Allow Foreign TV Channels on Sky

Margaret Thatcher saw the value of free speech and passed laws allowing UK citizens to easily watch foreign satellite TV channels. Freedom of speech and access to foreign sources helps democracy abroad. Yet in the UK the previous mixed-provider platform on Astra has been replaced with a system controlled by just one broadcaster, Sky. In theory non-UK channels can operate on the Sky platform, but in reality every channel is UK regulated by Ofcom or tacitly approved by Sky. It's market power makes direct competitors or types of channels Sky disapproves of unable to access the UK market. They can't get a transponder slot. If they do,m they can't get listed on the Sky EPG. If they do the cost is £25,000 or more per year.

This is an insurmountable hurdle for, say, a small French regional channel, that might want to broadcast to ex-patriot French working in Britain. A custom dish set-up is not an option for many people, particularly anyone in temporary accommodation.

The Sky platform has just 2 European channels, both bland state run "Best Of" packages. We should be strengthening our ties, not weakening them.

Not a Government issue? Not a freedom issue? Yes, Mr Moderator, it is. It will take Government action to force Sky (and Virgin, BT, etc) to carry european channels on request and at low cost, without UK regulation. (Dual regulation does not work).

Give the UK people freedom to hear the rest of the world, not just what big business wants us to hear.

Why is this idea important?

Margaret Thatcher saw the value of free speech and passed laws allowing UK citizens to easily watch foreign satellite TV channels. Freedom of speech and access to foreign sources helps democracy abroad. Yet in the UK the previous mixed-provider platform on Astra has been replaced with a system controlled by just one broadcaster, Sky. In theory non-UK channels can operate on the Sky platform, but in reality every channel is UK regulated by Ofcom or tacitly approved by Sky. It's market power makes direct competitors or types of channels Sky disapproves of unable to access the UK market. They can't get a transponder slot. If they do,m they can't get listed on the Sky EPG. If they do the cost is £25,000 or more per year.

This is an insurmountable hurdle for, say, a small French regional channel, that might want to broadcast to ex-patriot French working in Britain. A custom dish set-up is not an option for many people, particularly anyone in temporary accommodation.

The Sky platform has just 2 European channels, both bland state run "Best Of" packages. We should be strengthening our ties, not weakening them.

Not a Government issue? Not a freedom issue? Yes, Mr Moderator, it is. It will take Government action to force Sky (and Virgin, BT, etc) to carry european channels on request and at low cost, without UK regulation. (Dual regulation does not work).

Give the UK people freedom to hear the rest of the world, not just what big business wants us to hear.

scaledown this nonsensical part p certification nonsence

to scale down this awful part p,bereaurocratic nonsence, when i first trained in the electrical industry all our major work was independently inspected and tested by a local supply board inspector, now its either done by an installer himself (self certification ) which costs small companies a small fortune, or by the local building inspector,who is not a trained electrical engineer,

I feel this system is so mad,it was far better before, the labour goverment came up with this mad idia,

I know loads of people in the domestic electrical field are totally fed up with all this red tape nonsence,

after hearing from other engineers ,like myself envolved in the electrical industry for the last 25 years, this was a step to far.

Why is this idea important?

to scale down this awful part p,bereaurocratic nonsence, when i first trained in the electrical industry all our major work was independently inspected and tested by a local supply board inspector, now its either done by an installer himself (self certification ) which costs small companies a small fortune, or by the local building inspector,who is not a trained electrical engineer,

I feel this system is so mad,it was far better before, the labour goverment came up with this mad idia,

I know loads of people in the domestic electrical field are totally fed up with all this red tape nonsence,

after hearing from other engineers ,like myself envolved in the electrical industry for the last 25 years, this was a step to far.

Ammendment to the Arbitration Act 1986

The Arbitration Act 1986 was supposed to make the resolution of business to business disputes simpliar, cheaper and quicker. However this well meaning piece of legislation is being abused by big business where issues arise in their dealing with smaller business. It is a basic priniciple of our human rights that we should not be deined access to the court system which regulates and governs our land. Reference of a matter to Arbitration was supposed to require the agreement of both parties and the resulting arbitration was supposed to be immpartial.

However the Arbitartion process is now mainly run by the large trade organisations which are dominated by the large companies within the sector which also fund their very existence. This detracts from the immpartialality that one would expect from a quasi judicial process. The Arbitration process has also now become slow and expensive and indeed Arbitration are changing hourly rates high than that of legally qualified solicitors. This is making the process very far from the fair alternative it was supposed to be. Futhermore senior Industry employees are able to make large sums of money by working on Arbitration panels either upon their retierment or as a profitable sideline to their day job within the industry. Whilst people with expert knowledge obviously have something to offer the process, a degree of common sense is also require and can only be achieved if lay people make up the majority of any arbitration panel.

Why is this idea important?

The Arbitration Act 1986 was supposed to make the resolution of business to business disputes simpliar, cheaper and quicker. However this well meaning piece of legislation is being abused by big business where issues arise in their dealing with smaller business. It is a basic priniciple of our human rights that we should not be deined access to the court system which regulates and governs our land. Reference of a matter to Arbitration was supposed to require the agreement of both parties and the resulting arbitration was supposed to be immpartial.

However the Arbitartion process is now mainly run by the large trade organisations which are dominated by the large companies within the sector which also fund their very existence. This detracts from the immpartialality that one would expect from a quasi judicial process. The Arbitration process has also now become slow and expensive and indeed Arbitration are changing hourly rates high than that of legally qualified solicitors. This is making the process very far from the fair alternative it was supposed to be. Futhermore senior Industry employees are able to make large sums of money by working on Arbitration panels either upon their retierment or as a profitable sideline to their day job within the industry. Whilst people with expert knowledge obviously have something to offer the process, a degree of common sense is also require and can only be achieved if lay people make up the majority of any arbitration panel.

Company Insolvency and Protective Awards by the Government’s Redundancy Payments Office

Either company insolvency should become a ‘special circumstance’ meaning the obligation to consult with workforce could be dispensed with in this case, or perhaps reduced to a shorter and more manageable period, or the rules regarding Redundancy Payments Office safety nets could be amended so that the RPO does not pay out on protective awards.   This would still leave employees able to claim their protective awards against the company but at least they would not be directly funded by the taxpayer where company insolvency is concerned.

 

 

Background:  The number of company insolvencies is likely to rise by the end of 2010.  Returning a business to profit in the short term generally means significant cost cutting of the kind only achieved by reducing staff numbers meaning redundancy costs have to be absorbed by a business that is already financially distressed.   The trouble is that the company is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.   Non-compliance with the consultation rule means employees can claim what is termed a ‘Protective Award’ at an Employment Tribunal, compelling the company to pay up to 90 days of salary by way of penalty for failing to consult with staff (though this may be reduced if some consultation takes place).   There are few exceptions to the consultation rule and as matters stand at the moment, a company being unable to pay its debts is not one of them.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Either company insolvency should become a ‘special circumstance’ meaning the obligation to consult with workforce could be dispensed with in this case, or perhaps reduced to a shorter and more manageable period, or the rules regarding Redundancy Payments Office safety nets could be amended so that the RPO does not pay out on protective awards.   This would still leave employees able to claim their protective awards against the company but at least they would not be directly funded by the taxpayer where company insolvency is concerned.

 

 

Background:  The number of company insolvencies is likely to rise by the end of 2010.  Returning a business to profit in the short term generally means significant cost cutting of the kind only achieved by reducing staff numbers meaning redundancy costs have to be absorbed by a business that is already financially distressed.   The trouble is that the company is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.   Non-compliance with the consultation rule means employees can claim what is termed a ‘Protective Award’ at an Employment Tribunal, compelling the company to pay up to 90 days of salary by way of penalty for failing to consult with staff (though this may be reduced if some consultation takes place).   There are few exceptions to the consultation rule and as matters stand at the moment, a company being unable to pay its debts is not one of them.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Removing low denomination coins (“coppers”) from circulation

I think it is time that we removed low denomination, copper coins from circulation. There are an archaic hold-over from days gone-by when penny sweets really did cost a penny and post the inflation that this country has experienced since decimalisation are no longer a relevant unit of currency. Most people, I would argue, find one and two penny coins an inconvenience and while in aggregate they can of course be useful when buying a newspaper or chocolate bar, there is nothing that counted by accomplished with a five penny coin.

Of course removing these coins from circulation would have an inflationary effect, probably by more than one of two percent given the cover that such a change would give retailers to raise prices, but then given current concerns over deflation (a debate for another day perhaps), this would surely be a useful, albeit one-time boost. It would require some capital investment in new signage by most of the retail / consumer-facing industries, changes to cash registers etc, but all useful investment and positive for business activity.

And lastly, there would be limited, but certainly positive effect from taking all the current copper coins (6bn 2p coins alone) and re-using and selling the steel and copper-plating.

 

Why is this idea important?

I think it is time that we removed low denomination, copper coins from circulation. There are an archaic hold-over from days gone-by when penny sweets really did cost a penny and post the inflation that this country has experienced since decimalisation are no longer a relevant unit of currency. Most people, I would argue, find one and two penny coins an inconvenience and while in aggregate they can of course be useful when buying a newspaper or chocolate bar, there is nothing that counted by accomplished with a five penny coin.

Of course removing these coins from circulation would have an inflationary effect, probably by more than one of two percent given the cover that such a change would give retailers to raise prices, but then given current concerns over deflation (a debate for another day perhaps), this would surely be a useful, albeit one-time boost. It would require some capital investment in new signage by most of the retail / consumer-facing industries, changes to cash registers etc, but all useful investment and positive for business activity.

And lastly, there would be limited, but certainly positive effect from taking all the current copper coins (6bn 2p coins alone) and re-using and selling the steel and copper-plating.

 

Re-examination of the Poisons Act.

The Poisons Act is outdated, confusing and ineffectual legislation which needs to be reviewed against current European Law and amended to effectively deliver the necessary and appropriate safeguards for the safe sale and supply of those chemicals which are judged by today's standards to require such controls.

There should be a re-instatement of the Poisons Board to examine the validity of the Poisons Rules and review them in the light of modern legislative and operational standards.

The anomaliesand inconsistencies that exist in this legislation compound the confusion surrounding the scope of the various lists of chemicals to such an extent that the outcomes are counter-productive and do not add to the level of safety of the public that they should.

Why is this idea important?

The Poisons Act is outdated, confusing and ineffectual legislation which needs to be reviewed against current European Law and amended to effectively deliver the necessary and appropriate safeguards for the safe sale and supply of those chemicals which are judged by today's standards to require such controls.

There should be a re-instatement of the Poisons Board to examine the validity of the Poisons Rules and review them in the light of modern legislative and operational standards.

The anomaliesand inconsistencies that exist in this legislation compound the confusion surrounding the scope of the various lists of chemicals to such an extent that the outcomes are counter-productive and do not add to the level of safety of the public that they should.

CQC-duplicates existing regulation of the dental profession

General Dental practitioners are already regulated by the GDC and further regulation by the CQC will bring no benefits to the public or the profession. It will simply mean that valuable time and effort is wasted on proving compliance which means less time for patients. At a time when morale among NHS dental professionals especially is very low, due to the unpopularity of the new contract, the CQC registration is seen as onerous and a complete waste of time. Inspections by PCTs are already rigorous and timeconsuming. Private practices are often accredited by Denplan, BDA good practice or BUPA.  Ultimately the GDC regulates all GDPs.

As we are in a recession this would seem to be an unnecessary expense and a  waste of practice manpower at this time. It is doubtful if patients would experience any benefit for the expenditure. The CQC was supposed to be a watchdog for large health and social care organisations such as NHS trusts and private hospitals. The cost of introducing a department to police dentists will be huge- is this giving the taxpayer value for money.

Why is this idea important?

General Dental practitioners are already regulated by the GDC and further regulation by the CQC will bring no benefits to the public or the profession. It will simply mean that valuable time and effort is wasted on proving compliance which means less time for patients. At a time when morale among NHS dental professionals especially is very low, due to the unpopularity of the new contract, the CQC registration is seen as onerous and a complete waste of time. Inspections by PCTs are already rigorous and timeconsuming. Private practices are often accredited by Denplan, BDA good practice or BUPA.  Ultimately the GDC regulates all GDPs.

As we are in a recession this would seem to be an unnecessary expense and a  waste of practice manpower at this time. It is doubtful if patients would experience any benefit for the expenditure. The CQC was supposed to be a watchdog for large health and social care organisations such as NHS trusts and private hospitals. The cost of introducing a department to police dentists will be huge- is this giving the taxpayer value for money.

Abolish CQC

yet again another attempt to make it even more difficult to spend our time as dental professionals to what it matters most and I mean providing clinical dentsitry rather than bureaucratic dentistry. This idea has floorished from  probably a group of people who do not know anything about the real world of a busy dental professionals life.

This will hit small practices hardest where the available funding for complying with all these unneceassry regulations is very limited. Deep inside I do believe that this is an attempt to get rid of small practices .However no matter whether we are small single surgery practices or large multi surgery and corporate, I really do think we should stand side by side altogether and protest against these meaningless waste of resoursces. 

We probably have never been good at showing the authorities and other governing bodies that we are the one who actually providing the actual work for the people and we should be consulted in this and probably many other respects . An unhappy professional with huge burden on his/hers shoulder to deal with these meaningless regulations will not be able to provide high quality of the service that these penpusher are looking for

We should go out really strong and hopefully with a large majority can show that they can not run over us and if we do that once probably we gain a little more respect and they will treat us better next time.

Just look at the BA cabin crews strike action , London undergrounds staff strike and many other who successfully have won the respect of their counterpart.

Why cant we do the same??!!

Why is this idea important?

yet again another attempt to make it even more difficult to spend our time as dental professionals to what it matters most and I mean providing clinical dentsitry rather than bureaucratic dentistry. This idea has floorished from  probably a group of people who do not know anything about the real world of a busy dental professionals life.

This will hit small practices hardest where the available funding for complying with all these unneceassry regulations is very limited. Deep inside I do believe that this is an attempt to get rid of small practices .However no matter whether we are small single surgery practices or large multi surgery and corporate, I really do think we should stand side by side altogether and protest against these meaningless waste of resoursces. 

We probably have never been good at showing the authorities and other governing bodies that we are the one who actually providing the actual work for the people and we should be consulted in this and probably many other respects . An unhappy professional with huge burden on his/hers shoulder to deal with these meaningless regulations will not be able to provide high quality of the service that these penpusher are looking for

We should go out really strong and hopefully with a large majority can show that they can not run over us and if we do that once probably we gain a little more respect and they will treat us better next time.

Just look at the BA cabin crews strike action , London undergrounds staff strike and many other who successfully have won the respect of their counterpart.

Why cant we do the same??!!

Coordination of roadworks

At present many companies have the right to shut off sections of road at any time of their choosing.  This often results in chaos or farce where other companies dig up nearby roads or even the same stretch a short time after it was resurfaced by the previous company.  This results in severe frustration and stress, increased emissions as cars wait and an incalculable bill to businesses who may lose both their workers and their customers.

Given that Local Authorities need to raise alternative revenues without pushing up Council Tax, would it not make sense for Councils to police the digging up of highways, charging for the right to do so and issuing licences that were valid for an agreed period with stinging penalty clauses for delays?  Regulation should place a duty on such companies to coordinate their activities ensuring that no particular route was disrupted more than a certain number of days per year.  A duty should also be placed on the Council to ensure that traffic flow was kept as free as possible.

Why is this idea important?

At present many companies have the right to shut off sections of road at any time of their choosing.  This often results in chaos or farce where other companies dig up nearby roads or even the same stretch a short time after it was resurfaced by the previous company.  This results in severe frustration and stress, increased emissions as cars wait and an incalculable bill to businesses who may lose both their workers and their customers.

Given that Local Authorities need to raise alternative revenues without pushing up Council Tax, would it not make sense for Councils to police the digging up of highways, charging for the right to do so and issuing licences that were valid for an agreed period with stinging penalty clauses for delays?  Regulation should place a duty on such companies to coordinate their activities ensuring that no particular route was disrupted more than a certain number of days per year.  A duty should also be placed on the Council to ensure that traffic flow was kept as free as possible.

Ban telephone revenue sharing on non-07 & non-09 numbers

Many businesses and even public sector organisations continue to use 0845 (HMRC), 0844 (SIA) which are not Phonepay Plus regulated and often charge much more than standard landline rate to call, especially 0844. A ban on all unregulated telephone revenue sharing, as Ofcom did with 0870, would then pave the way for calls to 08 numbers to be price-capped at the same level as 01/02/03 numbers without need for expensive rebranding of literature.

In addition,

callers should not be left "on hold" for more than a maximum permitted time specified in law (e.g. 4 minutes), without being given opportunity to be called back.

UK Mobile operators should be legally required to connect 0800 numbers free of charge, for a limited no of minutes e.g. 20 mins per call.

Why is this idea important?

Many businesses and even public sector organisations continue to use 0845 (HMRC), 0844 (SIA) which are not Phonepay Plus regulated and often charge much more than standard landline rate to call, especially 0844. A ban on all unregulated telephone revenue sharing, as Ofcom did with 0870, would then pave the way for calls to 08 numbers to be price-capped at the same level as 01/02/03 numbers without need for expensive rebranding of literature.

In addition,

callers should not be left "on hold" for more than a maximum permitted time specified in law (e.g. 4 minutes), without being given opportunity to be called back.

UK Mobile operators should be legally required to connect 0800 numbers free of charge, for a limited no of minutes e.g. 20 mins per call.

Promote couples but not through tax!

A single parent on £30k+ would be generally entitled to working tax credits, child tax credits, child benefit, child maintenence off the non resident parent and a single persons council tax reduction.

Two mouths to feed, utilites for two etc.

However, a couple on 15k each would be expected to live off potentially less add on benefits with three or more mouths to feed, utilites for three or more and full council tax rates.

As an example myself and my girlfriend live in seperate houses. If we lived together she would lose her childcare benefits, all my wages would disappear into funding childcare and her wages would have to stretch to feeding three people and covering the cost for additional utility bills etc.

If it was financially viable for couples in our situation to live together, there would be extra houses for sale, boosting the housing market, a lower C02 footprint and if David Camerons theories are right then children would grow up in a stable household and would be more likely to progress academically

I dont think the government promotes enough incentives for families to live together. And i don't think the tax proposal break for married couples is such a good idea. I would rather the government promote living together as a family through re distributing financial support to couples to encourage cohabitation.

This is not a dig at single parents by the way so if any read this please dont take offence.

Why is this idea important?

A single parent on £30k+ would be generally entitled to working tax credits, child tax credits, child benefit, child maintenence off the non resident parent and a single persons council tax reduction.

Two mouths to feed, utilites for two etc.

However, a couple on 15k each would be expected to live off potentially less add on benefits with three or more mouths to feed, utilites for three or more and full council tax rates.

As an example myself and my girlfriend live in seperate houses. If we lived together she would lose her childcare benefits, all my wages would disappear into funding childcare and her wages would have to stretch to feeding three people and covering the cost for additional utility bills etc.

If it was financially viable for couples in our situation to live together, there would be extra houses for sale, boosting the housing market, a lower C02 footprint and if David Camerons theories are right then children would grow up in a stable household and would be more likely to progress academically

I dont think the government promotes enough incentives for families to live together. And i don't think the tax proposal break for married couples is such a good idea. I would rather the government promote living together as a family through re distributing financial support to couples to encourage cohabitation.

This is not a dig at single parents by the way so if any read this please dont take offence.

Freeways in town and cities

The design of our towns and cities leaves a lot to be desired when coping with the unforseen traffic levels for when they were designed.   Most 'A' roads are of single lane construction and where the roads widen are often littered with parked vehicles.

A free and easy way to alleviate traffic problems is to ban parking along these 'A' roads which would add to safety and help keep the traffic moving.

It may inconvenience a few motorists but for the greater good it will help solve a problem that can be operated almost overnight at little or no cost.

Why is this idea important?

The design of our towns and cities leaves a lot to be desired when coping with the unforseen traffic levels for when they were designed.   Most 'A' roads are of single lane construction and where the roads widen are often littered with parked vehicles.

A free and easy way to alleviate traffic problems is to ban parking along these 'A' roads which would add to safety and help keep the traffic moving.

It may inconvenience a few motorists but for the greater good it will help solve a problem that can be operated almost overnight at little or no cost.

Speeding up Traffic Flow

One of the biggest daily holdups is that at the Dartford Crossing.   Tolls are collected both Southbound and Northbound.    Why not cancel either of these tolls and instead just double the toll on the other.   This method is already used on the Severn crossing.

Why is this idea important?

One of the biggest daily holdups is that at the Dartford Crossing.   Tolls are collected both Southbound and Northbound.    Why not cancel either of these tolls and instead just double the toll on the other.   This method is already used on the Severn crossing.

Making home animal husbandry easier

Many people would like to grow their own animals as well as vegetables but the laws and regulations are horrendous. Even to have one pig is a nightmare. I have spoken to several ex farmers who gave up business due to excessive farming regulations and heavy handed implementation. The only exception is chickens, you can have up to 25 without registration. But what about sheep, pigs, cows and other animals? Its time British people REGAINED the rights. During the war the government were only too happy to have us grow pigs and sheep.

Why is this idea important?

Many people would like to grow their own animals as well as vegetables but the laws and regulations are horrendous. Even to have one pig is a nightmare. I have spoken to several ex farmers who gave up business due to excessive farming regulations and heavy handed implementation. The only exception is chickens, you can have up to 25 without registration. But what about sheep, pigs, cows and other animals? Its time British people REGAINED the rights. During the war the government were only too happy to have us grow pigs and sheep.

No IVA/SVA for kit cars

Once upon a time in Britain there was a growing industrythat provided kits for converting rusting relics to fun and exciting 30's-style roadsters and many other forms, using GRP body tubs and a host of replica 'period' fittings and accessories. Building these cars provided enjoyable involvement and spare-time occupation for thousands of people, and driving them around on summer weekends was a fun activity that harmed no-one.

Every car built had of course to pass an MOT test, that ensured that it was mechanically safe and met all statutory requirements regarding lighting, seat belt anchorages, structural strength etc. etc. Then about 10 years ago, for no apparent reason at all, the DVLA introduced the 'Single Vehicle Approval' process for all kit-built cars, involving conformity with a host of ridiculous reguirements about 'minimum radius' edges, BS approved steering wheels and so on, that it isvirtually impossible for any period-style kit car to meet. Almost overnight, a useful and fun British industry was killed, and thousands of long-term builders were left with part-complete vehicles they could never hope to get on the road. Now the regulations are being even futher tightened to bring all those existing kit cars that are 'incorrectly registered' – that is, still retain the base 'donor' car identity – into the net, even if they have been on the road perhaps for years, been taxed and MOT'd etc..

There is simply no need for these laws. Kit cars can never meet regulations designed for mass production vehicles – they are lightweight 'specials' generally used for low-mileage weekend fun driving by their dedicated owners. They can never be as 'safe' for the drivers as the steel tanks produced by the car industry, but are safer for both driver and pedestrians than road-legal motorcycles, trikes or cycle/sidecar 'combos', by a very wide margin. There is no history of any particular problems associated with kit cars – on the contrary, insurance premiums are typically low, because kit cars tend NOT to be involved in accidents.

To revive a quirky British industry and to restore the freedom to have a bit of fun to all those who own or would like to build a kit car, the requirment to go through an SVA/IVA test should be abolished and replaced by an extended initial MOT test carried out at a local garage, to ensure build standard, general safety, and conformity with all statutory requirements, but no more.

Why is this idea important?

Once upon a time in Britain there was a growing industrythat provided kits for converting rusting relics to fun and exciting 30's-style roadsters and many other forms, using GRP body tubs and a host of replica 'period' fittings and accessories. Building these cars provided enjoyable involvement and spare-time occupation for thousands of people, and driving them around on summer weekends was a fun activity that harmed no-one.

Every car built had of course to pass an MOT test, that ensured that it was mechanically safe and met all statutory requirements regarding lighting, seat belt anchorages, structural strength etc. etc. Then about 10 years ago, for no apparent reason at all, the DVLA introduced the 'Single Vehicle Approval' process for all kit-built cars, involving conformity with a host of ridiculous reguirements about 'minimum radius' edges, BS approved steering wheels and so on, that it isvirtually impossible for any period-style kit car to meet. Almost overnight, a useful and fun British industry was killed, and thousands of long-term builders were left with part-complete vehicles they could never hope to get on the road. Now the regulations are being even futher tightened to bring all those existing kit cars that are 'incorrectly registered' – that is, still retain the base 'donor' car identity – into the net, even if they have been on the road perhaps for years, been taxed and MOT'd etc..

There is simply no need for these laws. Kit cars can never meet regulations designed for mass production vehicles – they are lightweight 'specials' generally used for low-mileage weekend fun driving by their dedicated owners. They can never be as 'safe' for the drivers as the steel tanks produced by the car industry, but are safer for both driver and pedestrians than road-legal motorcycles, trikes or cycle/sidecar 'combos', by a very wide margin. There is no history of any particular problems associated with kit cars – on the contrary, insurance premiums are typically low, because kit cars tend NOT to be involved in accidents.

To revive a quirky British industry and to restore the freedom to have a bit of fun to all those who own or would like to build a kit car, the requirment to go through an SVA/IVA test should be abolished and replaced by an extended initial MOT test carried out at a local garage, to ensure build standard, general safety, and conformity with all statutory requirements, but no more.

Third Freedom from Inept Civil Servants

From: "Jim Quinn"
To:  "The Cabinet Office UK" <pscorrespondence@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc:
Subject: UNSAFE AAIB report 4-2010
Date: 04 September 2010 21:30

The UK AAIB have done it again with their report on a Boeing 777 incident at St Kitts, West Indies (airport ref SKB) on 26th September 2009. See:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/formal_reports.cfm

Their report AAIB 4-2010 dated 2sept10 is the fourth poor one this year (and thus every one this year has been poor!) that I have commented upon, and it again has insufficient safety recommendations.

The UK AAIB report says at para 1.18.1.1:
"Also the low sun was directly over the western end of the ramp."
According to the following website, http://www.sunrisesunsetmap.com/ , sunset was at 1802 hours Bolivia time, and the 777 aircrew started to talk to ATC (Air Traffic Control) about taxi at 2059:57 hours (three hours later, and Boliva is on the same longitude as SKB, but there may be an hour time zone difference of course), so the sun was well below the horizon. Since St Kitts is only 17 degrees North of the Equator, I would have thought the Sun would set at about 1800 hours for days are as long as nights on the equator at almost all times of the year, so I also mindfully conclude that the Sun was actually set for some long time previous to taxi out, and thus it was dark. Thus my safety recommendation ON THE UK AAIB, that they always check local time, and quote local sunset time in this case, for their reports.

So, it was dark, yet the UK AAIB report mentions no lights on the taxiway. Were there none, and thus why the co-pilot taxied blindly? Or was it his fault for not having a recce of the taxiway map before flight? Do SKB have big maps at aircrew lounge departure doors? Two more safety recommendations.

If the taxiway lights had been on, the co-pilot would have seen alpha taxiway to A departing to his left as he approached B. So importantly, were there no taxiway lights? Because the co-pilot was only following his own head lamps it seems. A safety recommendation to fit taxiway lights.

The UK AAIB mention the British Airways NDA, but do not show it. Why not, since it seems to me to indicate that BA should have their St Kitts flight clearance withdrawn – useless NDA still not corrected? A safety recommendation.

Why is there no ATC sound recorder? The UK AAIB report did not even mention it, even though they recognised difficulties in memory recall from the staff in the ATC room. I agree with the UK AAIB report 4-2010, that SKB is obviously not performing as it should, for they were lazy in their approach to safety. So they should be more stringently scrutinised before flights are allowed there again – but no UK AAIB recommendation anywhere near strong enough. Suspension hurts the whole island, so pressure to improve much better if flights were suspended. Two more safety recommendations.

If the departure via beta (B) was so regular, why was there no woman standing at the junction to ensure the 777 aircraft went down alpha to A? There are not that many flights into or out of SKB, so it should be easily setup. A safety recommendation.

The UK AAIB mention June 2010 as the date for work to be completed at the airport. Their report is September 2010. Was it done? Why publish the lazy report, if they do not know? Similarly for the training necessary for ATC crew. Another safety recommendation UPON the UK AAIB.

Count those safety recommendations up, and I think the UK AAIB will find they should be up to about number 2010-056 by now (not just their 2010-049), with an additonal two from ME onto THEM, which obviously EASA/CAA will have to think about.

Thus the UK AAIB are again quality audited. The UK AAIB should send many senior managers back to school (or sack them), and make sure those left know how to conduct an investigation in future. A safety recommendation on the UK AAIB, for our skys are only safer, if they report well.

NOW please.
IMMEDIATELY, for our future flight safety depends upon these people.

The UK Cabinet Office to follow up actions please.

Jim Quinn FIMechE

Why is this idea important?

From: "Jim Quinn"
To:  "The Cabinet Office UK" <pscorrespondence@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc:
Subject: UNSAFE AAIB report 4-2010
Date: 04 September 2010 21:30

The UK AAIB have done it again with their report on a Boeing 777 incident at St Kitts, West Indies (airport ref SKB) on 26th September 2009. See:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/formal_reports.cfm

Their report AAIB 4-2010 dated 2sept10 is the fourth poor one this year (and thus every one this year has been poor!) that I have commented upon, and it again has insufficient safety recommendations.

The UK AAIB report says at para 1.18.1.1:
"Also the low sun was directly over the western end of the ramp."
According to the following website, http://www.sunrisesunsetmap.com/ , sunset was at 1802 hours Bolivia time, and the 777 aircrew started to talk to ATC (Air Traffic Control) about taxi at 2059:57 hours (three hours later, and Boliva is on the same longitude as SKB, but there may be an hour time zone difference of course), so the sun was well below the horizon. Since St Kitts is only 17 degrees North of the Equator, I would have thought the Sun would set at about 1800 hours for days are as long as nights on the equator at almost all times of the year, so I also mindfully conclude that the Sun was actually set for some long time previous to taxi out, and thus it was dark. Thus my safety recommendation ON THE UK AAIB, that they always check local time, and quote local sunset time in this case, for their reports.

So, it was dark, yet the UK AAIB report mentions no lights on the taxiway. Were there none, and thus why the co-pilot taxied blindly? Or was it his fault for not having a recce of the taxiway map before flight? Do SKB have big maps at aircrew lounge departure doors? Two more safety recommendations.

If the taxiway lights had been on, the co-pilot would have seen alpha taxiway to A departing to his left as he approached B. So importantly, were there no taxiway lights? Because the co-pilot was only following his own head lamps it seems. A safety recommendation to fit taxiway lights.

The UK AAIB mention the British Airways NDA, but do not show it. Why not, since it seems to me to indicate that BA should have their St Kitts flight clearance withdrawn – useless NDA still not corrected? A safety recommendation.

Why is there no ATC sound recorder? The UK AAIB report did not even mention it, even though they recognised difficulties in memory recall from the staff in the ATC room. I agree with the UK AAIB report 4-2010, that SKB is obviously not performing as it should, for they were lazy in their approach to safety. So they should be more stringently scrutinised before flights are allowed there again – but no UK AAIB recommendation anywhere near strong enough. Suspension hurts the whole island, so pressure to improve much better if flights were suspended. Two more safety recommendations.

If the departure via beta (B) was so regular, why was there no woman standing at the junction to ensure the 777 aircraft went down alpha to A? There are not that many flights into or out of SKB, so it should be easily setup. A safety recommendation.

The UK AAIB mention June 2010 as the date for work to be completed at the airport. Their report is September 2010. Was it done? Why publish the lazy report, if they do not know? Similarly for the training necessary for ATC crew. Another safety recommendation UPON the UK AAIB.

Count those safety recommendations up, and I think the UK AAIB will find they should be up to about number 2010-056 by now (not just their 2010-049), with an additonal two from ME onto THEM, which obviously EASA/CAA will have to think about.

Thus the UK AAIB are again quality audited. The UK AAIB should send many senior managers back to school (or sack them), and make sure those left know how to conduct an investigation in future. A safety recommendation on the UK AAIB, for our skys are only safer, if they report well.

NOW please.
IMMEDIATELY, for our future flight safety depends upon these people.

The UK Cabinet Office to follow up actions please.

Jim Quinn FIMechE

Abolish FSA Regulation of Connected Travel Insurance Sales

We write to ask that you repeal this legislation the effect of which, in our experience, has been the opposite of that intended and has resulted in a far worse deal for the consumer.

Why is this idea important?

We write to ask that you repeal this legislation the effect of which, in our experience, has been the opposite of that intended and has resulted in a far worse deal for the consumer.

Repeal of The Regulation of Interrogation Powers Act

The repeal of Regulation of Interrogation Powers Act (so called RIPA laws) would rid us of an act that is completely antidemocratic in nature. It moves us further along the road of totalitarian government and the police state.

Why is this idea important?

The repeal of Regulation of Interrogation Powers Act (so called RIPA laws) would rid us of an act that is completely antidemocratic in nature. It moves us further along the road of totalitarian government and the police state.

Scrap plans to build any more wind farms

Wind farms are inefficient, only working at their design capacity for a fraction of the time and  are unsightly, despoiling HUGE tracts of previously unspoilt, wild, desolate, beautiful wilderness .    That feeling of "getting away from it all" , so important for the mental well being of millions of ordinary people, would be lost.

They are also extremely noisy for people living close to them.

Where they are built invariably tends to be in isolated rural areas. Which are deathly QUIET at night. So regardless of the low , by industrial standards, decibel rating, nobody can get to sleep!

Again, detrimental to health, increased cost to the NHS and  a probable productivity loss to the nation.

Because they cannot ever provide enough power for the future needs of the UK, especially in winter, when we need more power than at any other time, (Winter wind is of much lower strength than at other times of the year), they need to be "backed up" with conventional power stations.

These (coal, gas and nuclear), need to be kept running at all times. They cannot just be switched on or off at will.

So their ( the wind farms )  existence is an uneccessary duplication of power generating capacity.

Why is this idea important?

Wind farms are inefficient, only working at their design capacity for a fraction of the time and  are unsightly, despoiling HUGE tracts of previously unspoilt, wild, desolate, beautiful wilderness .    That feeling of "getting away from it all" , so important for the mental well being of millions of ordinary people, would be lost.

They are also extremely noisy for people living close to them.

Where they are built invariably tends to be in isolated rural areas. Which are deathly QUIET at night. So regardless of the low , by industrial standards, decibel rating, nobody can get to sleep!

Again, detrimental to health, increased cost to the NHS and  a probable productivity loss to the nation.

Because they cannot ever provide enough power for the future needs of the UK, especially in winter, when we need more power than at any other time, (Winter wind is of much lower strength than at other times of the year), they need to be "backed up" with conventional power stations.

These (coal, gas and nuclear), need to be kept running at all times. They cannot just be switched on or off at will.

So their ( the wind farms )  existence is an uneccessary duplication of power generating capacity.

Drug law repeal

It amazes me that we are criminalising large numbers of young people by restricting certain chemicals. Bombs, yes. But recreational drugs? I hardly see the point. Unless they are lethal, in which case, don't ban them but label them as such.

Why is this idea important?

It amazes me that we are criminalising large numbers of young people by restricting certain chemicals. Bombs, yes. But recreational drugs? I hardly see the point. Unless they are lethal, in which case, don't ban them but label them as such.

Make foreign drivers pay road tax

In Italy and France everyone pays road tax on the motorways according to how far they travel. But in the UK, foreign drivers travel free.

Get foreign drivers to take a printed card when they arrive and submit it when they leave, paying the yearly road tax pro rata against the time they have spent in the country.

Why is this idea important?

In Italy and France everyone pays road tax on the motorways according to how far they travel. But in the UK, foreign drivers travel free.

Get foreign drivers to take a printed card when they arrive and submit it when they leave, paying the yearly road tax pro rata against the time they have spent in the country.