equality

is`nt  about time that all royals pay the same taxes as it`s  UK citizens ?even in death ?

stop the law society members strangling our court system and judges without readdress

also looking  in to there fees e..g  make a will ,then you pay again , again after carrying it out .sending  out letter of action then no action without readdress .

reclaim the civil courts to it`s citizens  .stop the main party`s dictating our political system with selected mps and make the system fair for independents so laws can have  scrutiny not  by infringes  of party will . removal of percentages ,remove the upper house,to fair independent manor .

stop taking the most with one hand then say your giving with the other which has a affect on all markets you earn then you take you pay you claim expenses to do you job selected by you party .

end tv licensing and make it  a even market place .

Why is this idea important?

is`nt  about time that all royals pay the same taxes as it`s  UK citizens ?even in death ?

stop the law society members strangling our court system and judges without readdress

also looking  in to there fees e..g  make a will ,then you pay again , again after carrying it out .sending  out letter of action then no action without readdress .

reclaim the civil courts to it`s citizens  .stop the main party`s dictating our political system with selected mps and make the system fair for independents so laws can have  scrutiny not  by infringes  of party will . removal of percentages ,remove the upper house,to fair independent manor .

stop taking the most with one hand then say your giving with the other which has a affect on all markets you earn then you take you pay you claim expenses to do you job selected by you party .

end tv licensing and make it  a even market place .

Revoke Sarah’s Law, The Children’s Act (2004) et al

Much of the rhetoric governing all things child abuse evolves from roots borne out of the Feminist movement of the 1960's.  As a result, it is almost impossible to effectively challenge any degree of thinking that contradicts or conflicts with what is stated as a given today.  For example, in the climate of fear which now exists if a child is murdered, the instant national hysteria that erupts is fuelled not by a media clamouring for something newsworthy but largely by those who claim to be 'campaigners' for children's rights/issues.

The list includes the NSPCC, Barnado's, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (most notably Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall), and the children's charity set up by Michele Elliott, Kidscape, as well as several other individuals – including Esther Rantzen and Sara Payne.  Together, we are informed by them that child abuse or child death is akin to a nightmare being visited upon us all and one from which there is no escape.  Collectively, we shirk back in fear, because the words come from credible sources.  So we dare not challenge them.

Over the past 20-30 years, these once respected organisations, along with some of the newer ones, have been in receipt of ever-growing state funding, (actual amounts to be found  in accounts submitted to the Charities Commission on an annual basis) and this is overlooked on the basis that children are being protected.  But what are children being protected from?  And why are they being protected?  What is this danger that now exists?  What happened a generation ago that seemingly eradicated common-sense and replaced it with a mindset that now wishes to submit Society to evermore stringent requirements, so much so that no-one can be seen to be innocent, without first be able to prove it?  Of equal importance, is that as state funding increases, these organisations and individuals have become evermore duplicitious given that any independence they once enjoyed has been so compromised.

Child abuse is real.  For those of us who know what it feels like, there is no doubt that it influences our lives.  But so what?  There are many, many people, children included, who have experienced far worse, such as the death of a parent, or no parents, yet scant if any attention is afforded them.  Instead, we substitute reason with an alarmist modus operandi bordering on vigilantiism at times – for the sake of 50 – 200 children a year who die at the hands of adults, depending on the accuracy of figures used.

It is this lack of perspective that gives rise to laws that never should have come into being; such as the Children's Act of 1989, given Royal Assent in 2004, and later, Sarah's Law, indirectly as a result of the death of Sarah Payne.  What is not acknowledged is that there is no law which ever could prevent all child deaths, any more than murder can be prevented, or rape can be, or that drug addiction can be fully eradicated.  Yet we allow ourselves to be collectively misled by those who suggest that 'if only' we adopted 'this law' or 'that criminal check', then such pain could be avoided.  It cannot – and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.  The best any of us can hope to achieve is to perhaps ameliorate the level of child abuse but we cannot and never will eradicate it, and nor should we seek to do so as it is this wrongful degree of emphasis that gives rise to the fear of paedophilia that we see today.  There should be a level of acceptance that at some point that acknowledges our limits and abilities, and it is because we do not have such limits that we then have expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

What if many of the laws and checks now in place actually contribute to a rise in children being harmed?  What if, in their constant competition to win public support, bodies such as the NSPCC and Barnado's have gone too far with 'raising people's awareness'?  That instead of gently letting the population know they are there should people require their support, they realised that they were being left behind when a more aggressive stance was adopted by some, such as Esther Rantzen and Michele Elliott?  Who, between them have succeeded in raising people's awareness so acutely that most adults are terrified, lest they step out of line by doing something as innocuous as taking a photograph of their children in a park for example.  This is not raising awareness, it may have been once, twenty-five years ago but it has morphed into a zealousness bordering on obsession. 

We are encouraged to teach our children that we – that they must not discriminate.  We do this in part, because of the growing numbers of immigrants within our population and we do not want to be seen to be intolerant of them.  Yet those who teach such rhetoric fail on two counts.  They first do not understand what the original problem is, if any and secondly, make pronouncements based upon biased thinking.  Long before it became 'illegal' to discriminate, we all got along pretty nicely.  The English hated the Irish and the Scots and the Welsh for one reason or another and the Irish, Scots and Welsh all hated the English.  It worked quite well for hundreds of years, until we are told, that it is a criminal offence to say that we hated one or the other.

The result is that children are now not taught how to discriminate because it is seen as a 'dirty' word.  One consequence is that children are now collectively so immature that their age of maturity has been reduced by two years in the past 20 years.  This does little to prepare them for the world.  It may also give some insight as to why so many children seem to lose sight of all reason when on the internet – that because they do not discriminate, they no longer know how to in order to retain a basic level of safety.

Yet human survival is based upon an ability to distinguish between friend and foe.

To all the child abuse agencies and 'do-gooders' who want to 'help' – if the intent is genuine, it can best be achieved by leaving 'us' alone and instead focussing on that which hurts children most, for it is not child abuse, it is children's parents marriages breaking up or not having parents (i.e. mother and father) at all – this is far more devastating than any abuse and has far greater repercussions in later life.  Although it is widely known, this cultural shift over the last 30 years is rarely focussed on, for there are many more people who would then be 'guilty' of harming their children in this way than abuse by a paedophile ever could be.

An abuser may sometimes victimise children but it is the agencies and charities who ensure that children remain as victims.  Nasty things sometimes happen to some people, but victims do have a choice.  We can acknowledge (if not fully accept) what happens or we can fight it.  If we accept it, this leads to understanding and insight, sometimes forgiveness – but what is not forgiveable is those who tell us that it is acceptable to remain as victims. 

Even a paedophile does not leave this kind of stigma on those who have been abused.

Why is this idea important?

Much of the rhetoric governing all things child abuse evolves from roots borne out of the Feminist movement of the 1960's.  As a result, it is almost impossible to effectively challenge any degree of thinking that contradicts or conflicts with what is stated as a given today.  For example, in the climate of fear which now exists if a child is murdered, the instant national hysteria that erupts is fuelled not by a media clamouring for something newsworthy but largely by those who claim to be 'campaigners' for children's rights/issues.

The list includes the NSPCC, Barnado's, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (most notably Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall), and the children's charity set up by Michele Elliott, Kidscape, as well as several other individuals – including Esther Rantzen and Sara Payne.  Together, we are informed by them that child abuse or child death is akin to a nightmare being visited upon us all and one from which there is no escape.  Collectively, we shirk back in fear, because the words come from credible sources.  So we dare not challenge them.

Over the past 20-30 years, these once respected organisations, along with some of the newer ones, have been in receipt of ever-growing state funding, (actual amounts to be found  in accounts submitted to the Charities Commission on an annual basis) and this is overlooked on the basis that children are being protected.  But what are children being protected from?  And why are they being protected?  What is this danger that now exists?  What happened a generation ago that seemingly eradicated common-sense and replaced it with a mindset that now wishes to submit Society to evermore stringent requirements, so much so that no-one can be seen to be innocent, without first be able to prove it?  Of equal importance, is that as state funding increases, these organisations and individuals have become evermore duplicitious given that any independence they once enjoyed has been so compromised.

Child abuse is real.  For those of us who know what it feels like, there is no doubt that it influences our lives.  But so what?  There are many, many people, children included, who have experienced far worse, such as the death of a parent, or no parents, yet scant if any attention is afforded them.  Instead, we substitute reason with an alarmist modus operandi bordering on vigilantiism at times – for the sake of 50 – 200 children a year who die at the hands of adults, depending on the accuracy of figures used.

It is this lack of perspective that gives rise to laws that never should have come into being; such as the Children's Act of 1989, given Royal Assent in 2004, and later, Sarah's Law, indirectly as a result of the death of Sarah Payne.  What is not acknowledged is that there is no law which ever could prevent all child deaths, any more than murder can be prevented, or rape can be, or that drug addiction can be fully eradicated.  Yet we allow ourselves to be collectively misled by those who suggest that 'if only' we adopted 'this law' or 'that criminal check', then such pain could be avoided.  It cannot – and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.  The best any of us can hope to achieve is to perhaps ameliorate the level of child abuse but we cannot and never will eradicate it, and nor should we seek to do so as it is this wrongful degree of emphasis that gives rise to the fear of paedophilia that we see today.  There should be a level of acceptance that at some point that acknowledges our limits and abilities, and it is because we do not have such limits that we then have expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

What if many of the laws and checks now in place actually contribute to a rise in children being harmed?  What if, in their constant competition to win public support, bodies such as the NSPCC and Barnado's have gone too far with 'raising people's awareness'?  That instead of gently letting the population know they are there should people require their support, they realised that they were being left behind when a more aggressive stance was adopted by some, such as Esther Rantzen and Michele Elliott?  Who, between them have succeeded in raising people's awareness so acutely that most adults are terrified, lest they step out of line by doing something as innocuous as taking a photograph of their children in a park for example.  This is not raising awareness, it may have been once, twenty-five years ago but it has morphed into a zealousness bordering on obsession. 

We are encouraged to teach our children that we – that they must not discriminate.  We do this in part, because of the growing numbers of immigrants within our population and we do not want to be seen to be intolerant of them.  Yet those who teach such rhetoric fail on two counts.  They first do not understand what the original problem is, if any and secondly, make pronouncements based upon biased thinking.  Long before it became 'illegal' to discriminate, we all got along pretty nicely.  The English hated the Irish and the Scots and the Welsh for one reason or another and the Irish, Scots and Welsh all hated the English.  It worked quite well for hundreds of years, until we are told, that it is a criminal offence to say that we hated one or the other.

The result is that children are now not taught how to discriminate because it is seen as a 'dirty' word.  One consequence is that children are now collectively so immature that their age of maturity has been reduced by two years in the past 20 years.  This does little to prepare them for the world.  It may also give some insight as to why so many children seem to lose sight of all reason when on the internet – that because they do not discriminate, they no longer know how to in order to retain a basic level of safety.

Yet human survival is based upon an ability to distinguish between friend and foe.

To all the child abuse agencies and 'do-gooders' who want to 'help' – if the intent is genuine, it can best be achieved by leaving 'us' alone and instead focussing on that which hurts children most, for it is not child abuse, it is children's parents marriages breaking up or not having parents (i.e. mother and father) at all – this is far more devastating than any abuse and has far greater repercussions in later life.  Although it is widely known, this cultural shift over the last 30 years is rarely focussed on, for there are many more people who would then be 'guilty' of harming their children in this way than abuse by a paedophile ever could be.

An abuser may sometimes victimise children but it is the agencies and charities who ensure that children remain as victims.  Nasty things sometimes happen to some people, but victims do have a choice.  We can acknowledge (if not fully accept) what happens or we can fight it.  If we accept it, this leads to understanding and insight, sometimes forgiveness – but what is not forgiveable is those who tell us that it is acceptable to remain as victims. 

Even a paedophile does not leave this kind of stigma on those who have been abused.

Democratically electing a head of state, making us all more free.

We should democratically elect a head of state, and no longer be 'ruled over' by an unelected, undemocratic monarch merely on the basis of his or her birth.

Why is this idea important?

We should democratically elect a head of state, and no longer be 'ruled over' by an unelected, undemocratic monarch merely on the basis of his or her birth.