Riding bikes on pavements

Remove the law that stops cyclists riding on pavements or amend the law to allow cyclists to use pavements where the pavement exceeds a certain width.  Or at least allow disabled people with conditions like Dyspraxia the rights to ride on pavements (as Australia does).

Why is this idea important?

Remove the law that stops cyclists riding on pavements or amend the law to allow cyclists to use pavements where the pavement exceeds a certain width.  Or at least allow disabled people with conditions like Dyspraxia the rights to ride on pavements (as Australia does).

The squatters rights law

This is an unbelievably stupid law, that gypsies & homeless people can just move into or onto homes/land, sometimes public & sometimes private, & cause distress & often damage, & not be held responsible, sometimes leaving huge amounts of contaminated rubbish for others to clear.Many of these properties are broken into, but again no action is taken if they are not seen doing it. The Court Orders to gain property back are costly, especially for individuals, & sometimes are disregarded, needing Police action to regain the land/property. This law benefits NO-ONE but the bad, So PLEASE get this stupid unwanted law off the books!

 

Why is this idea important?

This is an unbelievably stupid law, that gypsies & homeless people can just move into or onto homes/land, sometimes public & sometimes private, & cause distress & often damage, & not be held responsible, sometimes leaving huge amounts of contaminated rubbish for others to clear.Many of these properties are broken into, but again no action is taken if they are not seen doing it. The Court Orders to gain property back are costly, especially for individuals, & sometimes are disregarded, needing Police action to regain the land/property. This law benefits NO-ONE but the bad, So PLEASE get this stupid unwanted law off the books!

 

OPTING OUT OF THE NHS MEDICAL RECORDS DATABASE

The way the current system works,everybody is automatically opted in the medical record database system. My idea is to  make it neccessary for you the patient to opt into the system rather than opt out. The database managers should have to sell their idea to the patients, so that the patients can make an informed decision on this matter rather than automatically being added to this centralised database system.

Why is this idea important?

The way the current system works,everybody is automatically opted in the medical record database system. My idea is to  make it neccessary for you the patient to opt into the system rather than opt out. The database managers should have to sell their idea to the patients, so that the patients can make an informed decision on this matter rather than automatically being added to this centralised database system.

Repeal Section 11(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

This Section bans same sex marriage in this country. An item on the freedom bill repealing this section would there by allow equal marriage in this country. 

Why is this idea important?

This Section bans same sex marriage in this country. An item on the freedom bill repealing this section would there by allow equal marriage in this country. 

Planning Laws.

Please repeal the "peripheral" nonsense surrounding Planning regulations. Not the Planning laws themselves, but the incidentals which make planning a Nightmare. eg.. Bat surveys,English Heritage right to intervene,Archealogical surveys. All may well be laudible, but "Common Sense" & Local determination could reduce the Red Tape Massively.

Why is this idea important?

Please repeal the "peripheral" nonsense surrounding Planning regulations. Not the Planning laws themselves, but the incidentals which make planning a Nightmare. eg.. Bat surveys,English Heritage right to intervene,Archealogical surveys. All may well be laudible, but "Common Sense" & Local determination could reduce the Red Tape Massively.

BBC’s use of License Fee and possible reductions

I would like to see the BBC forced to be more careful with the monies raised through license fee. I could cite many examples of where funds seem to be being wasted on too many staff, but I will just use a few:

  • Why does Breakfast News need two presenters?
  • Why do weather presenters need to OB from events e.g. Ascot, Wimbledon, Chelsea Flower Show, which presumably then requires paying their travel and potentially accommodation as well as whatever crew they need to take with them?
  • Why does every channel/radio station need their own correspondent at every sporting event? I know for a fact that BBC 1, Radio 4 and Newsbeat all have different reporters at both Wimbledon and the World Cup. Why can't these people multi-task?
  • Why does local news need a separate weather presenter? Why can't the presenter do it?
  • Why does PM on Radio 4 need a newsreader as well as a presenter?
  • Why is the iPlayer free?

I could continue all day with ways which the BBC waste our money. The amount of staff sent to places such as Glastonbury, and sporting events such as the World Cup and Olympics is ridiculous. And I find it really annoying that, when a major event occurs (e.g. shootings in Cumbria), one of the 'big' news presenters e.g. Huw Edwards is sent to cover it, and this involves him travelling and his accommodation- and also George Alegiah in the studio, where Edwards would be. While one of the 'big' presenters is at the scene, s/he often interviews the BBC's own more local staff member. This happens time and again. If the local person is not capable of broadcasting nationally, why are they being paid to broadcast locally?

I would also like to see the introduction of between-programming advertising at peak times, a very small charge-per-programme on the iPlayer and advertising on the BBC website unless you pay a subscription for ad-free content. This income can be used to decrease the license fee.

I also feel there should be an examination of the suitability of some programmes for the BBC on a cost to value basis. The costs incurred in making a programme like 'Strictly Come Dancing' must be astronomical, and how many people watch it?

The free over-75 license should be means-tested, as there are plenty of older people who can afford the £145.50 a year and this increased income could be used to lower the cost for everyone else.

There are also many flaws with the system of checking whether premises have licenses and some investment in the database (especially in recording the nature of business premises), and better trained staff who can deal with your query first time around would mean less wastage in unecessary letters.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the BBC forced to be more careful with the monies raised through license fee. I could cite many examples of where funds seem to be being wasted on too many staff, but I will just use a few:

  • Why does Breakfast News need two presenters?
  • Why do weather presenters need to OB from events e.g. Ascot, Wimbledon, Chelsea Flower Show, which presumably then requires paying their travel and potentially accommodation as well as whatever crew they need to take with them?
  • Why does every channel/radio station need their own correspondent at every sporting event? I know for a fact that BBC 1, Radio 4 and Newsbeat all have different reporters at both Wimbledon and the World Cup. Why can't these people multi-task?
  • Why does local news need a separate weather presenter? Why can't the presenter do it?
  • Why does PM on Radio 4 need a newsreader as well as a presenter?
  • Why is the iPlayer free?

I could continue all day with ways which the BBC waste our money. The amount of staff sent to places such as Glastonbury, and sporting events such as the World Cup and Olympics is ridiculous. And I find it really annoying that, when a major event occurs (e.g. shootings in Cumbria), one of the 'big' news presenters e.g. Huw Edwards is sent to cover it, and this involves him travelling and his accommodation- and also George Alegiah in the studio, where Edwards would be. While one of the 'big' presenters is at the scene, s/he often interviews the BBC's own more local staff member. This happens time and again. If the local person is not capable of broadcasting nationally, why are they being paid to broadcast locally?

I would also like to see the introduction of between-programming advertising at peak times, a very small charge-per-programme on the iPlayer and advertising on the BBC website unless you pay a subscription for ad-free content. This income can be used to decrease the license fee.

I also feel there should be an examination of the suitability of some programmes for the BBC on a cost to value basis. The costs incurred in making a programme like 'Strictly Come Dancing' must be astronomical, and how many people watch it?

The free over-75 license should be means-tested, as there are plenty of older people who can afford the £145.50 a year and this increased income could be used to lower the cost for everyone else.

There are also many flaws with the system of checking whether premises have licenses and some investment in the database (especially in recording the nature of business premises), and better trained staff who can deal with your query first time around would mean less wastage in unecessary letters.

Remove all the 32 people killed in 3 years type roadsigns

Putting such specific information on a roadsign is unnecessary and it must be remembered that those were real people and the relatives of those people may not necessarily wish to be reminded every single day of their loss. If you wish to remind people that a road is dangerous the current road signs using symbols are adequate. To the people who have not lost someone these signs soon become background very quickly hence are useless, and a grss waste of money. I would like to know how much has been spent on these in the last 5 years.

Why is this idea important?

Putting such specific information on a roadsign is unnecessary and it must be remembered that those were real people and the relatives of those people may not necessarily wish to be reminded every single day of their loss. If you wish to remind people that a road is dangerous the current road signs using symbols are adequate. To the people who have not lost someone these signs soon become background very quickly hence are useless, and a grss waste of money. I would like to know how much has been spent on these in the last 5 years.

undo the damage of the crime and punishment reform

 

several years ago the crime and punishment bill was "reformed" to remove a bunch of well used and effective punishements from the statute books, in addition the powers of police officers and courts to award such punishments were reduced or removed.

 

we should revise this action adn put them back, we need tougher pysical punishments regiems for criminals not the softer fluffier ones we as a nation have been left with.

Why is this idea important?

 

several years ago the crime and punishment bill was "reformed" to remove a bunch of well used and effective punishements from the statute books, in addition the powers of police officers and courts to award such punishments were reduced or removed.

 

we should revise this action adn put them back, we need tougher pysical punishments regiems for criminals not the softer fluffier ones we as a nation have been left with.

Stop intruders from being able to sue owners of the property they trespassing on for damage they incur on that owners property.

It is ludicrous that a thief can break into somebody’s property, and then sue the owner for injuring themselves whilst in the process of committing a crime against that person. Criminals should not be able to sue for any accident incurred whilst in the process of committing a crime. The law abiding citizen has the right not to have to expect and prepare for the safety of intruders. If the criminal was not tresspassing on the property, the incident would never have occurred – end of story.

Why is this idea important?

It is ludicrous that a thief can break into somebody’s property, and then sue the owner for injuring themselves whilst in the process of committing a crime against that person. Criminals should not be able to sue for any accident incurred whilst in the process of committing a crime. The law abiding citizen has the right not to have to expect and prepare for the safety of intruders. If the criminal was not tresspassing on the property, the incident would never have occurred – end of story.

The right to reverse engineer “abandonware”

There is a large amount of software for older machines which could be of great use. The company behind it has either gone under or abandoned the software completely (so called "abandonware")

With changes in operating system versions, the software no longer operates but current UK laws make it illegal to reverse engineer the software and bring it back to life.

I am not for one second advocating current software be applied to this or that the ownership of the software change from the original author to the person who reverse engineers and keeps the software running.

Why is this idea important?

There is a large amount of software for older machines which could be of great use. The company behind it has either gone under or abandoned the software completely (so called "abandonware")

With changes in operating system versions, the software no longer operates but current UK laws make it illegal to reverse engineer the software and bring it back to life.

I am not for one second advocating current software be applied to this or that the ownership of the software change from the original author to the person who reverse engineers and keeps the software running.

16 month rule for supply teaching

I would like to see the abolishment of the 16 month limit for non-inductible supply teaching. The current rule means that newly qualified teachers may only work for 16 months as a supply teacher before they must take up an induction post of at least 1 school term.

Unfortunately there are not enough jobs for the number of teachers looking to secure an induction post. Many teachers who have gained lots of invaluable experience as supply teachers following their qualification are forced to leave the profession because of this ridiculous ruling. Many of these teachers have received grants in order to complete the training and some will have received additional funding to help with living expenses. What a waste of taxpayers' money if they have to give up their dream!

There is no justification for this 16 month ruling particularly as teachers can complete their training, go and do a completely different job for several years and still be allowed to teach. Where is the logic in that?

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the abolishment of the 16 month limit for non-inductible supply teaching. The current rule means that newly qualified teachers may only work for 16 months as a supply teacher before they must take up an induction post of at least 1 school term.

Unfortunately there are not enough jobs for the number of teachers looking to secure an induction post. Many teachers who have gained lots of invaluable experience as supply teachers following their qualification are forced to leave the profession because of this ridiculous ruling. Many of these teachers have received grants in order to complete the training and some will have received additional funding to help with living expenses. What a waste of taxpayers' money if they have to give up their dream!

There is no justification for this 16 month ruling particularly as teachers can complete their training, go and do a completely different job for several years and still be allowed to teach. Where is the logic in that?

Repeal the Human Rights Act – replace with British Rights Act

The Human Rights Act has been a disaster for British citizens.

This well meaning but ill-conceived Act has been a boon to lawyers and non-British citizens who have chosen to exploit our collective national weakness.

British Citizens do have rights and these come from the stuggles faced over 1000 years of history. Citizens of other countries need to look to their own nations to proscribe their rights.

Why is this idea important?

The Human Rights Act has been a disaster for British citizens.

This well meaning but ill-conceived Act has been a boon to lawyers and non-British citizens who have chosen to exploit our collective national weakness.

British Citizens do have rights and these come from the stuggles faced over 1000 years of history. Citizens of other countries need to look to their own nations to proscribe their rights.

Civil Partnership Act 2004

This Act should be repealed and replaced with legislation that allows any two people who have reached the age of majority and who are economically co-dependant – such as two elderly sisters who share the house which they hvae shared for the entire lives – to enjoy the same economic and legal benefits preserntly only enjoyed by married couples and those who have entered civil partnerships under the present Act.

Why is this idea important?

This Act should be repealed and replaced with legislation that allows any two people who have reached the age of majority and who are economically co-dependant – such as two elderly sisters who share the house which they hvae shared for the entire lives – to enjoy the same economic and legal benefits preserntly only enjoyed by married couples and those who have entered civil partnerships under the present Act.

Elderly care in care homes and social workers

Families should have greater transparency when it comes to their elderly relatives in care homes. We should be able to access and have copies of additions to 'behaviour registers'made by care homes.

The care homes use these to complain and label elderly residents and write up erroneous care plans which the social workers then back up. The social workers have access to it but the families do not and are prevented from challenging erroneous entries.

Families should have immediate access to care plans and letters written and registered by social workers about their elderly relatives so that we can challenge these if they are incorrect.

This should not necessarily require a LPA.

Families are identified by their elderly relatives as representing their health and welfare interests. The care homes are being given access to medical letters and social workers information about the elderly but the families are being prevented from accessing these.

It is not a surprise that several elderly people have died in care homes as a result of negligence right under the noses of social workers.

The local government ombudsman should not be the last point of call. Families should have a right to appeal the decision in court.

Why is this idea important?

Families should have greater transparency when it comes to their elderly relatives in care homes. We should be able to access and have copies of additions to 'behaviour registers'made by care homes.

The care homes use these to complain and label elderly residents and write up erroneous care plans which the social workers then back up. The social workers have access to it but the families do not and are prevented from challenging erroneous entries.

Families should have immediate access to care plans and letters written and registered by social workers about their elderly relatives so that we can challenge these if they are incorrect.

This should not necessarily require a LPA.

Families are identified by their elderly relatives as representing their health and welfare interests. The care homes are being given access to medical letters and social workers information about the elderly but the families are being prevented from accessing these.

It is not a surprise that several elderly people have died in care homes as a result of negligence right under the noses of social workers.

The local government ombudsman should not be the last point of call. Families should have a right to appeal the decision in court.

Removal of Squatters rights

I cannot see why squatters have any rights to occupy unused land. Almost always the land is occupied by illegal means and then this is then covered up making proof of this impossible. That land is someone's property and oppupation of it amounts to theft in my eyes. There should be no provision under the law to allow someone to do this.

Why is this idea important?

I cannot see why squatters have any rights to occupy unused land. Almost always the land is occupied by illegal means and then this is then covered up making proof of this impossible. That land is someone's property and oppupation of it amounts to theft in my eyes. There should be no provision under the law to allow someone to do this.

Repeal Marine Broadcasting Offences Act (1967)

Allow moderate powered radio stations to be run from ships at sea as in the 1960s. It's introduction was a serious breach of young peoples freedom at the time and, with the development of internet radio, repeal of this act is unlikely to cause the problems anticipated at the time.

Why is this idea important?

Allow moderate powered radio stations to be run from ships at sea as in the 1960s. It's introduction was a serious breach of young peoples freedom at the time and, with the development of internet radio, repeal of this act is unlikely to cause the problems anticipated at the time.

safety for all

It is also my right to be free from speeding drivers. There will never be enough police to prevent drivers from exeeding safety laws. Keep the cameras, even have more of them!

Why is this idea important?

It is also my right to be free from speeding drivers. There will never be enough police to prevent drivers from exeeding safety laws. Keep the cameras, even have more of them!