History and Highways

All these old Highways and or BYWAYS that have been closed to vehicles, in many cases this is MADNESS the history of past travellers and Drovers that used these tracks and Byways is amazing and most  folk whether they be Ramblers, Horse riders, Cyclists, Motorcyclists and 4X4 Drivers do take intrest and appreciate these routes. Since the MASS of Tracks / Byways that have been closed to many, Predominately 4wheeled vehicles. Not only have WE the 4X4 Owner/Drivers lost out . But for the fact that 4x4s the vehicles and the various Groups/Clubs that drive these vehicles can not clear back overgrown foliage and repair any damage to surfaces as they, believe it or not are known to do. " Tread Lightly"…… " Glass"…….. " Crag" and many more. So the Ramblersand Horse Riders of this beautiful country are losing out as well.

The Majority of 4×4 Drivers when coming across Walkers and Horses STOP , CUT their ENGINES and  " HOPEFULLY " get a good reception from the on coming Walkers and Riders…….. BUT NOT ALWAYS.

The Govenment and councils if they took the time to find out could get so much HELP from all the 4×4 Clubs and Groups that the whole nation would benefit from More Open Countryside and LESS LOST HISTORY.

Yes there is a MINORITY of Persons that don't take note of the Code of Conduct ….. BUT They can be DEALT WITH.

LETS OPEN UP AND APPRECIATE the WHOLE of THE U.K.

Why is this idea important?

All these old Highways and or BYWAYS that have been closed to vehicles, in many cases this is MADNESS the history of past travellers and Drovers that used these tracks and Byways is amazing and most  folk whether they be Ramblers, Horse riders, Cyclists, Motorcyclists and 4X4 Drivers do take intrest and appreciate these routes. Since the MASS of Tracks / Byways that have been closed to many, Predominately 4wheeled vehicles. Not only have WE the 4X4 Owner/Drivers lost out . But for the fact that 4x4s the vehicles and the various Groups/Clubs that drive these vehicles can not clear back overgrown foliage and repair any damage to surfaces as they, believe it or not are known to do. " Tread Lightly"…… " Glass"…….. " Crag" and many more. So the Ramblersand Horse Riders of this beautiful country are losing out as well.

The Majority of 4×4 Drivers when coming across Walkers and Horses STOP , CUT their ENGINES and  " HOPEFULLY " get a good reception from the on coming Walkers and Riders…….. BUT NOT ALWAYS.

The Govenment and councils if they took the time to find out could get so much HELP from all the 4×4 Clubs and Groups that the whole nation would benefit from More Open Countryside and LESS LOST HISTORY.

Yes there is a MINORITY of Persons that don't take note of the Code of Conduct ….. BUT They can be DEALT WITH.

LETS OPEN UP AND APPRECIATE the WHOLE of THE U.K.

Public Representation Monitoring and Standards

The aim of this proposal is to ensure that politicians should be actively in touch with the lives of those they represent. The following are suggestions for making this happen:

(1) Elected politicians should be obliged to use at least one public service in their constituency or ward per year. For example, they should either (a) use public transport (however awful it might be) from, to or within their constituency or ward, (b) use the local hospital (and (i) be made to pay for parking like everyone else, (ii) put up with the same conditions as members of the public – e.g. delays, mixed wards, referrals to distant hospitals), (c) use public toilets, etc, in their own area, (d) visit local schools and see the conditions some teachers, kitchen staff, etc., are having to work under. Their visits should not be preceded by a grand 'clean up' of the school.

(2) Politicians should be rated on the effectiveness of their response to constituency problems, e.g. time taken to respond to constituency letters, constituent satisfaction, etc.

Why is this idea important?

The aim of this proposal is to ensure that politicians should be actively in touch with the lives of those they represent. The following are suggestions for making this happen:

(1) Elected politicians should be obliged to use at least one public service in their constituency or ward per year. For example, they should either (a) use public transport (however awful it might be) from, to or within their constituency or ward, (b) use the local hospital (and (i) be made to pay for parking like everyone else, (ii) put up with the same conditions as members of the public – e.g. delays, mixed wards, referrals to distant hospitals), (c) use public toilets, etc, in their own area, (d) visit local schools and see the conditions some teachers, kitchen staff, etc., are having to work under. Their visits should not be preceded by a grand 'clean up' of the school.

(2) Politicians should be rated on the effectiveness of their response to constituency problems, e.g. time taken to respond to constituency letters, constituent satisfaction, etc.

Increase the towing weight on newer car licences

Since 1997 car licences have not had BE entitlement, although it is thought that many people tow illegal weights. (Essentially over 750kg.) We should reinstate BE for those with a few years experience and a clean driving record (or up the B towing limit) to permit these people to tow caravans and trailers as those before them have done. Our current road safety issues are down to irresponsible behaviour and aggressive driving, and so restricting people towing with cars is not going to help.

Why is this idea important?

Since 1997 car licences have not had BE entitlement, although it is thought that many people tow illegal weights. (Essentially over 750kg.) We should reinstate BE for those with a few years experience and a clean driving record (or up the B towing limit) to permit these people to tow caravans and trailers as those before them have done. Our current road safety issues are down to irresponsible behaviour and aggressive driving, and so restricting people towing with cars is not going to help.

ban alchohol and tobacco

I believe in a fair society so as recreational drugs are banned I believe it should be extended to all drugs . I believe there should be a prison term for the peddlers of booze (including the Houses of Commons )and tobacco use should attract a minimum of 10years in prison and 40 lashes ,lets have a bit of fairness

Why is this idea important?

I believe in a fair society so as recreational drugs are banned I believe it should be extended to all drugs . I believe there should be a prison term for the peddlers of booze (including the Houses of Commons )and tobacco use should attract a minimum of 10years in prison and 40 lashes ,lets have a bit of fairness

dangerous dog act

i would like to see the dangerous dog act repealled as this act has done nothing but murder innocent dogs.A dog in my view is only a reflection of its owner,all dogs can bite, I agree that if a pit bull type bites it causes more physical damage but figures show that you are more likely to be bitten by a dachshound than a pit bull type .The other thing the axt has done is to make these dogs more desirable to the wrong type of owner ,I am a dog rescue & the only dog i have been bitten by(requiring hospital treatment ) was by a Lhasa Apso which resulted in me having ten stiches in my face ,which didnt raise a eyebrow with the media etc ,but there again it wouldnt sell newspapers ,I agree that some sort of dog control is required ,my thoughts are along the lines of the system used to register cars ,Compulsery micro chipping would be a ideal way as in that every dog would be registerd to a owner , Any dog found without a microchip would go to the council pound & be available for re homing a be microchipped to the new owner , it would also be the last registerd owners duty to report a change of owner/adress ,and would be responsable for the dog until details are updated this would then open the doors for fines etc to be enforced,which would fund the scheme. i would like to recieve your response thankyou .

                                                     mr N Holmes a dog lover

Why is this idea important?

i would like to see the dangerous dog act repealled as this act has done nothing but murder innocent dogs.A dog in my view is only a reflection of its owner,all dogs can bite, I agree that if a pit bull type bites it causes more physical damage but figures show that you are more likely to be bitten by a dachshound than a pit bull type .The other thing the axt has done is to make these dogs more desirable to the wrong type of owner ,I am a dog rescue & the only dog i have been bitten by(requiring hospital treatment ) was by a Lhasa Apso which resulted in me having ten stiches in my face ,which didnt raise a eyebrow with the media etc ,but there again it wouldnt sell newspapers ,I agree that some sort of dog control is required ,my thoughts are along the lines of the system used to register cars ,Compulsery micro chipping would be a ideal way as in that every dog would be registerd to a owner , Any dog found without a microchip would go to the council pound & be available for re homing a be microchipped to the new owner , it would also be the last registerd owners duty to report a change of owner/adress ,and would be responsable for the dog until details are updated this would then open the doors for fines etc to be enforced,which would fund the scheme. i would like to recieve your response thankyou .

                                                     mr N Holmes a dog lover

Restrictions on Domestic Electrical Work

I have done my own electrical work for 40 years. I stick to the IEE regulations.  I am now required to use a contrator or at great expense get the work tested and forms filled in for the buerocrats at the council. What a waste.  If I sell my house  I will need an electrial inspection till then I will continue as before.  Friends in the trade say that the effect of the regulations has simply made a lot of small jobs dissapear to the black market, retired electricians etc. 

Why is this idea important?

I have done my own electrical work for 40 years. I stick to the IEE regulations.  I am now required to use a contrator or at great expense get the work tested and forms filled in for the buerocrats at the council. What a waste.  If I sell my house  I will need an electrial inspection till then I will continue as before.  Friends in the trade say that the effect of the regulations has simply made a lot of small jobs dissapear to the black market, retired electricians etc. 

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority encourages MP to claim more!

The IPSA, set up in response to the MP excessive claims fiasco, states on its website, that it is:

"..an independent organisation created to bring a fresh approach to the system of paying MP expenses.  The IPSA will keep at the front of its mind its main duty – to serve the interests of  the public"

We have just 650 Members of Parliament. The IPSA  is busy establishing rules and regs designed to curb the excesses of MPs.  Surely those appointed to do this could exercise a little  flexibility, creativity and perhaps just  a dose of common sense if and when it enounters an occasional anomoly: an MP actually wishing to save us taxpayers unnecessary costs.

The case in question:  Nationalist MP for the Western Isles, Angus MacNeal, has appealed to the IPSA to allow him to continue to claim the sum of  £252 per month on his 2 bed London flat.  But, no, the IPSA has told him he cannot continue to submit this claim and must, effectively, claim up to £1,450 a month for a one bed flat and rent his existing flat out!

I don't doubt that the changes implemented by the IPSA are resulting in savings overall, but Mr. MacNeal, who has saved the taxpayer some £37,000 over the last 4 years, is now required to incur unnecessary expenses.    No doubt the IPSA will say in their defence that with any change there will be a handful of cases where people have to claim more.  What I would like to ask is, why is the IPSA is so unable to make sensible exceptions, clearly in line with its remit, and employ a little intelligence, discretion and judgement in the face of this sort of case.  Are the systems so incapable of a little flexibility in their application and if not, why not?

 

Why is this idea important?

The IPSA, set up in response to the MP excessive claims fiasco, states on its website, that it is:

"..an independent organisation created to bring a fresh approach to the system of paying MP expenses.  The IPSA will keep at the front of its mind its main duty – to serve the interests of  the public"

We have just 650 Members of Parliament. The IPSA  is busy establishing rules and regs designed to curb the excesses of MPs.  Surely those appointed to do this could exercise a little  flexibility, creativity and perhaps just  a dose of common sense if and when it enounters an occasional anomoly: an MP actually wishing to save us taxpayers unnecessary costs.

The case in question:  Nationalist MP for the Western Isles, Angus MacNeal, has appealed to the IPSA to allow him to continue to claim the sum of  £252 per month on his 2 bed London flat.  But, no, the IPSA has told him he cannot continue to submit this claim and must, effectively, claim up to £1,450 a month for a one bed flat and rent his existing flat out!

I don't doubt that the changes implemented by the IPSA are resulting in savings overall, but Mr. MacNeal, who has saved the taxpayer some £37,000 over the last 4 years, is now required to incur unnecessary expenses.    No doubt the IPSA will say in their defence that with any change there will be a handful of cases where people have to claim more.  What I would like to ask is, why is the IPSA is so unable to make sensible exceptions, clearly in line with its remit, and employ a little intelligence, discretion and judgement in the face of this sort of case.  Are the systems so incapable of a little flexibility in their application and if not, why not?

 

Care Quality Commission Registration Rubbish

Having to register by 2011 is a load of rubbish as 90% of dentists will not pass! The outcomes do not all apply to dentists. We want to serve the public, not to get caught up with pen-pushers and qwangos. Please throw this rubbish out.

Why is this idea important?

Having to register by 2011 is a load of rubbish as 90% of dentists will not pass! The outcomes do not all apply to dentists. We want to serve the public, not to get caught up with pen-pushers and qwangos. Please throw this rubbish out.

Make Equality and Human-Rights Legislation fair for ALL…

It is time that the 'Equality' Laws were adjusted to include the Male of the species to a greater extent – rather than making it's Legislation almost completely FEMALE-centric. Perhaps the 'Equality' Dept.should be run by both Male AND Female MP's.

In any case, it certainly does need a re-think if this Government wants its citizens to be FAIRLY treated. At the moment they are not.

 

The same goes for the 'Human-Rights' Legislation:

It's also time that this Government  – as promised – re-negotiated our HR Laws with the EU so that Criminals and undesirables are not 'defended' to such a ridiculous degree, whereby the citizens of the UK are actually put at risk.

We are sick of hearing that offenders and potentially dangerous people must be 'protected' rather more than the citizens of this Country.

Why is this idea important?

It is time that the 'Equality' Laws were adjusted to include the Male of the species to a greater extent – rather than making it's Legislation almost completely FEMALE-centric. Perhaps the 'Equality' Dept.should be run by both Male AND Female MP's.

In any case, it certainly does need a re-think if this Government wants its citizens to be FAIRLY treated. At the moment they are not.

 

The same goes for the 'Human-Rights' Legislation:

It's also time that this Government  – as promised – re-negotiated our HR Laws with the EU so that Criminals and undesirables are not 'defended' to such a ridiculous degree, whereby the citizens of the UK are actually put at risk.

We are sick of hearing that offenders and potentially dangerous people must be 'protected' rather more than the citizens of this Country.

CQC regisrtation for dentists

This idea is absolutely daft. Dentists are regulated and checked repeatedly. This is only going to increase an already overloaded beaurocratic form filling box ticking without any improvement in outcomes or patient well-being. This is one of those Labour ideas of keeping the unemployment levels low. Please see some sense and repeal this stupid idea.

Why is this idea important?

This idea is absolutely daft. Dentists are regulated and checked repeatedly. This is only going to increase an already overloaded beaurocratic form filling box ticking without any improvement in outcomes or patient well-being. This is one of those Labour ideas of keeping the unemployment levels low. Please see some sense and repeal this stupid idea.

Repeal the Hunting (Ban) Act

The Act banning hunting originated out of gross prejudice, as several of the authors have subsequently admitted ("pay-back for the miners", "hate the toffs", "it's all about class" etc).

If hunting were the preserve of immigrants, say, Labour would have flocked to its defence.

This a law which has eroded the liberty of those who hunt, which a Government Inquiry confirmed had no purpose and which has seen several ordinary, law abiding citizens having to fight criminal charges (invariably successfully).

The police clearly have little interest in trying to enforce it as: it enjoys very little local support in areas primarily affected, the potential miscreants are the most law-abiding element in the locale and it is virtually impossible to enforce.

The Hunting Act should be among the first laws on any list for repeal.

Why is this idea important?

The Act banning hunting originated out of gross prejudice, as several of the authors have subsequently admitted ("pay-back for the miners", "hate the toffs", "it's all about class" etc).

If hunting were the preserve of immigrants, say, Labour would have flocked to its defence.

This a law which has eroded the liberty of those who hunt, which a Government Inquiry confirmed had no purpose and which has seen several ordinary, law abiding citizens having to fight criminal charges (invariably successfully).

The police clearly have little interest in trying to enforce it as: it enjoys very little local support in areas primarily affected, the potential miscreants are the most law-abiding element in the locale and it is virtually impossible to enforce.

The Hunting Act should be among the first laws on any list for repeal.

Apply the precautionary principle to leave to remove cases

Around 1200 families each year are affected by a situation where the parent with care (normally the mother) wishes to leave the UK taking their children with them.

Often the child is too young to express his/her views let alone have those views determine whether leave is given to the mother to remove the child.

Sometimes the child objects entirely to the move but the mother is still able to remove the child, away from his/her father and extended family, school and life.

The secrecy of the family courts stops us from finding out exactly what happens to the families involved but it is clear that children generally need and want both their parents in their lives and ae much more likely to suffer long term damage if this is not possible.

I think that there should be a law that places a bar to international relocation with children of a family until such point that the child is deemed competent and wishes to go.

Until the child is competent, the presumption should be that it would be in the child's best interests to remain in the UK – where they were born and raised, where there extended family and father are, where they go to school and have a life – as the least disruptive and best option for their future wellbeing.

There should be an assumption that the child's best interests are served by regular staying contact with both parents.

This application of the precautionary principle might result in a parent wishing to relocate anyway – without the child. But if it is clear from the outset that they won't be able to easily take the children of a family with them, then perhaps they would adjust their own life choices before the situation arises.

This leads to one last point, there should be a legal assumption that, where separated mothers and fathers both provide care under a shared residence and where there is no doubt that either parent could meet the child's education, physical, psychological and emotional needs, that should one parent wish to relocate to another country, then the child lives with the parent who remains in the UK.

Get rid of the Payne v Payne in the lives of thousands or children who are threatened with leave to remove and forcibly removed from the UK and narrow the judicial discretion that allows 95% of mothers who apply to remove UK-born children from the country.

Why is this idea important?

Around 1200 families each year are affected by a situation where the parent with care (normally the mother) wishes to leave the UK taking their children with them.

Often the child is too young to express his/her views let alone have those views determine whether leave is given to the mother to remove the child.

Sometimes the child objects entirely to the move but the mother is still able to remove the child, away from his/her father and extended family, school and life.

The secrecy of the family courts stops us from finding out exactly what happens to the families involved but it is clear that children generally need and want both their parents in their lives and ae much more likely to suffer long term damage if this is not possible.

I think that there should be a law that places a bar to international relocation with children of a family until such point that the child is deemed competent and wishes to go.

Until the child is competent, the presumption should be that it would be in the child's best interests to remain in the UK – where they were born and raised, where there extended family and father are, where they go to school and have a life – as the least disruptive and best option for their future wellbeing.

There should be an assumption that the child's best interests are served by regular staying contact with both parents.

This application of the precautionary principle might result in a parent wishing to relocate anyway – without the child. But if it is clear from the outset that they won't be able to easily take the children of a family with them, then perhaps they would adjust their own life choices before the situation arises.

This leads to one last point, there should be a legal assumption that, where separated mothers and fathers both provide care under a shared residence and where there is no doubt that either parent could meet the child's education, physical, psychological and emotional needs, that should one parent wish to relocate to another country, then the child lives with the parent who remains in the UK.

Get rid of the Payne v Payne in the lives of thousands or children who are threatened with leave to remove and forcibly removed from the UK and narrow the judicial discretion that allows 95% of mothers who apply to remove UK-born children from the country.

Re-write the Matrimonial Act 1986

Limit the time that maintenance is paid to an ex-spouse after divorce – e.g. 10 years – rather than an on-going benefit for life. Make it retrospective. At present, the ex-spouse receives this until such times that they re-marry or die, regardless of whether they co-habit or earn sufficient to support themselves.

Why is this idea important?

Limit the time that maintenance is paid to an ex-spouse after divorce – e.g. 10 years – rather than an on-going benefit for life. Make it retrospective. At present, the ex-spouse receives this until such times that they re-marry or die, regardless of whether they co-habit or earn sufficient to support themselves.

Religious exemptions to equality laws should be removed

Many religions ignore laws such as equal rights for women and homosexuality.  Unless a religion conforms to the spirit of the law, it should,  as a minimum, not be classified as a religion, and, if necessary, its members should be prosecuted for not positively adhering to equal rights.

Why is this idea important?

Many religions ignore laws such as equal rights for women and homosexuality.  Unless a religion conforms to the spirit of the law, it should,  as a minimum, not be classified as a religion, and, if necessary, its members should be prosecuted for not positively adhering to equal rights.

harrasment and what it can do

to get rid of this silly law of harasment ,if you even glare at someone now this can be called harasment , its got totally out of hand,i reported someone for a crime and when i was interviewed was tolled in no uncertan terms that if i was to mention it again i could be prosecuted for harasment,,so much for reporting crime these days

Why is this idea important?

to get rid of this silly law of harasment ,if you even glare at someone now this can be called harasment , its got totally out of hand,i reported someone for a crime and when i was interviewed was tolled in no uncertan terms that if i was to mention it again i could be prosecuted for harasment,,so much for reporting crime these days

Abolish Anti Social Act 2003


 
  


 
The concept of anti social behaviour is very vague. According to the Labour government led by Tony Blair, anti social behaviour was a civil concept of some criminal activities from the outset, such as criminal damage, theft , assault, drunken rage, etc, mainly committed by the unruly yobs. The Labour came up with the Anti Social Act 2003 to give the so called yobs a second chance rather than a criminal record. If the criminal activities persist after ASBO, the individual will then be subjected to criminal proceedings.  

Due to the civil nature of ASBO, the evidence required for ASBO is of very low level, largely on hearsay evidence or no evidence at all.  The ASBO will be granted if an official goes to the court to apply for one against an individual . However, the consequence of an ASBO is disproposionately severe once it is granted. It is a powerful tool to criminalise people which is just to the contrary to its original manifested intention of the legislation. It is a powerful tool to persecute innocent people since the authority can then use every power given to them to escalate the ASBO to every aspect of the person's or indeed the individual loved ones' life. 

 
ASBO can be extended without a hearing at the request of any official! 
 
 It is obvious to me that making ASBO civil leading to severe criminal sanctions is a plot to make it easier to criminalise and persecute anyone the officials would like to.
 
In a civilised society , no criminal acts should be tolerated or downgraded to civil nature in the name of giving the offenders a second chance. There are sufficient tools available in the existing criminal enforcement system to tackle any offence of criminal nature . To deliberately mistakenly relable criminal acts as civil will no doubt create a lot of scope for such to be manipulated and abused by some incompetent or corrupted officials. The consequence to the society is grave as we can see today. The so called anti social behaviour is not reduced under the Labour government while perfectly law abiding citizens are labelled as anti social and face the prospect of 5 year imprisonment if he/she is criminalised.  
 
In my view, there is No anti social behaviour, but civil act or criminal act. In the case of civil act, leave it to the civil court. In the case of criminal act, the police should deal with it accordingly in the frame of the existing enforcement protocol. That is what they are paid for. Whatsmore, the academic entry level to become a police should be raised and I do believe integrity to certain level does come with proper education.
 
If this government is serious about getting rid of bad laws which will plague generations to come, ASBO is one of them. Afterall, we never know who will be put to the receiving end in the future.
 

 

Why is this idea important?


 
  


 
The concept of anti social behaviour is very vague. According to the Labour government led by Tony Blair, anti social behaviour was a civil concept of some criminal activities from the outset, such as criminal damage, theft , assault, drunken rage, etc, mainly committed by the unruly yobs. The Labour came up with the Anti Social Act 2003 to give the so called yobs a second chance rather than a criminal record. If the criminal activities persist after ASBO, the individual will then be subjected to criminal proceedings.  

Due to the civil nature of ASBO, the evidence required for ASBO is of very low level, largely on hearsay evidence or no evidence at all.  The ASBO will be granted if an official goes to the court to apply for one against an individual . However, the consequence of an ASBO is disproposionately severe once it is granted. It is a powerful tool to criminalise people which is just to the contrary to its original manifested intention of the legislation. It is a powerful tool to persecute innocent people since the authority can then use every power given to them to escalate the ASBO to every aspect of the person's or indeed the individual loved ones' life. 

 
ASBO can be extended without a hearing at the request of any official! 
 
 It is obvious to me that making ASBO civil leading to severe criminal sanctions is a plot to make it easier to criminalise and persecute anyone the officials would like to.
 
In a civilised society , no criminal acts should be tolerated or downgraded to civil nature in the name of giving the offenders a second chance. There are sufficient tools available in the existing criminal enforcement system to tackle any offence of criminal nature . To deliberately mistakenly relable criminal acts as civil will no doubt create a lot of scope for such to be manipulated and abused by some incompetent or corrupted officials. The consequence to the society is grave as we can see today. The so called anti social behaviour is not reduced under the Labour government while perfectly law abiding citizens are labelled as anti social and face the prospect of 5 year imprisonment if he/she is criminalised.  
 
In my view, there is No anti social behaviour, but civil act or criminal act. In the case of civil act, leave it to the civil court. In the case of criminal act, the police should deal with it accordingly in the frame of the existing enforcement protocol. That is what they are paid for. Whatsmore, the academic entry level to become a police should be raised and I do believe integrity to certain level does come with proper education.
 
If this government is serious about getting rid of bad laws which will plague generations to come, ASBO is one of them. Afterall, we never know who will be put to the receiving end in the future.
 

 

The NHS and some treatments

Stop 'voluntary' treatments such as IVF on the NHS; we can't afford it.  Use the money saved for better faster response to accidents, for example – no waiting on trolleys in the corridor.

Why is this idea important?

Stop 'voluntary' treatments such as IVF on the NHS; we can't afford it.  Use the money saved for better faster response to accidents, for example – no waiting on trolleys in the corridor.

remove planning regulations for dog training

why does one need planning to train your dogs on a piece of ground that will not involve any changes to that piece of land whatsoever and only be used for 2 hours a week

Why is this idea important?

why does one need planning to train your dogs on a piece of ground that will not involve any changes to that piece of land whatsoever and only be used for 2 hours a week

Human Rights Act

Repeal as far as UK is able The Human Rights Act; this country already has a unique system of legal management which works perfectly well and is different from the Continent.

Secondly, we already have The Magna Carta, the original statement of human rights in England. 

Why is this idea important?

Repeal as far as UK is able The Human Rights Act; this country already has a unique system of legal management which works perfectly well and is different from the Continent.

Secondly, we already have The Magna Carta, the original statement of human rights in England.