Allowing us to call for a Republic or get rid of the Monarchy.

I would like to express my opinions about the monarchy or to call for the UK to be a Republic without the risk of prosecution. I'm not sure that I would actually call for us to be a Republic but it seems very unfair that an institution that I and generations of my ancestors have funded cannot be questioned, challenged or abolished.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to express my opinions about the monarchy or to call for the UK to be a Republic without the risk of prosecution. I'm not sure that I would actually call for us to be a Republic but it seems very unfair that an institution that I and generations of my ancestors have funded cannot be questioned, challenged or abolished.

repeal or rebalance extradition-to-USA law

the law allows extradition of UK citizens to the US without any strong examination of the case facing the accused.  once in the US, there is little funding for the suspects lawyers to prepare the suspects case.

Why is this idea important?

the law allows extradition of UK citizens to the US without any strong examination of the case facing the accused.  once in the US, there is little funding for the suspects lawyers to prepare the suspects case.

Remove the rules around disposal of dead bodies

f people want to dispose of their bodies on death by any means that does not unduly harm others then they should be allowed to follow their wish.

This should open the way for funeral pyres (if we can have them for cattle, we can have them for people), air burials and other ways

 

Why is this idea important?

f people want to dispose of their bodies on death by any means that does not unduly harm others then they should be allowed to follow their wish.

This should open the way for funeral pyres (if we can have them for cattle, we can have them for people), air burials and other ways

 

Magic Mushroom Decriminalisation

In 2005 the Labour Government completely banned the possession of the common native free-growing fungus Psilocybe Semilanceata, as well as other strands of non-native psychedelic mushroom. For a government to ban an organism that is not harmful but which yields positive experience is an example of Orwellian state control. Moreover, magic mushrooms are even scheduled as Class A which is simply grossly irrational.

Section 21 of the Drugs Act 2005 therefore should be repealed in order to restore civil liberties and to bring trust back into the political system.

Why is this idea important?

In 2005 the Labour Government completely banned the possession of the common native free-growing fungus Psilocybe Semilanceata, as well as other strands of non-native psychedelic mushroom. For a government to ban an organism that is not harmful but which yields positive experience is an example of Orwellian state control. Moreover, magic mushrooms are even scheduled as Class A which is simply grossly irrational.

Section 21 of the Drugs Act 2005 therefore should be repealed in order to restore civil liberties and to bring trust back into the political system.

Empower the police to apply law, stronger penalties more easily and swiftly

Empowering the police to be able to apply the law to simple obvious crime occurring in front of them rather than having to either fill in excessive paperwork or refer to other local authorities or areas of the council to deal with the situation over a longer term. 

For example, if you had a noisy/intimidating neighbour that had music playing excessively loudly, and many people were in and out of the house during the day/evening/night. If you call a police office, the law is that they cannot enter, or demand for the problem to be resolved due to the fact it is occuring within the household. instead, you make a complaint to the local council, they send a letter to you and the neighbour stating the complaint, then you have to record and put up with the noise/intimidation for 28 days, assuming that it will occur again to the same extent.

Wouldn't it  be easier for a police officer to just apply some professional judgement and simple law to support the rest of the infringed neighbourhood and issue a fine and demand the noise to cease and disperse any people causing problems.

This is just one example of elongated law that the police do not have a simple power to enforce on the spot, and resolve instantly or the police to be allowed to apply professional judgement on many simple to resolve situations.

Why is this idea important?

Empowering the police to be able to apply the law to simple obvious crime occurring in front of them rather than having to either fill in excessive paperwork or refer to other local authorities or areas of the council to deal with the situation over a longer term. 

For example, if you had a noisy/intimidating neighbour that had music playing excessively loudly, and many people were in and out of the house during the day/evening/night. If you call a police office, the law is that they cannot enter, or demand for the problem to be resolved due to the fact it is occuring within the household. instead, you make a complaint to the local council, they send a letter to you and the neighbour stating the complaint, then you have to record and put up with the noise/intimidation for 28 days, assuming that it will occur again to the same extent.

Wouldn't it  be easier for a police officer to just apply some professional judgement and simple law to support the rest of the infringed neighbourhood and issue a fine and demand the noise to cease and disperse any people causing problems.

This is just one example of elongated law that the police do not have a simple power to enforce on the spot, and resolve instantly or the police to be allowed to apply professional judgement on many simple to resolve situations.

Planning Permission after a Fire

If your property burns down you should not have to apply for planning permsiion to re-build it.

If your property is located outside of a settlement boundary, in the green belt or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or in a strategic gap the council are able to refuse planning permission for you to re-build your property!  This could mean the loss of your home or business through no fault of your own.

If your property is different to its neighbours, ie taller or set at a differnet angle or has more or less parking spaces than the ever changing norm, because of the fear of setting a precedent you would not be allowed to re-build what you had.

The planning process is expensive and very long winded, taking at least 3 months from start to finish, invariably longer, for even a modest, straight forward extension let alone for a new house or commercial premises. If you have to go to appeal this could easily be dragged out to 12 months or more.

Why is this idea important?

If your property burns down you should not have to apply for planning permsiion to re-build it.

If your property is located outside of a settlement boundary, in the green belt or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or in a strategic gap the council are able to refuse planning permission for you to re-build your property!  This could mean the loss of your home or business through no fault of your own.

If your property is different to its neighbours, ie taller or set at a differnet angle or has more or less parking spaces than the ever changing norm, because of the fear of setting a precedent you would not be allowed to re-build what you had.

The planning process is expensive and very long winded, taking at least 3 months from start to finish, invariably longer, for even a modest, straight forward extension let alone for a new house or commercial premises. If you have to go to appeal this could easily be dragged out to 12 months or more.

No more nameless, faceless complaints about others on civil matters

Countless times I have come across ridiculous complaints about individuals, being investigated seriously by our Council. 

Defending yourself or your business is costly, both financialy and in terms of your time. Not to mention the cost to the Council and taxpayers in turn.

These complaints can range from the colour of someone's house, to the size of a gap in their fence.  We once had a council official come to our property to investigate a complaint about pollution. After half a day he concluded the complaint was about a cow pat in a cow field that was within 2 metres of a footpath.

A friend of mine also has an ASBO because of how an A3 sized sign for his shop was placed.

I propose that, where a member of the public is disgruntled enough to complain about someone else, they should be made to put their name to it. I would certainly be prepared to and I'm sure other reasonable people would too.

The right to anonymity in these matters has lead to petty, pointless nit-picking at other people by those with nothing better to do, validated by the council and safe in the knowlege that they themselves will not lose a penny or a wink of sleep over it. This is because its not actually any of their business and they will not have any responsibility in proceedings, financially or otherwise.

I also believe that, where someone has spent money to defend themselves, the Council should not be allowed to 'drop' the case if the complaint is unfounded.  The defendant must be awarded positively for spending time and money proving themselves right, so they are not at further risk in the future.

Why is this idea important?

Countless times I have come across ridiculous complaints about individuals, being investigated seriously by our Council. 

Defending yourself or your business is costly, both financialy and in terms of your time. Not to mention the cost to the Council and taxpayers in turn.

These complaints can range from the colour of someone's house, to the size of a gap in their fence.  We once had a council official come to our property to investigate a complaint about pollution. After half a day he concluded the complaint was about a cow pat in a cow field that was within 2 metres of a footpath.

A friend of mine also has an ASBO because of how an A3 sized sign for his shop was placed.

I propose that, where a member of the public is disgruntled enough to complain about someone else, they should be made to put their name to it. I would certainly be prepared to and I'm sure other reasonable people would too.

The right to anonymity in these matters has lead to petty, pointless nit-picking at other people by those with nothing better to do, validated by the council and safe in the knowlege that they themselves will not lose a penny or a wink of sleep over it. This is because its not actually any of their business and they will not have any responsibility in proceedings, financially or otherwise.

I also believe that, where someone has spent money to defend themselves, the Council should not be allowed to 'drop' the case if the complaint is unfounded.  The defendant must be awarded positively for spending time and money proving themselves right, so they are not at further risk in the future.

14 days to pay parking fines

Apparantly this a central government rulling, that allows local councils to issue tickets and encourage payment of half the amount if paid with 14 days. The trouble is a lot of us get paid at the end of the month – so we are discriminited against already

Why is this idea important?

Apparantly this a central government rulling, that allows local councils to issue tickets and encourage payment of half the amount if paid with 14 days. The trouble is a lot of us get paid at the end of the month – so we are discriminited against already

rules preventing DIY in your own home

Repeal the recent law that makes it illegal to do minor electrical works like adding a socket or light in your own home. 

Under this law, you have to get a qualified electrician to carry out even trivial tasks.  The electrician must then check over all the wiring in your whole house (not just the bit that's been altered) and give you a certificate of safety. This whole-home test is required after every little job!  

As a result a small electrical DIY task most homeowners could easily and safely do themselves for a few pounds now costs many hundreds of pounds, most of which is the cost of irrelevant testing of wiring that has not been touched.  This is absolutely unnecessary: when the law was passed in the last parliament (it was a private member's bill), the MP introducing it admitted there was no evidence that any lives would be saved. 

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the recent law that makes it illegal to do minor electrical works like adding a socket or light in your own home. 

Under this law, you have to get a qualified electrician to carry out even trivial tasks.  The electrician must then check over all the wiring in your whole house (not just the bit that's been altered) and give you a certificate of safety. This whole-home test is required after every little job!  

As a result a small electrical DIY task most homeowners could easily and safely do themselves for a few pounds now costs many hundreds of pounds, most of which is the cost of irrelevant testing of wiring that has not been touched.  This is absolutely unnecessary: when the law was passed in the last parliament (it was a private member's bill), the MP introducing it admitted there was no evidence that any lives would be saved. 

Self Defence: Legalise non lethal offensive weapons.

Under current legislation it is illegal to own and carry weapons such as pepper spray, pepper spray projectiles, and stun batons. The proposal here put forward requests the legalisation of such devices.

The current restrictions on such matters makes it difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones from harm at the hands of those who hold no such respect for the law. Knives and other lethal weapons are illegal for citizens to own and carry, and yet in recent years this has not prevented blade-related crime, stabbings, and deaths caused by such weapons.

Current self defence legislation puts law abiding citizens in a rather helpless position: the law prevents them from carrying anything which may be classed as an offensive weapon, even if its only intent is for defensive purposes, and yet the only thing this accomplishes is to put the advantage in the hands of criminals who have the means at their disposal to thwart and avoid such regulations. Despite their best efforts, it is simply not possible or realistic to expect law enforcement agencies to completely eradicate this problem.

Legalise the right to own and bear non lethal weapons for personal use in threatening situations, such as

  1. Pepper spray canisters.
  2. Low potency stun batons and related devices.
  3. Possibly projectile based weapons armed with non lethal ammunition, i.e pepper spray projectiles.

Why is this idea important?

Under current legislation it is illegal to own and carry weapons such as pepper spray, pepper spray projectiles, and stun batons. The proposal here put forward requests the legalisation of such devices.

The current restrictions on such matters makes it difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones from harm at the hands of those who hold no such respect for the law. Knives and other lethal weapons are illegal for citizens to own and carry, and yet in recent years this has not prevented blade-related crime, stabbings, and deaths caused by such weapons.

Current self defence legislation puts law abiding citizens in a rather helpless position: the law prevents them from carrying anything which may be classed as an offensive weapon, even if its only intent is for defensive purposes, and yet the only thing this accomplishes is to put the advantage in the hands of criminals who have the means at their disposal to thwart and avoid such regulations. Despite their best efforts, it is simply not possible or realistic to expect law enforcement agencies to completely eradicate this problem.

Legalise the right to own and bear non lethal weapons for personal use in threatening situations, such as

  1. Pepper spray canisters.
  2. Low potency stun batons and related devices.
  3. Possibly projectile based weapons armed with non lethal ammunition, i.e pepper spray projectiles.

Allow Mental Health Conditions To Be Used As A Legal / Criminal Defence

Make mental health an allowed defence in Court.

As somone with a mental health issue of Autism, my behaviour is strange, I can be seen to be harrassing or threatening, but that is part of my condition.

My legal team were not alloed to say that I did not understand, as I have this condition, the Police and the courts treat anyone withh a mental health condition like a normal person. They need educating on how people with mental health issues behave, working, and see things.

We are dont act in this way, and our mental health issues hould be taken in to account, as we see the world differently.

So allow mental health to be used as a defence, its against our human rights to now allow this.

Why is this idea important?

Make mental health an allowed defence in Court.

As somone with a mental health issue of Autism, my behaviour is strange, I can be seen to be harrassing or threatening, but that is part of my condition.

My legal team were not alloed to say that I did not understand, as I have this condition, the Police and the courts treat anyone withh a mental health condition like a normal person. They need educating on how people with mental health issues behave, working, and see things.

We are dont act in this way, and our mental health issues hould be taken in to account, as we see the world differently.

So allow mental health to be used as a defence, its against our human rights to now allow this.

Gypsy rights.

The law compelling Councils to set up 'traveller' sites is impinging on the general publics rights. These so called travellers get away with breaking and entering, criminal damage, dumping litter, trespass on public and private land. They move on to car parks yet never pay a fee and never get fined.

They disrupt the life of law abiding citizens by preventing access to public property and they should be prosecuted like any person other than them would be.

Why is this idea important?

The law compelling Councils to set up 'traveller' sites is impinging on the general publics rights. These so called travellers get away with breaking and entering, criminal damage, dumping litter, trespass on public and private land. They move on to car parks yet never pay a fee and never get fined.

They disrupt the life of law abiding citizens by preventing access to public property and they should be prosecuted like any person other than them would be.

No more nameless, faceless complaints about others on civil matters

Countless times I have come across ridiculous complaints about individuals, being investigated seriously by our Council. 

Defending yourself or your business is costly, both financialy and in terms of your time. Not to mention the cost to the Council and taxpayers in turn.

These complaints can range from the colour of someone's house, to the size of a gap in their fence.  We once had a council official come to our property to investigate a complaint about pollution. After half a day he concluded the complaint was about a cow pat in a cow field that was within 2 metres of a footpath.

A friend of mine also has an ASBO because of how an A3 sized sign for his shop was placed.

I propose that, where a member of the public is disgruntled enough to complain about someone else, they should be made to put their name to it. I would certainly be prepared to and I'm sure other reasonable people would too.

The right to anonymity in these matters has lead to petty, pointless nit-picking at other people by those with nothing better to do, validated by the council and safe in the knowlege that they themselves will not lose a penny or a wink of sleep over it. This is because its not actually any of their business and they will not have any responsibility in proceedings, financially or otherwise.

I also believe that, where someone has spent money to defend themselves, the Council should not be allowed to 'drop' the case if the complaint is unfounded.  The defendant must be awarded positively for spending time and money proving themselves right, so they are not at further risk in the future.

Why is this idea important?

Countless times I have come across ridiculous complaints about individuals, being investigated seriously by our Council. 

Defending yourself or your business is costly, both financialy and in terms of your time. Not to mention the cost to the Council and taxpayers in turn.

These complaints can range from the colour of someone's house, to the size of a gap in their fence.  We once had a council official come to our property to investigate a complaint about pollution. After half a day he concluded the complaint was about a cow pat in a cow field that was within 2 metres of a footpath.

A friend of mine also has an ASBO because of how an A3 sized sign for his shop was placed.

I propose that, where a member of the public is disgruntled enough to complain about someone else, they should be made to put their name to it. I would certainly be prepared to and I'm sure other reasonable people would too.

The right to anonymity in these matters has lead to petty, pointless nit-picking at other people by those with nothing better to do, validated by the council and safe in the knowlege that they themselves will not lose a penny or a wink of sleep over it. This is because its not actually any of their business and they will not have any responsibility in proceedings, financially or otherwise.

I also believe that, where someone has spent money to defend themselves, the Council should not be allowed to 'drop' the case if the complaint is unfounded.  The defendant must be awarded positively for spending time and money proving themselves right, so they are not at further risk in the future.

Blame & Claim Culture

Health & safety etc. is necessary but surely as individuals we have a responsibility to take care as well. Councils, and other public organisations spend thousands of pounds a year in compensation payments for very minor incidents (e.g. when someone trips). Surely we have a responsibility to watch where we tread! People trip and fall in their homes every day…what reasons do they give for that?

Blame and Claim is only a culture. People can be re-educated.

Bring back common sense, throw out 'silly' claims and save thousands of pounds (of our money). 

Why is this idea important?

Health & safety etc. is necessary but surely as individuals we have a responsibility to take care as well. Councils, and other public organisations spend thousands of pounds a year in compensation payments for very minor incidents (e.g. when someone trips). Surely we have a responsibility to watch where we tread! People trip and fall in their homes every day…what reasons do they give for that?

Blame and Claim is only a culture. People can be re-educated.

Bring back common sense, throw out 'silly' claims and save thousands of pounds (of our money). 

legalisation of cannabis

Its time to rethink our cannabis policy, we spend far too much money criminalising people for something that dosen't cause anyone any serious harm. We alow for the recreational use of alcahol and cigerettes, which cause far more of a social and health related problem. If people smoked more and drunk less, our streets would be safer.

The scientific advice clearly shows that cannabis is not as harmful as either alcahol or ciggs, why then are they are acceptable but cannabis could leave you with a jail sentance. This is an absolute injustice and needs to be addressed.

By legalising cannabis we can: Free up police rescources, increase tax revenues, encourage new business, increase tourism, make users safer, take money away from orginised crime and break the link between the soft and harder druggs.  

We could setup or sell licences to setup small coffee shops in the same style the Netherlands, but make the law clearer, so that we encourage the business. Tax can then be put on the licence and goods, users can do this in a safe enviroment. We can then take more of an acvite role in management, we can then set an age limit and give drug advice and assistance to those who need it.

Why is this idea important?

Its time to rethink our cannabis policy, we spend far too much money criminalising people for something that dosen't cause anyone any serious harm. We alow for the recreational use of alcahol and cigerettes, which cause far more of a social and health related problem. If people smoked more and drunk less, our streets would be safer.

The scientific advice clearly shows that cannabis is not as harmful as either alcahol or ciggs, why then are they are acceptable but cannabis could leave you with a jail sentance. This is an absolute injustice and needs to be addressed.

By legalising cannabis we can: Free up police rescources, increase tax revenues, encourage new business, increase tourism, make users safer, take money away from orginised crime and break the link between the soft and harder druggs.  

We could setup or sell licences to setup small coffee shops in the same style the Netherlands, but make the law clearer, so that we encourage the business. Tax can then be put on the licence and goods, users can do this in a safe enviroment. We can then take more of an acvite role in management, we can then set an age limit and give drug advice and assistance to those who need it.

National Service

Whilst I know this would upset a lot of mothers ( I am a mother myself) I feel that National service should be brought back. There are so few opportunities for children when they leave school and whilst some go on to further education and some do find gainful employment there is a vast majority who don't. Not everyone is academically able but it doesn't mean they are stupid they just have a different skill set. 

I feel if after 6 months or 1 yr of leaving school they haven't secured a place in college or found employment then they should join the army where they can have a trade and some direction. We have too few skilled workers in the UK. They could be based in the UK learning a trade and helping communities. The forces have many trades its not just shooting a gun, engineer, mechanic, telecommunications, chef, administration, driver, logistics. We need to give our youth some direction and get them off the streets and make the people of UK proud to be British

Why is this idea important?

Whilst I know this would upset a lot of mothers ( I am a mother myself) I feel that National service should be brought back. There are so few opportunities for children when they leave school and whilst some go on to further education and some do find gainful employment there is a vast majority who don't. Not everyone is academically able but it doesn't mean they are stupid they just have a different skill set. 

I feel if after 6 months or 1 yr of leaving school they haven't secured a place in college or found employment then they should join the army where they can have a trade and some direction. We have too few skilled workers in the UK. They could be based in the UK learning a trade and helping communities. The forces have many trades its not just shooting a gun, engineer, mechanic, telecommunications, chef, administration, driver, logistics. We need to give our youth some direction and get them off the streets and make the people of UK proud to be British

Spent convictions not being disclosed at all on CRB checks

These checks are of use to prospective employers and I have heard of cases where they have been misused. They are used to see if an applicant has any convictions not just any relevant convictions. As soon as the employer receives the CRB and sees that the happlicant has had convictions, even though these are spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act(1974) The application goes in the bin.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

These checks are of use to prospective employers and I have heard of cases where they have been misused. They are used to see if an applicant has any convictions not just any relevant convictions. As soon as the employer receives the CRB and sees that the happlicant has had convictions, even though these are spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act(1974) The application goes in the bin.

 

 

Marujana

There should not a ban on cultivating marujana and smoking cannabis.  Also ban should not be lifted for smoking in public.  People who smoke should be considerate to others.

Why is this idea important?

There should not a ban on cultivating marujana and smoking cannabis.  Also ban should not be lifted for smoking in public.  People who smoke should be considerate to others.

Abolish Sunday trading restrictions

Sunday trading laws, as currently established in the Sunday Trading Act 1994, restrict the right of traders to operate on Sunday within England and Wales.

Currently, shops may open for business, as they and their customers wish, at any other time of the week.  But on Sunday, shops larger than 280m² may only open for up to six hours between 10am and 6pm.

In Scotland, Sunday trading is fully deregulated and shops may open to serve customers who wish to shop whenever they choose.

Workers' rights to a weekly rest period are enshrined in the EU Working Time Directive.  The rights of workers who prefer not to work on a Sunday in Scotland are protected by the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003, and in England and Wales by the Sunday Trading Act 1994.  These rights should be retained.

Why is this idea important?

Sunday trading laws, as currently established in the Sunday Trading Act 1994, restrict the right of traders to operate on Sunday within England and Wales.

Currently, shops may open for business, as they and their customers wish, at any other time of the week.  But on Sunday, shops larger than 280m² may only open for up to six hours between 10am and 6pm.

In Scotland, Sunday trading is fully deregulated and shops may open to serve customers who wish to shop whenever they choose.

Workers' rights to a weekly rest period are enshrined in the EU Working Time Directive.  The rights of workers who prefer not to work on a Sunday in Scotland are protected by the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003, and in England and Wales by the Sunday Trading Act 1994.  These rights should be retained.

Detention without Trial

Detention without trial is just wrong and completely absurd in a 'free' democratic society. It is the kind of policy of Stalinist Russia.

Laws that allow the bullying and victimisation of individual should not be legal. If an individual is such a threat they can be monitored, whether officially if necessary or covertly while evidence is gathered.

Ironically, this measure meant to stop terrorism has lead to a rise in terrorism and hatred of our government and the West in general, as this victimisation and bullying has caused mass disenfranchisement, disillusionment and anger which in turn promote radical activities and beliefs

 

This law makes the UK far more dangerous for every individual, as well as those who may be directly affected.

Why is this idea important?

Detention without trial is just wrong and completely absurd in a 'free' democratic society. It is the kind of policy of Stalinist Russia.

Laws that allow the bullying and victimisation of individual should not be legal. If an individual is such a threat they can be monitored, whether officially if necessary or covertly while evidence is gathered.

Ironically, this measure meant to stop terrorism has lead to a rise in terrorism and hatred of our government and the West in general, as this victimisation and bullying has caused mass disenfranchisement, disillusionment and anger which in turn promote radical activities and beliefs

 

This law makes the UK far more dangerous for every individual, as well as those who may be directly affected.