A law for victims of crime Victims are victims, not just witnesses! This country is in desperate need of better law to protect victims of crime; currently, perpetrators of crimes have more rights and greater protection than do their victims. Why is this important? When I tell people my story I invariably encounter disbelief. Their eyes widen and mouths open – they then scan my face for a hint of a smile, as if I’m joking - because this is not how a victim of crime should be treated, especially when she’s a 13-year-old girl. Sadly, however, my story is true – and I am not alone; 7.5 million crimes against UK households were recorded last year. The first major flaw is that victims are reliant on police officers being well-trained and unbiased. Their initial perception of incidents influence whether or not they’re logged as crimes. Officers’ failure to have a clear understanding of the law or pressure from their workloads may lead to crimes not being recorded, let alone investigated. Our legal system treats victims of crime as witnesses; that’s their only rôle. It might be possible to provide impact statements but these are read after any verdicts. Victims have no legal representation; CPS prosecutes; it works for the Crown, not victims of crime. There is a victims’ code of practice but it really only gives victims the right to seek support and be informed of proceedings. See https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/publication/crime-data-integrity-force-reports/, CRIME DATA INTEGRITY INSPECTION OF SUFFOLK CONSTABULARY, AUG 2014, p. 7 As some of these records relate to sexual offences and assaults on vulnerable adults and children, this is a significant concern; it means that 26 vulnerable victims received no justice, no support and might have gone on to be further victimised. These records are from just one county – only a sample of reports were taken - so the success rate for reporting of crimes against the most vulnerable is approximately 20%, meaning only a 1 in 5 chance of victims receiving any support whatsoever. Victims are left in the hands of the police. It’s incredibly hard to get them to listen, especially to criticism; victims must hope that police do their jobs properly. It’s also extremely difficult to bring negligence claim against the police. Following the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988), it was decided that, in most circumstances it would not be fair, just and reasonable to make the police liable for negligently causing loss or damage to members of the public. I propose that this changes; it would make the police more accountable and encourage them to improve performance. Proposed victim law 1. There should be reasonable access to Courts, including Legal Aid where appropriate. 2. Hearings must be held within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial Court or tribunal established by law (including unbiased jurors); what is “reasonable” depends on the complexity and importance of the case, the behaviour of the applicant and competent authorities and the length of time between the incident and commencement of the trial. Victims must have real opportunities to present their cases of the alleged crimes against them, including the right to impartial legal representation that may liaise with CPS, access to opponents’ submissions, procedural equality and evidence relied on by the other party and oral hearings. 3. There should a right to silence and a privilege against self-incrimination (although it may be possible to draw adverse inferences from victims remaining silent). 4. Victims must have the right to effective participation in criminal trials via legal representatives. 5. Victims must have the right to continue their lives after trials without discrimination, harassment or fear imposed on them by trial participants including all witnesses as well as the accused, irrespective of the verdict or judgement. 6. Victims of crime have the right to report those crimes to police and have them fairly investigated. 7. Police officers should be accountable for the well-being of victims of crime. Please see my website for more details http://victimslaw.wordpress.com/about/ It’s too late for us now, but we can protect victims in the future. Help us do that.

There are many people speaking openly online about the fact that this is far from historic and is still going on now and as well as parties from both houses the suspects go into the church and royal family at the highest levels. if a small amount of the allegations are real then we have the right to know and the appropriate parties should be removed from office and society. If any of us were suspected you would be in custody NOW, there wouldn't be an "inquiry" into it simple POLICE ACTION and that's what we need

Once again our papers are full of yet another banking scale - this time fined £2.6 billion for manipulating a market worth £5 trillion, markets that affect companies, families and communities the world over. Yet since the 2008 financial crisis the number of bankers jailed for corrupt practices can be counted on two hands. In no other part of society would corrupt practice be so tolerated. Enough is enough, jail those involved in this most recent scandal and pass legislation that makes those at the top of our major financial institutions personally responsible for the conduct of their traders.

Because these people affect our every day life and by their cheating and gambling

It should reduce corruption in the arms trade and make governments more accountable to the people they serve. Savile gets Investigated and Exposed after Death, Same for the Thatchers. (1 living and 1 dead)

306 soldiers were court marshalled and executed for cowardice and desertion during WW1. Most if not all of them were suffering from shell shock and other illnesses caused by the extreme conditions they had to endure. Other European countries pardoned thier soldiers many many years ago but the UK government continues to punish our soldiers and thier families. It's time to end this.

It is important because animals are suffering, laws are being broken and backs are being turned. Despite the UK having some of the best animal welfare laws in the world, this case shows once again that they are simply not upheld, leaving animal cruelty and neglect to run rife while its perpetrators get away with it time and time again. In our considerable experience, when it comes to the authorities, these welfare laws are simply in place to give the impression of caring and protection for the animals when, in reality, very little exists. Caution, video contains upsetting footage of animal slaughter and cruelty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELvbWEUarDw&list=UUCdxkOePfUwgVLRU31wC_tQ

Currently loving, capable, and willing parents with equal parental rights and responsibility are being denied access by their ex-partners. In turn children are being denied the love and care of both of their parents regardless of their wishes or welfare. The current legal system is grossly flawed, biased, outdated, and prohibitively expensive, protracted, and complicated.

Approx. £1.9m was wrongly collected from 70 thousand motorists who were not aware they were even entering a bus lane. The adjudicator said the signs were confusing and inadequate, so these fines should not be enforced. Innocent motorists, many of whom were visiting the nearby Children's Hospital, have paid the fines not realising the Councils serious errors, but no offence whatsoever has been committed. Birmingham City Council are refusing to repay the money and now refuse to discuss this in the public domain, reverting to debating in a private session with no one else allowed to know what has happened in the meeting. Citizens and visitors to Birmingham, experiencing recently altered city centre road layouts, will find this confusing. You can read more about how this happened here: http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/new-birmingham-city-centre-bus-6681476

So that silence cannot be bought by managers of the NHS for their own benefit. For example, the Baby P case.

This will give better protection for birds of prey on shooting estates. The Scottish Government has made landowners share the blame when gamekeepers are found to have killed birds of prey. The UK government should do the same. For more details please refere to the BBC report dated 6/11/2014 re the conviction of yet another gamekeeper.

MPs accused of abusing the unreformed expenses system will escape official investigation after the House of Commons authorities destroyed all record of their claims John Bercow, the Speaker, faces accusations he has presided over a fresh cover-up of MPs' expenses after tens of thousands of pieces of paperwork relating to claims made before 2010 under the scandal-hit regime were shredded. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/11204405/MPs-to-escape-expenses-investigations-after-paperwork-destroyed-by-Parliament.html I am calling for John Bercow to be investigated to by the police to find out if there are any records that have been destroyed contrary to the proceeds of crime act . I am calling for a police investigation into every MP’s expenses. I am doing this on the grounds that although MP’s are entitled to expenses, these expense claims should be available to the public to inspect the claims made. There is a 7 year time limit for investigation of these claims and MP’s should keep proper records of these claims. If they fail to do so then they are failing in their duties as public servants. In my opinion any MP that has not kept records of their expense claim for the past 7 years should be investigated with the possibility of having to repay those expenses if they are unable to justify the claims with paperwork to back up the claims made. We, the general public, are constantly being told by politicians that the laws are all inclusive and that if we are innocent then we will have nothing to worry about. This same principle should also apply to MP’s and if the MP’s are innocent and can prove that they have made expense claims that are justified then they are entitled to keep the expenses received. However, if MP’s are not able to prove that the expense claims that they made are justified then they should be forced to repay these expenses. Below I have pasted a copy of the proceeds of crime act part 7 (this has been taken from the following page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceeds_of_Crime_Act_2002 I think that at the end of this there is an important part about this act that should be acted upon – The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine This means that if any member of public suspects that any MP has falsely claimed expenses that they are not entitled to – by law you must report this suspicion. If anybody reading this suspects that any MP (or any other public figure such as the speaker John Bercow) has committed an offence then it is your public duty to immediately forward this suspicion onto your local police authority. I would suggest either putting your suspicions in writing or forwarding this page by email to the chief of police in your area. Proceeds of Crime act part 7 Unlike certain other jurisdictions (notably the USA and much of Europe), UK money laundering offences are not limited to the proceeds of serious crimes, nor are there any monetary limits, nor is there any necessity for there to be a money laundering design or purpose to an action for it to amount to a money laundering offence. A money laundering offence under UK legislation need not involve money, since the money laundering legislation covers assets of any description. Technically therefore an individual who steals even a paper clip in the UK commits a money laundering offence (possession of the stolen paper clip) in addition to the predicate offence (of theft of the paper clip). In consequence any person who commits an acquisitive crime (i.e. one from which he obtains some benefit in the form of money or an asset of any description) in the UK will inevitably also commit a money laundering offence under UK legislation. The principal money laundering offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine. Parts 8 to 12 of the Act make further provisions with regard to investigation of suspected offences, international co-operation, etc. Importantly it is a criminal offence to impede a money laundering investigation by the authorities by the concealing, destroying or falsifying of documents relevant to the investigation or by the making of a disclosure of information which prejudices the investigation. The offence carries a maximum punishment of 5 years imprisonment.