R18 TV: Allow adults to see R18 porn on TV with safety controls

It is perfectly legal for adults in the UK to buy sexually explicit straight and gay DVDs and magazines. This is not to everyones taste and controls exist to stop people being offended by R18 films. This strength material is also easily available on the internet and mobile phones. Mediawatch UK, the ANTI porn campaign group estimates that 75% of adult males access internet porn, and that increasing numbers of women do. Clearly it is an important part of many peoples lives. Yet UK TV regulator Ofcom bans R18 explicit sex on TV, even late at night on clearly labelled lockable channels. This is a waste of Ofcom resources (they recently took 3 months to investigate a TV channel where the presenter was wearing the wrong colour knickers: Asian Babes,Bulletin 160). By banning this material Ofcom encourages people to access totally unregulated websites and foreign TV channels that permit acts not legal even in R18 films. By banning R18 explicit sex on TV Ofcom is contributing to marital tension and increasing the number of households that access material that could put children at risk. Since this material is totally legal in the UK if on DVD, in a magazine or on a UK website Ofcom is acting irrationally and against its own principles. Allow R18 strength explicit sex material on late night TV channels that can be locked out now.

Why is this idea important?

It is perfectly legal for adults in the UK to buy sexually explicit straight and gay DVDs and magazines. This is not to everyones taste and controls exist to stop people being offended by R18 films. This strength material is also easily available on the internet and mobile phones. Mediawatch UK, the ANTI porn campaign group estimates that 75% of adult males access internet porn, and that increasing numbers of women do. Clearly it is an important part of many peoples lives. Yet UK TV regulator Ofcom bans R18 explicit sex on TV, even late at night on clearly labelled lockable channels. This is a waste of Ofcom resources (they recently took 3 months to investigate a TV channel where the presenter was wearing the wrong colour knickers: Asian Babes,Bulletin 160). By banning this material Ofcom encourages people to access totally unregulated websites and foreign TV channels that permit acts not legal even in R18 films. By banning R18 explicit sex on TV Ofcom is contributing to marital tension and increasing the number of households that access material that could put children at risk. Since this material is totally legal in the UK if on DVD, in a magazine or on a UK website Ofcom is acting irrationally and against its own principles. Allow R18 strength explicit sex material on late night TV channels that can be locked out now.

Compulsory micro-generation for new detached homes.

All new detached homes should have to be constructed taking advantage of at least one form of re-newable micro-electricity generation (solarwindgeo-thermaletc)

This would create jobs, reduce the cost of the technology for everyone and have a number of other enviromental and economic benefits.

By limiting this to detached homes it should not effect (or minimise the effect to) low-cost housing.

In the scheme of things, a few thousand pounds extra to the cost of a new build is minimal.

Why is this idea important?

All new detached homes should have to be constructed taking advantage of at least one form of re-newable micro-electricity generation (solarwindgeo-thermaletc)

This would create jobs, reduce the cost of the technology for everyone and have a number of other enviromental and economic benefits.

By limiting this to detached homes it should not effect (or minimise the effect to) low-cost housing.

In the scheme of things, a few thousand pounds extra to the cost of a new build is minimal.

Drop The Driver CPC

Scrap The Driver CPC it is a  EU Directive number: 2003/59 It is an on going training cause for lorry and coach drivers. When I say on going, as a professional lorry driver for some fifteen years I will now have to sit in a classroom for five days every five years or one day every year on going to keep my lorry licence. This will cost me approx £100.00 per day and as a self employed person that's £100 to the training people and nothing to me. The training includes fuel consumption, as I said I am self employed I no how important this is. Tachograph laws…I already no all the laws. How to strap a load…come on. And much more useless teaching a granny to suck eggs rubbish. Yes I know all the arguments about usless forein drivers but this CPC wont deal with that problem.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap The Driver CPC it is a  EU Directive number: 2003/59 It is an on going training cause for lorry and coach drivers. When I say on going, as a professional lorry driver for some fifteen years I will now have to sit in a classroom for five days every five years or one day every year on going to keep my lorry licence. This will cost me approx £100.00 per day and as a self employed person that's £100 to the training people and nothing to me. The training includes fuel consumption, as I said I am self employed I no how important this is. Tachograph laws…I already no all the laws. How to strap a load…come on. And much more useless teaching a granny to suck eggs rubbish. Yes I know all the arguments about usless forein drivers but this CPC wont deal with that problem.

Update Allotment Law

There is a huge demand for allotments as more people want to grow their own food (health, climate change).  Allotments are still bound by laws created many years ago.  In today's world we need something that can be more rigorously enforced and which is relevant in today's world. 

Why is this idea important?

There is a huge demand for allotments as more people want to grow their own food (health, climate change).  Allotments are still bound by laws created many years ago.  In today's world we need something that can be more rigorously enforced and which is relevant in today's world. 

Restrict Immigration to UK Born Citizens !

I have seem immigrants from all over the world coming into the UK to find work and to impove their standard of living. Others however only come to the UK to fullfill the two year limit before becoming a citizen at which time they then claim from the state.

Immigration should be simple,

1)  If you are born within the UK and are aged 21 years old or above you should be allowed to sponsor someone coming to the UK  for the following:

  • Distant family member

—————————————————————————————————————————–

2)  The following should be an automatic citizenship

  • Marrage, Financee
  • Expecting a child or already have a child
  • immediate family member

—————————————————————————————————————————–

3) It also benefits the country to have skilled workers from around the globe so the following should also be true

  • Qualified skilled workers (must pass UK standards)
  • Students (most be able to prove living funds and shouldn't be allowed to work)

—————————————————————————————————————————–

However if you are an immigrant yourself then you should not be allowed to sponsor ANYONE! 

Why is this idea important?

I have seem immigrants from all over the world coming into the UK to find work and to impove their standard of living. Others however only come to the UK to fullfill the two year limit before becoming a citizen at which time they then claim from the state.

Immigration should be simple,

1)  If you are born within the UK and are aged 21 years old or above you should be allowed to sponsor someone coming to the UK  for the following:

  • Distant family member

—————————————————————————————————————————–

2)  The following should be an automatic citizenship

  • Marrage, Financee
  • Expecting a child or already have a child
  • immediate family member

—————————————————————————————————————————–

3) It also benefits the country to have skilled workers from around the globe so the following should also be true

  • Qualified skilled workers (must pass UK standards)
  • Students (most be able to prove living funds and shouldn't be allowed to work)

—————————————————————————————————————————–

However if you are an immigrant yourself then you should not be allowed to sponsor ANYONE! 

Remove Speed Humps and Cushions. They are outdated and detrimental to People and Vehicles

Remove speed humps and cushions and replace with speed indicating signs,  twenty mile zones and non vertical displacement traffic calming. This will save money from reduced installation and vehicles repairs. Make councils install schemes on need and not just to access funding and to keep council road engineers etc. in employment.. Give the people who use and live around the schemes the final say. Democracy & freedom to choose.

Why is this idea important?

Remove speed humps and cushions and replace with speed indicating signs,  twenty mile zones and non vertical displacement traffic calming. This will save money from reduced installation and vehicles repairs. Make councils install schemes on need and not just to access funding and to keep council road engineers etc. in employment.. Give the people who use and live around the schemes the final say. Democracy & freedom to choose.

Abolish business rates

Abolish business rates. I realise that in the current climate the government could not possibly afford such a generous tax cut, so I propose making up for the lost tax revenue by increasing corporation tax by whatever amount would make the whole thing revenue neutral.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish business rates. I realise that in the current climate the government could not possibly afford such a generous tax cut, so I propose making up for the lost tax revenue by increasing corporation tax by whatever amount would make the whole thing revenue neutral.

Legalise & Tax Cannabis

To legalise cannabis & tax it to create more money for the war on `hard drugs´. The money saved prosecuting, jailing & investigating cannabis users could be better spent elsewhere. 

The prisons would be freed up of unnecessary inmates who would not fall foul of other criminals who may introduce them to other forms of criminality.

Legalisitation would mean the end of gangs & mafioso´s control & supply of cannabis.

People would have a choice between getting drunk & causing social & financial problems or having a civilised time with no hangovers or serious drawbacks.

You can buy paracetamol & kill yourself or others relatively easily, but with cannabis this is impossible, no person has ever overdosed on cannabis.

Why is this idea important?

To legalise cannabis & tax it to create more money for the war on `hard drugs´. The money saved prosecuting, jailing & investigating cannabis users could be better spent elsewhere. 

The prisons would be freed up of unnecessary inmates who would not fall foul of other criminals who may introduce them to other forms of criminality.

Legalisitation would mean the end of gangs & mafioso´s control & supply of cannabis.

People would have a choice between getting drunk & causing social & financial problems or having a civilised time with no hangovers or serious drawbacks.

You can buy paracetamol & kill yourself or others relatively easily, but with cannabis this is impossible, no person has ever overdosed on cannabis.

Stop broadband providers calling a service “Unlimited” unless it really is.

Many broadband internet and other service providers claim to offer an "Unlimited" service that is in reality nothing of the sort. There is either a small print 'fair usage' policy which may not even tell you what their idea of fair usage is, or your connection may be cut off or restricted. You may even be unexpectedly be charged without notice (especially for mobile broadband)

I would ban broadband providers who cut off or charge their customers for using the word "Unlimited" and require them to give explicit quantities of data in their marketing materials, and to warn customers before any excess use charges apply.

Why is this idea important?

Many broadband internet and other service providers claim to offer an "Unlimited" service that is in reality nothing of the sort. There is either a small print 'fair usage' policy which may not even tell you what their idea of fair usage is, or your connection may be cut off or restricted. You may even be unexpectedly be charged without notice (especially for mobile broadband)

I would ban broadband providers who cut off or charge their customers for using the word "Unlimited" and require them to give explicit quantities of data in their marketing materials, and to warn customers before any excess use charges apply.

Beware of the dog sign laws

Change in BEWARE of the dog sign.  Ive looked into this and the law is completely wrong.

The law takes a peculiar stance when it comes to the use of ‘beware of the dog’ signs.

If such a sign is on display when the dog attacks a trespasser, then its owner is liable for prosecution, because it could be argued that by displaying the sign they knew the dog was dangerous. However, if the dog attacks an intruder when no sign is visible then the court would decree that the owner was unaware of the threat of the animal, and is therefore not liable for court action.

So for those considering a sign, according to the law if you have a harmless pet dog then by all means display a ‘beware of the dog’ sign as a deterrent, but if you have a dog that would be liable to attack an intruder then don’t, as you might get into trouble.

So basically its saying that if you have a small, medium, large, non vicious, vicious dog and DO NOT have a sign up and an intruder breaks in and gets biten then NOTHING will be done and the owner will NOT be prosecuted.

However, if you put up a BEWARE sign and an intruder gets attacked by the dog defending its property/master your liable for any damage caused to the intruder because by putting up a BEWARE sign its classed as a threat and foreknowledge of your dog/s aggressive or possible aggressive nature.

I have currrent signs up saying BEWARE and own 2 rottweilers who are both very placid and are now known to be a placid breed and NOT Dangerous and one is even a qualified PAT dog enabling him to go into hospitals, schools, homes etc but should an intruder break in and for some reason he decideds to protect that day we will be prosecuted purely because our sign is up and states BEWARE.

We also travelled to several pet shops today asking if they knew of the BEWARE sign law as they all sold BEWARE of the dog signs and NOT one was aware.  You only seem to learn this ridiculous law when its too late and surely BEWARE is a WARNING not a THREAT.

Why is this idea important?

Change in BEWARE of the dog sign.  Ive looked into this and the law is completely wrong.

The law takes a peculiar stance when it comes to the use of ‘beware of the dog’ signs.

If such a sign is on display when the dog attacks a trespasser, then its owner is liable for prosecution, because it could be argued that by displaying the sign they knew the dog was dangerous. However, if the dog attacks an intruder when no sign is visible then the court would decree that the owner was unaware of the threat of the animal, and is therefore not liable for court action.

So for those considering a sign, according to the law if you have a harmless pet dog then by all means display a ‘beware of the dog’ sign as a deterrent, but if you have a dog that would be liable to attack an intruder then don’t, as you might get into trouble.

So basically its saying that if you have a small, medium, large, non vicious, vicious dog and DO NOT have a sign up and an intruder breaks in and gets biten then NOTHING will be done and the owner will NOT be prosecuted.

However, if you put up a BEWARE sign and an intruder gets attacked by the dog defending its property/master your liable for any damage caused to the intruder because by putting up a BEWARE sign its classed as a threat and foreknowledge of your dog/s aggressive or possible aggressive nature.

I have currrent signs up saying BEWARE and own 2 rottweilers who are both very placid and are now known to be a placid breed and NOT Dangerous and one is even a qualified PAT dog enabling him to go into hospitals, schools, homes etc but should an intruder break in and for some reason he decideds to protect that day we will be prosecuted purely because our sign is up and states BEWARE.

We also travelled to several pet shops today asking if they knew of the BEWARE sign law as they all sold BEWARE of the dog signs and NOT one was aware.  You only seem to learn this ridiculous law when its too late and surely BEWARE is a WARNING not a THREAT.

Repeal laws on drawn pornography

Repeal the laws on drawn pornography as it is a victimless crime.

The government only this year had the absurd idea that drawings can be underage, now the criminal justice system will not only have to waste money enforcing this law but also discuss whether a drawing is sexually explicit.

These laws not only restricts freedom of expression by many artists but it also means a step toward the government dictating the sexual practices of the general public.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the laws on drawn pornography as it is a victimless crime.

The government only this year had the absurd idea that drawings can be underage, now the criminal justice system will not only have to waste money enforcing this law but also discuss whether a drawing is sexually explicit.

These laws not only restricts freedom of expression by many artists but it also means a step toward the government dictating the sexual practices of the general public.

Democratically electing a head of state, making us all more free.

We should democratically elect a head of state, and no longer be 'ruled over' by an unelected, undemocratic monarch merely on the basis of his or her birth.

Why is this idea important?

We should democratically elect a head of state, and no longer be 'ruled over' by an unelected, undemocratic monarch merely on the basis of his or her birth.

Make access to the Internet a fundamental human right

Access to the Internet should be recognized as a fundamental human right, available to everyone. The law should also lay down a minimum standard of service.

The British government has agreed to provide everyone with a minimum 2Mbps broadband connection by 2012 but it is a commitment rather than a legally binding ruling.

Why is this idea important?

Access to the Internet should be recognized as a fundamental human right, available to everyone. The law should also lay down a minimum standard of service.

The British government has agreed to provide everyone with a minimum 2Mbps broadband connection by 2012 but it is a commitment rather than a legally binding ruling.

Abolish Chancel Tax (Steeple Tax) Liability

An archaic law dating back to Henry VIII allow the church to demand homeowners pay for repairs of their local church if their home is built on land that at some distant time belonged to the church.

This law was recently enforced (2008) on a couple (the Wallbanks) who had to pay the church 200k for repairs of St John the Baptist church near Stratford upon Avon.  They challenged this in many courts at various levels, spending thousands on legal bills, but ultimately could not overturn the decision. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/dec/08/church-of-england

Clearly this archaic law is still dangerous and enforcable.  Incredibly the church does not even have to spread the charge evenly across homeowners on the affected land.

This problem clearly infringes the moral rights of thousands of people in the UK.  Solicitors often spot this liability during the purchase/conveyancing process.  They have to pay for a "search" to check for it – guess who runs the search, the church – a nice earner – and what's more the search results are non-binding "you probably will/won't have to pay…".   The hapless homeowner is then forced to take out around 100 of insurance just incase the church sues them at some point due to this Chancel Liability.

I propose this law be scrapped.

Why is this idea important?

An archaic law dating back to Henry VIII allow the church to demand homeowners pay for repairs of their local church if their home is built on land that at some distant time belonged to the church.

This law was recently enforced (2008) on a couple (the Wallbanks) who had to pay the church 200k for repairs of St John the Baptist church near Stratford upon Avon.  They challenged this in many courts at various levels, spending thousands on legal bills, but ultimately could not overturn the decision. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/dec/08/church-of-england

Clearly this archaic law is still dangerous and enforcable.  Incredibly the church does not even have to spread the charge evenly across homeowners on the affected land.

This problem clearly infringes the moral rights of thousands of people in the UK.  Solicitors often spot this liability during the purchase/conveyancing process.  They have to pay for a "search" to check for it – guess who runs the search, the church – a nice earner – and what's more the search results are non-binding "you probably will/won't have to pay…".   The hapless homeowner is then forced to take out around 100 of insurance just incase the church sues them at some point due to this Chancel Liability.

I propose this law be scrapped.

Lets have a proper debate about global warming

We need an unbiased debate about whether or not global warming is happening and if it is man made.

This is an issue where the argument was closed down and any dissenters pilloried. Many eminent scientists including David Bellamy (remember him he used to be on the BBC until he refused to toe the global warming line) have expressed disagreement with the way this debate has been politicised.

Why is this idea important?

We need an unbiased debate about whether or not global warming is happening and if it is man made.

This is an issue where the argument was closed down and any dissenters pilloried. Many eminent scientists including David Bellamy (remember him he used to be on the BBC until he refused to toe the global warming line) have expressed disagreement with the way this debate has been politicised.

Let EYPs teach in nursery and reception classes

I am a qualified and experienced Early Years Professional (EYP) having worked 5 years as a Senior Early Years Practitioner in a Children’s Centre and 2 years as a curriculum leader/EYP in a college nursery; and in every early years setting throughout the country (whether it be a nursery, children’s centre or school) staff have to be trained in and follow the statutory curriculum – the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). Despite this fact I have looked at applying for many EYFS Managers posts and EYFS teaching posts, and have been told that EYPS will not be accepted as a comparable status to QTS, even though in every case I covered all essential and desirable criteria bar QTS. 

Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) is academically equivalent to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) as every candidate must have at least a 2:1 degree and GCSE grades A-C in Maths English and Science to even be accepted onto the course; so why can’t EYP’s teach in primary schools up to Reception aged children. After all EYP’s are trained specifically in the EYFS and QT’s are trained in the National Curriculum – which doesn’t start till after Reception in year one! Not only that,  EYP’s are also trained in the emotional well being of the younger children, and their developmental needs. If we have to institutionalise our children at such a young age, then surely they deserve the better qualified staff to support their development. This is not an attack on teachers, it is an attack on the system, as I am well aware we have some fantastic early years teachers.

So I feel I speak on behalf of every EYP, let us teach in infant/primary schools, and stop the ridiculous red tape and snobbery behind early years teaching, and look at what is best for our children!

Why is this idea important?

I am a qualified and experienced Early Years Professional (EYP) having worked 5 years as a Senior Early Years Practitioner in a Children’s Centre and 2 years as a curriculum leader/EYP in a college nursery; and in every early years setting throughout the country (whether it be a nursery, children’s centre or school) staff have to be trained in and follow the statutory curriculum – the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). Despite this fact I have looked at applying for many EYFS Managers posts and EYFS teaching posts, and have been told that EYPS will not be accepted as a comparable status to QTS, even though in every case I covered all essential and desirable criteria bar QTS. 

Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) is academically equivalent to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) as every candidate must have at least a 2:1 degree and GCSE grades A-C in Maths English and Science to even be accepted onto the course; so why can’t EYP’s teach in primary schools up to Reception aged children. After all EYP’s are trained specifically in the EYFS and QT’s are trained in the National Curriculum – which doesn’t start till after Reception in year one! Not only that,  EYP’s are also trained in the emotional well being of the younger children, and their developmental needs. If we have to institutionalise our children at such a young age, then surely they deserve the better qualified staff to support their development. This is not an attack on teachers, it is an attack on the system, as I am well aware we have some fantastic early years teachers.

So I feel I speak on behalf of every EYP, let us teach in infant/primary schools, and stop the ridiculous red tape and snobbery behind early years teaching, and look at what is best for our children!

Repeal and change the Smoking Ban

Repeal the current blanket Smoking Ban that damages local pubs, as well as being a breach of fundamental human rights such as the Property Rights (of the proprietor) and the Right to Choose.

In its placeĀ could be a law stating that smoking indoors should be sectioned off in such a way that smoke does not enter into the non-smoking area, and that ventilation should be in place to make sure a certain ratio of air to smoke exists.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the current blanket Smoking Ban that damages local pubs, as well as being a breach of fundamental human rights such as the Property Rights (of the proprietor) and the Right to Choose.

In its placeĀ could be a law stating that smoking indoors should be sectioned off in such a way that smoke does not enter into the non-smoking area, and that ventilation should be in place to make sure a certain ratio of air to smoke exists.

Air traffic radio listening & rebroadcast

Under the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act it is illegal to listen to air traffic radio communication in the UK on a scanning receiver which can be bought in any High Street. It is not illegal to OWN an airband radio, you just can't use it ! The law permits the listening to broadcasts that are intended for "general reception" only, including amateur, CB and public broadcast radio. The listening to air traffic communication is not, and never has been, a security issue to the UK and we are the only country that does not allow the rebroadcast or even discussion of such transmissions. In today's multimedia world, this is something that needs to change.

Why is this idea important?

Under the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act it is illegal to listen to air traffic radio communication in the UK on a scanning receiver which can be bought in any High Street. It is not illegal to OWN an airband radio, you just can't use it ! The law permits the listening to broadcasts that are intended for "general reception" only, including amateur, CB and public broadcast radio. The listening to air traffic communication is not, and never has been, a security issue to the UK and we are the only country that does not allow the rebroadcast or even discussion of such transmissions. In today's multimedia world, this is something that needs to change.