People shouldn't be allowed to cut down trees just because they stupidly think its an eyesore or its blocking a bit of light. Who cares?! All the trees have disappeared from my road because the road is full of idiots.
And almost every drive is paved without a strand of grass or anything that drains water.
Why is this idea important?
People shouldn't be allowed to cut down trees just because they stupidly think its an eyesore or its blocking a bit of light. Who cares?! All the trees have disappeared from my road because the road is full of idiots.
And almost every drive is paved without a strand of grass or anything that drains water.
Trees and wildlife shouldn't be cleared for farmland.
Farming has caused humans to destroy land which will never be the same.
So farming shouldn't be allowed to expand and the amount of domesticated animals (cattle) should be reduced anyway. People aren't even supposed to eat meat.
Why is this idea important?
Trees and wildlife shouldn't be cleared for farmland.
Farming has caused humans to destroy land which will never be the same.
So farming shouldn't be allowed to expand and the amount of domesticated animals (cattle) should be reduced anyway. People aren't even supposed to eat meat.
Hunting and killing of animals should be stopped completely.
Animals are no threat to humans unless of course they're meat eaters. People have the wrong impressions of foxes, raccoons etc. These animals only attack people because people have made them like that. You attack something then of course its going to attack back. Much like a bee, you hit it, you get stung.
Its humans own fault for being so stupid, scared and not understanding the world around them.
Why is this idea important?
Hunting and killing of animals should be stopped completely.
Animals are no threat to humans unless of course they're meat eaters. People have the wrong impressions of foxes, raccoons etc. These animals only attack people because people have made them like that. You attack something then of course its going to attack back. Much like a bee, you hit it, you get stung.
Its humans own fault for being so stupid, scared and not understanding the world around them.
Whoever made guns was a really stupid person.
Everyone wants a gun or dangerous weapon because simply put, everyone else seems to have one.
Get the army out of your stupid war and make them work in your own country. Make them raid every single house and collect every single weapon and melt them all down or send them into space and incinerate them on the Sun. And the same with drugs. All the armys should do that in their own countries.
Why is this idea important?
Whoever made guns was a really stupid person.
Everyone wants a gun or dangerous weapon because simply put, everyone else seems to have one.
Get the army out of your stupid war and make them work in your own country. Make them raid every single house and collect every single weapon and melt them all down or send them into space and incinerate them on the Sun. And the same with drugs. All the armys should do that in their own countries.
Stupid people think the world revolves around money is why businesses who sell alcohol think its better to sell alcohol later and later into the day.
It shouldn't be sold or made full stop. But I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.
In the meantime, businesses should be made to stop selling alcohol at early evening, late afternoon.
Why is this idea important?
Stupid people think the world revolves around money is why businesses who sell alcohol think its better to sell alcohol later and later into the day.
It shouldn't be sold or made full stop. But I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.
In the meantime, businesses should be made to stop selling alcohol at early evening, late afternoon.
Criminals who have been founded guilty after trial should receive an immediate sentence of instant death. From thieving to murdering etc.
Why is this idea important?
Criminals who have been founded guilty after trial should receive an immediate sentence of instant death. From thieving to murdering etc.
How many more times are we going to read the papers to read another story of child abuse? It seems that every week there is another story, another abuser taken to so-called justice. But is it justice or is it a parody? While their rights are observed and have to be seen to be observed, what of the victims, family and friends who no longer have any rights? Their rights have been taken away – gone. Taken away by someone who has little regards for rights. Surely in this day and age – in a day when we are supposed to be Enlightened. It is every child's right to be able to grow up? Not so it seems. They have less rights than we would like to believe, and in many cases their Life has little value.
Every 10 seconds, an innocent child is abused, molested or even killed. TODAY, 5 OF THOSE CHILDREN WILL DIE….3 million cases of abuse reports are made each year. Sadly, only 28% are actually investigated. The mental, physical and sexual torture that abusers are putting our children through, is beyond all comprehension. Child abuse is preventable not inevitable. 80% killed by abuse are under the age of 4. Child abuse is everyone's business. A damning report by Ofsted recently revealed that up to 4 children die every week in England from abuse or neglect. Two thirds of the victims were less than a year old. The current judicial system does not adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes. The death of a child through abuse or neglect is often punished with a prison sentence ranging from only 1-14 years, most of which are automatically halved with parole. This needs to change now. The N.S.P.C.C say that babies & toddlers are particularly vulnerable to physical abuse. If regular compulsory health checks were introduced, at least 4 times a year for ages 0-2 and three times a year for ages 2-5, they would help to reveal any signs of abuse or neglect. Social Services should be alerted if appointments become overdue.
Why is this idea important?
How many more times are we going to read the papers to read another story of child abuse? It seems that every week there is another story, another abuser taken to so-called justice. But is it justice or is it a parody? While their rights are observed and have to be seen to be observed, what of the victims, family and friends who no longer have any rights? Their rights have been taken away – gone. Taken away by someone who has little regards for rights. Surely in this day and age – in a day when we are supposed to be Enlightened. It is every child's right to be able to grow up? Not so it seems. They have less rights than we would like to believe, and in many cases their Life has little value.
Every 10 seconds, an innocent child is abused, molested or even killed. TODAY, 5 OF THOSE CHILDREN WILL DIE….3 million cases of abuse reports are made each year. Sadly, only 28% are actually investigated. The mental, physical and sexual torture that abusers are putting our children through, is beyond all comprehension. Child abuse is preventable not inevitable. 80% killed by abuse are under the age of 4. Child abuse is everyone's business. A damning report by Ofsted recently revealed that up to 4 children die every week in England from abuse or neglect. Two thirds of the victims were less than a year old. The current judicial system does not adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes. The death of a child through abuse or neglect is often punished with a prison sentence ranging from only 1-14 years, most of which are automatically halved with parole. This needs to change now. The N.S.P.C.C say that babies & toddlers are particularly vulnerable to physical abuse. If regular compulsory health checks were introduced, at least 4 times a year for ages 0-2 and three times a year for ages 2-5, they would help to reveal any signs of abuse or neglect. Social Services should be alerted if appointments become overdue.
Constraints on listed builings are excessive. Conservation is placed above function, but even that is botched, resulting in a fairytale pastiche of a building as it might have been in some muddled point in the past, but not as if it were a living building. Often the workrounds are worse than what they are supposed to prevent.
Double glazing is not permitted, even sympathetic wood designs, because that did not exist.
Satellite dishes are not permitted – even hidden at the back, nor external TV aerials, no matter how poor the reception.
Front doors must follow the previous design, even if the original builder might have used half a dozen different styles.
An Elizabethan manon wall forming a 6 foot securiy barrier around a royal palace was recently rebuilt as it was falling over. The new wall used authentic lime mortar, at considerable risk of skin burns, but is 4 feet high in places becuase "it looks better". The original was meant to keep people out. But at least the mortar is authentic.
A Grade 1 Carnegie library was repaired and renovated over 15 months. Although using authentic paints, materials, etc, when it re-opened the entire top tier of shelves were empty – 1/5th of the books were missing. Community Noticeboards had been removed from the entrance because "they would not have been on the original tiled surface". So now local clubs and societies are not listed anywhere accessible. If there is a list no-one uses it. The building may look authentic, but its purpose has been forgotten.
Southwark Crown Court is a Grade 1 listed building. It has impressive carved oak doors between the courts. These do not have proper, near signs, saying "Courts 4-7 this way". Instead a sheet of A4 paper is printed out, put in a plastic sleve and blu-tacked to the door. it looks tacky. But it does not permanently alter the structure, unlike a nice ceramic plaque. But if the original builder was updating the building today which would they have done?
Too many restrictive rules are based on technical consistency, but ignore what the original builder would do today if faced with a new requirement, and make owners lives a misery.
Why is this idea important?
Constraints on listed builings are excessive. Conservation is placed above function, but even that is botched, resulting in a fairytale pastiche of a building as it might have been in some muddled point in the past, but not as if it were a living building. Often the workrounds are worse than what they are supposed to prevent.
Double glazing is not permitted, even sympathetic wood designs, because that did not exist.
Satellite dishes are not permitted – even hidden at the back, nor external TV aerials, no matter how poor the reception.
Front doors must follow the previous design, even if the original builder might have used half a dozen different styles.
An Elizabethan manon wall forming a 6 foot securiy barrier around a royal palace was recently rebuilt as it was falling over. The new wall used authentic lime mortar, at considerable risk of skin burns, but is 4 feet high in places becuase "it looks better". The original was meant to keep people out. But at least the mortar is authentic.
A Grade 1 Carnegie library was repaired and renovated over 15 months. Although using authentic paints, materials, etc, when it re-opened the entire top tier of shelves were empty – 1/5th of the books were missing. Community Noticeboards had been removed from the entrance because "they would not have been on the original tiled surface". So now local clubs and societies are not listed anywhere accessible. If there is a list no-one uses it. The building may look authentic, but its purpose has been forgotten.
Southwark Crown Court is a Grade 1 listed building. It has impressive carved oak doors between the courts. These do not have proper, near signs, saying "Courts 4-7 this way". Instead a sheet of A4 paper is printed out, put in a plastic sleve and blu-tacked to the door. it looks tacky. But it does not permanently alter the structure, unlike a nice ceramic plaque. But if the original builder was updating the building today which would they have done?
Too many restrictive rules are based on technical consistency, but ignore what the original builder would do today if faced with a new requirement, and make owners lives a misery.
The idea is that cannabis should be legalised [or decriminalised], thoroughly regulated and taxed.
Youth and young adults always have and always will use mind altering substances recreationally. This we cannot avoid. But with the growing sophistication of the research chemical industry [synthesised drugs sold as plant feeder or similar] a greater danger is exposed to our nation's youth.
These research chemicals are uncontrolled, unregulated and dangerous. Often containing deadly contaminants. Cannabis however, has been used for centuries and so far has no decumented deaths from sole cannabis use. [excluding the use when mixed with tobacco]
The problem comes with law abiding citizens who want to use mind altering substances recreationally and legally. This turns them to the more nasty and dangerous chemicals to keep on the right side of the law. This is not protecting them. It is harming them.
More and more countries are now decriminalising cannabis for personal use and with great affect. Portugal, Mexico and California [prop 19] are a few to name.
Why is this idea important?
The idea is that cannabis should be legalised [or decriminalised], thoroughly regulated and taxed.
Youth and young adults always have and always will use mind altering substances recreationally. This we cannot avoid. But with the growing sophistication of the research chemical industry [synthesised drugs sold as plant feeder or similar] a greater danger is exposed to our nation's youth.
These research chemicals are uncontrolled, unregulated and dangerous. Often containing deadly contaminants. Cannabis however, has been used for centuries and so far has no decumented deaths from sole cannabis use. [excluding the use when mixed with tobacco]
The problem comes with law abiding citizens who want to use mind altering substances recreationally and legally. This turns them to the more nasty and dangerous chemicals to keep on the right side of the law. This is not protecting them. It is harming them.
More and more countries are now decriminalising cannabis for personal use and with great affect. Portugal, Mexico and California [prop 19] are a few to name.
We do not have or want newspapers run by the government or funded by taxation (the licence fee). There is no reason why other media, radio and television, should be any different. The BBC should be privatised, for example by giving all current licence fee payers shares in the company.
Why is this idea important?
We do not have or want newspapers run by the government or funded by taxation (the licence fee). There is no reason why other media, radio and television, should be any different. The BBC should be privatised, for example by giving all current licence fee payers shares in the company.
There are hundreds of Acts enacted but not yet in force. Several are entirely 'uncommenced'; others are partly in force and partly not. What a mess!
So repeal ALL uncommenced legislation. If MPs and/or Civil Servants want to retain a particular provision, tell them that it must be brought into force in its entirety and AT ONCE: 'use it or lose it'.
Keep Statutes Tidy!
Why is this idea important?
There are hundreds of Acts enacted but not yet in force. Several are entirely 'uncommenced'; others are partly in force and partly not. What a mess!
So repeal ALL uncommenced legislation. If MPs and/or Civil Servants want to retain a particular provision, tell them that it must be brought into force in its entirety and AT ONCE: 'use it or lose it'.
Keep Statutes Tidy!
The Government needs to force the rail companies to simplify rail fares and simplify the rules about using them. There should only be one fare whether you are jumping on the train without buying a ticket in advance or with a ticket you have already reserved your set for. If they want to get people travelling they have to make it as simple, easy and as cheap as possible. The train fares are also crazily expensive and it's no surprise people use their cars.
Take the story on the link below about a couple forced to pay a fine for getting off two stops too early. It is absolutely disgusting and makes my blood boil that the train company are actually able to fine them a ridiculous amount of money for that. It's not right, not fair, doesn't apply any common sense and puts people back into cars when the Government wants us out of them.
And for those of you who might say they should have read the rules of the ticket – who does read them? It could happen to you. There's no need to read rules if there are no stupid laws or bylaws for something so simple as getting off two stops too early.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/7983548/Couple-fined-for-getting-off-train-too-early.html
Why is this idea important?
The Government needs to force the rail companies to simplify rail fares and simplify the rules about using them. There should only be one fare whether you are jumping on the train without buying a ticket in advance or with a ticket you have already reserved your set for. If they want to get people travelling they have to make it as simple, easy and as cheap as possible. The train fares are also crazily expensive and it's no surprise people use their cars.
Take the story on the link below about a couple forced to pay a fine for getting off two stops too early. It is absolutely disgusting and makes my blood boil that the train company are actually able to fine them a ridiculous amount of money for that. It's not right, not fair, doesn't apply any common sense and puts people back into cars when the Government wants us out of them.
And for those of you who might say they should have read the rules of the ticket – who does read them? It could happen to you. There's no need to read rules if there are no stupid laws or bylaws for something so simple as getting off two stops too early.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/7983548/Couple-fined-for-getting-off-train-too-early.html
If the baby is put in a safe place it has more chance of survival, a mother would be more encouraged to abandon there baby in a safe place to avoid the cost of prosecution.
Why is this idea important?
If the baby is put in a safe place it has more chance of survival, a mother would be more encouraged to abandon there baby in a safe place to avoid the cost of prosecution.
Tax only money in the bank and take it only when money is withdrawn from the account. Take the tax, 3% of the withdrawal, from the money left in the account and deposit it in the governments tax account.
This tax could be introduced simply by adding a couple of lines to the bank program that controls our accounts and deposits and withdrawals. When you get your ATM slip it will have a couple of extra lines. It says already, amount withdrawn, balance and amount available. With this tax, the extra lines would say, tax paid, and, tax payable.
Why is this idea important?
Tax only money in the bank and take it only when money is withdrawn from the account. Take the tax, 3% of the withdrawal, from the money left in the account and deposit it in the governments tax account.
This tax could be introduced simply by adding a couple of lines to the bank program that controls our accounts and deposits and withdrawals. When you get your ATM slip it will have a couple of extra lines. It says already, amount withdrawn, balance and amount available. With this tax, the extra lines would say, tax paid, and, tax payable.
Repeal the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010
Why is this idea important?
Repeal the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010
Anyone found guilty of benefit fraud is in a win win situation. There are usually children involved who need protection and support. Therefore, if the suspect is found guilty instead of cash benefits give vouchers that can be used for food and clothing. Housing costs can be paid direct to landlord with a maximum, sensible limit. Also when the income received in benefits exceeds the individuals personal allowance why shouldn't it be taxed in the same way an employed person's is? Nobody on benefits should have a better lifestyle than a working person. Also ensure that they do something in exchange for their benefits: ie local community work, help keep their streets tidy, help with the homeless, train in some trade etc.
Why is this idea important?
Anyone found guilty of benefit fraud is in a win win situation. There are usually children involved who need protection and support. Therefore, if the suspect is found guilty instead of cash benefits give vouchers that can be used for food and clothing. Housing costs can be paid direct to landlord with a maximum, sensible limit. Also when the income received in benefits exceeds the individuals personal allowance why shouldn't it be taxed in the same way an employed person's is? Nobody on benefits should have a better lifestyle than a working person. Also ensure that they do something in exchange for their benefits: ie local community work, help keep their streets tidy, help with the homeless, train in some trade etc.
The laws which make it illegal for CDs & DVDs containing copyrighted material to be ripped from the physical media to a computer for personal use, regardless of if circumvention of copy protection is required should be repealed, or at least made clear as to why they exist.
Why is this idea important?
The laws which make it illegal for CDs & DVDs containing copyrighted material to be ripped from the physical media to a computer for personal use, regardless of if circumvention of copy protection is required should be repealed, or at least made clear as to why they exist.
As I understand myself and many others feel there should be a repeal of the New Forest Act 1877 and 1854.
Why is this idea important?
As I understand myself and many others feel there should be a repeal of the New Forest Act 1877 and 1854.
To reverse the weakening of controls of extradition of British subjects, the weakening caused by the Extradition Treaty with USA, and the EU arrest warrant.
Why is this idea important?
To reverse the weakening of controls of extradition of British subjects, the weakening caused by the Extradition Treaty with USA, and the EU arrest warrant.
The Fraud Act 2006 makes investigative journalism harder then ever.
There has been much malpractice in business, local government, etc. over the last decade, but attempts to investigate it are nuch harder nowadays. Journalism is often the only means by which malpractice is uncovered, since public scrutinising bodies are limited in resources. Years ago, the like of Roger Cook (ITV/"The Cook Report"), etc. were able to make progress beacuse they managed to infiltrate nefarious activities, sometimes using false identities. The above Act potentially makes such tactics illegal, and so the malpractice that I speak of above goes undetected.
The Fraud Act 2006 is a law that is largely unnecessary, since it duplicates existing laws that were in place prior to this Act.
Why is this idea important?
The Fraud Act 2006 makes investigative journalism harder then ever.
There has been much malpractice in business, local government, etc. over the last decade, but attempts to investigate it are nuch harder nowadays. Journalism is often the only means by which malpractice is uncovered, since public scrutinising bodies are limited in resources. Years ago, the like of Roger Cook (ITV/"The Cook Report"), etc. were able to make progress beacuse they managed to infiltrate nefarious activities, sometimes using false identities. The above Act potentially makes such tactics illegal, and so the malpractice that I speak of above goes undetected.
The Fraud Act 2006 is a law that is largely unnecessary, since it duplicates existing laws that were in place prior to this Act.
There is a two tier system with the CSA and related child maintenance orders (before 03/2003 and after). The older system has considerably higher maintenance requirements than the new system. This is only based on the date the individual claim was made, all other variables can be equal. Equally, court-based child maintenance orders based on CSA calculations obviously work the same way. I'm sure there must be cases within days of the wrong side of this 'step-change'.
Why is this idea important?
There is a two tier system with the CSA and related child maintenance orders (before 03/2003 and after). The older system has considerably higher maintenance requirements than the new system. This is only based on the date the individual claim was made, all other variables can be equal. Equally, court-based child maintenance orders based on CSA calculations obviously work the same way. I'm sure there must be cases within days of the wrong side of this 'step-change'.
The Act needs seriously adjusting to meet the needs of Great Britain, and not European.
Why is this idea important?
The Act needs seriously adjusting to meet the needs of Great Britain, and not European.
.I think it would be safer to remove speed limits on motorways.
Why is this idea important?
.I think it would be safer to remove speed limits on motorways.
More light in the winter. Most people in the mornings are going to work, so it does not matter about wheather it is light or not.
The evenings are where it counts.
It would encourage more spending, outdoor activities etc. The Scottish and Welsh may complain about this,so as they want to be independant, after all they have their own Parilmentary system, they can stick to their own changes.
This would apply to England only…no offense to Scotland and Wales there. but i think its the right way forward.
Why is this idea important?
More light in the winter. Most people in the mornings are going to work, so it does not matter about wheather it is light or not.
The evenings are where it counts.
It would encourage more spending, outdoor activities etc. The Scottish and Welsh may complain about this,so as they want to be independant, after all they have their own Parilmentary system, they can stick to their own changes.
This would apply to England only…no offense to Scotland and Wales there. but i think its the right way forward.
Child Abandonment Law states that all mothers who abandon their babies under 2 years of age are prosecuted. I would like this to be amended so that a mother who leaves her unwanted baby in a "safe" place, i.e. an NHS facility, fire station, police station or church, can do so without the fear of being prosecuted.
Why is this idea important?
Child Abandonment Law states that all mothers who abandon their babies under 2 years of age are prosecuted. I would like this to be amended so that a mother who leaves her unwanted baby in a "safe" place, i.e. an NHS facility, fire station, police station or church, can do so without the fear of being prosecuted.