Foreign affairs

Firstly, pull out of the EU. This monster is slowly but surely eroding our rights and liberties at home while ensuring business is more difficult to sustain than ever before. The public want to be governed at a local level where politicians can see what needs to be done and effect it, not at an international "one-size-fits-all" level. All the unnecessary and restrictive red tape and over-regulation that brussels keeps pouring out is doing us only harm. For example, recently sodium chlorate weedkiller was banned. I'm sure this came about because of what looked like a good idea on paper, but in reality the only effect of this decision is that the public have to break their backs trying to manually pull weeds out of their gardens. I say rid us of this beast not only because of this, but also because it is taking more money off us than has been ring-fenced for the foreign aid budget. A large portion of the planned spending cuts could be scrapped by simply ditching the masses of dead weight helpfully being generously provided to us by the EU. Note the sarcasm.
And speaking of the foreign aid budget, get rid of that, effective from yesterday! Just throwing money at other countries that often don't need it (example india with its own space programme and new multi-million-pound airports) is a waste of our hard-earned cash that we need to keep for ourselves, so it just beggars belief that "foreign aid" is the only budget that isn't going to be cut – and is possibly even to be increased!
Free haandouts don't stop there though. Immigrants of all sorts get thousands in benefits each week that they don't need – and even the ones that do find their own work take the opportunity away from brits that deserve it! There simply isn't enough money or space and there aren't enough jobs or houses for the british people as it is, let alone giving all sorts leave to roam our space and squat in our sheds. I call for an immediate halt to all immigration and start to a scheme of assisted repatriation for those who want to go home. That is the only way we will get rid of the excess population that is causing our once-great nation so much distress. And finally, stop racism! And I don't mean your sort of "racism", I mean the real discrimination that is happening against white British men all the time. The sort of racism that you lot seem to support and enjoy!

Why is this idea important?

Firstly, pull out of the EU. This monster is slowly but surely eroding our rights and liberties at home while ensuring business is more difficult to sustain than ever before. The public want to be governed at a local level where politicians can see what needs to be done and effect it, not at an international "one-size-fits-all" level. All the unnecessary and restrictive red tape and over-regulation that brussels keeps pouring out is doing us only harm. For example, recently sodium chlorate weedkiller was banned. I'm sure this came about because of what looked like a good idea on paper, but in reality the only effect of this decision is that the public have to break their backs trying to manually pull weeds out of their gardens. I say rid us of this beast not only because of this, but also because it is taking more money off us than has been ring-fenced for the foreign aid budget. A large portion of the planned spending cuts could be scrapped by simply ditching the masses of dead weight helpfully being generously provided to us by the EU. Note the sarcasm.
And speaking of the foreign aid budget, get rid of that, effective from yesterday! Just throwing money at other countries that often don't need it (example india with its own space programme and new multi-million-pound airports) is a waste of our hard-earned cash that we need to keep for ourselves, so it just beggars belief that "foreign aid" is the only budget that isn't going to be cut – and is possibly even to be increased!
Free haandouts don't stop there though. Immigrants of all sorts get thousands in benefits each week that they don't need – and even the ones that do find their own work take the opportunity away from brits that deserve it! There simply isn't enough money or space and there aren't enough jobs or houses for the british people as it is, let alone giving all sorts leave to roam our space and squat in our sheds. I call for an immediate halt to all immigration and start to a scheme of assisted repatriation for those who want to go home. That is the only way we will get rid of the excess population that is causing our once-great nation so much distress. And finally, stop racism! And I don't mean your sort of "racism", I mean the real discrimination that is happening against white British men all the time. The sort of racism that you lot seem to support and enjoy!

Stop control by the Patent System

Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.

Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.

The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm

How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.

Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.

"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

Why is this idea important?

Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.

Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.

The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm

How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.

Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.

"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

that polluters should be the ones to remove pollution and not the innocent (particularly as it applies to the smoking ban).

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

Why is this idea important?

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

Restore Human Rights to those declared innocent by judge only

Dear Sir
The Law change which is very urgent involves a particularly destructive law, which is a travesty of justice and so perverse that it promotes an oxymoron. It reduces innocent people to remaining “guilty of being falsely accused.”
This comes about when a judge refuses to try a case, after legal argument, because it is revealed as an obvious miscarriage of justice and the judge refuses to put the case before a jury. It is thrown out of court and the innocent victim of the false allegation is freed.
However these victims never regain their innocent status in the way that those tried by a jury do.
They remain guilty of not being tried by a jury, despite the judge proving their innocence.
This situation remains, even though there have now been judge only cases tried, without a jury involved at all.
The cases to which I refer are not those where judges “stay the proceedings” but cases where the Prosecution offers ‘ no evidence ’ after a judge disputes authenticity and subsequent admissibility of certain evidence. The judge may declare for example “ In that case I have to find the defendant not guilty.” Or “There is no case to answer.”
( An example of the above situation might occur when evidence which has been withheld by the CPS is finally revealed on day one of the trial. )
Consequently, the issues which need to be addressed is whether the judge’s opinion alone is sufficient in these cases and whether this law change as and when it is convenient? I’m sure you agree that if this is the situation the law is truly unworthy of remaining as it is deeply flawed.
There can’t be one law applicable to some and another law applicable to other innocent people, justice must be available to all those falsely accused.
A defendant found not guilty and acquitted by a judge in these circumstances should have their full rights restored and should not have any matters recorded against them that would come up on Criminal Records Bureaux (CRB) checks or extended CRB checks. There should be complete admonishment and all records wiped, so the person returns to their rightful innocent status.
The matter to be concluded as the alleged offence having never happened.

Currently these people remain “guilty of not being tried by a jury.”
They are often victims of false allegations made by a person seeking personal gain and self interest.
(For example a wife wanting to gain a divorce in an all win situation, so falsely accuses the husband of sexually assaulting herself or their children. )
Thus the victim remains “Guilty of being falsely accused” and their full liberty is not restored to them. The accuser often gets away with perverting the course of justice and illegally obtains their goal, making them above the law. It also results in so much public money being wasted in the process.

It is of concern that so many innocent people have been falsely accused in this manner, their lives shattered and yet they cannot regain their Human Rights, freedom and truly innocent status.
I would like to encourage the Government to do everything necessary to ensure the change of the archaic law and release these victims from a life of misery.
May I respectfully suggest that an easy process be put in place, which will allow those declared innocent by a judge, to regain their freedom, their civil rights and their truly innocent status, in the same way as those found innocent by a jury.
I suggest that these victims, who have been subjected to the above travesty of justice, should be issued with a Certificate of Acquittal” in order that their full civil liberties and Human Rights are restored to them and it is ascertained that they are not affected in the future.

I’m reassured that the present government are keen to listen and set a process of this sort in action and restore the lives of thousands of victims of false allegations etc. who are waiting to have their truly innocent status restored to them, but cannot afford a “Finding of Fact” to achieve this.
You will give them the means to start rebuilding their shattered lives by redressing this injustice.
With many thanks and looking forward to the worthwhile, new, trustworthy government who will right injustice by abolishing perverse Laws.
 

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir
The Law change which is very urgent involves a particularly destructive law, which is a travesty of justice and so perverse that it promotes an oxymoron. It reduces innocent people to remaining “guilty of being falsely accused.”
This comes about when a judge refuses to try a case, after legal argument, because it is revealed as an obvious miscarriage of justice and the judge refuses to put the case before a jury. It is thrown out of court and the innocent victim of the false allegation is freed.
However these victims never regain their innocent status in the way that those tried by a jury do.
They remain guilty of not being tried by a jury, despite the judge proving their innocence.
This situation remains, even though there have now been judge only cases tried, without a jury involved at all.
The cases to which I refer are not those where judges “stay the proceedings” but cases where the Prosecution offers ‘ no evidence ’ after a judge disputes authenticity and subsequent admissibility of certain evidence. The judge may declare for example “ In that case I have to find the defendant not guilty.” Or “There is no case to answer.”
( An example of the above situation might occur when evidence which has been withheld by the CPS is finally revealed on day one of the trial. )
Consequently, the issues which need to be addressed is whether the judge’s opinion alone is sufficient in these cases and whether this law change as and when it is convenient? I’m sure you agree that if this is the situation the law is truly unworthy of remaining as it is deeply flawed.
There can’t be one law applicable to some and another law applicable to other innocent people, justice must be available to all those falsely accused.
A defendant found not guilty and acquitted by a judge in these circumstances should have their full rights restored and should not have any matters recorded against them that would come up on Criminal Records Bureaux (CRB) checks or extended CRB checks. There should be complete admonishment and all records wiped, so the person returns to their rightful innocent status.
The matter to be concluded as the alleged offence having never happened.

Currently these people remain “guilty of not being tried by a jury.”
They are often victims of false allegations made by a person seeking personal gain and self interest.
(For example a wife wanting to gain a divorce in an all win situation, so falsely accuses the husband of sexually assaulting herself or their children. )
Thus the victim remains “Guilty of being falsely accused” and their full liberty is not restored to them. The accuser often gets away with perverting the course of justice and illegally obtains their goal, making them above the law. It also results in so much public money being wasted in the process.

It is of concern that so many innocent people have been falsely accused in this manner, their lives shattered and yet they cannot regain their Human Rights, freedom and truly innocent status.
I would like to encourage the Government to do everything necessary to ensure the change of the archaic law and release these victims from a life of misery.
May I respectfully suggest that an easy process be put in place, which will allow those declared innocent by a judge, to regain their freedom, their civil rights and their truly innocent status, in the same way as those found innocent by a jury.
I suggest that these victims, who have been subjected to the above travesty of justice, should be issued with a Certificate of Acquittal” in order that their full civil liberties and Human Rights are restored to them and it is ascertained that they are not affected in the future.

I’m reassured that the present government are keen to listen and set a process of this sort in action and restore the lives of thousands of victims of false allegations etc. who are waiting to have their truly innocent status restored to them, but cannot afford a “Finding of Fact” to achieve this.
You will give them the means to start rebuilding their shattered lives by redressing this injustice.
With many thanks and looking forward to the worthwhile, new, trustworthy government who will right injustice by abolishing perverse Laws.
 

Repeal the laws which require offenders to register beyond ten years without a review

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which supported a High Court ruling against the Home Office/Government, stated that sex offenders should not be required to continue registering each year without having their case reviewed to see if they still pose a threat. They ruled that this requirement conflicted with EC Human Rights Article 8, therefore that part of the Sex Offenders Act which makes lifelong registration without the possibility of review must be removed from UK law.

The Supreme Court ruled that every case should be reviewed after ten years, and each year thereafter if necessary, which would reduce the workload of the police having to monitor those who no longer pose a threat, or never posed a threat in the first place. The Government have yet to implement this ruling.
 

Why is this idea important?

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which supported a High Court ruling against the Home Office/Government, stated that sex offenders should not be required to continue registering each year without having their case reviewed to see if they still pose a threat. They ruled that this requirement conflicted with EC Human Rights Article 8, therefore that part of the Sex Offenders Act which makes lifelong registration without the possibility of review must be removed from UK law.

The Supreme Court ruled that every case should be reviewed after ten years, and each year thereafter if necessary, which would reduce the workload of the police having to monitor those who no longer pose a threat, or never posed a threat in the first place. The Government have yet to implement this ruling.
 

Remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes

Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.

There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.

If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside. 

Why is this idea important?

Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.

There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.

If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside. 

Freedom from Police Brutality

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Why is this idea important?

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Repeal The Latest Gimmick In The Drugs War – Drug Driving Testing Kits To Be Issued To The Police.

It has just been announced that the government are to introduce drug driving test kits for traffic police. While I agree with the principle of not lawfully being allowed to drive whilst intoxicated with any substance, pharmaceutical or illicit, I cannot agree to the introduction of  this latest drugs war gimmick. It is simply not ethical or justifiable to issue police with drugs test kits without also utterly reforming drugs policy at the same time.

One of the myriad of complications regarding enforcement of positive tests is the fact that substances dissolve in the blood stream at different rates and, therefore, such policy would immediately discriminate against one specific population of drugs user. For example, I would like to know how they intend to prosecute somebody for driving on cannabis when cannabis takes up to 4 weeks to leave the blood system? This is unlike far more powerful substances like cocaine which dissolve in the blood stream within a few days and become undetectable thereafter. This means that this new introductory scheme would weigh heaviest against cannabis users and allow the real dangerous drug users to largely get away with drug driving.

Yet again the innocent cannabis user becomes the government scape goat, even though it has been proven that cannabis not only doesn't impair your driving ability but also, in most cases, it increases the drivers capacity for safe driving.

Repeal the introduction of these unworkable systems for further terrorising cannabis users until such time as you ALSO introduce drug policy reform and regulation. Thus ensuring that along with regulation comes a drug drive limit, just like there is with the far more impairing substance of alcohol. Note would also be taken of the dispersal rate of the drug in question before any arrest could be made. This would ensure that that the victimisation of the cannabis user was not an issue.
 

Why is this idea important?

It has just been announced that the government are to introduce drug driving test kits for traffic police. While I agree with the principle of not lawfully being allowed to drive whilst intoxicated with any substance, pharmaceutical or illicit, I cannot agree to the introduction of  this latest drugs war gimmick. It is simply not ethical or justifiable to issue police with drugs test kits without also utterly reforming drugs policy at the same time.

One of the myriad of complications regarding enforcement of positive tests is the fact that substances dissolve in the blood stream at different rates and, therefore, such policy would immediately discriminate against one specific population of drugs user. For example, I would like to know how they intend to prosecute somebody for driving on cannabis when cannabis takes up to 4 weeks to leave the blood system? This is unlike far more powerful substances like cocaine which dissolve in the blood stream within a few days and become undetectable thereafter. This means that this new introductory scheme would weigh heaviest against cannabis users and allow the real dangerous drug users to largely get away with drug driving.

Yet again the innocent cannabis user becomes the government scape goat, even though it has been proven that cannabis not only doesn't impair your driving ability but also, in most cases, it increases the drivers capacity for safe driving.

Repeal the introduction of these unworkable systems for further terrorising cannabis users until such time as you ALSO introduce drug policy reform and regulation. Thus ensuring that along with regulation comes a drug drive limit, just like there is with the far more impairing substance of alcohol. Note would also be taken of the dispersal rate of the drug in question before any arrest could be made. This would ensure that that the victimisation of the cannabis user was not an issue.
 

the governement anser to cannabis users on 6/08/2010

so that's it finally we got the answer and here it is

 

Drugalysers to be issued over the next two years to detect drugs such as cocaine and cannabis

Testing kits designed to catch motorists driving while under the influence of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, and ecstasy are to be issued to police over the next two years, the government announced today.

Ministers are due to give details of research funding to develop "drugalysers" which will be initially used in police stations, but later for roadside testing.

The plan follows a review by Sir Peter North, who in June called for tougher drug driving laws and the development of a roadside saliva test for those suspected of driving after taking drugs.

He called for screening devices to be available in police stations within two years to test for drugs including amphetamines, methadone, ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis and heroin.

The testing kits will mean that police officers no longer have to wait for permission from a doctor before a blood test can be taken to be used as evidence in court.

The road safety minister, Mike Penning, said: "This equipment will make it easier for the police to prosecute the irresponsible minority who put the lives of the law-abiding majority at risk.

"We are taking urgent steps to make drug screening technology available as soon as possible."

The Home Office expects to issue manufacturers with a final draft specification by the end of September.

Along with the Department for Transport and the Technology Strategy Board, it also announced a £300,000 investment for further research into drug-testing technology.

The aim is to develop equipment that can test for a wider range of drugs and is suitable for roadside testing.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Motorists who drive while under the influence of drugs are a menace to the roads and we have already given the police powers to test drivers for signs of impairment.

"We also want them to be able to test drivers for drugs in their system. By the end of September we aim to have issued a final draft specification for a testing device, setting out the drugs we want to detect. As soon as manufacturers have produced devices that satisfy our specification, we will approve them for police to use."

Research shows that 10% of drivers aged between 18 and 29 have admitted driving after taking illegal drugs.

So far, no device that meets the Home Office and Department for Transport's requirements has been identified.

source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-testing-kits-drivers-drugs

Why is this idea important?

so that's it finally we got the answer and here it is

 

Drugalysers to be issued over the next two years to detect drugs such as cocaine and cannabis

Testing kits designed to catch motorists driving while under the influence of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, and ecstasy are to be issued to police over the next two years, the government announced today.

Ministers are due to give details of research funding to develop "drugalysers" which will be initially used in police stations, but later for roadside testing.

The plan follows a review by Sir Peter North, who in June called for tougher drug driving laws and the development of a roadside saliva test for those suspected of driving after taking drugs.

He called for screening devices to be available in police stations within two years to test for drugs including amphetamines, methadone, ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis and heroin.

The testing kits will mean that police officers no longer have to wait for permission from a doctor before a blood test can be taken to be used as evidence in court.

The road safety minister, Mike Penning, said: "This equipment will make it easier for the police to prosecute the irresponsible minority who put the lives of the law-abiding majority at risk.

"We are taking urgent steps to make drug screening technology available as soon as possible."

The Home Office expects to issue manufacturers with a final draft specification by the end of September.

Along with the Department for Transport and the Technology Strategy Board, it also announced a £300,000 investment for further research into drug-testing technology.

The aim is to develop equipment that can test for a wider range of drugs and is suitable for roadside testing.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Motorists who drive while under the influence of drugs are a menace to the roads and we have already given the police powers to test drivers for signs of impairment.

"We also want them to be able to test drivers for drugs in their system. By the end of September we aim to have issued a final draft specification for a testing device, setting out the drugs we want to detect. As soon as manufacturers have produced devices that satisfy our specification, we will approve them for police to use."

Research shows that 10% of drivers aged between 18 and 29 have admitted driving after taking illegal drugs.

So far, no device that meets the Home Office and Department for Transport's requirements has been identified.

source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-testing-kits-drivers-drugs

Require All New Laws to pass the Liberty Test

Any criminalisation of any action should be required to fall under one of the following four categories:

  1. Infringement upon another person or company
  2. Infringement upon another person or company's land
  3. Infringement upon another person or company's property
  4. Infringement upon another person or company's privacy (this would cover slander, libel etc as well as copyright infringements)

Why is this idea important?

Any criminalisation of any action should be required to fall under one of the following four categories:

  1. Infringement upon another person or company
  2. Infringement upon another person or company's land
  3. Infringement upon another person or company's property
  4. Infringement upon another person or company's privacy (this would cover slander, libel etc as well as copyright infringements)

Repeal British law allowing for accumulation of extreme wealth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land Registry

Make it compulsory to register all land with the land registry within 5 years, with any land unregistered by that date to be regarded as common (state owned) land. 

The land registry should also be placed on-line for anyone to access free of charge. 

Why is this idea important?

Make it compulsory to register all land with the land registry within 5 years, with any land unregistered by that date to be regarded as common (state owned) land. 

The land registry should also be placed on-line for anyone to access free of charge. 

Animal rights and good morals.

  I am Juliet Tun.  I think all countries on Earth including the

United Kingdom should have a law that saids eating animals is illegal.  I think

there should be laws in the United Kingdom that say drinking alcohol, smoking cigars or cigarettes, chewing gum and chewing betel is illegal.  I think gay marriages and bisexual marriages in the

United Kingdom should be illegal if it is legal.

Why is this idea important?

  I am Juliet Tun.  I think all countries on Earth including the

United Kingdom should have a law that saids eating animals is illegal.  I think

there should be laws in the United Kingdom that say drinking alcohol, smoking cigars or cigarettes, chewing gum and chewing betel is illegal.  I think gay marriages and bisexual marriages in the

United Kingdom should be illegal if it is legal.

Give us the right to law by public petition.

Our politicians tell us they believe in democracy. I propose they stop bandying words and set a number of verified signatures that will give any petition the right to a parliamentary debate and free vote in the Commons?

Smaller government? Decentralisation? Giving power back to the people? Pretty words. Is that all they are?

Why is this idea important?

Our politicians tell us they believe in democracy. I propose they stop bandying words and set a number of verified signatures that will give any petition the right to a parliamentary debate and free vote in the Commons?

Smaller government? Decentralisation? Giving power back to the people? Pretty words. Is that all they are?

The right to privacy in Jobcentres

Whilst there is a lot of hype in the media about benefit thieves, more should be done to protect the dignity and the right to privacy of the unemployed, especially at a time of rising unemployment. The current system at Jobcentre Plus offices across Britain violates the right to privacy on a daily basis, and therefore requires immediate review.   

Why is this idea important?

Whilst there is a lot of hype in the media about benefit thieves, more should be done to protect the dignity and the right to privacy of the unemployed, especially at a time of rising unemployment. The current system at Jobcentre Plus offices across Britain violates the right to privacy on a daily basis, and therefore requires immediate review.   

Impose more restrictions on tabloid media.

First of all, this is not about restricting freedom of speech, which is something that I hold in the highest regard.

However, I propose that tabloid press/news media in general should be somehow forced to be more objective in the way they report current affairs.

I have abolutely no faith in any of the UK's news media because I see them as nothing more than vehicles to push certain opinions and agendas.

Do a little research on popular propaganda technique and read your favourite rag with a new perspective, it is amazing just how seriously biased the news reporting is in this country, it doesn't matter which paper you read, or what your political/philosophical views are, they're all at it.

I propose that newpapers should come with warnings just like cigarettes and alcohol.

The viewer/reader should be warned that the information contained within is little more than a particular camps favoured interpretation of events.

Tabloid press should be forced to mark their newspapers as nothing more than entertainment, as that is all they really are.

Why is this idea important?

First of all, this is not about restricting freedom of speech, which is something that I hold in the highest regard.

However, I propose that tabloid press/news media in general should be somehow forced to be more objective in the way they report current affairs.

I have abolutely no faith in any of the UK's news media because I see them as nothing more than vehicles to push certain opinions and agendas.

Do a little research on popular propaganda technique and read your favourite rag with a new perspective, it is amazing just how seriously biased the news reporting is in this country, it doesn't matter which paper you read, or what your political/philosophical views are, they're all at it.

I propose that newpapers should come with warnings just like cigarettes and alcohol.

The viewer/reader should be warned that the information contained within is little more than a particular camps favoured interpretation of events.

Tabloid press should be forced to mark their newspapers as nothing more than entertainment, as that is all they really are.

Abolish the Government

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

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

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

1. Mass immigration

2. Offshoring of jobs

3. Working hours

4. Tuition fees

5. Regressive taxation

6. Redistribution of wealth

7. Corporate monopolies

8. Corporate lobbying and 'access'

9. EU membership

10. War on drugs

11. War on smoking

12. War on terror

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera..

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

1. Mass immigration

2. Offshoring of jobs

3. Working hours

4. Tuition fees

5. Regressive taxation

6. Redistribution of wealth

7. Corporate monopolies

8. Corporate lobbying and 'access'

9. EU membership

10. War on drugs

11. War on smoking

12. War on terror

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera..

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

too much emphasis on autonomy prevents protection of the vulnerable

to re-write the Human Rights Act to allow concerned friends and family of vulnerable individuals to use common sense. Or educate institutions and organisations to interpet and apply the present Act correctly with regard to vulnerable individuals without having to wait for powers of attorney or guardianship to be in force- these take up to 18 months if the vulnerable individual has no insight that thay are being abused.

Why is this idea important?

to re-write the Human Rights Act to allow concerned friends and family of vulnerable individuals to use common sense. Or educate institutions and organisations to interpet and apply the present Act correctly with regard to vulnerable individuals without having to wait for powers of attorney or guardianship to be in force- these take up to 18 months if the vulnerable individual has no insight that thay are being abused.

human rights act should not be allowed for terrorism convicts

The Human Rights Act should be withdrawn from those who have been convicted of terrorism-related offences. If people are overtly and explicitly hostile to the welfare of this country, then why do we have to spend our taxes on giving them shelter, rather than returning them to their country of origin. If you are a terrorist, you should be incarcerated for your term with no access to claims for your continued stay in this country upon your release. Once released, you are gone from these shores and your claims of possible torture are another reflection on your own earlier behaviour and something for which it is your responsibility to face the consequences.

Why is this idea important?

The Human Rights Act should be withdrawn from those who have been convicted of terrorism-related offences. If people are overtly and explicitly hostile to the welfare of this country, then why do we have to spend our taxes on giving them shelter, rather than returning them to their country of origin. If you are a terrorist, you should be incarcerated for your term with no access to claims for your continued stay in this country upon your release. Once released, you are gone from these shores and your claims of possible torture are another reflection on your own earlier behaviour and something for which it is your responsibility to face the consequences.

civil contingencies act 2004

This terrifying law needs looking at urgently: it gives the prime ministert the power to dismantle the Rule of Law overnight: on his mere say-so that a national emergency is about to take place, they can declare martial law,  seize property, force evacuation, stop people travelling, special courts and arbitrary detention and arrest.

Why is this idea important?

This terrifying law needs looking at urgently: it gives the prime ministert the power to dismantle the Rule of Law overnight: on his mere say-so that a national emergency is about to take place, they can declare martial law,  seize property, force evacuation, stop people travelling, special courts and arbitrary detention and arrest.