Reduce traffic and pollution, introduce ‘local jobs for local people law’

The Government should introduce regulations to ensure that Companies give greater priority to employing people who live local to the place of work (when candidates are very closely or equally matched, the job applicant from the local area should get priority).

Why is this idea important?

The Government should introduce regulations to ensure that Companies give greater priority to employing people who live local to the place of work (when candidates are very closely or equally matched, the job applicant from the local area should get priority).

Stop the Gull Cull

I’ve learnt that people despise these “vermin like creatures” but in my opinion, I believe that the gull culling is wrong.
Having a passion for wildlife, and ornithology, I believe that no bird is different in terms of characteristics. The fact is, people also despise Feral Pigeons (Columba livia), but nobody has thought about calling a cull. What people don’t understand is that no matter the size, nor ferocity of a bird, they are just hunting for survival. It’s all well and good, that we spend £200 million (average spending in uk per year) on small, garden birds each year in the UK, to conserve birds, but the point is nobody cares to feed our common seabirds. Your intelligent people, and I’m sure you know that we shouldn’t ‘splashing the cash’ on seagull food, but that’s why we see them commonly, raiding through litter bins in schools and public areas. Think about this: take a Goldcrest for instance: without bird food, provided, the Goldcrest’s natural instincts are to forage (in fact they forage 80% of the day), which is exactly what the seagulls are doing.
Breeding season
It’s a fact that the aggressiveness of birds during the breeding season increases, it’s the same in Robins too. The breeding season runs from February into August, which in hotter months, people take trips to the seaside. I’m sure we all love to be by the sea, but it’s just chance that we run into these gulls, when their hunting and foraging for food, for their young. And since nobody feeds them, they become aggressive towards humans and steal food. And so what, we lose a chip or two, it’s not a big deal. But as I mentioned earlier, they become more aggressive when other birds come into their territory. It’s the same convention with humans.

Why is this idea important?

I’ve learnt that people despise these “vermin like creatures” but in my opinion, I believe that the gull culling is wrong.
Having a passion for wildlife, and ornithology, I believe that no bird is different in terms of characteristics. The fact is, people also despise Feral Pigeons (Columba livia), but nobody has thought about calling a cull. What people don’t understand is that no matter the size, nor ferocity of a bird, they are just hunting for survival. It’s all well and good, that we spend £200 million (average spending in uk per year) on small, garden birds each year in the UK, to conserve birds, but the point is nobody cares to feed our common seabirds. Your intelligent people, and I’m sure you know that we shouldn’t ‘splashing the cash’ on seagull food, but that’s why we see them commonly, raiding through litter bins in schools and public areas. Think about this: take a Goldcrest for instance: without bird food, provided, the Goldcrest’s natural instincts are to forage (in fact they forage 80% of the day), which is exactly what the seagulls are doing.
Breeding season
It’s a fact that the aggressiveness of birds during the breeding season increases, it’s the same in Robins too. The breeding season runs from February into August, which in hotter months, people take trips to the seaside. I’m sure we all love to be by the sea, but it’s just chance that we run into these gulls, when their hunting and foraging for food, for their young. And since nobody feeds them, they become aggressive towards humans and steal food. And so what, we lose a chip or two, it’s not a big deal. But as I mentioned earlier, they become more aggressive when other birds come into their territory. It’s the same convention with humans.

Reduce SMIDSYs

The Highway Code tells us not to park within 10 meters of a junction either side or indeed opposite one. This was at a time when in general vehicles were small I look at Morris minor or Austin A30 or ford Anglia 105s. Since then vehicles have got a lot larger and so consideration needs to be given to increasing the safe distances that vehicles can park at in relation to junctions and freely available vision. I would suggest that 45 ft or more should be considered.

The matter at present was made worse many years ago with the introduction of double yellow lines. which were put in place on certain junctions by local authorities. The purpose of such lines was I believe to give clear vision for drivers to exit at junctions onto main roads usually arterial ones. It would appear, however,by the number of smidsys [ Sorry mate I didn’t se you] collisions that in some order many have failed to do just that. The reason? Simply because they didn’t adopt the 10 meter distance previously mentioned. Some junctions have as little as 2 meters of double yellow lines and therefore we have a situation where drivers now believe that it is lawful to park where those double yellow lines end. That being much closer to the junction than previous legislation as ism advised in the H.C.
Its a danger that has been created by local authorities and one which is easy to recommend. Increase safe visibility particularly of oncoming traffic approaching from the right side of a junction. Increase the double yellow lines to now 45ft or more, taking into account the greater visual obstruction new larger manufactured vehicles cause. With greater clearer visibility and less need for drivers to pull out into oncoming traffic in order to gain a decent view of oncoming traffic there should be fewer accidents at junctions.

We must also remember that with the introduction of 20 mph areas it will have little or no effect on the number of such smidsy.s at junctions as the speed vehicles leave an exit at junctions will remain the same in all cases. and traffic on the main arterial roads will still be travelling at or close to the normal 30 mph speed I limit also.

Why is this idea important?

The Highway Code tells us not to park within 10 meters of a junction either side or indeed opposite one. This was at a time when in general vehicles were small I look at Morris minor or Austin A30 or ford Anglia 105s. Since then vehicles have got a lot larger and so consideration needs to be given to increasing the safe distances that vehicles can park at in relation to junctions and freely available vision. I would suggest that 45 ft or more should be considered.

The matter at present was made worse many years ago with the introduction of double yellow lines. which were put in place on certain junctions by local authorities. The purpose of such lines was I believe to give clear vision for drivers to exit at junctions onto main roads usually arterial ones. It would appear, however,by the number of smidsys [ Sorry mate I didn’t se you] collisions that in some order many have failed to do just that. The reason? Simply because they didn’t adopt the 10 meter distance previously mentioned. Some junctions have as little as 2 meters of double yellow lines and therefore we have a situation where drivers now believe that it is lawful to park where those double yellow lines end. That being much closer to the junction than previous legislation as ism advised in the H.C.
Its a danger that has been created by local authorities and one which is easy to recommend. Increase safe visibility particularly of oncoming traffic approaching from the right side of a junction. Increase the double yellow lines to now 45ft or more, taking into account the greater visual obstruction new larger manufactured vehicles cause. With greater clearer visibility and less need for drivers to pull out into oncoming traffic in order to gain a decent view of oncoming traffic there should be fewer accidents at junctions.

We must also remember that with the introduction of 20 mph areas it will have little or no effect on the number of such smidsy.s at junctions as the speed vehicles leave an exit at junctions will remain the same in all cases. and traffic on the main arterial roads will still be travelling at or close to the normal 30 mph speed I limit also.

Stop all benefits to immigrants

stop all forms of benefits being cliamed by non british people jsa esa child benefit tax credits housing benefits free health care and also just stop eu immigration fullstop as it has ruined most east midland towns as non british workers being employed by gang agencys and stoping british people from finding work

Why is this idea important?

stop all forms of benefits being cliamed by non british people jsa esa child benefit tax credits housing benefits free health care and also just stop eu immigration fullstop as it has ruined most east midland towns as non british workers being employed by gang agencys and stoping british people from finding work

Loophole in HC re overtaking on single or double white lines generally on bends.

The Hc makes mention when you can overtake and pass over the solid white lines such as a horse or a cyclist or a road maintenance vehicle. and that’s all. what happened to cattle sheep, cows, pedestrians. Also apparently you can overtake a horse or horses if ridden or walked but if its part of a cart or carriage then you CANT OVERTAKE if its a gypsy caravan say or a rig. now that seems silly. Also all things that can be overtaken must be doing less than 10 mph. so if its say a tractor fully loaded going uphill AT 20 mph then more fool you if you attempt an overtake.

I do feel that there are to many limitations and the regulations and/or advise should be looked at.

Why is this idea important?

The Hc makes mention when you can overtake and pass over the solid white lines such as a horse or a cyclist or a road maintenance vehicle. and that’s all. what happened to cattle sheep, cows, pedestrians. Also apparently you can overtake a horse or horses if ridden or walked but if its part of a cart or carriage then you CANT OVERTAKE if its a gypsy caravan say or a rig. now that seems silly. Also all things that can be overtaken must be doing less than 10 mph. so if its say a tractor fully loaded going uphill AT 20 mph then more fool you if you attempt an overtake.

I do feel that there are to many limitations and the regulations and/or advise should be looked at.

Publication of cautions / minor offences and equal opportunities employment law

Is The Law Requiring The Publication Of Cautions / Minor Offences When Applying For A Job Incompatible With Equal Opportunities Employment Law?

Is the government’s policy or UK law requiring the publication of any cautions for minor offences when applying for a job incompatible with equal opportunities employment law which makes it illegal for a prospective employer to discriminate based on race?

For example, if a UK citizen with a caution for a minor offense will show up on DBS check for up to 6 years when applying for certain jobs in the UK. A German citizen, with exactly the same minor offence, committed at the same time will only have to declare that offense for 3 years when applying for the same job as the UK citizen. After the first 3 years there is a 3 year period when the UK citizen would be discriminated against. The German doesn’t need to declare, indeed his/her record has been deleted, whereas the UK citizen would have to declare.

No matter how much the government insists companies should not discriminate on this, and be fair when assessing such situations, there is undoubtedly a human reaction to knowing a candidate has a criminal record which will affect many employment decisions.

Why is this idea important?

Is The Law Requiring The Publication Of Cautions / Minor Offences When Applying For A Job Incompatible With Equal Opportunities Employment Law?

Is the government’s policy or UK law requiring the publication of any cautions for minor offences when applying for a job incompatible with equal opportunities employment law which makes it illegal for a prospective employer to discriminate based on race?

For example, if a UK citizen with a caution for a minor offense will show up on DBS check for up to 6 years when applying for certain jobs in the UK. A German citizen, with exactly the same minor offence, committed at the same time will only have to declare that offense for 3 years when applying for the same job as the UK citizen. After the first 3 years there is a 3 year period when the UK citizen would be discriminated against. The German doesn’t need to declare, indeed his/her record has been deleted, whereas the UK citizen would have to declare.

No matter how much the government insists companies should not discriminate on this, and be fair when assessing such situations, there is undoubtedly a human reaction to knowing a candidate has a criminal record which will affect many employment decisions.

Equal rights to fine councils back

Common people should be able to fine the council for potholes, broken glass shards, over grown bushes etc. Much like the Council fines people that parks slightly carelessly, yes sometimes parking carelessly is unsafe, but so is poorly maintained roads and paths.

Why is this idea important?

Common people should be able to fine the council for potholes, broken glass shards, over grown bushes etc. Much like the Council fines people that parks slightly carelessly, yes sometimes parking carelessly is unsafe, but so is poorly maintained roads and paths.

Have a wider option of forms of identification

most places in the UK e.g ( pubs,shops etc) only (mostly) accept a drivers licence or a valid passport as id but there are other cards such as young Scot cards , citizen card etc which have the PASS logo on them but most shops don’t except them which is bad for 16 years old because most people don’t or cant afford a passport and they want to buy lottery tickets or scratch cards but they don’t have either passport of drivers licence 🙁

Why is this idea important?

most places in the UK e.g ( pubs,shops etc) only (mostly) accept a drivers licence or a valid passport as id but there are other cards such as young Scot cards , citizen card etc which have the PASS logo on them but most shops don’t except them which is bad for 16 years old because most people don’t or cant afford a passport and they want to buy lottery tickets or scratch cards but they don’t have either passport of drivers licence 🙁

Introduce New Land use – Permaculture

Allow for small parcels of land to be sold for the sole purpose of setting up a permaculture smallholding to be farmed by a family/community expressly to grow food in accordance with permaculure techniques that are sustainable and environmentally friendly. The land use will also include off grid environmentally friendly dwellings.

Why is this idea important?

Allow for small parcels of land to be sold for the sole purpose of setting up a permaculture smallholding to be farmed by a family/community expressly to grow food in accordance with permaculure techniques that are sustainable and environmentally friendly. The land use will also include off grid environmentally friendly dwellings.

Land cut of by roads to small to farm

Land that has been cut by pass’s and other roads and then to small to farm should be made available for Eco living and perhaps for locals at affordable prices this could be done all most straight away instead of letting the land go to waste. Let’s make land work

Why is this idea important?

Land that has been cut by pass’s and other roads and then to small to farm should be made available for Eco living and perhaps for locals at affordable prices this could be done all most straight away instead of letting the land go to waste. Let’s make land work

Reduction and Simplification of the welfare bill by granting certain rights to Veterans

This information deals with another matter that if implemented would go some way towards helping veterans of all ages but in particular those of the Pre-1975 era, and as a by product go some way towards simplifying and therefore reducing the overall welfare ‘bill’

I am a member of a group of Veterans group from all Three services that are concerned with Veterans pensions, in particular the Pre-1975 era. And as a group we are considering raising a petition as a step towards having the matter discussed at government level.

This document is not meant to supersede or replace any petition / document being produced by any group that is currently in the process of getting support.

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING CERTAIN ‘RIGHTS’ TO VETERANS OF ALL AGE’s AND LENGTH OF SERVICE. (In Brief)
1.
At this time if you left military service after 1975 and served for a minimum of 5 years you were eligible for a military pension, this later changed to 2 years, but was not applied retrospectively there are certain age limits, there are several official documents covering this subject.

2.
If you left military service before 1975 you do not get a military pension unless you served for 22 years (for other ranks)and 18 years for officers. Many of those who were serving before 1975 may have served, for example up to 20 years of a 22 year term
before being made redundant under a defence cuts and so did not qualify for a pension.

3.
Many of these ex-servicemen and women were unable to ‘sign on’ to complete the required time period of 22 years for a variety of reasons,
defence cut backs, specialty no longer required, too senior, etc..It should be noted that all defence cuts etc. were published in the national press and considered to be in the public domain, however a large number of service personnel were unaware of this for a variety of reasons such as being on overseas duty.

4.
Many of these ex-servicemen and women are what are now called ‘Cold War Warriors’ having served in Korea, Malay, Kenya, Cyprus, Aden,
Malaysia, Northern Ireland and many other of the conflicts that the United Kingdom was involved in during period from 1946 to late 1970’s.

5.
Many of these ex-servicemen and women are ‘walking wounded’ and are supported by organisations such as COMBAT STRESS, SOLDIERS OFF THE STREETS, and SSAFA to mention a few.To many of these ex-servicemen and women the cost of medication (Prescriptions)and housing is a large expense and in some cases puts them on the streets, the idea of granting certain rights similar to Pension credits to Veterans would go some way to easing this. They do NOT SHOW UP IN OFFICIAL figures as they are dealt with by charities

6.
Pension Credits, if you qualify, it is a means tested benefit , it entitles you to FREE MEDICAL (Prescriptions) FREE DENTAL CARE, FREE
LEGAL COSTS and other benefits such as HOUSING SUPPORT. Granting of similar benefits as A RIGHT to a member of the armed forces ON DISCHARGE would go a long way to reducing the number that become reliant on the state and charities, it would also ease their transition to civilian life.Further granting the automatic right to a monetary sum similar to that given as ‘Pension Credits’as a top to the National minimum for survival’ as laid down by the Government would reduce the numbers claiming various benefits, this could be implemented at Military retirement age or 60 years which ever is earlier. It could be granted when proof of military service is proved.

7.
If you are an LEGAL immigrant to this country and you reach the age of 60 you are automatically are eligible to receive Pension Credits, and if you qualify, ( it is means tested ), it entitles you to FREE MEDICAL (Prescriptions) FREE DENTAL CARE, FREE LEGAL COSTS and other benefits such as HOUSING SUPPORT.
The government states that you must have a minimum income every week, this is currently running at around £230.00 per week, so if you are
a ex serviceman surviving on a state pension of between £100 to £200 a week you must apply for Pension credits, it is means tested and not always granted.

8.
This seems to be an injustice where a person who served his / her country must apply for what should be theirs by right, it is proposed that a petition be raised to make it a right that all ex-servicemen / women who qualify be given the same rights as those who get Pension credits.

9.
A House of commons briefing document ( No. SN1151 dated 14.05.14 ) Produced for the business and transport section stated that, QUOTE
“Successive governments have argued that discretionary changes to improve the benefits from public service pension schemes should be
implemented from a current date for future service only. Improvements are not applied retrospectively, as to do otherwise would “make any worthwhile improvements unaffordable.” (Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words).
This implies that giving pensions to ex -military personnel who served prior to 1975 would be unaffordable. It should be noted that it was not considered unaffordable when they were asked to put themselves in harms way when serving.

10.
The scheme roughly outline above would almost certainly not be UNAFFORDABLE as most are probably in receipt of some form of benefit and this would replace any benefit if correctly implemented say via the new Universal credit.Additionally it would be seen by most as an earned right and not charity, making it a right and not means tested would go some way to helping those who are currently ‘disabled’ and unable to adjust to Civilian life. It would also go some way to addressing the ‘Duty of Care’ the military has to it’s former employees.
To address the idea of it being unaffordable it should be noted that due age this will be a declining expense. But the purchase of ‘DUCK PONDS’ is an increasing one.

11.
Further this should be seen as a first step to a study into the provision of a pro-rata pension to the same conditions as those serving after 1975.
Any such study should involve Veterans and Veteran’s organisations, as to being an UNAFFORDABLE expense, due the age of most of the veterans concerned it would be a decreasing expense.

Why is this idea important?

This information deals with another matter that if implemented would go some way towards helping veterans of all ages but in particular those of the Pre-1975 era, and as a by product go some way towards simplifying and therefore reducing the overall welfare ‘bill’

I am a member of a group of Veterans group from all Three services that are concerned with Veterans pensions, in particular the Pre-1975 era. And as a group we are considering raising a petition as a step towards having the matter discussed at government level.

This document is not meant to supersede or replace any petition / document being produced by any group that is currently in the process of getting support.

INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING CERTAIN ‘RIGHTS’ TO VETERANS OF ALL AGE’s AND LENGTH OF SERVICE. (In Brief)
1.
At this time if you left military service after 1975 and served for a minimum of 5 years you were eligible for a military pension, this later changed to 2 years, but was not applied retrospectively there are certain age limits, there are several official documents covering this subject.

2.
If you left military service before 1975 you do not get a military pension unless you served for 22 years (for other ranks)and 18 years for officers. Many of those who were serving before 1975 may have served, for example up to 20 years of a 22 year term
before being made redundant under a defence cuts and so did not qualify for a pension.

3.
Many of these ex-servicemen and women were unable to ‘sign on’ to complete the required time period of 22 years for a variety of reasons,
defence cut backs, specialty no longer required, too senior, etc..It should be noted that all defence cuts etc. were published in the national press and considered to be in the public domain, however a large number of service personnel were unaware of this for a variety of reasons such as being on overseas duty.

4.
Many of these ex-servicemen and women are what are now called ‘Cold War Warriors’ having served in Korea, Malay, Kenya, Cyprus, Aden,
Malaysia, Northern Ireland and many other of the conflicts that the United Kingdom was involved in during period from 1946 to late 1970’s.

5.
Many of these ex-servicemen and women are ‘walking wounded’ and are supported by organisations such as COMBAT STRESS, SOLDIERS OFF THE STREETS, and SSAFA to mention a few.To many of these ex-servicemen and women the cost of medication (Prescriptions)and housing is a large expense and in some cases puts them on the streets, the idea of granting certain rights similar to Pension credits to Veterans would go some way to easing this. They do NOT SHOW UP IN OFFICIAL figures as they are dealt with by charities

6.
Pension Credits, if you qualify, it is a means tested benefit , it entitles you to FREE MEDICAL (Prescriptions) FREE DENTAL CARE, FREE
LEGAL COSTS and other benefits such as HOUSING SUPPORT. Granting of similar benefits as A RIGHT to a member of the armed forces ON DISCHARGE would go a long way to reducing the number that become reliant on the state and charities, it would also ease their transition to civilian life.Further granting the automatic right to a monetary sum similar to that given as ‘Pension Credits’as a top to the National minimum for survival’ as laid down by the Government would reduce the numbers claiming various benefits, this could be implemented at Military retirement age or 60 years which ever is earlier. It could be granted when proof of military service is proved.

7.
If you are an LEGAL immigrant to this country and you reach the age of 60 you are automatically are eligible to receive Pension Credits, and if you qualify, ( it is means tested ), it entitles you to FREE MEDICAL (Prescriptions) FREE DENTAL CARE, FREE LEGAL COSTS and other benefits such as HOUSING SUPPORT.
The government states that you must have a minimum income every week, this is currently running at around £230.00 per week, so if you are
a ex serviceman surviving on a state pension of between £100 to £200 a week you must apply for Pension credits, it is means tested and not always granted.

8.
This seems to be an injustice where a person who served his / her country must apply for what should be theirs by right, it is proposed that a petition be raised to make it a right that all ex-servicemen / women who qualify be given the same rights as those who get Pension credits.

9.
A House of commons briefing document ( No. SN1151 dated 14.05.14 ) Produced for the business and transport section stated that, QUOTE
“Successive governments have argued that discretionary changes to improve the benefits from public service pension schemes should be
implemented from a current date for future service only. Improvements are not applied retrospectively, as to do otherwise would “make any worthwhile improvements unaffordable.” (Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words).
This implies that giving pensions to ex -military personnel who served prior to 1975 would be unaffordable. It should be noted that it was not considered unaffordable when they were asked to put themselves in harms way when serving.

10.
The scheme roughly outline above would almost certainly not be UNAFFORDABLE as most are probably in receipt of some form of benefit and this would replace any benefit if correctly implemented say via the new Universal credit.Additionally it would be seen by most as an earned right and not charity, making it a right and not means tested would go some way to helping those who are currently ‘disabled’ and unable to adjust to Civilian life. It would also go some way to addressing the ‘Duty of Care’ the military has to it’s former employees.
To address the idea of it being unaffordable it should be noted that due age this will be a declining expense. But the purchase of ‘DUCK PONDS’ is an increasing one.

11.
Further this should be seen as a first step to a study into the provision of a pro-rata pension to the same conditions as those serving after 1975.
Any such study should involve Veterans and Veteran’s organisations, as to being an UNAFFORDABLE expense, due the age of most of the veterans concerned it would be a decreasing expense.

Silly Restrictions on buying Lemsip Max from Chemists in Atherstone. UK

Today the 9th June 2015 I tried to purchase three boxes times ten of Lemsip Max cold and flu treatment from two chemists in Atherstone. one would only let me have two and another chemist said that he he could let me buy one at a time, that the chemist offering me two was breaking the law.

I take quite a large number of prescription tablets of varying types during the course of the week which also consists of a box of a hundred a time paracetamol, which I take only when in severe pain.

I would have to be pretty stupid to abuse myself by taking excessive amounts of Lemsips when I already have a hundred or more Paracetamol tablets to hand,
What is the purpose of these stupid laws, and what moron passed them?

If this is law then it is very easy to exploit it by going to various shops or chemists and buying the max amount that they will sell you, so what is the purpose of this law, it serves no purpose what so ever.

Why is this idea important?

Today the 9th June 2015 I tried to purchase three boxes times ten of Lemsip Max cold and flu treatment from two chemists in Atherstone. one would only let me have two and another chemist said that he he could let me buy one at a time, that the chemist offering me two was breaking the law.

I take quite a large number of prescription tablets of varying types during the course of the week which also consists of a box of a hundred a time paracetamol, which I take only when in severe pain.

I would have to be pretty stupid to abuse myself by taking excessive amounts of Lemsips when I already have a hundred or more Paracetamol tablets to hand,
What is the purpose of these stupid laws, and what moron passed them?

If this is law then it is very easy to exploit it by going to various shops or chemists and buying the max amount that they will sell you, so what is the purpose of this law, it serves no purpose what so ever.

Speeding fines/points

At the moment, if you get caught speeding you get points and a fine.

They should make the fines cost more. and not give points for speeding.

points should be used for other related issues.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, if you get caught speeding you get points and a fine.

They should make the fines cost more. and not give points for speeding.

points should be used for other related issues.

Police Cautions Must Be Removed

Dear All I was given a police caution for a very minor event which I cannot go into details for legal reasons. This has dramatically changed my life because although I have numerous degrees behind me it was all for nothing because it seems as if no one is interested in employing me. I am currently being treated by psychologists for depression and trauma.
However, there are many of us who were given or accepted a police caution for numerous reasons. This includes signing the form under pressure by a police officer, being given the wrong information such as the caution would be removed within a period of time (mainly 5years), or for fear of being kept in a cell for over a night. Whatever the reason may be, I am of the opinion that those who have received a police caution particular for minor offences should not be punished for the rest of their life. Though the police have the power to caution individuals, they are not judges and it is not certain that if you have gone ahead with court proceedings you would be convicted. I am sure that many of us now wished that we went ahead with court proceedings because in my case I was advised that CPS would not accept my case but now is too late. A CAUTION IS AS GOOD AS A CONVICTION. My only problem is I cannot live under this oppression of being labelled a criminal by employers and other members
of the public. I much prefer to get a prison life sentence than to live in this society being turned down jobs after jobs and having only one option of depending in benefits. As you may be aware the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011-2012 maintains that adults with cautions will have their records kept indefinitely which is disproportionate. Therefore, I am asking those who have not got a chance to come before a judge to sign a caution Epetition at HM Government. Website is: Epetitions.direct.uk/petitions. 100.000 signatures are required for the government to consider the discussion in the parliament. Let us do something or lets us live in rejection, discrimination, and in misery for the rest of our lives for a minor mistake or choice that we have taken. Thanks

Why is this idea important?

Dear All I was given a police caution for a very minor event which I cannot go into details for legal reasons. This has dramatically changed my life because although I have numerous degrees behind me it was all for nothing because it seems as if no one is interested in employing me. I am currently being treated by psychologists for depression and trauma.
However, there are many of us who were given or accepted a police caution for numerous reasons. This includes signing the form under pressure by a police officer, being given the wrong information such as the caution would be removed within a period of time (mainly 5years), or for fear of being kept in a cell for over a night. Whatever the reason may be, I am of the opinion that those who have received a police caution particular for minor offences should not be punished for the rest of their life. Though the police have the power to caution individuals, they are not judges and it is not certain that if you have gone ahead with court proceedings you would be convicted. I am sure that many of us now wished that we went ahead with court proceedings because in my case I was advised that CPS would not accept my case but now is too late. A CAUTION IS AS GOOD AS A CONVICTION. My only problem is I cannot live under this oppression of being labelled a criminal by employers and other members
of the public. I much prefer to get a prison life sentence than to live in this society being turned down jobs after jobs and having only one option of depending in benefits. As you may be aware the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011-2012 maintains that adults with cautions will have their records kept indefinitely which is disproportionate. Therefore, I am asking those who have not got a chance to come before a judge to sign a caution Epetition at HM Government. Website is: Epetitions.direct.uk/petitions. 100.000 signatures are required for the government to consider the discussion in the parliament. Let us do something or lets us live in rejection, discrimination, and in misery for the rest of our lives for a minor mistake or choice that we have taken. Thanks

Change stamp duty

Stamp duty should be paid on the difference between house prices when moving home not the total price of the new purchase.

Essentially I feel that the stamp duty system discourages economic mobility.

The desire to move to the right area is reduced by the burden of stamp duty.

For example if I got a new job in Sheffield and wished to move from Manchester the stamp duty would be applied even if my current house is exchanged for another house of equal value. Many houses are valued at over 250,000 and as such the cost would be £7500 at 3%.

That is a huge financial burden for a move that had no real improvement in property value.

In summary I feel stamp duty should be applied on the net difference in property prices. It should remain on all first properties and second homes.

Why is this idea important?

Stamp duty should be paid on the difference between house prices when moving home not the total price of the new purchase.

Essentially I feel that the stamp duty system discourages economic mobility.

The desire to move to the right area is reduced by the burden of stamp duty.

For example if I got a new job in Sheffield and wished to move from Manchester the stamp duty would be applied even if my current house is exchanged for another house of equal value. Many houses are valued at over 250,000 and as such the cost would be £7500 at 3%.

That is a huge financial burden for a move that had no real improvement in property value.

In summary I feel stamp duty should be applied on the net difference in property prices. It should remain on all first properties and second homes.

Increased granularity of driving offence points system

The current system of 12 points and 3 point offences is overly harsh, and therefore discourages minor driving infractions from being penalised.
Increasing the number of points a driver holds (e.g. to 100) would allow a much greater scaling of penal-points to be defined, e.g. 25 for speeding (as per current), 3 for ‘sitting in the middle lane’

This would allow the penalisation to fit the level of offence and therefore be more likely to be applied, resulting in a general improvement in driving standards.

Why is this idea important?

The current system of 12 points and 3 point offences is overly harsh, and therefore discourages minor driving infractions from being penalised.
Increasing the number of points a driver holds (e.g. to 100) would allow a much greater scaling of penal-points to be defined, e.g. 25 for speeding (as per current), 3 for ‘sitting in the middle lane’

This would allow the penalisation to fit the level of offence and therefore be more likely to be applied, resulting in a general improvement in driving standards.

GMT & BST

I feel the move from BST, to GMT, in late October is well timed but I feel the move from GMT, back to BST, could come in early March, rather than at the end of it. The worst of the cold weather (If not wet weather!!!) is usually over by March and so an extra hour of daylight, at the end of the day, is more is than one in the morning. Relative to the equinox, the move to BST, at the end of March, equates to putting the clocks back in mid September, which would be absurd.

Why is this idea important?

I feel the move from BST, to GMT, in late October is well timed but I feel the move from GMT, back to BST, could come in early March, rather than at the end of it. The worst of the cold weather (If not wet weather!!!) is usually over by March and so an extra hour of daylight, at the end of the day, is more is than one in the morning. Relative to the equinox, the move to BST, at the end of March, equates to putting the clocks back in mid September, which would be absurd.

Nationalised childcare to get more people working/decrease gender pay gap

Nationalise childcare so that single parents can get off Income Support/JSA and into work. In 2004 the UK came 20th in nationalised childcare out of 23 European countries studied, trailing Turkey and Greece. Right now we have a lot LESS nationalised/subsidised childcare places than we did in WW2!

Why is this idea important?

Nationalise childcare so that single parents can get off Income Support/JSA and into work. In 2004 the UK came 20th in nationalised childcare out of 23 European countries studied, trailing Turkey and Greece. Right now we have a lot LESS nationalised/subsidised childcare places than we did in WW2!

Replace Leasehold with Commonhold!

Leasehold is an 800 year old Feudal system which strangely only exists in England and Wales — Scotland and Ireland have got rid of
Leasehold many years ago and replaced it with an equal Commonhold system.

Leaseholders are classed as Vassal,inferiors,surfs etc etc.

Freeholders and Managing agents are classed as Superiors.

All Leaseholders are able to do is to go to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal– However as in Trafalgar Court Mundesley this
has been going on for eleven years and the building still remains in ruin. The Freeholder there is Mr Ravinder Sharma (London Land Securities, who constantly sends out service charges to Leaseholders that make no sense at all, plus he placed many drink
and drug addicts in the building, who threatened Leaseholders,
Mr Sharma then offered Leaseholders £2,500 for the their flats that hey had paid £40,000 pounds plus for!

He also sold 13 flats to unknown names for £1 each which sill remained registered at his home address.

Unfortunately there is no law in England and Wales to stop this ripoff.

The Rowner Regeneration again brought about by Leaseholders being exploited for many years.
Seven years of going to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal again was unable to stop the rot.

Why is this idea important?

Leasehold is an 800 year old Feudal system which strangely only exists in England and Wales — Scotland and Ireland have got rid of
Leasehold many years ago and replaced it with an equal Commonhold system.

Leaseholders are classed as Vassal,inferiors,surfs etc etc.

Freeholders and Managing agents are classed as Superiors.

All Leaseholders are able to do is to go to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal– However as in Trafalgar Court Mundesley this
has been going on for eleven years and the building still remains in ruin. The Freeholder there is Mr Ravinder Sharma (London Land Securities, who constantly sends out service charges to Leaseholders that make no sense at all, plus he placed many drink
and drug addicts in the building, who threatened Leaseholders,
Mr Sharma then offered Leaseholders £2,500 for the their flats that hey had paid £40,000 pounds plus for!

He also sold 13 flats to unknown names for £1 each which sill remained registered at his home address.

Unfortunately there is no law in England and Wales to stop this ripoff.

The Rowner Regeneration again brought about by Leaseholders being exploited for many years.
Seven years of going to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal again was unable to stop the rot.

Free Speech – Review Section 4a and 5 of the Public Order Act

The European Commissioner for Human Rights said that Liam Stacey’s sentence under 4a of the Public Order Act was “wrong”.

If a judge has the power to send someone to prison for a minor speech offence under this Act, then there is something very wrong with the Public Order Act.

I think the government should urgently review these laws.

Why is this idea important?

The European Commissioner for Human Rights said that Liam Stacey’s sentence under 4a of the Public Order Act was “wrong”.

If a judge has the power to send someone to prison for a minor speech offence under this Act, then there is something very wrong with the Public Order Act.

I think the government should urgently review these laws.