Police Reprimands should be struck off Enhanced CRB when received as a minor

Police reprimands/cautions should be removed from Enhanced CRB checks when received as a minor after a short time say 2/3 yrs.When my daughter was just 13yrs old and,a mixed up teenager,she received a reprimand for shoplifting along with another girl.She was not charged or cautioned but merely reprimanded The police  assured us that this would be removed from their records after 5yrs as was the legislation at the time...Suitably chastened she buckled down and became a model student and got a place at medical school  having now completed her first year on the road to becoming a doctor.

However  during her first term she was summoned by the university medical school to be told that the reprimand had shown up on their enhanced CRB check.To their credit they had taken no notice of such a minor misdemeanor committed such along time ago but warned her that this may cause problems for her in the future.

We have been told  that the legislation has been changed so that any information such as this on the Police Computer must be made available for an enhanced CRB check.The Association of Chief Police Officers are not sympathetic and will not make any exceptions. 

Why is this idea important?

Police reprimands/cautions should be removed from Enhanced CRB checks when received as a minor after a short time say 2/3 yrs.When my daughter was just 13yrs old and,a mixed up teenager,she received a reprimand for shoplifting along with another girl.She was not charged or cautioned but merely reprimanded The police  assured us that this would be removed from their records after 5yrs as was the legislation at the time...Suitably chastened she buckled down and became a model student and got a place at medical school  having now completed her first year on the road to becoming a doctor.

However  during her first term she was summoned by the university medical school to be told that the reprimand had shown up on their enhanced CRB check.To their credit they had taken no notice of such a minor misdemeanor committed such along time ago but warned her that this may cause problems for her in the future.

We have been told  that the legislation has been changed so that any information such as this on the Police Computer must be made available for an enhanced CRB check.The Association of Chief Police Officers are not sympathetic and will not make any exceptions. 

No right of local authorities to enter homes without consent.

I understand that local authorities and utility employees have, under certain circumstances, the right to enter private homes without the consent of the owner.  One such scenario is in order to inspect alterations or improvements which the householder has made to the property before revaluation and rebanding for rating purposes.  This is an outrageous infringement of individual civil liberty.  Except where a criminal offence has been committed or an emergency (like a fire or burst water pipe) occurs, local authority officials and public utility employees should have no right enter a property without the consent of the owner.

Why is this idea important?

I understand that local authorities and utility employees have, under certain circumstances, the right to enter private homes without the consent of the owner.  One such scenario is in order to inspect alterations or improvements which the householder has made to the property before revaluation and rebanding for rating purposes.  This is an outrageous infringement of individual civil liberty.  Except where a criminal offence has been committed or an emergency (like a fire or burst water pipe) occurs, local authority officials and public utility employees should have no right enter a property without the consent of the owner.

Repeal or reform RIPA 2000

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it is being used to harass, intimidate, persecute, people law abided. Any authority can use it to intimidate someone who simply has touched their noses. Every authority has the obligation of covering up the harassment and persecution, most of the times against an innocent, because of that lAct that makes the illegal -no punishement without intervention of the law- to be legal.

It is a permission of punishment, harassment, intimidation, surveillance, without the intervention of the law. The victim sees every of their civil liberties and human rights eliminated without the possibility of defending themselves before a Tribunal.

The permission obtained from a judge of Tribunal to put into charge those surveillance operations has no value because the reason to do so are mostly invented and the evidences created ad hoc.

The terrorism in this Country has been faked at least two times. Two different terrorism attemps were filmed bay the same "actor". So I have reasonable doubts about the need of all those terror laws that at the end are used against law abided people.

Why is this idea important?

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it is being used to harass, intimidate, persecute, people law abided. Any authority can use it to intimidate someone who simply has touched their noses. Every authority has the obligation of covering up the harassment and persecution, most of the times against an innocent, because of that lAct that makes the illegal -no punishement without intervention of the law- to be legal.

It is a permission of punishment, harassment, intimidation, surveillance, without the intervention of the law. The victim sees every of their civil liberties and human rights eliminated without the possibility of defending themselves before a Tribunal.

The permission obtained from a judge of Tribunal to put into charge those surveillance operations has no value because the reason to do so are mostly invented and the evidences created ad hoc.

The terrorism in this Country has been faked at least two times. Two different terrorism attemps were filmed bay the same "actor". So I have reasonable doubts about the need of all those terror laws that at the end are used against law abided people.

Student Visa

People have been allowed into this country on the pretext of Student Visa. Those people who never been to college in their home country. Not only that , those students then are allowed to bring their spouse? It should be stopped and if anyone is allowed on student VISA as soon as that particular course is over student should go back and reapply for further course visa.

Then they should not be allowed to go on to other sort of VISA e.g. working visa and lead to permanent visa. This way illegal immigration can be controlled. Sponsor should be pursued to return the sponsred to UK Border Agency. Employer employing illegal workers should be dealt with more strictly.

Why is this idea important?

People have been allowed into this country on the pretext of Student Visa. Those people who never been to college in their home country. Not only that , those students then are allowed to bring their spouse? It should be stopped and if anyone is allowed on student VISA as soon as that particular course is over student should go back and reapply for further course visa.

Then they should not be allowed to go on to other sort of VISA e.g. working visa and lead to permanent visa. This way illegal immigration can be controlled. Sponsor should be pursued to return the sponsred to UK Border Agency. Employer employing illegal workers should be dealt with more strictly.

Traffic Camera Useage is Out of Control and all about Revenue not Safety

The UK is bristling with traffic cameras like no other place on earth. Its out of control. It has in many cases got nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raising hard cash.

A traffic camera placement should only be allowed in accident black spots, for a short period 1-2 months after which time the camera must be removed and not returned for at least 12 months. It must be for safety and not for raising money.

For example its not acceptable to run dozens of cameras all around the north circular road in London as permanent fixtures that act more as road toll collection devices, for anyone a couple of mph over the speed limit.  

Why is this idea important?

The UK is bristling with traffic cameras like no other place on earth. Its out of control. It has in many cases got nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raising hard cash.

A traffic camera placement should only be allowed in accident black spots, for a short period 1-2 months after which time the camera must be removed and not returned for at least 12 months. It must be for safety and not for raising money.

For example its not acceptable to run dozens of cameras all around the north circular road in London as permanent fixtures that act more as road toll collection devices, for anyone a couple of mph over the speed limit.  

Repeal the UK Borders Agencies Requirement for Universities to Track Student Attendance

The UKBA forces Universities to record student attendance and contacts (eg email contact).

There seems to be two possible objectives that the UKBA wishes to achieve.
either
a) To keep an eye on suspected terrorists
and or
b) to make sure people are not coming into the UK as students as a backdoor to avoid normal immigration controls.

In the case of a) keeping these records accessible to the UKBA is not going to prevent terrorist activity
In the case of b) someone who wishes to slip into the 'undergrowth' will surely have done so by the time the UKBA find out and do something about it.

My conclusion is that this action will be ineffective and that the requirement is a remnant of the previous governments attempts at centralised control. It infringes my privacy and I find it intrusive. Not only that, it is in my case meaningless. I happen to be a UK resident and so the UKBA should have no interest in me. If I were not a UK resident then I believe that I would be at best offended at worst intimidated.

In any event it is a waste of money and an unwarranted level of surveillance.  
 

Why is this idea important?

The UKBA forces Universities to record student attendance and contacts (eg email contact).

There seems to be two possible objectives that the UKBA wishes to achieve.
either
a) To keep an eye on suspected terrorists
and or
b) to make sure people are not coming into the UK as students as a backdoor to avoid normal immigration controls.

In the case of a) keeping these records accessible to the UKBA is not going to prevent terrorist activity
In the case of b) someone who wishes to slip into the 'undergrowth' will surely have done so by the time the UKBA find out and do something about it.

My conclusion is that this action will be ineffective and that the requirement is a remnant of the previous governments attempts at centralised control. It infringes my privacy and I find it intrusive. Not only that, it is in my case meaningless. I happen to be a UK resident and so the UKBA should have no interest in me. If I were not a UK resident then I believe that I would be at best offended at worst intimidated.

In any event it is a waste of money and an unwarranted level of surveillance.  
 

Stop US and other countries from accessing personal data

Stop sharing excessive private data with other countries, such as the US (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10549331.stm as an example). “Nothing to hide if you’ve done nothing wrong” does not wash – especially with data leaks, mismanagement of data, and data errors – all data begins life as a manual keyboard entry by a human being and becomes extremely difficult to find in a large dataset.

Why is this idea important?

Stop sharing excessive private data with other countries, such as the US (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10549331.stm as an example). “Nothing to hide if you’ve done nothing wrong” does not wash – especially with data leaks, mismanagement of data, and data errors – all data begins life as a manual keyboard entry by a human being and becomes extremely difficult to find in a large dataset.

Retention of emails

My ISP has aadmitted to retaining my emails from as far back as 2001, claiing that the law requires them to do so. It felt as though I had just discovered that the post office had been photocopying all my mail n case the state later wanted to read it.

Any such laws should not only be repealed, but data protection laws strengthened to prevent providers from retaining details of private emails.

Why is this idea important?

My ISP has aadmitted to retaining my emails from as far back as 2001, claiing that the law requires them to do so. It felt as though I had just discovered that the post office had been photocopying all my mail n case the state later wanted to read it.

Any such laws should not only be repealed, but data protection laws strengthened to prevent providers from retaining details of private emails.

Define “In the Public Interest” versus “Of interest to the Public”

It has been misused by the Press for decades – "in the public interest" has been deliberately used when "of interest to the public" (gossip) is for more accurate. Newspaper editors misuse this inappropriate and misleading blurring to justify press intrusion, and have so far evaded Privacy Laws by agreeing to (but breaking) their own so-called Codes of Conduct.

Reporting dangerous prisoners on the run, outbreaks of new diseases, notifying people about the recall of faulty products – that's in the public interest. Publishing topless photos of some holidaying Soap Opera star isn't, and neither is what goes on in people's private lives, unless they break the law. Lives and careers are ruined by voracious and uncaring reporters whose much-vaunted morals run as deep as a cigarette paper's thickness.

Give us a legal definition of  In The Public Interest and we will finally have legal recourse against Press Intrusion.

Why is this idea important?

It has been misused by the Press for decades – "in the public interest" has been deliberately used when "of interest to the public" (gossip) is for more accurate. Newspaper editors misuse this inappropriate and misleading blurring to justify press intrusion, and have so far evaded Privacy Laws by agreeing to (but breaking) their own so-called Codes of Conduct.

Reporting dangerous prisoners on the run, outbreaks of new diseases, notifying people about the recall of faulty products – that's in the public interest. Publishing topless photos of some holidaying Soap Opera star isn't, and neither is what goes on in people's private lives, unless they break the law. Lives and careers are ruined by voracious and uncaring reporters whose much-vaunted morals run as deep as a cigarette paper's thickness.

Give us a legal definition of  In The Public Interest and we will finally have legal recourse against Press Intrusion.

Set the Wilson Doctrine in law

The Wilson Doctrine, which each Prime Minister re-affirms on entering office, guarantees that constituents' communication with their elected representatives (MPs, MEPs, Mayors, Welsh/Scottish/Northern Ireland members) will not be snooped on by the intelligence services or the Police.

Why is this idea important?

The Wilson Doctrine, which each Prime Minister re-affirms on entering office, guarantees that constituents' communication with their elected representatives (MPs, MEPs, Mayors, Welsh/Scottish/Northern Ireland members) will not be snooped on by the intelligence services or the Police.

Stop encouraging Snoopers

Several Government websites offer forms for people to anonymously report people for alleged crimes such as ta evasion or of being benefits chats.

This is a licence for malcontents and grudge-bearers to cause mischief with no comeback on themselves. In such cases, the cost of investigation and evaluation is high, and the potential damage to a victim's reputation is huge.

In Baghdad under Saddam, there were Baathist Party members on every street, and in Soviet Russia, nobody trusted anyone else, including family members, because of such a likelihood of being hauled in and interrogated.

Let us prevent the UK from splintering like this. If the authorities did their jobs properly, they wouldn't need to engage spies and tattle-tales on the cheap like this.

Why is this idea important?

Several Government websites offer forms for people to anonymously report people for alleged crimes such as ta evasion or of being benefits chats.

This is a licence for malcontents and grudge-bearers to cause mischief with no comeback on themselves. In such cases, the cost of investigation and evaluation is high, and the potential damage to a victim's reputation is huge.

In Baghdad under Saddam, there were Baathist Party members on every street, and in Soviet Russia, nobody trusted anyone else, including family members, because of such a likelihood of being hauled in and interrogated.

Let us prevent the UK from splintering like this. If the authorities did their jobs properly, they wouldn't need to engage spies and tattle-tales on the cheap like this.

Abolish Right of Entry into Private Dwellings

Repeal as many as possible of the statutory rights of entry into property used solely as a private dweling that have been given to so many minor officials and employees of local councils. Our homes should be our castles except for the most serious occasions.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal as many as possible of the statutory rights of entry into property used solely as a private dweling that have been given to so many minor officials and employees of local councils. Our homes should be our castles except for the most serious occasions.

Retention of intimate body samples on a database

Intimate body samples collected from a suspect should be destroyed upon the decision that no further action will be taken or upon acquittal, whichever is sooner.

Why is this idea important?

Intimate body samples collected from a suspect should be destroyed upon the decision that no further action will be taken or upon acquittal, whichever is sooner.

Reduce the luminosity and number of street lights and security lighting

Within the last ten years there has been an increase in the number of street lights erected throughout the U.K. For every one of  the  older  style sodium street light that  are   removed, three new style halogen  street lights are erected in its place.

There are a number of issues that this raises….

1. The luminosity of the new style halogen  lighting is far greater than the  sodium  style lighting. This creates nuisance on many levels . Normal residential streets have these halogen  lights on all night  the increased luminosity created by the extra number of lamp posts erected and the lumens they expend is at  a  totally unacceptable level to allow the occupants of the houses to sleep comfortably.

2. There have  not been any studies  carried out of the effects that  the  increase in luminosity has on humans,  animals,birds and insects.

3.  There has been no evidence that  the increase in street lighting has reduced the number of crimes i.e. muggings, burglary  to warrant the propensity of  street lighting and security lighting installed across the U.K . The installation of security lighting on residential dwellings are covered by planning regulations yet many domestic and commercial properties have inappropriate and excessive lighting installed that  cause nuisance and grievance to the surrounding neighbourhood.

4. The reasons given by many Local Authorities for the increase in Highways and Byeways and street lighting   is  that they are  carrying out  Government  Laws and European Directives and that the extra lighting helps to reduce crime and road accidents Both of these are lame excuses for  the excessive wastage of public money in  the production of electricity in the first place to be left burning all night at full luminosity.

5. The main reason that was put forward for changing over and   using  lower energy halogen  lighting was to reduce costs. This was to be achieved by the ability to alter the luminosity of the street  lighting to suit the environmental application . This cannot be happening if the number of street lights in cities, towns, villages , hamlets , highways and byeways has increased threefold exponentially and  all street lighting is set at full luminosity across the U.K.

6. There should be a reduction in the number of street lights erected on highways and byeways by reverting back to the previous permitted distances between lampposts. Lighting in residential areas should be set at a more acceptable lumen level that does not create discomfort and nuisance to the occupants of the dwellings. The act of reducing  commercial and domestic electric usage  and street lighting   that pollute our night sky  globally would have a significant effect on the reduction of carbon dioxide production created by the excessive production of electricity .

 

Why is this idea important?

Within the last ten years there has been an increase in the number of street lights erected throughout the U.K. For every one of  the  older  style sodium street light that  are   removed, three new style halogen  street lights are erected in its place.

There are a number of issues that this raises….

1. The luminosity of the new style halogen  lighting is far greater than the  sodium  style lighting. This creates nuisance on many levels . Normal residential streets have these halogen  lights on all night  the increased luminosity created by the extra number of lamp posts erected and the lumens they expend is at  a  totally unacceptable level to allow the occupants of the houses to sleep comfortably.

2. There have  not been any studies  carried out of the effects that  the  increase in luminosity has on humans,  animals,birds and insects.

3.  There has been no evidence that  the increase in street lighting has reduced the number of crimes i.e. muggings, burglary  to warrant the propensity of  street lighting and security lighting installed across the U.K . The installation of security lighting on residential dwellings are covered by planning regulations yet many domestic and commercial properties have inappropriate and excessive lighting installed that  cause nuisance and grievance to the surrounding neighbourhood.

4. The reasons given by many Local Authorities for the increase in Highways and Byeways and street lighting   is  that they are  carrying out  Government  Laws and European Directives and that the extra lighting helps to reduce crime and road accidents Both of these are lame excuses for  the excessive wastage of public money in  the production of electricity in the first place to be left burning all night at full luminosity.

5. The main reason that was put forward for changing over and   using  lower energy halogen  lighting was to reduce costs. This was to be achieved by the ability to alter the luminosity of the street  lighting to suit the environmental application . This cannot be happening if the number of street lights in cities, towns, villages , hamlets , highways and byeways has increased threefold exponentially and  all street lighting is set at full luminosity across the U.K.

6. There should be a reduction in the number of street lights erected on highways and byeways by reverting back to the previous permitted distances between lampposts. Lighting in residential areas should be set at a more acceptable lumen level that does not create discomfort and nuisance to the occupants of the dwellings. The act of reducing  commercial and domestic electric usage  and street lighting   that pollute our night sky  globally would have a significant effect on the reduction of carbon dioxide production created by the excessive production of electricity .

 

I dont want automated cold call telephone calls

Whilst on this site I have received yet another automated telephone message (about debt recovery). I have now received 3 of these in the past 48 hours.  STOP IT – IT IS INTRUSIVE 

I think it amounts to harassment and impacts on my right to privacy – for gods sake one of these messages was around 6.00pm in the evening – GO AWAY.

I  have stated to a couple of companies that I do not want them but they still keep coming.

Why is this idea important?

Whilst on this site I have received yet another automated telephone message (about debt recovery). I have now received 3 of these in the past 48 hours.  STOP IT – IT IS INTRUSIVE 

I think it amounts to harassment and impacts on my right to privacy – for gods sake one of these messages was around 6.00pm in the evening – GO AWAY.

I  have stated to a couple of companies that I do not want them but they still keep coming.

CCTV Rules and Regs – a proposal for their use.

 

We will never stop the need for or use of CCTV because of its potential  postitive value in reducing harm to society through crime prevention and/or detection however for us all to haverfaith that it is not being abused I would advocate that a number of rules and regulations are prescribed before it can be used.

1) A national register (N.R.) of all CCTV cameras which can monitor areas to which the public have access be maintained. This register would include the exact location of the camera, its type and capabilities, thescopeof its viewing potential, its owner and contact details of a single point of contact within that organisation (SPOC) to whom enquiries could be addressed, the reason for its presence, and the potential collateral intrusion it causes to the public. Each camera would then be given a unique reference number. Access to the register would be limited to law enforcement agencys and other specified bona fida organisations who would themselves be registered as users. All these organisations would also  be required to have a SPOC to prevent misuse of access. Access would be granted at no cost on a documented need basis. This would allow users to quickly identify all cameras which may have imagery of interest in times of need (eg 7/7 bombings).

2) All persons/organisations wishing to use CCTV which looks into a public place must register with that N.R. for a 'one off fee' and another 'fee per camera per year'. This would help fund the N.R. and also focus users on whether they actually need to install as many cameras. Each user must nominate a SPOC for any enquiries regarding their CCTV system

3) All CCTV installations in public places should be subject to a planning consent process similar to that currently used to build, alter buildings, roads, etc, with the justification for the proposal to be set out on a notice at the proposed site and a method by which objections can be raised. This justification should be based on evidential needs, not just a wing and a prayer application. Sush justification is used for speed camera installations.

4) Each installed camera would have attached to it, either on the mounting post or wall, a notice giving its unique reference number, details of the owner and contact details, both a telephone number and a postal address. Where CCTV systems are installed in shops and shopping centres, the notices should be displayed at all entrances. When they are installed on vehicles, trains, etc, then the notice should be diplayed on the internal side of the entrance door or nearby.

5) The installation of a CCTV camera should be subject to review on a cyclical basis, perhaps 3 -5 years, and where evidence is present to suggest that it no longer performs the role for which it was installed (perhaps the geography around it has changed, for example) then it should be removed within a short time frame (28 days?).

6) A requirement of any system is that it must be in full working order (or else its useless and then only adds to peoples anxiety about being watched) or repaired within a short time frame (5 days?) or covered over.

7) Users of CCTV  which only look into private areas can register with the N.R for free. They would not be required to follow any of the other rules and regs.

Why is this idea important?

 

We will never stop the need for or use of CCTV because of its potential  postitive value in reducing harm to society through crime prevention and/or detection however for us all to haverfaith that it is not being abused I would advocate that a number of rules and regulations are prescribed before it can be used.

1) A national register (N.R.) of all CCTV cameras which can monitor areas to which the public have access be maintained. This register would include the exact location of the camera, its type and capabilities, thescopeof its viewing potential, its owner and contact details of a single point of contact within that organisation (SPOC) to whom enquiries could be addressed, the reason for its presence, and the potential collateral intrusion it causes to the public. Each camera would then be given a unique reference number. Access to the register would be limited to law enforcement agencys and other specified bona fida organisations who would themselves be registered as users. All these organisations would also  be required to have a SPOC to prevent misuse of access. Access would be granted at no cost on a documented need basis. This would allow users to quickly identify all cameras which may have imagery of interest in times of need (eg 7/7 bombings).

2) All persons/organisations wishing to use CCTV which looks into a public place must register with that N.R. for a 'one off fee' and another 'fee per camera per year'. This would help fund the N.R. and also focus users on whether they actually need to install as many cameras. Each user must nominate a SPOC for any enquiries regarding their CCTV system

3) All CCTV installations in public places should be subject to a planning consent process similar to that currently used to build, alter buildings, roads, etc, with the justification for the proposal to be set out on a notice at the proposed site and a method by which objections can be raised. This justification should be based on evidential needs, not just a wing and a prayer application. Sush justification is used for speed camera installations.

4) Each installed camera would have attached to it, either on the mounting post or wall, a notice giving its unique reference number, details of the owner and contact details, both a telephone number and a postal address. Where CCTV systems are installed in shops and shopping centres, the notices should be displayed at all entrances. When they are installed on vehicles, trains, etc, then the notice should be diplayed on the internal side of the entrance door or nearby.

5) The installation of a CCTV camera should be subject to review on a cyclical basis, perhaps 3 -5 years, and where evidence is present to suggest that it no longer performs the role for which it was installed (perhaps the geography around it has changed, for example) then it should be removed within a short time frame (28 days?).

6) A requirement of any system is that it must be in full working order (or else its useless and then only adds to peoples anxiety about being watched) or repaired within a short time frame (5 days?) or covered over.

7) Users of CCTV  which only look into private areas can register with the N.R for free. They would not be required to follow any of the other rules and regs.

Prevent local councils from snooping into private bank accounts

It should be made unlawful for local authorities to gain access to an individuals bank account details to access their assets with out due consent from the individual, this would then prevent the possibility of identity freud by anyone working at the local authority. Only individuals and the baks themselves should have this access unless due permission is granted

Why is this idea important?

It should be made unlawful for local authorities to gain access to an individuals bank account details to access their assets with out due consent from the individual, this would then prevent the possibility of identity freud by anyone working at the local authority. Only individuals and the baks themselves should have this access unless due permission is granted

Make easy the use of encryption and digital signing by all net users

Modify the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act  to make use of encryption not taboo or legally risky.

Remove whatever trade restrictions are stoping strong encryption being standardised.

Encourage commonly available encryption and education so that people understand it.

Why is this idea important?

Modify the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act  to make use of encryption not taboo or legally risky.

Remove whatever trade restrictions are stoping strong encryption being standardised.

Encourage commonly available encryption and education so that people understand it.

Rules for regulation of Cannabis Cultivation for personal use by adults in private

It would be impractical and arbitrary to specify a number of plants that it would be legal to grow for personal use. It would be difficult to distinguish between mature plants and seedlings or cuttings by simple numerical count. I propose that instead limits be placed on the size of area utilised in any cultivation set up and, if using artificial lights, the number and power employed.

An individual may not cultivate cannabis at more than one postal address and that address must be their main residence, the address at which they are registered on the electoral role, and they may only cultivate at that address whilst the electoral role is in force. They would be required to have a valid registration on the electoral role for the address at which they are cultivating.

No other limitation on the method of production should be imposed.

No limitation on the number of crops produced in a year should be imposed.

No limitation should be imposed on the amount of material between being harvested and becoming ready for consumption that an individual would be allowed to store save that it be for personal use only in private by adults, be stored at the same postal address at which it is cultivated  and that it not be sold or supplied to others by any commercial transaction so that the individual cultivator cannot make any personal gain.

The Government shall not be permitted to impose any charge, tax or licence on an individual cultivating cannabis for personal use in private by adults or levy any tax or charge on the cannabis they produce.

Any equipment used for cultivation shall not carry any additional charge or tax other than the current level of VAT at the point of sale.

There may be some debate as to what restrictions in terms of size of area used for cultivation and the number of artificial lights that should be permitted under this proposal.

I would suggest as a starting point for discussion that an area of no more than three square meters in total and two lamps of 400W or one of 1000W would be reasonable. 

Others may have different views.

It would be possible that within the maximum limit  of square meters this could be sub divided and spread over different locations within the single permitted postal address so that a grower could maintain an area for seedlings and cuttings as well as an area for maturing plants in the flowering stage.

Why is this idea important?

It would be impractical and arbitrary to specify a number of plants that it would be legal to grow for personal use. It would be difficult to distinguish between mature plants and seedlings or cuttings by simple numerical count. I propose that instead limits be placed on the size of area utilised in any cultivation set up and, if using artificial lights, the number and power employed.

An individual may not cultivate cannabis at more than one postal address and that address must be their main residence, the address at which they are registered on the electoral role, and they may only cultivate at that address whilst the electoral role is in force. They would be required to have a valid registration on the electoral role for the address at which they are cultivating.

No other limitation on the method of production should be imposed.

No limitation on the number of crops produced in a year should be imposed.

No limitation should be imposed on the amount of material between being harvested and becoming ready for consumption that an individual would be allowed to store save that it be for personal use only in private by adults, be stored at the same postal address at which it is cultivated  and that it not be sold or supplied to others by any commercial transaction so that the individual cultivator cannot make any personal gain.

The Government shall not be permitted to impose any charge, tax or licence on an individual cultivating cannabis for personal use in private by adults or levy any tax or charge on the cannabis they produce.

Any equipment used for cultivation shall not carry any additional charge or tax other than the current level of VAT at the point of sale.

There may be some debate as to what restrictions in terms of size of area used for cultivation and the number of artificial lights that should be permitted under this proposal.

I would suggest as a starting point for discussion that an area of no more than three square meters in total and two lamps of 400W or one of 1000W would be reasonable. 

Others may have different views.

It would be possible that within the maximum limit  of square meters this could be sub divided and spread over different locations within the single permitted postal address so that a grower could maintain an area for seedlings and cuttings as well as an area for maturing plants in the flowering stage.

Consent and the 2003 Sexual Offences Act

 

 

The 2003 Sexual Offences act contains, alongside its important provisions against rape and sexual assault, several more worrying provisions that restrict consensual sexual activity.  Putting aside the obviously contentious question of what exactly the age of consent should be – (perhaps the best option is a flexible limit, set nominally at sixteen but allowing for the law to take seriously the views of the crime's purported victim, whatever their age might be, on a case by case basis) – there are a number of troubling inconsistencies in that concept's application, where the law chooses to ignore the free agency of a person that it elsewhere accepts.

   I have in mind three supposed offences that are dealt with in the act: abuse of position of trust, familial child sex offences, and sex with an adult relative. First, positions of trust. There can be no doubt that, where one person is in a position of trust over another, the relationship between the two is complicated immensely. The relationship between a sixteen year old girl and her teacher could never be the same as the relationship between that girl and a different man of the same age. Having said this, however, it is vital we remember that attempting to cut through these complications by the power of the law and of the state is a very dangerous idea.  We are talking about the fine nuances of emotion and of power in the interaction of two human beings.  The law is a bluntforce weapon of last resort, and should be kept as such.  There are already plentiful provisions in the act against sexual abuse – if abuse exists, those may be invoked, but if not, then it is the prerogative of individuals and citizens to determine their own lives and the courses of their relationships. 

     There is another possible reading of the 'breach of trust' offence, focusing not so much on any harm to the child under trust but rather on the adult's lack of responsibility towards the trust itself. Trust is breached when sexual activity occurs, and that in itself is enough to warrant legal repercussions.  But why should this be so? Anyone in a position of trust over a child has a duty of care towards them, as well as a duty to do well what ever it is they are supposed to be doing – teaching or medical practiciong or whatever.  How sexual activity is supposed to breach these duties is far from clear.  Consensual sex is consensual sex, and it is a breach of a human freedom to outlaw it, positions of trust or no. 

Much the same applies to familial child sex offences. Yes, it is a far from ordinary relationship for a child of consenting, and it poses its own difficulties. But it is best for people to deal with such difficulties either alone or with others, and without the interference of the law unless it is absolutely required.  The only other objection to these 'offences', if they are committed against children of consenting age – and the only objection whatsoever to the sex with adult relatives offence – is simply that such sexual activity is incest, and that incest is Very Wrong and Icky. This is not a reasonable excuse for the exercise of power over any member of a civilised community, against their will.

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

 

 

The 2003 Sexual Offences act contains, alongside its important provisions against rape and sexual assault, several more worrying provisions that restrict consensual sexual activity.  Putting aside the obviously contentious question of what exactly the age of consent should be – (perhaps the best option is a flexible limit, set nominally at sixteen but allowing for the law to take seriously the views of the crime's purported victim, whatever their age might be, on a case by case basis) – there are a number of troubling inconsistencies in that concept's application, where the law chooses to ignore the free agency of a person that it elsewhere accepts.

   I have in mind three supposed offences that are dealt with in the act: abuse of position of trust, familial child sex offences, and sex with an adult relative. First, positions of trust. There can be no doubt that, where one person is in a position of trust over another, the relationship between the two is complicated immensely. The relationship between a sixteen year old girl and her teacher could never be the same as the relationship between that girl and a different man of the same age. Having said this, however, it is vital we remember that attempting to cut through these complications by the power of the law and of the state is a very dangerous idea.  We are talking about the fine nuances of emotion and of power in the interaction of two human beings.  The law is a bluntforce weapon of last resort, and should be kept as such.  There are already plentiful provisions in the act against sexual abuse – if abuse exists, those may be invoked, but if not, then it is the prerogative of individuals and citizens to determine their own lives and the courses of their relationships. 

     There is another possible reading of the 'breach of trust' offence, focusing not so much on any harm to the child under trust but rather on the adult's lack of responsibility towards the trust itself. Trust is breached when sexual activity occurs, and that in itself is enough to warrant legal repercussions.  But why should this be so? Anyone in a position of trust over a child has a duty of care towards them, as well as a duty to do well what ever it is they are supposed to be doing – teaching or medical practiciong or whatever.  How sexual activity is supposed to breach these duties is far from clear.  Consensual sex is consensual sex, and it is a breach of a human freedom to outlaw it, positions of trust or no. 

Much the same applies to familial child sex offences. Yes, it is a far from ordinary relationship for a child of consenting, and it poses its own difficulties. But it is best for people to deal with such difficulties either alone or with others, and without the interference of the law unless it is absolutely required.  The only other objection to these 'offences', if they are committed against children of consenting age – and the only objection whatsoever to the sex with adult relatives offence – is simply that such sexual activity is incest, and that incest is Very Wrong and Icky. This is not a reasonable excuse for the exercise of power over any member of a civilised community, against their will.

 

 

 

 

home-educational funding

Currently every child of educational age is allocated a fixed amount of money by the state, this money comes from taxpayers pockets.   If a child is home-educated none of this money is used by the child it is allocated to.  Instead the taxpaying parent has to fund this childs education at home as well as continuing to pay for schooling they don't receive.

My idea is that the allocated amount should be applied to the child who is being home-educated in the form of credits/vouchers that can be used for educational trips/visits, exams, courses and equipment e.g. correspondence courses/NEC/OU, sports access, musical services.  These credits/vouchers should be easily accessed by parents who registers their child as being home-educated, this should not  be compulsory.  Every home-educated child should also be entitled to have a computer at home, as are school children.

Why is this idea important?

Currently every child of educational age is allocated a fixed amount of money by the state, this money comes from taxpayers pockets.   If a child is home-educated none of this money is used by the child it is allocated to.  Instead the taxpaying parent has to fund this childs education at home as well as continuing to pay for schooling they don't receive.

My idea is that the allocated amount should be applied to the child who is being home-educated in the form of credits/vouchers that can be used for educational trips/visits, exams, courses and equipment e.g. correspondence courses/NEC/OU, sports access, musical services.  These credits/vouchers should be easily accessed by parents who registers their child as being home-educated, this should not  be compulsory.  Every home-educated child should also be entitled to have a computer at home, as are school children.

the right to encryption is as much a right as that of freedom of speech

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) makes it illegal not to hand over, when asked, passwords or other keys required to decrypt encrypted material, on penalty of imprisonment. This contravenes the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself, and is anathema to a free society. Keeping one's documents safe by encrypting them is as much a right as keeping papers locked in a safe – if the authorities can get into the safe, that's fine, but they should not be able to compel you to hand over the keys, particularly when the onus is on the accused to demonstrate that a file is not actually encrypted material.

Why is this idea important?

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) makes it illegal not to hand over, when asked, passwords or other keys required to decrypt encrypted material, on penalty of imprisonment. This contravenes the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself, and is anathema to a free society. Keeping one's documents safe by encrypting them is as much a right as keeping papers locked in a safe – if the authorities can get into the safe, that's fine, but they should not be able to compel you to hand over the keys, particularly when the onus is on the accused to demonstrate that a file is not actually encrypted material.