Repeal the laws that allowe Members of Parliament to abstain from obeying certain selected British laws

MPs must not be allow to vote themselves and parliament parliamentory immunity from prosecution or to be outside of laws and or regulations that they set for the rest of the citizens of this country

Why is this idea important?

MPs must not be allow to vote themselves and parliament parliamentory immunity from prosecution or to be outside of laws and or regulations that they set for the rest of the citizens of this country

Regulate the housing market by creating more social housing and the mass construction of rent controlled, high quality housing at cost

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Why is this idea important?

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Free Speech Against Feminism

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

Why is this idea important?

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

Abolish the No Win No Fee System

Employers, councils and government, including the public sector, are funding the no win no fee system that is being exploited by solicitors and quasi legal organisations, by having to pay inflated insurance premiums. It must cost billions of pounds from the private and public purse each year. I am told that this system is not available in Scotland or N.Ireland, which begs the question why do we have it in England? There is still legal aid in this country and if anyone has a legitimate grievance and low resources they can still bring a case.  At the moment, the slightest fall, scratch or "bad back" can be blamed on someone, usally the hapless employer. This litigious system encourages and promotes the  "blame" culture, which is so evident in our country today. How many of us were too worried to clear the snow from the pavements outside our homes last winter because we worried that we would be liable if someone slipped?  Please let us get back to a sense of personal responsibility for ones own safekeeping and the simple acceptance that accidents can and do happen despite the most careful of attention!

Why is this idea important?

Employers, councils and government, including the public sector, are funding the no win no fee system that is being exploited by solicitors and quasi legal organisations, by having to pay inflated insurance premiums. It must cost billions of pounds from the private and public purse each year. I am told that this system is not available in Scotland or N.Ireland, which begs the question why do we have it in England? There is still legal aid in this country and if anyone has a legitimate grievance and low resources they can still bring a case.  At the moment, the slightest fall, scratch or "bad back" can be blamed on someone, usally the hapless employer. This litigious system encourages and promotes the  "blame" culture, which is so evident in our country today. How many of us were too worried to clear the snow from the pavements outside our homes last winter because we worried that we would be liable if someone slipped?  Please let us get back to a sense of personal responsibility for ones own safekeeping and the simple acceptance that accidents can and do happen despite the most careful of attention!

Well meaning “multiculturalism” is not working.

The theory of multiculturalism is to create a society which embraces variety, understanding, tolerance and harmony between different cultures within the same country. Good idea but it doesn’t seem to be working.

 

I currently see groups of isolated cultures, attracting only more of their own, with little real integration or harmony, let alone tolerance and understanding.

 

The main reason multiculturalism is failing in this country is that many individuals cannot (or will not) speak ENGLISH. This condemns them to a life of social isolation with no hope of mixing with people of other cultures. I know the law on immigration will be changed to include a language test, but what about all those people already here who cannot mix? We need to do something to encourage them integrate rather than leave them to a life of, effectively, apartheid.

 

This is a sensitive subject that many people feel uneasy discussing, so let me make my position clear; I’m not a raciest and I would ask those with views of deportation to refrain from commenting here (you may be entitled to your opinion but please make them on someone else’s thread). I’m advocating a basic adoption of British values by ALL those who have the right to live here. I wouldn’t dream of moving to another country and trying to enforce my language, culture and ideas on them. People should be proud of their own culture but don’t thrust it publically on those who don’t share it

 

We need laws which will discourage isolation and encourage everyone to mix, speak the common language and feel part of the same country – what ever their race, religion or culture. A good start would be to ban foreign translated notices in public places and ban the wearing of “I’m not one of you” clothing in public.

Why is this idea important?

The theory of multiculturalism is to create a society which embraces variety, understanding, tolerance and harmony between different cultures within the same country. Good idea but it doesn’t seem to be working.

 

I currently see groups of isolated cultures, attracting only more of their own, with little real integration or harmony, let alone tolerance and understanding.

 

The main reason multiculturalism is failing in this country is that many individuals cannot (or will not) speak ENGLISH. This condemns them to a life of social isolation with no hope of mixing with people of other cultures. I know the law on immigration will be changed to include a language test, but what about all those people already here who cannot mix? We need to do something to encourage them integrate rather than leave them to a life of, effectively, apartheid.

 

This is a sensitive subject that many people feel uneasy discussing, so let me make my position clear; I’m not a raciest and I would ask those with views of deportation to refrain from commenting here (you may be entitled to your opinion but please make them on someone else’s thread). I’m advocating a basic adoption of British values by ALL those who have the right to live here. I wouldn’t dream of moving to another country and trying to enforce my language, culture and ideas on them. People should be proud of their own culture but don’t thrust it publically on those who don’t share it

 

We need laws which will discourage isolation and encourage everyone to mix, speak the common language and feel part of the same country – what ever their race, religion or culture. A good start would be to ban foreign translated notices in public places and ban the wearing of “I’m not one of you” clothing in public.

Lower minimum age for buying alcohol in pubs/clubs to 16

Before 'challenge 21' etc.  since the '50s teenagers went into pubs when they could 'get away with it' around 15 or 16. Because they wanted to be seen as 'adult' they behaved & drank in a sensible manner overall.

When things changed they started hanging around parks drinking copious amounts of cheap booze, causing trouble & getting ill.

Let them back into pubs (they're going to drink anyway) & at least they can follow a sensible (on the whole) template of behaviour around booze.

It'll give them something to do socially & at least they could go dancing etc., something taken for granted by teens in the 'dance hall days' 

For 12-15 year olds there should be far more adequate provision in terms of youth activity centres with music, sport, parkour, etc.

Why is this idea important?

Before 'challenge 21' etc.  since the '50s teenagers went into pubs when they could 'get away with it' around 15 or 16. Because they wanted to be seen as 'adult' they behaved & drank in a sensible manner overall.

When things changed they started hanging around parks drinking copious amounts of cheap booze, causing trouble & getting ill.

Let them back into pubs (they're going to drink anyway) & at least they can follow a sensible (on the whole) template of behaviour around booze.

It'll give them something to do socially & at least they could go dancing etc., something taken for granted by teens in the 'dance hall days' 

For 12-15 year olds there should be far more adequate provision in terms of youth activity centres with music, sport, parkour, etc.

DISABILITY BENEFITS: DLA

The new coalition government is wanting to change the policies on welfare benefits, from this year onwards….The conservatives are targeting the vulnerable, including the sick and disabled, to reduce the deficit that sadly the country has gotten into…..I do appreciate that those who are not in geniune need for DLA must be look at – DLA should only be given to those in geniune need….because we know that a good percentage of disabled people either do not work or they only work in part-time jobs…So any money that disabled people can get, the better……

 

I propose the following:

 

  • To have a faired system for those claiming DLA – People with long-term disabilities and chronic illnesses must be understood more properly from medical assessors from the DWP when claiming DLA. The medical asssessor or jobcentre plus staff must train in more detail about health conditions, especially with hidden disabilities such as autism, mental health conditions, fibromyalgia, etc…
  • Allow the mobility car scheme to be more accessible – allow people on low or high rate to use mobility scheme, as there are people on both components that need a car because they cannot go on a bus and taxi's are too expensive – At the moment, the low mobility component only pays claimants £18 per week roughly – this is not enough, because taxi's can cost £18 for one day, so if you need regular transport, then £18 per week is not enough sadly – so lets bring in the mobility scheme, then disabled people like me can live more independant.
  • DLA must go up with VAT/inflation rise – claimants rely on DLA to help them with medical expenses, including: specialist food, clothing, care support, travel expenses and so forth….Obviously things will become more expense so those on benefits will have to spend less, and this will lead to their health being put at risk.
  • DWP must ensure that every claimant is assessed fairly but properly – DLA should not be given to those with preventable health conditions, such as being overweight, addicts, those with just minor conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc….At the end of the day, DLA should be given to those with long-term disabilities or short-term illnesses that are moderate to severe only…..
  • Disabled people with long-term disabilities, such as autism, fibromyalgia, etc…..should not have to keep re-applying every few years unless their condition changes and the claimant needs to inform them.
  • If a disabled person wants to work, allow that person to still have DLA and the same rates they was given – alot of disabled people will probadly still need the same level of support, whether in or out of work.
  • Stop people victimizing those who are on DLA/Incapacity benefits – not everybody on benefits are lazy and scroungers – people do not chose to be disabled….

 

http://www.motability.co.uk/main.cfm

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10011731

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F3611783?thread=4195918

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/

Why is this idea important?

The new coalition government is wanting to change the policies on welfare benefits, from this year onwards….The conservatives are targeting the vulnerable, including the sick and disabled, to reduce the deficit that sadly the country has gotten into…..I do appreciate that those who are not in geniune need for DLA must be look at – DLA should only be given to those in geniune need….because we know that a good percentage of disabled people either do not work or they only work in part-time jobs…So any money that disabled people can get, the better……

 

I propose the following:

 

  • To have a faired system for those claiming DLA – People with long-term disabilities and chronic illnesses must be understood more properly from medical assessors from the DWP when claiming DLA. The medical asssessor or jobcentre plus staff must train in more detail about health conditions, especially with hidden disabilities such as autism, mental health conditions, fibromyalgia, etc…
  • Allow the mobility car scheme to be more accessible – allow people on low or high rate to use mobility scheme, as there are people on both components that need a car because they cannot go on a bus and taxi's are too expensive – At the moment, the low mobility component only pays claimants £18 per week roughly – this is not enough, because taxi's can cost £18 for one day, so if you need regular transport, then £18 per week is not enough sadly – so lets bring in the mobility scheme, then disabled people like me can live more independant.
  • DLA must go up with VAT/inflation rise – claimants rely on DLA to help them with medical expenses, including: specialist food, clothing, care support, travel expenses and so forth….Obviously things will become more expense so those on benefits will have to spend less, and this will lead to their health being put at risk.
  • DWP must ensure that every claimant is assessed fairly but properly – DLA should not be given to those with preventable health conditions, such as being overweight, addicts, those with just minor conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc….At the end of the day, DLA should be given to those with long-term disabilities or short-term illnesses that are moderate to severe only…..
  • Disabled people with long-term disabilities, such as autism, fibromyalgia, etc…..should not have to keep re-applying every few years unless their condition changes and the claimant needs to inform them.
  • If a disabled person wants to work, allow that person to still have DLA and the same rates they was given – alot of disabled people will probadly still need the same level of support, whether in or out of work.
  • Stop people victimizing those who are on DLA/Incapacity benefits – not everybody on benefits are lazy and scroungers – people do not chose to be disabled….

 

http://www.motability.co.uk/main.cfm

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10011731

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F3611783?thread=4195918

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/

Teenage Discrimination

As part of Teenagers Against Discrimination, i feel it only right to point a few obvious breaches of civil liberties towards Teenagers that is often overlooked.

 

Firstly, the infamous debate over the Mosquito Alarms. For anyone under a certain age to be submitted to an annoying, high pitch sound is a removal of our civil liberties, and it has also been argued (quite rightly in my opinion) that is even a breach of our human rights – why shouldnt we be able to walk down a public street hastle free? who decided that i or any other teenager was a potential criminal that deserved physical punishment?

 

The second point i would like to raise is the police power of stop and search. it is without doubt this power is used reguarly on teenagers ; as it is presumed we will be carrying a weapon or drugs. once again, this is a breach of our civil liberties – why should the police have the right to stop us and search us purely based on the opinion they have made by looking at us. what is that old phrase, can't judge a book by it's cover?

I know it can be argued that if you have nothing to hide, you shuldnt object to being searched… but think about it! we are on about the police stopping you wherever they like and asking you to empty your pockets. it is highly degrading and embarassing. at the very least, every passe rby during this immeadiately presumes you are a criminal. the next time they see you… what will they think? what will they remember? that's right – that you're the person that the police like to stop.

Why is this idea important?

As part of Teenagers Against Discrimination, i feel it only right to point a few obvious breaches of civil liberties towards Teenagers that is often overlooked.

 

Firstly, the infamous debate over the Mosquito Alarms. For anyone under a certain age to be submitted to an annoying, high pitch sound is a removal of our civil liberties, and it has also been argued (quite rightly in my opinion) that is even a breach of our human rights – why shouldnt we be able to walk down a public street hastle free? who decided that i or any other teenager was a potential criminal that deserved physical punishment?

 

The second point i would like to raise is the police power of stop and search. it is without doubt this power is used reguarly on teenagers ; as it is presumed we will be carrying a weapon or drugs. once again, this is a breach of our civil liberties – why should the police have the right to stop us and search us purely based on the opinion they have made by looking at us. what is that old phrase, can't judge a book by it's cover?

I know it can be argued that if you have nothing to hide, you shuldnt object to being searched… but think about it! we are on about the police stopping you wherever they like and asking you to empty your pockets. it is highly degrading and embarassing. at the very least, every passe rby during this immeadiately presumes you are a criminal. the next time they see you… what will they think? what will they remember? that's right – that you're the person that the police like to stop.

Equalising the requirement for truth in civil and criminal court cases

Currently it is only required by those that stand in the dock to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If our justice system is to serve our society appropriately there cannot be one rule for the plaintiff and defendant and another rule for those that represent the legal system.

What message does the current situation convey? It’s okay to manipulate the truth if you’re in a position to manipulate the truth; changing it from fact, to something lesser.

We should be able to look towards our legal system as the guardian of what is right and correct – a mentor and leader of the morals decent society should follow. But we cannot. There is no legislative requirement for the law’s representatives to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if not standing in the dock. There is an element of fog that currently is employed in every proceeding.

Yes, changing this will make things more difficult for those legal representatives, but when people such as these are generally paid more than our doctors and nurses, just for interpreting English to the judges and the rest of the court, it makes you wonder where the government’s priorities really lie by allowing this to continue as is.

Yes there will be a backlash by the legal profession, but their primary interest isn’t truth and justice it’s their pay packets.

I would like to see a time when it is not announced in the papers that one or another court proceeding has been halted due to cost, because this is not justice, this is purely business and in these circumstances it does not serve civil society at all.

You may think that this suggestion has been written on the basis of a bad outcome for myself, but this is not the case. In fact, I won my case. But what really riled me was when my solicitor, when questioned by the judge, denied giving me the advice they had done over the phone, advice that I repeated in court. To me it just demonstrated how corrupt the process actually was; legal representatives misrepresenting the truth to support their standing.

If we really want a civil society it must be seen that everyone has to abide by the same rules, and what I am arguing for is legislation that forces all, that are conveying information to the court, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Without any change civil liberties will remain an anathema.

If this proposal is enshrined in law I suspect the cost of law will be severely curtailed and open up the possibility that everyone in our society will have the opportunity to access the legal system when wronged – something that was the case around 400 years ago. And, if so, possibly more work for the legal profession as court cases will not take the exponential times they currently take.

Faster and quicker justice, reduced costs and equality for all, not just the few.

Why is this idea important?

Currently it is only required by those that stand in the dock to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If our justice system is to serve our society appropriately there cannot be one rule for the plaintiff and defendant and another rule for those that represent the legal system.

What message does the current situation convey? It’s okay to manipulate the truth if you’re in a position to manipulate the truth; changing it from fact, to something lesser.

We should be able to look towards our legal system as the guardian of what is right and correct – a mentor and leader of the morals decent society should follow. But we cannot. There is no legislative requirement for the law’s representatives to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if not standing in the dock. There is an element of fog that currently is employed in every proceeding.

Yes, changing this will make things more difficult for those legal representatives, but when people such as these are generally paid more than our doctors and nurses, just for interpreting English to the judges and the rest of the court, it makes you wonder where the government’s priorities really lie by allowing this to continue as is.

Yes there will be a backlash by the legal profession, but their primary interest isn’t truth and justice it’s their pay packets.

I would like to see a time when it is not announced in the papers that one or another court proceeding has been halted due to cost, because this is not justice, this is purely business and in these circumstances it does not serve civil society at all.

You may think that this suggestion has been written on the basis of a bad outcome for myself, but this is not the case. In fact, I won my case. But what really riled me was when my solicitor, when questioned by the judge, denied giving me the advice they had done over the phone, advice that I repeated in court. To me it just demonstrated how corrupt the process actually was; legal representatives misrepresenting the truth to support their standing.

If we really want a civil society it must be seen that everyone has to abide by the same rules, and what I am arguing for is legislation that forces all, that are conveying information to the court, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Without any change civil liberties will remain an anathema.

If this proposal is enshrined in law I suspect the cost of law will be severely curtailed and open up the possibility that everyone in our society will have the opportunity to access the legal system when wronged – something that was the case around 400 years ago. And, if so, possibly more work for the legal profession as court cases will not take the exponential times they currently take.

Faster and quicker justice, reduced costs and equality for all, not just the few.

Bring back cane in schools

Well having been to school when the cane was used,i think it did not do any of us any harm,but did get us to respect teachers,and the police etc.I would also like to see anyone with a job,or full time eduction over the age of 18 years,should be called up to the army or one of the forces.

Why is this idea important?

Well having been to school when the cane was used,i think it did not do any of us any harm,but did get us to respect teachers,and the police etc.I would also like to see anyone with a job,or full time eduction over the age of 18 years,should be called up to the army or one of the forces.

Remove restrictions on village social events

The last Government  dramatically  restricted the number of events involving alcohol ( dances, parties, concerts, quizzes etc) that can be run in a village hall per year. This has affected the viability of halls which are a keystone of rural communities. It has also cut off funds to those village bodies relying on that income and also the social life of often isolated communities. IF the motive was to help village pubs it has had no benefit, because those attending events in the hall are not in the main pub "regulars". There was no public order motive as the average age of atttendees would generally render that out of the question. This was -as in so many cases- silly legislation imposed for something to do. Remove please!

Why is this idea important?

The last Government  dramatically  restricted the number of events involving alcohol ( dances, parties, concerts, quizzes etc) that can be run in a village hall per year. This has affected the viability of halls which are a keystone of rural communities. It has also cut off funds to those village bodies relying on that income and also the social life of often isolated communities. IF the motive was to help village pubs it has had no benefit, because those attending events in the hall are not in the main pub "regulars". There was no public order motive as the average age of atttendees would generally render that out of the question. This was -as in so many cases- silly legislation imposed for something to do. Remove please!

Stop Road Tax

Remove road tax and add the necessary revenue shortfall to petrol duty.

Benefits:

– Petrol is naturally 'progressive' (to use this weeks popular token).

– We will be able to remove the departments that currently manage the road tax process including the road tax evasion group (and their spy vans).

– We will reduce the overhead on the police

– We will be able to stop the very unadvisable adverts that talk about crushing people's property (not a good example for the state to set).

– Lets face it, in today's digital world sticking a bit of paper on your car is very dated. We can already chack insurance and MOT compliance on-line so it adds no value there either.

Finally, petrol station receipts need to show the petrol cost and the break down of duties paid. This will add transparency any allow us to keep an eye on the government's expenditure. All very healthy.

Lets just do it.

Why is this idea important?

Remove road tax and add the necessary revenue shortfall to petrol duty.

Benefits:

– Petrol is naturally 'progressive' (to use this weeks popular token).

– We will be able to remove the departments that currently manage the road tax process including the road tax evasion group (and their spy vans).

– We will reduce the overhead on the police

– We will be able to stop the very unadvisable adverts that talk about crushing people's property (not a good example for the state to set).

– Lets face it, in today's digital world sticking a bit of paper on your car is very dated. We can already chack insurance and MOT compliance on-line so it adds no value there either.

Finally, petrol station receipts need to show the petrol cost and the break down of duties paid. This will add transparency any allow us to keep an eye on the government's expenditure. All very healthy.

Lets just do it.

Remove information from police records if no charges are made

I believe that the removal of information about a person from police records when no charges have been brought should be mandatory.  We are supposed to live in a country which believes in the system of "innocent until proven guilty".  I speak from personal experience with regards to this matter, having been arrested as part of a huge countrywide operation carried out by the police.  The matter in question related to alleged downloading of child pornography from the web.  Over seven thousand people in this country alone were rounded up by the police in early morning raids to be accused of this heinous act, to be told that they were paedophiles and worse.  Congratulations to the police you might say, however when looked at more closely one begins to realise that all was not as it seemed.  Out of the seven  thousand plus people arrested only a handful were  actually charged.  The rest of us it would seem were actually the victims of credit card fraud and identity theft.  This conclusion was not reached lightly by the police, in fact speaking from personal experience, I was investigated for approx six months.  I had my home invaded and ransacked, my computer was taken away for the six months and extensively searched (apparently they would find find all of these pictures or whatever that I had downloaded or shared, so I should just admit to it and save them the bother of looking!)  Only to be told at the end of the six month period that it was actually a mistake and that my credit card details had been used without my knowledge.  There was absolutely nothing at all found linking me to the crimes I was accused of and I was therefore let go with no further action being taken by the police with nothing more than  a somewhat poorly given apology for the problems it caused me.  The problem now though is that because I was arrested for this it now shows on my police record albeit as an NFA (no further action) but it is still there for the world to see.  It will seriously hinder my chances of getting certain jobs due to CRB checking.  It will also dis-allow me froom volunteering for activities in my childrens school.  In effect it is restricting my whole life and being and all because of a mistake made not by myself but by an over zealous police force.  I am and always have been against people who commit crimes but there is a difference between committing a crime and being accused of it.  this should be taken into account with regards to police record keeping.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the removal of information about a person from police records when no charges have been brought should be mandatory.  We are supposed to live in a country which believes in the system of "innocent until proven guilty".  I speak from personal experience with regards to this matter, having been arrested as part of a huge countrywide operation carried out by the police.  The matter in question related to alleged downloading of child pornography from the web.  Over seven thousand people in this country alone were rounded up by the police in early morning raids to be accused of this heinous act, to be told that they were paedophiles and worse.  Congratulations to the police you might say, however when looked at more closely one begins to realise that all was not as it seemed.  Out of the seven  thousand plus people arrested only a handful were  actually charged.  The rest of us it would seem were actually the victims of credit card fraud and identity theft.  This conclusion was not reached lightly by the police, in fact speaking from personal experience, I was investigated for approx six months.  I had my home invaded and ransacked, my computer was taken away for the six months and extensively searched (apparently they would find find all of these pictures or whatever that I had downloaded or shared, so I should just admit to it and save them the bother of looking!)  Only to be told at the end of the six month period that it was actually a mistake and that my credit card details had been used without my knowledge.  There was absolutely nothing at all found linking me to the crimes I was accused of and I was therefore let go with no further action being taken by the police with nothing more than  a somewhat poorly given apology for the problems it caused me.  The problem now though is that because I was arrested for this it now shows on my police record albeit as an NFA (no further action) but it is still there for the world to see.  It will seriously hinder my chances of getting certain jobs due to CRB checking.  It will also dis-allow me froom volunteering for activities in my childrens school.  In effect it is restricting my whole life and being and all because of a mistake made not by myself but by an over zealous police force.  I am and always have been against people who commit crimes but there is a difference between committing a crime and being accused of it.  this should be taken into account with regards to police record keeping.