Investigate Trade Union Funds

If there is one solitary factor standing in the way of British economic recovery, it is the power of the Trade Unions. Unions collect funds from all members on a regular basis, sometimes for many years without any specific outlay. These funds were puportedly to support union members through finacial hardship as a result of strike action.

Today it is more likely to fund the lavish lifestyle of union bosses and their "executive committees". The unions have grown more powerful with every passing year and as their power grows, so too do the funds they amass.

Whilst there are possibly some unions who have only the well-being of their members at heart, there are those who blatantly misuse their position and funds entrusted to them by gullible members.

It is time these union funds were investigated, both for indications that union executives are syphoning off the cream for themselves and to see exactly what percentage of these funds is used in the best interests of union members.

As the British public are directly and indirectly affected by stike action, as is growth of our industries, increased employment and reduction of our national debt, it is only reasonable that trade union subscriptions are subjected to public scrutiny. That way the irresponsible actions of some trade unions can be brought under control, thus paving the way for willing workers in every sector to work toward strengthening our economy so that all may benefit.

Why is this idea important?

If there is one solitary factor standing in the way of British economic recovery, it is the power of the Trade Unions. Unions collect funds from all members on a regular basis, sometimes for many years without any specific outlay. These funds were puportedly to support union members through finacial hardship as a result of strike action.

Today it is more likely to fund the lavish lifestyle of union bosses and their "executive committees". The unions have grown more powerful with every passing year and as their power grows, so too do the funds they amass.

Whilst there are possibly some unions who have only the well-being of their members at heart, there are those who blatantly misuse their position and funds entrusted to them by gullible members.

It is time these union funds were investigated, both for indications that union executives are syphoning off the cream for themselves and to see exactly what percentage of these funds is used in the best interests of union members.

As the British public are directly and indirectly affected by stike action, as is growth of our industries, increased employment and reduction of our national debt, it is only reasonable that trade union subscriptions are subjected to public scrutiny. That way the irresponsible actions of some trade unions can be brought under control, thus paving the way for willing workers in every sector to work toward strengthening our economy so that all may benefit.

Scrap the Annual MoT for Passenger Cars

Every passenger car in Britain is required by law to submit to an annual examination to ensure it is fit for purpose and is roadworthy. A sound idea, one would think. Unfortunately it is open to abuse by certain unscrupulous dealers and garages, which results in cars being unfairly scrapped.

In a society like ours, where so many businesses are under pressure to meet sales targets, the temptation to "modify the facts" has proven irresistable to many used-car dealers. They have only to promise "kick-backs" to some garages to have the annual MoT certification failed. Often such failure is synonymous with expensive repairs, which leaves the owner thinking it might be the better solution to scrap the car and replace it with a new, albeit used, model. This enables the dealer to meet targets and the garage to increase profits, whilst the car owner is, as usual, left paying out more money. This is not true of every used car dealer, but is certainly more common than one might think.

Scrapping the current legislation whereby the MoT certificate has to be renewed every year with a more sensible arrangement would go a long way toward improving the situation.

One option would be to require certification based on distance travelled. Thus a car used extensively for work or pleasure might require certification once a year; while a car used for once a fortnight shopping, and one or two mainland holidays need only be examined every three years or so.

It is interesting to note that in the European Union, where so many rules that adversely affect the British way of life are generated, their directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 requires an examination once every two years.

Ireland, France, Germany, Japan and Singapore, to name just a few, are countries that also require cars to be certified as roadworthy every two years. There is no good reason to plague us with annual MoT certification.

Why is this idea important?

Every passenger car in Britain is required by law to submit to an annual examination to ensure it is fit for purpose and is roadworthy. A sound idea, one would think. Unfortunately it is open to abuse by certain unscrupulous dealers and garages, which results in cars being unfairly scrapped.

In a society like ours, where so many businesses are under pressure to meet sales targets, the temptation to "modify the facts" has proven irresistable to many used-car dealers. They have only to promise "kick-backs" to some garages to have the annual MoT certification failed. Often such failure is synonymous with expensive repairs, which leaves the owner thinking it might be the better solution to scrap the car and replace it with a new, albeit used, model. This enables the dealer to meet targets and the garage to increase profits, whilst the car owner is, as usual, left paying out more money. This is not true of every used car dealer, but is certainly more common than one might think.

Scrapping the current legislation whereby the MoT certificate has to be renewed every year with a more sensible arrangement would go a long way toward improving the situation.

One option would be to require certification based on distance travelled. Thus a car used extensively for work or pleasure might require certification once a year; while a car used for once a fortnight shopping, and one or two mainland holidays need only be examined every three years or so.

It is interesting to note that in the European Union, where so many rules that adversely affect the British way of life are generated, their directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 requires an examination once every two years.

Ireland, France, Germany, Japan and Singapore, to name just a few, are countries that also require cars to be certified as roadworthy every two years. There is no good reason to plague us with annual MoT certification.

Repeal the European Communities Act 1972 (UK)

This Act, although given Royal Assent, must be repealed if Britain and British people are to have any say in the governance of their way of life. The Act states, in effect, that all legislation and Acts of Parliament are subject to approval by the European Parliament. To hand over control of everything that maintains law and order in Britain is totally unacceptable. It must never have represented the wishes of the majority of the British population.

Europe has far too much influence on our way of life. While there is a strong case to change from pounds and ounces to kilogrammes, or to abandon gills, pints, gallons and firkins in favour of litres, the European insistence that we must sell eggs by weight is just plain silly. If you ask for a kilogramme of eggs will you endup with all small eggs? Or a mixture of small and large?

More serious is the cost to Britain's taxpayers for this European interference. Everyone in the British isles is affected by the unbelievable debt run up by the Socialist government; we are all feeling the pinch to a greater or lesser degree and yet an unacceptably large percentage of our GNP is lost in the corridors of the European Parliament.

Why is this idea important?

This Act, although given Royal Assent, must be repealed if Britain and British people are to have any say in the governance of their way of life. The Act states, in effect, that all legislation and Acts of Parliament are subject to approval by the European Parliament. To hand over control of everything that maintains law and order in Britain is totally unacceptable. It must never have represented the wishes of the majority of the British population.

Europe has far too much influence on our way of life. While there is a strong case to change from pounds and ounces to kilogrammes, or to abandon gills, pints, gallons and firkins in favour of litres, the European insistence that we must sell eggs by weight is just plain silly. If you ask for a kilogramme of eggs will you endup with all small eggs? Or a mixture of small and large?

More serious is the cost to Britain's taxpayers for this European interference. Everyone in the British isles is affected by the unbelievable debt run up by the Socialist government; we are all feeling the pinch to a greater or lesser degree and yet an unacceptably large percentage of our GNP is lost in the corridors of the European Parliament.

Correct the Imbalance of the Equality Bill

There is a need to clarify the meaning of the Equality Bill and publish it in plain English.

The Equality Act, like many others, was a good idea at first. However, it has now been used as a weapon by so many that it no longer maintains any balance and has lost a great deal of its original credibilty. For instance, it is fair to suggest equal opportunity in the job market and in the workplace, provided equal qualifications are available. To insist that eleven per cent of public appointments are to be filled from ethnic minorities is nonsensical unless one also insists that the eleven per cent have the same qualifications and experience as the other eighy-nine per cent.

In addition, the Equality Act is all too often confused with the Human Rights Act. Equal opportunity must not be confused with equal rights; they are two totally separate concepts. To state that an individual has the same opportunity as any other does not necessarily mean that the individual has the same rights as any other.

Why is this idea important?

There is a need to clarify the meaning of the Equality Bill and publish it in plain English.

The Equality Act, like many others, was a good idea at first. However, it has now been used as a weapon by so many that it no longer maintains any balance and has lost a great deal of its original credibilty. For instance, it is fair to suggest equal opportunity in the job market and in the workplace, provided equal qualifications are available. To insist that eleven per cent of public appointments are to be filled from ethnic minorities is nonsensical unless one also insists that the eleven per cent have the same qualifications and experience as the other eighy-nine per cent.

In addition, the Equality Act is all too often confused with the Human Rights Act. Equal opportunity must not be confused with equal rights; they are two totally separate concepts. To state that an individual has the same opportunity as any other does not necessarily mean that the individual has the same rights as any other.

Erosion of Liberty by European Court of Human Rights

We must disassociate ourselves from interference by Europe on matters that represent a threat to British citizens. The European Court of Human Rights seeks to protect known criminals and terrorists and their "rights", whilst wholly ignoring the rights of the people of Britain to safety in their everyday lives. What authority does Europe have over an agreement between British courts and the USA? Britain needs to remind those who repeatedly play the "human rights" card that acceptance of responsibility comes before rights.

Interference in the extradition of Abu Hamza al-Masri to the USA is a good example of how the European Court of Human Rights puts itself and its ideas above the laws of Britain and the USA.

Britain has fought long and often for its civil liberties and has frequently demonstrated its responsibilities that allow us to claim our own rights. No person, group or court can be allowed to erode our right to safety so that one, two or even a hundred individuals can put their frequently absurd claims to "rights" before the rights of a whole nation.

Why is this idea important?

We must disassociate ourselves from interference by Europe on matters that represent a threat to British citizens. The European Court of Human Rights seeks to protect known criminals and terrorists and their "rights", whilst wholly ignoring the rights of the people of Britain to safety in their everyday lives. What authority does Europe have over an agreement between British courts and the USA? Britain needs to remind those who repeatedly play the "human rights" card that acceptance of responsibility comes before rights.

Interference in the extradition of Abu Hamza al-Masri to the USA is a good example of how the European Court of Human Rights puts itself and its ideas above the laws of Britain and the USA.

Britain has fought long and often for its civil liberties and has frequently demonstrated its responsibilities that allow us to claim our own rights. No person, group or court can be allowed to erode our right to safety so that one, two or even a hundred individuals can put their frequently absurd claims to "rights" before the rights of a whole nation.