abuse of anti terror laws by local authorities

Anti-terror legislation was agreed to by MP's to enable the security forces to protect citizens from those that would attack us or seek to destroy our way of life. Civil liberty organisations and the general public only accepted these on the assurance that they were to be used to fight terrorists only.

 

It's a disgrace that local authorities have abused these laws in order to spy on citizens for minor issues, such as how much waste they produce/recycle. These laws have also been used to stop innocent people enjoying perfectly acceptable pursuits, such as train spotting! They are being abused by all and sundry as a means to implementing their personal or corporate predeliction for restricting public access to public places, or rights to privacy in their own home. The police are also hiding behind these laws as a means to prevent citizens holding them accountable, by filming or photographing them exceeding their permitted powers to enforce the laws of the land.

 

I think these laws should be updated to make them specific, for use by security forces only in cases where there is a genuine terrorism concern. It should also be an offense under these laws for any individual or organisation to use these laws for any other purpose.

Why is this idea important?

Anti-terror legislation was agreed to by MP's to enable the security forces to protect citizens from those that would attack us or seek to destroy our way of life. Civil liberty organisations and the general public only accepted these on the assurance that they were to be used to fight terrorists only.

 

It's a disgrace that local authorities have abused these laws in order to spy on citizens for minor issues, such as how much waste they produce/recycle. These laws have also been used to stop innocent people enjoying perfectly acceptable pursuits, such as train spotting! They are being abused by all and sundry as a means to implementing their personal or corporate predeliction for restricting public access to public places, or rights to privacy in their own home. The police are also hiding behind these laws as a means to prevent citizens holding them accountable, by filming or photographing them exceeding their permitted powers to enforce the laws of the land.

 

I think these laws should be updated to make them specific, for use by security forces only in cases where there is a genuine terrorism concern. It should also be an offense under these laws for any individual or organisation to use these laws for any other purpose.

Anti terrorism laws used by snooping councils

The use of anti terrorism laws by local councils to snoop on citizens with regard to such trivial matters as supposed contraventions of waste regulations should be prevented immediately. This law was never intended for this purpose and has been totally abused by money- grabbing councils trying to control trivial misdemeanours ( in their eyes ) often resulting in financial penalties far beyond their importance and considerably greater than penalties imposed for more serios, and real crimes. Councils have gone far beyond their areas of influence and should be ashamed of their actions.

Why is this idea important?

The use of anti terrorism laws by local councils to snoop on citizens with regard to such trivial matters as supposed contraventions of waste regulations should be prevented immediately. This law was never intended for this purpose and has been totally abused by money- grabbing councils trying to control trivial misdemeanours ( in their eyes ) often resulting in financial penalties far beyond their importance and considerably greater than penalties imposed for more serios, and real crimes. Councils have gone far beyond their areas of influence and should be ashamed of their actions.

End control orders; reform detention without charge.

As the incipient Coalition will be aware, the UK currently – through the 'Control Orders' legislation – allows among the longest detention times without charge of a suspect in the democratic world. Given the UK's pre-eminent position as a country with a cherished and developed conception of personal liberty and criminal justice, it seems strange that our response to terrorism is so unproportional to our international counterparts.

Furthermore, given our justified pride in our police and intelligence services, it seems paradoxical to lavish praise on our services whilst simultaneously sacrificing personal liberties in order to allow them excessive time to do the same job done in much shorter periods in other countries. 

Such profligacy with the liberty of suspects encourages complacency and acceptance that an entire month is a reasonable amount of time. When we consider that terror  suspects are of the highest priority with ample resources spent on their investigation we begin to appreciate how unneccesary this time should be,

My idea is to scrap Control Orders – in particular the excessive detention without charge – and replace them with more proportionate and libertarian measures. The challenge is to balance public safety with stringent measures; you were elected to find difficult solutions.

Why is this idea important?

As the incipient Coalition will be aware, the UK currently – through the 'Control Orders' legislation – allows among the longest detention times without charge of a suspect in the democratic world. Given the UK's pre-eminent position as a country with a cherished and developed conception of personal liberty and criminal justice, it seems strange that our response to terrorism is so unproportional to our international counterparts.

Furthermore, given our justified pride in our police and intelligence services, it seems paradoxical to lavish praise on our services whilst simultaneously sacrificing personal liberties in order to allow them excessive time to do the same job done in much shorter periods in other countries. 

Such profligacy with the liberty of suspects encourages complacency and acceptance that an entire month is a reasonable amount of time. When we consider that terror  suspects are of the highest priority with ample resources spent on their investigation we begin to appreciate how unneccesary this time should be,

My idea is to scrap Control Orders – in particular the excessive detention without charge – and replace them with more proportionate and libertarian measures. The challenge is to balance public safety with stringent measures; you were elected to find difficult solutions.

Criminals & Terrorists… Do they have to many rights ?

Everyone says… It would be Un-British to do this or do that?.. Would it really or is it me thinking that everryone is tip toeing around the problem and not just using common sense with these laws we have on the rights of criminals and terrorists.

Why is this idea important?

Everyone says… It would be Un-British to do this or do that?.. Would it really or is it me thinking that everryone is tip toeing around the problem and not just using common sense with these laws we have on the rights of criminals and terrorists.

Repeal Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Most people are unaware that everytime they enter an airport of seaport as a passenger they risk being detained without charge (or for that matter reason) for up to nine hours. Police and UK Borders also have the power to seize any documents you have with you and keep these for seven days. They do NOT have to suspect that you are a terrorist or committing a criminal offence. If you do not co-operate with them (e.g. by answering their questions), you could be sent to prison for six months.

These draconian powers were introduced by Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which also provides for 'carding' – which means that you can be required by UK Borders to provide them with full details of your travel plans, including the addresses of places you will stay. Failure to provide this information can result in 3 months imprisonment. You can also be imprisoned for providing information which subsequently proves to be false.

By virtue of the UK's membership of the European Union all UK citizens have a right to freedom of movement within the EU. These Schedule 7 powers are in direct conflict with this right. Schedule 7 is also in direct conflict with Article 5 (the right not to be arrested without just cause) and Article 8 (the right to privacy) of the European Convention on Human Rights (an international obligation which was agreed after WWII to prevent the re-emergence of Nazism and which Winston Churchill was instrumental in creating).

Speaking of Nazism, these Schedule 7 powers are worthy of the Gestapo, or for that matter the Stasi (in communist E Germany). It has always been a cornerstone of the law in democratic countries that people cannot be arrested and their property seized purely on the whim of an official. But Schedule 7 allows precisely that. It is the kind of law that dictators and despots introduce. And we are all at risk every time we travel across our borders.

There seems to be no reliable information about how often these powers have been used. But I found out about them following an incident at the UK immigration controls in Calais last year. Returning from a few days in Austria by car, the UK Borders officer decided not to readmit me to my own country automatically, but my passport was taken away from me to be examined by other officials in a back office. Subsequently large amounts of information were typed into a computer. When I asked what was happening I was told that was none of my business. I remarked that I had just driven 1000 miles across Europe without so much as attracting a glance from a police officer, to which the officer said "It's not like this here". She subsequently said that she had been up-dating my 'immigration history'.

All this came as quite a surprise to me. I am a 60 year old Britsh Citizen who was born in the UK and have lived here for most of my life. I have no criminal convictions and have never been arrested, or as far as I know, suspected of a criminal offence. I complained to several people, including UK Borders. As a result, some-one (I can't remember who) sent me a flyer from Kent Police which explained the Schedule 7 powers. It tells people using the port of Dover that they are liable to arrest and having their possessions confiscated for no reason at all. I could not believe that a police force in a democratic country could be issuing such a document.

This is all part of the climate of fear that was engendered by the last Government. Of course international terrorism is a threat to us all, but these laws seem to be designed to frighten and intimidate ordinary law-abiding citizens; to put them in fear of authority and the arbitary exercise of power. They are laws that are worthy of a totalitarian state. They have no place here.

They should be repealed forthwith.

Why is this idea important?

Most people are unaware that everytime they enter an airport of seaport as a passenger they risk being detained without charge (or for that matter reason) for up to nine hours. Police and UK Borders also have the power to seize any documents you have with you and keep these for seven days. They do NOT have to suspect that you are a terrorist or committing a criminal offence. If you do not co-operate with them (e.g. by answering their questions), you could be sent to prison for six months.

These draconian powers were introduced by Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which also provides for 'carding' – which means that you can be required by UK Borders to provide them with full details of your travel plans, including the addresses of places you will stay. Failure to provide this information can result in 3 months imprisonment. You can also be imprisoned for providing information which subsequently proves to be false.

By virtue of the UK's membership of the European Union all UK citizens have a right to freedom of movement within the EU. These Schedule 7 powers are in direct conflict with this right. Schedule 7 is also in direct conflict with Article 5 (the right not to be arrested without just cause) and Article 8 (the right to privacy) of the European Convention on Human Rights (an international obligation which was agreed after WWII to prevent the re-emergence of Nazism and which Winston Churchill was instrumental in creating).

Speaking of Nazism, these Schedule 7 powers are worthy of the Gestapo, or for that matter the Stasi (in communist E Germany). It has always been a cornerstone of the law in democratic countries that people cannot be arrested and their property seized purely on the whim of an official. But Schedule 7 allows precisely that. It is the kind of law that dictators and despots introduce. And we are all at risk every time we travel across our borders.

There seems to be no reliable information about how often these powers have been used. But I found out about them following an incident at the UK immigration controls in Calais last year. Returning from a few days in Austria by car, the UK Borders officer decided not to readmit me to my own country automatically, but my passport was taken away from me to be examined by other officials in a back office. Subsequently large amounts of information were typed into a computer. When I asked what was happening I was told that was none of my business. I remarked that I had just driven 1000 miles across Europe without so much as attracting a glance from a police officer, to which the officer said "It's not like this here". She subsequently said that she had been up-dating my 'immigration history'.

All this came as quite a surprise to me. I am a 60 year old Britsh Citizen who was born in the UK and have lived here for most of my life. I have no criminal convictions and have never been arrested, or as far as I know, suspected of a criminal offence. I complained to several people, including UK Borders. As a result, some-one (I can't remember who) sent me a flyer from Kent Police which explained the Schedule 7 powers. It tells people using the port of Dover that they are liable to arrest and having their possessions confiscated for no reason at all. I could not believe that a police force in a democratic country could be issuing such a document.

This is all part of the climate of fear that was engendered by the last Government. Of course international terrorism is a threat to us all, but these laws seem to be designed to frighten and intimidate ordinary law-abiding citizens; to put them in fear of authority and the arbitary exercise of power. They are laws that are worthy of a totalitarian state. They have no place here.

They should be repealed forthwith.

Hold the American Government responsible for IRA Funding

 

I feel this is a strong moral principle for MANY British person today

 

I say the British Government MUST call the American government into question of allowing its people to fund terrorism, namely the provincial IRA during the 1970's to late 90's Not just me but MANY British people today held Tony Blair in contempt for cuddling up to the Americans whilst they were ALLOWING their citizens to fund and support the IRA via NORAID!

During the 1970's 80#s and early 90's we ALL lived under the IRA threat, with each bullet funded by Libya and the United States. We have held Libya to account now the same must be done for America!

As in all western governments they work for the PEOPLE and not the other way around, ergo the goverment is also representitive OF the people and that means by definition the US. Goverment MUST be held accountable for its OWN peoples Actions!

I say compensation MUST be paid to all effected famalies by the actions of Barry Flannery and Noraid/IRA to all VICTIMS of IRA attrocities.

By the way I am not from ulster (though i lived there for a couple of years in the 70's) I am English, my father was a royal marine/ Special Boat Squadron commando stationed in Belfast! Serial number HM24656

 

Though the IRA is noW a so called peaceful organisation, the crimes that the US people laid  against every single British Person is intolerable.

I will not take this administration seriously, until it has the courage to stand UP, rise UP for the people and say NO to America until Barak Obama Apologies for crimes commited against Ulster and the British people by memebers of the American public whom held fund raising dinners to help NORAID!

This in the minds of every british citizen today Mr Cameron. I employ please hold the United States government into question over the actions of its people!

Mr Cameron DO NOT stand shoulder to shoulder with America. Stand firm head held high with the BRITISH people, STAND with them and FOR THEM and the best way to do that is hold THEM accountable for IRA actions!

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

 

I feel this is a strong moral principle for MANY British person today

 

I say the British Government MUST call the American government into question of allowing its people to fund terrorism, namely the provincial IRA during the 1970's to late 90's Not just me but MANY British people today held Tony Blair in contempt for cuddling up to the Americans whilst they were ALLOWING their citizens to fund and support the IRA via NORAID!

During the 1970's 80#s and early 90's we ALL lived under the IRA threat, with each bullet funded by Libya and the United States. We have held Libya to account now the same must be done for America!

As in all western governments they work for the PEOPLE and not the other way around, ergo the goverment is also representitive OF the people and that means by definition the US. Goverment MUST be held accountable for its OWN peoples Actions!

I say compensation MUST be paid to all effected famalies by the actions of Barry Flannery and Noraid/IRA to all VICTIMS of IRA attrocities.

By the way I am not from ulster (though i lived there for a couple of years in the 70's) I am English, my father was a royal marine/ Special Boat Squadron commando stationed in Belfast! Serial number HM24656

 

Though the IRA is noW a so called peaceful organisation, the crimes that the US people laid  against every single British Person is intolerable.

I will not take this administration seriously, until it has the courage to stand UP, rise UP for the people and say NO to America until Barak Obama Apologies for crimes commited against Ulster and the British people by memebers of the American public whom held fund raising dinners to help NORAID!

This in the minds of every british citizen today Mr Cameron. I employ please hold the United States government into question over the actions of its people!

Mr Cameron DO NOT stand shoulder to shoulder with America. Stand firm head held high with the BRITISH people, STAND with them and FOR THEM and the best way to do that is hold THEM accountable for IRA actions!

 

 

 

Repeal the Human Rights Act

Repeal the act because the UK can't extradite terrorists because this breaches their human rights ie they could get tortured back home. This puts the human rights of terrorists ahead of the human rights of the population who have the human right not to be blown up getting the tube or bus.

A lifer in prison also has the human right to get married in prison and have IVF treatment (right to a family under the act) – despite the fact  he's a murderer (hardly the best father) and in prison (can't be there for the child). This puts the human rights of a murderer ahead of his victim and society (forced to pay for IVF and benefits for the child who he clearly can't support). 

Their human rights are at the expense of ours. This is political correctness gone mad.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the act because the UK can't extradite terrorists because this breaches their human rights ie they could get tortured back home. This puts the human rights of terrorists ahead of the human rights of the population who have the human right not to be blown up getting the tube or bus.

A lifer in prison also has the human right to get married in prison and have IVF treatment (right to a family under the act) – despite the fact  he's a murderer (hardly the best father) and in prison (can't be there for the child). This puts the human rights of a murderer ahead of his victim and society (forced to pay for IVF and benefits for the child who he clearly can't support). 

Their human rights are at the expense of ours. This is political correctness gone mad.

repeal the drugs laws

That taking drugs is deeply foolish needs no debate but those who wish to do it will do it and there is little that can be done to stop them – the widespread availability of drugs in our prisons clearly shows both this and the total failure of the law. 

On waking, an addict’s sole, immediate, and compelling concern is how to obtain their next ‘fix’.  They are oblivious to reason, family, conscience, and because the law forbids legitimate purchase, they have only the black market. 

The current drug laws are completely ineffective, and have caused most of the problems they are supposed to address.  They should be replaced with a controlled rationing system:  addicts should register with GPs and be provided with free drugs from pharmacies, the trade being monitored by a ‘smart card’ system.

1. Addicts will no longer need to resort to crime to sustain their habit.  The reduction in crime will be considerable.
2. Addicts will receive clean drugs and needles, reducing the costs to the NHS due to the use of badly ‘cut’ drugs and shared or dirty needles.
3. Their supply guaranteed, addicts will have more chance to take charge of their lives and set about seeking employment and rehabilitation.
4. With good quality products given away free, the financial base of the illegal drugs trade will be destroyed almost immediately.*
5. The whole problem will become visible and measurable.  Its adverse consequences can thus be properly addressed, and education and rehabilitation schemes more accurately focused.
 6. With a legal system for drug use in place, the penalties for non-registered use of drugs can be severe

*The drugs trade presents dangers other than personal tragedy, crime, and the costs (your taxes) of avoidable health care and pointless policing.  Its vast wealth and sophistication bring serious corruption.  Senior police officers, politicians and public servants can be directly corrupted, but there is also more subtle corruption in the draconian legal thinking and the self-sustaining nature of the institutions that have been set in place to deal with it and which are extremely reluctant to see the status quo disturbed.
The drugs trade is also a major source of funding for so-called ‘terrorism’.  To undermine one is to undermine the other.

See also

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Why is this idea important?

That taking drugs is deeply foolish needs no debate but those who wish to do it will do it and there is little that can be done to stop them – the widespread availability of drugs in our prisons clearly shows both this and the total failure of the law. 

On waking, an addict’s sole, immediate, and compelling concern is how to obtain their next ‘fix’.  They are oblivious to reason, family, conscience, and because the law forbids legitimate purchase, they have only the black market. 

The current drug laws are completely ineffective, and have caused most of the problems they are supposed to address.  They should be replaced with a controlled rationing system:  addicts should register with GPs and be provided with free drugs from pharmacies, the trade being monitored by a ‘smart card’ system.

1. Addicts will no longer need to resort to crime to sustain their habit.  The reduction in crime will be considerable.
2. Addicts will receive clean drugs and needles, reducing the costs to the NHS due to the use of badly ‘cut’ drugs and shared or dirty needles.
3. Their supply guaranteed, addicts will have more chance to take charge of their lives and set about seeking employment and rehabilitation.
4. With good quality products given away free, the financial base of the illegal drugs trade will be destroyed almost immediately.*
5. The whole problem will become visible and measurable.  Its adverse consequences can thus be properly addressed, and education and rehabilitation schemes more accurately focused.
 6. With a legal system for drug use in place, the penalties for non-registered use of drugs can be severe

*The drugs trade presents dangers other than personal tragedy, crime, and the costs (your taxes) of avoidable health care and pointless policing.  Its vast wealth and sophistication bring serious corruption.  Senior police officers, politicians and public servants can be directly corrupted, but there is also more subtle corruption in the draconian legal thinking and the self-sustaining nature of the institutions that have been set in place to deal with it and which are extremely reluctant to see the status quo disturbed.
The drugs trade is also a major source of funding for so-called ‘terrorism’.  To undermine one is to undermine the other.

See also

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-terrorism-laws

http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

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

repeal the terrorism laws

All the laws passed to deal with the so-called ‘terrorist’ threat should be amended to remove the use of the word ‘terror’ and the duplication of offences –‘conspiracy to murder’ etc – already covered by existing legislation.  The media should be approached and asked to radically temper their coverage of so-called ‘terrorist’ crimes. 

Every day, hundreds of thousands of decent people across the world struggle against bitter poverty and oppression, yet never even consider resorting to random murder as a means of improving their lot.  Those who do serve no useful purpose in any civilized society and are, by any sensible definition, insane, and should be labelled as such. 

They have no true military resources and cannot begin to hurt us as a nation.  They thus commit their crimes purely for publicity in the hope that media frenzy will panic Governments into damaging the nation on their behalf by throwing away ancient freedoms.  In this they have been depressingly successful. 

‘Terror’ for example is a powerful, dramatic word – extreme fear.  But do these murderers terrify you?  Or are you simply concerned about them, as you might be concerned about noisy gangs of youths, burglars, muggers or drunken drivers?  Granted, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, they will kill you, but some 10,000 people year die violent deaths in this country and while each is a desperate personal tragedy for some family, it does not affect the economy or the stability of the nation. 

These people are nasty and dangerous but they are merely criminals and the things they do are crimes.  They should be hunted down using whatever national and international resources are appropriate, and brought to justice through due process, but to throw away ancient freedoms and to give them page upon page of free newspaper advertising (cost approx £40,000 per page) and hours of radio and TV coverage is to give them exactly what they want and actively encourages and supports them. 

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/self-defence

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Why is this idea important?

All the laws passed to deal with the so-called ‘terrorist’ threat should be amended to remove the use of the word ‘terror’ and the duplication of offences –‘conspiracy to murder’ etc – already covered by existing legislation.  The media should be approached and asked to radically temper their coverage of so-called ‘terrorist’ crimes. 

Every day, hundreds of thousands of decent people across the world struggle against bitter poverty and oppression, yet never even consider resorting to random murder as a means of improving their lot.  Those who do serve no useful purpose in any civilized society and are, by any sensible definition, insane, and should be labelled as such. 

They have no true military resources and cannot begin to hurt us as a nation.  They thus commit their crimes purely for publicity in the hope that media frenzy will panic Governments into damaging the nation on their behalf by throwing away ancient freedoms.  In this they have been depressingly successful. 

‘Terror’ for example is a powerful, dramatic word – extreme fear.  But do these murderers terrify you?  Or are you simply concerned about them, as you might be concerned about noisy gangs of youths, burglars, muggers or drunken drivers?  Granted, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, they will kill you, but some 10,000 people year die violent deaths in this country and while each is a desperate personal tragedy for some family, it does not affect the economy or the stability of the nation. 

These people are nasty and dangerous but they are merely criminals and the things they do are crimes.  They should be hunted down using whatever national and international resources are appropriate, and brought to justice through due process, but to throw away ancient freedoms and to give them page upon page of free newspaper advertising (cost approx £40,000 per page) and hours of radio and TV coverage is to give them exactly what they want and actively encourages and supports them. 

See also http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/self-defence

Source:  http://www.alternativeparty.org.uk

Save Special Branch costs.

It is necessary to notify Special Branch when a UK light aircraft wishes to fly to or from the Channel Islands, Northern Island, ROI and the Isle of Man. Special Branch may elect to drive, usually 2 officers, to the UK departure/arrival airfield. This does not have to be done if a light aircraft wishes to fly to Europe eg France.

So if one wants to circumvent this procedure even a Year 1 schoolchild, let alone a terrorist, would find it simple. Just fly to France, land there and then fly unresticted to the Channel Islands et al.

The need to still inform Special Branch and the ensuing costs to the police is, in my opinion, an absolute waste of money. 

Why is this idea important?

It is necessary to notify Special Branch when a UK light aircraft wishes to fly to or from the Channel Islands, Northern Island, ROI and the Isle of Man. Special Branch may elect to drive, usually 2 officers, to the UK departure/arrival airfield. This does not have to be done if a light aircraft wishes to fly to Europe eg France.

So if one wants to circumvent this procedure even a Year 1 schoolchild, let alone a terrorist, would find it simple. Just fly to France, land there and then fly unresticted to the Channel Islands et al.

The need to still inform Special Branch and the ensuing costs to the police is, in my opinion, an absolute waste of money. 

Extradite Al-quaeda members wanted in other countries.

I propose that if a person was not born in Britain (or a linked country that accepts Queen Elizabeth as its monarch) and is wanted by another country to put them on trial for terrorist-related offenses we should send them, especially if they were born in the country that is requesting them back.

The British people, while not callous, believe that the millions we spend mollycoddling foreign prisoners is wrong when it could be spent on more worthy causes like funding the NHS, the salaries of public sector workers, paying for cancer drugs or paying off our national debt.

The costs of having each foreign terror suspect in Britain is astronomical, as often the state is paying for their housing, legal aid and food and clothing. The process drags on for years in the courts with the European Court of human rights getting involved, making the process even longer and more costly to Britain.

We should also investigate whether or not non-British born Al-queda sympathisers should be deported back to their countries of origin.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I propose that if a person was not born in Britain (or a linked country that accepts Queen Elizabeth as its monarch) and is wanted by another country to put them on trial for terrorist-related offenses we should send them, especially if they were born in the country that is requesting them back.

The British people, while not callous, believe that the millions we spend mollycoddling foreign prisoners is wrong when it could be spent on more worthy causes like funding the NHS, the salaries of public sector workers, paying for cancer drugs or paying off our national debt.

The costs of having each foreign terror suspect in Britain is astronomical, as often the state is paying for their housing, legal aid and food and clothing. The process drags on for years in the courts with the European Court of human rights getting involved, making the process even longer and more costly to Britain.

We should also investigate whether or not non-British born Al-queda sympathisers should be deported back to their countries of origin.

 

 

 

Abolish Control Orders

The control order regime should be scrapped. Control orders effectively punish people without giving them a fair trial. They are not compatible with respect for human rights and they impose severe restrictions on the liberty and rights of people suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity. If people are suspected of a criminal offence they should be charged and given a fair trial.

Why is this idea important?

The control order regime should be scrapped. Control orders effectively punish people without giving them a fair trial. They are not compatible with respect for human rights and they impose severe restrictions on the liberty and rights of people suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity. If people are suspected of a criminal offence they should be charged and given a fair trial.

Prevent terrorism laws being used for other offences

Terrorism laws have been used by authorities for such lesser issues as spying on or prosecuting citizens to check their residence who try to get their children into schools in an adjacent area

There are reports that these laws have been used in connection with such relatively trivial offences as dog fouling in parks.

Why is this idea important?

Terrorism laws have been used by authorities for such lesser issues as spying on or prosecuting citizens to check their residence who try to get their children into schools in an adjacent area

There are reports that these laws have been used in connection with such relatively trivial offences as dog fouling in parks.

Ability of police to detain anyone under the Terrorism Act.

Remove the ability for the police to use the magic words "I consider you a threat under the terrorism act"  to be able to detain anyone they see fit.

A very clear example being the recent issues faced by 16 year old photographer:

@ 5:28 in the following video: "You know what, I consider you a threat under the terrorism act"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/officers-claim-they-dont-need-law-to-stop-photographer-taking-pictures-2012827.html

 

Why is this idea important?

Remove the ability for the police to use the magic words "I consider you a threat under the terrorism act"  to be able to detain anyone they see fit.

A very clear example being the recent issues faced by 16 year old photographer:

@ 5:28 in the following video: "You know what, I consider you a threat under the terrorism act"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/officers-claim-they-dont-need-law-to-stop-photographer-taking-pictures-2012827.html

 

Freedom to take photographs in public places.

Restore the right of ordinary people to take photographs in public places without fear of being criminalised.  It is a gross over exaggeration to regard anyone who takes a photograph of a policeman or a public building as a potential terrorist, or family and friends who want to take photographs of their children at school events as potential paedophiles.  Amateur photography  used to be regarded as a legitimate and acceptable pastime, not as an underhand activity to be regarded with suspicion.  I would like to see it restored to its former status.

Why is this idea important?

Restore the right of ordinary people to take photographs in public places without fear of being criminalised.  It is a gross over exaggeration to regard anyone who takes a photograph of a policeman or a public building as a potential terrorist, or family and friends who want to take photographs of their children at school events as potential paedophiles.  Amateur photography  used to be regarded as a legitimate and acceptable pastime, not as an underhand activity to be regarded with suspicion.  I would like to see it restored to its former status.

Abolish UK requirement for VFR Flight Plans

General Aviation pilots flying light aircraft to destinations inside the common travel area under visual flight Rules (VFR) are required to file Flight Plans (FPL) for many destinations including the Channel Islands. I consider that this requirement could be abolished with no impact on safety for the reasons given below.

It should be noted that the process for filing a VFR flight plan in the UK has recently become vastly more complex and hazardous for the average private pilot with a move to an unsatisfactory software application known as AFPEX. At the same time traditional telephone and fax methods of FPL filing have been dicontinued. AFPEX continues to exceed the skill levels of typical private pilots and IT professional alike and requires a 24Hr helpdesk to deal with the numerous problems that it creates. My proposal is to abolish AFPEX, the support infrastructure that goes with it, and the regulatory requirement for VFR flight plans at the same time.

Pilots who require an FPL service (for instance for flight to country requiring it) can easily obtain facilities from 3rd party providers or the country concerned.

The traditional justifications for requiring VFR FPL's are no longer valid. The issue of terrorism has already been dealt with in the "Remove the need for a GAR " proposal on this site. In any case any pilot seeking to carry out illegal activities will probably omit the step of filing a flight plan.

The safety case for VFR FPL's has already been eliminated by UK policy that now requires a pilot to make his own arrangements with a 'responsible person' to raise the alarm in case he goes missing, unlike the case in most countries where the FPL is the alerting tool.  Ludicrously, there is now no requirement to close a VFR flight plan in UK, meaning that the authorities cannot know if a flight has arrived or not.

This means that the FPL has no safety value whatever because in the event that he goes missing enroute to a destination without air traffic services (the case where FPL should be of most value) he will not be noticed.

Why is this idea important?

General Aviation pilots flying light aircraft to destinations inside the common travel area under visual flight Rules (VFR) are required to file Flight Plans (FPL) for many destinations including the Channel Islands. I consider that this requirement could be abolished with no impact on safety for the reasons given below.

It should be noted that the process for filing a VFR flight plan in the UK has recently become vastly more complex and hazardous for the average private pilot with a move to an unsatisfactory software application known as AFPEX. At the same time traditional telephone and fax methods of FPL filing have been dicontinued. AFPEX continues to exceed the skill levels of typical private pilots and IT professional alike and requires a 24Hr helpdesk to deal with the numerous problems that it creates. My proposal is to abolish AFPEX, the support infrastructure that goes with it, and the regulatory requirement for VFR flight plans at the same time.

Pilots who require an FPL service (for instance for flight to country requiring it) can easily obtain facilities from 3rd party providers or the country concerned.

The traditional justifications for requiring VFR FPL's are no longer valid. The issue of terrorism has already been dealt with in the "Remove the need for a GAR " proposal on this site. In any case any pilot seeking to carry out illegal activities will probably omit the step of filing a flight plan.

The safety case for VFR FPL's has already been eliminated by UK policy that now requires a pilot to make his own arrangements with a 'responsible person' to raise the alarm in case he goes missing, unlike the case in most countries where the FPL is the alerting tool.  Ludicrously, there is now no requirement to close a VFR flight plan in UK, meaning that the authorities cannot know if a flight has arrived or not.

This means that the FPL has no safety value whatever because in the event that he goes missing enroute to a destination without air traffic services (the case where FPL should be of most value) he will not be noticed.

Inability to Deport Foreign Criminals and Terrorist Operatives

The British government is prevented at present by a host of statutes, precedents and European court rulings from deporting foreign nationals and immigrants who are convicted of serious crimes or found to be members of proscribed, often terrorist organisations back to their countries of origin where those countries are thought not to place the same emphasis on so-called "human rights" as we do. We need not necessarily be talking about North Korea; quite often these "unsafe" nations are members of the Commonwealth, and objections can even be raised when deporting someone to the United States on grounds that the Americans retain the death sentence.

The state's first duty being to protect the law-abiding in general and its own citizens in particular, these impediments to the deportation of foreign criminals and terrorist operatives should all be swept away and the individuals concerned compelled to lie in the beds they have made for themselves.  I thought we weren't supposed to pass judgements on the cultures of others anymore, anyway?

Why is this idea important?

The British government is prevented at present by a host of statutes, precedents and European court rulings from deporting foreign nationals and immigrants who are convicted of serious crimes or found to be members of proscribed, often terrorist organisations back to their countries of origin where those countries are thought not to place the same emphasis on so-called "human rights" as we do. We need not necessarily be talking about North Korea; quite often these "unsafe" nations are members of the Commonwealth, and objections can even be raised when deporting someone to the United States on grounds that the Americans retain the death sentence.

The state's first duty being to protect the law-abiding in general and its own citizens in particular, these impediments to the deportation of foreign criminals and terrorist operatives should all be swept away and the individuals concerned compelled to lie in the beds they have made for themselves.  I thought we weren't supposed to pass judgements on the cultures of others anymore, anyway?

Harrassment of photographers

Too many perfectly bona fide photographers (especially in London) are being hassled by police officers, PCSO's and private security staff – on the grounds that they are protecting UK against terrorism. What is happening on the ground is ridiculously over the top and not even sensible. Any terrorist would use a tiny camera or indeed a phone to photograph sensitive areas NOT a huge dslr. And why are national landmarks classed as security issues anyway – Westminster Bridge – the Gherkin – Tower of London etc etc.

Badly trained and badly led staff make London a mockery for tourism. What exactly is going to happen in 2012?

Why is this idea important?

Too many perfectly bona fide photographers (especially in London) are being hassled by police officers, PCSO's and private security staff – on the grounds that they are protecting UK against terrorism. What is happening on the ground is ridiculously over the top and not even sensible. Any terrorist would use a tiny camera or indeed a phone to photograph sensitive areas NOT a huge dslr. And why are national landmarks classed as security issues anyway – Westminster Bridge – the Gherkin – Tower of London etc etc.

Badly trained and badly led staff make London a mockery for tourism. What exactly is going to happen in 2012?