Burglars Rights

I know burglars are human beings and it doesn't mean that they have any less rights – but by intently breaking into someone's property (and therefore disregarding others rights i.e privacy) it doesn't seem fair that their rights are defendable just as much as a citizen who respects others rights. surely a society that is better is one where everybody respects everybody – therefore a burglar wouldn't contribute holistically to a better society. i believe a deterrent to this is if the burglar doesn't have as many rights as they have today – therefore reducing the amount of burglars and the increasing the contribution towards a better society.

i'm not a lawyer and don't know any loopholes or cases but you do hear of those where a burglar injure his toe or falls on something sharp when breaking in and claims against the owner of the property. other laws have received criticism for not allowing an owner of a home to react against a criminal intruder OR making the owner feel like they cannot react because if they do they will be subject to the judicial system. 

to conclude, i believe that burglars should have less rights than they do currently. although killing another human is wrong – owners should have more rights against intruders; such as reasonable force or harm, i.e being able to hurt an intruders arm or leg in order to disarm them or encourage them to leave or use force to hold them until police arrive. not only this but any accidental harm a burglar experiences would be seen as there own fault as it was there decision to break into a property. finally, i propose that an owner isn't scrutinized because they may keep an object of protection with them in their bedroom – it may be forward planned but it doesn't mean they WANT to use it.

Why is this idea important?

I know burglars are human beings and it doesn't mean that they have any less rights – but by intently breaking into someone's property (and therefore disregarding others rights i.e privacy) it doesn't seem fair that their rights are defendable just as much as a citizen who respects others rights. surely a society that is better is one where everybody respects everybody – therefore a burglar wouldn't contribute holistically to a better society. i believe a deterrent to this is if the burglar doesn't have as many rights as they have today – therefore reducing the amount of burglars and the increasing the contribution towards a better society.

i'm not a lawyer and don't know any loopholes or cases but you do hear of those where a burglar injure his toe or falls on something sharp when breaking in and claims against the owner of the property. other laws have received criticism for not allowing an owner of a home to react against a criminal intruder OR making the owner feel like they cannot react because if they do they will be subject to the judicial system. 

to conclude, i believe that burglars should have less rights than they do currently. although killing another human is wrong – owners should have more rights against intruders; such as reasonable force or harm, i.e being able to hurt an intruders arm or leg in order to disarm them or encourage them to leave or use force to hold them until police arrive. not only this but any accidental harm a burglar experiences would be seen as there own fault as it was there decision to break into a property. finally, i propose that an owner isn't scrutinized because they may keep an object of protection with them in their bedroom – it may be forward planned but it doesn't mean they WANT to use it.

Right to Jury Trial

Repeal all law that restricts the right to trial by Jury.  This was a fundamental part of Magna Carta but was severly restricted in the 1960's as it was alleged that it had become too ponderous in a "modern" society!  There are currently moves afoot to remove the right from libel trials.  This should be rejected.  Also Grande Juries should be reinstated, a role currently undertaken by the Solicitor General; if in place Blair and his cohorts would most certainly have faced trail.  This clearly demonstrates the role of juries in enabling subjects of her majesty to exercise real control over their elected rulers.  It was juries that frustrated the creation of an absolute monarch, Charles I and they would have fulfilled that role again in the modern era if allowed.  The limitations imposed on the right to trial by jury have never been challenged in the House of Lords/Supreme Court; a bit of a mystery.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all law that restricts the right to trial by Jury.  This was a fundamental part of Magna Carta but was severly restricted in the 1960's as it was alleged that it had become too ponderous in a "modern" society!  There are currently moves afoot to remove the right from libel trials.  This should be rejected.  Also Grande Juries should be reinstated, a role currently undertaken by the Solicitor General; if in place Blair and his cohorts would most certainly have faced trail.  This clearly demonstrates the role of juries in enabling subjects of her majesty to exercise real control over their elected rulers.  It was juries that frustrated the creation of an absolute monarch, Charles I and they would have fulfilled that role again in the modern era if allowed.  The limitations imposed on the right to trial by jury have never been challenged in the House of Lords/Supreme Court; a bit of a mystery.

Review of the Abortion Act 1967

The gap between the statute and how the abortion law functions in practice is problematic.  I'd like to see the right of the woman to choose to be recognised in law, rather than the discretion of the doctor.  This may include making access to abortion easier in the first trimester, for example, or abolishing the need for a second signature and continuing to review the time limits on abortion in light of the effect of technological developments in paediatric intensive care and their effect on viability.

Why is this idea important?

The gap between the statute and how the abortion law functions in practice is problematic.  I'd like to see the right of the woman to choose to be recognised in law, rather than the discretion of the doctor.  This may include making access to abortion easier in the first trimester, for example, or abolishing the need for a second signature and continuing to review the time limits on abortion in light of the effect of technological developments in paediatric intensive care and their effect on viability.

Civil Liberties & Human Rights in Overseas Territories

With regard to the United Kingdom's occupation in overseas territories, civil liberties and human rights violations must be reviewed and dealt with immediately. 

In the Turks and Caicos Islands, many citizens question the UK agenda there.  The UK took all governance of the islands last August 2009 without any consult or vote from even the UK MPs, merely the FCO.  It came to Turks & Caicos and took all democracy and civil liberties from the people, including the right to jury trials, elections, self determination and to this date has been unable to prove any of the accused corruption.

The UK invaded the autonomous local government and took over all finances, yet brought no money for this transition costing the people millions.  This is just one example of the mad lack of planning of the FCO.

Now, the people suffer under land confiscations and threats of retaliation by accusations of crimes if they speak out against the UK installed government. 

Please review the matter there and make certain that freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and other basic civil rights are assessed and upheld.  Growing racial tensions and marginalization of the local people are creating a hostile country.  The more the people speak out, the greater are UK's threats.  The special prosecutor Helen Garlick of the UK has been there for nearly a year and keeps promising that many people will be prosecuted but will not say whom will be targeted.  She continues to ask for the public's help to find corrupt people which is ordinarily appropriate, but with the taking of the local judiciary this creates a police state where a prosecutor can target anyone without democratic intervention. 

Rumors on behalf of the UK through a propaganda site, TCI Journal, continue to threaten anyone who is speaking out, that they will be on Ms. Garlick's list of offenders.  You can see the civil rights violations when you look at it from the eyes of the people, the UK is threatening prosecution of anyone who speaks out or assembles.  There are other rumors that Ms. Garlick is ready to serve 90 or so protective order enjoining anyone, including the press, of speaking out on this matter.

The governor Gordon Wetherell stands with (literally)  Ms. Garlick during her speeches of retribution putting himself in a conflict of interest.  He is to be representing the people.  Yet, he separates not any governmental powers and has thus created a dictatorship/police state.

This is a terrifying time for the people. 

Why is this idea important?

With regard to the United Kingdom's occupation in overseas territories, civil liberties and human rights violations must be reviewed and dealt with immediately. 

In the Turks and Caicos Islands, many citizens question the UK agenda there.  The UK took all governance of the islands last August 2009 without any consult or vote from even the UK MPs, merely the FCO.  It came to Turks & Caicos and took all democracy and civil liberties from the people, including the right to jury trials, elections, self determination and to this date has been unable to prove any of the accused corruption.

The UK invaded the autonomous local government and took over all finances, yet brought no money for this transition costing the people millions.  This is just one example of the mad lack of planning of the FCO.

Now, the people suffer under land confiscations and threats of retaliation by accusations of crimes if they speak out against the UK installed government. 

Please review the matter there and make certain that freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and other basic civil rights are assessed and upheld.  Growing racial tensions and marginalization of the local people are creating a hostile country.  The more the people speak out, the greater are UK's threats.  The special prosecutor Helen Garlick of the UK has been there for nearly a year and keeps promising that many people will be prosecuted but will not say whom will be targeted.  She continues to ask for the public's help to find corrupt people which is ordinarily appropriate, but with the taking of the local judiciary this creates a police state where a prosecutor can target anyone without democratic intervention. 

Rumors on behalf of the UK through a propaganda site, TCI Journal, continue to threaten anyone who is speaking out, that they will be on Ms. Garlick's list of offenders.  You can see the civil rights violations when you look at it from the eyes of the people, the UK is threatening prosecution of anyone who speaks out or assembles.  There are other rumors that Ms. Garlick is ready to serve 90 or so protective order enjoining anyone, including the press, of speaking out on this matter.

The governor Gordon Wetherell stands with (literally)  Ms. Garlick during her speeches of retribution putting himself in a conflict of interest.  He is to be representing the people.  Yet, he separates not any governmental powers and has thus created a dictatorship/police state.

This is a terrifying time for the people. 

Fathers Rights and Childrens Rights

I have a few ideas set out below due to the fact that parent and childrens rights require a huge overhaul. The system is in such a mess that more that one change is required.

The process of family breakdown needs to be addressed to ensure that children never loose contact with either parent. Apparently parents have equal rights but this is rarely enforced within a court of law. Changes are to be made if the UK is to progress into a modern state and the following are implemented:

1. The government should make it impossible for resident parents to refuse non-resident parents access to their children. 

 2. Parents should be penalised for discouraging or prohibiting contact between their child and the other parent.

4. Parents who make false allegations on domestic violence should be asked to publicly apologise.

 5. Child maintenance should be withdrawn from parents who refuse non-resident parents access to their child/ren.

 6. Make the process of mediation compulsory and only go to court in exceptional circumstances.

 7. in light on 6. CAFCASS officers to be awarded more power in decision making and act as a representative to the child. Makes the need for an expensive judge, solicitor and barrister unnecessary.

Why is this idea important?

I have a few ideas set out below due to the fact that parent and childrens rights require a huge overhaul. The system is in such a mess that more that one change is required.

The process of family breakdown needs to be addressed to ensure that children never loose contact with either parent. Apparently parents have equal rights but this is rarely enforced within a court of law. Changes are to be made if the UK is to progress into a modern state and the following are implemented:

1. The government should make it impossible for resident parents to refuse non-resident parents access to their children. 

 2. Parents should be penalised for discouraging or prohibiting contact between their child and the other parent.

4. Parents who make false allegations on domestic violence should be asked to publicly apologise.

 5. Child maintenance should be withdrawn from parents who refuse non-resident parents access to their child/ren.

 6. Make the process of mediation compulsory and only go to court in exceptional circumstances.

 7. in light on 6. CAFCASS officers to be awarded more power in decision making and act as a representative to the child. Makes the need for an expensive judge, solicitor and barrister unnecessary.

Squatters Rights

Squatters should not have rights to be allowed to stay in a property indefinately, the police should have the power to get them out without the owner having to go through the courts, which takes too long, especially when they are immigrants who are supposed to come here to a job and have somewhere to stay.

Why is this idea important?

Squatters should not have rights to be allowed to stay in a property indefinately, the police should have the power to get them out without the owner having to go through the courts, which takes too long, especially when they are immigrants who are supposed to come here to a job and have somewhere to stay.

Fair & law binding Society,observing fundamental individual rights

That each and evry Institution,Authoretie and Her-Majesty Servant shell act in accordance to

The RULE OF LAW.

No Person is above the Law.

Law is Made by Paliament elected by the Public to Ensure the FREEDOM of the Individual

Law-Binding members of the Public. Click www.edm1297.info the public grievence and

Torture Denial of Justice by Few Contarary to the Public-Intere.

Why is this idea important?

That each and evry Institution,Authoretie and Her-Majesty Servant shell act in accordance to

The RULE OF LAW.

No Person is above the Law.

Law is Made by Paliament elected by the Public to Ensure the FREEDOM of the Individual

Law-Binding members of the Public. Click www.edm1297.info the public grievence and

Torture Denial of Justice by Few Contarary to the Public-Intere.

Local Authority entering private land

Change the law which prevents the Local Authority from entering private land to remove items of fly tipping. 

Asbestos was recently dumped on private land and the Local Authority had to pay a private contractor to remove it because of this law.

Why is this idea important?

Change the law which prevents the Local Authority from entering private land to remove items of fly tipping. 

Asbestos was recently dumped on private land and the Local Authority had to pay a private contractor to remove it because of this law.

Food Labeling

All food should have labeled what is in it. currently some products such as bread and alcohol are exempt from placing their ingredients on the packaging. Other food products can abstain from revealing the full contents using umbrella terms such as 'natural flavorings' .

In addition a system of clear and universal labeling should be applied for all dietary requirements, kosher, halal, vegetarian/vegan, celiac, etc, etc.

Why is this idea important?

All food should have labeled what is in it. currently some products such as bread and alcohol are exempt from placing their ingredients on the packaging. Other food products can abstain from revealing the full contents using umbrella terms such as 'natural flavorings' .

In addition a system of clear and universal labeling should be applied for all dietary requirements, kosher, halal, vegetarian/vegan, celiac, etc, etc.

Volunteer Rights

The only volunteer rights are contained in the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 s3 ie you must not physically or mentally impair an employee or non-employee (to include volunteers).

mutual trust and confidence is not enough

Why is this idea important?

The only volunteer rights are contained in the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 s3 ie you must not physically or mentally impair an employee or non-employee (to include volunteers).

mutual trust and confidence is not enough

Change Human rights act and bail act

Everyone seems to have to right idea, the human rights act needs a major overhaul, like so many have said, convicted criminals, and i mean, drug dealers, persistent burglars, rapists, robbers, murderers, sex offenders ahd those that choose to carry a gun, offences of terror also, once convicted should all lose their rights according to the act. They should lose legal aid.

Life sentences should then be imposed for the most terrible crimes some mentioned above. A convicted rapist needs to stay in prison for good, the effect this has on the victim is a life sentence on its own.

A free country should stand up to those who make our lives hell, we are like prisoners in our own country through fear of the criminal.

Sort it out please and let us lock up horrible criminals for good, thus the decent law abiding citizen can relax and enjoy life.

The bail act needs looking at also, too many people offend on bail causing more grief to victims

Why is this idea important?

Everyone seems to have to right idea, the human rights act needs a major overhaul, like so many have said, convicted criminals, and i mean, drug dealers, persistent burglars, rapists, robbers, murderers, sex offenders ahd those that choose to carry a gun, offences of terror also, once convicted should all lose their rights according to the act. They should lose legal aid.

Life sentences should then be imposed for the most terrible crimes some mentioned above. A convicted rapist needs to stay in prison for good, the effect this has on the victim is a life sentence on its own.

A free country should stand up to those who make our lives hell, we are like prisoners in our own country through fear of the criminal.

Sort it out please and let us lock up horrible criminals for good, thus the decent law abiding citizen can relax and enjoy life.

The bail act needs looking at also, too many people offend on bail causing more grief to victims

Amend the Smoking Ban

The smoking ban is an infringement of the rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that second hand smoke was a danger to those around it, who could possible inhale it. This has never been scientifically proven.

No law should be allowed to go into the statute books without absolute proof that the need for such a law can be substantiated both legally and scientifically.

When the Labour Government first proposed this law, it was in their manifesto that it should be a partial ban, only operational in places that served food. This proposal was suddenly changed to include "all" indoor public places. The reason given, was that staff needed protection from second hand smoke.

In the ex-Labour Government's dying throws, they started suggesting extending the smoking ban to outdoor areas as well as the enclosed areas that were already covered by the ban. If there was any truth at all in their doctrine that second-hand smoke kills or injures, and that is why they needed a smoking ban in the first instance, then why are there proposals still in force to try and extend the ban to outdoor areas?

Smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this. This would not impinge at all on those who do not wish to smoke or even smell smoke, as they too should be allowed their own smoke free places.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban is an infringement of the rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that second hand smoke was a danger to those around it, who could possible inhale it. This has never been scientifically proven.

No law should be allowed to go into the statute books without absolute proof that the need for such a law can be substantiated both legally and scientifically.

When the Labour Government first proposed this law, it was in their manifesto that it should be a partial ban, only operational in places that served food. This proposal was suddenly changed to include "all" indoor public places. The reason given, was that staff needed protection from second hand smoke.

In the ex-Labour Government's dying throws, they started suggesting extending the smoking ban to outdoor areas as well as the enclosed areas that were already covered by the ban. If there was any truth at all in their doctrine that second-hand smoke kills or injures, and that is why they needed a smoking ban in the first instance, then why are there proposals still in force to try and extend the ban to outdoor areas?

Smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this. This would not impinge at all on those who do not wish to smoke or even smell smoke, as they too should be allowed their own smoke free places.

Legalise copying legitimate CD’s onto an iPod/MP3 Player

Under UK Copyright law, it is currently illegal to copy a legitimatly owned Compact Disc onto a media device, such as an MP3 Player or an iPod.

The customer has paid for the right to listen to the music they purchased, why are they not allowed to listen to it using a different method?

Why is this idea important?

Under UK Copyright law, it is currently illegal to copy a legitimatly owned Compact Disc onto a media device, such as an MP3 Player or an iPod.

The customer has paid for the right to listen to the music they purchased, why are they not allowed to listen to it using a different method?

Mandatory disclosure of loss of data / security incidents

When an organisation looses, misplaces or abuses data held about you or when an organisation is hacked, attacked or circumvented they should have to report such things to the Information Commissioner, it's shareholders (if plc), the police (where a crime has been committed) and the individuals who's data may have been abused.

Why is this idea important?

When an organisation looses, misplaces or abuses data held about you or when an organisation is hacked, attacked or circumvented they should have to report such things to the Information Commissioner, it's shareholders (if plc), the police (where a crime has been committed) and the individuals who's data may have been abused.

NERC legislation

 

Section 67 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 should be repealed on the grounds that it is a clumsy statute that has caused very unfair and unreasonable impacts to a significant part of the community, often creating absurd situations, rather than solving problems.  There has to be a better and fairer way of addressing the recording and sustainable use of our ancient highways.

Why is this idea important?

 

Section 67 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 should be repealed on the grounds that it is a clumsy statute that has caused very unfair and unreasonable impacts to a significant part of the community, often creating absurd situations, rather than solving problems.  There has to be a better and fairer way of addressing the recording and sustainable use of our ancient highways.

Prostitution

The current law which allows prostitutes to sell sex but not to work in brothels is postiviely dangerous and forces women onto the streets.  The buying and selling of sex should be completely legal and there should be liscences brothels set up with Health checks for sex workers. There should be increased stringency against sex worker trafficking and forced sex work.

Why is this idea important?

The current law which allows prostitutes to sell sex but not to work in brothels is postiviely dangerous and forces women onto the streets.  The buying and selling of sex should be completely legal and there should be liscences brothels set up with Health checks for sex workers. There should be increased stringency against sex worker trafficking and forced sex work.