. Laws to deal with troublesome people have existed for years. There never was any need for ASBOs.

Terrorism Act – Most of the Terrorism Act should be reviewed and abolished too.

Vetting – Scrap all of the ridiculous laws which prevent normal human activity and make people afraid to so much as look at children.

Body Scanners – Ban the use of body scanners in airpots. They go far beyond what is acceptable.

Databases – Ban all databases which are held without the explicit consent of the individual and introduce a £10,000 fine against database owners payable to every person whose data is lost or misused and payable on every occasion when this happens.

Privacy – Privacy is not a crime and must not be viewed as being suspicious!

Alcohol – The alcohol problem can easily be reduced. Here are a few guidelines. Drunk people don't get served. People are encouraged to sit down in pubs and clubs. If people make too much noise or are rowdy they are asked to leave. Being intoxicated, disturbing the peace, aggressive behaviour e.t.c. is made as antisocial as drink driving by encouragement and enforcement. Reduce the number of licensed premises and significantly reduce the strength of alcoholic drinks. Alcohol from off licenses and supermarkets should only be sold in cartons. This would eradicate the problem of broken glass and the injuries that causes.

Drugs – Making drugs illegal has, and never will, make the problem go away. It is a huge waste of police time, makes people who shouldn't be criminals into criminals and, costs a fortune in lawyers' fees, court time and prison sentences. You will never stop people from taking drugs by banning them but, you can massively improve the lives of those who do take them and of those affected by their actions. Make all drugs legal and at a stroke you will almost completely eliminate the crime associated with drugs but, you must keep illicit drug dealing as a serious offence. Sell drugs at properly controlled outlets and the problem of contamination will also be eliminated. Use the money raised from the sales to pay for rehabilitation services for those who want it and for treatment for those who need it. You will always have people who take drugs and who harm themselves by doing so. That is their choice whether we like it or not but, the current system of penalising drug users is not working. Listen to the experts who tell you that a different approach is needed and act on their advice. Legalising drugs may not be popular at first but once people see it working they will approve of it and, you will save the country billions into the bargain.

Education – Leave the education system to the experts. Get rid of all the stressful tests and league tables. For goodness sake let children enjoy themselves a little. It does not matter if our school results are not better than those of other countries. We should be aiming at producing happy, well-rounded citizens not stressed out workaholics.

Population Control – Gently motivate people to have fewer children e.g. by tax incentives and, at the same time reduce immigration. There are far too many people in our little country for us to all live comfortably. We don't need more and more houses or to produce more and more energy. We simply need fewer people.

The Banks – Sort out the greedy bankers. We are paying for their mistakes and they are still giving themselves huge bonuses. Get rid of the lot of them. Most of the people walking in the streets could do a better job than they have done. Let the bankers go work somewhere else. We'll manage fine without them.

Doing all of the above would be a start to reversing the damage done to our society by the last appalling government but there would still be a very long way to go. I apologise for ranting on but I am very upset at what the last government has done to our country especially to our liberties.

Why is this idea important?

Here are a mixture of suggestions for laws to abolish and ideas to help sort out our society. I know that they may sound as if I am ranting on but I am just horrified at the mindless way in which our country has been run for many years. Here goes :-

CCTV – Abolish the law that allows the unjustified mass surveillance of innocent people by CCTV so that we can be free again. That includes all police, council, NHS and privately held CCTV as well as those in and on buses and trains. CCTV cameras are one of the most anti-social forms of behaviour that I can think of yet there is no one to whom we can turn to for protection. I am sick and tired of being treated like a criminal!

ANPR – Abolish the ANPR CCTV system on our roads for the same reason as above.

Surveillance – Abolish all laws which permit unwarranted surveillance of any kind and, guarantee the privacy of all communications. Stop spying on us!

Digital Economy Bill – Repeal the Digital Economy Bill.

DNA – Abolish the law that allows the DNA & fingerprints of innocent people to be held.

RIPA – RIPA must go!

ASBOs – ASBOs must go too. Laws to deal with troublesome people have existed for years. There never was any need for ASBOs.

Terrorism Act – Most of the Terrorism Act should be reviewed and abolished too.

Vetting – Scrap all of the ridiculous laws which prevent normal human activity and make people afraid to so much as look at children.

Body Scanners – Ban the use of body scanners in airpots. They go far beyond what is acceptable.

Databases – Ban all databases which are held without the explicit consent of the individual and introduce a £10,000 fine against database owners payable to every person whose data is lost or misused and payable on every occasion when this happens.

Privacy – Privacy is not a crime and must not be viewed as being suspicious!

Alcohol – The alcohol problem can easily be reduced. Here are a few guidelines. Drunk people don't get served. People are encouraged to sit down in pubs and clubs. If people make too much noise or are rowdy they are asked to leave. Being intoxicated, disturbing the peace, aggressive behaviour e.t.c. is made as antisocial as drink driving by encouragement and enforcement. Reduce the number of licensed premises and significantly reduce the strength of alcoholic drinks. Alcohol from off licenses and supermarkets should only be sold in cartons. This would eradicate the problem of broken glass and the injuries that causes.

Drugs – Making drugs illegal has, and never will, make the problem go away. It is a huge waste of police time, makes people who shouldn't be criminals into criminals and, costs a fortune in lawyers' fees, court time and prison sentences. You will never stop people from taking drugs by banning them but, you can massively improve the lives of those who do take them and of those affected by their actions. Make all drugs legal and at a stroke you will almost completely eliminate the crime associated with drugs but, you must keep illicit drug dealing as a serious offence. Sell drugs at properly controlled outlets and the problem of contamination will also be eliminated. Use the money raised from the sales to pay for rehabilitation services for those who want it and for treatment for those who need it. You will always have people who take drugs and who harm themselves by doing so. That is their choice whether we like it or not but, the current system of penalising drug users is not working. Listen to the experts who tell you that a different approach is needed and act on their advice. Legalising drugs may not be popular at first but once people see it working they will approve of it and, you will save the country billions into the bargain.

Education – Leave the education system to the experts. Get rid of all the stressful tests and league tables. For goodness sake let children enjoy themselves a little. It does not matter if our school results are not better than those of other countries. We should be aiming at producing happy, well-rounded citizens not stressed out workaholics.

Population Control – Gently motivate people to have fewer children e.g. by tax incentives and, at the same time reduce immigration. There are far too many people in our little country for us to all live comfortably. We don't need more and more houses or to produce more and more energy. We simply need fewer people.

The Banks – Sort out the greedy bankers. We are paying for their mistakes and they are still giving themselves huge bonuses. Get rid of the lot of them. Most of the people walking in the streets could do a better job than they have done. Let the bankers go work somewhere else. We'll manage fine without them.

Doing all of the above would be a start to reversing the damage done to our society by the last appalling government but there would still be a very long way to go. I apologise for ranting on but I am very upset at what the last government has done to our country especially to our liberties.

Reduce bureaucracy caused by Crime and Disorder Act 1998

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires Police, Fire, Housing, Probation, Health Service, Local Authorities and others to work 'in partnership' to identify and tackle crime.

This requirement simply leads to 'talking shops'. Much better to free up all of these organisations from the requirements of the Act and leave them to get on with their own jobs. 

Let the police identify the problems by talking to people on the beat and free them up to deal with those problems on the beat. Talking about them round a table does not help.

Police always used to refer matters to other relevant organisations even before the Crime and Disorder Act. This was done by telephone or, in certain cases, by means of special form. With email, this process would now be speedier.

Not only would this suggestion help put bobbies back on the beat; it would also stop all organisations involved  in the present partneship approach from hiding behind committee decisions.

The legal requirement placed upon all organisations by this Act simply lead to bureaucracy and woolly decision-making. Free up all organisations to do their own jobs. Free up the police to do theirs.

Why is this idea important?

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires Police, Fire, Housing, Probation, Health Service, Local Authorities and others to work 'in partnership' to identify and tackle crime.

This requirement simply leads to 'talking shops'. Much better to free up all of these organisations from the requirements of the Act and leave them to get on with their own jobs. 

Let the police identify the problems by talking to people on the beat and free them up to deal with those problems on the beat. Talking about them round a table does not help.

Police always used to refer matters to other relevant organisations even before the Crime and Disorder Act. This was done by telephone or, in certain cases, by means of special form. With email, this process would now be speedier.

Not only would this suggestion help put bobbies back on the beat; it would also stop all organisations involved  in the present partneship approach from hiding behind committee decisions.

The legal requirement placed upon all organisations by this Act simply lead to bureaucracy and woolly decision-making. Free up all organisations to do their own jobs. Free up the police to do theirs.

Why do we owe a duty of care to people who break in to our homes?

I believe that we should scrap the duty of care laws in relation to people who have broken in to our homes. If somebody is trying to steal anything from my property and they injure themselves why is that my fault? They should not have been there in the first place and if they get into my home and I defend my family by using force why is it possible for the intruder to sue me. These laws are ridiculous.

If somebody who has broken into a persons property tries to bring a prosecution against the owner of the property either civil or criminal then they should be prosecuted for wasting the courts time. This would soon stop these criminals from profiting from homeowners even if they were unsuccesful in stealing from them but got injured either entering or leaving the property. Where are the rights of the homeowners? It is said that an Englishmans home is his castle and castle's were designed to repel people from entering them so why are we not allowed to do the same. If somebody breaks into my home and I catch them am I supposed to wave them out of the front door and say be careful how you go I wouldn't want you getting injured or should I be allowed to defend my family and property in any way I deem fit.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that we should scrap the duty of care laws in relation to people who have broken in to our homes. If somebody is trying to steal anything from my property and they injure themselves why is that my fault? They should not have been there in the first place and if they get into my home and I defend my family by using force why is it possible for the intruder to sue me. These laws are ridiculous.

If somebody who has broken into a persons property tries to bring a prosecution against the owner of the property either civil or criminal then they should be prosecuted for wasting the courts time. This would soon stop these criminals from profiting from homeowners even if they were unsuccesful in stealing from them but got injured either entering or leaving the property. Where are the rights of the homeowners? It is said that an Englishmans home is his castle and castle's were designed to repel people from entering them so why are we not allowed to do the same. If somebody breaks into my home and I catch them am I supposed to wave them out of the front door and say be careful how you go I wouldn't want you getting injured or should I be allowed to defend my family and property in any way I deem fit.

Practical alternative to repeal of complex laws.

In many everyday situations, such as the laws and regulations governing the running of businesses, many business people find that the existing laws and regulations are expensive “red tape.”

The existing UK, complex, case law based laws and regulations should be replaced by Code Law similar in operation to the codes in law used by continental Europe. Not simple Codes of Practice but a Code Law. The Code Law would be a Code written in plain English and in particular would be tailored to meet the operational and particular needs of SME`s. Larger and more established companies would continue to be governed by the existing law applicable to corporations. The Code would be different for different types of business; restaurants as compared to small engineering/ manufacturing companies. The Code would include all the good ideas posted on this site.

Why is this idea important?

In many everyday situations, such as the laws and regulations governing the running of businesses, many business people find that the existing laws and regulations are expensive “red tape.”

The existing UK, complex, case law based laws and regulations should be replaced by Code Law similar in operation to the codes in law used by continental Europe. Not simple Codes of Practice but a Code Law. The Code Law would be a Code written in plain English and in particular would be tailored to meet the operational and particular needs of SME`s. Larger and more established companies would continue to be governed by the existing law applicable to corporations. The Code would be different for different types of business; restaurants as compared to small engineering/ manufacturing companies. The Code would include all the good ideas posted on this site.

Implement new thresholds for making / repealing new laws

Set the threshold for making a new law at 75% of those eligible to vote, rather than a simple majority, as any new law should have at least the support of a sizeable majority of the law makers.

All new laws to have a sunset clause whereby they are either reaffirmed as necessary or they are automatically repealed.

Set the threshold for repealing existing laws at 25% of those eligible to vote, as if a quarter of the law makers think it is unworkable / impracticable etc, then it deserves to go.

The current proposal for one in one out also makes sense.

Why is this idea important?

Set the threshold for making a new law at 75% of those eligible to vote, rather than a simple majority, as any new law should have at least the support of a sizeable majority of the law makers.

All new laws to have a sunset clause whereby they are either reaffirmed as necessary or they are automatically repealed.

Set the threshold for repealing existing laws at 25% of those eligible to vote, as if a quarter of the law makers think it is unworkable / impracticable etc, then it deserves to go.

The current proposal for one in one out also makes sense.

Stop Confounding Sin and Crime

Perhaps it's the old protestant herritage but there's a lot of confusion. Thus people can argue from "canabis is harmful to you" to "people ought to be locked up for taking canabis" with a straight face. An act should be criminal if it does, or creates a substantial risk of doing, harm to another unconsenting sentient being (I include animals as potential victims to a degree). Sins are acts that are considered harmful to the people participating in them. Interestingly Jewish tradition makes a very clear distinction between duty to God and duty to ones fellows. Our laws do not.

Thus the absurdity of drug prohibition, which ought to have been rejected instantly in the light of the effects of alcohol prohibition to which it is the even more disasterous successor. Taking drugs is a Sin (of course stealing to pay for them is a crime, but this would almost never happen without prohibition).

Thus, if you own an animal, it's perfectly legal to kill it, but to have sex with it carries a substantial prisson term. Why? Because as soon as "sexual gratification" is assumed as a motive then almost everything is considered sinful. (If such an act causes real suffering it would already be covered by the law agains animal cruelty).

Thus someone can be scarred in a boxing match without risk of the law, but if a masochist is scarred by a whip, then that's assault and consent is no defence (thanks to the Spanner decision). Why? Sexual gratification again.

Thus we have prositution laws seemingly designed, not so much to stop prostitution but to make it as sordid and dangerous as possible for all involved.

Why is this idea important?

Perhaps it's the old protestant herritage but there's a lot of confusion. Thus people can argue from "canabis is harmful to you" to "people ought to be locked up for taking canabis" with a straight face. An act should be criminal if it does, or creates a substantial risk of doing, harm to another unconsenting sentient being (I include animals as potential victims to a degree). Sins are acts that are considered harmful to the people participating in them. Interestingly Jewish tradition makes a very clear distinction between duty to God and duty to ones fellows. Our laws do not.

Thus the absurdity of drug prohibition, which ought to have been rejected instantly in the light of the effects of alcohol prohibition to which it is the even more disasterous successor. Taking drugs is a Sin (of course stealing to pay for them is a crime, but this would almost never happen without prohibition).

Thus, if you own an animal, it's perfectly legal to kill it, but to have sex with it carries a substantial prisson term. Why? Because as soon as "sexual gratification" is assumed as a motive then almost everything is considered sinful. (If such an act causes real suffering it would already be covered by the law agains animal cruelty).

Thus someone can be scarred in a boxing match without risk of the law, but if a masochist is scarred by a whip, then that's assault and consent is no defence (thanks to the Spanner decision). Why? Sexual gratification again.

Thus we have prositution laws seemingly designed, not so much to stop prostitution but to make it as sordid and dangerous as possible for all involved.

Repeal Sections 4A and 5 Public Order Act 1986

 

 

Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 should be repealed and replaced with the text below. 

Section 4A is overbroad and no longer needed in its current form. Section 5 is also an overbroad section that licences arbitrary interferences with free speech and peace protest. It is so overbroad that it grants the police carte blanc to arrest those whose views they find objectionable, or people they want to simply control. The police have ample powers to deal with disorderly or anti-social conduct. And there are also adequate provisions on the statute book to deal with harassment.

These sections should be repealed and replaced with a provision that requires an intent to cause a breach of the peace. This would bring the law into conformity with the ECHR and go some way to restoring old the common law position.

Section 5 Insulting, Abusive or Threatening Conduct

(1) Any person who in any public place uses threatening, abusive or insulting conduct, words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or where by a breach of the peace would be imminent in all the circumstances shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Any person who displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or where by a breach of the peace would be imminent in all the circumstances shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) No offence shall be committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a domestic dwelling.

(4) A ‘public place’ in subsection (1) includes a public meeting.

Why is this idea important?

 

 

Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 should be repealed and replaced with the text below. 

Section 4A is overbroad and no longer needed in its current form. Section 5 is also an overbroad section that licences arbitrary interferences with free speech and peace protest. It is so overbroad that it grants the police carte blanc to arrest those whose views they find objectionable, or people they want to simply control. The police have ample powers to deal with disorderly or anti-social conduct. And there are also adequate provisions on the statute book to deal with harassment.

These sections should be repealed and replaced with a provision that requires an intent to cause a breach of the peace. This would bring the law into conformity with the ECHR and go some way to restoring old the common law position.

Section 5 Insulting, Abusive or Threatening Conduct

(1) Any person who in any public place uses threatening, abusive or insulting conduct, words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or where by a breach of the peace would be imminent in all the circumstances shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Any person who displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or where by a breach of the peace would be imminent in all the circumstances shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) No offence shall be committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a domestic dwelling.

(4) A ‘public place’ in subsection (1) includes a public meeting.

The 1992 trade union and labour relations act should go

Scrap this law. It encourages companies to make costly recourse to the law courts rather than negotiate with their workforces, and therefore attacks workplace democracy, an ideal I'm sure the coalition believes in. It also means union ballots under the sort of restrictive conditions that, were they applied to local and national general elections, would render every single election invalid. 

Why is this idea important?

Scrap this law. It encourages companies to make costly recourse to the law courts rather than negotiate with their workforces, and therefore attacks workplace democracy, an ideal I'm sure the coalition believes in. It also means union ballots under the sort of restrictive conditions that, were they applied to local and national general elections, would render every single election invalid. 

Abolish Thatcher’s anti-union laws

The laws introduced by Margaret Thatcher's Government in the 1980s restrict the basic civil liberties of millions of working people. They are the most restrictive in the Western world and put us in violation of obligations under International Labour Organisations treaties of which we are signatories. If the Government is serious about civil liberties it must repeal these authoritarian laws.

Why is this idea important?

The laws introduced by Margaret Thatcher's Government in the 1980s restrict the basic civil liberties of millions of working people. They are the most restrictive in the Western world and put us in violation of obligations under International Labour Organisations treaties of which we are signatories. If the Government is serious about civil liberties it must repeal these authoritarian laws.

Abolish Thatcher’s anti-union laws

The laws introduced by Margaret Thatcher's Government in the 1980s restrict the basic civil liberties of millions of working people. They are the most restrictive in the Western world and put us in violation of obligations under International Labour Organisations treaties of which we are signatories. If the Government is serious about civil liberties it must repeal these authoritarian laws.

Why is this idea important?

The laws introduced by Margaret Thatcher's Government in the 1980s restrict the basic civil liberties of millions of working people. They are the most restrictive in the Western world and put us in violation of obligations under International Labour Organisations treaties of which we are signatories. If the Government is serious about civil liberties it must repeal these authoritarian laws.

Start Again With New Laws

All current laws should be repealed. 

Start again with new laws – no more than a dozen – that apply across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

One of these new laws should be a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities – any one in breach of their responsibilities loses all thier rights.

Another should be a written constitutuion setting out exactly what role the government, monarchy and the people play in governing the country and what powers each hold within their respective roles.

There will need to be other laws of course but these two will do to start with.

The laws should be looked at approx every 10 years to ensure they are current and in context with an ever changing modern society and that any changes actually replace what was there before and are not there instead of or as well as the prevoius law.

Also do away with laws being made on the hoof by courts as happens with much of our commercial law.  Laws are only laws if they are made in parliament and signed by the monarch and not made up by some judge who is only party to a small portion of the available evidence.

Laws should not be open to interpretation – they should be clear and in plain english – say what you mean and mean what you say.

Laws should apply throughout the whole of the UK including Norther Ireland and Scotland – no separate laws.

Why is this idea important?

All current laws should be repealed. 

Start again with new laws – no more than a dozen – that apply across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

One of these new laws should be a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities – any one in breach of their responsibilities loses all thier rights.

Another should be a written constitutuion setting out exactly what role the government, monarchy and the people play in governing the country and what powers each hold within their respective roles.

There will need to be other laws of course but these two will do to start with.

The laws should be looked at approx every 10 years to ensure they are current and in context with an ever changing modern society and that any changes actually replace what was there before and are not there instead of or as well as the prevoius law.

Also do away with laws being made on the hoof by courts as happens with much of our commercial law.  Laws are only laws if they are made in parliament and signed by the monarch and not made up by some judge who is only party to a small portion of the available evidence.

Laws should not be open to interpretation – they should be clear and in plain english – say what you mean and mean what you say.

Laws should apply throughout the whole of the UK including Norther Ireland and Scotland – no separate laws.