Cutting business and charity regulations

Some small TV channels are blitzed by malicious complaints that Ofcom fully investigates. Sometimes these complaints are not upheld, sometimes they are, but either way the channel has a cloud over it for the 6 months it takes Ofcom to decide even the simplest thing, and the channel incurs significant internal and external costs for each complaint.

The complaints in question are widely believed to be malicious, from rival broadcasters seeking commercial advantage. In some cases the complaint is technically correct, but it comes from a rival showing comparable material – they cannot genuinely claim to be offended. Some complaints relate to obscure channels that complainants claim to have been watching at 3am!

At best channels incur unreasonable costs and suffer months of uncertainty, at worst they are fined £30,000 or even £250,000 for "material likely to cause offence" where there has been no actual offence. Broadcasters have gone out of business as a result, others are marginal.

1. Complaints from 1 or 2 people should not be given the same weight as genuine complaints for 20 or 30 independent people.

2. Broadcasters should be able to insist that Ofcom checks the credentials of a complainant, rather than relying on emails from fake addresses.

3. What is the complainants genuine address (this should be verified but need not be disclosed).

4. Does the complainant have links to rivals?

5. Why was the complainant watching a clearly signposted channel with offensive material at 2 or 3am?

Read More

Ban CQC in dentistry

The Care Quality Commission is yet another quango dreamt up by the previous government and as such requires scrutiny  as to its validity. As with all these quangos they start pervading aspects of our lives that we never intended. I suspect this is driven by the fact that this sitting body will find it impossible to ever say that their job is done. They are born to legislate and therein lies the problem. They need a strict and narrow remit at best or preferably, disband these beaurocrats to find a more meaningful purpose.

Read More

Many business people know what a one-sided joke employment has become.  Politicians have failed to grasp the fact that introducing more legislation makes employing people, particularly Women, unviable.

When someone starts a family, it is a lifestyle choice.  Contraception and Abortion are also available as choices, if not taken – a choice is made.

A business owner pays taxes twice – personally and business-wise – including National Insurance, Rates etc so, therefore, already pays a high proportion of the cost of lifestyle choices.

Yet when someone in their employ has children already or decides to start a family, they are still expected to pay and deal with further disruption.

The following should be implemented:

People should have to answer honest questions upon interview, their childcare arrangements (including in emergencies) are totally relevant to an employer who has requirements for a vacancy.  A primary requirement will be that of turning up.

Emergency family leave should be capped to a low number of days a year, it is the responsibility of a parent to have arrangements in place to enable them to fulfil their contractual arrangements – not an employers responsibility to suffer yet again.

An employer should not have give paid time off to someone to attend Doctors appointments during pregnancy – the NHS already has a huge budget – evening appointments should be available.

An employer should not have to pay out "money for nothing" to those on maternity or paternity leave – holiday pay, other perks etc are a waste of money – they offer no return for an employer.

Time off should not count towards time employed, for example in calculating redundancy payments – the time off is a lifestyle choice.

It is not feasible for an employer to hold a job open when someone is off long-term, when their self imposed sabatical ends, the person is free to see if they are still required and negotiations can commence about part-time etc if mutually acceptable.  As an employer, it is my right to decide if I wish to spend my money on having someone back, or not!

These ideas may not be popular with many of you but remember – when you order at a restaurant, Im sure you wouldnt pay for something on the bill that you havent actually had!

Read More