Scrap Controls

We can't become a nation which imposes an unfair trial on who we suppose to be guilty. We used to pride ourselves on innocent until proven guilty. This involves applying dignity.

Why is this idea important?

We can't become a nation which imposes an unfair trial on who we suppose to be guilty. We used to pride ourselves on innocent until proven guilty. This involves applying dignity.

right to fair trial

Any policy however packgaed in terms of 'national security' which results in any individual or individuals not being brought into open court for any allegation against them without it being openly laid out and their being given the normal facilities of legal representation and defense, such a policy is inherently unjust.

Why is this idea important?

Any policy however packgaed in terms of 'national security' which results in any individual or individuals not being brought into open court for any allegation against them without it being openly laid out and their being given the normal facilities of legal representation and defense, such a policy is inherently unjust.

Abolish control orders

Current control orders are certainly a violation of human right, denying a fair trial to terrorism suspects. They do not favour good relations with the ethnic/religious groups suspects belong to, but exhacerbate current negative feelings against state and police.

Why is this idea important?

Current control orders are certainly a violation of human right, denying a fair trial to terrorism suspects. They do not favour good relations with the ethnic/religious groups suspects belong to, but exhacerbate current negative feelings against state and police.

Abolish Control orders

Control orders are fundamentally undemocratic because they impose what is essentially a punishment without a proper judicial process. and damage the human rights of us all.  The impact on the family is huge with the person subject to the control order finding it difficult to work because of the impact of curfews and reporting restrictions.  Families are restricted by, among other things, being unable to access computers and the internet: this has a particularly detrimental effect on the education of children in the family.  the whole family is stigmatised.  Control orders should be scrapped immediately. 

Why is this idea important?

Control orders are fundamentally undemocratic because they impose what is essentially a punishment without a proper judicial process. and damage the human rights of us all.  The impact on the family is huge with the person subject to the control order finding it difficult to work because of the impact of curfews and reporting restrictions.  Families are restricted by, among other things, being unable to access computers and the internet: this has a particularly detrimental effect on the education of children in the family.  the whole family is stigmatised.  Control orders should be scrapped immediately. 

Amend the HEALTH ACT 2006 in order to restore freedom from health inequalities (in respect of the smoking ban)

Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. The persons that I refer to are that class of people commonly referred to as non-smokers. These people  received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that non-smokers (or indeed, smokers) who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as  compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust ‘smoke’, or any similar circumstance.

Why is this idea important?

Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. The persons that I refer to are that class of people commonly referred to as non-smokers. These people  received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that non-smokers (or indeed, smokers) who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as  compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust ‘smoke’, or any similar circumstance.

Keep safety cameras

Press reports suggest that the government is to remove funding for most safety cameras.

If they do, the accident rate will soar immediately and public funds will forfeit a major source of revenue.

Please think again before removing this vital safeguard to our lives and environment.

Why is this idea important?

Press reports suggest that the government is to remove funding for most safety cameras.

If they do, the accident rate will soar immediately and public funds will forfeit a major source of revenue.

Please think again before removing this vital safeguard to our lives and environment.

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

 

This is long, so bear with me:

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

 

This is long, so bear with me:

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

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

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

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

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

Redefine our type of government.

Our government is called a democracy. The labour party proved and so far the Con/Lib have re-inforced the fact that we do not live in a democracy but a five year dictatorship. This website proves that if it is not on their agenda, then it is wiped off. Immigration, the smoking ban, capital punishement, foreign aid. Things that the people want and comment about are ignored or removed. The political ELITE have their own agenda which we the voting public will never be privy to. Is it the well paid job in Europe after parliament, a few well paid directorships after parliament, their place in history? Who knows the reasons behind their decisions, we never will. 

Why is this idea important?

Our government is called a democracy. The labour party proved and so far the Con/Lib have re-inforced the fact that we do not live in a democracy but a five year dictatorship. This website proves that if it is not on their agenda, then it is wiped off. Immigration, the smoking ban, capital punishement, foreign aid. Things that the people want and comment about are ignored or removed. The political ELITE have their own agenda which we the voting public will never be privy to. Is it the well paid job in Europe after parliament, a few well paid directorships after parliament, their place in history? Who knows the reasons behind their decisions, we never will. 

Repeal British Parliament sovereignty

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Freedom / Pope / don’t dig-away human rights law

There are few rights for world prosecutors to arrest UK visitors, such as Pinochet.

Howoever,  one in Spain did manage to arrest Pinochet here.

The supreme court or law lords did a very unusual thing in first allowing arrest, then reversing the decision on the grounds that one of the judges was active in amnesty international, like that's such a bad thing.

Love it or hate it, this judgement gave the impression to dictators round the world that if they want to evade arrest in the UK they may not lucky next time. This has saved us a lot of police protection bills and saved the taxpayers of dictators the cost of a lot of trips to Harrods. In the mind of a dictator, the self-deception that he is somehow doing a bad thing for a good reason or that he can so easily get away with it can no longer be backed-up by a shopping trip to London.

Imagine my surprise to read a watering-down of the compromise position. From now on, any attempt to arrest a Mr Ratzinger will be a private matter between himself, the government and a man called Mr Kier Starmer who is hired by the government to say he's independent.

That's no way to promote equality before the law.

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/3497/23/07/2010/government-plan-could-prevent-pope-benedict-arrest.aspx

I propose we restore powers of arrest on human rights charges – even if this is nothing to do with the Pope and his name should not be dragged into it – because these powers prevent dictators from coming here and asking for expensive police protection while they shop at Harrods.

Why is this idea important?

There are few rights for world prosecutors to arrest UK visitors, such as Pinochet.

Howoever,  one in Spain did manage to arrest Pinochet here.

The supreme court or law lords did a very unusual thing in first allowing arrest, then reversing the decision on the grounds that one of the judges was active in amnesty international, like that's such a bad thing.

Love it or hate it, this judgement gave the impression to dictators round the world that if they want to evade arrest in the UK they may not lucky next time. This has saved us a lot of police protection bills and saved the taxpayers of dictators the cost of a lot of trips to Harrods. In the mind of a dictator, the self-deception that he is somehow doing a bad thing for a good reason or that he can so easily get away with it can no longer be backed-up by a shopping trip to London.

Imagine my surprise to read a watering-down of the compromise position. From now on, any attempt to arrest a Mr Ratzinger will be a private matter between himself, the government and a man called Mr Kier Starmer who is hired by the government to say he's independent.

That's no way to promote equality before the law.

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/3497/23/07/2010/government-plan-could-prevent-pope-benedict-arrest.aspx

I propose we restore powers of arrest on human rights charges – even if this is nothing to do with the Pope and his name should not be dragged into it – because these powers prevent dictators from coming here and asking for expensive police protection while they shop at Harrods.

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

Individual responsibility

Repeal laws where the individuals right to choose legal options are frowned upon.

From the right to say whatever one wants, no thought police please, right down to the inspecting of luch boxes or questioning the right to cycle to school.

These restrictions are usually social policy and have no other role than to try to shame people into a bourgoise morality. Its busy body interference with no real social value.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal laws where the individuals right to choose legal options are frowned upon.

From the right to say whatever one wants, no thought police please, right down to the inspecting of luch boxes or questioning the right to cycle to school.

These restrictions are usually social policy and have no other role than to try to shame people into a bourgoise morality. Its busy body interference with no real social value.

Requirement for ID

Remove the need for Id as well as ID cards. Currently we are asked for proof of ID whenever we go near a bank, a apssport when applying for a job and (recently) when applying for evening classes. this ID culture is burgeoning and must be reversed.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the need for Id as well as ID cards. Currently we are asked for proof of ID whenever we go near a bank, a apssport when applying for a job and (recently) when applying for evening classes. this ID culture is burgeoning and must be reversed.

Why do we need a new version of the abolished blasphemy laws?

The Blasphemy Law was abolished in 2008, but has re-emerged in a new and radically
augmented guise. Today, individuals are not charged with blasphemy, but with causing
'religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress' under the Public Order Act. The growth in accusations of 'hate crime' threatens freedom of speech because they destroy the possibility and practice of open, sociable and critical discussion of religion. One of the great triumphs of liberalism has been to separate the discovery of factual truth from the assertion of religious doctrine. We do not need these ridiculous and backward laws in an advanced society, it is a step back to the dark ages.

Why is this idea important?

The Blasphemy Law was abolished in 2008, but has re-emerged in a new and radically
augmented guise. Today, individuals are not charged with blasphemy, but with causing
'religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress' under the Public Order Act. The growth in accusations of 'hate crime' threatens freedom of speech because they destroy the possibility and practice of open, sociable and critical discussion of religion. One of the great triumphs of liberalism has been to separate the discovery of factual truth from the assertion of religious doctrine. We do not need these ridiculous and backward laws in an advanced society, it is a step back to the dark ages.

UK citizens’ right to find a job: punishments for dodgy Agencies who recruit abroad first

Introduce a policing aspect (of advertising and interviewing etc) to Job Centre functions.  Protect the Human Rights of our own Nationals to find a job.  Send investigators abroad to find out who is luring people to come – for a fee – to UK .

Investigate and punish organisations, such as "employment agencies"  and gangmasters which are wielding unfair hold over the job market.  Fines imposed if correct advertising within the locality of the job in the UK and also nationally are not followed.

Agencies are allied to criminal gangmasters and pimps.  They have caused many illegal immigrants to enter the UK as cheap labour, which is against our traditional rules of "queueing" and fairness. Bring back moral principles and remove any rewards for cheating to the detriment of others.

It is lies that farmers cannot find local youths, housewives, pensioners and others to pick fruit and crops locally.  Farmers and food factories just don't bother  to advertise near themselves at all.  They go overseas to recruit immediately, bypassing this country always, because it is cheaper for them to do this and to exploit foreigners.  One rarely sees any jobs advertised in rural towns or their local papers – because such employers are too stingey even to bother to place ads.

Agencies have a stranglehold over all IT workers in London.  IT professionals are only able to find short term contracts. Few of these workers can find their own career or work directly for a company for longer periods of time, because the Agencies impose penalties upon companies who do not do what they require.  Thus the agencies are getting huge wads of cash from all that brain work of hundreds of graduates within our capital. If any of the IT workers are reasonably paid now, just think how much money Agencies are creaming off from the banks and other organisations their contracts are with.

The top owners and executives of such parasitical Agencies are the Big Business once worshipped by the Tony Blair Labour government.

It must be "down" to Agencies that Chief executives (eg of local Councils) are receiving such massively high salaries.  Have you read the smarmy adverts for such "top" posts?

"Employment" agencies use devious methods and are responsible for the fact that the youth of Britain, including most of its graduates, are left on the scapheap.

Many of the methods which agencies use are unfair, ageist, and prejudiced (interviewing and decision making methods).  Why are Agencies permitted to insert/intrude themselves between people,  and to make such life-important decisions about peoples' lives; rather than permitting the actual companies to talk and negotiate directly with candidates?

Workers on short-term Agency contracts do not belong to Trade Unions.

Agency methods may have permitted some of the best jobs to go to liars and criminals.  How else would somebody like Fred the Shred have got away with all that he did ..

 

Why is this idea important?

Introduce a policing aspect (of advertising and interviewing etc) to Job Centre functions.  Protect the Human Rights of our own Nationals to find a job.  Send investigators abroad to find out who is luring people to come – for a fee – to UK .

Investigate and punish organisations, such as "employment agencies"  and gangmasters which are wielding unfair hold over the job market.  Fines imposed if correct advertising within the locality of the job in the UK and also nationally are not followed.

Agencies are allied to criminal gangmasters and pimps.  They have caused many illegal immigrants to enter the UK as cheap labour, which is against our traditional rules of "queueing" and fairness. Bring back moral principles and remove any rewards for cheating to the detriment of others.

It is lies that farmers cannot find local youths, housewives, pensioners and others to pick fruit and crops locally.  Farmers and food factories just don't bother  to advertise near themselves at all.  They go overseas to recruit immediately, bypassing this country always, because it is cheaper for them to do this and to exploit foreigners.  One rarely sees any jobs advertised in rural towns or their local papers – because such employers are too stingey even to bother to place ads.

Agencies have a stranglehold over all IT workers in London.  IT professionals are only able to find short term contracts. Few of these workers can find their own career or work directly for a company for longer periods of time, because the Agencies impose penalties upon companies who do not do what they require.  Thus the agencies are getting huge wads of cash from all that brain work of hundreds of graduates within our capital. If any of the IT workers are reasonably paid now, just think how much money Agencies are creaming off from the banks and other organisations their contracts are with.

The top owners and executives of such parasitical Agencies are the Big Business once worshipped by the Tony Blair Labour government.

It must be "down" to Agencies that Chief executives (eg of local Councils) are receiving such massively high salaries.  Have you read the smarmy adverts for such "top" posts?

"Employment" agencies use devious methods and are responsible for the fact that the youth of Britain, including most of its graduates, are left on the scapheap.

Many of the methods which agencies use are unfair, ageist, and prejudiced (interviewing and decision making methods).  Why are Agencies permitted to insert/intrude themselves between people,  and to make such life-important decisions about peoples' lives; rather than permitting the actual companies to talk and negotiate directly with candidates?

Workers on short-term Agency contracts do not belong to Trade Unions.

Agency methods may have permitted some of the best jobs to go to liars and criminals.  How else would somebody like Fred the Shred have got away with all that he did ..

 

Curtailing racial abuse offences

Under the last  paranoid government, obsessed with controlling every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the citizen, and aided by the police (and the CPS) who see a soft target and are desperate not to seen as non-PC, prosecutions for 'racial abuse' have got completely out of hand. Any expression of dissent with Islam is condemned as racial abuse, while any abuse of other religions is ignored. Instead of protecting Muslims, this in fact serves to increase hostility towards them. I am sure you know of ludicrous prosecutions such as the B&B couple  who were reported by a recent Muslim convert for stating their opinion about Mohammed in reasonable terms. And the woman who, disturbed by yobs throughout the night, eventually cried out 'go back where you came from'. She was prosecuted; the yobs were not. Meanwhile Muslims parade with placards advocating our death and our pathetic police do nothing!

Another absurdity was the recent 'coconut' prosecution. The defendant was simply saying to another black woman: you are not being true to what we black people stand for. You are becoming like a white person'. That may well be insulting but it is not racially insulting – quite the reverse. The defendant was telling the complainant that she belonged to a fine and honourable tradition and that she should not betray it. Because neither the police nor the CPS nor the magistrates were capable of analytical thought this was found to be to be racial abuse. 

The law must be re-drafted so as to criminalise only deliberate abuse of a person's race or religion. It must be made clear that there needs to be an intent to insult. And the ridiculous definition of 'hate crime' must be repealed.

It is noteworthy that the paranoia and hysteria around these issues is found also outside the criminal law. For example, the JP who, offering another chance to a shoplifter, told him to make sure he did not go back to 'that Paki shop' practically lost her job. She had to go for 'diversity training' (this is horribly redolent of both 1984 and Maoist China!). Are we a lunatic society or what? The BBC reporter who used the word golliwog about a black person spoke out of turn, yes, , but — heavens – she did not deserve to lose her job. The Coalition thankfully seeks to bring common sense  to the unchartable mass of legislation with which the last government crippled society. Common sense disavows paranoia and hysteria.

It is like a breath of fresh air to hear the Prime Minister speaking of giving the citizen back the ability to plot his own course. Labour, principally Brown and Harman, sought to mini-manage all aspects of our life. They themselves, pathologically dysfunctional,  were so full of fear that they felt obliged to prescribe (and proscribe) for all the minutiae of our life, terrified that anyone might show any initiative of their own and so be somewhere other than under their control. They did not want citizens. They wanted slaves or robots.

Why is this idea important?

Under the last  paranoid government, obsessed with controlling every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the citizen, and aided by the police (and the CPS) who see a soft target and are desperate not to seen as non-PC, prosecutions for 'racial abuse' have got completely out of hand. Any expression of dissent with Islam is condemned as racial abuse, while any abuse of other religions is ignored. Instead of protecting Muslims, this in fact serves to increase hostility towards them. I am sure you know of ludicrous prosecutions such as the B&B couple  who were reported by a recent Muslim convert for stating their opinion about Mohammed in reasonable terms. And the woman who, disturbed by yobs throughout the night, eventually cried out 'go back where you came from'. She was prosecuted; the yobs were not. Meanwhile Muslims parade with placards advocating our death and our pathetic police do nothing!

Another absurdity was the recent 'coconut' prosecution. The defendant was simply saying to another black woman: you are not being true to what we black people stand for. You are becoming like a white person'. That may well be insulting but it is not racially insulting – quite the reverse. The defendant was telling the complainant that she belonged to a fine and honourable tradition and that she should not betray it. Because neither the police nor the CPS nor the magistrates were capable of analytical thought this was found to be to be racial abuse. 

The law must be re-drafted so as to criminalise only deliberate abuse of a person's race or religion. It must be made clear that there needs to be an intent to insult. And the ridiculous definition of 'hate crime' must be repealed.

It is noteworthy that the paranoia and hysteria around these issues is found also outside the criminal law. For example, the JP who, offering another chance to a shoplifter, told him to make sure he did not go back to 'that Paki shop' practically lost her job. She had to go for 'diversity training' (this is horribly redolent of both 1984 and Maoist China!). Are we a lunatic society or what? The BBC reporter who used the word golliwog about a black person spoke out of turn, yes, , but — heavens – she did not deserve to lose her job. The Coalition thankfully seeks to bring common sense  to the unchartable mass of legislation with which the last government crippled society. Common sense disavows paranoia and hysteria.

It is like a breath of fresh air to hear the Prime Minister speaking of giving the citizen back the ability to plot his own course. Labour, principally Brown and Harman, sought to mini-manage all aspects of our life. They themselves, pathologically dysfunctional,  were so full of fear that they felt obliged to prescribe (and proscribe) for all the minutiae of our life, terrified that anyone might show any initiative of their own and so be somewhere other than under their control. They did not want citizens. They wanted slaves or robots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPCC and CPS Clearly Not Fit For Purpose

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

Why is this idea important?

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

Enable Criticism of Religions and Cults

At the moment a Welsh councillor John Dixon is being hauled before a disciplinary hearing for tweeting that he thought Scientology was stupid.

Irrespective of the accuracy of his opinion (he happens he be right Scientology is Stupid) he, and everyone else, should be entitled to express an opinion honestly held and no self proclaimed religion or cult, or in the case of Scientology, marketing scam, should be able to prevent them or take action against them.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment a Welsh councillor John Dixon is being hauled before a disciplinary hearing for tweeting that he thought Scientology was stupid.

Irrespective of the accuracy of his opinion (he happens he be right Scientology is Stupid) he, and everyone else, should be entitled to express an opinion honestly held and no self proclaimed religion or cult, or in the case of Scientology, marketing scam, should be able to prevent them or take action against them.