Go Clegg!

[Guest tbatst2000]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/nick-clegg/7738343/Nick-Clegg-tell-us-the-laws-that-you-want-scrapped.html

Will this actually happen? I'll believe it when I see it but, all the same, this is the first time in more than 20 years that a British government has announced a plan to do something I completely and entirely agree with. It's really a very strange feeling.

[Eric Blair]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/nick-clegg/7738343/Nick-Clegg-tell-us-the-laws-that-you-want-scrapped.html

Will this actually happen? I'll believe it when I see it but, all the same, this is the first time in more than 20 years that a British government has announced a plan to do something I completely and entirely agree with. It's really a very strange feeling.

ye godz! i actually double-checked the header on that link to make sure it wasn't a "daily mash" piece.

here's hoping.

[Quagmire]

This is what Britain needs.

However, it all seems a bit too good to be true. I doubt projects like the national identity register will go away forever.

[porca misèria]

Hmmm. Well the article already lists the expensive databases, so let's take them for granted and start on the matters of principle.

First, all "thought crime" law, including Labour's restrictions on free speech, and book-burning.

Next, the absurd barriers to simple social contact between adults and children.

Then there's the liability culture, particularly in the public sector, that pushes people like doctors, teachers, and above all coppers, into spending excessive amounts of time on red tape, ****-covering and other smallprint. Maybe not a simple matter of abolition, but the paperwork needs to be tackled, and the bar to suing them raised.

Hmm, that'll do for starters. Next?

[edit] bloody censorware! There's another one to abolish! :angry:

[Eric Blair]

Hmmm. Well the article already lists the expensive databases, so let's take them for granted and start on the matters of principle.

First, all "thought crime" law, including Labour's restrictions on free speech, and book-burning.

Next, the absurd barriers to simple social contact between adults and children.

Then there's the liability culture, particularly in the public sector, that pushes people like doctors, teachers, and above all coppers, into spending excessive amounts of time on red tape, ****-covering and other smallprint. Maybe not a simple matter of abolition, but the paperwork needs to be tackled, and the bar to suing them raised.

Hmm, that'll do for starters. Next?

[edit] bloody censorware! There's another one to abolish! :angry:

how about these?

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2006/08/15/why-you-should-care-about-the-rip-act-39280970/

proceeds of crime act 2002

http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10065/2065/1/Amicus76_Lawrence.pdf

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 ("extreme porn" )

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/05/possession_of_e

terrorism act 2000 (etc. etc.)

http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/history/civil-liberties-under-new-labour/

[Kazuya]

Destroy the DIGITAL ECONOMY BILL!

[Guest AuntJess]

I am more than thrilled that Davey-boy has pledged to reduce the number of pointless quangos. They are going to have to justify their existence.

'Bout time too! Too many snouts in too many troughs.

[Woot]

He says they will ask the people - how? Where do we register those laws we'd like to see scrapped.

[Guest AuntJess]

I think one law which needs kicking out is the right of terror suspects to stay in Britain - due to the prospect of being tortured on returning home. It tends to beg the questions " why are they trying to kill innocents Brits if they are grateful at being away from the hellhole of Pakistan?

If I was fleeing perscution, the last thing I'd do is try to kill hundreds of people. I'd keep my nose clean and be thankful I'd found a temperate place to live.

What is really daft is that these guys have been identified as a threat to UK residents, yet are allowed to stay here but under scrutiny - a scrutiny which costs the taxpayer 25k per person.

we could save a few bob sending them back to where they evidently share the same values as the people in their country of origin. If a country as harsh as Pakistan can't stomach them, why TF should we?

These are not innocent asylum seekers, but deranged, hate-filled, would-be bombers.

Failing that put them on trial and bring back a death penalty.

This misguided do-gooding is mindful of keeping one's refuse in one's own back yard, to rot and cause disease, 'cos the collectors are too squeamish to take it away.

[Woot]

+1

- it is a bizarre and misguided act of self-sabotage which simply demonstrates how far removed from the common people and common sense the judiciary have become. Their first duty should be to determine what action best supports the human rights of the indigent population.

[porca misèria]

I think one law which needs kicking out is the right of terror suspects to stay in Britain

So where would you have deported Mr Menezes, if he hadn't got killed? Trouble with that suggestion is, it's wide open to abuse. If you're a proper story-book villain whose sister is, erm, dishonouring your family, you can do better than an honour killing. Just frame the unsuitable lover for some terrorist act!

If I was fleeing perscution, the last thing I'd do is try to kill hundreds of people. I'd keep my nose clean and be thankful I'd found a temperate place to live.

These are not innocent asylum seekers, but deranged, hate-filled, would-be bombers.

Aye, there's the rub, and I suspect it applies to the vast majority of genuine asylum seekers. Why are they in trouble at home in the first place? They're doing something we'd consider unacceptable, but where their home country has harsher penalties!

[injustice]

Smoking ban in Pub's and Club's.

[porca misèria]

Smoking ban in Pub's and Club's.

Nope, keep that one.

I thought it was overkill at the time (and said so). But in practice it's not only opened up many places that were previously no-go areas for decent folks, it's helped an incredible number of former smokers to give up.

[Ologhai Jones]

Smoking ban in Pub's and Club's.

Urgh! Those apostrophes hurt my eyes!

[Reck B]

I wish he'd do something about the law of gravity.

[rolf]

If he's serious then he should offer referenda if enough petition them.

But he won't.

Should legalise recreation MJ by referendum like California will do later this year. Think of the tax ££££!

[Guest AuntJess]

So where would you have deported Mr Menezes, if he hadn't got killed? Trouble with that suggestion is, it's wide open to abuse. If you're a proper story-book villain whose sister is, erm, dishonouring your family, you can do better than an honour killing. Just frame the unsuitable lover for some terrorist act!

Aye, there's the rub, and I suspect it applies to the vast majority of genuine asylum seekers. Why are they in trouble at home in the first place? They're doing something we'd consider unacceptable, but where their home country has harsher penalties!

I would not necessarily have deported Menezes, as his only crime was having run over his visa. I would have judged the case on its merits. If he seemed a decent bloke who had not committed any serious crimes then I might have let him stay, or re-apply for a visa. Trouble is he got slaughtered before he had a chance to say his piece.

The instances are not comparable, as these guys now allowed to stay here were involved in a bomb plot. It doesn't negate the rule just 'cos you can think of exceptions where it all went wrong.

As to GENUINE asylum seekers - as in not known to be terrorists/criminals - It would be time and money better spent in doing a background check on them, rather than letting them in on the nod, only to find that we have to spend hundreds of 1000s on trials for crimes that they commit when they get here, not to mention same outlay - when a PC judiciary rules they MUST stay here 'cos they'd get killed at home - spent on keeping them under surveillance 24/7.

All asylum seekers/ immigrants should be subject to similar rules as in OZ. Of having to serve a probationary period of good behaviour. This being the case, any psychopathic tendency would soon rear its head and then they'd be back to their country of origin - no appeals allowed.

I can't believe that the judiciary don't see that with things the way they are at present, we are becoming the bolt- hole for every nasty piece of work that lives in a country where strict punishment is meted out.

[Guest DestroyBrown]

Review tenancy laws

Some kind of restriction/punitive tax on multiple house ownership

Realise that leaving housing to the private sector is a big mistake and costs a fortune. For example, how much would be saved if we just built some more council houses and stopped forking out £20Bn housing benefits to greedy BTL's?

Knock bad backs and depression off the IB symptom list - They don't stop you working, providing you're not a warehouseman!

[Guest theboltonfury]

Smoking ban in Pub's and Club's.

That was the only good law Labour passed.

[Jadoube]

I think one law which needs kicking out is the right of terror suspects to stay in Britain - due to the prospect of being tortured on returning home. It tends to beg the questions " why are they trying to kill innocents Brits if they are grateful at being away from the hellhole of Pakistan?

I have sympathy with your point. More generally, I place a careful interpretation on the word 'suspect'.

Labours police state mentality was to say 'we suspect' and, after the press had gone to town against the suspect, quietly admit they hadn't any evidence to back up their claim. The vast majority of terror arrests over the past years have been of people who were innocent (except of being, sometimes devout, muslims) and who were released on the quiet. In the minitory of cases there was evidence and the people were quite properly charged and convicted.

Evidence matters. I've never thought it correct to punish somebody just because a government finds it convenient to claim that they are a 'suspect'.

This 'great reform act' is supposed to be increasing our freedoms not taking them away.

[Guest theboltonfury]

I have sympathy with your point. More generally, I place a careful interpretation on the word 'suspect'.

Labours police state mentality was to say 'we suspect' and, after the press had gone to town against the suspect, quietly admit they hadn't any evidence to back up their claim. The vast majority of terror arrests over the past years have been of people who were innocent (except of being, sometimes devout, muslims) and who were released on the quiet. In the minitory of cases there was evidence and the people were quite properly charged and convicted.

Evidence matters. I've never thought it correct to punish somebody just because a government finds it convenient to claim that they are a 'suspect'.

This 'great reform act' is supposed to be increasing our freedoms not taking them away.

I'm not sure that those that came up with the 1832 Great Reform Act will be that pleased that Clegg is muscling in on their turf.

[Guest Skinty]

This is what Britain needs.

However, it all seems a bit too good to be true. I doubt projects like the national identity register will go away forever.

If the public voted for it and some newspaper finds a story that happened because of a repealed law then the government has a good excuse.

Every decision in politics has a reward and a cost in popularity because you cannot give without taking away from someone else. Asking the public is very low cost but very high reward.

It also breaks down all the mechanisms that Labour have built up for themselves for their next term in power (if it comes again).

More importantly though, I really do think that we were on the brink of becoming a fascist state in this country and this government is pulling us away from it.

[swissy_fit]

Question for the libertarians :

How do you combine control of immigration(legal and illegal) without an identity card scheme or something similar?

[Guest X-QUORK]

Question for the libertarians :

How do you combine control of immigration(legal and illegal) without an identity card scheme or something similar?

Ooh, ooh..I know!

Passports and decent immigration controls?

[Guest DestroyBrown]

ediut