anti smokers who drive

it is quite absurd for an anti smoker who drives  to say that he or she objects to having their clothes or hair stinking of ciggarette smoke, because i a smoker can say i object to their  stinking car fumes , which incidently is much worse anyway. if we have a smoking ban because of comments like this then i ask this government to implement a car ban

Why is this idea important?

it is quite absurd for an anti smoker who drives  to say that he or she objects to having their clothes or hair stinking of ciggarette smoke, because i a smoker can say i object to their  stinking car fumes , which incidently is much worse anyway. if we have a smoking ban because of comments like this then i ask this government to implement a car ban

self-defence

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Why is this idea important?

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Nullify Human Rights for Criminals and restore CAPITAL punishment

It is clear that the legal 'professionals' are abusing the Human Rights laws to the benefit of criminals.  Since the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) started INTERFERING in our legal process the bias has shifted from the victim to the criminal.

When a criminal CHOOSES to commit a crime that affects another human being and their human rights then the criminal should be choosing to forego their entitlement to Human Rights.  The criminals in our society however go whimpering to the ECHR about how harsh our sentences are or how our prisons are not comfortable enough and they WIN!  Our prisons are like hotels for the career criminals where they live in better conditions than many people in society.

A victim of crime DOESN'T CHOOSE to be a victim.  The victim DOESN'T DECIDE TO FOREGO THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS and thus let the criminal attack them.  Instead they have it thrust upon them by a selfish and callous animal.  The victim, if the criminal is captured, then faces a court battle to see justice done and when they think it has been the ECHR interferes and reduces the sentence or overturns it completely. FARCICAL.

It is high time that our legal system stopped pandering to the bleeding hearts and returned to a time when the law was feared, when sentences were harsh and prisons uncomfortable.  Some will say that the old system treated them like animals.  My opinion and I am sure the opinion of many others too is that CRIMINALS ARE ANIMALS and animals are NOT Human and therefore are NOT entitled to HUMAN RIGHTS.  They choose to act like animals and I respectfully suggest they be treated as such and therefore have entitlement to Human Rights legislation and protection revoked as a punishment for their actions and choices.

Regarding serious crime, murder and the like, where evidence is irrefutable then I would suggest that, on the same vein, that as VISCOUS ANIMALS these individuals should be treated how society treats a dog that attacks a human.  They should face CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.  This would be the justice they deserve as animals.

Return law and order to our streets, protect the honest citizens and make justice a tool to inspire fear in the criminal classes as it should be.  ACT NOW BEFORE OUR SOCIETY DETERIORATES FURTHER.  THE DECENT AND LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ARE LOOKING TO YOU FOR HELP BUT AS YET NONE IS COMING!!  LET THERE BE HOPE.

Why is this idea important?

It is clear that the legal 'professionals' are abusing the Human Rights laws to the benefit of criminals.  Since the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) started INTERFERING in our legal process the bias has shifted from the victim to the criminal.

When a criminal CHOOSES to commit a crime that affects another human being and their human rights then the criminal should be choosing to forego their entitlement to Human Rights.  The criminals in our society however go whimpering to the ECHR about how harsh our sentences are or how our prisons are not comfortable enough and they WIN!  Our prisons are like hotels for the career criminals where they live in better conditions than many people in society.

A victim of crime DOESN'T CHOOSE to be a victim.  The victim DOESN'T DECIDE TO FOREGO THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS and thus let the criminal attack them.  Instead they have it thrust upon them by a selfish and callous animal.  The victim, if the criminal is captured, then faces a court battle to see justice done and when they think it has been the ECHR interferes and reduces the sentence or overturns it completely. FARCICAL.

It is high time that our legal system stopped pandering to the bleeding hearts and returned to a time when the law was feared, when sentences were harsh and prisons uncomfortable.  Some will say that the old system treated them like animals.  My opinion and I am sure the opinion of many others too is that CRIMINALS ARE ANIMALS and animals are NOT Human and therefore are NOT entitled to HUMAN RIGHTS.  They choose to act like animals and I respectfully suggest they be treated as such and therefore have entitlement to Human Rights legislation and protection revoked as a punishment for their actions and choices.

Regarding serious crime, murder and the like, where evidence is irrefutable then I would suggest that, on the same vein, that as VISCOUS ANIMALS these individuals should be treated how society treats a dog that attacks a human.  They should face CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.  This would be the justice they deserve as animals.

Return law and order to our streets, protect the honest citizens and make justice a tool to inspire fear in the criminal classes as it should be.  ACT NOW BEFORE OUR SOCIETY DETERIORATES FURTHER.  THE DECENT AND LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ARE LOOKING TO YOU FOR HELP BUT AS YET NONE IS COMING!!  LET THERE BE HOPE.

hunting act

lift the ban on hunting with dogs, it is unjust, it has'nt saved any foxes, it has caused the death of more foxes[ night shooting]it is a way to get at the upper classes, when there are more working class people take part, it is a past time for many and a way of life for many more that a few with a louder voice objected too

Why is this idea important?

lift the ban on hunting with dogs, it is unjust, it has'nt saved any foxes, it has caused the death of more foxes[ night shooting]it is a way to get at the upper classes, when there are more working class people take part, it is a past time for many and a way of life for many more that a few with a louder voice objected too

Revoke prison sentence for church feats.

According to my sources the previous administration made it illegal to hold a church feat without a license. They also introduced a two year prison sentence for the same.

It is one of their 5000 new criminal offenses. If this law still exists it should be struck down at once.

Why is this idea important?

According to my sources the previous administration made it illegal to hold a church feat without a license. They also introduced a two year prison sentence for the same.

It is one of their 5000 new criminal offenses. If this law still exists it should be struck down at once.

Stop Immigration/Refugees NOW.

Stop refugees from entering the UK. If they come in – ship them out again ASAP.

Freeze Immigration until England sorts itself out. We are living in a mess so why bring people in before we can tidy up?

 

Why is this idea important?

Stop refugees from entering the UK. If they come in – ship them out again ASAP.

Freeze Immigration until England sorts itself out. We are living in a mess so why bring people in before we can tidy up?

 

Leave the EU – that should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Why is this idea important?

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Abolish all the laws relating to peerages, house of lords, CBEs, MBEs, KBEs, etc

We should create a modern republic that rewards hard work and contributions to society rather than some back-scratching peerage or knighthood for someone who's funded whatever political party.

Why not have a second chamber elected by PR rather than the current system of appointments and elitism.

Why is this idea important?

We should create a modern republic that rewards hard work and contributions to society rather than some back-scratching peerage or knighthood for someone who's funded whatever political party.

Why not have a second chamber elected by PR rather than the current system of appointments and elitism.