police cuts!

Dear Sirs, Not a Good move?….my area is just recovering from 'problem families' and the havoc to stable familys and neibourhood that they DISTROY!…."please if you insist on cutting POLICE numbers…….."PLEASE "instigate or make national policy STOPPING the right to housing (and Benifit) to  those that 'JUST MOVE ON'…….YES…I/we agree cuts are unaviodable…..But!….and here's the danger?….the selfsame cuts WILL result in greater social problems..AND a BIGGER SPEND TO RESOLVE .YOU need a FIXED/ENFORCED method to stop these people ("I know my rights!!!!!!)-they forget their obligation to other around them!……………………………………otherwise we WILL need the police "WE ARE WITH YOU?" in the old days these people/familys were on the "problem estates"- the police KNEW where to find them!!…..NON PC!……WE work (rubbish pay)…But…we have a sence of pride and value-whilst those (healthy 30 yr old/6'2"-lie in bed- claiming "I can't work-suffering depression!?….New car…SORRY! …THIS NEEDS ENDING!!!!!

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sirs, Not a Good move?….my area is just recovering from 'problem families' and the havoc to stable familys and neibourhood that they DISTROY!…."please if you insist on cutting POLICE numbers…….."PLEASE "instigate or make national policy STOPPING the right to housing (and Benifit) to  those that 'JUST MOVE ON'…….YES…I/we agree cuts are unaviodable…..But!….and here's the danger?….the selfsame cuts WILL result in greater social problems..AND a BIGGER SPEND TO RESOLVE .YOU need a FIXED/ENFORCED method to stop these people ("I know my rights!!!!!!)-they forget their obligation to other around them!……………………………………otherwise we WILL need the police "WE ARE WITH YOU?" in the old days these people/familys were on the "problem estates"- the police KNEW where to find them!!…..NON PC!……WE work (rubbish pay)…But…we have a sence of pride and value-whilst those (healthy 30 yr old/6'2"-lie in bed- claiming "I can't work-suffering depression!?….New car…SORRY! …THIS NEEDS ENDING!!!!!

Jury Service by over seventy year olds

 

People over 70 years old should be allowed to serve on a jury if they so wish or to choose to opt out on age grounds alone; but do not assume that healthy older persons of sound mind should not serve. 
 

Why is this idea important?

 

People over 70 years old should be allowed to serve on a jury if they so wish or to choose to opt out on age grounds alone; but do not assume that healthy older persons of sound mind should not serve. 
 

BRING BACK BRITISH LAW CANCEL HUMAN RIGTHS LAW

THE CURRENT HUMAM RIGHTS LAW IS NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT IT CANNOT WORK

IT IS BEING ABUSED TO THE DERIMENT OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE AND BRITISH LAW   .  ILLEGALS & CRIMINALS CURRENTLY USE THESE LAWS TO PREVENT THIER REMOVAL FROM BRITAIN

THE LAW  IS BEING TWISTED TO FAVOUR THE UNDESIRIRABLES AND LAWLESS WITH THE HELP OF  LAWYERS WHO SEE BIG MONEY TO BE MADE OUT OF THIS

BRITAIN HAS NEVER TURNED ITS BACK ON THE TRUE NEEDS OF DESPERATE PEOPLE FLEEING TYRANNY AND  OUR RECORD STANDS ALONE WITHOUT REPROACH AS BEING THE BEST IN THE WORLD OUR  LAWS HAVE BEEN ENSHRINED IN BRITAIN SINCE THE MAGNA CARTA  .   THROUGH THIS WE HAVE THE LAWS TO PROTECT PERSCUTED  PEOPLE &  THE PEOPLE OF BRITAIN

Why is this idea important?

THE CURRENT HUMAM RIGHTS LAW IS NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT IT CANNOT WORK

IT IS BEING ABUSED TO THE DERIMENT OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE AND BRITISH LAW   .  ILLEGALS & CRIMINALS CURRENTLY USE THESE LAWS TO PREVENT THIER REMOVAL FROM BRITAIN

THE LAW  IS BEING TWISTED TO FAVOUR THE UNDESIRIRABLES AND LAWLESS WITH THE HELP OF  LAWYERS WHO SEE BIG MONEY TO BE MADE OUT OF THIS

BRITAIN HAS NEVER TURNED ITS BACK ON THE TRUE NEEDS OF DESPERATE PEOPLE FLEEING TYRANNY AND  OUR RECORD STANDS ALONE WITHOUT REPROACH AS BEING THE BEST IN THE WORLD OUR  LAWS HAVE BEEN ENSHRINED IN BRITAIN SINCE THE MAGNA CARTA  .   THROUGH THIS WE HAVE THE LAWS TO PROTECT PERSCUTED  PEOPLE &  THE PEOPLE OF BRITAIN

Making Motability Fairer

We are told that the cars are not free but paid for  from the higher rate of disability allownace, OK fine we accept this. However the number of "invalids" rising  every year makes us the most disabled country pro rata on earth, well this is now, we are told being adressed in the light of the present economic climate.

All users of the Motability scheme should not get their Road Tax and Insurance free of charge these should be only paid for the ones who cannot afford them. Most people who have the Motability cars could afford to run a car anyway  so therefor a means tested system should be in place.

By all means we must help those who need help with their mobility this is only just and fair, however, it is most UNjust and UNfair for people to be abusing this system. If you doubt what I am saying then next time you are out and about, take particular notice of  the users of some of  these vehicles. Quite a large percentage are without doubt agile and affluent.

Why is this idea important?

We are told that the cars are not free but paid for  from the higher rate of disability allownace, OK fine we accept this. However the number of "invalids" rising  every year makes us the most disabled country pro rata on earth, well this is now, we are told being adressed in the light of the present economic climate.

All users of the Motability scheme should not get their Road Tax and Insurance free of charge these should be only paid for the ones who cannot afford them. Most people who have the Motability cars could afford to run a car anyway  so therefor a means tested system should be in place.

By all means we must help those who need help with their mobility this is only just and fair, however, it is most UNjust and UNfair for people to be abusing this system. If you doubt what I am saying then next time you are out and about, take particular notice of  the users of some of  these vehicles. Quite a large percentage are without doubt agile and affluent.

English for English – Whether you are English or not

Local Councils up and down the land create multi language versions of a lot of information, this includes employing  interpreters to provide support to those who don't speak english.

This should be stopped immediately, why?

Move the cost burden onto those who can't speak english, if they live in our country they should try to as a minimum try to learn the language, whilst this is impossible to impose on them, why should we make it easier for them not to learn at our cost?

So if someone is in this country and they want to avail themselves of local or central government information, benefits etc etc, then the onus is on them to obtain the informaiton in a way that they can understand the onus is on them to understand us, not the other way around.

Try going to France and even trying to obtain an English menu at a restaurant where you are actually paying for the pleasure of eating there!! this should be law, we will only deal in English, if you want it in a form you can understand then you can phone or friend or pay one of the many businesses that provide this service.

Why is this idea important?

Local Councils up and down the land create multi language versions of a lot of information, this includes employing  interpreters to provide support to those who don't speak english.

This should be stopped immediately, why?

Move the cost burden onto those who can't speak english, if they live in our country they should try to as a minimum try to learn the language, whilst this is impossible to impose on them, why should we make it easier for them not to learn at our cost?

So if someone is in this country and they want to avail themselves of local or central government information, benefits etc etc, then the onus is on them to obtain the informaiton in a way that they can understand the onus is on them to understand us, not the other way around.

Try going to France and even trying to obtain an English menu at a restaurant where you are actually paying for the pleasure of eating there!! this should be law, we will only deal in English, if you want it in a form you can understand then you can phone or friend or pay one of the many businesses that provide this service.

Simplify the complaint procedure to Health Ombudsman

Abolish the complaint procedure to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman through MPs refferals. Cut the red tape and allow people to file complaints directly to Ombudsman.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the complaint procedure to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman through MPs refferals. Cut the red tape and allow people to file complaints directly to Ombudsman.

Tell people about their rights and responsibilities

Amend the Access to Justice Act so that contracts to provide legal advice can include legal education in line with the guidance to community law centres in New Zealand.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the Access to Justice Act so that contracts to provide legal advice can include legal education in line with the guidance to community law centres in New Zealand.

Repeal requirements for Collective Worship and Religious Education in Schools

Repeal Sections 69 – 71 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (and any other related legislation) which require religious education and acts of collective worship in schools.

Faith or no faith in religion should be left to the individual, not the state, their parents, teachers or anyone else. People (and especially children) should be free to discover the wide range of beliefs that are and that have been held throughout the history of human civilization.

The law allows for exemptions where the parent requests, but religion should be a personal choice where someone is not predisposed towards something based on the content of their religious education at school.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal Sections 69 – 71 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (and any other related legislation) which require religious education and acts of collective worship in schools.

Faith or no faith in religion should be left to the individual, not the state, their parents, teachers or anyone else. People (and especially children) should be free to discover the wide range of beliefs that are and that have been held throughout the history of human civilization.

The law allows for exemptions where the parent requests, but religion should be a personal choice where someone is not predisposed towards something based on the content of their religious education at school.

Abusing Planning Laws “the second FREE go” is a waste of money

Presently when submitting a planning application you are allowed to submit a second planning application attempt to the same plot for free. What is the most frustrating part of this rule, from our experience is that our neighbour was allowed to withdraw the first application knowing all the objections they had received (including a highways comments which strongly obect to any more properties to this entrance) to then resubmit the same application which had to go through the procedure again – advert in paper (conservation area), administration of all the comments from the public/parties, time and effort from the planning /highways/conservation departments. Time and money in my opinion wasted to then for the neighbour to withdraw the application again because they had wind it would be rejected again! We are now waiting for the Appeal decision (another waste of public money on this occasion) after the neighbour finally allowed the planning deptartment to refuse the third planning application.

The second free go should only be used if a decision has been allowed to be made on the first application – that should save £300 and cut down time/man hours.

Because the local council is scared to do a wrong move and is treating this applicant with kid gloves they have failed to take on board all the neighbours which are being affected by this messing around.

One other thing which should be changed, when this planning appeal is dismissed (and if the protection for public safety is important – highways department have strongly objected to this and any further planning applications to this plot) we have been informed this will not stop the applicant from continuing to put in the same application again and again and again despite not any change in circumstance. We have my local MP working to get these laws changed. This is very unfair on the other residents to have this cloud over us for the unforseeable future.

So if you wish to cut costs please consider these issues.

Why is this idea important?

Presently when submitting a planning application you are allowed to submit a second planning application attempt to the same plot for free. What is the most frustrating part of this rule, from our experience is that our neighbour was allowed to withdraw the first application knowing all the objections they had received (including a highways comments which strongly obect to any more properties to this entrance) to then resubmit the same application which had to go through the procedure again – advert in paper (conservation area), administration of all the comments from the public/parties, time and effort from the planning /highways/conservation departments. Time and money in my opinion wasted to then for the neighbour to withdraw the application again because they had wind it would be rejected again! We are now waiting for the Appeal decision (another waste of public money on this occasion) after the neighbour finally allowed the planning deptartment to refuse the third planning application.

The second free go should only be used if a decision has been allowed to be made on the first application – that should save £300 and cut down time/man hours.

Because the local council is scared to do a wrong move and is treating this applicant with kid gloves they have failed to take on board all the neighbours which are being affected by this messing around.

One other thing which should be changed, when this planning appeal is dismissed (and if the protection for public safety is important – highways department have strongly objected to this and any further planning applications to this plot) we have been informed this will not stop the applicant from continuing to put in the same application again and again and again despite not any change in circumstance. We have my local MP working to get these laws changed. This is very unfair on the other residents to have this cloud over us for the unforseeable future.

So if you wish to cut costs please consider these issues.

Repeal Sections 62 – 68 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

The Act created the somewhat misleadingly titled offence of Possession of Prohibited Images of Children.

 

The offence is misleadingly titled as unlike the offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978, Possession of an Indecent Photograph of Children (and Pseudo-photographs), Section 62 does not require a child, indeed it does not require a human being at all, the offence covers imaginary "children" (being characters under the age of 18 or appearing to be so) , imaginary "persons" and for good measure, "imaginary animals".

 

While the Protection of Children Act 1978 rightly sought to punish those who make and possess images of the sexual abuse of children, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 seeks to punish expression, it specifically criminalises that which is nothing more than the imagination set down on paper, canvas or bytes.

 

In board terms it is fundemantally important the the limits on individual freedom in a free society are set where an identifiable harm is occassioned or likely to be occassioned, this law does not do that.

 

Reference: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents

Why is this idea important?

The Act created the somewhat misleadingly titled offence of Possession of Prohibited Images of Children.

 

The offence is misleadingly titled as unlike the offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978, Possession of an Indecent Photograph of Children (and Pseudo-photographs), Section 62 does not require a child, indeed it does not require a human being at all, the offence covers imaginary "children" (being characters under the age of 18 or appearing to be so) , imaginary "persons" and for good measure, "imaginary animals".

 

While the Protection of Children Act 1978 rightly sought to punish those who make and possess images of the sexual abuse of children, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 seeks to punish expression, it specifically criminalises that which is nothing more than the imagination set down on paper, canvas or bytes.

 

In board terms it is fundemantally important the the limits on individual freedom in a free society are set where an identifiable harm is occassioned or likely to be occassioned, this law does not do that.

 

Reference: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents

Tax Margin Stacking – Reform of Tax

I'm sick of uncovering time and time again tax upon tax upon tax. I work hard, I have a good job, I've not been given this, I work as a minimum 6 days a week, if you took my gross salary and told someone what I earned, you would get wow thats a lot, if you took my gross salary and divided by the hours I actually work I probably earn just above minimum wage… but it doesnt feel like I get the rewards of my endeavours.

An example,

1. I get paid, income tax and National Health Insurance are deducted at source, I have no say in this

Both are calculated against my Gross Earnings and both are uncapped, even though once the first one has been calculated, the 2nd takes from money I just don't have. First Case of Tax Margin Stacking.

I Own a house, I have the occasional Drink, I drive a car, I smoke

2. I pay council tax on my house, I pay an alcholol tax on every drink I have, I pay fuel tax on every litre of fuel I use, I pay tobacco tax on every cigarette I smoke, all from previously taxed money i have left

3. On top of this I pay VAT on pretty much everything I purchase including the associated tax…

A conservative estimate of what I pay in taxes of various kinds v my gross salary I would suggest in the 70-73% of my gross earnings. Hardly rewarding is it….

So what's my beef, I work hard yet each month i barely break even and its down to the fact that I pay tax upon tax upon tax, over the years the government has introduced taxes this way to the point its virtually impossible to work out where I'm being taxed (and I think I'm relatively smart) 

The whole taxation system needs an overhaul and return to basics, so that every individual can fully understand what they are paying and why.

In my line of business I use the following term when describing something that is fundementally broken "this has exceeded its design intent" I would suggest that the tax regime in the uk has exceeded its design intent and needs a major overhaul, features of which should remove tax margin stacking.

 

Why is this idea important?

I'm sick of uncovering time and time again tax upon tax upon tax. I work hard, I have a good job, I've not been given this, I work as a minimum 6 days a week, if you took my gross salary and told someone what I earned, you would get wow thats a lot, if you took my gross salary and divided by the hours I actually work I probably earn just above minimum wage… but it doesnt feel like I get the rewards of my endeavours.

An example,

1. I get paid, income tax and National Health Insurance are deducted at source, I have no say in this

Both are calculated against my Gross Earnings and both are uncapped, even though once the first one has been calculated, the 2nd takes from money I just don't have. First Case of Tax Margin Stacking.

I Own a house, I have the occasional Drink, I drive a car, I smoke

2. I pay council tax on my house, I pay an alcholol tax on every drink I have, I pay fuel tax on every litre of fuel I use, I pay tobacco tax on every cigarette I smoke, all from previously taxed money i have left

3. On top of this I pay VAT on pretty much everything I purchase including the associated tax…

A conservative estimate of what I pay in taxes of various kinds v my gross salary I would suggest in the 70-73% of my gross earnings. Hardly rewarding is it….

So what's my beef, I work hard yet each month i barely break even and its down to the fact that I pay tax upon tax upon tax, over the years the government has introduced taxes this way to the point its virtually impossible to work out where I'm being taxed (and I think I'm relatively smart) 

The whole taxation system needs an overhaul and return to basics, so that every individual can fully understand what they are paying and why.

In my line of business I use the following term when describing something that is fundementally broken "this has exceeded its design intent" I would suggest that the tax regime in the uk has exceeded its design intent and needs a major overhaul, features of which should remove tax margin stacking.

 

The Social Welfare State is fundementally broken

We have a social welfare state that is the envy of the world (well some of it anyhow), evidence of this is the sheer number of people that want to come to the UK to take advantage of it.

The fundemental basis of our social welfare state is that it works so long as those contributing significantly outweigh those who take from it.

Recent figures show that between 1 in 6 and 1 in 4 (depending on where you are in the UK) are employed by the state, remember that these take out (for doing a job admittedly) in terms of their salary, and only recontribute a fraction of what they take out.

So there are two issues to address,

1. The number of people claiming from the state (I think the government is already focusing on this)

2. Those employed by the state

To concentrate on the latter, I've no idea what the ratio should be, but its pretty obvious that its unsustainable.

We need to find the right balance between those employed by the state and the delivery of local and central services. To start the process, we need to determine what the ratio should be, probably not as easy as it sounds, but it should be given a priority.

Once established, this needs to be used in concert with 1. to establish the amount we spend on delivery of local and central government services.

Why is this idea important?

We have a social welfare state that is the envy of the world (well some of it anyhow), evidence of this is the sheer number of people that want to come to the UK to take advantage of it.

The fundemental basis of our social welfare state is that it works so long as those contributing significantly outweigh those who take from it.

Recent figures show that between 1 in 6 and 1 in 4 (depending on where you are in the UK) are employed by the state, remember that these take out (for doing a job admittedly) in terms of their salary, and only recontribute a fraction of what they take out.

So there are two issues to address,

1. The number of people claiming from the state (I think the government is already focusing on this)

2. Those employed by the state

To concentrate on the latter, I've no idea what the ratio should be, but its pretty obvious that its unsustainable.

We need to find the right balance between those employed by the state and the delivery of local and central services. To start the process, we need to determine what the ratio should be, probably not as easy as it sounds, but it should be given a priority.

Once established, this needs to be used in concert with 1. to establish the amount we spend on delivery of local and central government services.

Crime and Punishment

The system for determining punishment for crime should have at its very heart the following bases for determining a sentence

Crimes against Human beings should carry stiffer sentences than those involving non-human crime.

i.e. a Rapist should get a longer sentence than a bank robber

It's basic, build into the system used by judges and magistrates when determining a sentence, the focus of the justice system is 180 degress wrong, it seems that if you steal something somehow the amount you steal determines the length of your sentence, this is patently wrong, the crime is theft, not how much did you steal. If the crime involved a crime against a human being, then that should be the deciding factor on length of sentence, not the fact you stole more than the guy who was in front of me earlier. 

Why is this idea important?

The system for determining punishment for crime should have at its very heart the following bases for determining a sentence

Crimes against Human beings should carry stiffer sentences than those involving non-human crime.

i.e. a Rapist should get a longer sentence than a bank robber

It's basic, build into the system used by judges and magistrates when determining a sentence, the focus of the justice system is 180 degress wrong, it seems that if you steal something somehow the amount you steal determines the length of your sentence, this is patently wrong, the crime is theft, not how much did you steal. If the crime involved a crime against a human being, then that should be the deciding factor on length of sentence, not the fact you stole more than the guy who was in front of me earlier. 

House Buying

Please, please, please can we change the law so that when purchasing a property the contract can be signed at the beginning to prevent gazumping.  This is done in New Zealand, Australia and North America very successfully.  My son is purchasing a house and just as he is about to exchange contracts the vendor has accepted another offer, so all that money spent on solicitors and surveys and arranging a mortgage etc is now wasted and must be repeated again for the next purchase.  This has to stop to prevent the misery it causes and the costs involved.  Please change this now.

Why is this idea important?

Please, please, please can we change the law so that when purchasing a property the contract can be signed at the beginning to prevent gazumping.  This is done in New Zealand, Australia and North America very successfully.  My son is purchasing a house and just as he is about to exchange contracts the vendor has accepted another offer, so all that money spent on solicitors and surveys and arranging a mortgage etc is now wasted and must be repeated again for the next purchase.  This has to stop to prevent the misery it causes and the costs involved.  Please change this now.

Human Rights for conscientious objections

I am very concerned about the trend to prosecute individuals who have conscientious objections to performing civil marriages. In the same way the homosexual couple have their human rights to have their marriage,so does the registrar have human rights to conscientious objection.

In the medical field if a doctor has a conscientious objection to arranging or partaking in terminations of pregnancy they have the right to pass on the individual in question to another colleague who has no conscientious objection to arranging or performing the termination.

I see no reason why some one who raises an objection because of their religious convictions, which is their human right ,cannot refer the couple in question to another colleague who is comfortable with performing a civil marriage or advising a homosexual couple on their sex life o whatever the case may be.

Recent cases in themedia have highlighted he imbalance in advocating human rights in favour of one party and not the other.

Why is this idea important?

I am very concerned about the trend to prosecute individuals who have conscientious objections to performing civil marriages. In the same way the homosexual couple have their human rights to have their marriage,so does the registrar have human rights to conscientious objection.

In the medical field if a doctor has a conscientious objection to arranging or partaking in terminations of pregnancy they have the right to pass on the individual in question to another colleague who has no conscientious objection to arranging or performing the termination.

I see no reason why some one who raises an objection because of their religious convictions, which is their human right ,cannot refer the couple in question to another colleague who is comfortable with performing a civil marriage or advising a homosexual couple on their sex life o whatever the case may be.

Recent cases in themedia have highlighted he imbalance in advocating human rights in favour of one party and not the other.

CO2 taxation matters

Repeal the car road fund licence based upon CO2 emmissions.

Instead of targetting the users change the rules to target the producers.  I cannot affect the emmissions from my car, I can only buy something unsuitable.  Make the suppliers build lower emmission cars, set limits and dates.

Oh, and whilst you're at it think more radically and support Hydrogen powered fuel cells. Only H2O as emmissions and the fuel source totally under scrutiniy and control.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the car road fund licence based upon CO2 emmissions.

Instead of targetting the users change the rules to target the producers.  I cannot affect the emmissions from my car, I can only buy something unsuitable.  Make the suppliers build lower emmission cars, set limits and dates.

Oh, and whilst you're at it think more radically and support Hydrogen powered fuel cells. Only H2O as emmissions and the fuel source totally under scrutiniy and control.

Curb nuisance laws to protect long standing activities

Curb nuisance laws to protect long standing activities against vociferous new residents by presuming in favour of long standing activities such as church bells, local pubs, village halls, old airfields, farms, etc..

In many parts of the USA such activities aquire "Grandfather rights" providing the noise (or similar intrusion) does not increrase.  Wouldn't we, as citiens be better to choose a property because of its location knowing that we cannot expect it to change for our convenience?

This can be done by directive rather than a law change, being cost effective to implement.

Why is this idea important?

Curb nuisance laws to protect long standing activities against vociferous new residents by presuming in favour of long standing activities such as church bells, local pubs, village halls, old airfields, farms, etc..

In many parts of the USA such activities aquire "Grandfather rights" providing the noise (or similar intrusion) does not increrase.  Wouldn't we, as citiens be better to choose a property because of its location knowing that we cannot expect it to change for our convenience?

This can be done by directive rather than a law change, being cost effective to implement.

charge people for museums and art galleries

It is ridiculous that people pay nothing to visit our main art galleries and museums. One pays in most countries. Even a charge of £5 per adult would not put off most people and you could still have the system of concessions.

Kew Garden used to have an entry fee of one penny. Eventually it saw sense and started charging (quite hefty) fees to enter.

Why is this idea important?

It is ridiculous that people pay nothing to visit our main art galleries and museums. One pays in most countries. Even a charge of £5 per adult would not put off most people and you could still have the system of concessions.

Kew Garden used to have an entry fee of one penny. Eventually it saw sense and started charging (quite hefty) fees to enter.

REPEAL THE 4200 NEW LAWS BROUGHT IN OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS

The Labour Government  brought in over 4200  new criminal offences during its rein.  That is  4200 new way of making us ‘the people’ criminals

The most dangerous and pernicious of Labours new laws which annihilate our civil liberties are:-

The Anti Terrorist Legislation 2000   and TheAnti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001   and The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 which has been used to terrorize and subdue people who have no connection with terrorism whatsoever.  In one case the Anti Terrorism Act  was used  to arrest of Maureen Spalek  for “sending her child a birthday card”

The Proceeds of Crime act 2002 et seq which destroys the lives of business people if a client is less than honest by making them culpable for client’s dishonesty and allows police to seize anyone’s assets on mere suspicion that a crime may have been committed.   In one case allowed the seizure of thousands of documents on ‘arms to Iraq’ by the police preventing them from being submitted to the Iraq Inquiry.

Twenty more ludicrous activities outlawed by Labour

Nuclear Explosions(Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998

Causing a nuclear explosion. 

Scallop Fishing Order2004

If a boat breaches the restrictions in articles 3, 4 or 5, the master, owner and charterer are each guilty of an offence.

Measuring Instruments(Automatic Rail-weighbridges) Regulations 2006

A person shall be guilty of an offence if he uses for trade an automatic rail-weighbridge to which there is affixed a disqualification sticker.

Scotland Act 1998(Border Rivers) Order 1999

Unauthorised fishing in the Lower Esk.

Apple and Pear Orchard Grubbing Up Regulations 1998

Any person who (a) intentionally obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by regulation 10 above, or a person accompanying him and acting under his instructions or (b) without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement under regulation 10 above, shall be guilty of an offence.

Protection of Wrecks(RMS Titanic) Order 2003

A person shall not enter the hull of the Titanic without permission from the Secretary of State.

Merchant Shipping(Crew Accommodation) Regulations 1997

Failure to provide adequate facilities for crew members.

Transport Act2003

A person commits an offence if he provides air traffic services in respect of a managed area.

Polish Potatoes(Notification) (England) Order 2004

No person shall, in the course of business, import into England potatoes which he knows to be or has reasonable cause to suspect to be Polish potatoes.

Learning and Skills Act2000

Obstructing an inspection by the Adult Learning Inspectorate.

Care Standards Act2000

Obstructing the work of the Children's Commissioner for Wales.

Vehicles (Crime) Act2001

Knowingly etc selling plates which are not vehicle registration plates.

London Underground(East London Line Extension) (No 2) Order 2001

Any person who, without reasonable excuse, obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Company in setting out the lines of the scheduled works, or in constructing any authorised work or who interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus belonging to any such person shall be guilty of an offence.

Courts Act2003

Assaulting and obstructing court security officers.

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act2005

Part seven of the Act created offences of failing to nominate a key-holder where an audible intruder alarm is present.

Merchant Shipping(Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002

If any officer appointed in accordance with regulation 30(1) reports to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked he shall be guilty of an offence.

Bus Lane Contraventions(Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005

Failing without reasonable excuse to attend a hearing held by an adjudicator, or to produce any document to an adjudicator.

Vehicle Excise Duty(Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997

Failure to rigorously separate the accounts of ground-handling activities from the accounts of other activities in accordance with current commercial practice.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act2006

In relation to certain invasive non-native species such as the grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed, selling any animal or plant, or eggs or seeds.

Why is this idea important?

The Labour Government  brought in over 4200  new criminal offences during its rein.  That is  4200 new way of making us ‘the people’ criminals

The most dangerous and pernicious of Labours new laws which annihilate our civil liberties are:-

The Anti Terrorist Legislation 2000   and TheAnti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001   and The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 which has been used to terrorize and subdue people who have no connection with terrorism whatsoever.  In one case the Anti Terrorism Act  was used  to arrest of Maureen Spalek  for “sending her child a birthday card”

The Proceeds of Crime act 2002 et seq which destroys the lives of business people if a client is less than honest by making them culpable for client’s dishonesty and allows police to seize anyone’s assets on mere suspicion that a crime may have been committed.   In one case allowed the seizure of thousands of documents on ‘arms to Iraq’ by the police preventing them from being submitted to the Iraq Inquiry.

Twenty more ludicrous activities outlawed by Labour

Nuclear Explosions(Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998

Causing a nuclear explosion. 

Scallop Fishing Order2004

If a boat breaches the restrictions in articles 3, 4 or 5, the master, owner and charterer are each guilty of an offence.

Measuring Instruments(Automatic Rail-weighbridges) Regulations 2006

A person shall be guilty of an offence if he uses for trade an automatic rail-weighbridge to which there is affixed a disqualification sticker.

Scotland Act 1998(Border Rivers) Order 1999

Unauthorised fishing in the Lower Esk.

Apple and Pear Orchard Grubbing Up Regulations 1998

Any person who (a) intentionally obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by regulation 10 above, or a person accompanying him and acting under his instructions or (b) without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement under regulation 10 above, shall be guilty of an offence.

Protection of Wrecks(RMS Titanic) Order 2003

A person shall not enter the hull of the Titanic without permission from the Secretary of State.

Merchant Shipping(Crew Accommodation) Regulations 1997

Failure to provide adequate facilities for crew members.

Transport Act2003

A person commits an offence if he provides air traffic services in respect of a managed area.

Polish Potatoes(Notification) (England) Order 2004

No person shall, in the course of business, import into England potatoes which he knows to be or has reasonable cause to suspect to be Polish potatoes.

Learning and Skills Act2000

Obstructing an inspection by the Adult Learning Inspectorate.

Care Standards Act2000

Obstructing the work of the Children's Commissioner for Wales.

Vehicles (Crime) Act2001

Knowingly etc selling plates which are not vehicle registration plates.

London Underground(East London Line Extension) (No 2) Order 2001

Any person who, without reasonable excuse, obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Company in setting out the lines of the scheduled works, or in constructing any authorised work or who interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus belonging to any such person shall be guilty of an offence.

Courts Act2003

Assaulting and obstructing court security officers.

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act2005

Part seven of the Act created offences of failing to nominate a key-holder where an audible intruder alarm is present.

Merchant Shipping(Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002

If any officer appointed in accordance with regulation 30(1) reports to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked he shall be guilty of an offence.

Bus Lane Contraventions(Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005

Failing without reasonable excuse to attend a hearing held by an adjudicator, or to produce any document to an adjudicator.

Vehicle Excise Duty(Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997

Failure to rigorously separate the accounts of ground-handling activities from the accounts of other activities in accordance with current commercial practice.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act2006

In relation to certain invasive non-native species such as the grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed, selling any animal or plant, or eggs or seeds.

Make no excuses for Cannabis

Lets not make the same mistakes as past governments, and be bullied by horror stories and media controlled propaganda over policies that should be determined by Big Society. By this I mean a Government that is Big enough to take on the media which threatens party success, through a miriad of lies, often backed up by people with a limited scope of insight , unable to capture the big picture who are consumed with fear or bigotry. That said Im unsure whether the coalition has the power at this point to sever its tethers to media influence and the control the media has over decision making in our developed country.

Expense and consequence are the reasons for decriminilising Cannabis , the expense is unjustified, and the consequences are horric. The resons for this will follow.

Social control is a big issue that should'nt be overlooked as anyone may agree there is a failure in society, where a generation of youth which have little hope and prospects, This is a failure in parenting. Society has become fragmented leading to a situation which we all know too well. With all the jobsearch schemes that are available and training prospects there may be.  Nothing can be done to remedy the chunk of society that pretty much are no good or use, and really dont want to work, or to be of some benefit. There is a new saying going round. "CBA" they call it. (Cant Be Arsed) they use for everything.

Cannabis is blamed for this generation being demotivated as a large majority of these people end up using cannabis to quell the boredom in their lives, and to trigger the pleasure reward mechanisms of the mind, which need stimulating via dopamine receptors to enable them to exist. It is a coincidence that Cannabis simulates these feelings through being able to replicate the body's anandamide which makes them feel satisfied and rewarded.

Cannabis is not to blame for this coincidence, its the lack of social structure and parenting that they become effectively of no use, and have no motivation as they havent been taught to be motivated nor taught how to get these rewards or stimulation through worth and being helpfull, industrious. There is nothing that can be done about this situation. Parenting and morals could be addressed, but not much can be done.

At this point I go on to discuss where drugs, alcohol and social control should be considered in a context that is realistic and more about what big society should be about. The fact is these people use cannabis and alcohol a lot.  Alcohol is the big problem, as it makes this section of society angry, destructive and out of control. a large portion of hospital admissions and crime is caused by this section of society, under the influence of alcohol and the cost to the country is massive, socially and financially. Regular people are scared. Its reminiscent of an eastern block Vodka fuelled chaos. This is all cost.

The same people also use cannabis, the effects of this is exactly what is needed to control this disruption and cost. As Cannabis is illegal this also has a cost, although in a totally different nature. Cannabis for most has a calming, relaxed effect on humans. without alcohol, users will be inclined to stay inside, watch tv, listen to music, be creative artistically or musically, feel satisfied and subdued. not angry, agressive and destructive. Cannabis users are motivated differently, actually picking up obsessions and interests of an artistic nature which should be encouraged. The law as it stands, Favours alcohol addiction over cannabis addiction, which is the wrong approach for a progressive society. Alcohol encourages nothing but violence and anger in someone who is dissatified with themselves. Cannabis at worst encourages nothing but being satisfied. However in most cases encourages interest in something that can be worked on. Unlike alcohol. The power of mind control should be encouraged. Some of those otherwise useless people could be encouraged to use the creative interest to be socially usefull via art, music and the things they have become interested in, maybe repairing their pitbike, and go on to become a mechanic. there is hope of something, over nothing with alcohol that is encouraged.

The expense of Cannabis being illegal is vast. As far as criminal records go, if convicted you can expect limited opportunity to secure work in the future, via the CRB vetting system for employers, creating a lifetime of benefit dependency. This also  Blacklists these people from securing work if they decide to change their ways. what a massive cost?? and also someone who decides to grow seven plants for themselves can expect to be in court for a year, at a massive cost in legal aid and court time. how much does a year in court cost??? and afterwards will return to use cannabis for the same reason they started to use cannabis? but this time they have less prospect of rehabilitation, due to crb disclosure.

Please lets get real about this situation. we should encourage cannabis over alcohol, due to cost.

Why is this idea important?

Lets not make the same mistakes as past governments, and be bullied by horror stories and media controlled propaganda over policies that should be determined by Big Society. By this I mean a Government that is Big enough to take on the media which threatens party success, through a miriad of lies, often backed up by people with a limited scope of insight , unable to capture the big picture who are consumed with fear or bigotry. That said Im unsure whether the coalition has the power at this point to sever its tethers to media influence and the control the media has over decision making in our developed country.

Expense and consequence are the reasons for decriminilising Cannabis , the expense is unjustified, and the consequences are horric. The resons for this will follow.

Social control is a big issue that should'nt be overlooked as anyone may agree there is a failure in society, where a generation of youth which have little hope and prospects, This is a failure in parenting. Society has become fragmented leading to a situation which we all know too well. With all the jobsearch schemes that are available and training prospects there may be.  Nothing can be done to remedy the chunk of society that pretty much are no good or use, and really dont want to work, or to be of some benefit. There is a new saying going round. "CBA" they call it. (Cant Be Arsed) they use for everything.

Cannabis is blamed for this generation being demotivated as a large majority of these people end up using cannabis to quell the boredom in their lives, and to trigger the pleasure reward mechanisms of the mind, which need stimulating via dopamine receptors to enable them to exist. It is a coincidence that Cannabis simulates these feelings through being able to replicate the body's anandamide which makes them feel satisfied and rewarded.

Cannabis is not to blame for this coincidence, its the lack of social structure and parenting that they become effectively of no use, and have no motivation as they havent been taught to be motivated nor taught how to get these rewards or stimulation through worth and being helpfull, industrious. There is nothing that can be done about this situation. Parenting and morals could be addressed, but not much can be done.

At this point I go on to discuss where drugs, alcohol and social control should be considered in a context that is realistic and more about what big society should be about. The fact is these people use cannabis and alcohol a lot.  Alcohol is the big problem, as it makes this section of society angry, destructive and out of control. a large portion of hospital admissions and crime is caused by this section of society, under the influence of alcohol and the cost to the country is massive, socially and financially. Regular people are scared. Its reminiscent of an eastern block Vodka fuelled chaos. This is all cost.

The same people also use cannabis, the effects of this is exactly what is needed to control this disruption and cost. As Cannabis is illegal this also has a cost, although in a totally different nature. Cannabis for most has a calming, relaxed effect on humans. without alcohol, users will be inclined to stay inside, watch tv, listen to music, be creative artistically or musically, feel satisfied and subdued. not angry, agressive and destructive. Cannabis users are motivated differently, actually picking up obsessions and interests of an artistic nature which should be encouraged. The law as it stands, Favours alcohol addiction over cannabis addiction, which is the wrong approach for a progressive society. Alcohol encourages nothing but violence and anger in someone who is dissatified with themselves. Cannabis at worst encourages nothing but being satisfied. However in most cases encourages interest in something that can be worked on. Unlike alcohol. The power of mind control should be encouraged. Some of those otherwise useless people could be encouraged to use the creative interest to be socially usefull via art, music and the things they have become interested in, maybe repairing their pitbike, and go on to become a mechanic. there is hope of something, over nothing with alcohol that is encouraged.

The expense of Cannabis being illegal is vast. As far as criminal records go, if convicted you can expect limited opportunity to secure work in the future, via the CRB vetting system for employers, creating a lifetime of benefit dependency. This also  Blacklists these people from securing work if they decide to change their ways. what a massive cost?? and also someone who decides to grow seven plants for themselves can expect to be in court for a year, at a massive cost in legal aid and court time. how much does a year in court cost??? and afterwards will return to use cannabis for the same reason they started to use cannabis? but this time they have less prospect of rehabilitation, due to crb disclosure.

Please lets get real about this situation. we should encourage cannabis over alcohol, due to cost.

Raise compulsory education age to 6 or, better, 7

Children are starting 'school ' (in various guises) far too early in this country.  Many (most?) are receiving a peudo-education in nursery, pre-nursery(!) reception classes etc.  It is little more than child-minding (important in the right context).  

There is no firm evidence that ealy, structured learning has any long-term positive impact on future sucess in later years.  Children need to be intellectually ready for 'academic-style' instruction and learning.  In fact it can be damaging.  Children are in school now for 15 years!! – no wonder many lose interest in their teen years.

Many countries, that are superior in academic sucess, start their state schooling at 6 and 7 years of age.  In USA and some European countries, including Scandanavia, it is 6.  In Germany and most eastern European countries it is 7.  Korea, very high in educational rankings,starts at 7. Are thier economies suffering?  No!

To raise the age would remove an 'army' of people who are in the business of 'early education', who are irrlevant to rasing such young children.  It would also cut billions of pounds off the Education budget; enough to soften the forthcoming Government "cuts" considerably.

Bring back voluntary 'Playschool' – properly administered of course.

Why is this idea important?

Children are starting 'school ' (in various guises) far too early in this country.  Many (most?) are receiving a peudo-education in nursery, pre-nursery(!) reception classes etc.  It is little more than child-minding (important in the right context).  

There is no firm evidence that ealy, structured learning has any long-term positive impact on future sucess in later years.  Children need to be intellectually ready for 'academic-style' instruction and learning.  In fact it can be damaging.  Children are in school now for 15 years!! – no wonder many lose interest in their teen years.

Many countries, that are superior in academic sucess, start their state schooling at 6 and 7 years of age.  In USA and some European countries, including Scandanavia, it is 6.  In Germany and most eastern European countries it is 7.  Korea, very high in educational rankings,starts at 7. Are thier economies suffering?  No!

To raise the age would remove an 'army' of people who are in the business of 'early education', who are irrlevant to rasing such young children.  It would also cut billions of pounds off the Education budget; enough to soften the forthcoming Government "cuts" considerably.

Bring back voluntary 'Playschool' – properly administered of course.