HETAS (wood stoves) monopoly

HETAS was originally set up to do a bit of efficiency testing on solid fuel appliances. They have extended their control and misrepresent the legislation to monopolise the supply of stoves and unnecessary chimney liners. They use this to profit from 'training' and registration of installers increasing the costs by 1-2 thousand pounds.

They are now trying to impose control of wood fuel suppliers with £550 annual fees which includes £100 fee for inspecting 'paperwork' which for a typical business should only take 15 to 30 minutes at national average pay ratye ie about £10.

Why is this idea important?

HETAS was originally set up to do a bit of efficiency testing on solid fuel appliances. They have extended their control and misrepresent the legislation to monopolise the supply of stoves and unnecessary chimney liners. They use this to profit from 'training' and registration of installers increasing the costs by 1-2 thousand pounds.

They are now trying to impose control of wood fuel suppliers with £550 annual fees which includes £100 fee for inspecting 'paperwork' which for a typical business should only take 15 to 30 minutes at national average pay ratye ie about £10.

FENSA (window installers) forms a closed shop

Remove regulation giving FENSA a monopoly on installation of new windows. This legislation created a closed shop / guild preventing small builders, joiners, odd job experts doing this simple job unless they pay high fees to Fensa for 'training' and annual registration.

Window installation is basic building and does not require special regulation.

Why is this idea important?

Remove regulation giving FENSA a monopoly on installation of new windows. This legislation created a closed shop / guild preventing small builders, joiners, odd job experts doing this simple job unless they pay high fees to Fensa for 'training' and annual registration.

Window installation is basic building and does not require special regulation.

Population Control and Global Warming.

The world is overpopulated. Global warming is the result of there being too many people not a few of them driving 4x4s.

Any couple who has more than 2 children are selfishly voting for massive population increase and hence massive increases in energy consumption. It is not an excuse to say the average is less, a third child equals 50% increase.

A target should be set for population reduction by rewarding those with 1 or fewer children and penalising the rabbits. Reduction by 5 million every 10 years would be sensible until a total of about 40 million is reached.

There would be huge financial benefits with reduced medical, then school costs, then housing costs and elimination of unemployment.

Why is this idea important?

The world is overpopulated. Global warming is the result of there being too many people not a few of them driving 4x4s.

Any couple who has more than 2 children are selfishly voting for massive population increase and hence massive increases in energy consumption. It is not an excuse to say the average is less, a third child equals 50% increase.

A target should be set for population reduction by rewarding those with 1 or fewer children and penalising the rabbits. Reduction by 5 million every 10 years would be sensible until a total of about 40 million is reached.

There would be huge financial benefits with reduced medical, then school costs, then housing costs and elimination of unemployment.

School funding

There always seems to be a shortage of funding for schools for repairs, cleaning, painting, extensions, extra-curricular activities etc.

However every child has 2 parents. For each child at school both parents should be obliged to contribute 1 hour of free labour per week if required. This could usefully be carried out alongside their children to give a sense of involvement and 'ownership' of the school to reduce vandalism. Paying a fee to opt out should not be allowed to maintain participation regardless of wealth. (obvious exceptions for certain jobs, eg sailors, deployed servicemen)

It would also help parents understand that their children are their responsibility and not something to be dumped on the taxpayer.

Why is this idea important?

There always seems to be a shortage of funding for schools for repairs, cleaning, painting, extensions, extra-curricular activities etc.

However every child has 2 parents. For each child at school both parents should be obliged to contribute 1 hour of free labour per week if required. This could usefully be carried out alongside their children to give a sense of involvement and 'ownership' of the school to reduce vandalism. Paying a fee to opt out should not be allowed to maintain participation regardless of wealth. (obvious exceptions for certain jobs, eg sailors, deployed servicemen)

It would also help parents understand that their children are their responsibility and not something to be dumped on the taxpayer.