cannabis apparently not up for discussion?

Here i was thinking that this site would actually make a difference when the home office have already said they plan to do nothing! part of there response to the civil liberties comments says "You also came up with other ideas for restoring our civil liberties. Some, such as householder protection, are part of our programme for government. Others, such as legalising drugs like cannabis and revoking the smoking ban are not." heres the link http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/pfg-responses/civil-liberties/

Why is this idea important?

Here i was thinking that this site would actually make a difference when the home office have already said they plan to do nothing! part of there response to the civil liberties comments says "You also came up with other ideas for restoring our civil liberties. Some, such as householder protection, are part of our programme for government. Others, such as legalising drugs like cannabis and revoking the smoking ban are not." heres the link http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/pfg-responses/civil-liberties/

Stop rich foreign investors from buying land in poor countries

" Which regulations do you think should be removed or changed to make
running your business or organisation as simple as possible? '

An article in the Financial Times, at ft.com and published 18 July
2010, states the following:

A farmland development group backed by Jacob Rothschild is hoping to
become the first Brazilian company to list on the Hong Kong stock
exchange, after attracting investments from some of the territory’s
largest tycoons.  ——- end of the first sentence of the FT article.

Rothschild is a prime example of a castle owner, that by accumulation
controls other people.
It is by legislation, that extreme wealth remains in the hands of the
few, benefited by poverty.

Lacking in the article, is Rothschild control and influence over
educational outlets and media.

Not surprising, a donation of a Supreme Court building, in Israel, is
a working monument to legislation. They believe that the best way to
control the opposition is by leading it. Agreed.

Why is this idea important?

" Which regulations do you think should be removed or changed to make
running your business or organisation as simple as possible? '

An article in the Financial Times, at ft.com and published 18 July
2010, states the following:

A farmland development group backed by Jacob Rothschild is hoping to
become the first Brazilian company to list on the Hong Kong stock
exchange, after attracting investments from some of the territory’s
largest tycoons.  ——- end of the first sentence of the FT article.

Rothschild is a prime example of a castle owner, that by accumulation
controls other people.
It is by legislation, that extreme wealth remains in the hands of the
few, benefited by poverty.

Lacking in the article, is Rothschild control and influence over
educational outlets and media.

Not surprising, a donation of a Supreme Court building, in Israel, is
a working monument to legislation. They believe that the best way to
control the opposition is by leading it. Agreed.

Why do we so wilfully cover up the failure of the war on drugs?

The vulnerable are left unprotected by our attitudes to substance abuse, argues a leading documentary maker

Asuccess rate of 1%. In what area of public life would we accept that? Last year, Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow, one of the most respected academics in Britain, established that the authorities seize just 1% of the heroin that enters Scotland in any one year. He sees no reason to think this would be any different for the nation as a whole.

Where were the headlines? Surely the press, obsessed by crime and drug-fuelled violence, would have it splashed across the front page. Not a peep. Why not?

If heroin gets in, we can only suppose cocaine and other drugs are smuggled in equally successfully. Gordon Meldrum, of the Scottish branch of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, tasked with coordinating our battle against drugs smuggling, shrugs: "1% or 10% – it is not good enough." He claims that a breakthrough in targeting top smugglers is around the corner, but when asked if there is any chance of achieving the 60-70% target the United Nations estimates would be required to change fundamentally the market in illegal drugs, he simply shakes his head.

I have been making a documentary series, Our Drugs War. They are not my first films on drugs. But even I was stunned by McKeganey's 1% figure – and the lack of response. I quoted it in interviews with senior police officers, drugs advisers and politicians; few expressed surprise, few felt that current policies were remotely adequate. Most questioned whether the Home Office was the best place to make drugs policy; surely it is an issue for health. But these public figures would only express their worries away from the camera.

I would ask why they were so concerned about opening up the debate. The response was almost comic in its predictability: "The Daily Mail." Anyone who steps out of line on policy gets shot down fast. Just ask Professor David Nutt, one of the world leaders on the effects of drugs on the brain and the now ex-chairman of the government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs. The home secretary summarily sacked him for stepping out of line.

Drugs policies have little to do with science, health risk or harm. They have been hijacked by the emotive rhetoric of moralists.

This fear of the Daily Mail is a dishonest excuse – the truth is that there is a collective lack of will to address one of our major social problems. We bury our heads and pretend that banning drugs equals regulation. Quite the reverse; driving drugs underground leaves them unregulated and consumers unprotected. Just what is in the drugs they buy, what dose is safe, what are the side effects? And not just "old" drugs such as cocaine. There's the astonishing market in synthetic drugs which has grown up largely since the banning of ecstasy – operating in grey areas of legality and fuelling weekend parties up and down the country.

As Nutt's replacement as government advisor, Les Iversen, has found, ban one and another appears. Last year mephedrone was the craze, got banned and has been replaced by naphyrone. Ban… ban… ban… As John Arthur, head of the Edinburgh drugs charity Crew, says: "It seems to make sense to ban, but it does not work. It makes things worse. It criminalises everything."

This summer the nation's kids are out on the round of music festivals where alcohol is sold more cheaply than water and tobacco companies can be sponsors. Yet to get their fix they will either end up breaking the law, buying dodgy stuff from dealers in toilets, or they will swallow many pills before the festival to avoid security checks.

The only way to control and channel this demand is to tell the truth. If a drug really kills, tell us. If it is really dangerous, tell us. But equally, be honest when it is not. Regulate supply via prescription or chemists.

Look at the impact of tobacco education. In my lifetime we have moved away from a society where we smoked in trains, planes and pubs. We have easily accepted that we cannot smoke in any of them. We have been persuaded that tobacco really kills. Yet those who choose to go on smoking are free to do so. Because they want to.

Why should other drugs be so different? Some poor souls will end up as addicts – that is inevitable. But it should be treated as an illness, not a crime. Addictions of all types are usually a product of self-medication to avoid facing the world and we should do everything to help.

Treatment is much, much cheaper than putting people through the justice system and maybe locking them up in prison – where they will come across more drugs, of course. In this age of cuts, huge savings could be made at every stage of the drugs story.

Then there is the wider context and cost – be it in Latin America, Mexico or now Afghanistan. I went to Kabul, where the west finances both sides of the conflict. On one side, soldiers die and our tax money is spent to uphold a government riddled with drug-related corruption. On the other, the huge profits from an illegal heroin trade supply over 60% of the Taliban's finance.

Drugs money in one form or another makes up almost half of Afghanistan's GDP. These vast sums are generated solely because heroin is illegal.

On the frontline our policy has been equally confused. Some years British troops in Afghanistan are ordered to eliminate poppy production; other years eradication is deemed counterproductive because it will alienate the farmers we need on our side.

General Stanley McChrystal, before he was replaced, was for leaving most farmers in peace, while the Kabul government, presumably operating on last year's plans, sent teams down to Helmand on a determined drive to eradicate.

The counter-narcotics minister in Kabul shrewdly observes that if we ever stop it here, heroin will simply be grown somewhere else – the profits are too attractive.

Regulating drugs sensibly is not a magic solution. I make no bones about the dangers of drugs, be they heroin or the industrial cleaner, GBL [gamma butyrolactone]. People will continue to die each year.

I do not wish to undervalue the real emotion of each family, but we have to start being brave enough to acknowledge the level of failure of present strategies. Drugs are not a problem of morality and crime but of health.

One per cent. As a New York congressman said to me: "The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and get the same results. It's true for the addict, it's true for the addicted society, it's true for our using a criminal justice model to solve a medical problem."

Angus Macqueen is a film-maker. His three-part Our Drugs War starts tomorrow at 8pm on Channel 4

Why is this idea important?

The vulnerable are left unprotected by our attitudes to substance abuse, argues a leading documentary maker

Asuccess rate of 1%. In what area of public life would we accept that? Last year, Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow, one of the most respected academics in Britain, established that the authorities seize just 1% of the heroin that enters Scotland in any one year. He sees no reason to think this would be any different for the nation as a whole.

Where were the headlines? Surely the press, obsessed by crime and drug-fuelled violence, would have it splashed across the front page. Not a peep. Why not?

If heroin gets in, we can only suppose cocaine and other drugs are smuggled in equally successfully. Gordon Meldrum, of the Scottish branch of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, tasked with coordinating our battle against drugs smuggling, shrugs: "1% or 10% – it is not good enough." He claims that a breakthrough in targeting top smugglers is around the corner, but when asked if there is any chance of achieving the 60-70% target the United Nations estimates would be required to change fundamentally the market in illegal drugs, he simply shakes his head.

I have been making a documentary series, Our Drugs War. They are not my first films on drugs. But even I was stunned by McKeganey's 1% figure – and the lack of response. I quoted it in interviews with senior police officers, drugs advisers and politicians; few expressed surprise, few felt that current policies were remotely adequate. Most questioned whether the Home Office was the best place to make drugs policy; surely it is an issue for health. But these public figures would only express their worries away from the camera.

I would ask why they were so concerned about opening up the debate. The response was almost comic in its predictability: "The Daily Mail." Anyone who steps out of line on policy gets shot down fast. Just ask Professor David Nutt, one of the world leaders on the effects of drugs on the brain and the now ex-chairman of the government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs. The home secretary summarily sacked him for stepping out of line.

Drugs policies have little to do with science, health risk or harm. They have been hijacked by the emotive rhetoric of moralists.

This fear of the Daily Mail is a dishonest excuse – the truth is that there is a collective lack of will to address one of our major social problems. We bury our heads and pretend that banning drugs equals regulation. Quite the reverse; driving drugs underground leaves them unregulated and consumers unprotected. Just what is in the drugs they buy, what dose is safe, what are the side effects? And not just "old" drugs such as cocaine. There's the astonishing market in synthetic drugs which has grown up largely since the banning of ecstasy – operating in grey areas of legality and fuelling weekend parties up and down the country.

As Nutt's replacement as government advisor, Les Iversen, has found, ban one and another appears. Last year mephedrone was the craze, got banned and has been replaced by naphyrone. Ban… ban… ban… As John Arthur, head of the Edinburgh drugs charity Crew, says: "It seems to make sense to ban, but it does not work. It makes things worse. It criminalises everything."

This summer the nation's kids are out on the round of music festivals where alcohol is sold more cheaply than water and tobacco companies can be sponsors. Yet to get their fix they will either end up breaking the law, buying dodgy stuff from dealers in toilets, or they will swallow many pills before the festival to avoid security checks.

The only way to control and channel this demand is to tell the truth. If a drug really kills, tell us. If it is really dangerous, tell us. But equally, be honest when it is not. Regulate supply via prescription or chemists.

Look at the impact of tobacco education. In my lifetime we have moved away from a society where we smoked in trains, planes and pubs. We have easily accepted that we cannot smoke in any of them. We have been persuaded that tobacco really kills. Yet those who choose to go on smoking are free to do so. Because they want to.

Why should other drugs be so different? Some poor souls will end up as addicts – that is inevitable. But it should be treated as an illness, not a crime. Addictions of all types are usually a product of self-medication to avoid facing the world and we should do everything to help.

Treatment is much, much cheaper than putting people through the justice system and maybe locking them up in prison – where they will come across more drugs, of course. In this age of cuts, huge savings could be made at every stage of the drugs story.

Then there is the wider context and cost – be it in Latin America, Mexico or now Afghanistan. I went to Kabul, where the west finances both sides of the conflict. On one side, soldiers die and our tax money is spent to uphold a government riddled with drug-related corruption. On the other, the huge profits from an illegal heroin trade supply over 60% of the Taliban's finance.

Drugs money in one form or another makes up almost half of Afghanistan's GDP. These vast sums are generated solely because heroin is illegal.

On the frontline our policy has been equally confused. Some years British troops in Afghanistan are ordered to eliminate poppy production; other years eradication is deemed counterproductive because it will alienate the farmers we need on our side.

General Stanley McChrystal, before he was replaced, was for leaving most farmers in peace, while the Kabul government, presumably operating on last year's plans, sent teams down to Helmand on a determined drive to eradicate.

The counter-narcotics minister in Kabul shrewdly observes that if we ever stop it here, heroin will simply be grown somewhere else – the profits are too attractive.

Regulating drugs sensibly is not a magic solution. I make no bones about the dangers of drugs, be they heroin or the industrial cleaner, GBL [gamma butyrolactone]. People will continue to die each year.

I do not wish to undervalue the real emotion of each family, but we have to start being brave enough to acknowledge the level of failure of present strategies. Drugs are not a problem of morality and crime but of health.

One per cent. As a New York congressman said to me: "The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and get the same results. It's true for the addict, it's true for the addicted society, it's true for our using a criminal justice model to solve a medical problem."

Angus Macqueen is a film-maker. His three-part Our Drugs War starts tomorrow at 8pm on Channel 4

re: smoking in public houses

Public Houses should be allowed to have a smoking room or there should be the freedom of each publican to decide if they want smoking in their pub. If they don't that is fair enough but then we have the choice in which Pub we go to.I was a Publican myself for more than twenty years and i think it is wicked to see what is happening to Pubs now, more and more are closing every week. It is surely up to each individual to have the choice of whether they smoke or not and we should not be dictated to by Government. All of us that smoke know the risk to our health but that is our choice to make and not the Governments.

Why is this idea important?

Public Houses should be allowed to have a smoking room or there should be the freedom of each publican to decide if they want smoking in their pub. If they don't that is fair enough but then we have the choice in which Pub we go to.I was a Publican myself for more than twenty years and i think it is wicked to see what is happening to Pubs now, more and more are closing every week. It is surely up to each individual to have the choice of whether they smoke or not and we should not be dictated to by Government. All of us that smoke know the risk to our health but that is our choice to make and not the Governments.

Anti terrorism laws used by snooping councils

The use of anti terrorism laws by local councils to snoop on citizens with regard to such trivial matters as supposed contraventions of waste regulations should be prevented immediately. This law was never intended for this purpose and has been totally abused by money- grabbing councils trying to control trivial misdemeanours ( in their eyes ) often resulting in financial penalties far beyond their importance and considerably greater than penalties imposed for more serios, and real crimes. Councils have gone far beyond their areas of influence and should be ashamed of their actions.

Why is this idea important?

The use of anti terrorism laws by local councils to snoop on citizens with regard to such trivial matters as supposed contraventions of waste regulations should be prevented immediately. This law was never intended for this purpose and has been totally abused by money- grabbing councils trying to control trivial misdemeanours ( in their eyes ) often resulting in financial penalties far beyond their importance and considerably greater than penalties imposed for more serios, and real crimes. Councils have gone far beyond their areas of influence and should be ashamed of their actions.

Family courts and adoptions

The current situation where families can be destroyed by overzealous social workers, using the flimsiest evidence to remove children from loving and caring parents is a total abomination. This is made worse by the fact that there is no requirement for publicity and thus no opportumity for normal appeal processes. The current system cannot be tolerated by a caring and humane society, and would not even be tolerated in many countries considered to be less advanced than ours

Why is this idea important?

The current situation where families can be destroyed by overzealous social workers, using the flimsiest evidence to remove children from loving and caring parents is a total abomination. This is made worse by the fact that there is no requirement for publicity and thus no opportumity for normal appeal processes. The current system cannot be tolerated by a caring and humane society, and would not even be tolerated in many countries considered to be less advanced than ours

Extradition treaties

Extradition treaty to USA and elsewhere – this treaty HAS to be re-thought as currently we kow tow to foreign governments     who have no idea of what true justice means – we should be ashamed that we extradite our citizens to regimes, including USA where justice is not dispensed in an acceptable manner – the previous government should have been totally ashamed of its betrayal of the people of this country

Why is this idea important?

Extradition treaty to USA and elsewhere – this treaty HAS to be re-thought as currently we kow tow to foreign governments     who have no idea of what true justice means – we should be ashamed that we extradite our citizens to regimes, including USA where justice is not dispensed in an acceptable manner – the previous government should have been totally ashamed of its betrayal of the people of this country

Restore real laws. Abolish all Criminal Courts de-facto,statutes, acts.

Restore the Common law to the land mass of Great Britain and it's citizens.

There is need only for three laws.

1) Do no harm to other humans.

2) Do not damage the property of other humans.

3) Honour all your contracts.

All law applying to citizens should be Civil law in Civil Courts Courts Du-jour.

Judges should be Umpires/ arbiters of civil Courts, where the offender is faced by the offended before a jury of their peers where the offence is tested for it's veracity or otherwise on the evidence presented by both parties and a constabulary of peace officers.

Discussions of reparations are presented dependent on the decision of the jury. The reparations being enforceable by a constabulary who honour their oaths to keep the peoples peace and act to establish evidence and facts in any particular case.

Only corporations can be criminal in their behaviour or can possibly be criminal.

Why is this idea important?

Restore the Common law to the land mass of Great Britain and it's citizens.

There is need only for three laws.

1) Do no harm to other humans.

2) Do not damage the property of other humans.

3) Honour all your contracts.

All law applying to citizens should be Civil law in Civil Courts Courts Du-jour.

Judges should be Umpires/ arbiters of civil Courts, where the offender is faced by the offended before a jury of their peers where the offence is tested for it's veracity or otherwise on the evidence presented by both parties and a constabulary of peace officers.

Discussions of reparations are presented dependent on the decision of the jury. The reparations being enforceable by a constabulary who honour their oaths to keep the peoples peace and act to establish evidence and facts in any particular case.

Only corporations can be criminal in their behaviour or can possibly be criminal.

MSG To The Government – RE: The Public Are Aware That You Have Been Purposely Deceiving Us For 70 Years!

Dear Public Servants, the Government of The United Kingdom,

I write to inform you that we, the public of Great Britain, are growing ever more aware of the fact that successive governments have been purposely deceiving us regarding the prohibition of cannabis for approximately 70 years.

We are aware of the racist, unethical, immoral, unjust, unlawful and wholly discriminate propaganda that revolves around the entire issue of the state's attempt to hood-wink society. Almost every conceivable prejudice has been thrown at the issue, no matter how absurd, in an attempt for the state to protect the lie. Such illogical maintenance of the lie continues to this day and we, your electorate, are fully aware of your futile attempts to keep your necks above the waters of public knowledge. It is a dangerous situation to have the electorate over-take it's government in this manner.

The Internet is alive with overwhelming evidence to counter each and every one of the state's unsubstantiated claims against cannabis. Such evidence has also been provided by your electorate here on this website and under this topic. The "free" citizen is easily able to research evidence that will acknowledge that, indeed, they are trusting an untrustworthy government.

We, the people and your electorate, demand that you immediately cease lying to us and begin a process of reconciliation with your electorate so that we may once again be able to trust the people that we elect. We demand an apology and an admission of complicity in the corrupt deceit of society. We also demand an immediate repeal of cannabis prohibition and it's full legalisation.

An open lie cannot be upheld! The State has been found out! WE KNOW!!! Continuation of such deceit of the public in the face of overwhelming and publicly accessible evidence to the contrary will simply result in an ever diminishing respect, confidence and trust of the state by the electorate. The lie simply cannot be maintained.

Yours sincerely,

Rationalist.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Public Servants, the Government of The United Kingdom,

I write to inform you that we, the public of Great Britain, are growing ever more aware of the fact that successive governments have been purposely deceiving us regarding the prohibition of cannabis for approximately 70 years.

We are aware of the racist, unethical, immoral, unjust, unlawful and wholly discriminate propaganda that revolves around the entire issue of the state's attempt to hood-wink society. Almost every conceivable prejudice has been thrown at the issue, no matter how absurd, in an attempt for the state to protect the lie. Such illogical maintenance of the lie continues to this day and we, your electorate, are fully aware of your futile attempts to keep your necks above the waters of public knowledge. It is a dangerous situation to have the electorate over-take it's government in this manner.

The Internet is alive with overwhelming evidence to counter each and every one of the state's unsubstantiated claims against cannabis. Such evidence has also been provided by your electorate here on this website and under this topic. The "free" citizen is easily able to research evidence that will acknowledge that, indeed, they are trusting an untrustworthy government.

We, the people and your electorate, demand that you immediately cease lying to us and begin a process of reconciliation with your electorate so that we may once again be able to trust the people that we elect. We demand an apology and an admission of complicity in the corrupt deceit of society. We also demand an immediate repeal of cannabis prohibition and it's full legalisation.

An open lie cannot be upheld! The State has been found out! WE KNOW!!! Continuation of such deceit of the public in the face of overwhelming and publicly accessible evidence to the contrary will simply result in an ever diminishing respect, confidence and trust of the state by the electorate. The lie simply cannot be maintained.

Yours sincerely,

Rationalist.

Decriminalize being naked in public

Laws specifically criminalizing being naked or undressed in public should be abolished. The Public Order Act of 1986 is sufficient in regards to preventing inappropriate naked behavior.

 

Why is this idea important?

Laws specifically criminalizing being naked or undressed in public should be abolished. The Public Order Act of 1986 is sufficient in regards to preventing inappropriate naked behavior.

 

Abolish trial by jury

Trial by jury should be abolished because it is very wasteful. I was called on jury service and spent, like many others, the whole of the first week waiting to be called. Finally I was called on the second or third day of the following week. For those who earn their living by selling their time, the days of sitting idle waiting to be called for a few days of actual jury service is unfair.

To the argument that it produces fairer results, I doubt it based on my experience. We could not decide on a verdict despite spending a day deliberating while the judge, the court officials, the solicitors, etc waited idly for our verdict. The verdict could have gone either way depending on the composition of the jurors. The judge, without a jury, would probably have reached just as fair a verdict at hugely less cost.

Why is this idea important?

Trial by jury should be abolished because it is very wasteful. I was called on jury service and spent, like many others, the whole of the first week waiting to be called. Finally I was called on the second or third day of the following week. For those who earn their living by selling their time, the days of sitting idle waiting to be called for a few days of actual jury service is unfair.

To the argument that it produces fairer results, I doubt it based on my experience. We could not decide on a verdict despite spending a day deliberating while the judge, the court officials, the solicitors, etc waited idly for our verdict. The verdict could have gone either way depending on the composition of the jurors. The judge, without a jury, would probably have reached just as fair a verdict at hugely less cost.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

When it comes to the publishing of any comments or articles in the national newspapers about Gordon Brown & the Labour party, or indeed shameful public figures such as Tony Hayward, all restrictions on foul language & insults should be lifted.

Why is this idea important?

When it comes to the publishing of any comments or articles in the national newspapers about Gordon Brown & the Labour party, or indeed shameful public figures such as Tony Hayward, all restrictions on foul language & insults should be lifted.

Repeal hand gun laws

 

Repeal the hand-gun laws

 

It is my civil rite to protect my property, protect my family, and myself.

 If this means some one gets killed every now and then that is too bad!

 I am frail and no mach for a thug let alone some teenager.

 

The facts:

There was a lower hand gun crime when it was legal.

States in the USA that have lax gun laws have the lowest gun, and general crime.

I have been in the uk ten years I have been assaulted twice and had my house robed once!! There is no time for police action in that time and as for CCTV it’s at total waste of money.

 

Back my bid to re-allow law abiding people the power to protect themselves.

Why is this idea important?

 

Repeal the hand-gun laws

 

It is my civil rite to protect my property, protect my family, and myself.

 If this means some one gets killed every now and then that is too bad!

 I am frail and no mach for a thug let alone some teenager.

 

The facts:

There was a lower hand gun crime when it was legal.

States in the USA that have lax gun laws have the lowest gun, and general crime.

I have been in the uk ten years I have been assaulted twice and had my house robed once!! There is no time for police action in that time and as for CCTV it’s at total waste of money.

 

Back my bid to re-allow law abiding people the power to protect themselves.

End control orders; reform detention without charge.

As the incipient Coalition will be aware, the UK currently – through the 'Control Orders' legislation – allows among the longest detention times without charge of a suspect in the democratic world. Given the UK's pre-eminent position as a country with a cherished and developed conception of personal liberty and criminal justice, it seems strange that our response to terrorism is so unproportional to our international counterparts.

Furthermore, given our justified pride in our police and intelligence services, it seems paradoxical to lavish praise on our services whilst simultaneously sacrificing personal liberties in order to allow them excessive time to do the same job done in much shorter periods in other countries. 

Such profligacy with the liberty of suspects encourages complacency and acceptance that an entire month is a reasonable amount of time. When we consider that terror  suspects are of the highest priority with ample resources spent on their investigation we begin to appreciate how unneccesary this time should be,

My idea is to scrap Control Orders – in particular the excessive detention without charge – and replace them with more proportionate and libertarian measures. The challenge is to balance public safety with stringent measures; you were elected to find difficult solutions.

Why is this idea important?

As the incipient Coalition will be aware, the UK currently – through the 'Control Orders' legislation – allows among the longest detention times without charge of a suspect in the democratic world. Given the UK's pre-eminent position as a country with a cherished and developed conception of personal liberty and criminal justice, it seems strange that our response to terrorism is so unproportional to our international counterparts.

Furthermore, given our justified pride in our police and intelligence services, it seems paradoxical to lavish praise on our services whilst simultaneously sacrificing personal liberties in order to allow them excessive time to do the same job done in much shorter periods in other countries. 

Such profligacy with the liberty of suspects encourages complacency and acceptance that an entire month is a reasonable amount of time. When we consider that terror  suspects are of the highest priority with ample resources spent on their investigation we begin to appreciate how unneccesary this time should be,

My idea is to scrap Control Orders – in particular the excessive detention without charge – and replace them with more proportionate and libertarian measures. The challenge is to balance public safety with stringent measures; you were elected to find difficult solutions.

Restrict vehicle tracking to emergencies only

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is used by all varieties of organisations to track us, so that we are never truly free to go about our business without being monitored by the state.  It's a great opportunity to free us from surveillance by denying access to ANPR for all except genuine anti-terrorist activity and genuine police emergencies.

Why is this idea important?

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is used by all varieties of organisations to track us, so that we are never truly free to go about our business without being monitored by the state.  It's a great opportunity to free us from surveillance by denying access to ANPR for all except genuine anti-terrorist activity and genuine police emergencies.

above the law

At the present time in the UK particularly so in urban communities there is and has been for many years a police presence on the roads and in the skies.But very little response to local crime or concerns of local people.Because theres police cars speeding through all our roads constantly with sirens and speed limits completely oblivious to local  speed limits or time of day or night.The majority of residents obviously assume that theres therefore  lots of crime.The police helicopters with their loud noise and beams are constatly swooping into our communities.Police will only respond to actual emergencies and not to noisy youth or neighbours etc etc.So it is that we rarely see a police officer though we do see them whizzing through our roads with sirens on full and speeding in areas of speed limits.The police are no longer in touch with local people and are more concerned getting through traffic from A to B.We need a new relationship with the police as custodians of law and order not as loud traffic wardens.

Why is this idea important?

At the present time in the UK particularly so in urban communities there is and has been for many years a police presence on the roads and in the skies.But very little response to local crime or concerns of local people.Because theres police cars speeding through all our roads constantly with sirens and speed limits completely oblivious to local  speed limits or time of day or night.The majority of residents obviously assume that theres therefore  lots of crime.The police helicopters with their loud noise and beams are constatly swooping into our communities.Police will only respond to actual emergencies and not to noisy youth or neighbours etc etc.So it is that we rarely see a police officer though we do see them whizzing through our roads with sirens on full and speeding in areas of speed limits.The police are no longer in touch with local people and are more concerned getting through traffic from A to B.We need a new relationship with the police as custodians of law and order not as loud traffic wardens.

Apply time limits and judicial oversight to immigration detainees

 

At present the decision to detain someone is made by an immigration officer without any judicial oversight. There is no time limit on immigration detention, and detainees have great difficulty getting legal representation to apply for bail. Thus their access to a legal challenge to the deprivation of liberty is severely restricted. While the UK Border Agency(UKBA) claim that no-one is detained for ‘longer than is necessary’, there is no legal limit on detention.  Figures from the Home Office in February 2010 showed that 255 people had been held in immigration detention for more than a year in 2009 – and 45 for more than two years. In reality, since UKBA keeps no figures on cumulative detention, more people have been detained for longer than the figures suggest.  The Home Office has the power to detain someone either to examine their asylum claim if they deem that claim to be straightforward, or if they believe the person will abscond, or that their removal from the UK is imminent.In practice, for many detainees there are barriers to their removal, such as lack of documentation, or the destination country being unsafe, which means that hundreds of people are held for long periods without prospect of release.  There are just over 2500 detention spaces.

The mental toll of indefinite detention is manifested in many ways, not least in the amount of self-harming incidents among those held. In 2009, 215 people needed medical treatment for self-inflicted injuries, a rise of 20 per cent on 2008, according to Home Office statistics.

The First Tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (currently operated separately from HM Court Services) often require a lower burden of proof from the Home Office than from the applicant. If the HO claims that a person will abscond no evidence is required. Immigration detainees have great difficulty securing release from detention through the courts.  Just 18% of applications for bail are successful.  Although under the law there is a presumption in favour of liberty, in practice many immigration judges put the emphasis on the detainee to prove why he or she should be released from detention, rather than placing the burden of proof on the Home Office to provide evidence as to why the deprivation of liberty is deemed necessary.

There are no written records of bail hearings.  Only the judge’s decision is recorded so it is impossible to provide evidence of errors or of the basis on which decision are made for future challenges. 

Why is this idea important?

 

At present the decision to detain someone is made by an immigration officer without any judicial oversight. There is no time limit on immigration detention, and detainees have great difficulty getting legal representation to apply for bail. Thus their access to a legal challenge to the deprivation of liberty is severely restricted. While the UK Border Agency(UKBA) claim that no-one is detained for ‘longer than is necessary’, there is no legal limit on detention.  Figures from the Home Office in February 2010 showed that 255 people had been held in immigration detention for more than a year in 2009 – and 45 for more than two years. In reality, since UKBA keeps no figures on cumulative detention, more people have been detained for longer than the figures suggest.  The Home Office has the power to detain someone either to examine their asylum claim if they deem that claim to be straightforward, or if they believe the person will abscond, or that their removal from the UK is imminent.In practice, for many detainees there are barriers to their removal, such as lack of documentation, or the destination country being unsafe, which means that hundreds of people are held for long periods without prospect of release.  There are just over 2500 detention spaces.

The mental toll of indefinite detention is manifested in many ways, not least in the amount of self-harming incidents among those held. In 2009, 215 people needed medical treatment for self-inflicted injuries, a rise of 20 per cent on 2008, according to Home Office statistics.

The First Tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (currently operated separately from HM Court Services) often require a lower burden of proof from the Home Office than from the applicant. If the HO claims that a person will abscond no evidence is required. Immigration detainees have great difficulty securing release from detention through the courts.  Just 18% of applications for bail are successful.  Although under the law there is a presumption in favour of liberty, in practice many immigration judges put the emphasis on the detainee to prove why he or she should be released from detention, rather than placing the burden of proof on the Home Office to provide evidence as to why the deprivation of liberty is deemed necessary.

There are no written records of bail hearings.  Only the judge’s decision is recorded so it is impossible to provide evidence of errors or of the basis on which decision are made for future challenges. 

Stop & search with no suspicion

This sort of thing proved useless in the past through inappropriate and over the top use against ethnic minorities.  It caused massive ill feeling between those people and the police which has never been resolved.  There must be an appropriate reason for it and it must be done in a respectful professional way.

 

Why is this idea important?

This sort of thing proved useless in the past through inappropriate and over the top use against ethnic minorities.  It caused massive ill feeling between those people and the police which has never been resolved.  There must be an appropriate reason for it and it must be done in a respectful professional way.

 

Repeal the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

The right to join a trade union, and the right to strike, are as fundamental as free speech. If you don't have them, you're not an employee but a serf, and a society that outlaws strikes isn't free.  Where individual bargaining power is weak – perhaps because the employer is a quasi-monopoly purchaser of an employee's particular skill, collective bargaining power is all that employees have.

Yet the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes strikes, in effect, illegal.

Why is this idea important?

The right to join a trade union, and the right to strike, are as fundamental as free speech. If you don't have them, you're not an employee but a serf, and a society that outlaws strikes isn't free.  Where individual bargaining power is weak – perhaps because the employer is a quasi-monopoly purchaser of an employee's particular skill, collective bargaining power is all that employees have.

Yet the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes strikes, in effect, illegal.

New Social Liberties By the Coalition Government

The proposal by the coalition government is surely a step in the right direction, though it needs I feel to be watch, as words do not always become actions and policies.

Somehow I am rather concerned about the idea of having 'British Liberties' and not following the Human Right Act, I do not think that we can actually just allow the UK to fade away from the HRA.

This would be very dangerous and also a very big contradiction with the coalition government's proposal to re-intruduce fairer civil liberties, stop ID cards and all other proposals and promises they have made to us.

Moody56

Why is this idea important?

The proposal by the coalition government is surely a step in the right direction, though it needs I feel to be watch, as words do not always become actions and policies.

Somehow I am rather concerned about the idea of having 'British Liberties' and not following the Human Right Act, I do not think that we can actually just allow the UK to fade away from the HRA.

This would be very dangerous and also a very big contradiction with the coalition government's proposal to re-intruduce fairer civil liberties, stop ID cards and all other proposals and promises they have made to us.

Moody56

A fair trial is a fundamental right

If evidence exists then the person should have a trial.  Even Winston Churchill was keen to end any detention without trial very soon after WW2. 

Trial before a jury is a fundamental right in the UK.  

Why is this idea important?

If evidence exists then the person should have a trial.  Even Winston Churchill was keen to end any detention without trial very soon after WW2. 

Trial before a jury is a fundamental right in the UK.  

Here’s my list of laws to repeal or modify

 

Dear Mr Clegg

The previous government was careless of our ancient freedoms and rights. It was probably the most authoritarian government since Pitt’s administration of the 1790s. Freedom of speech, assembly and thought have been violated by legislation brought in by the Blair/Brown governments. The police have used measures designed to curb terrorist acts in normal police work. The state prosecutor has shown an unwelcome, but wholly predictable, appetite for non-jury trials. Surveillance has become the default behaviour of the State be it through the proliferation of CCTV, wire taps and interception of communication. There is no effective oversight of these activities. Like much (that is admirable) in the British state it depends on goodwill, adherence to convention and the exercise of conscience to ensure no abuse. Sadly for our country the previous government was almost wholly negligent of those characteristics, and I say that as someone who voted for Blair. The result is a break in trust with the people that I hope is not irreparable.

Simon H

Why is this idea important?

 

Dear Mr Clegg

The previous government was careless of our ancient freedoms and rights. It was probably the most authoritarian government since Pitt’s administration of the 1790s. Freedom of speech, assembly and thought have been violated by legislation brought in by the Blair/Brown governments. The police have used measures designed to curb terrorist acts in normal police work. The state prosecutor has shown an unwelcome, but wholly predictable, appetite for non-jury trials. Surveillance has become the default behaviour of the State be it through the proliferation of CCTV, wire taps and interception of communication. There is no effective oversight of these activities. Like much (that is admirable) in the British state it depends on goodwill, adherence to convention and the exercise of conscience to ensure no abuse. Sadly for our country the previous government was almost wholly negligent of those characteristics, and I say that as someone who voted for Blair. The result is a break in trust with the people that I hope is not irreparable.

Simon H

Energy companies must pay YOU interest if they hold your money.

Energy companies hold billions of pounds of money of our money.  They are earning profit interest on these holdings.

In the same way that companies can charge interest on outstanding invoices, energy companies should be forced to pay interest on balances on energy accounts (I suggest 5% above BoE base rate)..

Why is this idea important?

Energy companies hold billions of pounds of money of our money.  They are earning profit interest on these holdings.

In the same way that companies can charge interest on outstanding invoices, energy companies should be forced to pay interest on balances on energy accounts (I suggest 5% above BoE base rate)..