Return the Police to a ‘force’ not a ‘service’

 

The only way to stop criminals is to stop giving them leeway and to actually DO something (harsher punishments, more power to police) productive.

The change in the name of the "Police Force" to "Police Service" ten or so years ago ironically reflects the 'usefulness' of the Police. The Police need to be a force, they are there to uphold the law, which, in some cases, requires force.

Why is this idea important?

 

The only way to stop criminals is to stop giving them leeway and to actually DO something (harsher punishments, more power to police) productive.

The change in the name of the "Police Force" to "Police Service" ten or so years ago ironically reflects the 'usefulness' of the Police. The Police need to be a force, they are there to uphold the law, which, in some cases, requires force.

End the Police State

Police can (and do) arrest law-abiding citizens knowing they are innocent and then put them on databases as 'court convictions'. In theory the innocent can apply to have their Samples deleted. In practice it is next to impossible. a) A malcious complaint is made b) The police arrest 'to preserve the evidence c)  The allegation is disproved d) The police NFA leaving samples on the databases and inaccurate input based on the complaint e) Details of the complaint are refused citing the Data Protection Act and the malicious complainant is not pursued f) if the Accused manages (despite Westcott b Westcott) to prove that arrest was not necessary ('exceptional case') samples might be removed. Compenation: peanuts. Cost to innocent: tens of thousands. Career and earnings limitations: enhanced CRB checks = a whole industry with some 300,000+ in annually Essex alone. Police should be made to examine the evidence before arrest wherever possible and allow the 'suspect' to disprove the allegation BEFORE being put on the databases.

Why is this idea important?

Police can (and do) arrest law-abiding citizens knowing they are innocent and then put them on databases as 'court convictions'. In theory the innocent can apply to have their Samples deleted. In practice it is next to impossible. a) A malcious complaint is made b) The police arrest 'to preserve the evidence c)  The allegation is disproved d) The police NFA leaving samples on the databases and inaccurate input based on the complaint e) Details of the complaint are refused citing the Data Protection Act and the malicious complainant is not pursued f) if the Accused manages (despite Westcott b Westcott) to prove that arrest was not necessary ('exceptional case') samples might be removed. Compenation: peanuts. Cost to innocent: tens of thousands. Career and earnings limitations: enhanced CRB checks = a whole industry with some 300,000+ in annually Essex alone. Police should be made to examine the evidence before arrest wherever possible and allow the 'suspect' to disprove the allegation BEFORE being put on the databases.

Any Uniform officer disguising their identity while on duty should be prosecuted.

Police, or any other uniformed officer should always have an easy and obvious means of identification so members of the public can provide feedback about them to any relevant authorities. Any officer who tries to disguise his identity should be removed from duty immediately.

Why is this idea important?

Police, or any other uniformed officer should always have an easy and obvious means of identification so members of the public can provide feedback about them to any relevant authorities. Any officer who tries to disguise his identity should be removed from duty immediately.

Unjust police rules.

Can i first state that i  was in trouble with the police when i was young until the age of 20years . I have not committed any crimes of dishonesty for 36 years i have not been in trouble for 26 years. All my crimes were for theft in all 12 offences 7 offences were committed under the age of           18 years, the most i received was a sentence of 6 month's in prison. Why then is my criminal record still there when i have a CRB Check done for employers to see after all these years ago, don't you thing this could be used as a block for my employment chances. I do understand that some crimes are never spent for reasons of the serious implications.

Why is this idea important?

Can i first state that i  was in trouble with the police when i was young until the age of 20years . I have not committed any crimes of dishonesty for 36 years i have not been in trouble for 26 years. All my crimes were for theft in all 12 offences 7 offences were committed under the age of           18 years, the most i received was a sentence of 6 month's in prison. Why then is my criminal record still there when i have a CRB Check done for employers to see after all these years ago, don't you thing this could be used as a block for my employment chances. I do understand that some crimes are never spent for reasons of the serious implications.

Control the growing tide of SURVEILLANCE in the UK.

Highly controlled surveillance (e-communication, cameras etc) is rightly an important part of crime fighting and is vital to protect our society from people who wish us harm.

However, it needs to be strictly controlled and we need to stop the "purpose creep" where monitoring techniques designed to control one threat are, after commissioning, used to monitor behaviour they were never intended for.

To start with, we need strict legislation that says precisely how data can be used from different devices. Uses which aren't approved should be prevented by physical design of the devices and / or networks or, if this can't be guaranteed, the devices should not be installed. 

There are way too many security cameras (to name only one method of surveillance)  'collecting data' the use of which is too loosely regulated. This is a silent tumour eating away at our democratic rights and providing the basis for the flourishing of evil. Sounds alarmist but repression isn't new in the world and it always has to start somewhere.

Why is this idea important?

Highly controlled surveillance (e-communication, cameras etc) is rightly an important part of crime fighting and is vital to protect our society from people who wish us harm.

However, it needs to be strictly controlled and we need to stop the "purpose creep" where monitoring techniques designed to control one threat are, after commissioning, used to monitor behaviour they were never intended for.

To start with, we need strict legislation that says precisely how data can be used from different devices. Uses which aren't approved should be prevented by physical design of the devices and / or networks or, if this can't be guaranteed, the devices should not be installed. 

There are way too many security cameras (to name only one method of surveillance)  'collecting data' the use of which is too loosely regulated. This is a silent tumour eating away at our democratic rights and providing the basis for the flourishing of evil. Sounds alarmist but repression isn't new in the world and it always has to start somewhere.

Independent doctors only to investigate deaths involving police

As the death of Ian Tomlinson so closely echoes the death Blair Peach, it is obvious that nothing has changed in the space of  30 years. Any doctor assigned by the police to do a post mortem is not an unbiased observer. Any evidence is not properly collected as would be the case if the post mortem was carried out in a normal manner.

 

A police officer is there to enforce the law, not stand aove it.

Both the doctor and the CPS who then use the suspect Post Mortem to cite a "conflict of experts" as a reason to squash any further progress of the case and allow the police office to get away with murder.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

As the death of Ian Tomlinson so closely echoes the death Blair Peach, it is obvious that nothing has changed in the space of  30 years. Any doctor assigned by the police to do a post mortem is not an unbiased observer. Any evidence is not properly collected as would be the case if the post mortem was carried out in a normal manner.

 

A police officer is there to enforce the law, not stand aove it.

Both the doctor and the CPS who then use the suspect Post Mortem to cite a "conflict of experts" as a reason to squash any further progress of the case and allow the police office to get away with murder.

 

 

 

Ian Tomlinson

The Prime Ministers much talked about FREEDOM campaign is useless so long as the decision as to who to prosecute is the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service.  The police should be reuired to place all possible criminal cases before a magistrate as once used to be done as is done elsewhere.  If the magistrate considers a prima facie case exists, as clearly one did in the Tomlinson  and the Mekenze cases, then the officers concerned should be put in front of a jury.  It is up to a jury to decide guilt and innocent, not some civil servant prejudging matters and making decisions it would appear to me in favour of the state police.     I have little doubt if the Tomlinson had dealt with the police officer in the same way, the CPS would have acted and charged him.    Whether more severe charges could have been brought would be a matter of evidence an should have been up to a magistrate to decide and ultimately a jury.  The lesser charge should have been pursued in the interim.  The fact that the CPS allowed six months to elapse so as no assault charge could be brought is in my opinion negligent and outragious.  Those who allowed that to happen should be held accountable.

I am still reeling for the need to shoot an innocent man (Menzies) 8 times in the head and the misinformation put out by the police at the time relating to his actions.

 

My idea is to simply abolish the CPS and introduce a examining magistrates system where officers, defendents and witnesses are all obliged to provide what ever information he/she needs and enpower the magistrate to direct how the police conduct the case.  This works well in Europe and indeed inScotland where the Procurator Fiscal dominates investigations.

 

Why is this idea important?

The Prime Ministers much talked about FREEDOM campaign is useless so long as the decision as to who to prosecute is the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service.  The police should be reuired to place all possible criminal cases before a magistrate as once used to be done as is done elsewhere.  If the magistrate considers a prima facie case exists, as clearly one did in the Tomlinson  and the Mekenze cases, then the officers concerned should be put in front of a jury.  It is up to a jury to decide guilt and innocent, not some civil servant prejudging matters and making decisions it would appear to me in favour of the state police.     I have little doubt if the Tomlinson had dealt with the police officer in the same way, the CPS would have acted and charged him.    Whether more severe charges could have been brought would be a matter of evidence an should have been up to a magistrate to decide and ultimately a jury.  The lesser charge should have been pursued in the interim.  The fact that the CPS allowed six months to elapse so as no assault charge could be brought is in my opinion negligent and outragious.  Those who allowed that to happen should be held accountable.

I am still reeling for the need to shoot an innocent man (Menzies) 8 times in the head and the misinformation put out by the police at the time relating to his actions.

 

My idea is to simply abolish the CPS and introduce a examining magistrates system where officers, defendents and witnesses are all obliged to provide what ever information he/she needs and enpower the magistrate to direct how the police conduct the case.  This works well in Europe and indeed inScotland where the Procurator Fiscal dominates investigations.

 

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.

Is there justice in the UK

The Crown Prosecution Service will tomorrow make its long-awaited announcement about whether a police officer will face criminal charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson.

After Tomlinson died at the G20 protests in London last year, video obtained by the Guardian showed that an officer had attacked him, undermining the authorities' initial version of events.

His family will be informed on Thursday morning if criminal charges will be brought over the death, the CPS has confirmed.

The possible charges include manslaughter, assault and misconduct in public office. Or, the CPS may decide not to bring any charges.

Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper seller, had been walking home from work through the protests in the City on 1 April 2009 when he was struck from behind by a member of the Metropolitan police's territorial support group (TSG).

In deciding whether the officer should face trial, CPS lawyers have examined the video footage along with other documents and witness statements. The high-profile nature of the case means the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, is believed to have been involved in deciding whether charges should be brought.

Starmer is expected to announce personally whether any charges will be brought.

If the CPS successfully prosecutes the officer over Tomlinson's death he would become the first British police officer ever convicted for manslaughter committed while on duty. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

The Tomlinson family have been critical of the time taken for the CPS to reach its decision. A criminal investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission was completed in August 2009. The CPS has been asking investigators for extra work and inquiries to be carried out since the IPCC handed over its file of evidence.

The officer struck Tomlinson with a baton and shoved him to the ground shortly before the newspaper seller collapsed and died. The officer's badge numbers were covered and his face concealed beneath a balaclava.

Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and his back to the officer when he was struck. No police officer went to his aid and it was left to a bystander to lift him to his feet. He stumbled about 100 metres down Cornhill, clutching his side, before collapsing a second time.

Police initially led Tomlinson's wife and nine children to believe he died of a heart attack after being caught up in the protest. In statements to the press, police claimed attempts by officers to save his life by resuscitation were impeded by protesters.

The IPCC did not launch its criminal inquiry until six days after Tomlinson's death, when the Guardian gave the watchdog a dossier of evidence including video footage and witness statements that contradicted the police version of events.

Before then, City of London police were allowed to run the inquiry with some supervision from IPCC investigators. After watching the video of the attack a senior City of London investigator told the family that Tomlinson's assailant could be a member of the public "dressed in police uniform".

The Tomlinson family say they were led by the CPS to believe that a decision would be reached by Christmas 2009.

They fear a cover-up and in March Tomlinson's widow, Julia, attacked Starmer's handling of the case. "Why did he say there would be a decision around Christmas? Why are we still waiting? My kids need to move on from this. They're left without a dad now and their lives have been turned upside down over the last year, especially the four girls. He doesn't seem to realise the pain we're going through.

"We feel like there was a cover-up from day one and we didn't see it because we were nervous about the police. Now a year on it still feels like all of that is still going on. If it had been someone on the street, a civilian, who had pushed and hit Ian just before he died and it was all caught on video, surely something would have happened by now. The officer needs to go before a jury. Let them decide what should happen to him

Why is this idea important?

The Crown Prosecution Service will tomorrow make its long-awaited announcement about whether a police officer will face criminal charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson.

After Tomlinson died at the G20 protests in London last year, video obtained by the Guardian showed that an officer had attacked him, undermining the authorities' initial version of events.

His family will be informed on Thursday morning if criminal charges will be brought over the death, the CPS has confirmed.

The possible charges include manslaughter, assault and misconduct in public office. Or, the CPS may decide not to bring any charges.

Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper seller, had been walking home from work through the protests in the City on 1 April 2009 when he was struck from behind by a member of the Metropolitan police's territorial support group (TSG).

In deciding whether the officer should face trial, CPS lawyers have examined the video footage along with other documents and witness statements. The high-profile nature of the case means the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, is believed to have been involved in deciding whether charges should be brought.

Starmer is expected to announce personally whether any charges will be brought.

If the CPS successfully prosecutes the officer over Tomlinson's death he would become the first British police officer ever convicted for manslaughter committed while on duty. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

The Tomlinson family have been critical of the time taken for the CPS to reach its decision. A criminal investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission was completed in August 2009. The CPS has been asking investigators for extra work and inquiries to be carried out since the IPCC handed over its file of evidence.

The officer struck Tomlinson with a baton and shoved him to the ground shortly before the newspaper seller collapsed and died. The officer's badge numbers were covered and his face concealed beneath a balaclava.

Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and his back to the officer when he was struck. No police officer went to his aid and it was left to a bystander to lift him to his feet. He stumbled about 100 metres down Cornhill, clutching his side, before collapsing a second time.

Police initially led Tomlinson's wife and nine children to believe he died of a heart attack after being caught up in the protest. In statements to the press, police claimed attempts by officers to save his life by resuscitation were impeded by protesters.

The IPCC did not launch its criminal inquiry until six days after Tomlinson's death, when the Guardian gave the watchdog a dossier of evidence including video footage and witness statements that contradicted the police version of events.

Before then, City of London police were allowed to run the inquiry with some supervision from IPCC investigators. After watching the video of the attack a senior City of London investigator told the family that Tomlinson's assailant could be a member of the public "dressed in police uniform".

The Tomlinson family say they were led by the CPS to believe that a decision would be reached by Christmas 2009.

They fear a cover-up and in March Tomlinson's widow, Julia, attacked Starmer's handling of the case. "Why did he say there would be a decision around Christmas? Why are we still waiting? My kids need to move on from this. They're left without a dad now and their lives have been turned upside down over the last year, especially the four girls. He doesn't seem to realise the pain we're going through.

"We feel like there was a cover-up from day one and we didn't see it because we were nervous about the police. Now a year on it still feels like all of that is still going on. If it had been someone on the street, a civilian, who had pushed and hit Ian just before he died and it was all caught on video, surely something would have happened by now. The officer needs to go before a jury. Let them decide what should happen to him

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

I’d like to make a complaint about The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and request that it be repealed completely as it does absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration or illegal workers in the UK, but it does cause a lot of grief and harassment for people who were born in this country, have lived here all their lives and have the lawful right to work here.

The Act costs businesses a lot of time and money chasing documentation and doesn’t provide any remedy or solution for workers who don’t have the identifications being requested, nor are they required to have and hold such identification in law. The Act also does nothing for people like myself who have religious beliefs that are opposed to carrying or using ID of any kind and provides no remedy to threats from employers of dismissal.

The company I work for a year ago started to bombard me with emails requesting that I bring in a passport and birth certificate. I don’t have a birth certificate and at the time my passport was misplaced, as I have not been overseas for 5 years. The company kept demanding these documents and I kept informing them that I don’t have any of the documents they were requesting nor was I obliged to have, hold, possess or carry them in law.

I had also stated to them that even if I had a birth certificate which I don’t that I have been informed that a birth certificate is not a valid proof of identity and it clearly states this on birth certificates “It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person(s) presenting it.” I did not have a birth certificate or any of the other documents they requested at the time such as a passport.

Eventually I had a meeting with someone from the HR department who had previously told me they would provide a list of other documents that would be acceptable instead. They didn’t mention any other documents in the meeting but just kept asking for the same documents I had already told them I didn’t have or had misplaced.

I asked several times what law requires me to possess any of the documentation they were requesting or to do any of this and each time they avoided the question like the plague, and were unable to tell me what law.  "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry is left unanswered and would be intentionally misleading.”

Eventually they simply said that it was company policy and provided me with a booklet detailing the Right to Work policy of the company. I kept asking what other documents I could bring instead, but they were unable to mention any.  “You have to reveal the terms of any contract and if formally noticed and questioned about the liabilities imposed by said contract, you must answer. Otherwise there is no duty.”

I also mentioned that I had already given my national insurance number to them when I first started working there and it is stated on the pay slip they give me every four weeks. If I wasn’t able to provide them with this when I first started working there almost 10 years ago they wouldn’t have been able to make deductions for tax and national insurance all these years so its absurd that they are requesting this again. What have they done with the original information I provided when I first started working there?

The booklet they provided stated that they should sit down with each worker and go through the information with them and explain everything. The company I work for has not done this with anyone that works there. They just bombard you with emails and expect you to bring in documents you don’t even possess. This is harassment. The last time I checked this wasn’t Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union it’s Great Britain! Their right to work policy booklet also says that the documents checks are for “potential new” employees before they start work. I am not a “potential new” employee, I have been there almost ten years now, and started working there a considerably long time ago, so I clearly shouldn’t have even been asked.

In one of the emails I was sent by someone at the company requesting this, they stated that there was no suggestion that I didn’t have the right to work. If there’s no suggestion that I don’t have the right, why do I need to prove that I do, and why are the company harassing me for things that are not lawful anyway? There is a legal maxim that “One who does not deny admits”. If no law has been broken, no crime committed, no life lost, no freedom breached, no property damaged, no rights infringed, then why is the company I work for harassing me like Gestapo agents for documentation when I have worked there almost ten years? I am being treated like a common criminal and interviewed by wannabe detectives from HR without any justifiable reason and contrary to the common law of the land.

 

 

When I read through the document it shows that a Statutory Declaration would be acceptable, so I went to a solicitors, paid the £5-00 fee and did the declaration, which was witnessed and signed to state who I was, my nationality, name and to show I have the right to work here. I was unable to provide any of the documents they were requesting at the time so could only give them the Statutory Declaration confirming my identity and nationality as well as a copy of my driving license. They took copies of these and said that they were fine after consulting with other people within the company.

Now a year later they have come back to me and said that the Statutory Declaration (a legal document) isn’t acceptable and not valid and they need my national insurance card from when I left school. I left school almost 20 years ago and doubt very much I have this anymore. I have since found my passport, which expires next year, which I have said I will bring instead. This clearly seems like a follow up check, which is only meant to be for people who do not have a permanent right to work in the country, according to their own policy booklet. I do have a permanent right to work here, have provided them documentation, which they accepted as being valid in August 2009, yet I am still being harassed for more a year later and suffering detrimental treatment.

I would like to ask the question, if the company I work for doesn’t believe that the Statutory Declaration Act of Parliament that allows you to make a Statutory Declaration is valid and they are not willing to accept my Statutory Declaration, which is a valid legal document, then how on Earth can they believe that the The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act is any more valid? It seems like the company I work for is picking and choosing which legislation and Acts of Parliament they are going to follow and which they are going to blatantly ignore despite their own company policy saying that Statutory Declarations are accepted.

Also why has it taken them almost a year to suddenly decide that a valid legal document witnessed under oath and counter signed by a solicitor is not an acceptable proof? And why was it acceptable proof to them a year ago something which they double-checked with other people in HR and the Legal department? A Statutory Declaration is a powerful legal document taken under oath and penalty of perjury.

Why do they regard a birth certificate as valid proof of identity when it apparently states on birth certificates that it isn’t a valid proof of identity? This is absolutely absurd and half-witted policy.

They want me to produce a worthless piece of paper I don’t have namely a “birth certificate” that isn’t proof of identity or relate to the individual presenting it, and believe a legal document that is proof of identity and does relate to the individual presenting and is taken under their oath and penalty of perjury isn’t valid.

I believe the HR department of the company I work for are clearly incompetent and don’t know what they are doing, but I’m not surprised by this given all the legislation and regulations they have to comply with, especially this ridiculous Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act. The only thing this Act is serving to do is to constrain the law abiding, and cost business a lot of time and money in the process.

Why is this idea important?

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and its cost on Business

I’d like to make a complaint about The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and request that it be repealed completely as it does absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration or illegal workers in the UK, but it does cause a lot of grief and harassment for people who were born in this country, have lived here all their lives and have the lawful right to work here.

The Act costs businesses a lot of time and money chasing documentation and doesn’t provide any remedy or solution for workers who don’t have the identifications being requested, nor are they required to have and hold such identification in law. The Act also does nothing for people like myself who have religious beliefs that are opposed to carrying or using ID of any kind and provides no remedy to threats from employers of dismissal.

The company I work for a year ago started to bombard me with emails requesting that I bring in a passport and birth certificate. I don’t have a birth certificate and at the time my passport was misplaced, as I have not been overseas for 5 years. The company kept demanding these documents and I kept informing them that I don’t have any of the documents they were requesting nor was I obliged to have, hold, possess or carry them in law.

I had also stated to them that even if I had a birth certificate which I don’t that I have been informed that a birth certificate is not a valid proof of identity and it clearly states this on birth certificates “It is NOT evidence of the identity of the person(s) presenting it.” I did not have a birth certificate or any of the other documents they requested at the time such as a passport.

Eventually I had a meeting with someone from the HR department who had previously told me they would provide a list of other documents that would be acceptable instead. They didn’t mention any other documents in the meeting but just kept asking for the same documents I had already told them I didn’t have or had misplaced.

I asked several times what law requires me to possess any of the documentation they were requesting or to do any of this and each time they avoided the question like the plague, and were unable to tell me what law.  "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry is left unanswered and would be intentionally misleading.”

Eventually they simply said that it was company policy and provided me with a booklet detailing the Right to Work policy of the company. I kept asking what other documents I could bring instead, but they were unable to mention any.  “You have to reveal the terms of any contract and if formally noticed and questioned about the liabilities imposed by said contract, you must answer. Otherwise there is no duty.”

I also mentioned that I had already given my national insurance number to them when I first started working there and it is stated on the pay slip they give me every four weeks. If I wasn’t able to provide them with this when I first started working there almost 10 years ago they wouldn’t have been able to make deductions for tax and national insurance all these years so its absurd that they are requesting this again. What have they done with the original information I provided when I first started working there?

The booklet they provided stated that they should sit down with each worker and go through the information with them and explain everything. The company I work for has not done this with anyone that works there. They just bombard you with emails and expect you to bring in documents you don’t even possess. This is harassment. The last time I checked this wasn’t Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union it’s Great Britain! Their right to work policy booklet also says that the documents checks are for “potential new” employees before they start work. I am not a “potential new” employee, I have been there almost ten years now, and started working there a considerably long time ago, so I clearly shouldn’t have even been asked.

In one of the emails I was sent by someone at the company requesting this, they stated that there was no suggestion that I didn’t have the right to work. If there’s no suggestion that I don’t have the right, why do I need to prove that I do, and why are the company harassing me for things that are not lawful anyway? There is a legal maxim that “One who does not deny admits”. If no law has been broken, no crime committed, no life lost, no freedom breached, no property damaged, no rights infringed, then why is the company I work for harassing me like Gestapo agents for documentation when I have worked there almost ten years? I am being treated like a common criminal and interviewed by wannabe detectives from HR without any justifiable reason and contrary to the common law of the land.

 

 

When I read through the document it shows that a Statutory Declaration would be acceptable, so I went to a solicitors, paid the £5-00 fee and did the declaration, which was witnessed and signed to state who I was, my nationality, name and to show I have the right to work here. I was unable to provide any of the documents they were requesting at the time so could only give them the Statutory Declaration confirming my identity and nationality as well as a copy of my driving license. They took copies of these and said that they were fine after consulting with other people within the company.

Now a year later they have come back to me and said that the Statutory Declaration (a legal document) isn’t acceptable and not valid and they need my national insurance card from when I left school. I left school almost 20 years ago and doubt very much I have this anymore. I have since found my passport, which expires next year, which I have said I will bring instead. This clearly seems like a follow up check, which is only meant to be for people who do not have a permanent right to work in the country, according to their own policy booklet. I do have a permanent right to work here, have provided them documentation, which they accepted as being valid in August 2009, yet I am still being harassed for more a year later and suffering detrimental treatment.

I would like to ask the question, if the company I work for doesn’t believe that the Statutory Declaration Act of Parliament that allows you to make a Statutory Declaration is valid and they are not willing to accept my Statutory Declaration, which is a valid legal document, then how on Earth can they believe that the The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act is any more valid? It seems like the company I work for is picking and choosing which legislation and Acts of Parliament they are going to follow and which they are going to blatantly ignore despite their own company policy saying that Statutory Declarations are accepted.

Also why has it taken them almost a year to suddenly decide that a valid legal document witnessed under oath and counter signed by a solicitor is not an acceptable proof? And why was it acceptable proof to them a year ago something which they double-checked with other people in HR and the Legal department? A Statutory Declaration is a powerful legal document taken under oath and penalty of perjury.

Why do they regard a birth certificate as valid proof of identity when it apparently states on birth certificates that it isn’t a valid proof of identity? This is absolutely absurd and half-witted policy.

They want me to produce a worthless piece of paper I don’t have namely a “birth certificate” that isn’t proof of identity or relate to the individual presenting it, and believe a legal document that is proof of identity and does relate to the individual presenting and is taken under their oath and penalty of perjury isn’t valid.

I believe the HR department of the company I work for are clearly incompetent and don’t know what they are doing, but I’m not surprised by this given all the legislation and regulations they have to comply with, especially this ridiculous Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act. The only thing this Act is serving to do is to constrain the law abiding, and cost business a lot of time and money in the process.

At the Chief officers discretion Police Act 1997 Section 113 A & B

Inclusion of non convictions Section 113 A & 113B previously 115(7) Police Act 1997 seriously needs to be addressed the Secretary of state give the police the powers to disclose ALL information on an Enhanced Criminal records disclsoure.

This includes allegations even when the Crown Prosecution service have carried out the basic tests of the evidential test and the public interest test and they are unable to reprimand, give warning, caution or convict. (They are the Crown's lawyers, yet they do not see it in the publics interest or based on the evidence)

The Chief officer is allowed to disclose material that he/she thinks might be true but not factually true or it it ought to be included.It allows the Chief Constable to form an opinion.

( so why have the CPS?)

Under this law you are Guilty regardless even though the tests applied clearly show you are innocent.

Under the subject access you are not allowed ALL the information against you but yet the government allow them this power of disclosure.

You are not entitled to all the information because it never went to court and you were never charged; therefore you are never allowed to challenge an opinion, decision.

And lets face it the police even recently sentenced a man to 3 years 4 months that was innocent because the police never disclosed all the information, especially as it supported him in the case and not the police.

This is a massive injustice.

They do not inform the person that this disclosure will be made.

A CRB disclosure asks about convictions, reprimands, warnings, cautions it DOES NOT ask about allegations.

The police do not give you the opportunity to represent yourself, share all the evidence so that you can challenge it and the ICO have their hands tied because you the government allow an individual (chief officer)protection to disclose whatever they like, it is  ridicolous.

It also needs to be made clear to the public that if a CRB is inaccurate that they only have 3 months to seek a judicial review, considering that you allow the subject access 40days in which to reply it does not leave the ordinary lay person much time to prepare a case, how convienent. The CRB is clearly flawed and constantly making mistakes making peoples lives unbearable even suicidal.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states the right to respect for a persons family life. This is not often used because the police have an opinion so there is no actual correct position in law especially for the innocent, so not allowing the person to make representation.

However I must applaude Theresa May in the recent suspension of the Independent safeguarding Authority. What a stupid idea that was; Sir Roger claiming that 200 caseworkers will make a decision based on rumours and allegations and have an understanding of risk assessing an individual based on facts again that might not be true

Why is this idea important?

Inclusion of non convictions Section 113 A & 113B previously 115(7) Police Act 1997 seriously needs to be addressed the Secretary of state give the police the powers to disclose ALL information on an Enhanced Criminal records disclsoure.

This includes allegations even when the Crown Prosecution service have carried out the basic tests of the evidential test and the public interest test and they are unable to reprimand, give warning, caution or convict. (They are the Crown's lawyers, yet they do not see it in the publics interest or based on the evidence)

The Chief officer is allowed to disclose material that he/she thinks might be true but not factually true or it it ought to be included.It allows the Chief Constable to form an opinion.

( so why have the CPS?)

Under this law you are Guilty regardless even though the tests applied clearly show you are innocent.

Under the subject access you are not allowed ALL the information against you but yet the government allow them this power of disclosure.

You are not entitled to all the information because it never went to court and you were never charged; therefore you are never allowed to challenge an opinion, decision.

And lets face it the police even recently sentenced a man to 3 years 4 months that was innocent because the police never disclosed all the information, especially as it supported him in the case and not the police.

This is a massive injustice.

They do not inform the person that this disclosure will be made.

A CRB disclosure asks about convictions, reprimands, warnings, cautions it DOES NOT ask about allegations.

The police do not give you the opportunity to represent yourself, share all the evidence so that you can challenge it and the ICO have their hands tied because you the government allow an individual (chief officer)protection to disclose whatever they like, it is  ridicolous.

It also needs to be made clear to the public that if a CRB is inaccurate that they only have 3 months to seek a judicial review, considering that you allow the subject access 40days in which to reply it does not leave the ordinary lay person much time to prepare a case, how convienent. The CRB is clearly flawed and constantly making mistakes making peoples lives unbearable even suicidal.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states the right to respect for a persons family life. This is not often used because the police have an opinion so there is no actual correct position in law especially for the innocent, so not allowing the person to make representation.

However I must applaude Theresa May in the recent suspension of the Independent safeguarding Authority. What a stupid idea that was; Sir Roger claiming that 200 caseworkers will make a decision based on rumours and allegations and have an understanding of risk assessing an individual based on facts again that might not be true

Stop the Police using unmanned aerial camera drones to monitor the public

 

To remove the legal right for Police to use unmanned aerial camera drones to monitor the UK public:

 

Since 2007, the Police have steadily introduced unmanned camera drones for routine monitoring of the UK population.  This scheme was initially introduced by Kent Police as a means to monitor maritime movements but documents obtained under FOI reveal that this was in part just a public relations exercise in preparation to use them for routine surveillance of all areas of public life.

 

The two main types of police drone surveillance:

1)  Remote controlled rotor blade cameras that hover 50m above the ground.  These silent cameras are at least visible but they have the disadvantage of further alienating the Police from the public they serve, as described by participants of the Olympic handover celebrations in the Mall.

2)  BAE UAV drones that fly for up to 15hrs at 20,000ft and are invisible from the ground.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

To remove the legal right for Police to use unmanned aerial camera drones to monitor the UK public:

 

Since 2007, the Police have steadily introduced unmanned camera drones for routine monitoring of the UK population.  This scheme was initially introduced by Kent Police as a means to monitor maritime movements but documents obtained under FOI reveal that this was in part just a public relations exercise in preparation to use them for routine surveillance of all areas of public life.

 

The two main types of police drone surveillance:

1)  Remote controlled rotor blade cameras that hover 50m above the ground.  These silent cameras are at least visible but they have the disadvantage of further alienating the Police from the public they serve, as described by participants of the Olympic handover celebrations in the Mall.

2)  BAE UAV drones that fly for up to 15hrs at 20,000ft and are invisible from the ground.

 

The guilty escaping justice on technical points

The law should be changed/clarified to enable judges to over-rule technical points of law if they think that the balance of justice would be best served by doing so. Thus justice would be based more on right being done instead of rules being absolutely followed. A small change with big effects.

Why is this idea important?

The law should be changed/clarified to enable judges to over-rule technical points of law if they think that the balance of justice would be best served by doing so. Thus justice would be based more on right being done instead of rules being absolutely followed. A small change with big effects.

‘Misrepresenting the Law by Police Officer’ – a new offence

Make misrepresenting the law by Police Officer an offence.

Police are trained and given written guidance in the law, and they can at any time consult a lawyer over the radio, and most officers do this. However, a significant minority is essentially 'inventing' the laws as they see fit to the current situation with no legal basis.

Additionally, it is not a defence for a citizen not to know the law – why should it be to the Police?

Why is this idea important?

Make misrepresenting the law by Police Officer an offence.

Police are trained and given written guidance in the law, and they can at any time consult a lawyer over the radio, and most officers do this. However, a significant minority is essentially 'inventing' the laws as they see fit to the current situation with no legal basis.

Additionally, it is not a defence for a citizen not to know the law – why should it be to the Police?

Withdraw Police Power of Arrest without Evidence

During the reign of the previous government they introduced a 'Power of Arrest' by the Police which covers just about every law on the statute book and even some which are not.

This immediately had the effect of turning our Police from a 'Police Service' to a 'Police Force'.

Now every time there is a complaint made against someone the Police arrest that person and take them to the Police Station where they have their fingerprints and DNA etc taken.

Police should only be able to make an arrest if there is evidence to support the offence and not just because someone has made an allegation.

As a result of the above I can only assume that there have been thousands of innocent people arrested and released after providing the obligatory fingerprint and DNA samples.

This practice has to stop and is not required in a free democratic society.

Why is this idea important?

During the reign of the previous government they introduced a 'Power of Arrest' by the Police which covers just about every law on the statute book and even some which are not.

This immediately had the effect of turning our Police from a 'Police Service' to a 'Police Force'.

Now every time there is a complaint made against someone the Police arrest that person and take them to the Police Station where they have their fingerprints and DNA etc taken.

Police should only be able to make an arrest if there is evidence to support the offence and not just because someone has made an allegation.

As a result of the above I can only assume that there have been thousands of innocent people arrested and released after providing the obligatory fingerprint and DNA samples.

This practice has to stop and is not required in a free democratic society.

That the Government restore freedom and liberty by removing the general monitoring of the population of the UK

Stop the routine monitoring of people by CCTV, Automatic Number plate recognition, facial recognition technologies, Travel cards i.e. Oyster, Chips, storing of emails, tracking of Internet sites visited, tracking countries visited by people, storing of text messages etc. To halt implementation of new technologies around facial recognition or other methods to monitor and log the public’s movements.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the routine monitoring of people by CCTV, Automatic Number plate recognition, facial recognition technologies, Travel cards i.e. Oyster, Chips, storing of emails, tracking of Internet sites visited, tracking countries visited by people, storing of text messages etc. To halt implementation of new technologies around facial recognition or other methods to monitor and log the public’s movements.

STOP POLICE TAKING DNA AND FINGER PRINTING OF INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR TARGETS AND BY DOING SO COLLECT EXTRA BONUSES FOR THEMSELVES

My idea is to curb the Law which allows the Police to take innocent people into the cells in order to meet their targets (which came into being under the Labour Government) and by doing so collect extra bonuses for themselves at the year end if they met those targets of profiling innocent peoples DNA DATA  AND FINGER PRINTING.

 

All innocent people who have had this happen to them should  have that data removed (just like Damien Green had his removed ) IMMEDIATELY and be informed of this by the POLICE and not only that but restitution should be made by way of including an APOLOGY by the CHIEF OF THAT POLICE AUTHORITY  to that innocent individual who has been released without any charges made against them. 

 

The Police should have no Authority to abuse their Powers in such a way. 

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to curb the Law which allows the Police to take innocent people into the cells in order to meet their targets (which came into being under the Labour Government) and by doing so collect extra bonuses for themselves at the year end if they met those targets of profiling innocent peoples DNA DATA  AND FINGER PRINTING.

 

All innocent people who have had this happen to them should  have that data removed (just like Damien Green had his removed ) IMMEDIATELY and be informed of this by the POLICE and not only that but restitution should be made by way of including an APOLOGY by the CHIEF OF THAT POLICE AUTHORITY  to that innocent individual who has been released without any charges made against them. 

 

The Police should have no Authority to abuse their Powers in such a way. 

Taking Photos In Public

Police have been stopping people for taking photos in public places. Innocent people have been arrested for taking 'holiday snaps' of well known buildings. 

It's supposed to stop terrorism,  which of course it does not. There are thousands of photos available to terrorists to use for these purposes on the Internet anyway.

It's a waste of police time, bad for tourism, a waste of paper and a waste of money.

The law should go back to allowing people to take photos in any public place.

People have also been arrested for taking photos of police vehicles which have either been parked illegally or been involved in an accident (many insurance companies need photo evidence of accidents). If the police does something illegal or wrong, then  it's only right that we should be allowed to take photos of it. You can't trust the police if they're allowed to brake the law.

 

Why is this idea important?

Police have been stopping people for taking photos in public places. Innocent people have been arrested for taking 'holiday snaps' of well known buildings. 

It's supposed to stop terrorism,  which of course it does not. There are thousands of photos available to terrorists to use for these purposes on the Internet anyway.

It's a waste of police time, bad for tourism, a waste of paper and a waste of money.

The law should go back to allowing people to take photos in any public place.

People have also been arrested for taking photos of police vehicles which have either been parked illegally or been involved in an accident (many insurance companies need photo evidence of accidents). If the police does something illegal or wrong, then  it's only right that we should be allowed to take photos of it. You can't trust the police if they're allowed to brake the law.

 

Amend Criminal Justice Bill – Parties are a right not a privilege!

Since time began people have been partying and ghave contributed to the well being a social development of mankind. The Labour Government saw fit to pass the criminal justice bill requiring social gatherings of more than a few people to need a license. If the land owner has no objections and there is consideration as to location (for volume reasons). There should be no problem.

Another thing is to cease the relentless attack on Britain's public houses- they are good for social cohesion. Better than people being stuck at home watching 'Britain's got talent ( an enormous amount of debt and out of control immigration!)'.

Why is this idea important?

Since time began people have been partying and ghave contributed to the well being a social development of mankind. The Labour Government saw fit to pass the criminal justice bill requiring social gatherings of more than a few people to need a license. If the land owner has no objections and there is consideration as to location (for volume reasons). There should be no problem.

Another thing is to cease the relentless attack on Britain's public houses- they are good for social cohesion. Better than people being stuck at home watching 'Britain's got talent ( an enormous amount of debt and out of control immigration!)'.

GET MORE POLICE ON THE STREET

As the title says….WE NEED MORE POLICE ON THE STREET.

I can not recall the last time I saw the police patrolling my area.  They are never there when cars are speeding or people are fighting or doing drugs etc etc

There needs to be more police on the beat. No more form filling.  Lets get some real police out there protecting us.

Why is this idea important?

As the title says….WE NEED MORE POLICE ON THE STREET.

I can not recall the last time I saw the police patrolling my area.  They are never there when cars are speeding or people are fighting or doing drugs etc etc

There needs to be more police on the beat. No more form filling.  Lets get some real police out there protecting us.

The Law and Naturism

I would like to see the current law on indecency in public amended to allow naturists not to be apprehended if going about their lifestyle in their own gardens or in discrete locations in the countryside or on beaches etc.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the current law on indecency in public amended to allow naturists not to be apprehended if going about their lifestyle in their own gardens or in discrete locations in the countryside or on beaches etc.

Curb the powers of the Police, and make them more accountable

While I am certain that everyone agrees on the need for an effective police force, I do feel that their powers need to be curbed as they have had to much discretion given them under labour to dole out fines and issue cautions without due process having taken place. I beleive that in this country when accused of a crime one is meant to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and it is the job of the police to find enough evidence to secure a conviction, not to become judge and jury as well.

And as has been reported on the news of late, the apparent disregard they themselves have for the law when controlling peacefull protests etc leaves a lot to be desired, thinking of the death of innocent bystanders here, and yet they always seem to get away with it., often with complete disregard and contempt against anyone who should dare to even question their apparent complete lack of morals.

Why is this idea important?

While I am certain that everyone agrees on the need for an effective police force, I do feel that their powers need to be curbed as they have had to much discretion given them under labour to dole out fines and issue cautions without due process having taken place. I beleive that in this country when accused of a crime one is meant to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and it is the job of the police to find enough evidence to secure a conviction, not to become judge and jury as well.

And as has been reported on the news of late, the apparent disregard they themselves have for the law when controlling peacefull protests etc leaves a lot to be desired, thinking of the death of innocent bystanders here, and yet they always seem to get away with it., often with complete disregard and contempt against anyone who should dare to even question their apparent complete lack of morals.