Civilian Video Enforcement

First of all I'm not suggesting we remove or reduce the number of Police out on the Streets AT ALL. I would like to suggest that a system should be set in place to allow citizens who want to, to upload video evidence that they have captured themselves. With the advent of technology, most members of the public carry a phone with video capability or other means of recording video.

CCTV is a very effective law enforcement tool, from alerting officers to an incident in progress that can be dealt with, to providing rhetorical evidence of crimes. Unfortunately CCTV is very inefficient, constantly recording and monitoring, even when nothing is happening. Again, I am not suggesting that CCTV system sin place right now be removed, just supplemented.

CCTV is often used to impose fines on people, from littering and public order disturbances to motoring offences. I would suggest that some kind of reward system could be put in place in event of a successful fine being dealt out (say 10-15%)..

Why is this idea important?

First of all I'm not suggesting we remove or reduce the number of Police out on the Streets AT ALL. I would like to suggest that a system should be set in place to allow citizens who want to, to upload video evidence that they have captured themselves. With the advent of technology, most members of the public carry a phone with video capability or other means of recording video.

CCTV is a very effective law enforcement tool, from alerting officers to an incident in progress that can be dealt with, to providing rhetorical evidence of crimes. Unfortunately CCTV is very inefficient, constantly recording and monitoring, even when nothing is happening. Again, I am not suggesting that CCTV system sin place right now be removed, just supplemented.

CCTV is often used to impose fines on people, from littering and public order disturbances to motoring offences. I would suggest that some kind of reward system could be put in place in event of a successful fine being dealt out (say 10-15%)..

Prevent foreign software companies monitoring computer programs

Scrolling through the licence agreement for a piece of software pre-installed on my new BlackBerry, I was appalled to find that the software company was telling me that I could not use it unless I agreed to monitoring.

The software company monitors usage to ensure that users comply with US law.

Why is this idea important?

Scrolling through the licence agreement for a piece of software pre-installed on my new BlackBerry, I was appalled to find that the software company was telling me that I could not use it unless I agreed to monitoring.

The software company monitors usage to ensure that users comply with US law.

Abolish the technology that enables tracking citizens’ movements nationwide

I am unsure whether this was ever actually introduced in legislation or whether it has just happened via 'technology creep' under Labour – if so then it certainly should NOT have been allowed!

As any driver will know, virtually every A-road and motorway in the UK is now covered by a very generous number of ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras.

ANPR cameras were originally introduced as a simple, mobile, way for the police to identify tax / MOT / insurance 'dodgers' – to which I have no objection at all. However, there are now thousands (more likely tens of thousands) of these cameras at fixed installations throughout the country, whose primary purpose is clearly nothing to do with catching the aforementioned 'heinous criminals(???)' .

What is NOT generally publicised is that all of these cameras are linked back to a central database and, every time a car passes one of them, details of the date, time and location are logged (possibly with a photo of the front-seat occupants, but I have no definite knowledge of this). This effectively means that the police / HMG / anyone else with access to the system can track the location and movements of every car in the country and, by extrapolation, the movements of their owners.

This level of monitoring clearly has nothing whatever to do with 'tax dodgers' and can only have been set up with the explicit intention of being able to track the entire population's movements. No doubt introduced at the behest of the Police as part of the 'war on terror' – which was the previous Government's excuse for every piece of new legislation that reduced our privacy.

Why is this idea important?

I am unsure whether this was ever actually introduced in legislation or whether it has just happened via 'technology creep' under Labour – if so then it certainly should NOT have been allowed!

As any driver will know, virtually every A-road and motorway in the UK is now covered by a very generous number of ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras.

ANPR cameras were originally introduced as a simple, mobile, way for the police to identify tax / MOT / insurance 'dodgers' – to which I have no objection at all. However, there are now thousands (more likely tens of thousands) of these cameras at fixed installations throughout the country, whose primary purpose is clearly nothing to do with catching the aforementioned 'heinous criminals(???)' .

What is NOT generally publicised is that all of these cameras are linked back to a central database and, every time a car passes one of them, details of the date, time and location are logged (possibly with a photo of the front-seat occupants, but I have no definite knowledge of this). This effectively means that the police / HMG / anyone else with access to the system can track the location and movements of every car in the country and, by extrapolation, the movements of their owners.

This level of monitoring clearly has nothing whatever to do with 'tax dodgers' and can only have been set up with the explicit intention of being able to track the entire population's movements. No doubt introduced at the behest of the Police as part of the 'war on terror' – which was the previous Government's excuse for every piece of new legislation that reduced our privacy.

remove the spy cameras that are everywhere

cctv cameras may be of some use in catching criminals but they alienate the good citizens.  cctv does not deter people from being attacked only helps in investigation.  I would not feel happy to know that after being attacked / murdered that they might get caught.  The ways to attend to the crime problems are manyfold and must be tackled at source.

Why is this idea important?

cctv cameras may be of some use in catching criminals but they alienate the good citizens.  cctv does not deter people from being attacked only helps in investigation.  I would not feel happy to know that after being attacked / murdered that they might get caught.  The ways to attend to the crime problems are manyfold and must be tackled at source.

Ban the use of surveillance drones for policing in the UK

Police services have been reported to have applied for permission to use surveillance drones (automated planes with CCTV) for police work in the UK.  These were originally designedfor military intelligence.  These should not be used for ordinary policing.  Such equipment should be highly regulated and their use only allowed on a time limited basis in exceptional circumstances- not for everyday crime and violence.

Why is this idea important?

Police services have been reported to have applied for permission to use surveillance drones (automated planes with CCTV) for police work in the UK.  These were originally designedfor military intelligence.  These should not be used for ordinary policing.  Such equipment should be highly regulated and their use only allowed on a time limited basis in exceptional circumstances- not for everyday crime and violence.

CCTV Abuse

To stop the use of CCTV without good cause.

For example, on a recent visit to cardiff, i was absolutely disgusted to find CCTV cameras INSIDE a gents toilet at Hayes Island cardiff, – they actually OVERLOOK URINALS!

Why is this idea important?

To stop the use of CCTV without good cause.

For example, on a recent visit to cardiff, i was absolutely disgusted to find CCTV cameras INSIDE a gents toilet at Hayes Island cardiff, – they actually OVERLOOK URINALS!

Repeal Big Brother laws

The slow creep towards a totalitarian "Big Brother" state should be reversed.

Do we really want to be the cctv capital of the world with the state spying on our every move whilst at the same time falling over backwards to get hold of our DNA/medical records/ID etc etc?

Whatever happened to "This is a free country"? Fine words, but we need actions that actually back them up rather that turning them in to a sick joke.

Thank God Labour didn't get in otherwise we would have been in deep trouble!!

Why is this idea important?

The slow creep towards a totalitarian "Big Brother" state should be reversed.

Do we really want to be the cctv capital of the world with the state spying on our every move whilst at the same time falling over backwards to get hold of our DNA/medical records/ID etc etc?

Whatever happened to "This is a free country"? Fine words, but we need actions that actually back them up rather that turning them in to a sick joke.

Thank God Labour didn't get in otherwise we would have been in deep trouble!!

Controls On Mass Surveillance, e.g. ANPR System

We need legislation to control and limit the use of mass surveillance databases, for example the ANPR database. 

Data held by the police (or any other government body) must be subject to the data protection act: it must be available to the suspect, it must be proved to be appropriate and accurate, and it must be subject to change if innaccurate. 

Entry on these databases must not be made without genuine grounds to suspect criminal activity.  No fishing expiditions.

Police should be subject to prosecution themselves if the data is misused to harrass the innocent.

Why is this idea important?

We need legislation to control and limit the use of mass surveillance databases, for example the ANPR database. 

Data held by the police (or any other government body) must be subject to the data protection act: it must be available to the suspect, it must be proved to be appropriate and accurate, and it must be subject to change if innaccurate. 

Entry on these databases must not be made without genuine grounds to suspect criminal activity.  No fishing expiditions.

Police should be subject to prosecution themselves if the data is misused to harrass the innocent.

Increase the amount of CCTV cameras and make them available on the BBC

I know there is a popular outcry for a reduction in CCTV, but watching this footage is more interesting than most of the drivel on the TV. 

The authorities should make the footage of this available on the BBC iPlayer. With the number of CCTV camemrs varying through the UK I think there should be a set number per square mile, say 10 for example. Even in the countryside so we can keep an eye on these evil foxes before they go hunting.

Why is this idea important?

I know there is a popular outcry for a reduction in CCTV, but watching this footage is more interesting than most of the drivel on the TV. 

The authorities should make the footage of this available on the BBC iPlayer. With the number of CCTV camemrs varying through the UK I think there should be a set number per square mile, say 10 for example. Even in the countryside so we can keep an eye on these evil foxes before they go hunting.

Reduce CCTV to pre 1997 levels

I think the amount of CCTV we have in this country needs to be reduced to at least pre 1997 levels. I read that we now have approximately 25% of the CCTV in the world in just this country. In some of the places we have them they are simpy not necessary like in the village centre where I live.

Why is this idea important?

I think the amount of CCTV we have in this country needs to be reduced to at least pre 1997 levels. I read that we now have approximately 25% of the CCTV in the world in just this country. In some of the places we have them they are simpy not necessary like in the village centre where I live.

Create a fee payable for every CCTV camera

The amount of CCTV cameras in the UK is staggering. Many are set up without the consultation of those being monitored and the figures show that they neither prevent or help prevent crime.  Many cover provtae homes (mine included) and are a waste of money.

I propose that a fee should be paid for each camera and a yearly subscription paid also. As part of this, camera operators should eb required to put footage they have ganered into a public database, accessible by the public.  This will create money for HMT and help reduce the deficit whislt discouraging wanton proliferation of cameras.

  

Why is this idea important?

The amount of CCTV cameras in the UK is staggering. Many are set up without the consultation of those being monitored and the figures show that they neither prevent or help prevent crime.  Many cover provtae homes (mine included) and are a waste of money.

I propose that a fee should be paid for each camera and a yearly subscription paid also. As part of this, camera operators should eb required to put footage they have ganered into a public database, accessible by the public.  This will create money for HMT and help reduce the deficit whislt discouraging wanton proliferation of cameras.

  

Council Snoopers

Abolish the laws that allow council inspectors right of entry to your property and assess  it for rises in council tax because you ahave a nice view or a nice garden or a drive. If I have a nice view it is because I paid for it when I bought the house and so subsequently have already been taxed for it through the extra stamp duty I've paid over a similar house without a view which is therfore cheaper to buy.

If I've spent money (what I've got left after been taxed to death!) on improving my home that cannot be used as justifcation to force enrty into my home and then charge me more for my council tax.

Instead make council tax based on Sq footage of floor space, so you aren't penalised for improving your home and you aren't rewarded for living in something that appears derelict  

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the laws that allow council inspectors right of entry to your property and assess  it for rises in council tax because you ahave a nice view or a nice garden or a drive. If I have a nice view it is because I paid for it when I bought the house and so subsequently have already been taxed for it through the extra stamp duty I've paid over a similar house without a view which is therfore cheaper to buy.

If I've spent money (what I've got left after been taxed to death!) on improving my home that cannot be used as justifcation to force enrty into my home and then charge me more for my council tax.

Instead make council tax based on Sq footage of floor space, so you aren't penalised for improving your home and you aren't rewarded for living in something that appears derelict  

Stop using CCTV cameras for traffic enforcement

Ever felt like you're being watched? In 2006, the UK's Information Commission endorsed a report which stated that there were 4.2 million CCTV cameras in use within the UK. 

CCTV cameras are used by local authorities to enforce moving traffic contraventions (where a motorist has disregarded a sign printed in the Highway Code), parking violations and to enforce bus lanes.

The problem is that where CCTV cameras are used, there are almost always never any signs advertising that they are being used. Section 87 of the Traffic management Act 2004 states that local authorities must have regard to any statutory guidance published on how they enforce traffic violations.

The statutory guidance has been produced by the Department for Transport and is available online. Have a look at Section 50 of the guidance. It clearly states that camera enforcement systems must be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs. 

It is clear that local authorities almost never do this. Next time you go out driving, have a look for the signs that publicise the use of CCTV cameras in your area. I bet you will find very few in comparison to the hundreds of CCTV cameras that are used on our roads. 

Recommendations

1. I think that the statutory guidance should be amended to restrict the use of CCTV cameras for traffic enforcement. I think CCTV cameras should only ever be used where there is a significant to high risk that a motoring violation will cause death or injury on a road.

2. CCTV cameras should never be used to enforce traffic signs to raise revenue. The Traffic Management Act 2004 should be amended to strengthen the rights of citizens to sue local authorities for breaches of the statutory guidance, even in instances where a motoring violation has not taken place. This would allow citizens to take action against a local authority who failed to adequately publicise a CCTV camera that was used for traffic enforcement.

3. The amount of money raised from each CCTV camera should be published online by each local authority. Each local authority should be forced to publish a business plan for each CCTV camera they install for the use of traffic enforcement. The business plan should set out how many deaths or injuries that the CCTV cameras used would be likely to prevent.

Why is this idea important?

Ever felt like you're being watched? In 2006, the UK's Information Commission endorsed a report which stated that there were 4.2 million CCTV cameras in use within the UK. 

CCTV cameras are used by local authorities to enforce moving traffic contraventions (where a motorist has disregarded a sign printed in the Highway Code), parking violations and to enforce bus lanes.

The problem is that where CCTV cameras are used, there are almost always never any signs advertising that they are being used. Section 87 of the Traffic management Act 2004 states that local authorities must have regard to any statutory guidance published on how they enforce traffic violations.

The statutory guidance has been produced by the Department for Transport and is available online. Have a look at Section 50 of the guidance. It clearly states that camera enforcement systems must be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs. 

It is clear that local authorities almost never do this. Next time you go out driving, have a look for the signs that publicise the use of CCTV cameras in your area. I bet you will find very few in comparison to the hundreds of CCTV cameras that are used on our roads. 

Recommendations

1. I think that the statutory guidance should be amended to restrict the use of CCTV cameras for traffic enforcement. I think CCTV cameras should only ever be used where there is a significant to high risk that a motoring violation will cause death or injury on a road.

2. CCTV cameras should never be used to enforce traffic signs to raise revenue. The Traffic Management Act 2004 should be amended to strengthen the rights of citizens to sue local authorities for breaches of the statutory guidance, even in instances where a motoring violation has not taken place. This would allow citizens to take action against a local authority who failed to adequately publicise a CCTV camera that was used for traffic enforcement.

3. The amount of money raised from each CCTV camera should be published online by each local authority. Each local authority should be forced to publish a business plan for each CCTV camera they install for the use of traffic enforcement. The business plan should set out how many deaths or injuries that the CCTV cameras used would be likely to prevent.

The right to an unobserved life.

All surveillance cameras of every kind to be removed. Granting the UK citizen the right to an unobserved life and thereby returning their innocence in law.  At present, all are presumed potentially guilty and as such are under constant monitoring.

The following is a quote from Birmingham City Council's website.

"Ever felt like you're being watched?…It's not surprising!



Wherever you go these days, in shopping complexes, railway stations, car parks even just sitting by a fountain – you are often being watched. Closely."

This should be the aberrant thought of a lunatic and not a way of life for a nation.

The money saved from the sell off of equipment and running of the Surveillance State can be redirected to wherever necessary. Including the targeted surveillance of those genuinely intending ill and who have been brought to the authorities attention by true policing and not gleaned from trawling the entire nation night and day in perpetuity.

Why is this idea important?

All surveillance cameras of every kind to be removed. Granting the UK citizen the right to an unobserved life and thereby returning their innocence in law.  At present, all are presumed potentially guilty and as such are under constant monitoring.

The following is a quote from Birmingham City Council's website.

"Ever felt like you're being watched?…It's not surprising!



Wherever you go these days, in shopping complexes, railway stations, car parks even just sitting by a fountain – you are often being watched. Closely."

This should be the aberrant thought of a lunatic and not a way of life for a nation.

The money saved from the sell off of equipment and running of the Surveillance State can be redirected to wherever necessary. Including the targeted surveillance of those genuinely intending ill and who have been brought to the authorities attention by true policing and not gleaned from trawling the entire nation night and day in perpetuity.

Controls on mass surveillance & ANPR system

We need legislation to control and limit the use of mass surveillance databases, for example the ANPR database. 

Data held by the police (or any other government body) must be subject to the data protection act: it must be available to the suspect, it must be proved to be appropriate and accurate, and it must be subject to change if innaccurate. 

Entry on these databases must not be made without genuine grounds to suspect criminal activity.  No fishing expiditions.

Police should be subject to prosecution themselves if the data is misused to harrass the innocent.

Why is this idea important?

We need legislation to control and limit the use of mass surveillance databases, for example the ANPR database. 

Data held by the police (or any other government body) must be subject to the data protection act: it must be available to the suspect, it must be proved to be appropriate and accurate, and it must be subject to change if innaccurate. 

Entry on these databases must not be made without genuine grounds to suspect criminal activity.  No fishing expiditions.

Police should be subject to prosecution themselves if the data is misused to harrass the innocent.

Clear labelling of CCTV

Every CCTV camera should have a sign stating the purpose of that camera. Where they are being used for law and traffic enforcement, there should be clear warning signs in the same way that speed cameras ae labelled.

Why is this idea important?

Every CCTV camera should have a sign stating the purpose of that camera. Where they are being used for law and traffic enforcement, there should be clear warning signs in the same way that speed cameras ae labelled.

Stop recording our emails and phone calls

One of the craziest ideas the Labour government brought in was a requirement for ISPs and telephone companies to keep records of all our phone calls and emails and for them to be available to the government. That law should be repealed. If security services need to listen in to terror suspects, then that should be authorised on a case by case basis with proper judicial process.

Why is this idea important?

One of the craziest ideas the Labour government brought in was a requirement for ISPs and telephone companies to keep records of all our phone calls and emails and for them to be available to the government. That law should be repealed. If security services need to listen in to terror suspects, then that should be authorised on a case by case basis with proper judicial process.

Recording emails, website visits and text

The last government wanted to record who we email, who we text, and what websites we use. It was intended that all this could be used for the prevention and detecting of serious crime.

Whilst it I think it is a good idea to know who is visiting sites that tell you how to build bombs etc, I feel that it is highly intrusive to record if we visited a site about things like aclohol problems, sites that help with male ompetence etc.

My idea is that the law should be changed to exclude websites and pone numbers that are set up to help people. This would mean that whilst the police could find out who called a suspected bomber a few times before an attack, the police would not be able to see if someone had accessed a web site that offers help or called Childline, crime stoppers etc. It would also mean that parents would know that calling someone for help with their alocohol problems etc would not be passed on to others, such as social services.

Why is this idea important?

The last government wanted to record who we email, who we text, and what websites we use. It was intended that all this could be used for the prevention and detecting of serious crime.

Whilst it I think it is a good idea to know who is visiting sites that tell you how to build bombs etc, I feel that it is highly intrusive to record if we visited a site about things like aclohol problems, sites that help with male ompetence etc.

My idea is that the law should be changed to exclude websites and pone numbers that are set up to help people. This would mean that whilst the police could find out who called a suspected bomber a few times before an attack, the police would not be able to see if someone had accessed a web site that offers help or called Childline, crime stoppers etc. It would also mean that parents would know that calling someone for help with their alocohol problems etc would not be passed on to others, such as social services.

Limit CCTV

We should limit the amount of closed circuit television cameras. Ideally I would like to see less of them but that may be a little too optimistic, but realistically I think it would be possible to put a limit on how many would be allowed within a certain area. This applies specifically to police or council cameras – I believe a shop/ business owner has every right to protect his/her property and stock in whatever (reasonable) way he/she choses. In addition CCTV should not be allowed in schools or in purely residential areas.

Why is this idea important?

We should limit the amount of closed circuit television cameras. Ideally I would like to see less of them but that may be a little too optimistic, but realistically I think it would be possible to put a limit on how many would be allowed within a certain area. This applies specifically to police or council cameras – I believe a shop/ business owner has every right to protect his/her property and stock in whatever (reasonable) way he/she choses. In addition CCTV should not be allowed in schools or in purely residential areas.

BAN THE STASI

 

BAN THE USE OF ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION OR ANY OTHER BEING USED  BY COVERT OPS TO PREVENT ACCUSATIONS OF CIVIC CONTEMPT OF  COURT, FRAUD, MALADMINISTRATION IN PLANNING, COMPLICITY IN FRAUD BY THE PLANNING SYSTEM UPTO AND INCLUDING MINISTERS BEING COMMUNICATED WITH INEVITABLE IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS.

Why is this idea important?

 

BAN THE USE OF ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION OR ANY OTHER BEING USED  BY COVERT OPS TO PREVENT ACCUSATIONS OF CIVIC CONTEMPT OF  COURT, FRAUD, MALADMINISTRATION IN PLANNING, COMPLICITY IN FRAUD BY THE PLANNING SYSTEM UPTO AND INCLUDING MINISTERS BEING COMMUNICATED WITH INEVITABLE IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS.

Strip local authorities of powers to authorise direct covert surveillance

I propose to excude local authorities from the list of relevant authorities for the purposes of ss. 28 and 29 of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Local councils shouldn't have the surveillance powers.

Why is this idea important?

I propose to excude local authorities from the list of relevant authorities for the purposes of ss. 28 and 29 of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Local councils shouldn't have the surveillance powers.

Surveillance Authorisation & Control

I believe Nick Clegg wanted surveillance authorisation and control to be carried out at the magistrate level so that a judge was responsible., and the former Labour government wanted a senior executive level person in the Council to be able to authorise and control surveillance.

At the very least surveillance authorisation and control needs to be accomplished at the magistrate level so that a judge authorises and can control what is being done.  If this needs to be strengthened so that specialist judges are responsible for authorisation and control of surveillance, then so be it.

There needs to be a redress of grievance process connected with the authorisation and control of surveillance so that the specialist judge can receive feedback directly from those who experience abuse in order for problems to be addressed promptly before excessive damage is done.

I’ve been subjected to totally invasive surveillance for almost 12 years since mid-August 1998 24/7/365 which has nothing to do with an investigation and everything to do with fabrication by extreme abuse including imprisonment, torture interrogation, medical experimentation, surveillance R&D and destruction of all human activity and life. 

This is very much a reality of the past 12 years under the former Labour government, and all my continuous and extensive efforts to address this problem failed by a system of denial that blamed the victim, me, in order to protect those abusing surveillance so that many benefit from the attempt to silence my reporting and discrediting what I did report. 

I call this Toxic Surveillance that is very much a fact of life in the UK which will get much worse if it is not subject to careful authorisation and control.  Below are some links to information about my experience if you want more information about what has happened and continues to happen while I write.  It is most important to understand the nature of the surveillance technology today and how very important it is to have the best authorisation and control process possible well connected to a central grievance process.

http://www.garydchance.com
http://garydchance.tripod.com/surveillance
http://garydchance.bravejournal.com
http://garydchance-gary.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/garydchance
http://www.myspace.com/garydchance
http://twitter.com/garydchance

 

Why is this idea important?

I believe Nick Clegg wanted surveillance authorisation and control to be carried out at the magistrate level so that a judge was responsible., and the former Labour government wanted a senior executive level person in the Council to be able to authorise and control surveillance.

At the very least surveillance authorisation and control needs to be accomplished at the magistrate level so that a judge authorises and can control what is being done.  If this needs to be strengthened so that specialist judges are responsible for authorisation and control of surveillance, then so be it.

There needs to be a redress of grievance process connected with the authorisation and control of surveillance so that the specialist judge can receive feedback directly from those who experience abuse in order for problems to be addressed promptly before excessive damage is done.

I’ve been subjected to totally invasive surveillance for almost 12 years since mid-August 1998 24/7/365 which has nothing to do with an investigation and everything to do with fabrication by extreme abuse including imprisonment, torture interrogation, medical experimentation, surveillance R&D and destruction of all human activity and life. 

This is very much a reality of the past 12 years under the former Labour government, and all my continuous and extensive efforts to address this problem failed by a system of denial that blamed the victim, me, in order to protect those abusing surveillance so that many benefit from the attempt to silence my reporting and discrediting what I did report. 

I call this Toxic Surveillance that is very much a fact of life in the UK which will get much worse if it is not subject to careful authorisation and control.  Below are some links to information about my experience if you want more information about what has happened and continues to happen while I write.  It is most important to understand the nature of the surveillance technology today and how very important it is to have the best authorisation and control process possible well connected to a central grievance process.

http://www.garydchance.com
http://garydchance.tripod.com/surveillance
http://garydchance.bravejournal.com
http://garydchance-gary.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/garydchance
http://www.myspace.com/garydchance
http://twitter.com/garydchance

 

Repeal all terrorism acts from 2001 onwards in their entirety

Repeal the following acts completely: Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Criminal Justice Act 2003, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Terrorism Act 2006, Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

There may be a very small number of specific provisions worth saving from these acts, such as the repeal of the offences of sedition and obscene libel in the 2009 Coroners and Justice Act. These are very few in number and can be incorporated into a new bill, subject to fresh parliamentary scrutiny and approval. However, rather than try to tamper with the aforementioned bills, they are best scrapped in their entirety, as there is almost nothing of value in any of them.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the following acts completely: Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Criminal Justice Act 2003, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Terrorism Act 2006, Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

There may be a very small number of specific provisions worth saving from these acts, such as the repeal of the offences of sedition and obscene libel in the 2009 Coroners and Justice Act. These are very few in number and can be incorporated into a new bill, subject to fresh parliamentary scrutiny and approval. However, rather than try to tamper with the aforementioned bills, they are best scrapped in their entirety, as there is almost nothing of value in any of them.