Increase age of consent to 18 or lower age of buying porn to 16

How is it that you can legally have sex if both participants are 16 or over but you can't buy pornography until you are 18? So under the current law you can do it but not watch it at 16. I think that sums up my idea to clear up a daft anomaly.

Why is this idea important?

How is it that you can legally have sex if both participants are 16 or over but you can't buy pornography until you are 18? So under the current law you can do it but not watch it at 16. I think that sums up my idea to clear up a daft anomaly.

something politicians find hard to grasp about drugs

Whether something is branded illegal or legal has no effect on supply and demand nor any effect on whether people choose to take it. Drugs as harmless as cannabis are branded illegal for some reason, this to me shows that politicians know little about the drug and therefore why would I listen to their opinions on other drugs? Look at methadrone, before the media went crazy and hyped up the british public (which isn’t hard to do, most people will believe anything their precious daily mail says) I hadn’t even heard of it and minimal people were using it but as soon as the papers gave people the idea to use it low and behold everyone’s on it, the pub across the road from where I live is full of people ‘dronin’ off their face, before the methadrone ban it was full of people consuming alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. This is just one example of many how the ban hammer doesn’t work. You can’t wave a magic wand and it all goes away. The biggest risk for a heroin user is drug dealers, dirty needles and contaminated heroin not the substance itself. The same goes for most drugs branded illegal, the biggest risk for the consumer is the black market. More harm than good amounts from prohibition. Anyone who wishes to use any illegal drug can do so, prohibition doesn’t halt them in the slightest. There is nothing wrong with taking drugs every single one of has done so at one point or another whether it be alcohol, paracetamol, or crack cocaine. I can assure everyone on the planet people are not going to stop taking them and why should they? as long as not one other person is negatively effected by it. Its very simple either the government or respectable businesses regulate drugs or criminals will, it is a case of one or the other. These are the only two options when dealing with drugs. Drugs are THE most profitable business in the world, fact and criminals are reaping the benefits every hour of every day until this government decides to take the business out of their hands. Wouldn’t it be better for society if all addicts were registered and monitored as oppose to being left to their own devices funding the black market? Finally, who has the right to tell anyone else what they can do with their own body?

Why is this idea important?

Whether something is branded illegal or legal has no effect on supply and demand nor any effect on whether people choose to take it. Drugs as harmless as cannabis are branded illegal for some reason, this to me shows that politicians know little about the drug and therefore why would I listen to their opinions on other drugs? Look at methadrone, before the media went crazy and hyped up the british public (which isn’t hard to do, most people will believe anything their precious daily mail says) I hadn’t even heard of it and minimal people were using it but as soon as the papers gave people the idea to use it low and behold everyone’s on it, the pub across the road from where I live is full of people ‘dronin’ off their face, before the methadrone ban it was full of people consuming alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. This is just one example of many how the ban hammer doesn’t work. You can’t wave a magic wand and it all goes away. The biggest risk for a heroin user is drug dealers, dirty needles and contaminated heroin not the substance itself. The same goes for most drugs branded illegal, the biggest risk for the consumer is the black market. More harm than good amounts from prohibition. Anyone who wishes to use any illegal drug can do so, prohibition doesn’t halt them in the slightest. There is nothing wrong with taking drugs every single one of has done so at one point or another whether it be alcohol, paracetamol, or crack cocaine. I can assure everyone on the planet people are not going to stop taking them and why should they? as long as not one other person is negatively effected by it. Its very simple either the government or respectable businesses regulate drugs or criminals will, it is a case of one or the other. These are the only two options when dealing with drugs. Drugs are THE most profitable business in the world, fact and criminals are reaping the benefits every hour of every day until this government decides to take the business out of their hands. Wouldn’t it be better for society if all addicts were registered and monitored as oppose to being left to their own devices funding the black market? Finally, who has the right to tell anyone else what they can do with their own body?

LOVE CHILD NOT INCOME CHILD

Women should not be allowed to use children as a source of income, when they apply for child support they must prove that they were having a relationship with the father.

Women must not be allowed to manipulate the system to their own ends ,by producing children as a result of a one night-stand, after telling the man she was using contraception.

Then once the child is born the women then must not be allowed to use the C.S.A to exstract money from an unsuspecting male , who was unaware he had produced a child.

Before MEN are criminalised WOMEN must prove they have had a relationship with the childs father, most Dads are happy to pay a fair amount for a child that was wanted!

Why is this idea important?

Women should not be allowed to use children as a source of income, when they apply for child support they must prove that they were having a relationship with the father.

Women must not be allowed to manipulate the system to their own ends ,by producing children as a result of a one night-stand, after telling the man she was using contraception.

Then once the child is born the women then must not be allowed to use the C.S.A to exstract money from an unsuspecting male , who was unaware he had produced a child.

Before MEN are criminalised WOMEN must prove they have had a relationship with the childs father, most Dads are happy to pay a fair amount for a child that was wanted!

equality

is`nt  about time that all royals pay the same taxes as it`s  UK citizens ?even in death ?

stop the law society members strangling our court system and judges without readdress

also looking  in to there fees e..g  make a will ,then you pay again , again after carrying it out .sending  out letter of action then no action without readdress .

reclaim the civil courts to it`s citizens  .stop the main party`s dictating our political system with selected mps and make the system fair for independents so laws can have  scrutiny not  by infringes  of party will . removal of percentages ,remove the upper house,to fair independent manor .

stop taking the most with one hand then say your giving with the other which has a affect on all markets you earn then you take you pay you claim expenses to do you job selected by you party .

end tv licensing and make it  a even market place .

Why is this idea important?

is`nt  about time that all royals pay the same taxes as it`s  UK citizens ?even in death ?

stop the law society members strangling our court system and judges without readdress

also looking  in to there fees e..g  make a will ,then you pay again , again after carrying it out .sending  out letter of action then no action without readdress .

reclaim the civil courts to it`s citizens  .stop the main party`s dictating our political system with selected mps and make the system fair for independents so laws can have  scrutiny not  by infringes  of party will . removal of percentages ,remove the upper house,to fair independent manor .

stop taking the most with one hand then say your giving with the other which has a affect on all markets you earn then you take you pay you claim expenses to do you job selected by you party .

end tv licensing and make it  a even market place .

Alcohol – Football Fans Travelling to Matches

The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985 currently prohibits any football fan travelling in a vehicle designed to carry more than eight passengers from possessing or drinking alcohol whilst travelling to or from a football match.

This legal prohibition on citizens conducting themselves as they wish whilst causing no harm to others in a infringement on the civil liberties of football supporters.  No other group in our society is singled out for such intrusive restrictions.

It is already against the law to be drunk in a public place. The police should simply enforce the law which applies to all citizens, not single out football fans for treatment as potential criminals.

Why is this idea important?

The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985 currently prohibits any football fan travelling in a vehicle designed to carry more than eight passengers from possessing or drinking alcohol whilst travelling to or from a football match.

This legal prohibition on citizens conducting themselves as they wish whilst causing no harm to others in a infringement on the civil liberties of football supporters.  No other group in our society is singled out for such intrusive restrictions.

It is already against the law to be drunk in a public place. The police should simply enforce the law which applies to all citizens, not single out football fans for treatment as potential criminals.

Repeal NERC legislation

NERC legislation is flawed. As a responsible off-road motorcyclist the legislation legislation was already available to prosecute those 'cowboys' who ride illegally and put everyone at risk by riding in the countryside uninsured and on unsuitable unroadworthy machinery. The use of the NERC legislation has closed/downgraded rights of way to the detriment of all – yes even Ramblers! For example we have observed that 'lanes' which are narrow but which previously available as a RUPP or BOAT and were kept clear by legal motorcycle riding, but have been downgraded, are now over grown and cannot be accessed by anyone!

Why is this idea important?

NERC legislation is flawed. As a responsible off-road motorcyclist the legislation legislation was already available to prosecute those 'cowboys' who ride illegally and put everyone at risk by riding in the countryside uninsured and on unsuitable unroadworthy machinery. The use of the NERC legislation has closed/downgraded rights of way to the detriment of all – yes even Ramblers! For example we have observed that 'lanes' which are narrow but which previously available as a RUPP or BOAT and were kept clear by legal motorcycle riding, but have been downgraded, are now over grown and cannot be accessed by anyone!

keep british summer time

Keep british summer time and double time next summer.  This brings us more in line with europe.  Why should we in the south conform to Scotland.  They have their own parliament and could introduce their own hours.  Scotland is over 500 miles from the southern regions and yet we are only 40+ miles from France across the channel.  We change time zones quite happily  when we travel Europe or even the States. 

Why is this idea important?

Keep british summer time and double time next summer.  This brings us more in line with europe.  Why should we in the south conform to Scotland.  They have their own parliament and could introduce their own hours.  Scotland is over 500 miles from the southern regions and yet we are only 40+ miles from France across the channel.  We change time zones quite happily  when we travel Europe or even the States. 

Repeal Ancient Archery Laws

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10300924

In these days of gun crime and knife crime surely this law should be repealed. We have already seen the damage done to our communities by radical clerics such as Abu Hamza , whose rhetoric only serves to fuel religious bigotry and fuel intolerance.  What then if such men were allowed to seize upon this un-repealed law and use it to their own ends.  Apparently, the Reverend Mary Edwards, of Collingbourne Ducis, near Marlborough, already rewards those who attend the archery practice with ' a bar, a barbecue and live music.'  How would other religious groups similarly reward those who comply with the law?  Are we to see the return of fatted calves being roasted on a spit on our village greens? 

A further impact of this law remaining unchallenged would also be the potential endangerment of Welshmen within the city walls of Chester where a further unrepealed law allows one  to shoot a Welshman on a Sunday inside the city walls – as long as it's after midnight and with a crossbow.  Since the use of a crossbow could technically fall under the remit of archery practice, Chester could quickly turn into a no-go area for Welshman after midnight on Sunday.

I trust that both these laws will be reviewed and repealed by this government.

Why is this idea important?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10300924

In these days of gun crime and knife crime surely this law should be repealed. We have already seen the damage done to our communities by radical clerics such as Abu Hamza , whose rhetoric only serves to fuel religious bigotry and fuel intolerance.  What then if such men were allowed to seize upon this un-repealed law and use it to their own ends.  Apparently, the Reverend Mary Edwards, of Collingbourne Ducis, near Marlborough, already rewards those who attend the archery practice with ' a bar, a barbecue and live music.'  How would other religious groups similarly reward those who comply with the law?  Are we to see the return of fatted calves being roasted on a spit on our village greens? 

A further impact of this law remaining unchallenged would also be the potential endangerment of Welshmen within the city walls of Chester where a further unrepealed law allows one  to shoot a Welshman on a Sunday inside the city walls – as long as it's after midnight and with a crossbow.  Since the use of a crossbow could technically fall under the remit of archery practice, Chester could quickly turn into a no-go area for Welshman after midnight on Sunday.

I trust that both these laws will be reviewed and repealed by this government.

Restore the Criminal Standard of Proof

Judges should return to their former practice of directing juries in criminal cases  that they can only convict the defendant if they are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

Why is this idea important?

Judges should return to their former practice of directing juries in criminal cases  that they can only convict the defendant if they are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

Control of electrical work

This is another nanny state regulation and one that probably achieves very little. It relates to what the ordinary person is allowed to do as regards electrical installations/repairs.  In practice, it means that many quite competent but conscientious people cannot now undertake work on their own house without an inspection by the LA to make sure it is correctly done – the cost of the that inspection often makes it impractical as a diy job. On the other hand, the incompetent (and likely less conscientious) person will probably still do the work and just not bother to get it inspected.

By all means have control over complex industrial installations and work undertaken as paid employment but please can we let the ordinary householder get on with his own work.

Why is this idea important?

This is another nanny state regulation and one that probably achieves very little. It relates to what the ordinary person is allowed to do as regards electrical installations/repairs.  In practice, it means that many quite competent but conscientious people cannot now undertake work on their own house without an inspection by the LA to make sure it is correctly done – the cost of the that inspection often makes it impractical as a diy job. On the other hand, the incompetent (and likely less conscientious) person will probably still do the work and just not bother to get it inspected.

By all means have control over complex industrial installations and work undertaken as paid employment but please can we let the ordinary householder get on with his own work.

Repeal Section 135 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Section 135 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 reads: 

135 Requirement of Attorney General’s consent for prosecutions

Proceedings for an offence under section 134 above shall not be begun—

(a) in England and Wales, except by, or with the consent of, the  Attorney General; or

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.

 

Section 134 (mentioned in the above Section) reads:

 (1) A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties.

 (2) A person not falling within subsection (1) above commits the offence of torture, whatever his nationality, if—

(a) in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence— .

                (i) of a public official; or .

                (ii) of a person acting in an official capacity; and .

(b) the official or other person is performing or purporting to perform his official duties when he instigates the commission of the offence or  consents to or acquiesces in it. .

 (3) It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an omission.

 (4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of his to prove that he had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct.

(5) For the purposes of this section “lawful authority, justification or excuse” means—

(a) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted in the United Kingdom,  lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of  the United Kingdom where it was inflicted; .

(b) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted outside the United Kingdom—

(i) if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under that law, lawful authority, justification or                excuse under that law;

 (ii) if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under such law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom under whose law he was acting; and

(iii) in any other case, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the place where it was inflicted.

 (6) A person who commits the offence of torture shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

It is entirely wrong that the determination as to whether a person who has committed or procured torture could escape prosecution for that sickening and wholly abhorrent crime at the whim of a politician whose first loyalty is always to the political party of which they are a member.

 It should be a matter for an independent Judge (preferably one sitting in the High Court) to determine whether or not there is a case to answer and if there is a case to answer to ensure that the person charged with torturing any other person is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law irrespective of that person’s position or the particular branch of government they work for.

 The rule of law should be absolute and applied consistently to everyone – especially when something so vile and inexcusable as torture is concerned.

There is a worrying trend that people consider it acceptable to torture others under the auspices of ‘security’ or ‘defence’ or ‘anti-terrorism’.

Torture is cowardly, inexcusable and indefensible and anyone who carries it out or who aids, abets, counsels or procures it should be dealt with most severely.

Why is this idea important?

Section 135 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 reads: 

135 Requirement of Attorney General’s consent for prosecutions

Proceedings for an offence under section 134 above shall not be begun—

(a) in England and Wales, except by, or with the consent of, the  Attorney General; or

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.

 

Section 134 (mentioned in the above Section) reads:

 (1) A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties.

 (2) A person not falling within subsection (1) above commits the offence of torture, whatever his nationality, if—

(a) in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence— .

                (i) of a public official; or .

                (ii) of a person acting in an official capacity; and .

(b) the official or other person is performing or purporting to perform his official duties when he instigates the commission of the offence or  consents to or acquiesces in it. .

 (3) It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an omission.

 (4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of his to prove that he had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct.

(5) For the purposes of this section “lawful authority, justification or excuse” means—

(a) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted in the United Kingdom,  lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of  the United Kingdom where it was inflicted; .

(b) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted outside the United Kingdom—

(i) if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under that law, lawful authority, justification or                excuse under that law;

 (ii) if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under such law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom under whose law he was acting; and

(iii) in any other case, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the place where it was inflicted.

 (6) A person who commits the offence of torture shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

It is entirely wrong that the determination as to whether a person who has committed or procured torture could escape prosecution for that sickening and wholly abhorrent crime at the whim of a politician whose first loyalty is always to the political party of which they are a member.

 It should be a matter for an independent Judge (preferably one sitting in the High Court) to determine whether or not there is a case to answer and if there is a case to answer to ensure that the person charged with torturing any other person is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law irrespective of that person’s position or the particular branch of government they work for.

 The rule of law should be absolute and applied consistently to everyone – especially when something so vile and inexcusable as torture is concerned.

There is a worrying trend that people consider it acceptable to torture others under the auspices of ‘security’ or ‘defence’ or ‘anti-terrorism’.

Torture is cowardly, inexcusable and indefensible and anyone who carries it out or who aids, abets, counsels or procures it should be dealt with most severely.

End the disqualification of people with “Mental Disorders” from participating in Jury Service

Under current law, people with "mental disorders" are disqualified from participating in jury service. The definition is as follows:

You are not qualified for jury service if:

you suffer, or have suffered, from a mental illness, psychotic disorder, mental handicap

or severe mental handicap and, because of that condition:

you are resident in a hospital or other similar institution;

or you regularly attend for treatment by a medical practitioner.

This effectively disqualifies anyone who is suffering from stress, anxiety, OCD, an eating disorder, clinical depression or any other mental illness who is also receiving medication or treatment for their condition.

The inference is therefore that anyone who meets this criteria is incapable of participating in jury service.

Why is this idea important?

Under current law, people with "mental disorders" are disqualified from participating in jury service. The definition is as follows:

You are not qualified for jury service if:

you suffer, or have suffered, from a mental illness, psychotic disorder, mental handicap

or severe mental handicap and, because of that condition:

you are resident in a hospital or other similar institution;

or you regularly attend for treatment by a medical practitioner.

This effectively disqualifies anyone who is suffering from stress, anxiety, OCD, an eating disorder, clinical depression or any other mental illness who is also receiving medication or treatment for their condition.

The inference is therefore that anyone who meets this criteria is incapable of participating in jury service.

Repeal of the law that prohibits sale of oral tobacco

The repeal of the laws that ban the supply and sale of moist smokeless tobacco such as snus from Sweden or the likes of Skoal and Copenhagen from the USA. The laws affected are Oral Snuff (Safety) Regulations 1989 and The Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992 both of which prohibit the sale/supply of oral tobacco.

Why is this idea important?

The repeal of the laws that ban the supply and sale of moist smokeless tobacco such as snus from Sweden or the likes of Skoal and Copenhagen from the USA. The laws affected are Oral Snuff (Safety) Regulations 1989 and The Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992 both of which prohibit the sale/supply of oral tobacco.

Waiting staff salary loop hole

When working as a waitress two years ago I was on a salary of £4.25 and hour, this was possible due to a supposed ‘loop hole’ in the law saying that because I was earning tips on the side it was legal for the company to pay me at such low salary. This should be removed and all waiting staff should be paid at the regular minimum wage.

Why is this idea important?

When working as a waitress two years ago I was on a salary of £4.25 and hour, this was possible due to a supposed ‘loop hole’ in the law saying that because I was earning tips on the side it was legal for the company to pay me at such low salary. This should be removed and all waiting staff should be paid at the regular minimum wage.

Citizen’s Allowance Instead of Job Seekers Allowance and Working Familiy Tax Credit

Close all Job centers, abolish signing on and applications for working family tax credit and family allowance.  This will save billions in admin.  Replace them with an unconditional tax credit called the citizen's allowance that is the same whether you work or not and is adminstered by revenue and customs.  

For working people the allowance will be simiar to a tax allowance, they receive the amount they would currently get on income support.  However all working people would pay tax on ALL the money they earn at the starting rate (which might need changing) Tax allowances would be abolished.  This could mean there would be no additional cost if it is calculated correctly.  You would also get an additional amount per child living with you rather than working family tax credit.

 

Why is this idea important?

Close all Job centers, abolish signing on and applications for working family tax credit and family allowance.  This will save billions in admin.  Replace them with an unconditional tax credit called the citizen's allowance that is the same whether you work or not and is adminstered by revenue and customs.  

For working people the allowance will be simiar to a tax allowance, they receive the amount they would currently get on income support.  However all working people would pay tax on ALL the money they earn at the starting rate (which might need changing) Tax allowances would be abolished.  This could mean there would be no additional cost if it is calculated correctly.  You would also get an additional amount per child living with you rather than working family tax credit.

 

Clamp Gypsy Vehicles that tresspass on Private/Goverment Land

We all know that the clamping law has now been revoked, but we still have the problem with Gypsys tresspassing on private and goverment owned land. Solution would be to Clamp thier vehicles and fine them a large penalty or risk having thier vehicles towed away. They're most likely not taxed or insured anyway, so this would be a good way to keep our roads safe and our countryside clean. The money collected could help re'tarmac the roads, maybe we could have our roads as good as Germany does.

Why is this idea important?

We all know that the clamping law has now been revoked, but we still have the problem with Gypsys tresspassing on private and goverment owned land. Solution would be to Clamp thier vehicles and fine them a large penalty or risk having thier vehicles towed away. They're most likely not taxed or insured anyway, so this would be a good way to keep our roads safe and our countryside clean. The money collected could help re'tarmac the roads, maybe we could have our roads as good as Germany does.

Update the 1953 Act for the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths

To provide historical birth, marriage and death certificates in digital form, improve indexing of these documents and make it available online or enable a commercial partner to provide the service.  This would greatly benefit all the family historians in the country.

Why is this idea important?

To provide historical birth, marriage and death certificates in digital form, improve indexing of these documents and make it available online or enable a commercial partner to provide the service.  This would greatly benefit all the family historians in the country.

EARLY ACCESS TO PERSONAL PENSIONS

My suggestion concerns those who suffer health disability or crippling accidents which severely reduce their chances of employment.  It is that they should, subject to health certification, be allowed the option of  immediate access to their personal pension plans even though below the regulatory age prescribed.

I understand that certain sportsmen and other professions are, even when fit, allowed such access.  The situation of previously employed, or self-employed, people who become handicapped would seem more deserving.  Denial of exceptional treatment seems anomalous.

Premature access to their funds would, sadly, imply reduced benefits on actuarial grounds.

Why is this idea important?

My suggestion concerns those who suffer health disability or crippling accidents which severely reduce their chances of employment.  It is that they should, subject to health certification, be allowed the option of  immediate access to their personal pension plans even though below the regulatory age prescribed.

I understand that certain sportsmen and other professions are, even when fit, allowed such access.  The situation of previously employed, or self-employed, people who become handicapped would seem more deserving.  Denial of exceptional treatment seems anomalous.

Premature access to their funds would, sadly, imply reduced benefits on actuarial grounds.

Ban abortion.

The Abortion Act of 1967 which legalised abortion is in violation of article two of the 1998 Human Rights Act namely the Right To Life and so I feel we should illegalise abortion (though if it is a case of killing the mother and baby or just the baby this should be allowed so we can save as many lives as we can) and so either ban abortion or amend the Human Rights Act to remove article two.

Why is this idea important?

The Abortion Act of 1967 which legalised abortion is in violation of article two of the 1998 Human Rights Act namely the Right To Life and so I feel we should illegalise abortion (though if it is a case of killing the mother and baby or just the baby this should be allowed so we can save as many lives as we can) and so either ban abortion or amend the Human Rights Act to remove article two.

Regulatory burden of proofing modified gun barrels

Amend the Gun Barrel proofing Act to remove the requirement for proof houses to re-proof barrels modified in certain specified circumstances.  To address this I would suggest the Act is amended to reflect the following:

Any new rifle required to be tested individually by the proof house from new for full chamber / bolt testing etc.

Thereafter, the fitting of any accessories, which do not affect the chamber or bolt (ie a moderator / screw-cutting or muzzle break), should be tested with an overload (specified by % in law, eg 20% over usual max load).  That testing is to be carried out and certified by the armourer undertaking the modification.

The same can apply for moderators etc. (for example, a 20% increase in initial load test) then each trader can stamp with his personal mark.

 

This suggestion would provide a small reduction in the burden of regulation and concerns the provisions relating to the proofing of rifles.  In summary, at present all gun barrels (or substantially modified barrels) have to be proofed by either of the two UK proof houses or, if imported, with a recognised proof mark from another recognised body in another Member State.

 

Why is this idea important?

Amend the Gun Barrel proofing Act to remove the requirement for proof houses to re-proof barrels modified in certain specified circumstances.  To address this I would suggest the Act is amended to reflect the following:

Any new rifle required to be tested individually by the proof house from new for full chamber / bolt testing etc.

Thereafter, the fitting of any accessories, which do not affect the chamber or bolt (ie a moderator / screw-cutting or muzzle break), should be tested with an overload (specified by % in law, eg 20% over usual max load).  That testing is to be carried out and certified by the armourer undertaking the modification.

The same can apply for moderators etc. (for example, a 20% increase in initial load test) then each trader can stamp with his personal mark.

 

This suggestion would provide a small reduction in the burden of regulation and concerns the provisions relating to the proofing of rifles.  In summary, at present all gun barrels (or substantially modified barrels) have to be proofed by either of the two UK proof houses or, if imported, with a recognised proof mark from another recognised body in another Member State.

 

Abolish Planning Permssion to Alter or Rebuild Existing Homes

Except for properties in a Conservation Area or subject to a conservation order, the owner of a residential property should be allowed to alter or rebuild his property without seeking new planning approval, as long as the structure complies with Building Regulations and general zoning requirements as to height, percentage of land occupied by building and materials.

Why is this idea important?

Except for properties in a Conservation Area or subject to a conservation order, the owner of a residential property should be allowed to alter or rebuild his property without seeking new planning approval, as long as the structure complies with Building Regulations and general zoning requirements as to height, percentage of land occupied by building and materials.