repeal the laws which make it too easy to convict the innocent

Imagine this: You are a law-abiding citizen, an upright man with no previous convictions. One day the police break into your house with no search warrant and confiscate all your computer equipment.

They haul you off to the cells for several hours and interrogate you, allowing you nothing to eat or drink. You are totally confused. Since you are innocent, you obviously have no idea what you have been accused of.

 A few days later you find someone has made an allegation of sexual abuse against you, The Police raid your house again, carting off anything they think can be used in evidence and you are taken back to the cells for further questioning. If you say "No comment" to every question fired at you, you will stand a far better chance of staying out of jail but being innocent and eager for the truth to be known, you give them too much information about yourself, thus allowing them to twist your words to ensure a conviction.

Your friends are interrogated too. If any of them say anything good about you when they provide a statement, it is disregarded or conveniently placed at the bottom of the pile – The Police are only looking for the bad. For months nothing happens and you get very little legal advice as the duty solicitor you have been allocated is always "Very busy," only allowing you five minutes of his valuable time. But meanwhile The Police and the Crown Prosecution Service are gathering together as many lies as they can and they are extremely proficient at it with unlimited resources at their disposal. They are slowly but surely making you fit the profile.

A few months later the police again take you in for further questioning. Suddenly, out of the blue, further allegations are brought – "Crimes" allegedly committed by you way back in the past.

Now any logical-thinking human being would see a connection between the recent accusations and the ones from the past. But no, the police say the allegations are entirely separate and they will swear your accusers do not know each other although you know full well that they do… after all it was you who introduced them in the first place! You were all good friends at one point. But with the lure of compensation packages, unscrupulous people have no qualms about dragging an innocent man's name through the mud and sending him to jail for things that never happened.

At present in the UK it is quite possible to be branded a sex offender and be imprisoned indefinitely purely on the basis of hearsay, collusion, and bare-faced lies. If several people conspire against you they can get compensation… you get incarceration.

You will soon find that nearly everyone will desert you. Most people will not want to be associated with you anymore. They will not take the risk. The amount of lies spread about you will result in a "No smoke without fire" attitude, instigated by The Police.

Even at this point you still place enormous trust in the Justice System to clear your good name and wholeheartedly believe that your innocence will be your best defence – the fact that you did nothing wrong will surely win the day. But you will soon find no one has any faith in you. Even your defence barrister will tell you it would be better to plead guilty to get a lighter sentence.

You have no way of proving your innocence and then you find to your horror that the people who know the real truth are not allowed to appear in your defence as apparently, you are told, there is not enough legal funding.

You will not be given a fair trial; you will be processed and perhaps be imprisoned indefinitely for crimes that never happened. Then you will find there are more horrors to come. Once wrongly convicted you now discover you are the lowest of the low in the hierarchy of convicted men. Now deemed worse than murderers and multiple rapists, you are a "Vulnerable" prisoner who has to be segregated for his own protection.

Nobody loves a convicted paedophile which is what you are now even though you have never been sexually attracted to children. Robbers of banks and launderers of money can achieve hero status within prison walls but not you. If you still choose to maintain your innocence you are now viewed as "In denial" and not addressing your offending behaviour. In prison, cries of: "I'm innocent!" carry no weight. The answer you will get is: "We all are!" The prison system in the UK has virtually no strategy for dealing with the wrongly convicted. Together with the Probation office and Parole Board, the prison system is obliged to uphold the decision of the courts. Any loyal friends and family members who have not yet abandoned you will now also be viewed as being "In denial."

You are still alive, and at least there is not a death sentence hanging over your head, but your life has been cruelly snatched away nonetheless and now you will have another nightmare scenario on your hands. You will constantly be asked to admit guilt and accept responsibility for your "Crimes." You will be told to feel remorse for those crimes that never happened, and show empathy towards your "Victims" who by now are probably living the high life, enjoying their compensation money. They have no conscience and have no trouble in sleeping soundly at night without a thought for you.

If at this point you still choose to maintain your innocence you soon discover you may never be released! Uncompromising officers will continually try to get you to sign your innocence away. Coercive and brutal tactics are not unheard of. And on the outside the few remaining people who have stood by you no matter what, are powerless to do anything which will make any real difference. You are now in the unenviable position of having to choose between maintaining your integrity at the expense of your freedom or pretending to be a criminal in order to regain it. Most people would say they would never admit to doing anything they hadn't done but when forced with such a "Catch 22" situation it is understandable that some break under the strain and consider it fair trade for the hope of parole.

As you have had the misfortune of being falsely accused of something as damming as sex offences there is yet another sentence to serve if you ever regain your freedom. The day you walk through those prison gates is the day society will get its opportunity to pass judgment.

Your life will never be as it was before your conviction. By now institutionalised, you will be cast out into a vigilante world where every mother in the neighbourhood will be eager to avoid you and one where ordinary people would be quite happy to see you hung, drawn and quartered for fear of what you might do to their precious offspring. If a child goes missing, yours will be the first door the police will knock upon and then you will find you are right back to square one.

Why is this idea important?

Imagine this: You are a law-abiding citizen, an upright man with no previous convictions. One day the police break into your house with no search warrant and confiscate all your computer equipment.

They haul you off to the cells for several hours and interrogate you, allowing you nothing to eat or drink. You are totally confused. Since you are innocent, you obviously have no idea what you have been accused of.

 A few days later you find someone has made an allegation of sexual abuse against you, The Police raid your house again, carting off anything they think can be used in evidence and you are taken back to the cells for further questioning. If you say "No comment" to every question fired at you, you will stand a far better chance of staying out of jail but being innocent and eager for the truth to be known, you give them too much information about yourself, thus allowing them to twist your words to ensure a conviction.

Your friends are interrogated too. If any of them say anything good about you when they provide a statement, it is disregarded or conveniently placed at the bottom of the pile – The Police are only looking for the bad. For months nothing happens and you get very little legal advice as the duty solicitor you have been allocated is always "Very busy," only allowing you five minutes of his valuable time. But meanwhile The Police and the Crown Prosecution Service are gathering together as many lies as they can and they are extremely proficient at it with unlimited resources at their disposal. They are slowly but surely making you fit the profile.

A few months later the police again take you in for further questioning. Suddenly, out of the blue, further allegations are brought – "Crimes" allegedly committed by you way back in the past.

Now any logical-thinking human being would see a connection between the recent accusations and the ones from the past. But no, the police say the allegations are entirely separate and they will swear your accusers do not know each other although you know full well that they do… after all it was you who introduced them in the first place! You were all good friends at one point. But with the lure of compensation packages, unscrupulous people have no qualms about dragging an innocent man's name through the mud and sending him to jail for things that never happened.

At present in the UK it is quite possible to be branded a sex offender and be imprisoned indefinitely purely on the basis of hearsay, collusion, and bare-faced lies. If several people conspire against you they can get compensation… you get incarceration.

You will soon find that nearly everyone will desert you. Most people will not want to be associated with you anymore. They will not take the risk. The amount of lies spread about you will result in a "No smoke without fire" attitude, instigated by The Police.

Even at this point you still place enormous trust in the Justice System to clear your good name and wholeheartedly believe that your innocence will be your best defence – the fact that you did nothing wrong will surely win the day. But you will soon find no one has any faith in you. Even your defence barrister will tell you it would be better to plead guilty to get a lighter sentence.

You have no way of proving your innocence and then you find to your horror that the people who know the real truth are not allowed to appear in your defence as apparently, you are told, there is not enough legal funding.

You will not be given a fair trial; you will be processed and perhaps be imprisoned indefinitely for crimes that never happened. Then you will find there are more horrors to come. Once wrongly convicted you now discover you are the lowest of the low in the hierarchy of convicted men. Now deemed worse than murderers and multiple rapists, you are a "Vulnerable" prisoner who has to be segregated for his own protection.

Nobody loves a convicted paedophile which is what you are now even though you have never been sexually attracted to children. Robbers of banks and launderers of money can achieve hero status within prison walls but not you. If you still choose to maintain your innocence you are now viewed as "In denial" and not addressing your offending behaviour. In prison, cries of: "I'm innocent!" carry no weight. The answer you will get is: "We all are!" The prison system in the UK has virtually no strategy for dealing with the wrongly convicted. Together with the Probation office and Parole Board, the prison system is obliged to uphold the decision of the courts. Any loyal friends and family members who have not yet abandoned you will now also be viewed as being "In denial."

You are still alive, and at least there is not a death sentence hanging over your head, but your life has been cruelly snatched away nonetheless and now you will have another nightmare scenario on your hands. You will constantly be asked to admit guilt and accept responsibility for your "Crimes." You will be told to feel remorse for those crimes that never happened, and show empathy towards your "Victims" who by now are probably living the high life, enjoying their compensation money. They have no conscience and have no trouble in sleeping soundly at night without a thought for you.

If at this point you still choose to maintain your innocence you soon discover you may never be released! Uncompromising officers will continually try to get you to sign your innocence away. Coercive and brutal tactics are not unheard of. And on the outside the few remaining people who have stood by you no matter what, are powerless to do anything which will make any real difference. You are now in the unenviable position of having to choose between maintaining your integrity at the expense of your freedom or pretending to be a criminal in order to regain it. Most people would say they would never admit to doing anything they hadn't done but when forced with such a "Catch 22" situation it is understandable that some break under the strain and consider it fair trade for the hope of parole.

As you have had the misfortune of being falsely accused of something as damming as sex offences there is yet another sentence to serve if you ever regain your freedom. The day you walk through those prison gates is the day society will get its opportunity to pass judgment.

Your life will never be as it was before your conviction. By now institutionalised, you will be cast out into a vigilante world where every mother in the neighbourhood will be eager to avoid you and one where ordinary people would be quite happy to see you hung, drawn and quartered for fear of what you might do to their precious offspring. If a child goes missing, yours will be the first door the police will knock upon and then you will find you are right back to square one.

Free the innocent to alleviate prison overcrowding

U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.

Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.

It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.

Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.

The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.

Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.

For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.

As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.

There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.

Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.

I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.

Why is this idea important?

U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.

Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.

It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.

Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.

The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.

Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.

For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.

As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.

There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.

Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.

I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.

Re-evaluate the use of juries

 

I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.

Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'

So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:

The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.

Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.

If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.

Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.

The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'

The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'

After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'

And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.

It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.

The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?

In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.

All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.

Why is this idea important?

 

I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.

Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'

So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:

The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.

Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.

If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.

Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.

The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'

The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'

After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'

And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.

It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.

The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?

In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.

All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.

Make it impossible to be proven guilty by accusation alone

 

In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.

The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.

Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.

It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.

The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.

Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.

The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.

Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.

Why is this idea important?

 

In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.

The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.

Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.

It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.

The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.

Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.

The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.

Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.

The Government needs to acknowledge the plight of innocent prisoners


This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.

Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.

Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.

In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?

Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!

Why is this idea important?


This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.

Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.

Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.

In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?

Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!

Reparations should be made when the justice system imprisons the innocent

 

No amount of financial compensation can ever be any consolation for the time stolen from an innocent person's life when they have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted. A huge amount of money of course will help to re-establish a life; it can pay for somewhere to live outright and it will enable the released prisoner to purchase whatever is needed before finding suitable employment. This monetary compensation is therefore necessary but can in no way make up for the lost and stolen years.

On average in the UK, it takes an innocent person twelve years to overturn a wrongful conviction when imprisoned. What if that innocent person was you? Think about it… that's twelve long years deprived of your freedom for crimes you never committed – a murderer will only get fourteen years at the most nowadays.

During that time you may miss your children's entire childhood, friends and family may abandon or forget you or even worse they may start to disbelieve you. The world will move on without you and you are languishing in jail paying for a crime someone else committed or perhaps one that didn't happen at all. Twelve years battling through legal paperwork to prove your innocence.

Twelve years of being called an offender when you have done nothing wrong and twelve years of being browbeaten into admitting guilt for something you haven't done because the justice system does not like to admit it makes mistakes.

It's a sad but little known fact but it is far easier to get released from prison if you are guilty than if you are innocent. After all a jury has found you guilty and a judge has convicted you. Who's going to believe you now? The prison and probation officials will not hear the pleas of the innocent as they can only abide by the Court's decision so you are well and truly stitched up.

Your only hope is to find a good legal representative who believes in you. If you are mega rich, then money could be your saviour but for the poor, innocent prisoner on legal aid, you can bet your bottom dollar you will be in prison for a very long time.

As an innocent person wrongly convicted, it's as if you have been a God- fearing Christian all your life and have been thrown into Hell by mistake on the day you die, so how can money in the form of compensation ever make reparation for that?

Guilty prisoners know they have been incarcerated for a reason and they have to make amends for the harm they have done to society. They have their debt to pay in years and liberty, but what can an innocent prisoner do other than endeavour to prove that innocence?

The current justice system should be changed so that more help is given to those prisoners who claim they are morally innocent of all they have been accused of. Whilst in prison they should be given every resource available to help them with their case so that it is resolved swiftly and they are not caught up for many years in a system designed for the guilty.

This would be beneficial to all concerned and would perhaps dispense with the need for vast amounts of compensation at the end of a long and unnecessary sentence.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

No amount of financial compensation can ever be any consolation for the time stolen from an innocent person's life when they have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted. A huge amount of money of course will help to re-establish a life; it can pay for somewhere to live outright and it will enable the released prisoner to purchase whatever is needed before finding suitable employment. This monetary compensation is therefore necessary but can in no way make up for the lost and stolen years.

On average in the UK, it takes an innocent person twelve years to overturn a wrongful conviction when imprisoned. What if that innocent person was you? Think about it… that's twelve long years deprived of your freedom for crimes you never committed – a murderer will only get fourteen years at the most nowadays.

During that time you may miss your children's entire childhood, friends and family may abandon or forget you or even worse they may start to disbelieve you. The world will move on without you and you are languishing in jail paying for a crime someone else committed or perhaps one that didn't happen at all. Twelve years battling through legal paperwork to prove your innocence.

Twelve years of being called an offender when you have done nothing wrong and twelve years of being browbeaten into admitting guilt for something you haven't done because the justice system does not like to admit it makes mistakes.

It's a sad but little known fact but it is far easier to get released from prison if you are guilty than if you are innocent. After all a jury has found you guilty and a judge has convicted you. Who's going to believe you now? The prison and probation officials will not hear the pleas of the innocent as they can only abide by the Court's decision so you are well and truly stitched up.

Your only hope is to find a good legal representative who believes in you. If you are mega rich, then money could be your saviour but for the poor, innocent prisoner on legal aid, you can bet your bottom dollar you will be in prison for a very long time.

As an innocent person wrongly convicted, it's as if you have been a God- fearing Christian all your life and have been thrown into Hell by mistake on the day you die, so how can money in the form of compensation ever make reparation for that?

Guilty prisoners know they have been incarcerated for a reason and they have to make amends for the harm they have done to society. They have their debt to pay in years and liberty, but what can an innocent prisoner do other than endeavour to prove that innocence?

The current justice system should be changed so that more help is given to those prisoners who claim they are morally innocent of all they have been accused of. Whilst in prison they should be given every resource available to help them with their case so that it is resolved swiftly and they are not caught up for many years in a system designed for the guilty.

This would be beneficial to all concerned and would perhaps dispense with the need for vast amounts of compensation at the end of a long and unnecessary sentence.

 

Devise a fair justice system which convicts the guilty and acquits the innocent

 

The people who suffer most at the hands of the UK Criminal Justice System are the innocent law-abiding citizens who have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted.

We all pay a price for these miscarriages of justice as ultimately it is the tax payer who has to foot the bill for wrongful convictions at a cost of more than 30,000 GB Pounds per prisoner.

The Justice System in the UK is convicting too many innocent people. This needs to change; prisons exist to reform and punish the guilty and are not intended to house the innocent because a faulty justice system keeps getting it wrong.

An accused person can be left in a police cell for three hours without food and water and interrogated even though they are innocent. Whatever they say in their defence can be twisted. It is far better to remain silent. The police don't concern themselves with either truth or innocence. Their job is to gather as much evidence as possible in order to secure a conviction. They will collect as many lies as they can and will treat the accused as guilty from day one with their "No smoke without fire" attitude.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

"Don't worry," you will tell yourself, if ever you have the misfortune to be falsely accused. "I'm innocent… I'll be O.K… my innocence will be my best defence."

WRONG!

Every citizen should have a right to a fair trial. This means that a jury should be able to question any unfairness by both prosecution and defence barristers. The accused should not be denied a proper defence due to inadequate legal funding or representation or on grounds of lack of time and resources. They should not be fobbed off with excuses every step of the way and be led like a lamb to the slaughter.

Justice is supposed to be all about balance; the jury must be permitted to assess the situation by weighing everything in the balance. But how can it be weighed in the balance correctly when the jury are only presented with one side of the story? A conviction is only supposed to happen when the jury are convinced "Beyond all reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty but if they are only presented with lies what hope is there for the innocent? Surely a verdict of "Not proven" would be far more sensible in cases of accusation alone?

A trial I attended recently devoted three days to the prosecution and less than two hours to the defence. It was a complete farce and a travesty of justice. There was no justice in the courtroom that day. Needless to say there was a conviction solely on the grounds of hearsay and collaboration of liars. The defendant, who was as innocent as Jesus, was convicted on words alone. There was no DNA evidence in the case of a rape or a body as in the case of a murder; the Verdict was based entirely on what the accusers had said the accused had done… because the jury believed without question every lie they uttered. The defendant was not allowed a proper defence. All the people who could have vouched for his innocence were not permitted to be present. The whole episode was engineered by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Services in order to secure a conviction. The defendant's accusers were even seen smirking from their position in the public gallery after appearing for the prosecution and making a mockery of the real truth.

Both accusers and accused should be willing to take lie detector tests and the ones found to be liars should be imprisoned. This would make liars think twice about making false allegations in order to gain monetary compensation and cause the life of an innocent person to be utterly ruined.

Every citizen should be able to demand the right to defend another citizen if they know the accused has been a victim of false allegations. The innocent should be protected by the law and not hounded by a system which makes them feel in a perpetual state of torment from the very day they are arrested.

Innocent citizens should not be forced into signing innocence away and accepting guilt and responsibility for crimes that never happened in order to get parole or a shorter sentence.

"Plead guilty and you will get a lighter sentence!" Innocent people are given this advice by their legal representatives every day. What madness is that? Admit to something you didn't do and you might get your sentence reduced to four years instead of six?

In prison it gets even worse… "Admit guilt and we will treat you well, but protest your innocence and you might never get out of here."

Little has changed since the witch hunts of the Middle Ages in some respects. Do you remember the "Ducking stools" from your History books? The guilty were supposed to survive the procedure but the innocent drowned!

The Spanish inquisition is still alive and well and dwells at the very heart of the UK Criminal Justice System. Its methods of securing a conviction are outdated and fallible and it allows itself to be corrupted by unscrupulous people whose sole aim is to deceive. Every law abiding citizen should demand a radical overhaul in order to protect the innocent and provide a better justice system for all.

Why is this idea important?

 

The people who suffer most at the hands of the UK Criminal Justice System are the innocent law-abiding citizens who have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted.

We all pay a price for these miscarriages of justice as ultimately it is the tax payer who has to foot the bill for wrongful convictions at a cost of more than 30,000 GB Pounds per prisoner.

The Justice System in the UK is convicting too many innocent people. This needs to change; prisons exist to reform and punish the guilty and are not intended to house the innocent because a faulty justice system keeps getting it wrong.

An accused person can be left in a police cell for three hours without food and water and interrogated even though they are innocent. Whatever they say in their defence can be twisted. It is far better to remain silent. The police don't concern themselves with either truth or innocence. Their job is to gather as much evidence as possible in order to secure a conviction. They will collect as many lies as they can and will treat the accused as guilty from day one with their "No smoke without fire" attitude.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

"Don't worry," you will tell yourself, if ever you have the misfortune to be falsely accused. "I'm innocent… I'll be O.K… my innocence will be my best defence."

WRONG!

Every citizen should have a right to a fair trial. This means that a jury should be able to question any unfairness by both prosecution and defence barristers. The accused should not be denied a proper defence due to inadequate legal funding or representation or on grounds of lack of time and resources. They should not be fobbed off with excuses every step of the way and be led like a lamb to the slaughter.

Justice is supposed to be all about balance; the jury must be permitted to assess the situation by weighing everything in the balance. But how can it be weighed in the balance correctly when the jury are only presented with one side of the story? A conviction is only supposed to happen when the jury are convinced "Beyond all reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty but if they are only presented with lies what hope is there for the innocent? Surely a verdict of "Not proven" would be far more sensible in cases of accusation alone?

A trial I attended recently devoted three days to the prosecution and less than two hours to the defence. It was a complete farce and a travesty of justice. There was no justice in the courtroom that day. Needless to say there was a conviction solely on the grounds of hearsay and collaboration of liars. The defendant, who was as innocent as Jesus, was convicted on words alone. There was no DNA evidence in the case of a rape or a body as in the case of a murder; the Verdict was based entirely on what the accusers had said the accused had done… because the jury believed without question every lie they uttered. The defendant was not allowed a proper defence. All the people who could have vouched for his innocence were not permitted to be present. The whole episode was engineered by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Services in order to secure a conviction. The defendant's accusers were even seen smirking from their position in the public gallery after appearing for the prosecution and making a mockery of the real truth.

Both accusers and accused should be willing to take lie detector tests and the ones found to be liars should be imprisoned. This would make liars think twice about making false allegations in order to gain monetary compensation and cause the life of an innocent person to be utterly ruined.

Every citizen should be able to demand the right to defend another citizen if they know the accused has been a victim of false allegations. The innocent should be protected by the law and not hounded by a system which makes them feel in a perpetual state of torment from the very day they are arrested.

Innocent citizens should not be forced into signing innocence away and accepting guilt and responsibility for crimes that never happened in order to get parole or a shorter sentence.

"Plead guilty and you will get a lighter sentence!" Innocent people are given this advice by their legal representatives every day. What madness is that? Admit to something you didn't do and you might get your sentence reduced to four years instead of six?

In prison it gets even worse… "Admit guilt and we will treat you well, but protest your innocence and you might never get out of here."

Little has changed since the witch hunts of the Middle Ages in some respects. Do you remember the "Ducking stools" from your History books? The guilty were supposed to survive the procedure but the innocent drowned!

The Spanish inquisition is still alive and well and dwells at the very heart of the UK Criminal Justice System. Its methods of securing a conviction are outdated and fallible and it allows itself to be corrupted by unscrupulous people whose sole aim is to deceive. Every law abiding citizen should demand a radical overhaul in order to protect the innocent and provide a better justice system for all.

Repeal The Lie’s & Deceit Of Generations Of Prohibition

After more than half a century of lies and deceit regarding cannabis and the reasons put forward for prohibition by successive governments in order to uphold the lie, the British public are wising up to the whitewash.

We will no longer accept the government's explanation of the merits of prohibition, neither will we continue to be lead astray by such pervasive deceitful policy.

The British public are far in advance of the government on the issue of the "War On Drugs", we have long acknowledged that the fundamental policy is corrupt and utterly unjust, unworkable and morally defunct.

It is now time for the government to repeal all such policies of openly lying to its electorate. It is time for the Government to play catch up with the public whim.

I demand that the government explain to the public why they have felt the need to deceive us for generations and why they have unjustly, immorally and unethically imprisoned so many citizens under trumped up charges that never made any rational sense. I demand to know why they continue to believe that it is right or correct to ruin some body's life for the act of consuming a substance that is of no consequence to anybody but themselves. Lastly, I am sure that I am not alone in also demanding that the Government come clean regarding the entire issue of prohibition and issue a deep and heartfelt apology to the public for creating and continuing to advocate possibly the second greatest deceitful  lie in human history.

REPEAL the governments ability to lie to their electorate by adopting rigid scientific and empirically lead independent bodies that can assess all comments made by government and analyse their factual content without interference from state.

Why is this idea important?

After more than half a century of lies and deceit regarding cannabis and the reasons put forward for prohibition by successive governments in order to uphold the lie, the British public are wising up to the whitewash.

We will no longer accept the government's explanation of the merits of prohibition, neither will we continue to be lead astray by such pervasive deceitful policy.

The British public are far in advance of the government on the issue of the "War On Drugs", we have long acknowledged that the fundamental policy is corrupt and utterly unjust, unworkable and morally defunct.

It is now time for the government to repeal all such policies of openly lying to its electorate. It is time for the Government to play catch up with the public whim.

I demand that the government explain to the public why they have felt the need to deceive us for generations and why they have unjustly, immorally and unethically imprisoned so many citizens under trumped up charges that never made any rational sense. I demand to know why they continue to believe that it is right or correct to ruin some body's life for the act of consuming a substance that is of no consequence to anybody but themselves. Lastly, I am sure that I am not alone in also demanding that the Government come clean regarding the entire issue of prohibition and issue a deep and heartfelt apology to the public for creating and continuing to advocate possibly the second greatest deceitful  lie in human history.

REPEAL the governments ability to lie to their electorate by adopting rigid scientific and empirically lead independent bodies that can assess all comments made by government and analyse their factual content without interference from state.

UK courts should recognise the laws of physics

A frequent complaint about UK courts is that they often believe statements that contradict the known laws of physics, and sometimes believe so called expert witnesses who believe in alternative realities.

Why is this idea important?

A frequent complaint about UK courts is that they often believe statements that contradict the known laws of physics, and sometimes believe so called expert witnesses who believe in alternative realities.

Allow public access to Downing Street again

I would very much like Downing Street to be available once again to the general public.  I appreciate the need for security, but surely we all need the right to be able to stroll down and see the dwellings that are paid for out of the public purse for the Prime Minister of the day to live in.  I remember when I was at school going down past No 10, what a thrill it was!  A policeman on duty outside, who was willing to pose for pictures and the knowledge that this was the house that the prime minister of the day did the normal things such as watching television and leaving his dirty socks on the floor for someone else to pick up.  Such a trip was denied to my children, how I would have loved to take them myself.  Please, David and Nick, open up Downing Street again and let us all be able to take a picture of the famous door, and show our children that this is the place where the Prime Minister ponders over many important affairs of state r during toast and cornflakes,  or while tossing and turning through the night.

Why is this idea important?

I would very much like Downing Street to be available once again to the general public.  I appreciate the need for security, but surely we all need the right to be able to stroll down and see the dwellings that are paid for out of the public purse for the Prime Minister of the day to live in.  I remember when I was at school going down past No 10, what a thrill it was!  A policeman on duty outside, who was willing to pose for pictures and the knowledge that this was the house that the prime minister of the day did the normal things such as watching television and leaving his dirty socks on the floor for someone else to pick up.  Such a trip was denied to my children, how I would have loved to take them myself.  Please, David and Nick, open up Downing Street again and let us all be able to take a picture of the famous door, and show our children that this is the place where the Prime Minister ponders over many important affairs of state r during toast and cornflakes,  or while tossing and turning through the night.