Legal Counsel for Persons Sectioned under MHA

All persons involuntarily sectioned under the Mental Health Act should be given immediate access to legal counsel and should be given the option to challenge their sectioning publicly in court.

Why is this idea important?

All persons involuntarily sectioned under the Mental Health Act should be given immediate access to legal counsel and should be given the option to challenge their sectioning publicly in court.

ALLOW PARENTS TO CONTEST EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDERS

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Why is this idea important?

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

EU Common Fishery Policy quotas

Bring an end to the lunacy of the current EU Common Fishery Policy quotas that do the very opposite of what they originally set out to achieve.

This will not happen until such time as the Commission, its advisers and those policing its policies get it into their tiny minds that there can be no conservation whilst we continue to return large quantities of perfectly healthy but unwanted or immature fish to the sea – dead.

A quota regime that totally ignores in its calculations that portion of the catch that is discarded has no place in a conservation policy. It is high time that any controls were based on the entire catch and not just on the landed portion.

Other than EU politicians, who will defend their beloved quota until the seas dry up, this failing is universally recognised especially by fishermen themselves.

What is surely needed is a quota based on catches not landings, a requirement to land the entire catch, a system that will allow governments to make local decisions to ban fishing in areas from which large volumes of immature fish are being taken and an increase in net mesh size if appropriate.

(I don't know how this diktat is integrated into British law – presumably it's there somewhere!)

Why is this idea important?

Bring an end to the lunacy of the current EU Common Fishery Policy quotas that do the very opposite of what they originally set out to achieve.

This will not happen until such time as the Commission, its advisers and those policing its policies get it into their tiny minds that there can be no conservation whilst we continue to return large quantities of perfectly healthy but unwanted or immature fish to the sea – dead.

A quota regime that totally ignores in its calculations that portion of the catch that is discarded has no place in a conservation policy. It is high time that any controls were based on the entire catch and not just on the landed portion.

Other than EU politicians, who will defend their beloved quota until the seas dry up, this failing is universally recognised especially by fishermen themselves.

What is surely needed is a quota based on catches not landings, a requirement to land the entire catch, a system that will allow governments to make local decisions to ban fishing in areas from which large volumes of immature fish are being taken and an increase in net mesh size if appropriate.

(I don't know how this diktat is integrated into British law – presumably it's there somewhere!)

Amend all ‘child protection’ legislation so that it does not apply to teenagers

Teenagers are no longer little, sweet children who need mollycoddling and protecting as though they are still toddlers.  They are adolescents, who are in the process of turning into adults and thus need to learn to behave as adults and be guided into the adult world. 

Protecting them as ‘children’ encourages rebellion, as they are prevented from doing anything vaguely exciting, risky or grown up, or from taking any responsibility for themselves and so turn instead to illicit and often particularly dangerous thrills such as trespassing on railway lines, drug abuse or joy riding.

Teenage boys in particular, when treated like weaklings and starved of risk, danger, competition and responsibility are prone to acting ‘macho’ and being violent in order to prove they are tough and strong enough to be a ‘real man’.

Treating teenagers as ‘children’ also prevents them from gaining the vital skills and qualities required to face the real world, leaving those who do not rebel ill-equipped to face the challenges adult life when they are finally thrown out into the real world at 18 and suddenly told they are different now because they are an ‘adult’.

All ‘child protection’ legislation should therefore be amended so that it only applies to those aged under 13 years, as it does more harm than good when applied to teenagers.

Why is this idea important?

Teenagers are no longer little, sweet children who need mollycoddling and protecting as though they are still toddlers.  They are adolescents, who are in the process of turning into adults and thus need to learn to behave as adults and be guided into the adult world. 

Protecting them as ‘children’ encourages rebellion, as they are prevented from doing anything vaguely exciting, risky or grown up, or from taking any responsibility for themselves and so turn instead to illicit and often particularly dangerous thrills such as trespassing on railway lines, drug abuse or joy riding.

Teenage boys in particular, when treated like weaklings and starved of risk, danger, competition and responsibility are prone to acting ‘macho’ and being violent in order to prove they are tough and strong enough to be a ‘real man’.

Treating teenagers as ‘children’ also prevents them from gaining the vital skills and qualities required to face the real world, leaving those who do not rebel ill-equipped to face the challenges adult life when they are finally thrown out into the real world at 18 and suddenly told they are different now because they are an ‘adult’.

All ‘child protection’ legislation should therefore be amended so that it only applies to those aged under 13 years, as it does more harm than good when applied to teenagers.

Right to protect your home should be introduced

If an intruder enters your home you should be able to protect your home and family with out wot having to worry about criminal charges being made against you and the intruder should not be able to take legal action against you if he/her becomes or injured 

Why is this idea important?

If an intruder enters your home you should be able to protect your home and family with out wot having to worry about criminal charges being made against you and the intruder should not be able to take legal action against you if he/her becomes or injured 

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.

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.

Revert to the Protection of Children Act 1978

Over recent years we have seen the definition of 'child pornography' stretched beyond all credibility. The 1978 Protection of Children Act made the simple possession of indecent images illegal, where to be indecent the image had to:

1. Depict an actual person younger than the age of consent (then, and still, 16 years of age)

2. Depict them in a sexual context (that is, the material was produced for the purposes of arousal and is thus 'pornographic')

This was a simple and clear definition. You could easily know what was legal and what was not. Any person old enough to consent to sex could be photographed without danger of being caught by the Act. Simple child nudity of the sort that might appear in holiday photos or family photos of very young children was excluded.

The Act did precisely what it set out to do – protected children. By allowing police to arrest individuals for possession of actual child abuse images, it made it possible for them to target those who produced and supported the production of such material.

Since the 1978 Act, we have had a slew of amendments and new legislation that:

1. Created the notion of the pseudo-image. This is an image which is doctored in some way to make it appear to be an indecent image of a child when in fact it wasn't.

2. Criminialised material where the person depicted looks like (or could be interpreted to look like) a child. An image of a 20-something porn star dressed in a schoolgirl outfit and acting young could be considered child pornography depending on the context.

3. Changed the definition of 'child' to include persons over the age of consent but under 18, thus creating a legal anomaly where a person may legally consent to sex but cannot be photographed doing so, and retrospectively criminalising previously legal material including back-copies of newspapers and top-shelf magazines that featured 16 and 17-year old models.

4. Changed the interpretation of 'indecent' to include simple nudity or even 'provocative poses' by fully-clothed subjects, thus making innocent family pictures potential 'child pornography'.

5. Allowed material depicting imaginary characters – computer-generated or cartoon – who were (or might be construed to be) underage to be prosecuted as 'child pornography'.

6. Most recently, attempting to make written material simply describing any of the above equivalent to 'child pornography'.

Even the most cursory consideration of these changes will reveal that the clear intent of these changes to the law is to outlaw any material which pedophiles – or 'potential' pedophiles – might possibly find arousing. If you follow this route to its logical conclusion you ought to make any photograph or description of a child illegal, and lock all children away from public view lest someone become aroused at the sight of them.

This single-minded witch-hunting of the unseen but ever-threatening pedo-under-the-bed does not make children safer. Indeed, most of the changes have been made to permit the prosecution of individuals who have not harmed children at all. Its purpose is clear – it is thoughtcrime legislation, designed to satisy the baying calls of the gutter press and to keep CEOP and similar agencies in business.

It is now effectively impossible to know if a particular image is illegal or not. There is no safe standard. A picture of a fully-clothed adult may be child porn if they happen to be dressed and posed in a particular way. Offences being now largely based on 'context' mean that until it goes before a jury, you cannot be sure you're safe. People are being sent to jail as pedophiles for 'offences' which, only a few years ago, would have been laughable and which most certainly have not involved any actual children coming to harm.

My proposal is simple. Repeal and amend the various acts as necessary to return the definition of child pornography to that of the 1978 Protection of Children Act, and let the police get on with the business of actually protecting children and catching child abusers.

Why is this idea important?

Over recent years we have seen the definition of 'child pornography' stretched beyond all credibility. The 1978 Protection of Children Act made the simple possession of indecent images illegal, where to be indecent the image had to:

1. Depict an actual person younger than the age of consent (then, and still, 16 years of age)

2. Depict them in a sexual context (that is, the material was produced for the purposes of arousal and is thus 'pornographic')

This was a simple and clear definition. You could easily know what was legal and what was not. Any person old enough to consent to sex could be photographed without danger of being caught by the Act. Simple child nudity of the sort that might appear in holiday photos or family photos of very young children was excluded.

The Act did precisely what it set out to do – protected children. By allowing police to arrest individuals for possession of actual child abuse images, it made it possible for them to target those who produced and supported the production of such material.

Since the 1978 Act, we have had a slew of amendments and new legislation that:

1. Created the notion of the pseudo-image. This is an image which is doctored in some way to make it appear to be an indecent image of a child when in fact it wasn't.

2. Criminialised material where the person depicted looks like (or could be interpreted to look like) a child. An image of a 20-something porn star dressed in a schoolgirl outfit and acting young could be considered child pornography depending on the context.

3. Changed the definition of 'child' to include persons over the age of consent but under 18, thus creating a legal anomaly where a person may legally consent to sex but cannot be photographed doing so, and retrospectively criminalising previously legal material including back-copies of newspapers and top-shelf magazines that featured 16 and 17-year old models.

4. Changed the interpretation of 'indecent' to include simple nudity or even 'provocative poses' by fully-clothed subjects, thus making innocent family pictures potential 'child pornography'.

5. Allowed material depicting imaginary characters – computer-generated or cartoon – who were (or might be construed to be) underage to be prosecuted as 'child pornography'.

6. Most recently, attempting to make written material simply describing any of the above equivalent to 'child pornography'.

Even the most cursory consideration of these changes will reveal that the clear intent of these changes to the law is to outlaw any material which pedophiles – or 'potential' pedophiles – might possibly find arousing. If you follow this route to its logical conclusion you ought to make any photograph or description of a child illegal, and lock all children away from public view lest someone become aroused at the sight of them.

This single-minded witch-hunting of the unseen but ever-threatening pedo-under-the-bed does not make children safer. Indeed, most of the changes have been made to permit the prosecution of individuals who have not harmed children at all. Its purpose is clear – it is thoughtcrime legislation, designed to satisy the baying calls of the gutter press and to keep CEOP and similar agencies in business.

It is now effectively impossible to know if a particular image is illegal or not. There is no safe standard. A picture of a fully-clothed adult may be child porn if they happen to be dressed and posed in a particular way. Offences being now largely based on 'context' mean that until it goes before a jury, you cannot be sure you're safe. People are being sent to jail as pedophiles for 'offences' which, only a few years ago, would have been laughable and which most certainly have not involved any actual children coming to harm.

My proposal is simple. Repeal and amend the various acts as necessary to return the definition of child pornography to that of the 1978 Protection of Children Act, and let the police get on with the business of actually protecting children and catching child abusers.

school plays

I dont know if its a specific law.  But I would like to see a repeal of the law that prohibits me from taking photos/videos of my children in school plays musicals and the like.  It feels as if my children's childhood memories are being stolen by over zealous officials.

Why is this idea important?

I dont know if its a specific law.  But I would like to see a repeal of the law that prohibits me from taking photos/videos of my children in school plays musicals and the like.  It feels as if my children's childhood memories are being stolen by over zealous officials.

GIVE US LAW ABIDING CITIZENS BACK OUR GUNS!

The horrific massacres that we have witnessed over the years have prompted successive governments to use knee-jerk reactions to tighten up the already strict gun laws. As predicted, the gun crime figures continue to rise apace, proving that the law abiding, resposible shooters were not to blame for these outrages. Those wonderful people who wish to participate in the 2012 Olympics have to practice in a foreign country as their own country, the UK, does not allow them to shoot here. We are at a disadvantage and no gold medals are predicted. The shooting centre will be closed after tha games, wasting public money. We should be promoting shooting sports and teaching our children and young people the responsible use of firearms rather than see them buy an illegal gun in the pub.

Why is this idea important?

The horrific massacres that we have witnessed over the years have prompted successive governments to use knee-jerk reactions to tighten up the already strict gun laws. As predicted, the gun crime figures continue to rise apace, proving that the law abiding, resposible shooters were not to blame for these outrages. Those wonderful people who wish to participate in the 2012 Olympics have to practice in a foreign country as their own country, the UK, does not allow them to shoot here. We are at a disadvantage and no gold medals are predicted. The shooting centre will be closed after tha games, wasting public money. We should be promoting shooting sports and teaching our children and young people the responsible use of firearms rather than see them buy an illegal gun in the pub.

Ban of semi automatic firearms and pistols

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.

It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.

Why is this idea important?

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.

It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.

The Protection of Data : Electoral Register / Roll

The Electoral Register / Roll should be completely and universally removed from access by any third party ( none government offices ) trying to acquire information of an individual for profit related reasons. ie, market research, private research, etc

Why is this idea important?

The Electoral Register / Roll should be completely and universally removed from access by any third party ( none government offices ) trying to acquire information of an individual for profit related reasons. ie, market research, private research, etc