MPs and the Civil Service

MPs are essentially Civil Servants.  They should be paid, have allowances – with the requirement for receipts, and audit of expenses – and have pensions exactly as a Civil Servant.  And they should be expected to conform to the Civil Service code.

Secondly, why on earth pay an MP when he leaves the House, or leaves office ESPECIALLY if he is effectively removed from same because of dishonesty or bad behaviour eg Peter Mandelson, David Blunkett (much as I respect Mr Blunkett for his achievements).

Why is this idea important?

MPs are essentially Civil Servants.  They should be paid, have allowances – with the requirement for receipts, and audit of expenses – and have pensions exactly as a Civil Servant.  And they should be expected to conform to the Civil Service code.

Secondly, why on earth pay an MP when he leaves the House, or leaves office ESPECIALLY if he is effectively removed from same because of dishonesty or bad behaviour eg Peter Mandelson, David Blunkett (much as I respect Mr Blunkett for his achievements).

Abolish income tax altogether

Income tax is far too complex and thus difficult to administer (costly all round)  .Abolish income tax and tax everything that is bought.  This would give people the choice of what they pay for/pay tax on. 

Abolishing income tax would save the costs of all IRC offices, remove the need to chase tax evaders, remove the need for tax accountants or private investigators.

Why is this idea important?

Income tax is far too complex and thus difficult to administer (costly all round)  .Abolish income tax and tax everything that is bought.  This would give people the choice of what they pay for/pay tax on. 

Abolishing income tax would save the costs of all IRC offices, remove the need to chase tax evaders, remove the need for tax accountants or private investigators.

Local Authority duty to clear litter

It is currently the Local Authority's duty to clear litter from 'relevant land' which includes public highway, open space and other similar areas.

However, Councils don't have a litter dropping team that goes around and drops litter everywhere.  The people that drop litter cause Council Tax payers a lot of problems and communities should clear up after themselves.

The duty in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 should be removed and the ability for anybody to ask a Magistrate's Court to get an order for a Council to clear litter should also be removed.

Why is this idea important?

It is currently the Local Authority's duty to clear litter from 'relevant land' which includes public highway, open space and other similar areas.

However, Councils don't have a litter dropping team that goes around and drops litter everywhere.  The people that drop litter cause Council Tax payers a lot of problems and communities should clear up after themselves.

The duty in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 should be removed and the ability for anybody to ask a Magistrate's Court to get an order for a Council to clear litter should also be removed.

Pavements for cyclists?

With the drop in the number of pedestrians using our pavements why don’t we allocate the pavement on one side of the road to cyclists and the pavement on the other side of the road to pedestrians?  Obviously this wouldn’t work in busy shopping areas, but on pavements alongside many major roads there is hardly a pedestrian to be seen. 

Why is this idea important?

With the drop in the number of pedestrians using our pavements why don’t we allocate the pavement on one side of the road to cyclists and the pavement on the other side of the road to pedestrians?  Obviously this wouldn’t work in busy shopping areas, but on pavements alongside many major roads there is hardly a pedestrian to be seen. 

Vehicle licensing and drivers licenses – removal of the need for paper counterparts

My idea is to remove the legal requirement to keep a paper copy of a vehicle registration certificate and paper counterpart of a drivers license. Not only are these documents a paid to keep safe and somewhere one can find them, but apparently the paper on which they are printed is strangely valuable as new driver's license counterpart replacements for lost/defaced ones costs over £20 and new registration certificates cost £25.

The DVLA and police have these details on file and are able to access them without the need for paper copies. So why should we be required to have paper copies?

 

Let me give a bit of background to explain my position and also admittedly a bit of a rant:

 

I am a first-time car owner and, on trying to find out when I needed to MOT the car, I was told that I needed my 'logbook' in order to do this. I'll state this now, this is not the issue, but I promise that I am getting to it! I looked through all my documents and found nothing which bore the name 'logbook', so I paid £25 for one to be sent out.

Around 2 weeks later I got a document from the DVLA, looking forward to having the necessary documentation in order to find out when I had to MOT my vehicle I opened it to find a new registration certificate, but I already had one of those, it was a logbook which I needed (at no point was I made aware that a registration certificate is the same as a logbook, this is not on any documentation) I was quite angry that I had been charged £25 only to be sent the wrong document and I ripped it up and threw it away. I knew that it was at least a few months away.

Three months later, or so, I got my road tax bill (again, the paper is strangely valuable) and on trying to pay it, I was told my registration certificate wasn't valid (the had received at the time of purchasing the vehicle), I didn't understand this so I queried it, but still had the money and wanted to pay the road tax. He advised me that I had been sent a new one, so the one I had in my hand was no longer valid. After much slightly heated discussion he agreed to give me the number from the replacement document which I had thrown away, so that I could pay it, but I had to use the DVLA phone service to renew my road tax (I'm not even going to start about their phone service). He told me that I would also need another new vehicle registration certificate and it would cost me £25.

Needless to say I was outraged, I knew it was only £25, but I'm not well off. As anyone knows, in this financial climate, £25 is quite a lot of money to shell out for something, especially when you'd already paid  £25 unnecessarily, due to not being given the appropriate information (that a vehicle registration document is a logbook).

My apologies for the rambling, but this an issue I feel very strongly about. I have been pulled over twice: once for putting my headlights on after my vehicle had been in motion for less than a second (a very minor incident to which I wasn't even given a warning for) and the other time, I am quite ashamed of this, for running a red light at 1 o'clock in the morning (sober, I might add, I'm am completely against drink driving) on an empty road (apart from the police car, apparently), for this I was given a warning. Neither time was I asked for any documentation, not even my drivers license photocard which begs the question why do we really need to have them?

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to remove the legal requirement to keep a paper copy of a vehicle registration certificate and paper counterpart of a drivers license. Not only are these documents a paid to keep safe and somewhere one can find them, but apparently the paper on which they are printed is strangely valuable as new driver's license counterpart replacements for lost/defaced ones costs over £20 and new registration certificates cost £25.

The DVLA and police have these details on file and are able to access them without the need for paper copies. So why should we be required to have paper copies?

 

Let me give a bit of background to explain my position and also admittedly a bit of a rant:

 

I am a first-time car owner and, on trying to find out when I needed to MOT the car, I was told that I needed my 'logbook' in order to do this. I'll state this now, this is not the issue, but I promise that I am getting to it! I looked through all my documents and found nothing which bore the name 'logbook', so I paid £25 for one to be sent out.

Around 2 weeks later I got a document from the DVLA, looking forward to having the necessary documentation in order to find out when I had to MOT my vehicle I opened it to find a new registration certificate, but I already had one of those, it was a logbook which I needed (at no point was I made aware that a registration certificate is the same as a logbook, this is not on any documentation) I was quite angry that I had been charged £25 only to be sent the wrong document and I ripped it up and threw it away. I knew that it was at least a few months away.

Three months later, or so, I got my road tax bill (again, the paper is strangely valuable) and on trying to pay it, I was told my registration certificate wasn't valid (the had received at the time of purchasing the vehicle), I didn't understand this so I queried it, but still had the money and wanted to pay the road tax. He advised me that I had been sent a new one, so the one I had in my hand was no longer valid. After much slightly heated discussion he agreed to give me the number from the replacement document which I had thrown away, so that I could pay it, but I had to use the DVLA phone service to renew my road tax (I'm not even going to start about their phone service). He told me that I would also need another new vehicle registration certificate and it would cost me £25.

Needless to say I was outraged, I knew it was only £25, but I'm not well off. As anyone knows, in this financial climate, £25 is quite a lot of money to shell out for something, especially when you'd already paid  £25 unnecessarily, due to not being given the appropriate information (that a vehicle registration document is a logbook).

My apologies for the rambling, but this an issue I feel very strongly about. I have been pulled over twice: once for putting my headlights on after my vehicle had been in motion for less than a second (a very minor incident to which I wasn't even given a warning for) and the other time, I am quite ashamed of this, for running a red light at 1 o'clock in the morning (sober, I might add, I'm am completely against drink driving) on an empty road (apart from the police car, apparently), for this I was given a warning. Neither time was I asked for any documentation, not even my drivers license photocard which begs the question why do we really need to have them?

Reduce the cost of road signage

1. Go back to the old system of only having two traffic lights at junctions.  In recent years I have been at junctons and facing seven or eight sets of lights.  Completely unnecessary and a waste of our taxes

2. Cut down on the use of road signs particularty in country areas.  Unnecessary chevrons on bends, huge, ugly  30mph signs above the name of the village for example.

3. Have one sign on the left hand side of the road not one on each side of the road. We drive on the left don't we so why always two signs facing the oncoming motorist ?

4. Turn off unnecessary lights. Cars have lights.  

Why is this idea important?

1. Go back to the old system of only having two traffic lights at junctions.  In recent years I have been at junctons and facing seven or eight sets of lights.  Completely unnecessary and a waste of our taxes

2. Cut down on the use of road signs particularty in country areas.  Unnecessary chevrons on bends, huge, ugly  30mph signs above the name of the village for example.

3. Have one sign on the left hand side of the road not one on each side of the road. We drive on the left don't we so why always two signs facing the oncoming motorist ?

4. Turn off unnecessary lights. Cars have lights.  

fixed penalties

I work in local authority regulation and the use of fixed penalty notices for low-level straightforward offences is a very useful tool both for the local authority, the alleged offender and the courts. However in 2006 the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005 gave the power to local authorities to vary the level of fixed penalties for litter, noise, dog fouling (if Dog Control Orders adopted), graffiti and fly-posting. This I feel is wrong and goes against the idea of a fixed penalty being 'fixed'. It has also been unfair. Many local authorities have increased their litter, for example, fixed penalty from £50 to £80 at the top of the permitted scale, or the default of £75. How can they justify the fixed penalty for dropping litter being more than the police-issued fixed penalty (PND) for throwing stones at trains or the same as the police PNDs for theft, criminal damage or public order? We chose to keep the litter FPN at £50 to be proportionate and the same as police PND. We increased graffiti/criminal damage to £80 so it was relative to litter and same as police PND for same offence. We often do joint patrols with police officers. CSOs work for police and issue local authority litter FPNs. How can it be right for the local authority officer or CSO to issue a £80 FPN payable in 14 days for litter whereas the police officer dealing with an offender, maybe at the same time, would issue a £50 PND payable in 28 days? When the CNEA was passed I was in communication with the Home Office and a civil servaant tasked with rationalising fixed penalties. The HO was unaware DEFRA were introducing laws to create non-fixed fixed penalties, why? Fixed penalties are a good idea. They need to be rationalised and levels fixed. And who can issue them set nationally. As I believe in Scotland. 

Why is this idea important?

I work in local authority regulation and the use of fixed penalty notices for low-level straightforward offences is a very useful tool both for the local authority, the alleged offender and the courts. However in 2006 the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005 gave the power to local authorities to vary the level of fixed penalties for litter, noise, dog fouling (if Dog Control Orders adopted), graffiti and fly-posting. This I feel is wrong and goes against the idea of a fixed penalty being 'fixed'. It has also been unfair. Many local authorities have increased their litter, for example, fixed penalty from £50 to £80 at the top of the permitted scale, or the default of £75. How can they justify the fixed penalty for dropping litter being more than the police-issued fixed penalty (PND) for throwing stones at trains or the same as the police PNDs for theft, criminal damage or public order? We chose to keep the litter FPN at £50 to be proportionate and the same as police PND. We increased graffiti/criminal damage to £80 so it was relative to litter and same as police PND for same offence. We often do joint patrols with police officers. CSOs work for police and issue local authority litter FPNs. How can it be right for the local authority officer or CSO to issue a £80 FPN payable in 14 days for litter whereas the police officer dealing with an offender, maybe at the same time, would issue a £50 PND payable in 28 days? When the CNEA was passed I was in communication with the Home Office and a civil servaant tasked with rationalising fixed penalties. The HO was unaware DEFRA were introducing laws to create non-fixed fixed penalties, why? Fixed penalties are a good idea. They need to be rationalised and levels fixed. And who can issue them set nationally. As I believe in Scotland. 

Use of agricultural land for 14 days a year for Motorcross Track

Our tiny village of Marsh Green, Devon, (our postcode EX5 2ES)  which has approx 40 houses, is having to endure the unacceptable use of an agricultural field which has been turned into a Motocross Track almost every weekend particularly during the summer.  A Retrospective Planning Application was submitted to East Devon District Council about 5 years ago for use by friends and family only and this and a subsequent appeal was turned down as the facilities and location were unsuitable.  The field has been turned into a proper motocross track with jumps etc. and can no longer be used for agriculture and this can be easily viewed on Google Earth.  It is ridiculous having been refused permission (it was already being used in any event before the retrospective application was made).  It now appears to be used for business purposes ie motocross clubs and having had a meeting with East Devon DC Chief Exec recently they said their hands are tied because current legislation allows any use including business for 14 days a year and there is also no restriction on the number of hours that it can be used on those days ie on a Sunday we endure it from around 10.30 am until 7.30 pm during the summer.  The 14 days are always exceeded during the year and the Council do not appear to have anyway of monitoring this use or the resources to manage it although we can phone up and complain to an emergency noise polution line which residents do regularly.  We feel that the law appears to be an ass in this case and should be repealed extremely quickly as the Chief Exec said during our meeting that there are other land owners taking advantage of this rule to use their land for all sorts of activities and he quoted a case of a Golf Course for example and what is more worrying is that if this carries on for 10 years they could possibly say that they have use granted permanently on the basis of the 10 year rule.  A petition has been organised by one of my neighbours conbtaining around 50 signatures which is going to be given to our Parish Council and we intend sending Hugo Swyre our MP a copy in the hope that he can also take up our case.  We await to hear from you. 

Why is this idea important?

Our tiny village of Marsh Green, Devon, (our postcode EX5 2ES)  which has approx 40 houses, is having to endure the unacceptable use of an agricultural field which has been turned into a Motocross Track almost every weekend particularly during the summer.  A Retrospective Planning Application was submitted to East Devon District Council about 5 years ago for use by friends and family only and this and a subsequent appeal was turned down as the facilities and location were unsuitable.  The field has been turned into a proper motocross track with jumps etc. and can no longer be used for agriculture and this can be easily viewed on Google Earth.  It is ridiculous having been refused permission (it was already being used in any event before the retrospective application was made).  It now appears to be used for business purposes ie motocross clubs and having had a meeting with East Devon DC Chief Exec recently they said their hands are tied because current legislation allows any use including business for 14 days a year and there is also no restriction on the number of hours that it can be used on those days ie on a Sunday we endure it from around 10.30 am until 7.30 pm during the summer.  The 14 days are always exceeded during the year and the Council do not appear to have anyway of monitoring this use or the resources to manage it although we can phone up and complain to an emergency noise polution line which residents do regularly.  We feel that the law appears to be an ass in this case and should be repealed extremely quickly as the Chief Exec said during our meeting that there are other land owners taking advantage of this rule to use their land for all sorts of activities and he quoted a case of a Golf Course for example and what is more worrying is that if this carries on for 10 years they could possibly say that they have use granted permanently on the basis of the 10 year rule.  A petition has been organised by one of my neighbours conbtaining around 50 signatures which is going to be given to our Parish Council and we intend sending Hugo Swyre our MP a copy in the hope that he can also take up our case.  We await to hear from you. 

Home office consultation. Get your voice heard!!! – Cannabis decriminalisation

The home office have a consultation paper on drug strategy. Heres your chance to be heard.

Thanks to another user on another forum (Don)

the more people that fill it out and show our support for the decriminalisation of cannabis the better.

TODAY'S reporting on governments intention to provisionally classify some substances (LEGAL HIGHS) under the Misuse of Drugs Act while the Advisory Committee [ACMD] investigate any alleged risks associated with such substances has been on the agenda for some time.

The real story is here ……Paraphrased from the Home Office Website

2010 Drug strategy consultation paper

• Reference number: 2010 Drug strategy consultation paper
• Issued: 20 Aug 2010
• Opening date: 20 Aug 2010
• Closing date: 30 Sep 2010

The government plans to publish a new drug strategy later this year. This targeted consultation provides an early opportunity for a wide range of partners to contribute to the development of the new strategy.

Consultation information

• Intended audience: This consultation is aimed at a wide audience, from charities to enforcement partners, drug workers, voluntary and community sector organisations. Responses from members of the public are also welcome.

Questions are asked around four key themes led by the following government departments:

• Department for Education: preventing drug use
• Home Office and Ministry of Justice: strengthening enforcement, criminal justice and legal framework
• Department of Health: rebalancing treatment to support drug-free outcomes
• Department for Work and Pensions: supporting recovery to break the cycle of drug addiction

You can respond by filling in the online form. Or if you prefer, you can read the full consultation document below and respond via email or post.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica…strategy-2010/

So spread the word.

Why is this idea important?

The home office have a consultation paper on drug strategy. Heres your chance to be heard.

Thanks to another user on another forum (Don)

the more people that fill it out and show our support for the decriminalisation of cannabis the better.

TODAY'S reporting on governments intention to provisionally classify some substances (LEGAL HIGHS) under the Misuse of Drugs Act while the Advisory Committee [ACMD] investigate any alleged risks associated with such substances has been on the agenda for some time.

The real story is here ……Paraphrased from the Home Office Website

2010 Drug strategy consultation paper

• Reference number: 2010 Drug strategy consultation paper
• Issued: 20 Aug 2010
• Opening date: 20 Aug 2010
• Closing date: 30 Sep 2010

The government plans to publish a new drug strategy later this year. This targeted consultation provides an early opportunity for a wide range of partners to contribute to the development of the new strategy.

Consultation information

• Intended audience: This consultation is aimed at a wide audience, from charities to enforcement partners, drug workers, voluntary and community sector organisations. Responses from members of the public are also welcome.

Questions are asked around four key themes led by the following government departments:

• Department for Education: preventing drug use
• Home Office and Ministry of Justice: strengthening enforcement, criminal justice and legal framework
• Department of Health: rebalancing treatment to support drug-free outcomes
• Department for Work and Pensions: supporting recovery to break the cycle of drug addiction

You can respond by filling in the online form. Or if you prefer, you can read the full consultation document below and respond via email or post.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica…strategy-2010/

So spread the word.

waste of time and public money – again -losing a carers allowance

if i am a carer on a carers allowance i can on top of my allowance earn up to £100 without losing the benefit but if i earnt £101 i WOULD LOSE THE BENEFIT thus making it financially a weird situation in that there is a point where i cannot work more than one more hour without it being financially a burden – yet the extra income is within the other hours outisde the 36 hours i care and also the extra money goes to top up on carer fees which we do not get help with because the medical assesment for care is that your elderly/person must be unable to do a thing, and care is much bigger than personal hygiene.  The family member who helps their loved one or parent is further penalised because as a the family member who helps they are the most likely to suffer from loss of earnings and loss of pension whereas other family members who dont help at all and carry on working have no obligagtions to help and no penalisation.  There is even an insane idea that you can offset this carers penalty by being costed against the unifiorm of your job or its expenses so as a tutor for a fe college i sent in the cost of the insurance and crb check – whcih shamelessly this govt is forcing via the inappropriate use of agency protocol national to staff all fe posts – making tutors effectively "pay for the college's insurance and college's responsibility to do a CRB.  HYou can offset costs against the income and this is also insane as i was asked by a carers benefit officer when i became self employed and had i registered with tax for this…i said i had simply tried to add 2 hours work to our huge depletion of our savings as none of the benefits actually met our real costs of living and certain ly not for £16 per hour private carer costs.  it was an ironic situation that i was bein forced to suppliment the fe sector which is already highly subsidised with my taxes, and then forced into beign "self employed" in order to keep the public sector fe job and govt benefit system ….it is disgustging – just give a carer a suppliment and be done with it – the waste of public money on keeping a carers benefit office looking up this bunkum and sending in piddling costs for my job is pointless and useless when one realises that the internet and phone bill cost more to hold an fe tutor job than they pay or the carers allowance did togehter or seperateyl   and when i tried to go to uni, becuase they did not have a parttime course for me and forced me to fulltime then i lost all carers benefit despite the facgt my elderly loved one was still getting my care – and still more than the 36 hours of the benefit….the old person didnt die or just stop needing my care just becuase I went to uni and does it surpise you that i dropped out after 2 weeks as there was no one to help me take the oap to hospital …..

Why is this idea important?

if i am a carer on a carers allowance i can on top of my allowance earn up to £100 without losing the benefit but if i earnt £101 i WOULD LOSE THE BENEFIT thus making it financially a weird situation in that there is a point where i cannot work more than one more hour without it being financially a burden – yet the extra income is within the other hours outisde the 36 hours i care and also the extra money goes to top up on carer fees which we do not get help with because the medical assesment for care is that your elderly/person must be unable to do a thing, and care is much bigger than personal hygiene.  The family member who helps their loved one or parent is further penalised because as a the family member who helps they are the most likely to suffer from loss of earnings and loss of pension whereas other family members who dont help at all and carry on working have no obligagtions to help and no penalisation.  There is even an insane idea that you can offset this carers penalty by being costed against the unifiorm of your job or its expenses so as a tutor for a fe college i sent in the cost of the insurance and crb check – whcih shamelessly this govt is forcing via the inappropriate use of agency protocol national to staff all fe posts – making tutors effectively "pay for the college's insurance and college's responsibility to do a CRB.  HYou can offset costs against the income and this is also insane as i was asked by a carers benefit officer when i became self employed and had i registered with tax for this…i said i had simply tried to add 2 hours work to our huge depletion of our savings as none of the benefits actually met our real costs of living and certain ly not for £16 per hour private carer costs.  it was an ironic situation that i was bein forced to suppliment the fe sector which is already highly subsidised with my taxes, and then forced into beign "self employed" in order to keep the public sector fe job and govt benefit system ….it is disgustging – just give a carer a suppliment and be done with it – the waste of public money on keeping a carers benefit office looking up this bunkum and sending in piddling costs for my job is pointless and useless when one realises that the internet and phone bill cost more to hold an fe tutor job than they pay or the carers allowance did togehter or seperateyl   and when i tried to go to uni, becuase they did not have a parttime course for me and forced me to fulltime then i lost all carers benefit despite the facgt my elderly loved one was still getting my care – and still more than the 36 hours of the benefit….the old person didnt die or just stop needing my care just becuase I went to uni and does it surpise you that i dropped out after 2 weeks as there was no one to help me take the oap to hospital …..

s 226 and 228 CJA 2003 need abolishing or serious curtailing

Sections 226 and 228 Criminal Justice Act 2003 are the ones that provide for extended and indefinite sentences for public protection. This legislation was supposed to demonstrate the last government's ferocious approach to tackling crime and to respond to public concern about 'dangerous criminals' being released to molest the law abiding. The guidance that accompanied them was hopelessly broad and the provisions have been grossly overused. it is time to review them and, ideally, repeal them.

Why is this idea important?

Sections 226 and 228 Criminal Justice Act 2003 are the ones that provide for extended and indefinite sentences for public protection. This legislation was supposed to demonstrate the last government's ferocious approach to tackling crime and to respond to public concern about 'dangerous criminals' being released to molest the law abiding. The guidance that accompanied them was hopelessly broad and the provisions have been grossly overused. it is time to review them and, ideally, repeal them.

Replace food-tech with nutrition lessons.

I struggle to think of anything meaningful that learnt in my food-tech lessons. I was taught how to make scones, biscuits and cakes. I was taught that putting sugar in my bolognaise sauce would make the tomatoes sweeter. I was even taught the purpose of putting butter in your sandwich- the textbook answer being that it 'provides a waterproof barrier between bread & salad (this supposedly being valuable information).

Has any of this played a valuable contribution to my academic learning? No. Has my ability to make scones made me a better person or enriched my daily life? Of course not.

I propose that food tech should be completely scrapped, instead being replaced with nutrition lessons which educate children on the science of food. Teach them about blood sugar, food groups, what part vitamins and minerals play in each aspect of the body, how calories work, salt and water retention, hydration, metabolism etc.

Why is this idea important?

I struggle to think of anything meaningful that learnt in my food-tech lessons. I was taught how to make scones, biscuits and cakes. I was taught that putting sugar in my bolognaise sauce would make the tomatoes sweeter. I was even taught the purpose of putting butter in your sandwich- the textbook answer being that it 'provides a waterproof barrier between bread & salad (this supposedly being valuable information).

Has any of this played a valuable contribution to my academic learning? No. Has my ability to make scones made me a better person or enriched my daily life? Of course not.

I propose that food tech should be completely scrapped, instead being replaced with nutrition lessons which educate children on the science of food. Teach them about blood sugar, food groups, what part vitamins and minerals play in each aspect of the body, how calories work, salt and water retention, hydration, metabolism etc.

Attestation of police officers

Police officers having completed their training, are required to make an attestation i.e. to swear an oath to be impartial and fair to all they deal with and to serve the HM the Queen. This oath is taken before a magistrate and also applies to Special Constables who are unpaid volunteers. Often for Specials attestations there is a charming ceremony with family and friends attending to watch a family member make this important oath. It is taken very seriously and only after it has taaen place do officers receive their all important warrant cards. The event is held on police premises and a local magistrate carries out their office with appropriate dignity; no cost is incurred.

In 2009 a petty piece of legistation was introduced which requires all attestations to be made and organised through the magistrates courts and a charge levied of £50 plus £10 per officer. The sums involved are so small as to be nothing but a nuisance to both the courts and the police. The money does not go to the magistrate who carries out the ceremony as they too are unpaid volunteers. This petty rule applies to all officers even those transferred from other forces. The charming ceremonies have to go as the courts decide where it shall take place and when.

Why is this idea important?

Police officers having completed their training, are required to make an attestation i.e. to swear an oath to be impartial and fair to all they deal with and to serve the HM the Queen. This oath is taken before a magistrate and also applies to Special Constables who are unpaid volunteers. Often for Specials attestations there is a charming ceremony with family and friends attending to watch a family member make this important oath. It is taken very seriously and only after it has taaen place do officers receive their all important warrant cards. The event is held on police premises and a local magistrate carries out their office with appropriate dignity; no cost is incurred.

In 2009 a petty piece of legistation was introduced which requires all attestations to be made and organised through the magistrates courts and a charge levied of £50 plus £10 per officer. The sums involved are so small as to be nothing but a nuisance to both the courts and the police. The money does not go to the magistrate who carries out the ceremony as they too are unpaid volunteers. This petty rule applies to all officers even those transferred from other forces. The charming ceremonies have to go as the courts decide where it shall take place and when.

Allow us to vote where our lottery grant money gets allocated and allow us to use to for more meaningful benefits such as NHS , Schools etc

Currently the lottery commision divie's up where the lottery grant money goes to and some of the grants are used to fund projects that are not necessary the best use of public money.

Given the current state of our finances and cuts which are due upon us , I feel this should be reviewed and it would be good if we could vote as to where we would like our money to be allocated.

I would like to see lottery grants going to more meaningful projects such as

1 – Cancer Research

2- Your Local NHS trust and hosptial

3- Your local school

4 – Your local police and fire service

Use the money for the geninue pressing causes , not waste it on stupid things

Why is this idea important?

Currently the lottery commision divie's up where the lottery grant money goes to and some of the grants are used to fund projects that are not necessary the best use of public money.

Given the current state of our finances and cuts which are due upon us , I feel this should be reviewed and it would be good if we could vote as to where we would like our money to be allocated.

I would like to see lottery grants going to more meaningful projects such as

1 – Cancer Research

2- Your Local NHS trust and hosptial

3- Your local school

4 – Your local police and fire service

Use the money for the geninue pressing causes , not waste it on stupid things

Court proceedings

I believe the law should be changed to allow those giving evidence to give complete anwers as they see fit in court rather than being goaded into answering in the way the barrister wants them to.

Why is this idea important?

I believe the law should be changed to allow those giving evidence to give complete anwers as they see fit in court rather than being goaded into answering in the way the barrister wants them to.

Abolish Capitalism

Money never seems to bring happiness so let's forget about chasing more of it and spending it on stuff we don't need and only throw away eventually anyway.

There must be something better than this.

Why is this idea important?

Money never seems to bring happiness so let's forget about chasing more of it and spending it on stuff we don't need and only throw away eventually anyway.

There must be something better than this.

Repeal Section 58 of the Water Act 2003

I wish to urge the Deputy Prime Minister 

1)   To exert his authority with the Department of Health to give consideration to
    the repeal of Section 58 of The Water Act 2003. 
 
Section 58 overrides the discretionary powers of water suppliers to accede to the majority inclinations of their consumers compared with conforming to the totalitarian ambitions of government to secure a pro-fluoridation outcome, regardless of human rights, democratic debate and the principles of ethical medicine.  
 

Why is this idea important?

I wish to urge the Deputy Prime Minister 

1)   To exert his authority with the Department of Health to give consideration to
    the repeal of Section 58 of The Water Act 2003. 
 
Section 58 overrides the discretionary powers of water suppliers to accede to the majority inclinations of their consumers compared with conforming to the totalitarian ambitions of government to secure a pro-fluoridation outcome, regardless of human rights, democratic debate and the principles of ethical medicine.  
 

European Union Referenda

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of restoring our liberties is Europe, and how we should act as a sovereign state and show that the majority of the British people do not want to be members of this ever intruding dictatorship.

Initially the government, under any party, should face the facts that the people of the United Kingdom are against Europe and finally give the people what they want, a referendum on our membership with the question "Should the United Kingdom remain a member-state of the European Union?"

Why is this idea important?

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of restoring our liberties is Europe, and how we should act as a sovereign state and show that the majority of the British people do not want to be members of this ever intruding dictatorship.

Initially the government, under any party, should face the facts that the people of the United Kingdom are against Europe and finally give the people what they want, a referendum on our membership with the question "Should the United Kingdom remain a member-state of the European Union?"

Experience required before insurance will be given?

I'm in my 40's and have been driving for 20 years.  I have a full clean licence and have driven cars minibuses and even a 7.5 ton vehicle – all in a private non-paid capacity.  I'm unemployed and would like to use my extensive driving experience to drive larger vehicles Class 1 and 2 LGVs.  However, it seems that I won't be able to do this.  All of the recruitment/driving agencies are telling me that I won't be able to apply for the numerous driving jobs available because I don't have enough experience and as a result I won't be able to be insured.  This creates a catch-22 situation because I will never get the experience because I can't get insured to drive.  I would like the government to look into what appears to be a block to new entrants into the LGV jobs market.  This is preventing people like me applying for jobs that are out there and which I could do but am being prevented getting into what amounts to a closed shop.  I want to get back to work and I would like to do that through driving but I'm facing a brick wall which I can't get around.  Can you help?  Thanks 

Why is this idea important?

I'm in my 40's and have been driving for 20 years.  I have a full clean licence and have driven cars minibuses and even a 7.5 ton vehicle – all in a private non-paid capacity.  I'm unemployed and would like to use my extensive driving experience to drive larger vehicles Class 1 and 2 LGVs.  However, it seems that I won't be able to do this.  All of the recruitment/driving agencies are telling me that I won't be able to apply for the numerous driving jobs available because I don't have enough experience and as a result I won't be able to be insured.  This creates a catch-22 situation because I will never get the experience because I can't get insured to drive.  I would like the government to look into what appears to be a block to new entrants into the LGV jobs market.  This is preventing people like me applying for jobs that are out there and which I could do but am being prevented getting into what amounts to a closed shop.  I want to get back to work and I would like to do that through driving but I'm facing a brick wall which I can't get around.  Can you help?  Thanks 

The Home Office will lead the new Drug Strategy to disrupt drug supply and strengthen enforcement

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-drug-strategy-2010/drugs-consultation?view=Binary

unfortunatly what have been said in here has not been taken into consideration. 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-drug-strategy-2010/

Why is this idea important?

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-drug-strategy-2010/drugs-consultation?view=Binary

unfortunatly what have been said in here has not been taken into consideration. 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-drug-strategy-2010/

Everyone should pass the same HGV test to get Licence to drive on UK roads.

When I worked in retail a few years ago, a lot of the HGV delivery drivers where agency drivers from Poland. And what I noticed was, they all had trouble turning their waggons to our delivery entrance. They all tried cutting corners as if driving a car, and they all kept getting stuck! I had to physically walk them along the road and tell them exactly where to start their turn in order to get round the corner. They didn't have a clue!!

I mentioned this to one of the English drivers and he informed me that the Polish drivers had never past HGV driving tests. They where all driving HGV waggons on agracultural licences. Seems if you can get a licence to drive a tractor or other farm vehicle in Poland, then that qualifies you to drive a HGV in this country.

So scrap the law that allows this to happen and make everyone pass the same tests.

Why is this idea important?

When I worked in retail a few years ago, a lot of the HGV delivery drivers where agency drivers from Poland. And what I noticed was, they all had trouble turning their waggons to our delivery entrance. They all tried cutting corners as if driving a car, and they all kept getting stuck! I had to physically walk them along the road and tell them exactly where to start their turn in order to get round the corner. They didn't have a clue!!

I mentioned this to one of the English drivers and he informed me that the Polish drivers had never past HGV driving tests. They where all driving HGV waggons on agracultural licences. Seems if you can get a licence to drive a tractor or other farm vehicle in Poland, then that qualifies you to drive a HGV in this country.

So scrap the law that allows this to happen and make everyone pass the same tests.

Make British law surpreme to that of EU law

each day bits of powers slip away from david cameron due to daft eu laws which the vast dont want or need, years down the line the eu might take full contol in the event of this british law chould be top dog and EU law should be the dogs waste which may need cleaning up every now and again and be reminded whos top dog.

Why is this idea important?

each day bits of powers slip away from david cameron due to daft eu laws which the vast dont want or need, years down the line the eu might take full contol in the event of this british law chould be top dog and EU law should be the dogs waste which may need cleaning up every now and again and be reminded whos top dog.