Re-Introduce National Service for youth unemployed.

Re-introduce compulsory National Service for anyone aged 18 or over who isn't in further education and is unemployed. Particularly those individuals who have NEVER had a job.

Compulsory National Service could also be used as an alternative to prison in cases of petty crime or reoffence.

They could be paid a wage, say at NMW, which would be partly funded by the reduction in paying out dole money or not having to keep them in prison.

Why is this idea important?

Re-introduce compulsory National Service for anyone aged 18 or over who isn't in further education and is unemployed. Particularly those individuals who have NEVER had a job.

Compulsory National Service could also be used as an alternative to prison in cases of petty crime or reoffence.

They could be paid a wage, say at NMW, which would be partly funded by the reduction in paying out dole money or not having to keep them in prison.

That the UK conforms to Article 9 of the ECHR and stops jailing people for their beliefs

Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought,, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief.

Yet – here in the UK, people are still jailed for their beliefs.

Why is this idea important?

Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought,, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief.

Yet – here in the UK, people are still jailed for their beliefs.

Local residents opposition should count for democracy

Residents fighting to save Green Belt Land being used by this Government to build the BIGGEST PRISON, in OUR VILLAGE of RUNWELL ESSEX.

   vmhorner @hotmail.com       10th Sept 2010

With this Governments Policy of listening to Local Peoples Opinion (WHY ARE THEY NOT LISTENING)

The MoJ is obviously determined to go ahead with its plans regardless of local feeling of Runwell, Rettendon, Wickford, with  Chelmsford Borough Council and Basildon Borough Council, also all local Parish Councils opposing this Planning Application. There are many Brown Field sites within the MOJ's selection critria that have been completely ignored, had they taken these into consideration they could have saved the Tax Payer and this Government Millions of pounds. Regenaration in Deprived area's would provide Jobs   and would also save More Government and Tax payers money by getting people in these area's off Benifits. Chelmsford does NOT need these econmic Benifits but many parts of the country clearly do.

Apart from The Massive saving available by re-siting this proposed Prison, the following is statements from Mr Blunt MP.

"If the next Government is Conservative it will restore powers over planning to local authorities so that decisions are taken locally by locally elected councillors. We will give local communities a share in local growth – when local authorities deliver the housing that their community needs they will get the financial benefit."

Mr Blunt also set out proposals that include scrapping the Regional Spatial Strategies and unelected regional assemblies. He said that he hoped that if the policies are enacted they will empower local councillors and encourage more engagement from voters. Mr Blunt also stressed the importance of protecting the Green Belt:

Chelmsford Borough Council were ready to REGECT MOJ PLANNING APPLICATION on the 20th August 2010, and on the same Day MOJ withdrew the application knowing it was going to be rejected, only to admit to a resubmission in late September 2010.

Finally Deprived area's would welcome the £20million proposed (sweetner) that is NOT required by Chelmsford.
 

Why is this idea important?

Residents fighting to save Green Belt Land being used by this Government to build the BIGGEST PRISON, in OUR VILLAGE of RUNWELL ESSEX.

   vmhorner @hotmail.com       10th Sept 2010

With this Governments Policy of listening to Local Peoples Opinion (WHY ARE THEY NOT LISTENING)

The MoJ is obviously determined to go ahead with its plans regardless of local feeling of Runwell, Rettendon, Wickford, with  Chelmsford Borough Council and Basildon Borough Council, also all local Parish Councils opposing this Planning Application. There are many Brown Field sites within the MOJ's selection critria that have been completely ignored, had they taken these into consideration they could have saved the Tax Payer and this Government Millions of pounds. Regenaration in Deprived area's would provide Jobs   and would also save More Government and Tax payers money by getting people in these area's off Benifits. Chelmsford does NOT need these econmic Benifits but many parts of the country clearly do.

Apart from The Massive saving available by re-siting this proposed Prison, the following is statements from Mr Blunt MP.

"If the next Government is Conservative it will restore powers over planning to local authorities so that decisions are taken locally by locally elected councillors. We will give local communities a share in local growth – when local authorities deliver the housing that their community needs they will get the financial benefit."

Mr Blunt also set out proposals that include scrapping the Regional Spatial Strategies and unelected regional assemblies. He said that he hoped that if the policies are enacted they will empower local councillors and encourage more engagement from voters. Mr Blunt also stressed the importance of protecting the Green Belt:

Chelmsford Borough Council were ready to REGECT MOJ PLANNING APPLICATION on the 20th August 2010, and on the same Day MOJ withdrew the application knowing it was going to be rejected, only to admit to a resubmission in late September 2010.

Finally Deprived area's would welcome the £20million proposed (sweetner) that is NOT required by Chelmsford.
 

PRISON REFORM

PEOPLE  THAT OWE MONIES  ..SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO PRISON   UNLESS FOR FRAUD.   THE BBC LICENCE.  TV LICENCE.  COUNCIL TAX .. CSA ARREARS..  ITS A WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY.  I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO MEET  THE PERSON  WHO MAKES THESE RULES UP .     HOW DO THEY COME TO AGREE ON SUCH STUPID  IDEAS ..

Why is this idea important?

PEOPLE  THAT OWE MONIES  ..SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO PRISON   UNLESS FOR FRAUD.   THE BBC LICENCE.  TV LICENCE.  COUNCIL TAX .. CSA ARREARS..  ITS A WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY.  I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO MEET  THE PERSON  WHO MAKES THESE RULES UP .     HOW DO THEY COME TO AGREE ON SUCH STUPID  IDEAS ..

Repeal Section 97 Children Act1989

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Why is this idea important?

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Tagging vs Prison

I support tagging of minor offenders to prevent costly prison sentances and the potential harm that this can do to the individuals chances of being a positively contributing memeber of society.

Tagging should not be an easy option, it must be enforced and be a real punishment. So those tagged ought to have their freedom curtailed by being required to do community service at least 4 sessions per week (definitely Fridays and Saturdays) and unless the individual has a night-shift job, then the sessions should be early evening through to relatively late at night. This would enable the offender to continue working (and not be a burden on society). Those offenders with relatively long sentances that demonstrate remorse and committment to the community service could rise to become trustees and in this position help administer the scheme and potentially counsel others.

The remainder of their tagged leisure time should be spent at theri home address.

Why is this idea important?

I support tagging of minor offenders to prevent costly prison sentances and the potential harm that this can do to the individuals chances of being a positively contributing memeber of society.

Tagging should not be an easy option, it must be enforced and be a real punishment. So those tagged ought to have their freedom curtailed by being required to do community service at least 4 sessions per week (definitely Fridays and Saturdays) and unless the individual has a night-shift job, then the sessions should be early evening through to relatively late at night. This would enable the offender to continue working (and not be a burden on society). Those offenders with relatively long sentances that demonstrate remorse and committment to the community service could rise to become trustees and in this position help administer the scheme and potentially counsel others.

The remainder of their tagged leisure time should be spent at theri home address.

DELIVER JUSTICE, PROTECT THE PUBLIC: MANDATORY LENGHTY CUSTODIAL SENTENCES FOR UNPROVOKED VIOLENCE

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

Why is this idea important?

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

IMPRISON VIOLENT CRIMINAL TAG OTHERS ELECTRONICALLY

THE PUBLIC FEAR MOST OF ALL, CRIMINALS WHO ARE VIOLENT TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY:-

Suerly there is no need to keep fraudsters,pickpockets,verbal abusers,tax evaders, perjurers illegal whistleblowers,and the like behind bars ?They could all be tagged electronically where they normally live (or in a hostel if they've got nowhere else) with one hour's liberty per day and immediate prison if the curfew is broken.At present electronic tagging is not monitored strictly enough due to cost but that cost if monitoring were ruthlessly thorough would still be a lot less costly than keeping the non violent prisoners in jail !

Murderers,muggers,rapists,burglars,thugs,dope dealers,knife users, physical bullies,violent drunkards,and violent road ragers should all serve 3 times the sort of sentences they are at present given as there would be plenty of room in the prisons to keep them with all the non violent prisoners "cleared out"!

Various laws would have to be changed to give effect to these proposals.Legislation could be a little complex, but a great deal of money would be saved in the long run;

Why is this idea important?

THE PUBLIC FEAR MOST OF ALL, CRIMINALS WHO ARE VIOLENT TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY:-

Suerly there is no need to keep fraudsters,pickpockets,verbal abusers,tax evaders, perjurers illegal whistleblowers,and the like behind bars ?They could all be tagged electronically where they normally live (or in a hostel if they've got nowhere else) with one hour's liberty per day and immediate prison if the curfew is broken.At present electronic tagging is not monitored strictly enough due to cost but that cost if monitoring were ruthlessly thorough would still be a lot less costly than keeping the non violent prisoners in jail !

Murderers,muggers,rapists,burglars,thugs,dope dealers,knife users, physical bullies,violent drunkards,and violent road ragers should all serve 3 times the sort of sentences they are at present given as there would be plenty of room in the prisons to keep them with all the non violent prisoners "cleared out"!

Various laws would have to be changed to give effect to these proposals.Legislation could be a little complex, but a great deal of money would be saved in the long run;

Abolish Joint enterprise law………..

This law is sending young people to prison for life just for being in the vicinity and not knowing anything about the murder.My Brother is serving 22 yrs for a murder he did not commit. There where Nine men convicted of one murder.No evidence and the judge decided to use this law in my brothers case. This law is 300 yrs old and has not been passed in the houses of parliament.Please Please Please can you look into this law that is ruining peoples life is is diabolical and the government need to step in and do something about it……. I know there are lots of others on here who feel the same about the joint enterprise law…..

Why is this idea important?

This law is sending young people to prison for life just for being in the vicinity and not knowing anything about the murder.My Brother is serving 22 yrs for a murder he did not commit. There where Nine men convicted of one murder.No evidence and the judge decided to use this law in my brothers case. This law is 300 yrs old and has not been passed in the houses of parliament.Please Please Please can you look into this law that is ruining peoples life is is diabolical and the government need to step in and do something about it……. I know there are lots of others on here who feel the same about the joint enterprise law…..

Free the innocent to alleviate prison overcrowding

U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.

Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.

It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.

Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.

The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.

Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.

For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.

As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.

There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.

Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.

I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.

Why is this idea important?

U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.

Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.

It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.

Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.

The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.

Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.

For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.

As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.

There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.

Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.

I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.

Re-evaluate the use of juries

 

I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.

Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'

So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:

The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.

Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.

If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.

Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.

The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'

The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'

After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'

And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.

It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.

The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?

In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.

All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.

Why is this idea important?

 

I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.

Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'

So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:

The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.

Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.

If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.

Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.

The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'

The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'

After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'

And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.

It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.

The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?

In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.

All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.

Make it impossible to be proven guilty by accusation alone

 

In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.

The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.

Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.

It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.

The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.

Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.

The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.

Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.

Why is this idea important?

 

In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.

The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.

Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.

It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.

The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.

Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.

The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.

Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.

The Government needs to acknowledge the plight of innocent prisoners


This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.

Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.

Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.

In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?

Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!

Why is this idea important?


This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.

Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.

Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.

In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?

Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!

Prison Service Order 5000 regulation 2.14 bullet point 13

Prison Service Order 5000 (former prison catering manual) is a long & often updated set of regulations about Prison food. It's one of a the prison service orders online as word documents.

I'd delete this rule 2.14/13 – the table – or add a note that meat substitutes like Quorn are OK. I'm not trying to propose worse food for prisonsers, and the rest of rule 2.14 could stay. It says the same thing in a more up to date and flexible way, suggesting nutricious and varied food. There are other parts of the document about what that means in detail.

Food Group

Minimum Frequency

Meat

Daily

Fruit and Vegetables 

5 portions per day

Poultry

Twice per week

Fish

Twice per week (One of which should be oily)

Supplementary Snack

Per evening

Why is this idea important?

Prison Service Order 5000 (former prison catering manual) is a long & often updated set of regulations about Prison food. It's one of a the prison service orders online as word documents.

I'd delete this rule 2.14/13 – the table – or add a note that meat substitutes like Quorn are OK. I'm not trying to propose worse food for prisonsers, and the rest of rule 2.14 could stay. It says the same thing in a more up to date and flexible way, suggesting nutricious and varied food. There are other parts of the document about what that means in detail.

Food Group

Minimum Frequency

Meat

Daily

Fruit and Vegetables 

5 portions per day

Poultry

Twice per week

Fish

Twice per week (One of which should be oily)

Supplementary Snack

Per evening

stop all human rights for prisoner’s

here i am again sat watching the news fuming' that another prisoner i.e. peter sutcliffe (yorkshire ripper) using the human rights laws to try and get out of prison early . for gods sake when are we going to stop this ridiculous situation happening again & again e.g prisoners getting compo for pillows to soft / hard,  being given wrong the wrong prescriptions, falling, not being able to pray , etc etc. the whole worlds laughing at us time to stop their human rights the first time they break the law, & who are the faceless people who sanction these requests.

Why is this idea important?

here i am again sat watching the news fuming' that another prisoner i.e. peter sutcliffe (yorkshire ripper) using the human rights laws to try and get out of prison early . for gods sake when are we going to stop this ridiculous situation happening again & again e.g prisoners getting compo for pillows to soft / hard,  being given wrong the wrong prescriptions, falling, not being able to pray , etc etc. the whole worlds laughing at us time to stop their human rights the first time they break the law, & who are the faceless people who sanction these requests.

Citizens Locked up Abroad Access to Legal Aid from Home

My name is Lesley Pumfrey I have nine children and four grandchildren. I am 44 years old. I live in my own home in Eastbourne East Sussex and I am a senior medical secretary in the Urology 
Department at Eastbourne EDGH. I am married to Karl and we have been together for seventeen years. All have brought all of my kids up to respect their elders and the laws of our country. Unfortunately one of my daughters has had a hard life. From her father rejecting her to then being horrendously bullied all through school when we live on the Romney Marsh Kent with no protection from head of that school as he would not accept he had a school run by bullies. I campaigned to change things nothing was done. She then got herself pregnant in 2005 and she was not able to look after herself let alone a baby so she went for a termination. In the November that year on thinking she got pregnant again we found the termination failed and she consequently had a little girl Casey. We put her in a mother and baby unit run by a charity which then became a nightmare for us all when one of the staff took disliking to her and accused her of all sorts (proved most of things they said were wrong) she ended up with Casey on at risk register. By this time Nicola had given up it seemed what ever she did it was always a negative feedback to slap her down and so I ended up with Casey coming to live with me in January 2009.  She then went off the rails drinking alot and not having anywhere to live. She moved in with a friend in Newhaven. Her friend then got a new boyfriend and in the April of that year I found out her friends boyfriend had been beating her and making her prostitute and even kidnapped her from Brighton and took her to Beachyhead and threatened to throw her off if she did not do what he wanted. Her friends mum had called my dad and then me to tell me she had been to the police because he was grooming young girls and my daughter to prostitute for him and also to do a drug runs for his mates in London (there is lots more too this but have no room for all). I had called the police and my dad did too and they said even though what she was doing was illegal they could not help us unless she made a complaint. We got her home in the May June 2009 and she denied it all to us. Well in the Sept Oct she seemed to settle down and moved back into my mums got a job and the court case (sued the consultant who failed her) and she was suing for 24.000 and seemed to be getting herself sorted. She even went to the police and told them all about what this guy had done to her and that she was scarred as he was making threats against my mother and my granddaughter. She did not want anything done to him she wanted to let them know just in case anything happened to her(my dad was taken seriously ill and died on the 16th of October) I also had a health scare and had to have a bone marrow biopsy. Then on the 20th of November she disappeared. We reported her missing on the Saturday 21st to Sussex Police We told them about everything we knew. She had been communicating with one of her friends and she knew what was going on but kept lieing about everything. We found out she was in Brazil Soa Paulo. I put on her facebook so they could see and told her she could not think of bringing any drugs back as the police know everything and they will be questioning her when she got into the country. I also called her and told her this on the phone. She was denying it and said she was on holiday and a girl had given her a ticket as she could not go due to uni starting. We found out what hotel she was in and a police officer called it and confirmed she was there and leaving on 25th. She was on facebook alot and tried to get her to go to consulate (we knew she had someone with her as when we talked via facebook her responses were not what she would say. She then suddenly disapearred off of facebook and no-one heard anything from her for about a week. The police found out she had tried to book a flight with a card which had no money on. I kept texting even pleading to whoever had her to let her come home and we would pay them the money back somehow. This would be provable by phone company and looking on messages on facebook. I was told by a policeman a week before her arrest that agencies were talking to each other in the background and even though it looked like they were doing nothing to help get her home they were actively trying to help. He also did though say was she telling the truth about it all and I told him she had no money not a penny and we know for sure that what was being said was the truth. Then at 1.00 am on the 21st of December my mum called me in a state to say she had been arrested at Soa Paulo airport for having drugs in her bag. I called the police and told them she had been arrested and they took the message and I heard nothing from them. I contacted the consulate and when I did I asked had they been contacted regarding my daughter going missing and the only time they contacted them was when I had that day. It was obvious that the Brazilian Police had not been told what had happened to her as nothing had been said. No one at anytime from Sussex Police phoned to offer any kind of sympathy or help. So I wrote and demanded in writing all that they had done to find her but was refused on some clause to the freedom of information act. The only thing they said is that they would speak to her legal defence if they contacted them and to let them know we believed she did it under duress. I sent this letter to her. We do not have the funds for private lawyer so she has to have  public one. I am finding out this is the worst defence lawyers you can have as 98% of people who have one get sent down. All that happened to her before she went is needed for her defence and I am told that he has not turned up to see her. My daughter had no clothing and is stuck in a hell hole and no one wants to help. I think we should in these cases provide a defence lawyer our own legal aid for our citizens. Not all cases are cut and dried and at least they deserve a decent defence and more watching how they are being treated as I do not think the consulate is very helpful at all. Foreigners get more legal help here than they would in their own country. We should help the poorer person abroad and our citizens especially in a country like Brazil. We all know that human rights is the last thing they think about and the insanitary conditions over there. Bring them home to serve sentences.  I have a little girl now who has lost her mum for good as I don't think my daughter is going to come back to us. She is not strong and she is a victim in this. The police have let my family down and now I dont know what to say to my kids as I have said if you are in trouble go to the police but how can I justify that when our own law cannot prevent things like this when they have been told that there is a gang in London praying on young vulnerable girls and sending them over to bring their drugs back and there is nothing they will do to stop this. There needs to be a campaign to put posters in airports to show the devastation it has when a loved one is used like this and ends up in Hell miles from friends and family and civilisation.  My daughter could be being abused, rapped, tortured and there is no one to help. Has she not suffered enough. I just want to add that my daughter had her passport photocopied and was frightened as the person they sent was linked to the gang who put her there as he asked to take her case on (he asked for her by name).

Why is this idea important?

My name is Lesley Pumfrey I have nine children and four grandchildren. I am 44 years old. I live in my own home in Eastbourne East Sussex and I am a senior medical secretary in the Urology 
Department at Eastbourne EDGH. I am married to Karl and we have been together for seventeen years. All have brought all of my kids up to respect their elders and the laws of our country. Unfortunately one of my daughters has had a hard life. From her father rejecting her to then being horrendously bullied all through school when we live on the Romney Marsh Kent with no protection from head of that school as he would not accept he had a school run by bullies. I campaigned to change things nothing was done. She then got herself pregnant in 2005 and she was not able to look after herself let alone a baby so she went for a termination. In the November that year on thinking she got pregnant again we found the termination failed and she consequently had a little girl Casey. We put her in a mother and baby unit run by a charity which then became a nightmare for us all when one of the staff took disliking to her and accused her of all sorts (proved most of things they said were wrong) she ended up with Casey on at risk register. By this time Nicola had given up it seemed what ever she did it was always a negative feedback to slap her down and so I ended up with Casey coming to live with me in January 2009.  She then went off the rails drinking alot and not having anywhere to live. She moved in with a friend in Newhaven. Her friend then got a new boyfriend and in the April of that year I found out her friends boyfriend had been beating her and making her prostitute and even kidnapped her from Brighton and took her to Beachyhead and threatened to throw her off if she did not do what he wanted. Her friends mum had called my dad and then me to tell me she had been to the police because he was grooming young girls and my daughter to prostitute for him and also to do a drug runs for his mates in London (there is lots more too this but have no room for all). I had called the police and my dad did too and they said even though what she was doing was illegal they could not help us unless she made a complaint. We got her home in the May June 2009 and she denied it all to us. Well in the Sept Oct she seemed to settle down and moved back into my mums got a job and the court case (sued the consultant who failed her) and she was suing for 24.000 and seemed to be getting herself sorted. She even went to the police and told them all about what this guy had done to her and that she was scarred as he was making threats against my mother and my granddaughter. She did not want anything done to him she wanted to let them know just in case anything happened to her(my dad was taken seriously ill and died on the 16th of October) I also had a health scare and had to have a bone marrow biopsy. Then on the 20th of November she disappeared. We reported her missing on the Saturday 21st to Sussex Police We told them about everything we knew. She had been communicating with one of her friends and she knew what was going on but kept lieing about everything. We found out she was in Brazil Soa Paulo. I put on her facebook so they could see and told her she could not think of bringing any drugs back as the police know everything and they will be questioning her when she got into the country. I also called her and told her this on the phone. She was denying it and said she was on holiday and a girl had given her a ticket as she could not go due to uni starting. We found out what hotel she was in and a police officer called it and confirmed she was there and leaving on 25th. She was on facebook alot and tried to get her to go to consulate (we knew she had someone with her as when we talked via facebook her responses were not what she would say. She then suddenly disapearred off of facebook and no-one heard anything from her for about a week. The police found out she had tried to book a flight with a card which had no money on. I kept texting even pleading to whoever had her to let her come home and we would pay them the money back somehow. This would be provable by phone company and looking on messages on facebook. I was told by a policeman a week before her arrest that agencies were talking to each other in the background and even though it looked like they were doing nothing to help get her home they were actively trying to help. He also did though say was she telling the truth about it all and I told him she had no money not a penny and we know for sure that what was being said was the truth. Then at 1.00 am on the 21st of December my mum called me in a state to say she had been arrested at Soa Paulo airport for having drugs in her bag. I called the police and told them she had been arrested and they took the message and I heard nothing from them. I contacted the consulate and when I did I asked had they been contacted regarding my daughter going missing and the only time they contacted them was when I had that day. It was obvious that the Brazilian Police had not been told what had happened to her as nothing had been said. No one at anytime from Sussex Police phoned to offer any kind of sympathy or help. So I wrote and demanded in writing all that they had done to find her but was refused on some clause to the freedom of information act. The only thing they said is that they would speak to her legal defence if they contacted them and to let them know we believed she did it under duress. I sent this letter to her. We do not have the funds for private lawyer so she has to have  public one. I am finding out this is the worst defence lawyers you can have as 98% of people who have one get sent down. All that happened to her before she went is needed for her defence and I am told that he has not turned up to see her. My daughter had no clothing and is stuck in a hell hole and no one wants to help. I think we should in these cases provide a defence lawyer our own legal aid for our citizens. Not all cases are cut and dried and at least they deserve a decent defence and more watching how they are being treated as I do not think the consulate is very helpful at all. Foreigners get more legal help here than they would in their own country. We should help the poorer person abroad and our citizens especially in a country like Brazil. We all know that human rights is the last thing they think about and the insanitary conditions over there. Bring them home to serve sentences.  I have a little girl now who has lost her mum for good as I don't think my daughter is going to come back to us. She is not strong and she is a victim in this. The police have let my family down and now I dont know what to say to my kids as I have said if you are in trouble go to the police but how can I justify that when our own law cannot prevent things like this when they have been told that there is a gang in London praying on young vulnerable girls and sending them over to bring their drugs back and there is nothing they will do to stop this. There needs to be a campaign to put posters in airports to show the devastation it has when a loved one is used like this and ends up in Hell miles from friends and family and civilisation.  My daughter could be being abused, rapped, tortured and there is no one to help. Has she not suffered enough. I just want to add that my daughter had her passport photocopied and was frightened as the person they sent was linked to the gang who put her there as he asked to take her case on (he asked for her by name).

Prohibit cell confessions now!

I run the Michael Stone website: http//www.ismichaelstoneguilty.info/

Michael Stone is the longest serving miscarriage of justice prisoner in the UK. He has been convicted twice of the Chillenden Murders, the first time on the basis of concocted prison confessions, the second time on the basis of one confession he is alleged to have shouted through a cell wall.

Although Stone is the most high profile case he is far from the only one. Prior to the 1984 Police And Criminal Evidence Act, police officers would routinely "verbal up" suspects, especially suspects of bad character. When tape recording of police interrogations was introduced, verbally disappeared literally overnight.

We are now in the invidious position that the word of a convicted criminal, including persons of very bad character and with their own agendas or axes to grind, are held in higher esteem by the courts. If a police inspector or indeed a chief constable claims a suspect confessed to him in the back of a police car, this alleged confession will be ruled inadmissible by the trial judge. Whereas a convicted drug dealer or even a convicted murderer who claims the same confession was made in a police cell will be allowed to testify. Obviously this is ludicrous, even to people like myself who hold the police in low esteem.

Prison confessions are extremely difficult to manufacture and almost impossible to refute.

I would suggest that in future, before a prison or cell confession is admitted in evidence that it fulfils certain criteria. The famous "Christian Burial Speech" in Brewer v Williams, an American case in which an accused confessed to a police officer while being transferred, is a good template for what should be admitted in evidence and what should not. In this case, the accused not only confessed to the murder but led the police to the victim's body.

In effect, I am arguing that no prison or cell confession should be admissible in a criminal case unless it adduces meaningful evidence not already in the public domain that can be proved in a court of law.

Why is this idea important?

I run the Michael Stone website: http//www.ismichaelstoneguilty.info/

Michael Stone is the longest serving miscarriage of justice prisoner in the UK. He has been convicted twice of the Chillenden Murders, the first time on the basis of concocted prison confessions, the second time on the basis of one confession he is alleged to have shouted through a cell wall.

Although Stone is the most high profile case he is far from the only one. Prior to the 1984 Police And Criminal Evidence Act, police officers would routinely "verbal up" suspects, especially suspects of bad character. When tape recording of police interrogations was introduced, verbally disappeared literally overnight.

We are now in the invidious position that the word of a convicted criminal, including persons of very bad character and with their own agendas or axes to grind, are held in higher esteem by the courts. If a police inspector or indeed a chief constable claims a suspect confessed to him in the back of a police car, this alleged confession will be ruled inadmissible by the trial judge. Whereas a convicted drug dealer or even a convicted murderer who claims the same confession was made in a police cell will be allowed to testify. Obviously this is ludicrous, even to people like myself who hold the police in low esteem.

Prison confessions are extremely difficult to manufacture and almost impossible to refute.

I would suggest that in future, before a prison or cell confession is admitted in evidence that it fulfils certain criteria. The famous "Christian Burial Speech" in Brewer v Williams, an American case in which an accused confessed to a police officer while being transferred, is a good template for what should be admitted in evidence and what should not. In this case, the accused not only confessed to the murder but led the police to the victim's body.

In effect, I am arguing that no prison or cell confession should be admissible in a criminal case unless it adduces meaningful evidence not already in the public domain that can be proved in a court of law.

Stop the Judiciary giving Sadistic Jail Terms..Make sentencing more consistent with the Offences.

Because it's ok everyone jumping on the Band Wagon saying Prisoners are treat to leniently there are people handed sentences in this Country so called England a free Democracy that you would'nt sentence an Animal too i mean harsh manifestly excessive is too trivial a word some Defendants are Buggered good and proper by the system. The Magistrates Court's should be renamed Police Courts because in their eyes the Corrupt Police can do no wrong "yeah right" also the Crown Court Judges are just poor Evil and don't sentence Criminals fairly some do get far more a severe sentence than the Crime they'd actually committed. I'm not saying let everyone off scott free but at least let the sentence relfect the crime fairly after all justice is all about a balance.. 

Why is this idea important?

Because it's ok everyone jumping on the Band Wagon saying Prisoners are treat to leniently there are people handed sentences in this Country so called England a free Democracy that you would'nt sentence an Animal too i mean harsh manifestly excessive is too trivial a word some Defendants are Buggered good and proper by the system. The Magistrates Court's should be renamed Police Courts because in their eyes the Corrupt Police can do no wrong "yeah right" also the Crown Court Judges are just poor Evil and don't sentence Criminals fairly some do get far more a severe sentence than the Crime they'd actually committed. I'm not saying let everyone off scott free but at least let the sentence relfect the crime fairly after all justice is all about a balance.. 

no republic for any commonwealth country state or territory

until all such entities adhere to the westminster system and all checks and balances are in place. without a bicameral system in place a republic is a distinct possibility and all that that implies i.e. dictatorship, loss of liberty, freedom of speech, indoctrination etc.

suggest all those entities which do not adhere are subjected to trade embargos or some similar sanction. the rule of law is essential for a truly democratic system and the right of an individual to a fair trial, and to be able to appeal to a higher authority against a sentence length. deprivation of liberty in prison is punnishment enough. humiliation, torture are not the hallmarks of a civilised society which should have detention facilities with the minimal facilities in place.

Why is this idea important?

until all such entities adhere to the westminster system and all checks and balances are in place. without a bicameral system in place a republic is a distinct possibility and all that that implies i.e. dictatorship, loss of liberty, freedom of speech, indoctrination etc.

suggest all those entities which do not adhere are subjected to trade embargos or some similar sanction. the rule of law is essential for a truly democratic system and the right of an individual to a fair trial, and to be able to appeal to a higher authority against a sentence length. deprivation of liberty in prison is punnishment enough. humiliation, torture are not the hallmarks of a civilised society which should have detention facilities with the minimal facilities in place.

Stop prisoners smoking indoors (it’s a place of work too)

Prisoners get access to tobacco (at tax payers expense!) and they then smoke indoors, which is allowed, or not challenged by prison staff. Stop prisoners being given free tobacco and stop them smoking indoors.

Why is this idea important?

Prisoners get access to tobacco (at tax payers expense!) and they then smoke indoors, which is allowed, or not challenged by prison staff. Stop prisoners being given free tobacco and stop them smoking indoors.

Jails are for punishment, not a holiday camp

I think the old TV series Porridge best sets out the way prisons used to be.

If you did a crime you was sent to jail as a punishment, the punishement was a removal of your luxuries, removal of your freedom, you was kept locked up to think about what you had done and hopefully deter you from doing them again.

However, todays jails are nothing more than holiday camps, people are not afarid to go to jail anymore, why not?  you get a roof over your head, you are fed very well everyday, you have a TV and playstaton in your cell, you go to the gym and work out and  get fit so you dont get outrun by the police next time.

Seriously am I the only person who is appauled by this??

Being sent to jail is punishment for a crime you commited against society and the convicted should be made to feel that they are being punnished, today they feel they are being rewarded.

Why is this idea important?

I think the old TV series Porridge best sets out the way prisons used to be.

If you did a crime you was sent to jail as a punishment, the punishement was a removal of your luxuries, removal of your freedom, you was kept locked up to think about what you had done and hopefully deter you from doing them again.

However, todays jails are nothing more than holiday camps, people are not afarid to go to jail anymore, why not?  you get a roof over your head, you are fed very well everyday, you have a TV and playstaton in your cell, you go to the gym and work out and  get fit so you dont get outrun by the police next time.

Seriously am I the only person who is appauled by this??

Being sent to jail is punishment for a crime you commited against society and the convicted should be made to feel that they are being punnished, today they feel they are being rewarded.

Repeal section 39 of the Prison Act 1952

Section 39 of the Prison Act 1952 creates an offence of assisting prisoners to escape. However, there are four other related common law offences that could be used instead of this statutory offence:

  • Permitting an escape
  • Rescue
  • Escaping from lawful custody without force
  • Breach of prison

Assisting a prisoner could be charge as aiding and abetting or conspiracy to commit one of the above offences.

Why is this idea important?

Section 39 of the Prison Act 1952 creates an offence of assisting prisoners to escape. However, there are four other related common law offences that could be used instead of this statutory offence:

  • Permitting an escape
  • Rescue
  • Escaping from lawful custody without force
  • Breach of prison

Assisting a prisoner could be charge as aiding and abetting or conspiracy to commit one of the above offences.

Repeal Imprisonment For Cultivation Of Cannabis

Currently the maximum prison term for cultivation of cannabis is 14 years. The maximum term fro Unregistered, illegal, gun ownership is 5 years.

Something is very wrong with our society.

Illegal guns kill people, growing cannabis doesn't. How on Earth is the law to  be taken seriously if it continues to employ such obviously unjust powers? How on Earth is it remotely justifiable to imprison someone guilty of a victimless crime for a greater term than those convicted of owning a weapon that has such terrible consequences for society?

Repeal the law that allows a prison term to be served by cannabis cultivation.

Why is this idea important?

Currently the maximum prison term for cultivation of cannabis is 14 years. The maximum term fro Unregistered, illegal, gun ownership is 5 years.

Something is very wrong with our society.

Illegal guns kill people, growing cannabis doesn't. How on Earth is the law to  be taken seriously if it continues to employ such obviously unjust powers? How on Earth is it remotely justifiable to imprison someone guilty of a victimless crime for a greater term than those convicted of owning a weapon that has such terrible consequences for society?

Repeal the law that allows a prison term to be served by cannabis cultivation.