Abolish the TV licence and the associated enforcement bodies

The TV licence is no longer appropriate as only a small proportion of available television is supplied by the BBC and increasingly content is distributed by other means than terrestial wireless. It is basically a tax and should be treated as such. The present collection and enforcement schemes are a very inefficient way of collecting tax. The BBC could be funded from the treasury as we can afford and the money collected through any of the many current schemes withou additional cost. The enforcment schemes are expensive, draconian and do not contribute to the quality of our society.

Why is this idea important?

The TV licence is no longer appropriate as only a small proportion of available television is supplied by the BBC and increasingly content is distributed by other means than terrestial wireless. It is basically a tax and should be treated as such. The present collection and enforcement schemes are a very inefficient way of collecting tax. The BBC could be funded from the treasury as we can afford and the money collected through any of the many current schemes withou additional cost. The enforcment schemes are expensive, draconian and do not contribute to the quality of our society.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act

The above Act should be repealed forthwith and replaced with a law that is not so heavily weighted against the citizen and in favour of the State. Particularly offensive is the power the police AND OTHER AUTHORITIES such as local authorities have. to use Human Covert Surveillane. This allows the state to use  employees such as police to form  a relationship (including a sexual one) with a suspect for the purpose of obtaining information from them which they would not otherwise be able to obtain. I

Why is this idea important?

The above Act should be repealed forthwith and replaced with a law that is not so heavily weighted against the citizen and in favour of the State. Particularly offensive is the power the police AND OTHER AUTHORITIES such as local authorities have. to use Human Covert Surveillane. This allows the state to use  employees such as police to form  a relationship (including a sexual one) with a suspect for the purpose of obtaining information from them which they would not otherwise be able to obtain. I

Free annual credit reports for everyone

We should follow the example of the USA – US citizens get access to one free credit report each year so why can't we. Although we've recently been given quicker access to credit files, you still have to pay £2 for each report you get from a credit reference agency and sometimes you need one from all of the three major ones just to get a rounded view of your credit history (a total of £6 a year).

Why is this idea important?

We should follow the example of the USA – US citizens get access to one free credit report each year so why can't we. Although we've recently been given quicker access to credit files, you still have to pay £2 for each report you get from a credit reference agency and sometimes you need one from all of the three major ones just to get a rounded view of your credit history (a total of £6 a year).

RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act 2000) – SCRAP!

Which Laws Should We scrap?     –  www.yourFreedom.HMG.gov.uk  by Nick Clegg

RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) – SCRAP!  

It has created a Police State, Silent Holocaust, a “Witch hunt” industry and a new Barbarism.  It robbed us of our freedom and security, has generated domestic terrorism, dismantled our constitution, common Law and nation.  

Dr. Martin Luther King:  We must be wary of those, who promise us security and ask in return for our freedom.  We must recognize, that part of the price for freedom may well be insecurity, but the price for complete security is inhumanity.

RIPA has created a global programme of torture, murder and persecution creating a mass movement of national and global phenomenon of Organized Gang Stalking with  a vast network of plain-clothed citizens informants which is used for public stalking and the use of Directed Energy Weapons, mind control etc. on targeted individuals.  All core factions of the community are involved, and everyone, from seniors to children, participates in Organized Gang Stalking.

The most targeted are those with physical, emotional and psychological traumas, peace, civil rights activists, whistleblowers, women living on their own, people who live “alternative lifestyles”, who angered the police, spiritually and morally evolved and anyone else the stalkers see as not conforming with their version of “normality”.  

Organized Gang Stalking is a POLICE HARASSMENT campaign of epic proportions.  It is done under the guise of keeping an eye on internal threats to state security and cleaning up neighbourhoods.  This is exactly what the informant networks in East Germany and Russia were told when they were recruited into these state-sponsored programs.  The victims are sabotaged in everyway, loose their livelihoods and literally gang stalked to death.

According to www.nowpublic.com  December 2009 Google hits for Community Gang Stalking 5,160,000, Group Stalking 4,210,000, Case Gang Stalking 4,880,000, Organized Gang Stalking 1,860,000, Terrorist Gang Stalking 713,000, Vigilante Gang Stalking 116,000. Who knows how many at present.

These are essentially global Psychological Warfare operations, done with the support of the civilian population, military, police, intelligence agencies and government funding. This type of operation is a torture and harassment campaign of monumental proportions – it is NOT surveillance.

Some of this may be unauthorized human subject experimentation.  This is prohibited in U.K. law and by the Nuremberg Code, internationally.
 
www.gangstalkingworld.com ;  www.freedomfchs.com

 

Why is this idea important?

Which Laws Should We scrap?     –  www.yourFreedom.HMG.gov.uk  by Nick Clegg

RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) – SCRAP!  

It has created a Police State, Silent Holocaust, a “Witch hunt” industry and a new Barbarism.  It robbed us of our freedom and security, has generated domestic terrorism, dismantled our constitution, common Law and nation.  

Dr. Martin Luther King:  We must be wary of those, who promise us security and ask in return for our freedom.  We must recognize, that part of the price for freedom may well be insecurity, but the price for complete security is inhumanity.

RIPA has created a global programme of torture, murder and persecution creating a mass movement of national and global phenomenon of Organized Gang Stalking with  a vast network of plain-clothed citizens informants which is used for public stalking and the use of Directed Energy Weapons, mind control etc. on targeted individuals.  All core factions of the community are involved, and everyone, from seniors to children, participates in Organized Gang Stalking.

The most targeted are those with physical, emotional and psychological traumas, peace, civil rights activists, whistleblowers, women living on their own, people who live “alternative lifestyles”, who angered the police, spiritually and morally evolved and anyone else the stalkers see as not conforming with their version of “normality”.  

Organized Gang Stalking is a POLICE HARASSMENT campaign of epic proportions.  It is done under the guise of keeping an eye on internal threats to state security and cleaning up neighbourhoods.  This is exactly what the informant networks in East Germany and Russia were told when they were recruited into these state-sponsored programs.  The victims are sabotaged in everyway, loose their livelihoods and literally gang stalked to death.

According to www.nowpublic.com  December 2009 Google hits for Community Gang Stalking 5,160,000, Group Stalking 4,210,000, Case Gang Stalking 4,880,000, Organized Gang Stalking 1,860,000, Terrorist Gang Stalking 713,000, Vigilante Gang Stalking 116,000. Who knows how many at present.

These are essentially global Psychological Warfare operations, done with the support of the civilian population, military, police, intelligence agencies and government funding. This type of operation is a torture and harassment campaign of monumental proportions – it is NOT surveillance.

Some of this may be unauthorized human subject experimentation.  This is prohibited in U.K. law and by the Nuremberg Code, internationally.
 
www.gangstalkingworld.com ;  www.freedomfchs.com

 

Private Data Accessability and Availability

Currently several Government Departments and Agencies and other Public Bodies are allowed to provide personal information to effectively anyone willing to pay for that information.  While some information should be made avaialble to relevant 'offical bodies' such as the Police availability of infomration to commercial or 'non-official' bodies for payment of a fee should be restricted.

Example – private car park contractors should not be able to obtain personal details linked to a specific car to pursue unpaid parking charges.  Should their be a criminal or security reason for any operator needing to know the details then these should be refered to the Police.  Information held by the DVLA should only be made fully available to certain official bodies such as the Police, any other commercial bodies should only be able to request access to details that do not identify the individual unless the individual gives thier explicit concent such as when applying for insurance on line, and even then the insurer should provide such protection that the individuals personal details are not to be disclosed unless as a result of formal criminal/legal proceedings.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Currently several Government Departments and Agencies and other Public Bodies are allowed to provide personal information to effectively anyone willing to pay for that information.  While some information should be made avaialble to relevant 'offical bodies' such as the Police availability of infomration to commercial or 'non-official' bodies for payment of a fee should be restricted.

Example – private car park contractors should not be able to obtain personal details linked to a specific car to pursue unpaid parking charges.  Should their be a criminal or security reason for any operator needing to know the details then these should be refered to the Police.  Information held by the DVLA should only be made fully available to certain official bodies such as the Police, any other commercial bodies should only be able to request access to details that do not identify the individual unless the individual gives thier explicit concent such as when applying for insurance on line, and even then the insurer should provide such protection that the individuals personal details are not to be disclosed unless as a result of formal criminal/legal proceedings.

 

 

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act

This is another of those characteristic laws that gives almost unlimited powers to the enforcer with the (not so) comforting explanatory note that it will "never be used".

 – Get rid of the black boxes: privacy is fundamentally more valuable than the comfort of law enforcers.

 – Get rid of the reverse burden of proof: you cannot prove a negative no matter how hard you try.

 – Get rid of the gagging order.

 – In fact get rid of the entire act. Try being rational for a change.

Fundamentally, I do not trust you, the politicians. You are beneath even contempt, as recent events have shown.

You have no honour.

And you are far more of a threat than any number of dodgy cyber-criminals, no matter what sort of pictures they look at.

Is that clear enough for you?

Why is this idea important?

This is another of those characteristic laws that gives almost unlimited powers to the enforcer with the (not so) comforting explanatory note that it will "never be used".

 – Get rid of the black boxes: privacy is fundamentally more valuable than the comfort of law enforcers.

 – Get rid of the reverse burden of proof: you cannot prove a negative no matter how hard you try.

 – Get rid of the gagging order.

 – In fact get rid of the entire act. Try being rational for a change.

Fundamentally, I do not trust you, the politicians. You are beneath even contempt, as recent events have shown.

You have no honour.

And you are far more of a threat than any number of dodgy cyber-criminals, no matter what sort of pictures they look at.

Is that clear enough for you?

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

 

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

 

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

 

The two main types of police drone surveillance:

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

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

 

Why is this idea important?

 

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

 

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

 

The two main types of police drone surveillance:

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

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

 

CRB CHECK FOR VOLUNTEERING ON SCHOOL TRIP

GET RID OF CRB CHECKS FOR PARENTS WANTING TO HELP OUT ON SCHOOL TRIPS. THESE ARE ONLY ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR, IT SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY TO GO WITH YOUR OWN CHILD WHEN YOU ARE ONLY CONCERNED FOR THEIR SAFETY, ESPECIALLY AT RECEPTION AGE WHEN THEY AREN'T AWAY FROM PARENTS BEFORE. IF THEY DO INSIST ON IT THE SCHOOL SHOULD PAY FOR IT, I LOOK AT IT LIKE THE SCHOOL IS HAPPY ENOUGH FOR THE SAME PARENTS TO GO IN DAY IN DAY OUT AND HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME KIDS, WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Why is this idea important?

GET RID OF CRB CHECKS FOR PARENTS WANTING TO HELP OUT ON SCHOOL TRIPS. THESE ARE ONLY ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR, IT SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY TO GO WITH YOUR OWN CHILD WHEN YOU ARE ONLY CONCERNED FOR THEIR SAFETY, ESPECIALLY AT RECEPTION AGE WHEN THEY AREN'T AWAY FROM PARENTS BEFORE. IF THEY DO INSIST ON IT THE SCHOOL SHOULD PAY FOR IT, I LOOK AT IT LIKE THE SCHOOL IS HAPPY ENOUGH FOR THE SAME PARENTS TO GO IN DAY IN DAY OUT AND HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME KIDS, WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Surveilance Subjects Must (eventually) be Notified

Identified subjects of official surveilance should, in the long term, be notified of which of their communications where intercepted, the justification for doing so and the conclussions drawn.

Obviously it would not be sensible to do this while the enquiry was in progress. A time limit should be set, say five years, by the end of which such notification must take place.

Meanwhile the amount of surveilance being conducted should be published regularly and in detail. Number of phone calls tapped. Number of numbers traced, number of e-mails read and so forth.

Why is this idea important?

Identified subjects of official surveilance should, in the long term, be notified of which of their communications where intercepted, the justification for doing so and the conclussions drawn.

Obviously it would not be sensible to do this while the enquiry was in progress. A time limit should be set, say five years, by the end of which such notification must take place.

Meanwhile the amount of surveilance being conducted should be published regularly and in detail. Number of phone calls tapped. Number of numbers traced, number of e-mails read and so forth.

CRB Checks

Quite simply, to carry out a single CRB check, rather than one for every activity you may be involved with. This would cut down on vast volumes of administration with huge costs to the taxpayer, but importantly, it would also speed up the process, which is one of the main complaints of the present system.

Like others, I am tempted to suggest that you get rid of the checks altogether, but I can see there would be an immediate outcry if there was just one unfortunate incident, resulting in immediate cries for a government minister's head to roll.

Why is this idea important?

Quite simply, to carry out a single CRB check, rather than one for every activity you may be involved with. This would cut down on vast volumes of administration with huge costs to the taxpayer, but importantly, it would also speed up the process, which is one of the main complaints of the present system.

Like others, I am tempted to suggest that you get rid of the checks altogether, but I can see there would be an immediate outcry if there was just one unfortunate incident, resulting in immediate cries for a government minister's head to roll.

End/Reduce Collection of Data from ISPs

ISPs have been bullied and cajoled into keeping vast quantities of information about every single action a person takes online, and being well versed in computers, I can avoid this if I so wish.

Therefore, those who are most dangerous and require monitoring are completely able to ignore this and pass straight through the net, no matter how many 'restrictions' are placed on it.

It criminalises the innocent, leading to paranoia about something that should be essentially private. Do not trade any more of our freedom for security, if anything we should be given our freedom back, and refuse to live in fear.

Why is this idea important?

ISPs have been bullied and cajoled into keeping vast quantities of information about every single action a person takes online, and being well versed in computers, I can avoid this if I so wish.

Therefore, those who are most dangerous and require monitoring are completely able to ignore this and pass straight through the net, no matter how many 'restrictions' are placed on it.

It criminalises the innocent, leading to paranoia about something that should be essentially private. Do not trade any more of our freedom for security, if anything we should be given our freedom back, and refuse to live in fear.

Make the police and CRB offer honest and accurate references to employers

The current system of CRB's allows for the police to return information on 'any other comments' as deemed appropriate by the chief officer.

This is wrong as it allows for the inclusion of information where allegations have been made that have not been proved and there has been a full acquittal.

I was wrongly accused of being involved in a fight. It was a malicious allegation, yet it was taken all the way to crown court based on witness statements. I pleaded not guilty of course.

Two day of evidence were presented in court in front of a jury. The witnesses were shown to have lied in their statements and the police were shown to have ignored vital information that demonstrated I was not involved.

After two days of evidence, the jury retired and returned within 20 minutes with a unanimous not guilty verdict.

However, my CRB checks come back and in the 'any other comments' box this is all presented as factual – suggesting that I was involved, detailing the allegations against me as a true fact and saying that I had done what I was accused of.

Clearly upon reading this employers have had doubt over my character placed on their perceptions of me and ultimately will not employ me.

This is a clear infringement upon civil liberties – being arrested does not make you guilty. The police should not be allowed to put a stain on your character for life or for any period of time, particularly if you have been found not guilty in a court of law otherwise they are simply undermining the criminal justice system.

Very many of those who have been arrested and convicted of harming children and vulnerable adults have no convictions or have ever been known to the police – thus I fail to see how a CRB check safeguards against abuse. All a CRB check allows for is discrimination in the workplace whilst pedophiles continue undetected.

The system needs to be changed – government cannot be responsible for safeguarding, local organisations who know the communities and people should be trusted to police themselves.

Reactionary polices, like many of those put in place by the former government do nothing to improve safeguarding, but do a great deal to create an environment of suspicion.

It seems we are all guilty until proven innocent or at least under suspicion until we can prove otherwise.

This is a stain upon our society!!!!

Why is this idea important?

The current system of CRB's allows for the police to return information on 'any other comments' as deemed appropriate by the chief officer.

This is wrong as it allows for the inclusion of information where allegations have been made that have not been proved and there has been a full acquittal.

I was wrongly accused of being involved in a fight. It was a malicious allegation, yet it was taken all the way to crown court based on witness statements. I pleaded not guilty of course.

Two day of evidence were presented in court in front of a jury. The witnesses were shown to have lied in their statements and the police were shown to have ignored vital information that demonstrated I was not involved.

After two days of evidence, the jury retired and returned within 20 minutes with a unanimous not guilty verdict.

However, my CRB checks come back and in the 'any other comments' box this is all presented as factual – suggesting that I was involved, detailing the allegations against me as a true fact and saying that I had done what I was accused of.

Clearly upon reading this employers have had doubt over my character placed on their perceptions of me and ultimately will not employ me.

This is a clear infringement upon civil liberties – being arrested does not make you guilty. The police should not be allowed to put a stain on your character for life or for any period of time, particularly if you have been found not guilty in a court of law otherwise they are simply undermining the criminal justice system.

Very many of those who have been arrested and convicted of harming children and vulnerable adults have no convictions or have ever been known to the police – thus I fail to see how a CRB check safeguards against abuse. All a CRB check allows for is discrimination in the workplace whilst pedophiles continue undetected.

The system needs to be changed – government cannot be responsible for safeguarding, local organisations who know the communities and people should be trusted to police themselves.

Reactionary polices, like many of those put in place by the former government do nothing to improve safeguarding, but do a great deal to create an environment of suspicion.

It seems we are all guilty until proven innocent or at least under suspicion until we can prove otherwise.

This is a stain upon our society!!!!

Restore civil liberties as follows:

1. Reduce pre charge detention period to a maximum of 14 days

2. Abolish Control Orders

3. Abolish the Contact Point database

4. Abolish or greatky modify the SCR [NHS register system]

Why is this idea important?

1. Reduce pre charge detention period to a maximum of 14 days

2. Abolish Control Orders

3. Abolish the Contact Point database

4. Abolish or greatky modify the SCR [NHS register system]

End cold calling and Marketing Phone calls

Selling over the phone and on the doorstep in intrusive, invasive and annoying. Why should companies have the right to use your information just to pass on, sell and intrude on your day to day life. Marketing calls come at all times of the day and are more often than not completely useless to the majority of the public.

Why is this idea important?

Selling over the phone and on the doorstep in intrusive, invasive and annoying. Why should companies have the right to use your information just to pass on, sell and intrude on your day to day life. Marketing calls come at all times of the day and are more often than not completely useless to the majority of the public.

Ban IEMI harvesting

Some shopping centres (noteably Gunwharf Quays in Portsmouth) as well as national chains of coffee shops routinely gather the IEMI numbers of mobile phones and other similar devices carried by the customers who visit these establishments. At present there is little publicity or scrutiny of the scale of such automated IEMI harvesting or the uses to which the data so gathered is put.

Why is this idea important?

Some shopping centres (noteably Gunwharf Quays in Portsmouth) as well as national chains of coffee shops routinely gather the IEMI numbers of mobile phones and other similar devices carried by the customers who visit these establishments. At present there is little publicity or scrutiny of the scale of such automated IEMI harvesting or the uses to which the data so gathered is put.

To make the installation of Smart Meters in our homes voluntary

Instead of the compulsory installation of these intrusive meters in our homes, it should be done on a voluntary basis, so that those who want them can have them, and those that dont can say no, and they can be removed at any time if requested!

Why is this idea important?

Instead of the compulsory installation of these intrusive meters in our homes, it should be done on a voluntary basis, so that those who want them can have them, and those that dont can say no, and they can be removed at any time if requested!

Repeal the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

This is another draconian piece of legislation, pushing a 4 metre wide "access corridor" round the coast, through whatever stands in its way.

This is about 13 feet, almost a two-lane road.

Most of us would support a coastal footpath, and this could probably have been achieved by negotiation and/or the threat of compulsory purchase.

This act, however, offers no compensation to those whose properties and/or businesses have been affected.

Why is this idea important?

This is another draconian piece of legislation, pushing a 4 metre wide "access corridor" round the coast, through whatever stands in its way.

This is about 13 feet, almost a two-lane road.

Most of us would support a coastal footpath, and this could probably have been achieved by negotiation and/or the threat of compulsory purchase.

This act, however, offers no compensation to those whose properties and/or businesses have been affected.

Travel Anonymously Through London

Travel passes, such as for the London Underground, should not have people's names and details recorded against them.

The excuse for this given by London local politicians is that if someone has lost their card or had it stolen, then it can be recovered.

But a record of personal details is not necessary for this. All that is required is a unique identifier for the traveller (such as a serial number) and a photocard with the necessary details, such as name, which could be kept at home. If a card is lost or stolen, the traveller would only need present this photocard at a ticket office. His details need not be recorded and held on computer.

Why is this idea important?

Travel passes, such as for the London Underground, should not have people's names and details recorded against them.

The excuse for this given by London local politicians is that if someone has lost their card or had it stolen, then it can be recovered.

But a record of personal details is not necessary for this. All that is required is a unique identifier for the traveller (such as a serial number) and a photocard with the necessary details, such as name, which could be kept at home. If a card is lost or stolen, the traveller would only need present this photocard at a ticket office. His details need not be recorded and held on computer.

Human Rights Act to Apply to Benefit Claimants Too Sick To Work

It should be a human right for people to claim benefits without harrassment when they are out of work and especially if they are too sick to work.

Claimants are abused and harrassed. Those with long term health conditions should not be made to feel as if they are lying.

no one chooses to live long term on benefits. i myself have qualifications where i could earn good money but i am too sick to work. i did not choose to be ill and did not choose to live on benefits but my health means i have to. theres no employer that would employ someone who if they manage to trun up, may be too sick and have to go home.

end the discrimination and hate mongering from govt, dwp and the media regarding long term sic people on benefits. we should get a minimum of 100 a week. if we cant afford to eat properyly os keep warm then we will never get well.

Why is this idea important?

It should be a human right for people to claim benefits without harrassment when they are out of work and especially if they are too sick to work.

Claimants are abused and harrassed. Those with long term health conditions should not be made to feel as if they are lying.

no one chooses to live long term on benefits. i myself have qualifications where i could earn good money but i am too sick to work. i did not choose to be ill and did not choose to live on benefits but my health means i have to. theres no employer that would employ someone who if they manage to trun up, may be too sick and have to go home.

end the discrimination and hate mongering from govt, dwp and the media regarding long term sic people on benefits. we should get a minimum of 100 a week. if we cant afford to eat properyly os keep warm then we will never get well.

Stop Local Councils passing on personal data and reduce the amount of personal data that they are allowed to hold.

Local Councils should be prevented from passing peoples' personal data on to third parties without people's express consent, given at the relevant time and not thorugh some form of "blanket small print".

Why is this idea important?

Local Councils should be prevented from passing peoples' personal data on to third parties without people's express consent, given at the relevant time and not thorugh some form of "blanket small print".

Remove restrictions on photography in public places and private property.

Remove all restrictions on taking photos in public and on private property.  This would apply to every thing but military instillations.  

My view is that if you do some thing in a public place or on some one else's property then that was you decision and you should live with the photos. This would have the effect of removing rules about displaying notices to warn of CCTV and would mean that your cameras could view adjacent public property. 

Why is this idea important?

Remove all restrictions on taking photos in public and on private property.  This would apply to every thing but military instillations.  

My view is that if you do some thing in a public place or on some one else's property then that was you decision and you should live with the photos. This would have the effect of removing rules about displaying notices to warn of CCTV and would mean that your cameras could view adjacent public property. 

A Fresh Canvas

So many of the almost 3,500 laws affecting civil liberties and introduced during the past three terms of the labour government seem to be pieces of an almost sinister jigsaw of control over freedoms by the state that it might make more sense wiping the slate clean, repealing all these laws and establishing a new mode of law introduction a key element of which involves 'the people' having the final say in whether a law is passed or not. A final 12-man/woman jury to vett the wisdom of the politicians and judges who, with all due respect, often operate, live and function far from the real world on the streets of London's Kilburn or Camden, Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow, Arbroath, Plymouth etc.

Why is this idea important?

So many of the almost 3,500 laws affecting civil liberties and introduced during the past three terms of the labour government seem to be pieces of an almost sinister jigsaw of control over freedoms by the state that it might make more sense wiping the slate clean, repealing all these laws and establishing a new mode of law introduction a key element of which involves 'the people' having the final say in whether a law is passed or not. A final 12-man/woman jury to vett the wisdom of the politicians and judges who, with all due respect, often operate, live and function far from the real world on the streets of London's Kilburn or Camden, Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow, Arbroath, Plymouth etc.

Remove 90% of all government surveillance cameras

 

This country is like a prison camp, people feel so invaded by largely useless and intrusive surveillance, that many of us would like to emigrate. These are not security cameras they are "secure the authorities" cameras. They will eventually be used against our citizens to prevent political dissent. Democracy cannot protect us from this if all parties become so ideologically similar that suppression of the people becomes their common aim. Take the cameras down in all but the most dangerous areas, or where people of a particular community request them.

Why is this idea important?

 

This country is like a prison camp, people feel so invaded by largely useless and intrusive surveillance, that many of us would like to emigrate. These are not security cameras they are "secure the authorities" cameras. They will eventually be used against our citizens to prevent political dissent. Democracy cannot protect us from this if all parties become so ideologically similar that suppression of the people becomes their common aim. Take the cameras down in all but the most dangerous areas, or where people of a particular community request them.

Misuse of electoral register to set up ‘statistically’ based ‘hit’ lists of people who ‘might’ not be entitled to a 25% council tax discount

The statutory code of data matching practice under which the Audit Commission operates its data processing for the National Fraud Initiative should be strengthened, not weakened, as the Commission appears to intend should happen in its forthcoming consultation.  Failing the enactment of stringent additional safeguards for the innocent, the whole initiative, which goes to the heart of privacy and data protection should be abolished.

It is perfectly legal and proper for a 25% discount to be deducted if an adult appears on the electoral register but not on the data bases of the councilo which made the deduction. Indeed, the Audit Commission's own solicitor has accepted that the costs of collecting up to date information on who lives in each house would be prohibitive for council tax departments.

Despite this, the NFI has two exercises in which people are targeted for fraud investigations simply because they put an adult on the electoral register who is not on council tax data bases.  This exercise routinely gives rise to thousands of false positives, who have to prove their innocence.  Some council audit teams simply label them as 'frauds' and report numbers of 'frauds' on the basis of hit lists without an investigation of any sort and even when the council tax department has pointed out to them that the majority of people on these hit lists will be fully entitled, have failed in no statutory duty to inform of changed circumstances, and have told no lies.

A great deal of misleading information on this exercise has been circulated by the Audit Commission, in annual reports and other places.  Yet its own legal team admitted, after complaints, that it is perfectly legal to have a discount when the council tax department does not know about an adult who was subsequently added to the electoral register.  The legal opinion was provided by Leah Griffiths and is in the public domain.

The Audit Commission took advice from a barrister who said that if there appeared to be prima facie evidence that a person was 'claiming' a discount to which they were not entitled an auditor would be entitled to investigate.  The problem is that this data comparison does not and cannot show that a person is not entitled to the discount.  It cannot show that the second adult 'counts' as a resident for council tax purposes ie that they do not as the law has it 'fall to be disregarded'.

Sadly the vast majority of second adults on the electoral register but not on council tax data bases DO fall to be disregarded. 

Why is this idea important?

The statutory code of data matching practice under which the Audit Commission operates its data processing for the National Fraud Initiative should be strengthened, not weakened, as the Commission appears to intend should happen in its forthcoming consultation.  Failing the enactment of stringent additional safeguards for the innocent, the whole initiative, which goes to the heart of privacy and data protection should be abolished.

It is perfectly legal and proper for a 25% discount to be deducted if an adult appears on the electoral register but not on the data bases of the councilo which made the deduction. Indeed, the Audit Commission's own solicitor has accepted that the costs of collecting up to date information on who lives in each house would be prohibitive for council tax departments.

Despite this, the NFI has two exercises in which people are targeted for fraud investigations simply because they put an adult on the electoral register who is not on council tax data bases.  This exercise routinely gives rise to thousands of false positives, who have to prove their innocence.  Some council audit teams simply label them as 'frauds' and report numbers of 'frauds' on the basis of hit lists without an investigation of any sort and even when the council tax department has pointed out to them that the majority of people on these hit lists will be fully entitled, have failed in no statutory duty to inform of changed circumstances, and have told no lies.

A great deal of misleading information on this exercise has been circulated by the Audit Commission, in annual reports and other places.  Yet its own legal team admitted, after complaints, that it is perfectly legal to have a discount when the council tax department does not know about an adult who was subsequently added to the electoral register.  The legal opinion was provided by Leah Griffiths and is in the public domain.

The Audit Commission took advice from a barrister who said that if there appeared to be prima facie evidence that a person was 'claiming' a discount to which they were not entitled an auditor would be entitled to investigate.  The problem is that this data comparison does not and cannot show that a person is not entitled to the discount.  It cannot show that the second adult 'counts' as a resident for council tax purposes ie that they do not as the law has it 'fall to be disregarded'.

Sadly the vast majority of second adults on the electoral register but not on council tax data bases DO fall to be disregarded. 

Internet freedom is crucial for democracy

The Internet was built as a tool for co-operation and has so far survived multiple attempts at regulation and control for political, idealogical and financial reasons . Decisions on issues limiting the freedom of users need to be public, informed and properly debated. Vested interests struggling to retain out-moded business models (I'm thinking of the music industry in particular) should be informed that they cannot have it both ways: if the market says that consumers (meaning us mugs) have found a more desirable way of doing things then the suppliers must adapt or perish, and that the public purse is not there to prop them up. It's a free market, isn't it, or is there something I've missed? Also government should not use the opportunity offered in order to impose political control at the expense of legal control.

Why is this idea important?

The Internet was built as a tool for co-operation and has so far survived multiple attempts at regulation and control for political, idealogical and financial reasons . Decisions on issues limiting the freedom of users need to be public, informed and properly debated. Vested interests struggling to retain out-moded business models (I'm thinking of the music industry in particular) should be informed that they cannot have it both ways: if the market says that consumers (meaning us mugs) have found a more desirable way of doing things then the suppliers must adapt or perish, and that the public purse is not there to prop them up. It's a free market, isn't it, or is there something I've missed? Also government should not use the opportunity offered in order to impose political control at the expense of legal control.