Smoking Ban – Let’s have a referendum!

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

court costs for non payment of council tax

When people are struggling to pay council tax, do not add court costs as it makes it even harder to pay. People just need to pay over 12 months not 10 as they dont get paid any earlier.

Why is this idea important?

When people are struggling to pay council tax, do not add court costs as it makes it even harder to pay. People just need to pay over 12 months not 10 as they dont get paid any earlier.

The Right to Silence

The Government should seriously consider the position of section 34-36 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the fundamental right of the accused to remain silent.

A corner stone of the English legal system is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant's guilt, it has been describes as the "golden thread" running through the law of the land, not the defendant establishing his innocence. The principle therefore is simple: the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt. Despite this fundamental principle numerous governments have eroded this right and place positive obligations on an accused to speak, rather than relying on the prosecution to establish quilt.

 

If Nick Clegg is serious about civil liberties, which I doubt, he would reverse the burden place on the defendant and revert back to the prosecution whereby the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

Why is this idea important?

The Government should seriously consider the position of section 34-36 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the fundamental right of the accused to remain silent.

A corner stone of the English legal system is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant's guilt, it has been describes as the "golden thread" running through the law of the land, not the defendant establishing his innocence. The principle therefore is simple: the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt. Despite this fundamental principle numerous governments have eroded this right and place positive obligations on an accused to speak, rather than relying on the prosecution to establish quilt.

 

If Nick Clegg is serious about civil liberties, which I doubt, he would reverse the burden place on the defendant and revert back to the prosecution whereby the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

A Basic Civil Liberty And Right Is Not To Be Put On A Database.

The idea is not to be put on any database unless there is a special and compelling reason for it. Any database should be proposed and its exact purposes set out. Those purposes should be under review and possibility of being revoked if misused or subverted for other reasons.

A database should be a special and exceptional instrument with a definite and defined reason set out for its existence, access and use.

An example of a database subverted for unintended uses is that created for CBR checks and that created to carry the DNA records collected by the police. Thes databases now contain millions of names making them the biggest databases of their sort in the world. We must demand public control and sanction for them.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is not to be put on any database unless there is a special and compelling reason for it. Any database should be proposed and its exact purposes set out. Those purposes should be under review and possibility of being revoked if misused or subverted for other reasons.

A database should be a special and exceptional instrument with a definite and defined reason set out for its existence, access and use.

An example of a database subverted for unintended uses is that created for CBR checks and that created to carry the DNA records collected by the police. Thes databases now contain millions of names making them the biggest databases of their sort in the world. We must demand public control and sanction for them.

Illegal Immigrants – they are not Asymlum Seekers

A true asylum seeker will ask for asymlum at the first safe country they reach and stay there.  Those that come here are illegal immigrants usually here for benefits and should be treated as such.

They should be housed in a secure area such as disused army or air force accommodation whilst their claims are assessed and not given housing which is desperately needed by the indigenous population and where they can simply disappear.  The applications should be dealt with speedily and priority given to commonwealth citizens and those whose skills we need.  Those who are not allowed to stay should be deported immediately without recourse to legal aid to fight the decision. 

Those who are allowed to stay should be given basic accommodation and NOT housed in large properties in areas such as Kensington.  Their benefits should be basic and should not include cars and other such items which other people have to work for.

Why is this idea important?

A true asylum seeker will ask for asymlum at the first safe country they reach and stay there.  Those that come here are illegal immigrants usually here for benefits and should be treated as such.

They should be housed in a secure area such as disused army or air force accommodation whilst their claims are assessed and not given housing which is desperately needed by the indigenous population and where they can simply disappear.  The applications should be dealt with speedily and priority given to commonwealth citizens and those whose skills we need.  Those who are not allowed to stay should be deported immediately without recourse to legal aid to fight the decision. 

Those who are allowed to stay should be given basic accommodation and NOT housed in large properties in areas such as Kensington.  Their benefits should be basic and should not include cars and other such items which other people have to work for.

The Right Of Light Act 1959

If an occupant has lived in a property for 20 years they have the right to prevent the development of an extension to a neighbouring property if the extension will cause a minimal loss of light to a window.


 

Why is this idea important?

If an occupant has lived in a property for 20 years they have the right to prevent the development of an extension to a neighbouring property if the extension will cause a minimal loss of light to a window.


 

Stop Forced Adoption of Children

Currently a Social Worker can undertake reports to an adoption prior to any court decision, thus as a planning process approve a care plan for adoption, rather than work to reunite or rehabilitate with Parents. It is prejudicial and destabilizing to parents who seek the return of children taken from them in a Justice system that is weighted against parents in any Family Court Proceedings. Social Workers act in an unchecked system, not audited and without adequate process and proceedures. Frameworks that never uses – shall or will – any contract with a statutory Parent or body should ensure unhuman Social Workers be required to act properly – not on a maybe or perhaps Framework.

Pararel Planning under ICO is costly and wasteful, given the time in Court Process under Care Proceedings  a 6week direction by a Judge should be made prior after a fair open court hearing.

Why is this idea important?

Currently a Social Worker can undertake reports to an adoption prior to any court decision, thus as a planning process approve a care plan for adoption, rather than work to reunite or rehabilitate with Parents. It is prejudicial and destabilizing to parents who seek the return of children taken from them in a Justice system that is weighted against parents in any Family Court Proceedings. Social Workers act in an unchecked system, not audited and without adequate process and proceedures. Frameworks that never uses – shall or will – any contract with a statutory Parent or body should ensure unhuman Social Workers be required to act properly – not on a maybe or perhaps Framework.

Pararel Planning under ICO is costly and wasteful, given the time in Court Process under Care Proceedings  a 6week direction by a Judge should be made prior after a fair open court hearing.

Ladies sanitary wear

I have always been amazed why tampax and other ladies sanitary wear is taxed these items are not a luxury. And I thought when Thatcher was PM she would have made these items zero rated on VAT.

Why is this idea important?

I have always been amazed why tampax and other ladies sanitary wear is taxed these items are not a luxury. And I thought when Thatcher was PM she would have made these items zero rated on VAT.

RIGHT’S FOR SMOKER’S

As much as we all know smoking is bad for us, we should have a right to choose if we smoke or not. Under Labour like most of their laws they dictated the smoking ban. Most of the EU countries have smoking regulations but our's have gone too far and as a result a lot of Pub's have closed due to this law. As much as I agree that smoking should not be allowed where food is consumed smoking should be left to the landlords and owners of these premises to decide if they want it or not. To be banished to a 3 sided SHED outside if you want to smoke, is a disgrace. LET'S GET SOME FAIRNESS FOR SMOKER'S and have a Happy Medium.

Why is this idea important?

As much as we all know smoking is bad for us, we should have a right to choose if we smoke or not. Under Labour like most of their laws they dictated the smoking ban. Most of the EU countries have smoking regulations but our's have gone too far and as a result a lot of Pub's have closed due to this law. As much as I agree that smoking should not be allowed where food is consumed smoking should be left to the landlords and owners of these premises to decide if they want it or not. To be banished to a 3 sided SHED outside if you want to smoke, is a disgrace. LET'S GET SOME FAIRNESS FOR SMOKER'S and have a Happy Medium.

Basic Human Rights for Smokers

The smoking ban has taken away the basic human rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that it was to protect the workers in places such as pubs, clubs and restaurants from the "dangers" of second-hand smoke.

The "dangers" of second-hand smoke have never been scientifically proven.

The law was proposed by the Labour Government of the day in their manifesto as being a partial ban, only operational in places where food was being served. It was then changed without public consolation or any evidence from experts in the field to include all indoor public places.

Even the wording is wrong. A public place is exactly that, and does not mean a "private" place, such as a private member's club, which as we all now know, is also included in the ban.

People who wish to smoke should be entitled to the same basic human rights as those who do not wish to smoke. In other words, smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this.

In our country, and especially under a Conservative Government, the basic human rights of all groups and all people should be considered. Approximately 25% of the population of the UK smoke, to ignore them is to take away their basic human rights.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban has taken away the basic human rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that it was to protect the workers in places such as pubs, clubs and restaurants from the "dangers" of second-hand smoke.

The "dangers" of second-hand smoke have never been scientifically proven.

The law was proposed by the Labour Government of the day in their manifesto as being a partial ban, only operational in places where food was being served. It was then changed without public consolation or any evidence from experts in the field to include all indoor public places.

Even the wording is wrong. A public place is exactly that, and does not mean a "private" place, such as a private member's club, which as we all now know, is also included in the ban.

People who wish to smoke should be entitled to the same basic human rights as those who do not wish to smoke. In other words, smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this.

In our country, and especially under a Conservative Government, the basic human rights of all groups and all people should be considered. Approximately 25% of the population of the UK smoke, to ignore them is to take away their basic human rights.

Amend or Repeal the Extradition Treaty with the USA

The Extradition Treaty with the USA is plainly unbalanced.  Our courts must comply with a demand from the USA with no good grounds demonstrated, whereas we must provide more substantial grounds to extradite from the USA.

Repeal the treaty so that each country must provide proof of guilt to make the extradition more than a formality.

Why is this idea important?

The Extradition Treaty with the USA is plainly unbalanced.  Our courts must comply with a demand from the USA with no good grounds demonstrated, whereas we must provide more substantial grounds to extradite from the USA.

Repeal the treaty so that each country must provide proof of guilt to make the extradition more than a formality.

Reverse onus, wildlife and countryside act 1981

The wildlife and countryside act currently has a reverse onus, meaning that a man is presumed guilty until he proves his innocence. This law is draconian and removes our fundamental rights. The reverse onus has been employed to ruin peoples lives by way of malicious informants and there seems to be no recourse for people who's livelyhoods have been decimated by the use of this law.

It seems confusing that other crimes which pose threats to society are treated less harshly than wildlife crime (that is no way saying wildlife crime isn't serious.)

Every man should be presumed innocent in a court of law. The onus should be on the prosecution to find the defendant guilty

Why is this idea important?

The wildlife and countryside act currently has a reverse onus, meaning that a man is presumed guilty until he proves his innocence. This law is draconian and removes our fundamental rights. The reverse onus has been employed to ruin peoples lives by way of malicious informants and there seems to be no recourse for people who's livelyhoods have been decimated by the use of this law.

It seems confusing that other crimes which pose threats to society are treated less harshly than wildlife crime (that is no way saying wildlife crime isn't serious.)

Every man should be presumed innocent in a court of law. The onus should be on the prosecution to find the defendant guilty

RIGHT OF SILENCE RESTORATION

1. I would suggest the repeal of the curtailment of the “right of silence” provisions in sections 34 to 38 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

2. These provisions are not in force in Scotland, and it is therefore wrong that there should be such provisions in force in England whilst not in other parts of the UK, and a suspect’s and defendant’s rights should be uniform in all of the U.K. jurisdictions.

3. These provisions have been watered down by the effect of the Condron v UK judgment in the European Court of Human Rights, and have in effect become unworkable.

4. There have also been numerous decisions of the Court of Appeal in relation to the effects of these ridiculous provisions, and the expense to the taxpayer and waste of court time and recourses has been enormous.

5. The provision that adverse inferences may be made if the suspect fails to mention when questioned something that he or she later relies on in court is ridiculous, especially as the suspect could have forgotten something important during interview.

6. The provision attacks the presumption of innocence and is undemocratic and unconstitutional and should be repealed to prevent serious miscarriages of justice.

Why is this idea important?

1. I would suggest the repeal of the curtailment of the “right of silence” provisions in sections 34 to 38 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

2. These provisions are not in force in Scotland, and it is therefore wrong that there should be such provisions in force in England whilst not in other parts of the UK, and a suspect’s and defendant’s rights should be uniform in all of the U.K. jurisdictions.

3. These provisions have been watered down by the effect of the Condron v UK judgment in the European Court of Human Rights, and have in effect become unworkable.

4. There have also been numerous decisions of the Court of Appeal in relation to the effects of these ridiculous provisions, and the expense to the taxpayer and waste of court time and recourses has been enormous.

5. The provision that adverse inferences may be made if the suspect fails to mention when questioned something that he or she later relies on in court is ridiculous, especially as the suspect could have forgotten something important during interview.

6. The provision attacks the presumption of innocence and is undemocratic and unconstitutional and should be repealed to prevent serious miscarriages of justice.

Loss of Rights on conviction of crime

It is a basic right not to have others impinge on your law abiding life.

By committing a crime against others (theft,burglary etc.) and being convicted of that offence then imprisonment should remove the rights of that offender. ALL rights.

Their action did not take into account the effect on thevictim and in most cases I believe that it is a life changing experience that was not optional for the recipient.

Once someone has been convicted in Britain then it is for British Justice System to operate. Allowing the offender to appeal to Europe when the reality hits them is just  not acceptable.

It is long awaited that the punishment should fit the crime. Someone has yet to convince me that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent against murder.

Getting tough on crime might just improve the lives of the innocent victim who lives in a law abiding way. It is time to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Why is this idea important?

It is a basic right not to have others impinge on your law abiding life.

By committing a crime against others (theft,burglary etc.) and being convicted of that offence then imprisonment should remove the rights of that offender. ALL rights.

Their action did not take into account the effect on thevictim and in most cases I believe that it is a life changing experience that was not optional for the recipient.

Once someone has been convicted in Britain then it is for British Justice System to operate. Allowing the offender to appeal to Europe when the reality hits them is just  not acceptable.

It is long awaited that the punishment should fit the crime. Someone has yet to convince me that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent against murder.

Getting tough on crime might just improve the lives of the innocent victim who lives in a law abiding way. It is time to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Ban the law that says it’s ‘ok’ to have a firearm


A gun is a license to murder. That's all they are for. In 2009, 60 people died to gun violence alone. It's time to follow the route of civilised countries like China, North Korea and Turkmenistan and have a TOTAL ban on guns and a 10 year jail sentence for those who have them.

Someone who owns a firearm will use it against someone eventually.

Please visit our site:

http://guncontrolnetwork.blogspot.com

Why is this idea important?


A gun is a license to murder. That's all they are for. In 2009, 60 people died to gun violence alone. It's time to follow the route of civilised countries like China, North Korea and Turkmenistan and have a TOTAL ban on guns and a 10 year jail sentence for those who have them.

Someone who owns a firearm will use it against someone eventually.

Please visit our site:

http://guncontrolnetwork.blogspot.com

The “private sphere” should be larger

The "private sphere" is supposed to that area of each person's life where legislators have a very restricted right  to intrude.  But much recent legislation seems to have intruded ever deeper into the personal sphere.  Inevitably this has meant that legislators have had to choose which group of people's personal choices, views, right etc are right… and how far to limit the people who are "wrong". 

A more generous view of what constitutes a person's "personal sphere" would allow legislators to provide rights for each group without having to impinge so much on the rights of other groups, where their interests and freedoms might conflict.

It would, however, require people to tolerate, and respect, the right of other people to be "wrong"!

Why is this idea important?

The "private sphere" is supposed to that area of each person's life where legislators have a very restricted right  to intrude.  But much recent legislation seems to have intruded ever deeper into the personal sphere.  Inevitably this has meant that legislators have had to choose which group of people's personal choices, views, right etc are right… and how far to limit the people who are "wrong". 

A more generous view of what constitutes a person's "personal sphere" would allow legislators to provide rights for each group without having to impinge so much on the rights of other groups, where their interests and freedoms might conflict.

It would, however, require people to tolerate, and respect, the right of other people to be "wrong"!

The “private sphere” should be larger

The "private sphere" is supposed to that area of each person's life where legislators have a very restricted right  to intrude.  But much recent legislation seems to have intruded ever deeper into the personal sphere.  Inevitably this has meant that legislators have had to choose which group of people's personal choices, views, right etc are right… and how far to limit the people who are "wrong". 

A more generous view of what constitutes a person's "personal sphere" would allow legislators to provide rights for each group without having to impinge so much on the rights of other groups, where their interests and freedoms might conflict.

It would, however, require people to tolerate, and respect, the right of other people to be "wrong"!

Why is this idea important?

The "private sphere" is supposed to that area of each person's life where legislators have a very restricted right  to intrude.  But much recent legislation seems to have intruded ever deeper into the personal sphere.  Inevitably this has meant that legislators have had to choose which group of people's personal choices, views, right etc are right… and how far to limit the people who are "wrong". 

A more generous view of what constitutes a person's "personal sphere" would allow legislators to provide rights for each group without having to impinge so much on the rights of other groups, where their interests and freedoms might conflict.

It would, however, require people to tolerate, and respect, the right of other people to be "wrong"!

Simplify divorce and family law

Take the uncertainty out of divorce and family law by introducing simple rules for the division of property upon divorce.

At present a handful of judges make up the law 'on the hoof' to fit in with their own prejudices.  Amongst other things this means that the law under which you get married may not be the law under which you get divorced.  This is against all natural justice.  Allow couples to enter binding pre-nuptual agreements or to accept simple rules for the division of property on divorce and stop the madness of the family courts.

Have clear and irrefutable laws that give children the right to an equal relationship with both parents as a starting point, upon the breakup of a marriage.

Why is this idea important?

Take the uncertainty out of divorce and family law by introducing simple rules for the division of property upon divorce.

At present a handful of judges make up the law 'on the hoof' to fit in with their own prejudices.  Amongst other things this means that the law under which you get married may not be the law under which you get divorced.  This is against all natural justice.  Allow couples to enter binding pre-nuptual agreements or to accept simple rules for the division of property on divorce and stop the madness of the family courts.

Have clear and irrefutable laws that give children the right to an equal relationship with both parents as a starting point, upon the breakup of a marriage.

Repeal or restrict the RIP act.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers act erodes our civil liberties and can be used by over 750 public bodies in the United Kingdom.  This an unneeded and obscene and leads to a multitude of people able to invade the privacy of thousands of citizens.

Why is this idea important?

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers act erodes our civil liberties and can be used by over 750 public bodies in the United Kingdom.  This an unneeded and obscene and leads to a multitude of people able to invade the privacy of thousands of citizens.

Review of pharmacists’ power over birth control

In pharmacies, the pharmacist can reject requests for the morning after pill based on moral grounds. I feel that this is far too much power from one person over an issue that does not concern them along with too much interference over someone's life. If this power is taken away from pharmacists then accessing birth control will be easier. It should not be up to the pharmacist to determine a woman's pregnancy, it is unfair and places too much power in the hands of a stranger.

Why is this idea important?

In pharmacies, the pharmacist can reject requests for the morning after pill based on moral grounds. I feel that this is far too much power from one person over an issue that does not concern them along with too much interference over someone's life. If this power is taken away from pharmacists then accessing birth control will be easier. It should not be up to the pharmacist to determine a woman's pregnancy, it is unfair and places too much power in the hands of a stranger.

“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous… ” – Dr. Carl Sagan

My idea is simple: Legalise, tax and regulate Cannabis.

————–

Cannabis should be available to everyone aged 18+

————–

Commercially:-

Cannabis should be sold in a licensed premises along the lines of a tobacconists, supplied by a licensed commercial grower and all products quality controlled before being supplied to the store. All sales could be taxed – a much needed source of income in these bad economical times.

Cannabis must be used in a private place such as a home, or a public place similar to the Coffee Shops of Amsterdam. 

It would be an offence to consume Cannabis in an un-appointed public area.

It would be a criminal offence to sell Cannabis, or buy Cannabis for, anybody under the age of 18, much like the Alcohol laws.

————–

Personally:-

Growing for personal use would not need a licence. There would be a pre-determined maximum number of plants per person aged 18+ per household. Any Cannabis grown for personal use may be freely used with friends, family or anybody aged 18+.

It would be a criminal offence to sell off any Cannabis grown for personal use.

It would be a criminal offence to supply anybody under the age of 18 with any Cannabis.

————–

Medically:-

A doctor would be able to prescribe Cannabis to anybody they believe it would benefit, with no age limit.

Strains of Cannabis bred to be medically potent will be available in all Chemists on prescription. For patients who prefer not to smoke Cannabis, vapourisers and Cannabis Recipe books would be available at a low price at the Chemists to provide alternative methods of consumption.

————–

Industrial Cannabis:-

Cannabis has many industrial uses: It's oils can be used as biofuel, it's fibre – the strongest natural fibre known to man – is a renewable source of paper, it's seeds can be used for food. Make use of Cannabis's many varying properties!

————–

Why is this idea important?

My idea is simple: Legalise, tax and regulate Cannabis.

————–

Cannabis should be available to everyone aged 18+

————–

Commercially:-

Cannabis should be sold in a licensed premises along the lines of a tobacconists, supplied by a licensed commercial grower and all products quality controlled before being supplied to the store. All sales could be taxed – a much needed source of income in these bad economical times.

Cannabis must be used in a private place such as a home, or a public place similar to the Coffee Shops of Amsterdam. 

It would be an offence to consume Cannabis in an un-appointed public area.

It would be a criminal offence to sell Cannabis, or buy Cannabis for, anybody under the age of 18, much like the Alcohol laws.

————–

Personally:-

Growing for personal use would not need a licence. There would be a pre-determined maximum number of plants per person aged 18+ per household. Any Cannabis grown for personal use may be freely used with friends, family or anybody aged 18+.

It would be a criminal offence to sell off any Cannabis grown for personal use.

It would be a criminal offence to supply anybody under the age of 18 with any Cannabis.

————–

Medically:-

A doctor would be able to prescribe Cannabis to anybody they believe it would benefit, with no age limit.

Strains of Cannabis bred to be medically potent will be available in all Chemists on prescription. For patients who prefer not to smoke Cannabis, vapourisers and Cannabis Recipe books would be available at a low price at the Chemists to provide alternative methods of consumption.

————–

Industrial Cannabis:-

Cannabis has many industrial uses: It's oils can be used as biofuel, it's fibre – the strongest natural fibre known to man – is a renewable source of paper, it's seeds can be used for food. Make use of Cannabis's many varying properties!

————–

repeal 1972 european communities act

repeal the act and leave the eu in order to have a more arms length trade treaty with eu.  As balance of trade is in mainland europe's favour eu would not want to lose uk as export destination

Why is this idea important?

repeal the act and leave the eu in order to have a more arms length trade treaty with eu.  As balance of trade is in mainland europe's favour eu would not want to lose uk as export destination