Add criticism into relgious education.

I propose that equal criticisms of all religions should be taught in schools.

The entire key stage 4 of religious education is about Christianity and what the bible says. There should be sections on using logic to defeat god, evidence against relgion, bible criticisms, the evil in the bible (millions of murders in the name of god or ordered by god) or the morality of relgions that are wrong.

Why is this idea important?

I propose that equal criticisms of all religions should be taught in schools.

The entire key stage 4 of religious education is about Christianity and what the bible says. There should be sections on using logic to defeat god, evidence against relgion, bible criticisms, the evil in the bible (millions of murders in the name of god or ordered by god) or the morality of relgions that are wrong.

Reform ASBO’s but don’t get rid of them!

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

Why is this idea important?

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

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.

Summer birthday and other “less ready” children should be allowed to attend younger school year.

Children with summer birthdays and children who's parents know are not mature enough to cope with school are currently shown no flexibility as to which age year they should attend in school.  Many other countries have no difficulty in allowing children to start school when ready, or to repeat a year if necessary.  In this country, many parents, like myself, have ended up home educating rather than subject their child to what they know will be a damaging childhood.  The rigidity of the rules currently in place is not for the benefit of children – more to do with targets for schools and budgets.  I cannot afford to send my son to a private school, and nor should I have to, in order for him to be allowed to excel in life, instead of being made to feel inadequate from the age of 4.

Why is this idea important?

Children with summer birthdays and children who's parents know are not mature enough to cope with school are currently shown no flexibility as to which age year they should attend in school.  Many other countries have no difficulty in allowing children to start school when ready, or to repeat a year if necessary.  In this country, many parents, like myself, have ended up home educating rather than subject their child to what they know will be a damaging childhood.  The rigidity of the rules currently in place is not for the benefit of children – more to do with targets for schools and budgets.  I cannot afford to send my son to a private school, and nor should I have to, in order for him to be allowed to excel in life, instead of being made to feel inadequate from the age of 4.

A* Results at A Level and GCSE should be for the top 10% only

A* grades at both A Level and GCSE should be allocated to the top 10% of candidates in the country.

When an exam is marked it scores from 0 to 100 percent and the threshold for grade bands is, for instance, 70% correct answers for a B and 80% correct for an A.

Those who reach these thresholds should rightly be given their appropriate grade. However A* should be reserved for the top 10% of candidates, not just some one who scores over, for instance, 85%.

A candidate's paper would be marked to the percent and given an A grade for achieving 80%, and only after all papers are marked would the A* percentage threshold be set, to allow a 10% quota of candidates through. If their paper achieved this amount they would then be upgraded to the A*. Logistically, if really necessary, this upgrade could happen a couple of weeks after the initial GCSE results are revealed.

Why is this idea important?

A* grades at both A Level and GCSE should be allocated to the top 10% of candidates in the country.

When an exam is marked it scores from 0 to 100 percent and the threshold for grade bands is, for instance, 70% correct answers for a B and 80% correct for an A.

Those who reach these thresholds should rightly be given their appropriate grade. However A* should be reserved for the top 10% of candidates, not just some one who scores over, for instance, 85%.

A candidate's paper would be marked to the percent and given an A grade for achieving 80%, and only after all papers are marked would the A* percentage threshold be set, to allow a 10% quota of candidates through. If their paper achieved this amount they would then be upgraded to the A*. Logistically, if really necessary, this upgrade could happen a couple of weeks after the initial GCSE results are revealed.

Repeal the Firearms Amendment Act of 1996

This Act was made in haste following the terrible events at Dunblane. An election was forthcoming and each of the political parties was trying to show how tough they could be.

Despite the observations of Lord Cullen, who did not advocate the banning of all handguns, the Government of the day decided to ban all larger calibre pistols, the incomoing Government banned all of them.  In effect they punished some 60,000 law abiding citizens for another mans crime.  Very few polititians listened to the target shooters, who were being vilified almost on a daily basis by the media and the Government in general.

As a result, pistols were only available to the criminals and the police. As I recall, in the first year since the ban statistics indicated that gun crime had increased fourfold, and has continued to rise each year.

Therefore, all the act has done is to prevent the law abiding citizen to enjoy the sport of target pistol shooting, The National teams of England and Scotland have to train abroad for Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  It was a sport that enabled the aged and the infirm to compete on a level with able people, what other sport could accomplish this?

It's about time that common sense prevailed and target pistol shooting could again be practised in this country.

Why is this idea important?

This Act was made in haste following the terrible events at Dunblane. An election was forthcoming and each of the political parties was trying to show how tough they could be.

Despite the observations of Lord Cullen, who did not advocate the banning of all handguns, the Government of the day decided to ban all larger calibre pistols, the incomoing Government banned all of them.  In effect they punished some 60,000 law abiding citizens for another mans crime.  Very few polititians listened to the target shooters, who were being vilified almost on a daily basis by the media and the Government in general.

As a result, pistols were only available to the criminals and the police. As I recall, in the first year since the ban statistics indicated that gun crime had increased fourfold, and has continued to rise each year.

Therefore, all the act has done is to prevent the law abiding citizen to enjoy the sport of target pistol shooting, The National teams of England and Scotland have to train abroad for Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  It was a sport that enabled the aged and the infirm to compete on a level with able people, what other sport could accomplish this?

It's about time that common sense prevailed and target pistol shooting could again be practised in this country.

Unfair School Transport Policy for Low Income Children Living in Rural Areas

Dear Nick Clegg,

Please can you change the School Transport Policy to INCLUDE children from low income families living in rural areas that do not have 3 schools within 2 to 6 miles from their homes.

The policy states that the statutory right to free transport for secondary school pupils from low income families provides a choice to one of the three nearest schools to their home address. However, transport will only be provided if the school is between 2 and 6 miles of the home address, and to the nearest school preferred by reason of a parent's religion or belief, between 2 and 15 miles of the home address.

Real Choice – In a statement, School Minister Lord Adonis said "We want to remove transport as a barrier to parental choice. No young person should be prevented from going to a school of their choice simply because of travel costs. That's why it is vital to expand the right to free school travel for young people from low income families to give them real choice in applying for schools."

I look after my disabled husband and have two young secondary school aged children. I chose the second closest school for many important reasons and then was refused help with transport costs. Where is our "Real Choice"? There is no real choice if you live in a rural area!! Even religion is taken into account and are allowed up to 15 miles from their home. My second closest school is 12 miles from our home. You are lucky in most rural areas if you have one school close to your home! It is the children who live in rural areas that really need the help with transport costs as they have much further to travel thus incurring high costs.

We strongly believe we are being excluded from this policy just because we live in a rural part of Devon.

Please, please PLEASE can you amend this policy? Thank you.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Nick Clegg,

Please can you change the School Transport Policy to INCLUDE children from low income families living in rural areas that do not have 3 schools within 2 to 6 miles from their homes.

The policy states that the statutory right to free transport for secondary school pupils from low income families provides a choice to one of the three nearest schools to their home address. However, transport will only be provided if the school is between 2 and 6 miles of the home address, and to the nearest school preferred by reason of a parent's religion or belief, between 2 and 15 miles of the home address.

Real Choice – In a statement, School Minister Lord Adonis said "We want to remove transport as a barrier to parental choice. No young person should be prevented from going to a school of their choice simply because of travel costs. That's why it is vital to expand the right to free school travel for young people from low income families to give them real choice in applying for schools."

I look after my disabled husband and have two young secondary school aged children. I chose the second closest school for many important reasons and then was refused help with transport costs. Where is our "Real Choice"? There is no real choice if you live in a rural area!! Even religion is taken into account and are allowed up to 15 miles from their home. My second closest school is 12 miles from our home. You are lucky in most rural areas if you have one school close to your home! It is the children who live in rural areas that really need the help with transport costs as they have much further to travel thus incurring high costs.

We strongly believe we are being excluded from this policy just because we live in a rural part of Devon.

Please, please PLEASE can you amend this policy? Thank you.

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

Review of Firearms legislation

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

Seems a shame that the British shooting team must practice in Switzerland when the very hub of marksmanship was Bisley. It's also a shame that this elite class will always remain elite if competitors are effectively selected out by legislation rather than their skill level.

Why is this idea important?

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

Seems a shame that the British shooting team must practice in Switzerland when the very hub of marksmanship was Bisley. It's also a shame that this elite class will always remain elite if competitors are effectively selected out by legislation rather than their skill level.

Stop forcing disabled children to attend mainstream schools

Scrap the assumption that disabled children should be taught in mainstream schools (Education Act 1981).

Give parents, and their child themselves, the choice to either send their child to mainstream school or specialist education. Scrap the need to attend a tribunal which is lengthy and expensive, and entirely unnecessary.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the assumption that disabled children should be taught in mainstream schools (Education Act 1981).

Give parents, and their child themselves, the choice to either send their child to mainstream school or specialist education. Scrap the need to attend a tribunal which is lengthy and expensive, and entirely unnecessary.

sex education for minors

I have recently had to deal with the situation of my  child being taught 'HOW TO HAVE SEX' at school. This you call sex education, no this I call abuse . A childs mind needs to be free from the things that only an adult more mature mind can deal with . If we want our children to be as inocent as possible then do we as adults not need to protect thier minds, showing a child a video of a man having sex with a woman to me is pornography. How is a mind as young as a nine year old supposed to comprehend the physical nature of sex. 

Are not all children inquisitive, are some possibley disturbed and yet such things as this are only going to force the issues within their heads. You would not put a nine/ten year old a class and talk to them about how to murder some one, no it is sociably unaccetpable yet here we are giving our children the tools to go out and do such things as have sexual intercourse with each other. To me this is morally wrong. I accept that as part of growing up we need to learn about how our human bodies develop but until our children reach senior school then and only then should we educate them more approprate matters.

If the government is to proceed with this and teach our even younger children how to have sex with each other then the possibilities of more disturbed children growing up. Are we ready to tackle the rapists and peodohiles that this may bring forth to our communities. Only recently 2 ten year old boys were cought trying to force themselve upon a young girl you have to ask yourself was this before or after the 'sex education'.

 

Why is this idea important?

I have recently had to deal with the situation of my  child being taught 'HOW TO HAVE SEX' at school. This you call sex education, no this I call abuse . A childs mind needs to be free from the things that only an adult more mature mind can deal with . If we want our children to be as inocent as possible then do we as adults not need to protect thier minds, showing a child a video of a man having sex with a woman to me is pornography. How is a mind as young as a nine year old supposed to comprehend the physical nature of sex. 

Are not all children inquisitive, are some possibley disturbed and yet such things as this are only going to force the issues within their heads. You would not put a nine/ten year old a class and talk to them about how to murder some one, no it is sociably unaccetpable yet here we are giving our children the tools to go out and do such things as have sexual intercourse with each other. To me this is morally wrong. I accept that as part of growing up we need to learn about how our human bodies develop but until our children reach senior school then and only then should we educate them more approprate matters.

If the government is to proceed with this and teach our even younger children how to have sex with each other then the possibilities of more disturbed children growing up. Are we ready to tackle the rapists and peodohiles that this may bring forth to our communities. Only recently 2 ten year old boys were cought trying to force themselve upon a young girl you have to ask yourself was this before or after the 'sex education'.

 

Living in a secular society

As a humanist, living in a broadly secular society in England today, I believe that collective worship in schools is inappropriate and should be replaced by educational assemblies where everyone can learn something about other people's beliefs, or otherwise, and different cultures to make us a more tolerant and understanding society.

Why is this idea important?

As a humanist, living in a broadly secular society in England today, I believe that collective worship in schools is inappropriate and should be replaced by educational assemblies where everyone can learn something about other people's beliefs, or otherwise, and different cultures to make us a more tolerant and understanding society.

Abolish the weekly £30 paid to encourage some kids to go to school

Abolish the £30 payment made to some over 16s on a weekly basis to encourage them to go to school or college.  This is a total waste of governent money.  All kids would happily accept a 'no questions asked' payment of £30 per week and it is not encouraging any spirit of enterprise whatsoever.  It simply serves as a financial bribe paid to those who would otherwise drop out of education altogether. 

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the £30 payment made to some over 16s on a weekly basis to encourage them to go to school or college.  This is a total waste of governent money.  All kids would happily accept a 'no questions asked' payment of £30 per week and it is not encouraging any spirit of enterprise whatsoever.  It simply serves as a financial bribe paid to those who would otherwise drop out of education altogether. 

replica fire arms

get rid of stupid law which means replica must have various parts painted bright orange green red etc so that the public know they are not real. dah! if you wanted to use them for illegal reasons you would spray over this stupid paint with gun metal paint. so whats the point of the exercise. nanny state yet again.  there are plenty of REAL fire arms for sale in our inner cities so why punish collectors and retailers it is legal to buy a REAL decommisioned fire arm so how would public know that this wasnt working if it was waved in their face? 

Why is this idea important?

get rid of stupid law which means replica must have various parts painted bright orange green red etc so that the public know they are not real. dah! if you wanted to use them for illegal reasons you would spray over this stupid paint with gun metal paint. so whats the point of the exercise. nanny state yet again.  there are plenty of REAL fire arms for sale in our inner cities so why punish collectors and retailers it is legal to buy a REAL decommisioned fire arm so how would public know that this wasnt working if it was waved in their face?