Review the laws surrounding offences against the person

A complete overhaul of the whole raft of legislation surrounding offences against the person to include strong support for those using force to prevent crime, disorder and in self defence.

At the lowest level consider removing completely the offence of common assault. This makes it an offence to bump into someone in the street and it is only the increasingly rare practice of common sense that prevents someone being prosecuted for a rugby tackle during a match or a minor squabble between school kids. Common assault is an assault where there is no injury and sometimes not even any contact between two people. People need to be more tolerant! Replace it with indictable offences of assault with a weapon, resisting arrest(sentence not to be served concurrently) and domestic assault.

In the middle we have ABH and GBH. These offences can often be very arbitray. Where similar acts can be charged very differently and the intent or possibilities are secondary. It is possible to attack someone with a sword and cause a minor cut thus being charged with ABH or common assault whilst someone else has a minor punch up often where both parties are equally to blame and the victim ends up (most often through drunkenness) falling and injuring themselves thus gaining the other party a charge of GBH. I believe that the whole raft of different offences should be condensed into one charge of assault where injury is caused and leave it for the court to decide an appropriate sentence based on all the surrounding facts.

At the top end we have Manslaughter and Murder. In my experience these work well and should remain largely unchanged though there is a strange quirk of the system where the same sentence is applied to those that commit the most serious of serial offences and those that commit their offence, for example, after extreme provocation and present little ongoing risk.

This review needs to clear up the ambiguity surrounding the lawful use of force and apply strong safeguards to those who find themselves using force because they felt they had to in order to prevent crime, disorder and make arrests. There should be a strong bias against prosecuting such people even if they are mistaken. This should apply to the Police and other members of the public and should reflect the fact that people have to react quickly, on instinct, and don't have the time to weigh up the pros and cons.

Finally offences involving violence should be fast tracked through the court system as they pose the stongest threat to our society with the highest risk offenders.

Why is this idea important?

A complete overhaul of the whole raft of legislation surrounding offences against the person to include strong support for those using force to prevent crime, disorder and in self defence.

At the lowest level consider removing completely the offence of common assault. This makes it an offence to bump into someone in the street and it is only the increasingly rare practice of common sense that prevents someone being prosecuted for a rugby tackle during a match or a minor squabble between school kids. Common assault is an assault where there is no injury and sometimes not even any contact between two people. People need to be more tolerant! Replace it with indictable offences of assault with a weapon, resisting arrest(sentence not to be served concurrently) and domestic assault.

In the middle we have ABH and GBH. These offences can often be very arbitray. Where similar acts can be charged very differently and the intent or possibilities are secondary. It is possible to attack someone with a sword and cause a minor cut thus being charged with ABH or common assault whilst someone else has a minor punch up often where both parties are equally to blame and the victim ends up (most often through drunkenness) falling and injuring themselves thus gaining the other party a charge of GBH. I believe that the whole raft of different offences should be condensed into one charge of assault where injury is caused and leave it for the court to decide an appropriate sentence based on all the surrounding facts.

At the top end we have Manslaughter and Murder. In my experience these work well and should remain largely unchanged though there is a strange quirk of the system where the same sentence is applied to those that commit the most serious of serial offences and those that commit their offence, for example, after extreme provocation and present little ongoing risk.

This review needs to clear up the ambiguity surrounding the lawful use of force and apply strong safeguards to those who find themselves using force because they felt they had to in order to prevent crime, disorder and make arrests. There should be a strong bias against prosecuting such people even if they are mistaken. This should apply to the Police and other members of the public and should reflect the fact that people have to react quickly, on instinct, and don't have the time to weigh up the pros and cons.

Finally offences involving violence should be fast tracked through the court system as they pose the stongest threat to our society with the highest risk offenders.

Revoke firearm permits of convicted violent criminals and seize all their weapons

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Why is this idea important?

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Re balance the rights of the victim versus those of the criminal

If an intruder enters my house without invitation, I consider that act in itself to be one of violent aggression. I consider it my right to use any means to protect my wife and children in these circumstances.

Equally, if I see someone mugging a little old lady and I intervene, I expect to be supported by the police and the courts – not criminalised.

Why is this idea important?

If an intruder enters my house without invitation, I consider that act in itself to be one of violent aggression. I consider it my right to use any means to protect my wife and children in these circumstances.

Equally, if I see someone mugging a little old lady and I intervene, I expect to be supported by the police and the courts – not criminalised.

Automatic Jail For Violent Offences

Make it an automatic jail sentence for "any" form of violence toward another person. This would include hitting someone in the street or a pub etc. Regardless of the reason, no one has the right to strike another person. In a modern world we should be able to control our tempers and walk away, knowing that the strong arm of the law will be upon the person that struck us.

Why is this idea important?

Make it an automatic jail sentence for "any" form of violence toward another person. This would include hitting someone in the street or a pub etc. Regardless of the reason, no one has the right to strike another person. In a modern world we should be able to control our tempers and walk away, knowing that the strong arm of the law will be upon the person that struck us.

Repeal the Firearms Amendment Act of 1996

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

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

self-defence

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

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

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

Why is this idea important?

In dealing with personal defence the questions to be answered are such as:  ‘What are you going to do if – you have intruders in the house – a gang is damaging your property – armed intruders break into your house, cinema, shop, school?’ etc. 

The police have no legal obligation to protect individuals from violence.  You alone are responsible for dealing with such incidents in the first instance.  In addition you have a civic and moral duty to be prepared to protect yourself and others.  All laws relating to assault and the carrying of weapons must thus be amended to allow citizens to act in such situations without fear of prosecution.  

Reasonable force.  This term should be abandoned – it is a contradiction in terms. Personal violence is inherently unreasonable because it is always life-threatening and automatically invokes our ‘flight or fight’ survival response.  Our bodies change involuntarily to protect us and our minds  focus solely on what we can do to survive – we become less human.  Given that few of us experience violence, the idea that the righteousness of our actions in a few frenzied seconds of terror and panic can be determined calmly in a court of law is both ludicrous, offensive and an asset to the criminal.  

Weapons.  The current laws forbidding the carrying of weapons should be repealed and replaced by one relating to their use:  brandishing one in public would be an automatic offence (fine) and also make the brandisher a legitimate self-defence target for other citizens;  threatening with one would be an automatic jail sentence.

The law banning the carrying of knives has not prevented any killings but has had law-abiding people prosecuted for carrying multi-tools and Swiss Army knives etc.  90 years of very strict firearms ‘control’ legislation has not prevented spree killings, or a relentless increase in firearms crime.  It has however, given criminals a cast-iron. Government-backed guarantee that their victims will be defenceless. 

To claim that the availability of weapons encourages their use is not supported by evidence and, in a politician, shows a profound lack of trust in the people.  The Swiss have more firearms per head of population than the US and very little armed crime and even in the ‘infamous’ US itself, burglary and house invasions are quite rare.   

The only thing that might have stopped Michael Ryan at Hungerford, Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane, Derrick Bird in Cumbria or so-called terrorists taking to our streets as in Mumbai is the possibility that any citizen, anywhere, might be in a position to return fire. 

Incidentally, being safe with a firearm is blissfully easy – well within the intellectual compass of the average six-year old.

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

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

Review of Firearms legislation

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

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

Why is this idea important?

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

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

Stop protecting the anonymity of teenagers convicted of violent crime

Amend the law which grants the right of anonymity to young offenders so that it does not apply to those aged 13 or over convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder and grievous bodily harm.

The law should be protecting the victims of these crimes, not the perpetrators.  What is more, the public should have the right to know the identity of someone who has been convicted of committing a very serious crime in their community.

By the age of 13 someone should be well aware that such crimes destroy the lives of the victims and the victims’ families and should thus suffer the full consequences of their actions.  The perpetrators of these crimes are violent thugs, not sweet, innocent ‘children’ who need mollycoddling and protecting, and the law should reflect this.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the law which grants the right of anonymity to young offenders so that it does not apply to those aged 13 or over convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder and grievous bodily harm.

The law should be protecting the victims of these crimes, not the perpetrators.  What is more, the public should have the right to know the identity of someone who has been convicted of committing a very serious crime in their community.

By the age of 13 someone should be well aware that such crimes destroy the lives of the victims and the victims’ families and should thus suffer the full consequences of their actions.  The perpetrators of these crimes are violent thugs, not sweet, innocent ‘children’ who need mollycoddling and protecting, and the law should reflect this.

replica fire arms

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

Why is this idea important?

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

New Firearms Licensing system

My idea is this, the replacement of the current firearms licensing system with a more simple and effective system that does not make criminals out of those who make a small mistake. eg owning 600 rounds of ammunition when allowed to only have 500.

Remove the need to name each calibre and action when gaining a Firearms certificate (FAC) and simply add new weapons and calibres to the FAC upon purchasing them and hence retaining the registration of all firearms.  Thus saving a huge amount of paperwork and unnecesary costs and allowing the person to have their license far faster, as it can take months in somecases for the police department to carry out the paperwork.

Remove ammunition limits, currently the system states on an individual basis how much of each calibre a person can own and purchase at any time, this is something which does nothing other than increase the frequency at which a firearms owner must visit the gun shop or produce his own ammunition via handloading. So long as all ammunition can be stored correctly in an ammunition cabinet there is no reason to limit the quantity of ammunition a firearms owner has, especially given that he can buy the components to produce his own ammunition without any limit or records. To claim that someone may break into the house and steal the weapons and ammunition would be incorrect and ignorant of just how well firearms/ammunition cabinets are fitted.

Remove the ban upon semi automatic centrefire rifles and handguns, the removal of semi automatic rifles from law abiding good people has lead to quite literally nothing positive, it has caused the practical rifle sport to diminish greatly and removed a great number of people from being interested in shooting. If a person has been proven to to be of good personality and responsability there is no reason to prevent them from owning such a firearm. Likewise with handguns which made up a large number of British shooters and was a fast growing sport there is again no reason to prevent a proven person to own these firearms.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

My idea is this, the replacement of the current firearms licensing system with a more simple and effective system that does not make criminals out of those who make a small mistake. eg owning 600 rounds of ammunition when allowed to only have 500.

Remove the need to name each calibre and action when gaining a Firearms certificate (FAC) and simply add new weapons and calibres to the FAC upon purchasing them and hence retaining the registration of all firearms.  Thus saving a huge amount of paperwork and unnecesary costs and allowing the person to have their license far faster, as it can take months in somecases for the police department to carry out the paperwork.

Remove ammunition limits, currently the system states on an individual basis how much of each calibre a person can own and purchase at any time, this is something which does nothing other than increase the frequency at which a firearms owner must visit the gun shop or produce his own ammunition via handloading. So long as all ammunition can be stored correctly in an ammunition cabinet there is no reason to limit the quantity of ammunition a firearms owner has, especially given that he can buy the components to produce his own ammunition without any limit or records. To claim that someone may break into the house and steal the weapons and ammunition would be incorrect and ignorant of just how well firearms/ammunition cabinets are fitted.

Remove the ban upon semi automatic centrefire rifles and handguns, the removal of semi automatic rifles from law abiding good people has lead to quite literally nothing positive, it has caused the practical rifle sport to diminish greatly and removed a great number of people from being interested in shooting. If a person has been proven to to be of good personality and responsability there is no reason to prevent them from owning such a firearm. Likewise with handguns which made up a large number of British shooters and was a fast growing sport there is again no reason to prevent a proven person to own these firearms.

 

 

Repeal the Obscene Publications Act of 1959 and 1964

The Obscene Publications Acts prohibit the production of material likely to "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it. This is applied to all films being processed by the BBFC, especially pornography.

I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.

Why is this idea important?

The Obscene Publications Acts prohibit the production of material likely to "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it. This is applied to all films being processed by the BBFC, especially pornography.

I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.

with the comming of the 2012 Olympics and the hand gun ban

Yes this will creat some remarks,after the Dunblaine shootings the then goverment organised a report on the use of all firearms at a cost of I beleave 5 -6 £ millions and then took no notice of the Cullen report, who stated that small calibre hand guns that are used on ranges could still be used under strict controls as we are now. What I would like is the Cullen report inplimemted and allow us british shooters to have the same right as our cousins in europe enjoy and can practice for sporting events

Why is this idea important?

Yes this will creat some remarks,after the Dunblaine shootings the then goverment organised a report on the use of all firearms at a cost of I beleave 5 -6 £ millions and then took no notice of the Cullen report, who stated that small calibre hand guns that are used on ranges could still be used under strict controls as we are now. What I would like is the Cullen report inplimemted and allow us british shooters to have the same right as our cousins in europe enjoy and can practice for sporting events

Review of UK Firearms Law

A few years ago hand the firearms acts were tightned, now I know that because of the gun attacks in the Lake District and northumbria there are I am sure going to people who want all guns banned. But the banning of handguns hasn't worked infact it did exactly what I am I am sure many other said at the time. It made things worse not better, there are still handguns being used by criminals but where as before the police could take any gun that was found after a murder and check it against a database to see who owned it last now they only have an outdated database.

Before the ban on handguns was introduced there had only been maybe a hundred deaths caused by people with handguns since the 2nd world war but since the ban there has been upto 20 a year. Tighten Gun Laws add restictions but don't ban.  The UK used to have a firearms manufacturing sector which built some to the best guns in the world now even the replica firearms industry is being put out of buiness by laws. 

Guns don't kill people the man or woman who points and the fires the gun is the one whose doing the killing.  I mean if we banned everything that killed more than 20 people a year then the Cars, Buses, Lorries, Trains and even aeroplanes would have been banned years ago!

And cars are one of the most dangerous weapons there is! "Not only can they kill but while a bullet can only go in one direction a car can have its direction changed, guarenteing that it hits and kills a victim.  And you can't just ban something bacause it might be dangerous.

Why is this idea important?

A few years ago hand the firearms acts were tightned, now I know that because of the gun attacks in the Lake District and northumbria there are I am sure going to people who want all guns banned. But the banning of handguns hasn't worked infact it did exactly what I am I am sure many other said at the time. It made things worse not better, there are still handguns being used by criminals but where as before the police could take any gun that was found after a murder and check it against a database to see who owned it last now they only have an outdated database.

Before the ban on handguns was introduced there had only been maybe a hundred deaths caused by people with handguns since the 2nd world war but since the ban there has been upto 20 a year. Tighten Gun Laws add restictions but don't ban.  The UK used to have a firearms manufacturing sector which built some to the best guns in the world now even the replica firearms industry is being put out of buiness by laws. 

Guns don't kill people the man or woman who points and the fires the gun is the one whose doing the killing.  I mean if we banned everything that killed more than 20 people a year then the Cars, Buses, Lorries, Trains and even aeroplanes would have been banned years ago!

And cars are one of the most dangerous weapons there is! "Not only can they kill but while a bullet can only go in one direction a car can have its direction changed, guarenteing that it hits and kills a victim.  And you can't just ban something bacause it might be dangerous.

Review Mandatory Firearms sentences

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Why is this idea important?

As a competitive target shooter and club secretary, I am really worried about mandatory sentences for firearms offences.  It would be all to easy to commit a simple offence – like accidentally dropping a round of ammunition in my gun-bag and therefore not locking it away properly, or picking up a box of ammunition left on the range by another shooter (if you are not permitted to hold that calibre of ammunition, then that too is an offence, even though it's the sensible thing to do). Other 'offences' could include being passed ammunition and/or gun spares by the widow of a deceased member (again, if you are not entitled to hold that calibre of ammunition it is an offence, and the gun spares could include components that nowadays would have to be entered on a Firearms Certificate, but years ago did not). There are a great many other examples, but I think the above is sufficient to illustrate the point.

Any of these currently require a mandatory 5-year jail sentence, which is horribly punitive and as a bona-fide target shooter (and no threat to law and order) is utterly unreasonable.

Regards – Richard Knight.

Don't get me started on Tony Blair taking "Guns off the Streets" – a campaign that decimated my sport with no affect whatsoever on illegal users of firearms.  

Ban Guns and knifes!!!!!!!

Please ban guns and knifes I know we have tough policy's on gun's and knifes, but not enough is been done.  As with more shootings at the weekend, and a stabbing with knife in London.  It is just not the victim's who suffer, but the families all suffer.I do no that they will go underground for them.  If they do and are caught they should get tougher sentences especially if they are going out intending to killing.  I know also the civil liberties will oppose this, but they are going out to intend to kill.  So what about the intended victims' rights too.

Why is this idea important?

Please ban guns and knifes I know we have tough policy's on gun's and knifes, but not enough is been done.  As with more shootings at the weekend, and a stabbing with knife in London.  It is just not the victim's who suffer, but the families all suffer.I do no that they will go underground for them.  If they do and are caught they should get tougher sentences especially if they are going out intending to killing.  I know also the civil liberties will oppose this, but they are going out to intend to kill.  So what about the intended victims' rights too.

Should we legalise low-level drugs such as cannabis?

We all know that drugs, unless pharmaceutical, are usually bad for us. But you still drink, some of you still smoke. This is where drug dealers come in. They often sell cannabis for high prices compared to its actual value.

This high price often causes addicts to commit robberies or muggings to raise the money for their next 'hit'. The high value also increases the likelihood of violence between gangs and dealers.

But, let's just say, what if the market were to disappear. Supply and demand, the basis of Capitalism, states that without a market, the value plummets, even faster than BP's shares. Without the changing of hands of large quantities of money, gangs would be far less likely to flair up into violence, as they would have no high-value assets to protect.

The way to remove the market from back-alley dealers is to legalise Cannabis. I have never smoked any substance in my life, but I do strongly believe in this method. If, like in Amsterdam, Cannabis were to be sold in heavily regulated establishments, with relatively high taxes on it to fund extra healthcare, but not as high a price as the illegal sellers, the addicts would be confined into regulated spaces and would, if they were to become violent, only harm each other.

Granted, the Western World's problem with drugs will never disappear, but if we were to confine and regulate the problem, surely that is better than what we have now.

Also, yes, Cannabis has been proven to, in some cases, lead to Neural disorders such as Psychosis and Schizophrenia, but luckily this is rare and containable.

Take Alcohol for example, the use of which causes far too many deaths and violent acts each year. Alcohol is legal, yet if you were to walk into any Hospital's A&E Department between 10pm and 4am on a Friday or Saturday, you would wonder how it is still legal. Alcohol costs the NHS millions, possibly billions, each year, far more than most other drugs put together.

Also, taking violence into account, if you are at a concert or sports event, and a man starts to become violent and aggressive, is he drunk or has he been smoking Cannabis?

On top of this, I, along with many others, would agree that users of Cannabis should not be allowed to waste NHS funds and so treatment for drug-related problems should be allowed to be denied by the Doctor asked to perform the aforementioned treatment.

In short, the legalisation, but heavy taxing, of Cannabis could be a good thing for our country as a whole, as Cannabis tends to make people relaxed.

Why is this idea important?

We all know that drugs, unless pharmaceutical, are usually bad for us. But you still drink, some of you still smoke. This is where drug dealers come in. They often sell cannabis for high prices compared to its actual value.

This high price often causes addicts to commit robberies or muggings to raise the money for their next 'hit'. The high value also increases the likelihood of violence between gangs and dealers.

But, let's just say, what if the market were to disappear. Supply and demand, the basis of Capitalism, states that without a market, the value plummets, even faster than BP's shares. Without the changing of hands of large quantities of money, gangs would be far less likely to flair up into violence, as they would have no high-value assets to protect.

The way to remove the market from back-alley dealers is to legalise Cannabis. I have never smoked any substance in my life, but I do strongly believe in this method. If, like in Amsterdam, Cannabis were to be sold in heavily regulated establishments, with relatively high taxes on it to fund extra healthcare, but not as high a price as the illegal sellers, the addicts would be confined into regulated spaces and would, if they were to become violent, only harm each other.

Granted, the Western World's problem with drugs will never disappear, but if we were to confine and regulate the problem, surely that is better than what we have now.

Also, yes, Cannabis has been proven to, in some cases, lead to Neural disorders such as Psychosis and Schizophrenia, but luckily this is rare and containable.

Take Alcohol for example, the use of which causes far too many deaths and violent acts each year. Alcohol is legal, yet if you were to walk into any Hospital's A&E Department between 10pm and 4am on a Friday or Saturday, you would wonder how it is still legal. Alcohol costs the NHS millions, possibly billions, each year, far more than most other drugs put together.

Also, taking violence into account, if you are at a concert or sports event, and a man starts to become violent and aggressive, is he drunk or has he been smoking Cannabis?

On top of this, I, along with many others, would agree that users of Cannabis should not be allowed to waste NHS funds and so treatment for drug-related problems should be allowed to be denied by the Doctor asked to perform the aforementioned treatment.

In short, the legalisation, but heavy taxing, of Cannabis could be a good thing for our country as a whole, as Cannabis tends to make people relaxed.

Repeal the Firearms Act 1968 and amendments

My proposal is to seek the repeal of the 1968 Fierarms Act and its ammendments. A new Firearms Act is long overdue. Not simply to tinker and ammend but to look for the best legislation. They have proved outdated and not fit for purpose. The current legislation and its 2002 guidance are both draconian and lax, but not logical. It is my role, for a Constabulary to use this Act to licence certificate holders. The ammendments especially are without doubt pure reactive legislation, which as can be seen by recent events have failed to adequatley protect the public in general or the shooting community.

Proposals for a new Act could include such matters as;

  1. A single certificate rather than the current two
  2. Provision to licence people not the firearms
  3. Introduction of statutory  accredited training courses in order to support applications
  4. Statutory reporting by GP's of illnesses, injuries or medications which might affect continued holding of a certificate
  5. Introduction of review panels to deal with appeals against revocation or refusal by Chief Constables. Rather than the current use of Crown Courts.
  6. Formalise to a national standard for training and operation of Firearms Licensing Officers/Management.
  7. To provide a time limited certificate suspension, rather than revocation of a certificate as the only option in circumstances that require investigation.
  8. Provide fixed penalties for minor offences and or formal cautions.
  9. To revisit Lord Cullen's report to review the return of handguns for target shooting.
  10. The provision of a national body to oversea Firearms Licensing.
  11. Statutory self reporting by certificate holders of certain life changing events which might affect short or long term gun ownership
  12. To provide a debate on new legislation by a body, having specialised knowledge and for that body to be the only forum to provide future legislation to the Home Secretary. 
  13. To provide a better understanding of how implementation can be achieved calling on the input of the practitioners not just the representative bodies. Shooting is a practical issue and should not be legislated upon for political capitol or furtherance of organisational standing.

Whilst this is only a flavour of a Future Firearms Act much could be achieved. 

Why is this idea important?

My proposal is to seek the repeal of the 1968 Fierarms Act and its ammendments. A new Firearms Act is long overdue. Not simply to tinker and ammend but to look for the best legislation. They have proved outdated and not fit for purpose. The current legislation and its 2002 guidance are both draconian and lax, but not logical. It is my role, for a Constabulary to use this Act to licence certificate holders. The ammendments especially are without doubt pure reactive legislation, which as can be seen by recent events have failed to adequatley protect the public in general or the shooting community.

Proposals for a new Act could include such matters as;

  1. A single certificate rather than the current two
  2. Provision to licence people not the firearms
  3. Introduction of statutory  accredited training courses in order to support applications
  4. Statutory reporting by GP's of illnesses, injuries or medications which might affect continued holding of a certificate
  5. Introduction of review panels to deal with appeals against revocation or refusal by Chief Constables. Rather than the current use of Crown Courts.
  6. Formalise to a national standard for training and operation of Firearms Licensing Officers/Management.
  7. To provide a time limited certificate suspension, rather than revocation of a certificate as the only option in circumstances that require investigation.
  8. Provide fixed penalties for minor offences and or formal cautions.
  9. To revisit Lord Cullen's report to review the return of handguns for target shooting.
  10. The provision of a national body to oversea Firearms Licensing.
  11. Statutory self reporting by certificate holders of certain life changing events which might affect short or long term gun ownership
  12. To provide a debate on new legislation by a body, having specialised knowledge and for that body to be the only forum to provide future legislation to the Home Secretary. 
  13. To provide a better understanding of how implementation can be achieved calling on the input of the practitioners not just the representative bodies. Shooting is a practical issue and should not be legislated upon for political capitol or furtherance of organisational standing.

Whilst this is only a flavour of a Future Firearms Act much could be achieved. 

Bring back the cane to restore order in schools

 
 

More than 20 years after corporal punishment was banned in state schools, many teachers said it was acceptable to hit children "in extreme cases".

The majority of those backing the cane said it was needed to crackdown on bad behaviour in British schools.

It follows a Government-backed study last year which found many parents believed discipline had deteriorated since the cane was abolished.

In the latest poll, 20.3 per cent of teachers said it should be reintroduced.

One supply teacher told researchers: "Children's behaviour is now absolutely outrageous in the majority of schools. I am a supply teacher, so I see very many schools and there are no sanctions. There are too many anger management people and their ilk who give children the idea that it is their right to flounce out of lessons for time out because they have problems with their temper. They should be caned instead."

And a primary teacher, said: "There is justification, or an argument, for bringing back corporal punishment, if only as a deterrent. I believe some children just don't respond to the current sanctions."

The Times Educational Supplement surveyed 6,162 teachers.

Support for a return to corporal punishment was strongest among secondary teachers, with 22 per cent backing the idea compared with 16 per cent of those in primary schools.

But support was lower among senior staff – head teachers and deputies – with just 12 per cent supported the caning of pupils.

The cane was abolished in state schools in 1987 and 1998 in the fee-paying sector.

John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Thankfully, corporal punishment is no longer on the agenda, except in the most uncivilised countries. I am sure that this barbaric punishment has disappeared forever."

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Violence against children is clearly unacceptable and illegal."

Why is this idea important?

 
 

More than 20 years after corporal punishment was banned in state schools, many teachers said it was acceptable to hit children "in extreme cases".

The majority of those backing the cane said it was needed to crackdown on bad behaviour in British schools.

It follows a Government-backed study last year which found many parents believed discipline had deteriorated since the cane was abolished.

In the latest poll, 20.3 per cent of teachers said it should be reintroduced.

One supply teacher told researchers: "Children's behaviour is now absolutely outrageous in the majority of schools. I am a supply teacher, so I see very many schools and there are no sanctions. There are too many anger management people and their ilk who give children the idea that it is their right to flounce out of lessons for time out because they have problems with their temper. They should be caned instead."

And a primary teacher, said: "There is justification, or an argument, for bringing back corporal punishment, if only as a deterrent. I believe some children just don't respond to the current sanctions."

The Times Educational Supplement surveyed 6,162 teachers.

Support for a return to corporal punishment was strongest among secondary teachers, with 22 per cent backing the idea compared with 16 per cent of those in primary schools.

But support was lower among senior staff – head teachers and deputies – with just 12 per cent supported the caning of pupils.

The cane was abolished in state schools in 1987 and 1998 in the fee-paying sector.

John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Thankfully, corporal punishment is no longer on the agenda, except in the most uncivilised countries. I am sure that this barbaric punishment has disappeared forever."

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Violence against children is clearly unacceptable and illegal."

repeal the hunting with dogs law

It is very clear to me that those who support this absurd law hav no concept of the real reasons for hunting with hounds, prior to the ban the quarry, in this case fox was persued by hounds, the strongest easily outran the hounds & escaped &  for the most part only the sick & weak were caught & killed, ALWAYS by the lead hound (there is one in every hunting pack) a broken neck being the cause of death. this ensured that a good strong fox population was maintained to the benefit of the countryside. As it is now, gun packs shoot EVERY fox they find! the result could easily mean the demise of the rural fox….Stop listening to the "bunny huggers & repeal this absurd law NOW.  longdogs 3

Why is this idea important?

It is very clear to me that those who support this absurd law hav no concept of the real reasons for hunting with hounds, prior to the ban the quarry, in this case fox was persued by hounds, the strongest easily outran the hounds & escaped &  for the most part only the sick & weak were caught & killed, ALWAYS by the lead hound (there is one in every hunting pack) a broken neck being the cause of death. this ensured that a good strong fox population was maintained to the benefit of the countryside. As it is now, gun packs shoot EVERY fox they find! the result could easily mean the demise of the rural fox….Stop listening to the "bunny huggers & repeal this absurd law NOW.  longdogs 3

LEGAL AID AS A RIGHT FOR VICTIMS OF PROVEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

I have been the victim of an extreme act of domestic violence by my then husband.  He was imprisoned for 6 years (getting out after only 3) but because he was in prison, he (the offender) was automatically awarded legal aid for the divorce proceedings.  I (the victim) was initially granted legal aid, then had the certificate cancelled because I was given a modest severance payment from my employer who terminated my employment because I was unfit to work after being attacked!  Legal Services then claimed over £1500 back for work that was done under the certificate (then placed a charge on my property).  My ex husband (the Offender) fought all through the courts, hiring barristers etc because he was getting it free!  I was in no position to allow this to happen and so had to continue with my right for justice.  The courts subsequently found in my favour and awarded costs – but because he was being funded by LSC, the costs were claimed against LSC under Section 11 of the Access to Criminal Justice Act 1998.  When legal services were invited by my solicitor to pay the costs the found a loophole which neither the Judge, nor my Barrister were aware of.  Legal Services refused to pay under the Community Services (cost protection) (amendment Regulations 2005 (S1 2005 No.2006).  The effect of this Amendment to the regulations in 205 was to remove costs protection, as envisged by s.11 of the Access to Justice Act, from family proceedings.  In short, it meant that they won't pay – so I am left with all the legal costs it taken me to rid myself of a convicted violent man!!  PLEASE amend this regulation once more to read "except in cases of proven domestic violence" ……. women (or men) who are fighting for justice after violent acts such as this should be supported every inch of the way to get them out of these disastrous and life threatening marriages or partnerships!   This is a TERRIBLE amendment and in effect the regulations as they stand effectively nullify s.11 of the Access to Just Act in family proceedings – it should NOT do so in family proceedings which become necessary because of an act of extreme violence against one of the parties of the marriage!

Why is this idea important?

I have been the victim of an extreme act of domestic violence by my then husband.  He was imprisoned for 6 years (getting out after only 3) but because he was in prison, he (the offender) was automatically awarded legal aid for the divorce proceedings.  I (the victim) was initially granted legal aid, then had the certificate cancelled because I was given a modest severance payment from my employer who terminated my employment because I was unfit to work after being attacked!  Legal Services then claimed over £1500 back for work that was done under the certificate (then placed a charge on my property).  My ex husband (the Offender) fought all through the courts, hiring barristers etc because he was getting it free!  I was in no position to allow this to happen and so had to continue with my right for justice.  The courts subsequently found in my favour and awarded costs – but because he was being funded by LSC, the costs were claimed against LSC under Section 11 of the Access to Criminal Justice Act 1998.  When legal services were invited by my solicitor to pay the costs the found a loophole which neither the Judge, nor my Barrister were aware of.  Legal Services refused to pay under the Community Services (cost protection) (amendment Regulations 2005 (S1 2005 No.2006).  The effect of this Amendment to the regulations in 205 was to remove costs protection, as envisged by s.11 of the Access to Justice Act, from family proceedings.  In short, it meant that they won't pay – so I am left with all the legal costs it taken me to rid myself of a convicted violent man!!  PLEASE amend this regulation once more to read "except in cases of proven domestic violence" ……. women (or men) who are fighting for justice after violent acts such as this should be supported every inch of the way to get them out of these disastrous and life threatening marriages or partnerships!   This is a TERRIBLE amendment and in effect the regulations as they stand effectively nullify s.11 of the Access to Just Act in family proceedings – it should NOT do so in family proceedings which become necessary because of an act of extreme violence against one of the parties of the marriage!

Ban of semi automatic firearms and pistols

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.

It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.

Why is this idea important?

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where there are people who wish to use objects to there advantage to facilitate crime. It is well known that knife crime is rising in the United Kingdom and also that gun crime has increased since the bans, it is illogical to assume that restricting firearms will reduce crime as people who intend other people harm or fear will use whatever means necessary to accomplish this. Therefore surely as a society as a whole we should endeavour to address the root cause of the problems rather than restricting the freedoms of the citizens who are law abiding. I will repeat myself but for a good reason, it is unfortunate that we live in a society such as this, yet we do! In a hypothetic situation you have a man who steals purses while riding a motorbike, you take away his motorbike license and he uses a stolen motorbike, you ban motorbikes and he uses a bicylce then you ban bicycles and he does it on foot. The point of this is there are people who will commit crimes no matter how they have to do it. It has been shown statistically that crime did not go down after the ban on firearms it went up. It is unfathomable for me as a business and law student to understand the logic of the government in banning firearms and not addressing the causes of the crimes, of course one thing i do understand is that it was a "knee-jerk" reaction impeding on the liberty of free, law abiding, tax paying individuals of the United Kingdom and one that needs to be addressed. We have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world and this is impressive yet criminals are just using other means while a vast number of people such as myself are subjected to highly restrictive and unfair laws.

It is clear to anyone and everyone that firearms in fact do not kill people, human beings kill people by whatever means necessary in there given situation and this is a stone cold fact, was there crime and murder before firearms were invented? yes of course there was and there still is now that there are major restrictions and there will be unless the problems faced by people feeling the need to commit crime are addressed and dealt with.