Charge for A&E care if a person is intoxicated.

If a person requiring A&E care is intoxicated to such an extent that their being drunk is a contributary factor in their requiring emergency treatment, then that person should be made to take responsibility for their actions and face the financial consequences for their actions.

Why is this idea important?

If a person requiring A&E care is intoxicated to such an extent that their being drunk is a contributary factor in their requiring emergency treatment, then that person should be made to take responsibility for their actions and face the financial consequences for their actions.

Right to choose smoking or non smoking

Whilst I agree that non smokers should have a right to choose a non smoking environment, smokers and pubs should also have the right to choose otherwise.

Pubs should be able to apply for a licence for smoking, which would be reviewed similarly to other licences such as opening hours and entertainment etc. 

The effect of the smoking ban is well known, with smaller, local pubs going out of business.  This is pushing drinkers into large town centre pubs, contributing to the violence and disorder often seen in and around these pubs. 

There is also increasing evidence for a link between higher rates of domestic violence and the smoking ban.  Just Google this if you don’t believe it!

By allowing the licensing authorities to decide which pubs can have smoking areas it would be easier to control drinking areas and behaviour.

Similarly, where sole traders use their vehicle for work, they should be allowed to apply for an exemption to smoke in their vehicles.

An outright ban is undemocratic and unfair on those that do want to smoke.  Non smokers can go to non smoking pubs, smokers can go to smoking areas in smoking pubs.  Everyone happy? 

Why is this idea important?

Whilst I agree that non smokers should have a right to choose a non smoking environment, smokers and pubs should also have the right to choose otherwise.

Pubs should be able to apply for a licence for smoking, which would be reviewed similarly to other licences such as opening hours and entertainment etc. 

The effect of the smoking ban is well known, with smaller, local pubs going out of business.  This is pushing drinkers into large town centre pubs, contributing to the violence and disorder often seen in and around these pubs. 

There is also increasing evidence for a link between higher rates of domestic violence and the smoking ban.  Just Google this if you don’t believe it!

By allowing the licensing authorities to decide which pubs can have smoking areas it would be easier to control drinking areas and behaviour.

Similarly, where sole traders use their vehicle for work, they should be allowed to apply for an exemption to smoke in their vehicles.

An outright ban is undemocratic and unfair on those that do want to smoke.  Non smokers can go to non smoking pubs, smokers can go to smoking areas in smoking pubs.  Everyone happy? 

Re-Introduce National Service for youth unemployed.

Re-introduce compulsory National Service for anyone aged 18 or over who isn't in further education and is unemployed. Particularly those individuals who have NEVER had a job.

Compulsory National Service could also be used as an alternative to prison in cases of petty crime or reoffence.

They could be paid a wage, say at NMW, which would be partly funded by the reduction in paying out dole money or not having to keep them in prison.

Why is this idea important?

Re-introduce compulsory National Service for anyone aged 18 or over who isn't in further education and is unemployed. Particularly those individuals who have NEVER had a job.

Compulsory National Service could also be used as an alternative to prison in cases of petty crime or reoffence.

They could be paid a wage, say at NMW, which would be partly funded by the reduction in paying out dole money or not having to keep them in prison.

Retain FM radio

As part of the digital Britain report, it was proposed that national FM radio be switched off to free up bandwidth for DAB broadcasts. I believe that FM radio should be retained. I also believe that if we are to switch to a digital format, there are several formats which have considerable advantages over DAB.

I suggested to the last government that FM should be retained and DAB allowed to die. Their response was that DAB had to proceed since there were already a few million DAB sets in the UK. The fact that there are hundreds of millions of FM receivers in the UK seemed lost on them.

Why is this idea important?

As part of the digital Britain report, it was proposed that national FM radio be switched off to free up bandwidth for DAB broadcasts. I believe that FM radio should be retained. I also believe that if we are to switch to a digital format, there are several formats which have considerable advantages over DAB.

I suggested to the last government that FM should be retained and DAB allowed to die. Their response was that DAB had to proceed since there were already a few million DAB sets in the UK. The fact that there are hundreds of millions of FM receivers in the UK seemed lost on them.

Legalise sex with animals

I propose we decriminalize sex between two members of a different species.

Why should two beings involved in a loving bi-species relationship be punished? I am a zoophile and I feel that I am unfairly criminalize for my sexual persuasion. It is unjustifiable to prevent consensual sex between species.

Why is this idea important?

I propose we decriminalize sex between two members of a different species.

Why should two beings involved in a loving bi-species relationship be punished? I am a zoophile and I feel that I am unfairly criminalize for my sexual persuasion. It is unjustifiable to prevent consensual sex between species.

Allow dogging and outdoor sex

In this day and age there should be no laws preventing consenting adults to take part in sexual activity in outdoor places. I accept that there should be controls on where and when, but late at night in a secluded car park seems ok to me, quite fun I guess.

Why is this idea important?

In this day and age there should be no laws preventing consenting adults to take part in sexual activity in outdoor places. I accept that there should be controls on where and when, but late at night in a secluded car park seems ok to me, quite fun I guess.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Why is this idea important?

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

That the UK conforms to Article 9 of the ECHR and stops jailing people for their beliefs

Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought,, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief.

Yet – here in the UK, people are still jailed for their beliefs.

Why is this idea important?

Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought,, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief.

Yet – here in the UK, people are still jailed for their beliefs.

That people who wish to associate together should not be forbidden to do so.

It is one of our most basic freedoms that we can associate together in any way that we wish. If individuals wish to congregate together to discuss some imposition of the government, they can do so. But the government have made it illegal for people who enjoy tobacco to congregate, unless they comply with the government’s edict not to enjoy tobacco together, unless they are in a place which is not a place available to the general public.

 

But, it is of the greatest importance for us to understand that the government has NO authority whatsoever to decide in what circumstances citizens can congregate. The right to congregate is sacrosanct.

 

It follows therefore that the government have no right whatsoever to stop a publican providing facilities for people who enjoy tobacco to meet and talk and enjoy their tobacco. The health of the population as an amorphous mass is irrelevant.

Why is this idea important?

It is one of our most basic freedoms that we can associate together in any way that we wish. If individuals wish to congregate together to discuss some imposition of the government, they can do so. But the government have made it illegal for people who enjoy tobacco to congregate, unless they comply with the government’s edict not to enjoy tobacco together, unless they are in a place which is not a place available to the general public.

 

But, it is of the greatest importance for us to understand that the government has NO authority whatsoever to decide in what circumstances citizens can congregate. The right to congregate is sacrosanct.

 

It follows therefore that the government have no right whatsoever to stop a publican providing facilities for people who enjoy tobacco to meet and talk and enjoy their tobacco. The health of the population as an amorphous mass is irrelevant.

That unemployed people should be allowed to hunt rabbits and such.

Unemployed people are stuck. Their only income is that provided by the state, which is minuscule. Why should they not be able to hunt and fish?

Why is this idea important?

Unemployed people are stuck. Their only income is that provided by the state, which is minuscule. Why should they not be able to hunt and fish?

fathers

wish that I had a magic wand for you guys I know so many dads that are unable to have their children with them . through no fault of their own..just dont give up .some x wives are great mums  but can be vindictive and thats when the trouble start  when couples split up its painful and the children are then used as pawns . in some extreme  cases the mother has a good reason to banish the father .and the courts are right to support the wife if violence is present in the relationship  however some x wives  use the court just because their new partners dont agree with the father being  around .

Why is this idea important?

wish that I had a magic wand for you guys I know so many dads that are unable to have their children with them . through no fault of their own..just dont give up .some x wives are great mums  but can be vindictive and thats when the trouble start  when couples split up its painful and the children are then used as pawns . in some extreme  cases the mother has a good reason to banish the father .and the courts are right to support the wife if violence is present in the relationship  however some x wives  use the court just because their new partners dont agree with the father being  around .

only fair if the business/activity is their first

stop the vastly unfair situation of somebody having ostop an activity, business or hobby they may have been doing for years, just because somebody new moves in next door and dislikes what the existing neighbours are doing

Why is this idea important?

stop the vastly unfair situation of somebody having ostop an activity, business or hobby they may have been doing for years, just because somebody new moves in next door and dislikes what the existing neighbours are doing

amend British Standards to standardise a miniature plug

The current standard 13 amp plug, introduced around 1959, has proved its worth. But households now utilise a plethora of small devices, mostly electronic, and the 13 A outlet and plug are absurdly clumsy for this purpose. I propose an amendment, that would extend to Building Regulations, to regularise a miniature fused plug with, say, a 1 amp fuse. 

Why is this idea important?

The current standard 13 amp plug, introduced around 1959, has proved its worth. But households now utilise a plethora of small devices, mostly electronic, and the 13 A outlet and plug are absurdly clumsy for this purpose. I propose an amendment, that would extend to Building Regulations, to regularise a miniature fused plug with, say, a 1 amp fuse. 

Civil Law of Property

With Local Authorities not taking into account at the planning application stage of restrictive covenants in property or land deeds, local communities are not benefiting from the restrictions put in place to there right to light and air in some cases. There right to free sun light and the wind to dry out the land to keep a balance in ground conditions.

 

To know that no building will take place on gardens and that a fence will be kept to the height and the type agreed by the parties benefiting from the covenant restriction put in place and agreed to at the point of purchase.

The Law of property have to comply with the Law as much as any citizen does, and this includes respecting their private law property right. Which under the present planning system the Local Authority do not look or take into consideration any restrictive covenants on land submitted for development? Is this how it has led to large numbers of people having to take out insurance policies just in case some heir appears and decides to enforce the covenant. Or the property owner of a semi- detached house having the party fence raised in height cutting out there sun light and the wind to there land being told this is permitted development by the Local Authority on a fence under covenant to maintain.

 

If the Local Authority is providing a service for the people and the local community why shouldn’t there private law property rights be taken into account when a planning application is made or a complaint is made. Why should it have to cost them to enforce it when to have one removed you make an application through the Lands Tribunal. It hasn’t got to cost for advised by their solicitor that it is hugely expensive needing a barrister costing £500 an hour.   

 

It affects lots of property owners, and the remedy is simple and if no action is taken now our grandchildren will face less free air and sun light, with these restrictions we have our own civil liberties as property owners, but when will they be respected by the Local Government and Central Government.

Why is this idea important?

With Local Authorities not taking into account at the planning application stage of restrictive covenants in property or land deeds, local communities are not benefiting from the restrictions put in place to there right to light and air in some cases. There right to free sun light and the wind to dry out the land to keep a balance in ground conditions.

 

To know that no building will take place on gardens and that a fence will be kept to the height and the type agreed by the parties benefiting from the covenant restriction put in place and agreed to at the point of purchase.

The Law of property have to comply with the Law as much as any citizen does, and this includes respecting their private law property right. Which under the present planning system the Local Authority do not look or take into consideration any restrictive covenants on land submitted for development? Is this how it has led to large numbers of people having to take out insurance policies just in case some heir appears and decides to enforce the covenant. Or the property owner of a semi- detached house having the party fence raised in height cutting out there sun light and the wind to there land being told this is permitted development by the Local Authority on a fence under covenant to maintain.

 

If the Local Authority is providing a service for the people and the local community why shouldn’t there private law property rights be taken into account when a planning application is made or a complaint is made. Why should it have to cost them to enforce it when to have one removed you make an application through the Lands Tribunal. It hasn’t got to cost for advised by their solicitor that it is hugely expensive needing a barrister costing £500 an hour.   

 

It affects lots of property owners, and the remedy is simple and if no action is taken now our grandchildren will face less free air and sun light, with these restrictions we have our own civil liberties as property owners, but when will they be respected by the Local Government and Central Government.

Repeal of CPO & Pathfinder Housing Demolition powers

The last Government eroded protection for private householders from enforced eviction via Compulsory Purchase Order on their homes.

The new Homes and Communities Agency quango no longer has to show land is derelict and underused or prove CPO is essential for the public interest.

All the authority now has to say is they want the property for 'regeneration', allowing government agencies to assemble almost any home or land at will, with only token rights of appeal, undermining the sanctity of individual ownership our society is based on.

In recent years, some 95% of housing CPOs have been granted, with the system overwhelmingly skewed against individuals trying to fight demolition of their neighbourhoods.

The government should shift the balance of regeneration back in favour of local communities, allowing 3rd party rights of objection to applications not conforming with democratically produced local plans, and blocking area-wide housing CPO powers that have been abused to bully home owners without leading to any examples of successful regeneration.

CPO should only be used where an owner is blighting the area, e.g. by leaving a property derelict; OR where a plan of clearly wider interest like a new rail link or refurbishment programme necessitates it.

It should also only ever be used once independent arbitration over fair values has been unsuccessful.

Such a draconian power should not be on offer via back room deals with developers who really like the look of your house – this has encouraged public sector corruption.

 

Why is this idea important?

The last Government eroded protection for private householders from enforced eviction via Compulsory Purchase Order on their homes.

The new Homes and Communities Agency quango no longer has to show land is derelict and underused or prove CPO is essential for the public interest.

All the authority now has to say is they want the property for 'regeneration', allowing government agencies to assemble almost any home or land at will, with only token rights of appeal, undermining the sanctity of individual ownership our society is based on.

In recent years, some 95% of housing CPOs have been granted, with the system overwhelmingly skewed against individuals trying to fight demolition of their neighbourhoods.

The government should shift the balance of regeneration back in favour of local communities, allowing 3rd party rights of objection to applications not conforming with democratically produced local plans, and blocking area-wide housing CPO powers that have been abused to bully home owners without leading to any examples of successful regeneration.

CPO should only be used where an owner is blighting the area, e.g. by leaving a property derelict; OR where a plan of clearly wider interest like a new rail link or refurbishment programme necessitates it.

It should also only ever be used once independent arbitration over fair values has been unsuccessful.

Such a draconian power should not be on offer via back room deals with developers who really like the look of your house – this has encouraged public sector corruption.

 

immigration

I am very pleased that when reading the other comments I see that none of them can be classed as racist. only a genuin concern for the amount of people that have been allowed to settle here my own feelings are that if a person has left his or her family behind in a so called violent country they should be sent back .I believe that most immigrants  are men  why are they not in their own countrys trying to help make things better. any illegal person caught entering this country should lose the right to claim asylum and should be deported straight away. without the right to appeal I do believe that some of these people cross 3 4 5 countries to get here are we to believe that the other countries they pass through  will not help them .  stop giving our hard earned money to them in benifits hand out food tokens not cash .and just maybe the people that  work might feel less angry at how their money is used  we will always help protect the weaker countries if we can . but for now  until we can sort ourselves out  it must be that old saying  charity  begins at home even the people born and bred here are being refused help  so how can we keep taking  more and more  people in

Why is this idea important?

I am very pleased that when reading the other comments I see that none of them can be classed as racist. only a genuin concern for the amount of people that have been allowed to settle here my own feelings are that if a person has left his or her family behind in a so called violent country they should be sent back .I believe that most immigrants  are men  why are they not in their own countrys trying to help make things better. any illegal person caught entering this country should lose the right to claim asylum and should be deported straight away. without the right to appeal I do believe that some of these people cross 3 4 5 countries to get here are we to believe that the other countries they pass through  will not help them .  stop giving our hard earned money to them in benifits hand out food tokens not cash .and just maybe the people that  work might feel less angry at how their money is used  we will always help protect the weaker countries if we can . but for now  until we can sort ourselves out  it must be that old saying  charity  begins at home even the people born and bred here are being refused help  so how can we keep taking  more and more  people in

Repeal laws that prevent members of the public from recording telephone calls and using the recordings as evidence.

Several posts on the site imply or claim that social workers and other officials misrepresent what has taken place during dealings with members of the public. When ringing many organisations we are told that our calls may be recorded.

Please repeal the laws that prevent members of the general public from recording telephone calls which they make or receive, and recording or filming interviews with Social Workers, Occupational Therapists, etc. with the intention of using such recordings in evidence if this becomes necessary.

We have probably all had experience of salespeople who miss-sell, miss-describe the product or the payment methods, etc. often by telephone. Please repeal the laws that prevent us from recording these calls and using them as evidence if necessary.
 

Why is this idea important?

Several posts on the site imply or claim that social workers and other officials misrepresent what has taken place during dealings with members of the public. When ringing many organisations we are told that our calls may be recorded.

Please repeal the laws that prevent members of the general public from recording telephone calls which they make or receive, and recording or filming interviews with Social Workers, Occupational Therapists, etc. with the intention of using such recordings in evidence if this becomes necessary.

We have probably all had experience of salespeople who miss-sell, miss-describe the product or the payment methods, etc. often by telephone. Please repeal the laws that prevent us from recording these calls and using them as evidence if necessary.
 

Local residents opposition should count for democracy

Residents fighting to save Green Belt Land being used by this Government to build the BIGGEST PRISON, in OUR VILLAGE of RUNWELL ESSEX.

   vmhorner @hotmail.com       10th Sept 2010

With this Governments Policy of listening to Local Peoples Opinion (WHY ARE THEY NOT LISTENING)

The MoJ is obviously determined to go ahead with its plans regardless of local feeling of Runwell, Rettendon, Wickford, with  Chelmsford Borough Council and Basildon Borough Council, also all local Parish Councils opposing this Planning Application. There are many Brown Field sites within the MOJ's selection critria that have been completely ignored, had they taken these into consideration they could have saved the Tax Payer and this Government Millions of pounds. Regenaration in Deprived area's would provide Jobs   and would also save More Government and Tax payers money by getting people in these area's off Benifits. Chelmsford does NOT need these econmic Benifits but many parts of the country clearly do.

Apart from The Massive saving available by re-siting this proposed Prison, the following is statements from Mr Blunt MP.

"If the next Government is Conservative it will restore powers over planning to local authorities so that decisions are taken locally by locally elected councillors. We will give local communities a share in local growth – when local authorities deliver the housing that their community needs they will get the financial benefit."

Mr Blunt also set out proposals that include scrapping the Regional Spatial Strategies and unelected regional assemblies. He said that he hoped that if the policies are enacted they will empower local councillors and encourage more engagement from voters. Mr Blunt also stressed the importance of protecting the Green Belt:

Chelmsford Borough Council were ready to REGECT MOJ PLANNING APPLICATION on the 20th August 2010, and on the same Day MOJ withdrew the application knowing it was going to be rejected, only to admit to a resubmission in late September 2010.

Finally Deprived area's would welcome the £20million proposed (sweetner) that is NOT required by Chelmsford.
 

Why is this idea important?

Residents fighting to save Green Belt Land being used by this Government to build the BIGGEST PRISON, in OUR VILLAGE of RUNWELL ESSEX.

   vmhorner @hotmail.com       10th Sept 2010

With this Governments Policy of listening to Local Peoples Opinion (WHY ARE THEY NOT LISTENING)

The MoJ is obviously determined to go ahead with its plans regardless of local feeling of Runwell, Rettendon, Wickford, with  Chelmsford Borough Council and Basildon Borough Council, also all local Parish Councils opposing this Planning Application. There are many Brown Field sites within the MOJ's selection critria that have been completely ignored, had they taken these into consideration they could have saved the Tax Payer and this Government Millions of pounds. Regenaration in Deprived area's would provide Jobs   and would also save More Government and Tax payers money by getting people in these area's off Benifits. Chelmsford does NOT need these econmic Benifits but many parts of the country clearly do.

Apart from The Massive saving available by re-siting this proposed Prison, the following is statements from Mr Blunt MP.

"If the next Government is Conservative it will restore powers over planning to local authorities so that decisions are taken locally by locally elected councillors. We will give local communities a share in local growth – when local authorities deliver the housing that their community needs they will get the financial benefit."

Mr Blunt also set out proposals that include scrapping the Regional Spatial Strategies and unelected regional assemblies. He said that he hoped that if the policies are enacted they will empower local councillors and encourage more engagement from voters. Mr Blunt also stressed the importance of protecting the Green Belt:

Chelmsford Borough Council were ready to REGECT MOJ PLANNING APPLICATION on the 20th August 2010, and on the same Day MOJ withdrew the application knowing it was going to be rejected, only to admit to a resubmission in late September 2010.

Finally Deprived area's would welcome the £20million proposed (sweetner) that is NOT required by Chelmsford.
 

Create a social benefit loan system

Everyone hits hard times sometimes and society as a whole has a moral obligation to assist. However, because those who live solely on social benefits are disincentivised from working if they afre better off not working, perhaps we need a system that is based on contributions made to the system.

1) NI number linkage of service use and benefits that accrue like an annual bill that can be in credit or debit based on your level of contribution and benefit from the system.

2) It is a loan if you go 'overdrawn' that becomes payable when you are self sufficient again.

3) If you fail to repay, the debt is passed to your estate.

4) Capping of benefits is introduced – a tapering system where eventually if you fail to support yourself, the state no longer has an obligation to.

5) Failure to repay a loan affects your crediting rating and deductions from bank accounts or pay.

This would STOP this ridiculous system where some people put into the system entirely for the benefit of 'scroungers'   

Why is this idea important?

Everyone hits hard times sometimes and society as a whole has a moral obligation to assist. However, because those who live solely on social benefits are disincentivised from working if they afre better off not working, perhaps we need a system that is based on contributions made to the system.

1) NI number linkage of service use and benefits that accrue like an annual bill that can be in credit or debit based on your level of contribution and benefit from the system.

2) It is a loan if you go 'overdrawn' that becomes payable when you are self sufficient again.

3) If you fail to repay, the debt is passed to your estate.

4) Capping of benefits is introduced – a tapering system where eventually if you fail to support yourself, the state no longer has an obligation to.

5) Failure to repay a loan affects your crediting rating and deductions from bank accounts or pay.

This would STOP this ridiculous system where some people put into the system entirely for the benefit of 'scroungers'   

Restrict family size unless parents can provide

I think that there are too many people who have several children and who have no responsibility yet expect the state to pick up the bill.

A law that restores the balance of civil liberties such that the exercise of the right to found a family goes hand in hand with the responsibility to ensure that you are able to provide for your children is urgently needed.

One common sense approach is to restrict family size by making it compulsory to have depo vera injections to prevent further pregnancies for those who are on state benefits and who already have 2 children.

That way people are responsible for supporting their children – rather than maximising how much they can claim from the state. 

Why is this idea important?

I think that there are too many people who have several children and who have no responsibility yet expect the state to pick up the bill.

A law that restores the balance of civil liberties such that the exercise of the right to found a family goes hand in hand with the responsibility to ensure that you are able to provide for your children is urgently needed.

One common sense approach is to restrict family size by making it compulsory to have depo vera injections to prevent further pregnancies for those who are on state benefits and who already have 2 children.

That way people are responsible for supporting their children – rather than maximising how much they can claim from the state. 

Enhanced rights to health care.

We  all think that if we are ill the NHS will care for us.

SOmetimes that happens.

SOMETIMES it doesn't happen!

A big problem in the NHS is that patients are turned away due to internal politics of health trusts, discrimination, the over inflated ego of the individual doctor, punishment for challenging  medical opinion when it is wrong and sadly, sometimes because of ignorance on the part of NHS employees.

When things go wrong because of this it comes to public attention if the patient dies  as a result or suffers immediate and devastating effects.

The rest of those turned away are left to struggle on and hope that things don't get worse.

Action is needed NOW to ensure that this sort of thing stops – patients shouid be able to log their incident with the service provider and the doctor or other clinician should be required to make a written explanation of their decision.

Why is this idea important?

We  all think that if we are ill the NHS will care for us.

SOmetimes that happens.

SOMETIMES it doesn't happen!

A big problem in the NHS is that patients are turned away due to internal politics of health trusts, discrimination, the over inflated ego of the individual doctor, punishment for challenging  medical opinion when it is wrong and sadly, sometimes because of ignorance on the part of NHS employees.

When things go wrong because of this it comes to public attention if the patient dies  as a result or suffers immediate and devastating effects.

The rest of those turned away are left to struggle on and hope that things don't get worse.

Action is needed NOW to ensure that this sort of thing stops – patients shouid be able to log their incident with the service provider and the doctor or other clinician should be required to make a written explanation of their decision.

Removal of Uk, from areas of Northern Ireland.

Reunification of Ireland. 

Particular attention should be given to the smallest of areas of gives most concern that of a slice of lands that almost divide Donegal & Sligo county.  

Why is this idea important?

Reunification of Ireland. 

Particular attention should be given to the smallest of areas of gives most concern that of a slice of lands that almost divide Donegal & Sligo county.  

Institute Reparation within the Justice Service

In addition to the 'social bond' idea just announced, (which I am confident will produce fruit), I would like to see the 'handing back' of duties commensurate with the probationary service, and a separate 'body' to be delegated within the justice service for specifically looking after community service (not what the probationary service was set up for).

I would also like to see this body, with teeth, and given the means to facilitate people making APPROPRIATE reparations to the victims.

I believe this would also have the contributory result of reducing the numbers of short stay cons.

Why is this idea important?

In addition to the 'social bond' idea just announced, (which I am confident will produce fruit), I would like to see the 'handing back' of duties commensurate with the probationary service, and a separate 'body' to be delegated within the justice service for specifically looking after community service (not what the probationary service was set up for).

I would also like to see this body, with teeth, and given the means to facilitate people making APPROPRIATE reparations to the victims.

I believe this would also have the contributory result of reducing the numbers of short stay cons.