Make it illegal for any government body to fine people without a fair trial

The totalitarian state was growing alarmingly until Brown was ousted this year. I look at legislation and listen to the man in the street and am appalled at how complacent most people are to the state imposing sanctions and fines.

 

THAT IS HOW THE THIRD REICH GRIPPED A NATION….THE STATE NIBBLED AWAY AT THEIR FREEDOM AND CONNED THEM INTO THINKING ORDER WAS GOOD FOR THEM AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED.

 

THE TOTALITARIAN LITTLE HITLERIAN STATE WE ARE NURTURING MUST BE SCRAPPED NOW.

 

HOW DARE THESE TOWN HALL BULLIES AND FACELESS COWARDS IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON THE VERY PEOPLE THEY SERVE.

Why is this idea important?

The totalitarian state was growing alarmingly until Brown was ousted this year. I look at legislation and listen to the man in the street and am appalled at how complacent most people are to the state imposing sanctions and fines.

 

THAT IS HOW THE THIRD REICH GRIPPED A NATION….THE STATE NIBBLED AWAY AT THEIR FREEDOM AND CONNED THEM INTO THINKING ORDER WAS GOOD FOR THEM AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED.

 

THE TOTALITARIAN LITTLE HITLERIAN STATE WE ARE NURTURING MUST BE SCRAPPED NOW.

 

HOW DARE THESE TOWN HALL BULLIES AND FACELESS COWARDS IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON THE VERY PEOPLE THEY SERVE.

Reduce business rates in town centres and increase them in out of town parks

Town centres all over the UK are dying and rates in many towns are prohibitive. I propose that town centre businesses have a reduced rating, as much as two thirds reduction. The lost revenue should be levied on to the out of town business and retail parks. They should also be taxed on the amount of cars they allow free parking for per annum.

The big multiples are simply being allowed to plunder opur towns just as the big banks are allowed to plunder our finances

Why is this idea important?

Town centres all over the UK are dying and rates in many towns are prohibitive. I propose that town centre businesses have a reduced rating, as much as two thirds reduction. The lost revenue should be levied on to the out of town business and retail parks. They should also be taxed on the amount of cars they allow free parking for per annum.

The big multiples are simply being allowed to plunder opur towns just as the big banks are allowed to plunder our finances

Scrap ATOS Origin/ATOS healthcare medical assessment quango

This quango earns £80 million plus a year from the DWP to assess claimants for benefits medically. Many claimants are very disabled, have had months of treatment and surgery and are still under the care of NHS surgeons and GPs yet the DWP in their wisdom still ask for ATOS assessments.

The assesments are made by so called professionals who have been on a three day training course. Some are doctors, some are nurses aome are simply clerks. I know of numerous cases where the assessment has been so innaccurate and incorrect that appeals have been made.

Many of the appeals have been upheld but no one fines or deducts money from Atos and claimants are not given an explanation from the DWP, only from Atos. The DWP simply send out forms and start the whole ridiculous process all over again.

Why is this idea important?

This quango earns £80 million plus a year from the DWP to assess claimants for benefits medically. Many claimants are very disabled, have had months of treatment and surgery and are still under the care of NHS surgeons and GPs yet the DWP in their wisdom still ask for ATOS assessments.

The assesments are made by so called professionals who have been on a three day training course. Some are doctors, some are nurses aome are simply clerks. I know of numerous cases where the assessment has been so innaccurate and incorrect that appeals have been made.

Many of the appeals have been upheld but no one fines or deducts money from Atos and claimants are not given an explanation from the DWP, only from Atos. The DWP simply send out forms and start the whole ridiculous process all over again.

Scrap this directive/EU regulation now

EU logo causes consternation

The new EU organic logo been branded “a nonsense” and “irrelevant” by the UK organic sector as confusion over its implementation dogged its launch last week.

The Euro-leaf, created by a design student, has been met negatively by UK companies awash with cynicism and complaining of poor communication from the EU.

The logo was brought in last Thursday and companies have two years to ensure they use it on pack. It will sit alongside other certification marks and has sparked a long-running debate around the number of certifications producers and suppliers are forced to deal with.

One supplier told FPJ there had been “no communication” from either the EU or retailers, adding: “Packaging can hopefully last over two seasons so clarification is needed. It’s a big step if it replaces other logos, if not, it’s an annoyance.”

Adam Wakeley, joint managing director of Organic Farms Foods, branded it “a nonsense” and “yet another logo”, while the Soil Association lambasted the marque, claiming its own standards were higher than those required.

A spokesperson for the organic body said it was “just the EU trying to put their stamp on things” and it could “potentially add consumer confusion”.

The much maligned organic logo is obligatory for all organic pre-packaged food products within the EU. It is also possible to use the logo on a voluntary basis for non pre-packaged organic goods produced within the EU or any organic products imported from third countries.

The EU claims “the organic farming logo offers consumers confidence about the origins and qualities of their food and drink and its presence on any product ensures compliance with the EU Organic Farming Regulation”.

However the uniformity of EU organics could help protect against imports from outside the zone. An EU spokesperson said: “The goal is to enable consumers across Europe to ascertain that a product meets Europe-wide standards for organic products.”

The logo is being promoted at agricultural fairs across Europe.

Extracted from The Fresh Produce Journal website today 11 7 10

Why is this idea important?

EU logo causes consternation

The new EU organic logo been branded “a nonsense” and “irrelevant” by the UK organic sector as confusion over its implementation dogged its launch last week.

The Euro-leaf, created by a design student, has been met negatively by UK companies awash with cynicism and complaining of poor communication from the EU.

The logo was brought in last Thursday and companies have two years to ensure they use it on pack. It will sit alongside other certification marks and has sparked a long-running debate around the number of certifications producers and suppliers are forced to deal with.

One supplier told FPJ there had been “no communication” from either the EU or retailers, adding: “Packaging can hopefully last over two seasons so clarification is needed. It’s a big step if it replaces other logos, if not, it’s an annoyance.”

Adam Wakeley, joint managing director of Organic Farms Foods, branded it “a nonsense” and “yet another logo”, while the Soil Association lambasted the marque, claiming its own standards were higher than those required.

A spokesperson for the organic body said it was “just the EU trying to put their stamp on things” and it could “potentially add consumer confusion”.

The much maligned organic logo is obligatory for all organic pre-packaged food products within the EU. It is also possible to use the logo on a voluntary basis for non pre-packaged organic goods produced within the EU or any organic products imported from third countries.

The EU claims “the organic farming logo offers consumers confidence about the origins and qualities of their food and drink and its presence on any product ensures compliance with the EU Organic Farming Regulation”.

However the uniformity of EU organics could help protect against imports from outside the zone. An EU spokesperson said: “The goal is to enable consumers across Europe to ascertain that a product meets Europe-wide standards for organic products.”

The logo is being promoted at agricultural fairs across Europe.

Extracted from The Fresh Produce Journal website today 11 7 10

Scrap several DEFRA quangos and their laws and regulations

The government formed The Board of Agriculture in 1889 to encourage greater productivity and further farming interests. It employed 90 people and had an annual budget of £55,000. At that time of course it was accepted that the proletariat or hoi polloi needed managing and controlling and a Board run by aristocrats and officer class types was absolutely essential to be run effectively.

Of course, like all government organisations this one grew and grew and grew and by 19129 was calling itself The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and during WW1 it created the Women’s Land Army and began bossing farmers about.

WW2 allowed the monster to become all powerful digging for victory, commandeering land with power to take over land, leases, tenancies etc and it became the sole buyer and importer of food.

By 1955 it became the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and |Food and took control of all scientific work being done on behalf of food and farming, all technology transfer and got involved in every aspect of a farmers life. Much of the grant aid given out by them was simply to allow farmers here to compete against government subsidised farmers exporting to us.

In 2002 the Ministry became a Department of DEFRA a massive organisation employing over 13, 000 people and spending almost £3 billion a year.

Unfortunately much of the legislation that started projects off and caused red tape and regulations to be implemented and policed are now no longer necessary but they have in fact grown and grown and are now an expensive anachronism that I propose should be scrapped to include all the legislation that they were authorised with.

My starter list of quangos and their laws and regulations are:

  1. Organic standards advisory committee….should not be a gov. organisation
  2. Packaging standards advisory committee…nothing to do with government
  3. Agricultural dwelling house advisory committee….time expired
  4. Agricultural wages board…time expired
  5. Agricultural wages board committees England (all 15) …ok when Victoria was Queen
  6. British Potato Council……gov. not needed in such a body
  7. British Wool Marketing Board….anachronism, nothing to do with government
  8. English Farming and Food Partnership…..chattering talk shop
  9. Farm Animal Welfare Council……doing the job of the RSPCA or should be.
  10. Home Grown Cereals Authority…OK when the Nazis were threatening to invade but inappropriate now.
  11. Horticultural Development Company recently Council…………………..nothing to do with government, it is a trade organisation.
  12. Independent science group on TB in cattle…nothing to do with government…industry should do its own R&D and planning
  13. Meat and Livestock Commission…an anachronism, nothing to do with government
  14. Milk Development Council….as for Meat
  15. National Fallen Stock Company……………………a bunch of zealots who ruined livestock farming in this country
  16. National Non Food Crops Centre………………………….nothing to do with government
  17. Plant Variety and seeds tribunal..an anachronism implementing daft EU laws banning varieties and seeds by committee…a nonsense
  18. Veterinary residues committee…nothing to do with government
  19. State Vet agency…why do we need a state vet or rather 1200 of them?
  20. Veterinary Medical Directorate…another bunch of red tapers.

And a further one, The Forestry Commission….why should HM Gov be running the biggest forest company in the UK?  OK in Communist Russia but inappropriate here nowadays.

Why is this idea important?

The government formed The Board of Agriculture in 1889 to encourage greater productivity and further farming interests. It employed 90 people and had an annual budget of £55,000. At that time of course it was accepted that the proletariat or hoi polloi needed managing and controlling and a Board run by aristocrats and officer class types was absolutely essential to be run effectively.

Of course, like all government organisations this one grew and grew and grew and by 19129 was calling itself The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and during WW1 it created the Women’s Land Army and began bossing farmers about.

WW2 allowed the monster to become all powerful digging for victory, commandeering land with power to take over land, leases, tenancies etc and it became the sole buyer and importer of food.

By 1955 it became the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and |Food and took control of all scientific work being done on behalf of food and farming, all technology transfer and got involved in every aspect of a farmers life. Much of the grant aid given out by them was simply to allow farmers here to compete against government subsidised farmers exporting to us.

In 2002 the Ministry became a Department of DEFRA a massive organisation employing over 13, 000 people and spending almost £3 billion a year.

Unfortunately much of the legislation that started projects off and caused red tape and regulations to be implemented and policed are now no longer necessary but they have in fact grown and grown and are now an expensive anachronism that I propose should be scrapped to include all the legislation that they were authorised with.

My starter list of quangos and their laws and regulations are:

  1. Organic standards advisory committee….should not be a gov. organisation
  2. Packaging standards advisory committee…nothing to do with government
  3. Agricultural dwelling house advisory committee….time expired
  4. Agricultural wages board…time expired
  5. Agricultural wages board committees England (all 15) …ok when Victoria was Queen
  6. British Potato Council……gov. not needed in such a body
  7. British Wool Marketing Board….anachronism, nothing to do with government
  8. English Farming and Food Partnership…..chattering talk shop
  9. Farm Animal Welfare Council……doing the job of the RSPCA or should be.
  10. Home Grown Cereals Authority…OK when the Nazis were threatening to invade but inappropriate now.
  11. Horticultural Development Company recently Council…………………..nothing to do with government, it is a trade organisation.
  12. Independent science group on TB in cattle…nothing to do with government…industry should do its own R&D and planning
  13. Meat and Livestock Commission…an anachronism, nothing to do with government
  14. Milk Development Council….as for Meat
  15. National Fallen Stock Company……………………a bunch of zealots who ruined livestock farming in this country
  16. National Non Food Crops Centre………………………….nothing to do with government
  17. Plant Variety and seeds tribunal..an anachronism implementing daft EU laws banning varieties and seeds by committee…a nonsense
  18. Veterinary residues committee…nothing to do with government
  19. State Vet agency…why do we need a state vet or rather 1200 of them?
  20. Veterinary Medical Directorate…another bunch of red tapers.

And a further one, The Forestry Commission….why should HM Gov be running the biggest forest company in the UK?  OK in Communist Russia but inappropriate here nowadays.

Scrap the Plant Passport Laws

The Ministry of Fun and Crazy Risk Aversion certainly was around when DEFRA, or was it MAFF introduced the Plant Passport Laws.This is not a joke, it is a very complex system of paperwork, registers, permits , inspectors and little Passport tickets for plants, especially for plants that come from abroad, including the EU.

Of course the Civil Service will say, Mr Humphrey style, "that it is in the interest of environmental security and safety that all plants casn be traced when being moved from commercial premises to other commercial premises." The fact that as soon as Joe Public buys the plants and moves them to a garden or farm  and that  no traceability is then required just shows that the whole Plant Passport nonsense is nothing more than a jobs for the boys scheme; work creation and another burden to the taxpayer and commercial sector.

The public were given dire scenarios by DEFRA that all the Rhododendrons and Oaks in England would die within a year if the passports weren't brought in ranks among all the other scares we have had as just another misinformed government department panicking and creating work for the sake of it. We had eggs; we had millenium bugs; we had Spanish Flu; we had the slaughter of millions of healthy animals by Blairs Barbarians and yet Plant Passports are still the Law.

All plant passports do is cost money, time and keep jobsworths employed.

Why is this idea important?

The Ministry of Fun and Crazy Risk Aversion certainly was around when DEFRA, or was it MAFF introduced the Plant Passport Laws.This is not a joke, it is a very complex system of paperwork, registers, permits , inspectors and little Passport tickets for plants, especially for plants that come from abroad, including the EU.

Of course the Civil Service will say, Mr Humphrey style, "that it is in the interest of environmental security and safety that all plants casn be traced when being moved from commercial premises to other commercial premises." The fact that as soon as Joe Public buys the plants and moves them to a garden or farm  and that  no traceability is then required just shows that the whole Plant Passport nonsense is nothing more than a jobs for the boys scheme; work creation and another burden to the taxpayer and commercial sector.

The public were given dire scenarios by DEFRA that all the Rhododendrons and Oaks in England would die within a year if the passports weren't brought in ranks among all the other scares we have had as just another misinformed government department panicking and creating work for the sake of it. We had eggs; we had millenium bugs; we had Spanish Flu; we had the slaughter of millions of healthy animals by Blairs Barbarians and yet Plant Passports are still the Law.

All plant passports do is cost money, time and keep jobsworths employed.

Change the law on evidence for employment tribunals

Employment tribunals cost businesses over £800 million a year and it is forecasted that 370,000 more cases will be held in the next three years. Over and above that the public purse has to pay the Tribunal costs and appeals and in most cases legal aid for employees.

Employers, even those charged with being an employer although they are only managers cannot get legal aid. So much for a fair society where everyone can defend themselves against unfair laws!

Employment Tribunals unlike any other  tribunal or court of law are not required to exchange evidence and disclose all known evidence prior to a hearing. This ridiculous law causes considerable additional cost in defence and prosecution. Probably 90% of cases brought to Tribunal could be cleared up before they got to a Tribunal if the law was changed to make it compulsory to declare all evidence and charges prior to hearings.It should also be necessasry to have all evidence sworn under oath as the Tribunal records will show that many points of so called evidence have just been a fabrication of hearsay and lies. The law should therefore also be changed to make it necessary to prove without reasonable doubt that evidence is real evidence and not simply a play on words.

Why is this idea important?

Employment tribunals cost businesses over £800 million a year and it is forecasted that 370,000 more cases will be held in the next three years. Over and above that the public purse has to pay the Tribunal costs and appeals and in most cases legal aid for employees.

Employers, even those charged with being an employer although they are only managers cannot get legal aid. So much for a fair society where everyone can defend themselves against unfair laws!

Employment Tribunals unlike any other  tribunal or court of law are not required to exchange evidence and disclose all known evidence prior to a hearing. This ridiculous law causes considerable additional cost in defence and prosecution. Probably 90% of cases brought to Tribunal could be cleared up before they got to a Tribunal if the law was changed to make it compulsory to declare all evidence and charges prior to hearings.It should also be necessasry to have all evidence sworn under oath as the Tribunal records will show that many points of so called evidence have just been a fabrication of hearsay and lies. The law should therefore also be changed to make it necessary to prove without reasonable doubt that evidence is real evidence and not simply a play on words.

Amalgamate all government benefits management and administration into a one-stop department

The benefits system in England is very complex to the point that many benefits officers don't fully understand what is available and what isn't. Benefits are made available through numerous laws and regulations and applications can be made to local authorities; Job Centres; DWP specific offices and HM Revenue and Customs. There are probably other agencies and quangos who are involved too.

Every application is based on a hefty application form and most of them ask the same information over and over albeit in slightly different formats. This takes up staff and customers time and in the case of telephone applications costs a fortune.

Surely all records for benefits/DWP/Income Tax purposes could be held on computer and actioned by using the unique NI number everyone should have. Those with no NI number should not be entitled to benefits.

The mass of documents, paper and subsequent shuffling around the country must be costing a fortune too.

I have no doubt that a private sector company could amalgamate the lot and streamline it so that benefits are dealt with very quickly with much less red tape. My guess is that the costs of administering and managing benefits could be reduced by as much as 65%

The laws relating to benefits should be changed so that the management of administering benefits is greatly reduced

Why is this idea important?

The benefits system in England is very complex to the point that many benefits officers don't fully understand what is available and what isn't. Benefits are made available through numerous laws and regulations and applications can be made to local authorities; Job Centres; DWP specific offices and HM Revenue and Customs. There are probably other agencies and quangos who are involved too.

Every application is based on a hefty application form and most of them ask the same information over and over albeit in slightly different formats. This takes up staff and customers time and in the case of telephone applications costs a fortune.

Surely all records for benefits/DWP/Income Tax purposes could be held on computer and actioned by using the unique NI number everyone should have. Those with no NI number should not be entitled to benefits.

The mass of documents, paper and subsequent shuffling around the country must be costing a fortune too.

I have no doubt that a private sector company could amalgamate the lot and streamline it so that benefits are dealt with very quickly with much less red tape. My guess is that the costs of administering and managing benefits could be reduced by as much as 65%

The laws relating to benefits should be changed so that the management of administering benefits is greatly reduced

Scrap green waste composting laws and regulations

It is not commonly known that all green waste composting on farms an d commercial premises must go through a range of hoops involving several faceless regulators and inspectors at DEFRA and farmers are also required to obtain Planning Permission from the local authority. This requires accurate plans and grid refernces to be drawn up and plotted and often takes months.

Example a farmer wishes to compost his hedge clippings and agricyultural waste from say peelings. old cabbage leaves etc. He would also like to add green waste from landscapers and councils. He would be replenishing his soil, improving fertility, water efficiency etc. Farmers have been doing this around the globe for over 5,000 years.

Suddenly in the late 20th century and 21st century rafts of regulation, form filling, inspections and general red tape are required in the name of health and safety and environmental protection.

This is but one example of the nonsense DEFRA and MAFF have foisted on farmers, The Environment Agency is a quango employing over 13,000 people………………………..most of them ordering us about.

This law shopuld be abolished along with many like it. Guidelines are more than adequate for green compost production.Planning Permits and dauily temperature readings etc are simply bureacracy gone mad.

Why is this idea important?

It is not commonly known that all green waste composting on farms an d commercial premises must go through a range of hoops involving several faceless regulators and inspectors at DEFRA and farmers are also required to obtain Planning Permission from the local authority. This requires accurate plans and grid refernces to be drawn up and plotted and often takes months.

Example a farmer wishes to compost his hedge clippings and agricyultural waste from say peelings. old cabbage leaves etc. He would also like to add green waste from landscapers and councils. He would be replenishing his soil, improving fertility, water efficiency etc. Farmers have been doing this around the globe for over 5,000 years.

Suddenly in the late 20th century and 21st century rafts of regulation, form filling, inspections and general red tape are required in the name of health and safety and environmental protection.

This is but one example of the nonsense DEFRA and MAFF have foisted on farmers, The Environment Agency is a quango employing over 13,000 people………………………..most of them ordering us about.

This law shopuld be abolished along with many like it. Guidelines are more than adequate for green compost production.Planning Permits and dauily temperature readings etc are simply bureacracy gone mad.

Radical change of thinking required in government departmental management and direction

I have experience of the public sector as a contractor and customer and have also been on the other side as an employee and operative in Government organisations.

In my opinion asking for 25% or 40% of cuts in departments will produce lists and reams of reasons why they won't work but no reasons why they will work. As a member of a senior board once, I recall that we were debating "what is this organisation's objectives and goals". After an hour of vague comments the second most senior , long term civil servant said, "I wouldn't repeat this outside of this room, and would deny it if it got out, but frankly the real reason we are here is to look after ourselves and our 800 plus staff." Because of this attitude, the implementing of any re organisation to cut and operate effectively is an impossibility for the Civil Service and its multiple layers of management.

Any cuts decreed by government should ideally be implemented by a brand new team of say five maximum at the head of the organisation from the PRIVATE SECTOR. Asking civil servants to implement such cuts is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas.

Why is this idea important?

I have experience of the public sector as a contractor and customer and have also been on the other side as an employee and operative in Government organisations.

In my opinion asking for 25% or 40% of cuts in departments will produce lists and reams of reasons why they won't work but no reasons why they will work. As a member of a senior board once, I recall that we were debating "what is this organisation's objectives and goals". After an hour of vague comments the second most senior , long term civil servant said, "I wouldn't repeat this outside of this room, and would deny it if it got out, but frankly the real reason we are here is to look after ourselves and our 800 plus staff." Because of this attitude, the implementing of any re organisation to cut and operate effectively is an impossibility for the Civil Service and its multiple layers of management.

Any cuts decreed by government should ideally be implemented by a brand new team of say five maximum at the head of the organisation from the PRIVATE SECTOR. Asking civil servants to implement such cuts is like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas.