abolish dogs

Increase the dog licence to £500 per animal, and sanction corporal punishment for owners who allow their animals to foul the pavement. Any dog that does so should be put down.

Why is this idea important?

Increase the dog licence to £500 per animal, and sanction corporal punishment for owners who allow their animals to foul the pavement. Any dog that does so should be put down.

Make Traffic Laws Apply to Cyclists.

As demonstrated by the recently opened ‘cycle super highway’ in London an increasingly large amount of money is being spent on infrastructure and other facilities for cyclists, we are talking very, very, many millions of pounds.  Who is paying for all of this?  It is certainly not the cyclists, other than via the general taxation to which we are all subject.

The avowed intention of all of these so-called cycle friendly (but not pedestrian or other road user friendly) measures is to increase the number of cycles on our roads.  This is in itself a misguided notion because as the TV news pictures showed a significant proportion of cyclists still rode on the normal road surface, detoured onto the footway and rode without any consideration for other road users.

No-one doubts the exercise derived health benefits and effective means of commuting, especially in town centres, that cycling offers; however, if the numbers of cyclists are going to be encouraged and increased further by such measures then it is also high time that they were also brought firmly within and made rigorously subject to the principles and laws that govern other traffic using the public roads.  The ever increasing levels of reduction of road width are impeding the normal and effective flow of regular traffic which is the essential life blood of our towns and cities and the increasing restriction of which has a negative impact on the economic viability of our urban areas.

If these facilities are being provided for them then cyclists must be kept off the footways and footpaths so that they become once more safe for pedestrians rather than de-facto cycle tracks on which legitimate pedestrians are second class citizens.  What once were considered to be adequately sized footways must cease to have white lines painted down them and be reduced in width, with two thirds of the width being given over to cycles, such that there is little or no room for people to walk in comfort, or mothers to pass when pushing a pram or push chair.

I have never met a cyclist who admits to riding on the footway, riding through red lights, riding without lights or audible warning of approach, or riding the wrong way down a one way street.  You only have to be out on the road or in our towns to witness the lie of this apparent situation; the huge majority of cyclists ride without any concern whatsoever for other road users, the highway code, the rules of the road, road signs, or the most basic of traffic law; they hardly ever ride in single file to allow other vehicles to safely pass them on narrow roads or country lanes.  As far as they are concerned the law does not apply to them and yet they castigate other road users for not considering cyclists, whilst not demonstrating any reciprocal consideration on their part.  This ridiculous situation must change for the benefit of society as a whole.

I have seen cyclists blatantly ride through a red traffic light while a police officer stood and watched.  If I had then driven through the red light in my car that same officer would no doubt have taken my registration number and reported the offence, but because it involved a cyclist nothing happened.  I have witnessed similar occurrences at camera controlled lights when cyclists have ridden straight through knowing full well that they almost certainly cannot be traced.

The increase in cycling activity will inevitably bring with it an increase in the already high levels of illegal cycling activity.  Even with current cycling levels, let alone any increase, we must start to curb errant cycling and also force cyclists to become responsible road users with consideration for others.  This can only be done by the following suggestions:

  • All cyclists must take the equivalent of a driving test including theory, cycle maintenance, and Highway Code before they are allowed on the roads or cycle ways.
  • All cycles must be subject to the cycle equivalent of vehicle excise duty so that the cyclists make at least some contribution to the facilities provided for them.
  • All cycles must carry registration numbers so that other road users or pedestrians can identify them and report them if necessary.  This measure is also necessary so the police or cameras can identify, and action be taken against cyclists flouting traffic law, e.g. riding through red lights.
  • All cycles must at all times be equipped with adequate and appropriate lighting, both front and rear, and with an effective audible warning of approach.
  • Cycling on the footway and footpaths must end no argument.
  • All cycles over 3 years old must be subject to a cycle MoT.
  • All cycles, and/or cyclists, must be insured for at least third party risks.

All of the above are not anti-cycling; on the contrary, they will promote safe, responsible and considerate cycling whilst at the same time helping to bring the increasing numbers of cyclists within the management of existing traffic law.  Any responsible cyclist cannot but fail to agree with this philosophy; if they do disagree then they are not the responsible cyclists they claim to be.  Disagreement can only come from those who feel it is their divine right to do what they like on the public roads without fear of censure and cyclists can do no wrong, even if it is illegal.

Why is this idea important?

As demonstrated by the recently opened ‘cycle super highway’ in London an increasingly large amount of money is being spent on infrastructure and other facilities for cyclists, we are talking very, very, many millions of pounds.  Who is paying for all of this?  It is certainly not the cyclists, other than via the general taxation to which we are all subject.

The avowed intention of all of these so-called cycle friendly (but not pedestrian or other road user friendly) measures is to increase the number of cycles on our roads.  This is in itself a misguided notion because as the TV news pictures showed a significant proportion of cyclists still rode on the normal road surface, detoured onto the footway and rode without any consideration for other road users.

No-one doubts the exercise derived health benefits and effective means of commuting, especially in town centres, that cycling offers; however, if the numbers of cyclists are going to be encouraged and increased further by such measures then it is also high time that they were also brought firmly within and made rigorously subject to the principles and laws that govern other traffic using the public roads.  The ever increasing levels of reduction of road width are impeding the normal and effective flow of regular traffic which is the essential life blood of our towns and cities and the increasing restriction of which has a negative impact on the economic viability of our urban areas.

If these facilities are being provided for them then cyclists must be kept off the footways and footpaths so that they become once more safe for pedestrians rather than de-facto cycle tracks on which legitimate pedestrians are second class citizens.  What once were considered to be adequately sized footways must cease to have white lines painted down them and be reduced in width, with two thirds of the width being given over to cycles, such that there is little or no room for people to walk in comfort, or mothers to pass when pushing a pram or push chair.

I have never met a cyclist who admits to riding on the footway, riding through red lights, riding without lights or audible warning of approach, or riding the wrong way down a one way street.  You only have to be out on the road or in our towns to witness the lie of this apparent situation; the huge majority of cyclists ride without any concern whatsoever for other road users, the highway code, the rules of the road, road signs, or the most basic of traffic law; they hardly ever ride in single file to allow other vehicles to safely pass them on narrow roads or country lanes.  As far as they are concerned the law does not apply to them and yet they castigate other road users for not considering cyclists, whilst not demonstrating any reciprocal consideration on their part.  This ridiculous situation must change for the benefit of society as a whole.

I have seen cyclists blatantly ride through a red traffic light while a police officer stood and watched.  If I had then driven through the red light in my car that same officer would no doubt have taken my registration number and reported the offence, but because it involved a cyclist nothing happened.  I have witnessed similar occurrences at camera controlled lights when cyclists have ridden straight through knowing full well that they almost certainly cannot be traced.

The increase in cycling activity will inevitably bring with it an increase in the already high levels of illegal cycling activity.  Even with current cycling levels, let alone any increase, we must start to curb errant cycling and also force cyclists to become responsible road users with consideration for others.  This can only be done by the following suggestions:

  • All cyclists must take the equivalent of a driving test including theory, cycle maintenance, and Highway Code before they are allowed on the roads or cycle ways.
  • All cycles must be subject to the cycle equivalent of vehicle excise duty so that the cyclists make at least some contribution to the facilities provided for them.
  • All cycles must carry registration numbers so that other road users or pedestrians can identify them and report them if necessary.  This measure is also necessary so the police or cameras can identify, and action be taken against cyclists flouting traffic law, e.g. riding through red lights.
  • All cycles must at all times be equipped with adequate and appropriate lighting, both front and rear, and with an effective audible warning of approach.
  • Cycling on the footway and footpaths must end no argument.
  • All cycles over 3 years old must be subject to a cycle MoT.
  • All cycles, and/or cyclists, must be insured for at least third party risks.

All of the above are not anti-cycling; on the contrary, they will promote safe, responsible and considerate cycling whilst at the same time helping to bring the increasing numbers of cyclists within the management of existing traffic law.  Any responsible cyclist cannot but fail to agree with this philosophy; if they do disagree then they are not the responsible cyclists they claim to be.  Disagreement can only come from those who feel it is their divine right to do what they like on the public roads without fear of censure and cyclists can do no wrong, even if it is illegal.

Revoke firearm permits of convicted violent criminals and seize all their weapons

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Why is this idea important?

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Abolish the inhuman right of police to user the TASER gun

Although I'm giving up posting here, because this site does not allow me to properly debate the radical changes we need in our society adequately, before I leave, I simply must register my utter disgust with the recent policy of TASERING the public in the course of policing.

It is quite simply a form of TORTURE, and torture is constantly denied even in the case of terrorist suspects by our governments (apart from the Americans who openly admit to waterboarding and so on), it's totally against human rights, and takes us back to the middle ages in terms of the administration of law and order.

I can appreciate that in EXTREME circumstances, i.e. dealing  with an armed and hostile criminal, the police need some means of subduing him/her  without seriously risking their own lives, but even the courts are not allowed to torture CONVICTED criminals, let alone suspects, or innocent people whom they mistakenly pursue who may panic and try to get away even though they are innocent.

What next  to control the public – ELECTRIC CATTLE PRODS? Wouldn't they be really useful in crowd control situations.

Why not,  if you can LEGALLY fire terminals into somebody, and torture them by pressing a button and giving them  thousands of volts shocks, surely it's only a small step away to justyfing the use of electric cattle prods?

Consider the alternatives to TASERS – for extremely violent or dangerour armed suspects, why not for example use some kind of anaesthetic gas to put them unconscious? Why not have a hypodermic syringe of doping agent which can be used to bring down a rhinoceros or a tiger, so surely quite easy to use with a human?

The TASER is giving the police the power to TORTURE suspects and innocent people, and as such it is AN APPALLING ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, and just shows the absolute contempt that is held for the general public, both by the police and the governments who have introduced or approved this weapon, which as usual has been imported from America like almost every other bad and inhumane idea.

Can the governmments  of this country start having a mind of their own please, and stop following every idea that America things up , rendering our nation and government to no more than a tail being wagged by a dog?

 

Why is this idea important?

Although I'm giving up posting here, because this site does not allow me to properly debate the radical changes we need in our society adequately, before I leave, I simply must register my utter disgust with the recent policy of TASERING the public in the course of policing.

It is quite simply a form of TORTURE, and torture is constantly denied even in the case of terrorist suspects by our governments (apart from the Americans who openly admit to waterboarding and so on), it's totally against human rights, and takes us back to the middle ages in terms of the administration of law and order.

I can appreciate that in EXTREME circumstances, i.e. dealing  with an armed and hostile criminal, the police need some means of subduing him/her  without seriously risking their own lives, but even the courts are not allowed to torture CONVICTED criminals, let alone suspects, or innocent people whom they mistakenly pursue who may panic and try to get away even though they are innocent.

What next  to control the public – ELECTRIC CATTLE PRODS? Wouldn't they be really useful in crowd control situations.

Why not,  if you can LEGALLY fire terminals into somebody, and torture them by pressing a button and giving them  thousands of volts shocks, surely it's only a small step away to justyfing the use of electric cattle prods?

Consider the alternatives to TASERS – for extremely violent or dangerour armed suspects, why not for example use some kind of anaesthetic gas to put them unconscious? Why not have a hypodermic syringe of doping agent which can be used to bring down a rhinoceros or a tiger, so surely quite easy to use with a human?

The TASER is giving the police the power to TORTURE suspects and innocent people, and as such it is AN APPALLING ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, and just shows the absolute contempt that is held for the general public, both by the police and the governments who have introduced or approved this weapon, which as usual has been imported from America like almost every other bad and inhumane idea.

Can the governmments  of this country start having a mind of their own please, and stop following every idea that America things up , rendering our nation and government to no more than a tail being wagged by a dog?

 

self-defence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publishing of any evidence of public dangers and harm, by automatic right

Suppose you have personal knowledge, from experience or otherwise, of any type of harm or damage that is being done to some people. Suppose this harm, either the whole thing or one particular aspect of it, are not already widely publicised. Then you should have an automatic right to have your information published.
 
If you are capable of writing one, this means a widely circulated book, with an automatic right to public flagging of its existence, shelf space in the shops, and orderability. If a video or website or simply getting spoken to by the media suit you better, then those should be your entitlements alternatively. But book is still the best idea, the most solid type of document. "Narrowcasting" options are not a solution to this issue, for this idea is about making a danger widely known.
 
The idea is about dangers that any section of society is exposed to, dangers that result from ideas or policies that are being practised. It is not about isolated crimes, except when these evidence dangers that a policy or theory allows to exist, hence that can happen to other folks too.
 
An example is the dangers that children can be placed in by supposedly expert decisions taken about them by school teachers in authority over them, deciding on the child's level of ability at school work and the methods used to force the child to perform at a higher level than they can, where nobody will listen to the child concerning their own limits of ability. The sign-and-punishment regime taken towards schoolwork in the authoritarian backlash of the 1980s has been proved damaging by the more recent understanding of factors like attention deficit that were just not being recognised by authority before, and often enough still are not. Nobody can be sure that all these forms of child harm have been stopped, until every personally experienced aspects of them, known to anyone, particularly to persons with childhood memory of being the object of them, have been published by automatic right. Hence it is a matter of child protection already existing, that they should be.
 
As yet, the fact that children could be put in a position with a life-threatening scale of impossibility has not registered at all with the media and has remained totally absent from the politics of education for 30 years. In a society as frantic as ours about child protection, any decision maker who goes against automatic public exposure and scrutiny of such facts, commits a crime of endangering every child in the country.
 
This is just one example. Others, affecting adults in the same way, could be over questions of medical safety, the effectiveness and consequences of every prescribed medicine, local effects of industrial or nuclear pollution, conditions in care of the elderly, dangers caused by long working hours, other questions of industrial and mechanical safety, mean practises by insurers, short cuts by police and lawyers and the courts, bullying and violence, food safety, housing scandals of all types and housing policies failing to prevent them. Most importantly, it guarantees a broadcast scale of hearing to factual evidence on issues of safety that are not listed here because nobody, except the few who know of them, have thought of them.
 
The publishing's content would be defended by the same right as public interest journalism. It would have a responsibility to evidence its own accuracy, and not to make personal accusations out of nowhere. When what you publish is looked at, after it has been published, it will be a crime to have laid claim to use the power without having a genuine issue of widely unrecognised danger to expose. So anyone wishing to use this power will have to think responsibly before they use it. Hence it will not flood society with silly made up accusations.

Why is this idea important?

Suppose you have personal knowledge, from experience or otherwise, of any type of harm or damage that is being done to some people. Suppose this harm, either the whole thing or one particular aspect of it, are not already widely publicised. Then you should have an automatic right to have your information published.
 
If you are capable of writing one, this means a widely circulated book, with an automatic right to public flagging of its existence, shelf space in the shops, and orderability. If a video or website or simply getting spoken to by the media suit you better, then those should be your entitlements alternatively. But book is still the best idea, the most solid type of document. "Narrowcasting" options are not a solution to this issue, for this idea is about making a danger widely known.
 
The idea is about dangers that any section of society is exposed to, dangers that result from ideas or policies that are being practised. It is not about isolated crimes, except when these evidence dangers that a policy or theory allows to exist, hence that can happen to other folks too.
 
An example is the dangers that children can be placed in by supposedly expert decisions taken about them by school teachers in authority over them, deciding on the child's level of ability at school work and the methods used to force the child to perform at a higher level than they can, where nobody will listen to the child concerning their own limits of ability. The sign-and-punishment regime taken towards schoolwork in the authoritarian backlash of the 1980s has been proved damaging by the more recent understanding of factors like attention deficit that were just not being recognised by authority before, and often enough still are not. Nobody can be sure that all these forms of child harm have been stopped, until every personally experienced aspects of them, known to anyone, particularly to persons with childhood memory of being the object of them, have been published by automatic right. Hence it is a matter of child protection already existing, that they should be.
 
As yet, the fact that children could be put in a position with a life-threatening scale of impossibility has not registered at all with the media and has remained totally absent from the politics of education for 30 years. In a society as frantic as ours about child protection, any decision maker who goes against automatic public exposure and scrutiny of such facts, commits a crime of endangering every child in the country.
 
This is just one example. Others, affecting adults in the same way, could be over questions of medical safety, the effectiveness and consequences of every prescribed medicine, local effects of industrial or nuclear pollution, conditions in care of the elderly, dangers caused by long working hours, other questions of industrial and mechanical safety, mean practises by insurers, short cuts by police and lawyers and the courts, bullying and violence, food safety, housing scandals of all types and housing policies failing to prevent them. Most importantly, it guarantees a broadcast scale of hearing to factual evidence on issues of safety that are not listed here because nobody, except the few who know of them, have thought of them.
 
The publishing's content would be defended by the same right as public interest journalism. It would have a responsibility to evidence its own accuracy, and not to make personal accusations out of nowhere. When what you publish is looked at, after it has been published, it will be a crime to have laid claim to use the power without having a genuine issue of widely unrecognised danger to expose. So anyone wishing to use this power will have to think responsibly before they use it. Hence it will not flood society with silly made up accusations.

Publishing of any evidence of public dangers and harm, by automatic right

dangers that a policy or theory allows to exist, hence that can happen to other folks too.

 
An example is the dangers that children can be placed in by supposedly expert decisions taken about them by school teachers in authority over them, deciding on the child's level of ability at school work and the methods used to force the child to perform at a higher level than they can, where nobody will listen to the child concerning their own limits of ability. The sign-and-punishment regime taken towards schoolwork in the authoritarian backlash of the 1980s has been proved damaging by the more recent understanding of factors like attention deficit that were just not being recognised by authority before, and often enough still are not. Nobody can be sure that all these forms of child harm have been stopped, until every personally experienced aspects of them, known to anyone, particularly to persons with childhood memory of being the object of them, have been published by automatic right. Hence it is a matter of child protection already existing, that they should be.
 
As yet, the fact that children could be put in a position with a life-threatening scale of impossibility has not registered at all with the media and has remained totally absent from the politics of education for 30 years. In a society as frantic as ours about child protection, any decision maker who goes against automatic public exposure and scrutiny of such facts, commits a crime of endangering every child in the country.
 
This is just one example. Others, affecting adults in the same way, could be over questions of medical safety, the effectiveness and consequences of every prescribed medicine, local effects of industrial or nuclear pollution, conditions in care of the elderly, dangers caused by long working hours, other questions of industrial and mechanical safety, mean practises by insurers, short cuts by police and lawyers and the courts, bullying and violence, food safety, housing scandals of all types and housing policies failing to prevent them. Most importantly, it guarantees a broadcast scale of hearing to factual evidence on issues of safety that are not listed here because nobody, except the few who know of them, have thought of them.
 
The publishing's content would be defended by the same right as public interest journalism. It would have a responsibility to evidence its own accuracy, and not to make personal accusations out of nowhere. When what you publish is looked at, after it has been published, it will be a crime to have laid claim to use the power without having a genuine issue of widely unrecognised danger to expose. So anyone wishing to use this power will have to think responsibly before they use it. Hence it will not flood society with silly made up accusations.

Why is this idea important?

dangers that a policy or theory allows to exist, hence that can happen to other folks too.

 
An example is the dangers that children can be placed in by supposedly expert decisions taken about them by school teachers in authority over them, deciding on the child's level of ability at school work and the methods used to force the child to perform at a higher level than they can, where nobody will listen to the child concerning their own limits of ability. The sign-and-punishment regime taken towards schoolwork in the authoritarian backlash of the 1980s has been proved damaging by the more recent understanding of factors like attention deficit that were just not being recognised by authority before, and often enough still are not. Nobody can be sure that all these forms of child harm have been stopped, until every personally experienced aspects of them, known to anyone, particularly to persons with childhood memory of being the object of them, have been published by automatic right. Hence it is a matter of child protection already existing, that they should be.
 
As yet, the fact that children could be put in a position with a life-threatening scale of impossibility has not registered at all with the media and has remained totally absent from the politics of education for 30 years. In a society as frantic as ours about child protection, any decision maker who goes against automatic public exposure and scrutiny of such facts, commits a crime of endangering every child in the country.
 
This is just one example. Others, affecting adults in the same way, could be over questions of medical safety, the effectiveness and consequences of every prescribed medicine, local effects of industrial or nuclear pollution, conditions in care of the elderly, dangers caused by long working hours, other questions of industrial and mechanical safety, mean practises by insurers, short cuts by police and lawyers and the courts, bullying and violence, food safety, housing scandals of all types and housing policies failing to prevent them. Most importantly, it guarantees a broadcast scale of hearing to factual evidence on issues of safety that are not listed here because nobody, except the few who know of them, have thought of them.
 
The publishing's content would be defended by the same right as public interest journalism. It would have a responsibility to evidence its own accuracy, and not to make personal accusations out of nowhere. When what you publish is looked at, after it has been published, it will be a crime to have laid claim to use the power without having a genuine issue of widely unrecognised danger to expose. So anyone wishing to use this power will have to think responsibly before they use it. Hence it will not flood society with silly made up accusations.