In most of Europe, it is currently perfectly legal to live in a caravan or camper or log cabin, any temporary dwelling in fact, without planning or other permissions on land which you own.
In this country it is not allowed. What I would like to see is the abilty for those who wished to, to live full time on their own land, in a temporary dwelling.
Why is this idea important?
In most of Europe, it is currently perfectly legal to live in a caravan or camper or log cabin, any temporary dwelling in fact, without planning or other permissions on land which you own.
In this country it is not allowed. What I would like to see is the abilty for those who wished to, to live full time on their own land, in a temporary dwelling.
The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.
The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.
The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.
Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.
It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.
Why is this idea important?
The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.
The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.
The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.
Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.
It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.
Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet, sulking like a naughty school boy who’s been discovered pedaling lies and deceit?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-relaxes-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana-1.312347
So the media makes Israel out to be some sort of monster when in actual fact the evidence suggests that they are far more reasonable, compassionate and concerned for liberty and justice than we are here in the UK!
Israel realises the senseless injustice of criminalising the sick.
Israel understands that it is not humane to remove the right of the sick to be treated by possibly the best natural medication known to man.
Israel has dealt a significant blow to greedy, self obsessed political / corporate agendas because they see such action as NECESSARY and IMPORTANT, indeed, the Jewish people have a saying: "If you haven't got your health, than what have you got?".
They replaced greedy drug policy with humane and compassionate treatment.
Israel sees the hypocrisy. Israel sees the blatant bigotry. Israel sees the complete and utter failure of the drug war.
Israel is doing something about it.
Is the UK really to be the elephant in the room? Standing on our outdated, prejudicial and, frankly, insane principles we are begging to be left behind by other more evolved, liberated and compassionate societies.
The UK government are a disgrace for while the world is turning to a more liberal future, the UK is so steeped in the web of deceit, propaganda, political complicity and corruption that it would seem they cannot untangle themselves from it without also ruining their own careers. Well, personally, I think that any prohibitionist should be forced from their disgraceful and hateful position of power so that they no longer infect reason with their corrupt, illogical, irrational and perverse sense of justice.
Why is this idea important?
Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet, sulking like a naughty school boy who’s been discovered pedaling lies and deceit?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-relaxes-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana-1.312347
So the media makes Israel out to be some sort of monster when in actual fact the evidence suggests that they are far more reasonable, compassionate and concerned for liberty and justice than we are here in the UK!
Israel realises the senseless injustice of criminalising the sick.
Israel understands that it is not humane to remove the right of the sick to be treated by possibly the best natural medication known to man.
Israel has dealt a significant blow to greedy, self obsessed political / corporate agendas because they see such action as NECESSARY and IMPORTANT, indeed, the Jewish people have a saying: "If you haven't got your health, than what have you got?".
They replaced greedy drug policy with humane and compassionate treatment.
Israel sees the hypocrisy. Israel sees the blatant bigotry. Israel sees the complete and utter failure of the drug war.
Israel is doing something about it.
Is the UK really to be the elephant in the room? Standing on our outdated, prejudicial and, frankly, insane principles we are begging to be left behind by other more evolved, liberated and compassionate societies.
The UK government are a disgrace for while the world is turning to a more liberal future, the UK is so steeped in the web of deceit, propaganda, political complicity and corruption that it would seem they cannot untangle themselves from it without also ruining their own careers. Well, personally, I think that any prohibitionist should be forced from their disgraceful and hateful position of power so that they no longer infect reason with their corrupt, illogical, irrational and perverse sense of justice.
This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !
I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !
Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?
Why is this idea important?
This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !
I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !
Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?
Scrap the law which permits for schools to take parents' religion or church attendance record into account as a valid admissions criteria.
Why is this idea important?
Scrap the law which permits for schools to take parents' religion or church attendance record into account as a valid admissions criteria.
For the government to act on the human rights legislation and order that the DNA and fingerprints of individuals arrested, but not guilty of a crime be destroyed.
Why is this idea important?
For the government to act on the human rights legislation and order that the DNA and fingerprints of individuals arrested, but not guilty of a crime be destroyed.
Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence
Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness
At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.
At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple
Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people
Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.
Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble
Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is
The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so
Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.
Why is this idea important?
Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence
Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness
At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.
At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple
Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people
Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.
Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble
Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is
The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so
Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.
I would like to see five points reflected in the new justice legislation created by the Coalition government:
1.. A swift return to the ancient instruction from all judges to jurors allocated to criminal prosecution cases that in order to convict, the balance of evidence must have caused them to believe that a defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', and that this means that if they have any doubts at all that they should not convict, bearing in mind that the underpinning foundation of our legal system is that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
2. The removal of all banana republic inspired New Labour 'complaint to conviction' targets created for police and CPS. The target for any democratic society's criminal justice system should be to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, not to frog march anyone who is the subject of a complaint through to a 'guilty' verdict as swiftly as possible.
3. A thorough investigation of the victim compensation system in terms of any potential for abuse, followed by a move to balance legislation so that people who make false allegations due to malice and/ or to fraudulently claim compensation face heavy penalties, which grow heavier the later this comes to light (as the person they have accused will have suffered for a longer time due to their allegations). This should be clearly explained to people at the point they make a complaint to the police by a professional mediator, not a police officer.
4. That no person is imprisoned without charge for longer than the 36 hours that was the limit before New Labour legislation.
5. That no person is ever subject to government employees of any description circulating information about him or her that has been gathered through rumour and unsubstantiated allegation (as can be the case on the enhanced CRB).
Why is this idea important?
I would like to see five points reflected in the new justice legislation created by the Coalition government:
1.. A swift return to the ancient instruction from all judges to jurors allocated to criminal prosecution cases that in order to convict, the balance of evidence must have caused them to believe that a defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', and that this means that if they have any doubts at all that they should not convict, bearing in mind that the underpinning foundation of our legal system is that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
2. The removal of all banana republic inspired New Labour 'complaint to conviction' targets created for police and CPS. The target for any democratic society's criminal justice system should be to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, not to frog march anyone who is the subject of a complaint through to a 'guilty' verdict as swiftly as possible.
3. A thorough investigation of the victim compensation system in terms of any potential for abuse, followed by a move to balance legislation so that people who make false allegations due to malice and/ or to fraudulently claim compensation face heavy penalties, which grow heavier the later this comes to light (as the person they have accused will have suffered for a longer time due to their allegations). This should be clearly explained to people at the point they make a complaint to the police by a professional mediator, not a police officer.
4. That no person is imprisoned without charge for longer than the 36 hours that was the limit before New Labour legislation.
5. That no person is ever subject to government employees of any description circulating information about him or her that has been gathered through rumour and unsubstantiated allegation (as can be the case on the enhanced CRB).
Alcohol, and tobacco, are both currently legal high type drugs, and are both scientifically proven to be not only dangerous to health, but are also highly addictive drug.
The legal authority to sell these drugs needs to be removed, and they need to be added to the list of drugs covered by the new emergency drug control 'Temporary 1 year ban whilst it is investigated' legislation.
Why is this idea important?
Alcohol, and tobacco, are both currently legal high type drugs, and are both scientifically proven to be not only dangerous to health, but are also highly addictive drug.
The legal authority to sell these drugs needs to be removed, and they need to be added to the list of drugs covered by the new emergency drug control 'Temporary 1 year ban whilst it is investigated' legislation.
Crime is a serious problem, right?
The fact is that the problem governments now face is that there is too LITTLE crime. THIS is what is threatening them. Not too much crime, as they tell you through their mouthpiece, the press.
Just imagine a paradisic country where everyone is living a happy moral life. There is no crime.
What need would there be for government? Perhaps to run the schools, transport, hospitals, clean the streets and a few other bits and bobs.
There would be no need, however, for a home secretary. You would not need police or prisons. And you would not need big government departments to oversee the police and the prisons.
Government would be significantly smaller. (And your taxes proportionately less.)
In short, if crime went down, large sections of government would have to go. Right?
Well, not quite. Both property and violent crime have been dropping steadily since they peaked in the early-to-mid 90s. These are now at the same level they were in 1980.
But we also have TWICE the number of people incarcerated than in 1980, despite property and violent crime having dropped back down to this level. (America has FOUR times its 1980 level.)
We also have 4000 new laws since Labour came into power.
And we have more prisons, far more police and massive government departments than we ever had in this area.
Government is thriving. (And your tax is high.)
Here is a rather chilling quote from the classic 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand:
<i>"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game…"</i>
Sound familiar?
Why is this idea important?
Crime is a serious problem, right?
The fact is that the problem governments now face is that there is too LITTLE crime. THIS is what is threatening them. Not too much crime, as they tell you through their mouthpiece, the press.
Just imagine a paradisic country where everyone is living a happy moral life. There is no crime.
What need would there be for government? Perhaps to run the schools, transport, hospitals, clean the streets and a few other bits and bobs.
There would be no need, however, for a home secretary. You would not need police or prisons. And you would not need big government departments to oversee the police and the prisons.
Government would be significantly smaller. (And your taxes proportionately less.)
In short, if crime went down, large sections of government would have to go. Right?
Well, not quite. Both property and violent crime have been dropping steadily since they peaked in the early-to-mid 90s. These are now at the same level they were in 1980.
But we also have TWICE the number of people incarcerated than in 1980, despite property and violent crime having dropped back down to this level. (America has FOUR times its 1980 level.)
We also have 4000 new laws since Labour came into power.
And we have more prisons, far more police and massive government departments than we ever had in this area.
Government is thriving. (And your tax is high.)
Here is a rather chilling quote from the classic 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand:
<i>"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game…"</i>
Sound familiar?
A referendum right away this is the will of over 80 percent of the people, you know the big issue
Why is this idea important?
A referendum right away this is the will of over 80 percent of the people, you know the big issue
My proposal is to discontinue the use of the term "In the public interest".
Why is this idea important?
My proposal is to discontinue the use of the term "In the public interest".
As a happily married heterosexual I am disconcerted that my homosexual friends' partnerships cannot be described in law as a 'marriage'. (No doubt because there are some minor differences between the two forms of legal status.)
I would like to see civil partnerships put on exactly the same basis as conventional marriage from a legal point of view.
Such a change need not affect the rights of the religious to continue to confine the term 'marriage' to whatever they want, but that is a matter for them and need not concern the rest of us.
Why is this idea important?
As a happily married heterosexual I am disconcerted that my homosexual friends' partnerships cannot be described in law as a 'marriage'. (No doubt because there are some minor differences between the two forms of legal status.)
I would like to see civil partnerships put on exactly the same basis as conventional marriage from a legal point of view.
Such a change need not affect the rights of the religious to continue to confine the term 'marriage' to whatever they want, but that is a matter for them and need not concern the rest of us.
Britains Freedoms and Traditions have been created through the centuries and are based on our ancient Constitution, which has yet to be codified. The fact that no-one in Government is even interested nor has found the time to do so in the 21st Century is shameful and a sad reflection on today's politicians, who appear to have little or no knowledge of our history. The fact that many countries around the world have used much of our Constitution to create their own, speaks for itself. European countries on the other hand alter their Constitutions whenever they have a change of Government, what does that tell you?
It is a fact that Britain's Freedoms and Traditions cannot be restored until we come out of the European Union because the continental way of life is totally different from ours. In fact this was confirmed by one of the Roux brothers on BBC T.V. recently when he said he came to live in Britain because he liked the way of life and the freedoms that it gave him; he also went on to say that the E.U. was passing laws and creating leglisation that was unlawfully taking away the protections and freedoms that the British citizen had always enjoyed and it was totally undemocratic. Good for Mr. Roux I say – well done!
Why is this idea important?
Britains Freedoms and Traditions have been created through the centuries and are based on our ancient Constitution, which has yet to be codified. The fact that no-one in Government is even interested nor has found the time to do so in the 21st Century is shameful and a sad reflection on today's politicians, who appear to have little or no knowledge of our history. The fact that many countries around the world have used much of our Constitution to create their own, speaks for itself. European countries on the other hand alter their Constitutions whenever they have a change of Government, what does that tell you?
It is a fact that Britain's Freedoms and Traditions cannot be restored until we come out of the European Union because the continental way of life is totally different from ours. In fact this was confirmed by one of the Roux brothers on BBC T.V. recently when he said he came to live in Britain because he liked the way of life and the freedoms that it gave him; he also went on to say that the E.U. was passing laws and creating leglisation that was unlawfully taking away the protections and freedoms that the British citizen had always enjoyed and it was totally undemocratic. Good for Mr. Roux I say – well done!
Repeal the licensing laws, bye law enabling powers, revoke the associated bye laws, and other regulations which allow councils and others to restrict, without any objective justification, the freedom to be nude at recreational venues.
Why is this idea important?
Repeal the licensing laws, bye law enabling powers, revoke the associated bye laws, and other regulations which allow councils and others to restrict, without any objective justification, the freedom to be nude at recreational venues.
Repeal or reform all legislation and policy which assumes or encourages the belief that children are inherently sexual. For example aspects of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and related legislation. As a minimum the word "indecent" should be replaced with "pornographic" and "pornographic" should be defined as "erotic" or "sexual".
Why is this idea important?
Repeal or reform all legislation and policy which assumes or encourages the belief that children are inherently sexual. For example aspects of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and related legislation. As a minimum the word "indecent" should be replaced with "pornographic" and "pornographic" should be defined as "erotic" or "sexual".
The largest response is to amend the smoking ban. Nick Clegg say they will not repeal the ban and he won't amend it either – yet it is what the majority of the people want. He was not elected to act against the people's wishes.
Why is this idea important?
The largest response is to amend the smoking ban. Nick Clegg say they will not repeal the ban and he won't amend it either – yet it is what the majority of the people want. He was not elected to act against the people's wishes.
U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.
Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.
It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.
Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.
The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.
Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.
For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.
As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.
There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.
Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.
I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.
Why is this idea important?
U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.
Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.
It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.
Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.
The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.
Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.
For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.
As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.
There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.
Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.
I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.
I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.
Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'
So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:
The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.
Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.
If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.
Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.
The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'
The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'
After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'
And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.
It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.
The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?
In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.
All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.
Why is this idea important?
I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.
Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'
So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:
The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.
Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.
If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.
Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.
The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'
The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'
After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'
And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.
It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.
The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?
In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.
All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.
Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.
Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.
The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.
No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.
If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.
If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.
While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.
Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.
EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.
A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.
A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.
If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.
The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.
Interim Care Orders should be abolished.
No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.
Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.
A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.
While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.
The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.
The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.
The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.
Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!
Why is this idea important?
Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.
Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.
The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.
No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.
If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.
If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.
While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.
Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.
EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.
A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.
A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.
If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.
The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.
Interim Care Orders should be abolished.
No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.
Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.
A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.
While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.
The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.
The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.
The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.
Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!
In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.
The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.
Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.
It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.
The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.
Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.
The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.
Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.
Why is this idea important?
In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.
The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.
Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.
It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.
The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.
Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.
The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.
Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-drug-strategy-2010/drugs-consultation?view=Binary
unfortunatly what have been said in here has not been taken into consideration.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-drug-strategy-2010/
Why is this idea important?
This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.
Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.
Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.
In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?
Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!
Why is this idea important?
This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.
Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.
Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.
In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?
Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!
A mate of mine played Hockey for Redditch for 34 years and his son followed in his footsteps. He and his whole family are known to everyone in the club as part of the social fabric. He would like to offer his services as a coach to the new breed of young hockey players but he can't without putting himself through some form of vetting procedure to ensure he is not a paedophile so he hasn't bothered.
My wife and I have 4 grandchildren. The eldest will start school soon and naturally we will want to record the event on camera but we won't be able to in case we are actually more interested in all the kids around him for perverted reasons. Oh by the way we haven't been able to record his first football lesson, visit to the library or swimming class.
In a Big Society as I understand it people know life has risks but we don't constrain the entirity of living for the worry of the very unlikely.
Don't accept the principle of fear that one childs death at the hands of a paedofile justifies laws or interpretation of laws that contrain the daily life of us all. We will never stop perverts totally lets get back to living life for the benefit of the 99.9% rather than in fear of the .1%
Why is this idea important?
A mate of mine played Hockey for Redditch for 34 years and his son followed in his footsteps. He and his whole family are known to everyone in the club as part of the social fabric. He would like to offer his services as a coach to the new breed of young hockey players but he can't without putting himself through some form of vetting procedure to ensure he is not a paedophile so he hasn't bothered.
My wife and I have 4 grandchildren. The eldest will start school soon and naturally we will want to record the event on camera but we won't be able to in case we are actually more interested in all the kids around him for perverted reasons. Oh by the way we haven't been able to record his first football lesson, visit to the library or swimming class.
In a Big Society as I understand it people know life has risks but we don't constrain the entirity of living for the worry of the very unlikely.
Don't accept the principle of fear that one childs death at the hands of a paedofile justifies laws or interpretation of laws that contrain the daily life of us all. We will never stop perverts totally lets get back to living life for the benefit of the 99.9% rather than in fear of the .1%
I would like to suggest the re-wording of the Road Traffic Act sec 34. This law makes it a criminal offence to ride motorcycles over the thousands of square miles of moorland in the uk. Added to the trouble this law causes is the power given to Police in the Police Reform Act 2003 sec 59 and 60 where Police are given the power to sieze vehicles based on some very subjective and unproveable criteria. In theory the power sounded like a good idea but in practice we find that law abiding citizens are discriminated against and dare not use the countryside because of fear of siezure. Due to the lack of appeal (once a bike has been crushed it's too late) this does seem like a sledgehammer to crack a nut and has been proved to be abused by officers. Both the law and the siezure powers should be repealed
Why is this idea important?
I would like to suggest the re-wording of the Road Traffic Act sec 34. This law makes it a criminal offence to ride motorcycles over the thousands of square miles of moorland in the uk. Added to the trouble this law causes is the power given to Police in the Police Reform Act 2003 sec 59 and 60 where Police are given the power to sieze vehicles based on some very subjective and unproveable criteria. In theory the power sounded like a good idea but in practice we find that law abiding citizens are discriminated against and dare not use the countryside because of fear of siezure. Due to the lack of appeal (once a bike has been crushed it's too late) this does seem like a sledgehammer to crack a nut and has been proved to be abused by officers. Both the law and the siezure powers should be repealed