PMs Pets: Neglect Law, No Church Of Scientology And Chris Kamara MBE
ANORAK’S fairly regular look at those petitions appearing on the Prime Minister’s website.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Bring in a new law to make it a criminal offence to leave children aged under 12 on their own - Tony Bennett
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/no-to-neglect/
More and more children aged under 12 are being left on their own at home by their parents without proper supervision. The law on this point is totally unclear and appears to be covered only by the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act. The topic of young children being left on their own has been in the news in the past year and it is submitted that now is a good time to review existing laws. The dangers to young children of being left on their own are numerous and potentially very serious. The law should deter people with children under 12 from even thinking about leaving them on their own.
That’s right - leaving a child on their own in their house - or with a same age or younger friend or sibling - while you pop out should be a thought crime…
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Award Chris Kamara an MBE for services to Sport. More details - Will McIlveen
For services to banality and comedy…
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Ensure that the media have a statutory code of ethics for participants in TV shows - Dr Miriam Silver
To do an experiment with human participants, anyone in academia or health services has to submit a proposal to an ethics committee before they proceed. This explores benefits and possible adverse outcomes to see whether the experiment is justified and the people undertaking it suitably qualified. Professionals also have codes of conduct and ethics, which obligate them to “do no harm” and act in the best interest of their patients.
After the show, we’d like you to speak with Dave, our therapist…
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to not allowed girls under 18 to get abortions without parents consent. More details - Yvonne De Martino
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make prison life harder for inmates. More details - Roy Evans
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make a televised address to the nation on climate change. More details - Joe Hayman
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to discourage TV editors from using background music in documentaries and factual programmes. More details - Robert Syrett
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Rename The ‘Church’ of Scientology under section 32 of the Companies Act. More details - Shane Moore of Britons Against The ‘Church’ of Scientology
We demand that the Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, use powers granted to them in section 32 of the Companies Act to insist that the ‘Church’ of Scientology (England & Wales) be made to rename themselves to a more suitable trading name that will not mislead or harm the public as to the nature of the companies main business.
The Oxford English Dictionary states that a ‘church’ is “an official Christian religious organization”. Since Scientology is not a Christian nor, more importantly, recognised as a religion in The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, it should not be allowed to mislead people by referring to itself as a “church”.
More next week
Posted: 16th, February 2008 | In: Politicians Comments (14) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- susan jones on Susan Boyle Weeps As The Press Set About Destroying Her
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
May 16th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
its a registerd company how can it be a church at the same time
March 1st, 2008 at 12:13 am
In the UK this company trades under the name of the Church of Scientology (England & Wales).
Lets break this name down a little. Starting with the word “Church”. Derived from the Greek word kuriakon (The Lords House), the Cambridge Dictionary defines a church as “a building for Christian religious activities” or “an official Christian religious organisation”. We all know that this company is not a Christian organisation and it’s offices are not used as a Christian place of worship, so why is it allowed to mislead the public into thinking otherwise?
As a Christian I find this very offensive as a company is using words, phrases and symbols of a well know and trusted RELIGION to try and gain a more credability.
I would ask any members of other faiths here, Muslims/Jews for example to comment on how you would feel if this company called its offices Mosques or Synagoges?
It is my aim to have the Secretary of State for Trade & Industry or the Prime Minister, rename the so-called ‘Church’ of Scientology legally under section 32 of the Companies Act, for misleading the public about the main nature of it’s tradings.
As a proud Englishman it pains me to admit that yet again the Scottish Parliament has got it right by banning the company from using the word “church” in it’s name. It is known as the Hubbard Institute of Dianetics. (correct me please if I am incorrect)
THIS IS A TRADING NAME WHICH IS MORE FITTING TO ITS MAIN NATURE OF BUSINESS!
THIS is why I was protesting in February and this is why I will be there again In March raising this issue to as many members of the public as possible.
On a personal note. I feel that Dianetics is nothing more than a self help method (many claim a very sucessful one) and as a method of self help should not be regarded as any different than Paul McKenna’s latest one “Change your life in seven days”. Or should we give Paul tax exempt status and claim him a saviour?
dr:01.03:04.38
February 18th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Anonymous encourages people to research for themselves.
Scientologists insist on only referencing scientology literature and websites.
Religion or not, if Scientology wants to be high-profile (courting celebrities and such), it will have to face the scrutiny that ALL high-profile entities face under the microscope of the public’s eye.
The CoS is not holding up well under scrutiny at all and people are not happy with it. The CoS is DESPERATE to discredit the critics, and that’s just angering people even more. People have become more and more familiar with policies for handling SPs and are seeing more and more evidence of it with every attack they make.
People don’t like being handled, and more than anything, they are not liking the reputation of the CoS.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Scientology is a religion, it is my religion and I love it.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:52 am
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister …We demand that the Prime Minister … In the first place those two adjacent sentences create an oxymoron. But what would you expect of people who insist that obvious falsehoods are the TRUTH (trademark).
February 18th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Scientology, backed up by countless learned scholars, HA don’t make me laugh!
Perhaps you should educate yourself about Scientology before sprouting this kind of bs.
Care to explain how come Scientology is charging so much money for it’s courses?
Also it’s pretty funny that you would compare Anononymous’ actions against Scientology with the Third Reich, since you know Anonymous is blaiming Scientology for economical/social problems and are calling for their extermination…
February 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
On September 11, 2001, thousands of Americans were murdered in a series of terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Before a death toll could even be attempted, French anti-religious extremist, Roger Gonnet, was busy exploiting this cowardly terrorist act to spread messages of hatred using the Internet.
Although government and religious leaders throughout the world appealed for a calm, reasoned response to this tragedy, Roger Gonnet seized the opportunity to forward his own fanatic agenda, posting messages laced with anti-religious and anti-American sentiment to a newsgroup frequented by some violent extremists
February 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
You are very very mistaken. There is no doubt that Scientology, backed up by countless learned scholars, is a religion in it’s own right and has it’s no. 1 goal “A civilization without insanity, without crimminals, without war, and where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights and where man is free to rise to greater heights”. Please be carefull to check your facts by reading some Scientology first hand so as not to embarass your self by bigoted close minded uneducated statements. Remember, it is still within recent history that similiar comments as you are making by similiar self righteous individuals that lead to the death of 6 million Jewish people.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Re renaming scientology, thank you, this needs to be done
everything in scientology is choreographed to deceive the uninformed
see my website link for more reasons to support this
February 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
well that’ll be a great law for everyone that can’t afford a nanny, and can’t afford to not work.
can’t see it bothering many doctors though.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:22 am
There is not the least doubt that scientology is not a religion, despite the repetition of crosses, religious and church terms everywhere (to the nausea).
Why? Because it is a faked form of psychology and faked medicine trying to destroy anything not in agreement with its “scriptures” - a pseudo-religious term too, term hiding the many esoterico-psychology theories from its founder, the sci-fi author Hubbard.
Even the apparently “charities” from that cult are profitable scams or profitable attempts to get a better image in the world and more clients for the “mother cult”. Indeed, it asks much money to its members to pay for advertisement DVDs and other pieces of hubbardian crap.
relaw0719
February 16th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Affordable child care would be an answer. In the past relatives used to mind young chilren, but the close family is usually more dispersed now than in the past.
Of course people have differing reasons for being unable to look after their children 24/7,unable as opposed to can’t be arsed.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
What a difficult debate. I was a latch key kid at 9 and my brother 6, in the 1940s. There seemed no option when the remaining parent had to work. Not ideal then, and far more hazzardous today.
After school care is very expensive for people on a low income, yet parents are encouraged to work to set a good example to their kids.
If the law can be constructed to ensure that children are not left to their own devices for say, longer than an hour and a half, with the minium age of the younger child being 10, I am willing to sign the petition. It’s not ideal, but we don’t live in an ideal world.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
PLEASE INVESTIGATE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY!!!