Digital economy law breaks the law

The simple truth is this, under copyright law I am entitled to make a back up of any original I own. With dvds and musci the most simple way is to download a file that has already been compressed rather than compressing my own dvd or music cd.

However, because my ISP has no idea what I have an original copy of they have to (under these disgusting law) slow my connection down or scrap it altogether.

No judge, jury or even fair trial. Simply doing what am I am entitled to do makes me a criminal now.

How can I prove I am not breaking the law? Send all my receipts for 300+dvds (that obvioulsy I kept as people always keep 300 dvd receipts) to my isp for their future reference?

Why is this idea important?

The simple truth is this, under copyright law I am entitled to make a back up of any original I own. With dvds and musci the most simple way is to download a file that has already been compressed rather than compressing my own dvd or music cd.

However, because my ISP has no idea what I have an original copy of they have to (under these disgusting law) slow my connection down or scrap it altogether.

No judge, jury or even fair trial. Simply doing what am I am entitled to do makes me a criminal now.

How can I prove I am not breaking the law? Send all my receipts for 300+dvds (that obvioulsy I kept as people always keep 300 dvd receipts) to my isp for their future reference?

£45 per week maximum housing benefit.

The idea is simple, put a cap of £45 per week on housing benefit, not ont he person but on the property.

The simple fact is that there are now numerous private landlords buying up houses with the sole intention of renting them to people on benefit. These spivs look at a house on the market, find out what the maximum housing benefit they could recieve is and then simply buy the property if its financially viable.

By reducing the amount so drastically these greedy landlords would be forced to sell some of their holdings, this would open up the market for first time buyers and rebalance the market prices.

I have no problem with someone renting a second home but we have reached a stage where people have a portfolio of 30+ houses, each one purchased with the intention of getting benefit based tennants in.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is simple, put a cap of £45 per week on housing benefit, not ont he person but on the property.

The simple fact is that there are now numerous private landlords buying up houses with the sole intention of renting them to people on benefit. These spivs look at a house on the market, find out what the maximum housing benefit they could recieve is and then simply buy the property if its financially viable.

By reducing the amount so drastically these greedy landlords would be forced to sell some of their holdings, this would open up the market for first time buyers and rebalance the market prices.

I have no problem with someone renting a second home but we have reached a stage where people have a portfolio of 30+ houses, each one purchased with the intention of getting benefit based tennants in.

No Ball Games

This is a major annoyance of mine. remove the signs that say no ball games from public areas such as parks and other grassy areas. The same people that whinged about almost getting hit by a football etc are the same people that moan about the "youth of today."

I have long been aware that kids these days have nothing to do of an evening. Certainly nothing that is cheap or free.

If you don't want kids standing on street corners drinking then give them access to other things. Blocking off all areas from free sports such as football is stupid. To those that cry "whewn I was young we went bowling or to the cinema" should actually find out how much it costs these days to go to either of these. 1 film that lasts 90minutes (evening matines no longer exist) costs about £5 on average, that's £35 pounds a week, not the old 2 shilling. Bowling is even more expensive, a 10-20minute game costs £5. The simple truth is that comparatively it is far more expensive than it ever was. Alcohol is the cheapest form of entertainment for youth as it stands and those that moan have no-one to blame but themselves.

If you traverse an area where kids are playing football and you get hit by a ball think yourself lucky its not a bottle or firework rather than claiming assault by feral youths. let the kids of today enjoy the very freedoms you enjoyed rather than being total hypocrites.

Why is this idea important?

This is a major annoyance of mine. remove the signs that say no ball games from public areas such as parks and other grassy areas. The same people that whinged about almost getting hit by a football etc are the same people that moan about the "youth of today."

I have long been aware that kids these days have nothing to do of an evening. Certainly nothing that is cheap or free.

If you don't want kids standing on street corners drinking then give them access to other things. Blocking off all areas from free sports such as football is stupid. To those that cry "whewn I was young we went bowling or to the cinema" should actually find out how much it costs these days to go to either of these. 1 film that lasts 90minutes (evening matines no longer exist) costs about £5 on average, that's £35 pounds a week, not the old 2 shilling. Bowling is even more expensive, a 10-20minute game costs £5. The simple truth is that comparatively it is far more expensive than it ever was. Alcohol is the cheapest form of entertainment for youth as it stands and those that moan have no-one to blame but themselves.

If you traverse an area where kids are playing football and you get hit by a ball think yourself lucky its not a bottle or firework rather than claiming assault by feral youths. let the kids of today enjoy the very freedoms you enjoyed rather than being total hypocrites.