PROHIBITION LAWS

LAWS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DOING THINGS THAT ARE  PERMITTED WITHIN THE LAW IS WRONG

FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT SELF DISCIPLINE & BEING TAUGHT RIGHT FROM WRONG  IT IS NOT BEING DICTATED TO BY  GOVERNMENT OR  INDIVIDUSLS 

PROHIBITION ONLY DRIVES THINGS UNDER GROUND INTO THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS YOU ONLY HAVE TO GO BACK A FEW YEARS AND REMEMBER THE SILLY PROHIBTION LAWS OF AMERICA

HIDING CIGARETTE DISPLAY UNITS  WILL DO THE SAME HIDE IT AND THE YOUTHS OF TOMORROW WILL WANT TO TRY IT JUST TO SEE WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT SMUGGLERS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY  { ALSO  IF ITS NOT ON DISPLAY HOW WILL ANYBODY KNOW IFTHE DUTY HAS BEEN PAID }  & DON'T FORGET THESE SMUGGLED TOBBACO ITEMS MAY BE MANY TIMES MORE TOXIC THEN LEGAL BRANDS

Why is this idea important?

LAWS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DOING THINGS THAT ARE  PERMITTED WITHIN THE LAW IS WRONG

FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT SELF DISCIPLINE & BEING TAUGHT RIGHT FROM WRONG  IT IS NOT BEING DICTATED TO BY  GOVERNMENT OR  INDIVIDUSLS 

PROHIBITION ONLY DRIVES THINGS UNDER GROUND INTO THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS YOU ONLY HAVE TO GO BACK A FEW YEARS AND REMEMBER THE SILLY PROHIBTION LAWS OF AMERICA

HIDING CIGARETTE DISPLAY UNITS  WILL DO THE SAME HIDE IT AND THE YOUTHS OF TOMORROW WILL WANT TO TRY IT JUST TO SEE WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT SMUGGLERS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY  { ALSO  IF ITS NOT ON DISPLAY HOW WILL ANYBODY KNOW IFTHE DUTY HAS BEEN PAID }  & DON'T FORGET THESE SMUGGLED TOBBACO ITEMS MAY BE MANY TIMES MORE TOXIC THEN LEGAL BRANDS

Make NHS training standard across NHS

All NHS Trusts have to train all staff in core statuatory  or mandatory H&S and other skills, this takes up to a week at induction. And then staff have to wait for other courses…

Agree a standard for all skills accross the NHS and then implement it so that the member of staff can just proceed to update rather than repeat costly and time consuming induction each time. NHS staff move around frequently in their early career. This will provide a good evidence based platform for care of our patients and free up tstaff time to do what they do best – hands on work.

Why is this idea important?

All NHS Trusts have to train all staff in core statuatory  or mandatory H&S and other skills, this takes up to a week at induction. And then staff have to wait for other courses…

Agree a standard for all skills accross the NHS and then implement it so that the member of staff can just proceed to update rather than repeat costly and time consuming induction each time. NHS staff move around frequently in their early career. This will provide a good evidence based platform for care of our patients and free up tstaff time to do what they do best – hands on work.

Immigration Rules should protect indigenous citizens!

I am a 71 year old indigenous citizen of the UK and an old age pensioner. I was widowed in 2002, and met and married a Russian widow in 2004 who was living in this country. I have a 27 year old stepson who has been receiving our financial support since we sent him back to Russia six years ago having been brought into the UK illegally by his elder brother when a 17 year old shortly after the death of their natural father.We have been trying to get the young man back to the UK to live with me and his mother as our dependant (and with NO resorting to welfare benefits) for the last three years trying to use the legal channels – i.e. visa applications etc.. It has all been a waste of time and cost a lot of money from my pensions!Attending immigration appeal tribunals is like being in a foreign country, with NO participant with any understanding of my own indigenous culture!

The Immigration rules as they are today were never meant by the legislature to break up the families of genuine indigenous citizens who marry foreigners and take on the family commitments associated with such a covenant. Their real reasons were to prevent mass colonisation of the UK by foreign families particularly from past  'Empire' states in Africa and Asia. However, in order to be 'just in a democratic society', the rules are applied to an indigenous citizen equally with no discrimination, despite the fact that the non-indigenous citizen does have a choice of domicile, usually another continent with definitely better weather! In all the New World countries, laws are passed which DO discriminate in favour of indigenous citizens where appropriate. Examples of this can be seen in the whole of the North and South American continents as well as Australia and New Zealand. 

Presently I am living in another European state and I have residential status there. I have abandoned my fully paid up home – except, of course I must still pay the Council Tax etc.., and I have rented a small apartment. The reason for this is that in other parts of the EU they are not so strict with their immigration rules and DO have such things in their statutes as 'Family Visit' or 'Family Re-unification' visas which permit family members to visit without the Gestapo techniques and prejudices visited on us by the UK Home Office. I have even taken up my Irish nationality(my father being born there), as I feel so strongly against the UK after over six years of battling with the Home Office, firstly with my wife, who was deported 6 months after our marriage, and then trying to get our son back to live with us. My wife has jumped through all the new hoops and is now a naturalise UK citizen! She is 55.

The Immigration Laws need to recognise that an indigenous citizen marrying a foreigner has the right to live in peace in his own country with his, albeit new, family without interference by the state. This is, after all, an Article 8 of the ECHR directive, and is, sadly, broken continuously by the UK Home Office.

Why is this idea important?

I am a 71 year old indigenous citizen of the UK and an old age pensioner. I was widowed in 2002, and met and married a Russian widow in 2004 who was living in this country. I have a 27 year old stepson who has been receiving our financial support since we sent him back to Russia six years ago having been brought into the UK illegally by his elder brother when a 17 year old shortly after the death of their natural father.We have been trying to get the young man back to the UK to live with me and his mother as our dependant (and with NO resorting to welfare benefits) for the last three years trying to use the legal channels – i.e. visa applications etc.. It has all been a waste of time and cost a lot of money from my pensions!Attending immigration appeal tribunals is like being in a foreign country, with NO participant with any understanding of my own indigenous culture!

The Immigration rules as they are today were never meant by the legislature to break up the families of genuine indigenous citizens who marry foreigners and take on the family commitments associated with such a covenant. Their real reasons were to prevent mass colonisation of the UK by foreign families particularly from past  'Empire' states in Africa and Asia. However, in order to be 'just in a democratic society', the rules are applied to an indigenous citizen equally with no discrimination, despite the fact that the non-indigenous citizen does have a choice of domicile, usually another continent with definitely better weather! In all the New World countries, laws are passed which DO discriminate in favour of indigenous citizens where appropriate. Examples of this can be seen in the whole of the North and South American continents as well as Australia and New Zealand. 

Presently I am living in another European state and I have residential status there. I have abandoned my fully paid up home – except, of course I must still pay the Council Tax etc.., and I have rented a small apartment. The reason for this is that in other parts of the EU they are not so strict with their immigration rules and DO have such things in their statutes as 'Family Visit' or 'Family Re-unification' visas which permit family members to visit without the Gestapo techniques and prejudices visited on us by the UK Home Office. I have even taken up my Irish nationality(my father being born there), as I feel so strongly against the UK after over six years of battling with the Home Office, firstly with my wife, who was deported 6 months after our marriage, and then trying to get our son back to live with us. My wife has jumped through all the new hoops and is now a naturalise UK citizen! She is 55.

The Immigration Laws need to recognise that an indigenous citizen marrying a foreigner has the right to live in peace in his own country with his, albeit new, family without interference by the state. This is, after all, an Article 8 of the ECHR directive, and is, sadly, broken continuously by the UK Home Office.

pub smoking

ITs REDICULOUS  TO FORCE CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE JUST BECAUSE THEY SMOKE IN THE EARLY DAYS  PUBS HAD DIFFERENT ROOMS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE IE BAR / LOUNGE / SNUG / THE SMOKE  etc

SO WHY WONT THE GOVERMENT ALLOW SUCH THINGS NOW A SMOKE ROOM COULD BE SET ASIDE IN MOST PUBS TODAY AT LITTLE COST TO THE PUBS THEY COULD HAVE LARGE INTERNAL GLASS WINDOWS TO MAKE CUSTOMERS PART OF THE PUB WITHOUT IMPOSING THEIR SMOKE ON OTHERS

Why is this idea important?

ITs REDICULOUS  TO FORCE CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE JUST BECAUSE THEY SMOKE IN THE EARLY DAYS  PUBS HAD DIFFERENT ROOMS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE IE BAR / LOUNGE / SNUG / THE SMOKE  etc

SO WHY WONT THE GOVERMENT ALLOW SUCH THINGS NOW A SMOKE ROOM COULD BE SET ASIDE IN MOST PUBS TODAY AT LITTLE COST TO THE PUBS THEY COULD HAVE LARGE INTERNAL GLASS WINDOWS TO MAKE CUSTOMERS PART OF THE PUB WITHOUT IMPOSING THEIR SMOKE ON OTHERS

Repeal new law or intention of giving councils greater power and control

The prime minister, it has been reported,now intends to give greater power to the councils, local government over us, the public. They already have too much already and have often tyrannically misused their power when it suits their interests against our, the public's interests. Also I thought that it was David Cameron's idea to give power back to the people from local if not central government, so why the about turn on a good idea and the promise of a start of true democracy and equality in the law. It is simply not fair to allow the perpetuation of tyranny in any and all of its forms. If a branch of government acts evilly or always from pure self interest and greed it must be iniquitous to allow its continued existence and also, I add, its tyranny!!

Why is this idea important?

The prime minister, it has been reported,now intends to give greater power to the councils, local government over us, the public. They already have too much already and have often tyrannically misused their power when it suits their interests against our, the public's interests. Also I thought that it was David Cameron's idea to give power back to the people from local if not central government, so why the about turn on a good idea and the promise of a start of true democracy and equality in the law. It is simply not fair to allow the perpetuation of tyranny in any and all of its forms. If a branch of government acts evilly or always from pure self interest and greed it must be iniquitous to allow its continued existence and also, I add, its tyranny!!

Communal homes for school age single parents

Young single parent mothers who have children out of a relationship should be placed in communal accommodation with communal kitchens and living rooms, support services like social workers, creches and life skill teachers. Most parents of these mothers throw the girls our of their home and they often fall onto the state for support. This is very expensive and placing these women onto often rundown estates creates future generations of state dependents as these women are given very little support to bring up their children properly.

Communal accommodation for those that require state help when they fall pregnant will allow for greater social cohesion than placing mothers in council accommodation on estates where they get little support with parenting skills and will be a perpetual burden on the estate and foster generational state dependency. Single mothers have to often perform a difficult role and they are poorly equipped due to their immaturity. This will allow for young women to regain independence by providing support for continuing in education or vocational training so that they can stand on their own two feet and move out when they have the means to do so, without having a dependency on the state. Private companies could take over this role and be paid bonuses for each woman who moves out to work and support themselves, incentivising the private company to provide real help to these women. The community atmosphere would be nurturing and each woman could lend each other advice and support and this would allow for them to regain a sense of dignity and community as most young girls become excluded from most of their school friends when they become single parents. 

Why is this idea important?

Young single parent mothers who have children out of a relationship should be placed in communal accommodation with communal kitchens and living rooms, support services like social workers, creches and life skill teachers. Most parents of these mothers throw the girls our of their home and they often fall onto the state for support. This is very expensive and placing these women onto often rundown estates creates future generations of state dependents as these women are given very little support to bring up their children properly.

Communal accommodation for those that require state help when they fall pregnant will allow for greater social cohesion than placing mothers in council accommodation on estates where they get little support with parenting skills and will be a perpetual burden on the estate and foster generational state dependency. Single mothers have to often perform a difficult role and they are poorly equipped due to their immaturity. This will allow for young women to regain independence by providing support for continuing in education or vocational training so that they can stand on their own two feet and move out when they have the means to do so, without having a dependency on the state. Private companies could take over this role and be paid bonuses for each woman who moves out to work and support themselves, incentivising the private company to provide real help to these women. The community atmosphere would be nurturing and each woman could lend each other advice and support and this would allow for them to regain a sense of dignity and community as most young girls become excluded from most of their school friends when they become single parents. 

prisoners paying back the country

Send life time prisoners out to serve their country, put them in the army.Make them serve their sentance by fighting for the country they live in.Make short term prisoners clean the streets, help the community, clean graffittit ect.

Why is this idea important?

Send life time prisoners out to serve their country, put them in the army.Make them serve their sentance by fighting for the country they live in.Make short term prisoners clean the streets, help the community, clean graffittit ect.

Museum Entry Charges

It's great the institutions such as the Science Museum are free to enter, but it's clear that they could do with more funding (or less taxpayer input). So why not allow all UK taxpayers or citizens enter free of charge upon presentation of suitable ID and place an entry charge on all others. It's common throughout the rest of the world, so why not here?

Why is this idea important?

It's great the institutions such as the Science Museum are free to enter, but it's clear that they could do with more funding (or less taxpayer input). So why not allow all UK taxpayers or citizens enter free of charge upon presentation of suitable ID and place an entry charge on all others. It's common throughout the rest of the world, so why not here?

That those ideas which have received the most votes and comments specifically as regards the smoking ban) should not be dismissed in the new version.

On 1st July 2010, one W HOG introduced and ‘’idea’ which he entitled “Repeal and Change the Smoking Ban”. Since then, at today’s date, there have been 978 comments and 1178 votes. The comments are very largely repeat contributions, but the vast majority of the votes must surely be single, individual votes.

Most pollsters would be happy to agree that such a large number of people would provide a view of the opinion of the public with around 90-95% confidence. Thus we can say that some 60% of the people agree with the motion.

 

However, the Your Freedom site has been deliberately set up in its voting system to disallow such a conclusion since there is no possibility of voting ‘against’ the idea – you either vote a little bit ‘for’ or you vote a lot ‘for’ (one star up to five stars). Nevertheless, most people who dislike an idea vote ‘one star’ – meaning that they do not rate it, and so I think that it is reasonable to say that the majority of voters favour the ‘idea’ that the Smoking Ban should be amended at least – 60% of voters ‘rate’ the idea a good one. Also, we should note another similar idea: “ ‘Ban’ smoking ban in pubs……give landlord choice….” This idea had 413 comments and 859 votes. In this case, the vote was 80% rated as good. Also, there have been dozens of others, also rated over 80%.

 

The confidence level of the statistics indicates that the matter of an amendment to the ban is important to the people. In the consideration of the results of the consultation, these facts should be recognised.

 

Since the Smoking Ban, pub closures have accelerated. They have accelerated in turn, one after another, in Ireland, Scotland and England-and-Wales. In the face of such evidence, it is a travesty of reality for ASH to claim that their statement in 2003/4, that pub business would increase by leaps and bounds if smoking was banned, was anything other than a downright lie.  We must also bear in mind that ASH and Co were financed and directed by the unelected Professors of Physicianism who took over the Department of Health some years ago. 

Why is this idea important?

On 1st July 2010, one W HOG introduced and ‘’idea’ which he entitled “Repeal and Change the Smoking Ban”. Since then, at today’s date, there have been 978 comments and 1178 votes. The comments are very largely repeat contributions, but the vast majority of the votes must surely be single, individual votes.

Most pollsters would be happy to agree that such a large number of people would provide a view of the opinion of the public with around 90-95% confidence. Thus we can say that some 60% of the people agree with the motion.

 

However, the Your Freedom site has been deliberately set up in its voting system to disallow such a conclusion since there is no possibility of voting ‘against’ the idea – you either vote a little bit ‘for’ or you vote a lot ‘for’ (one star up to five stars). Nevertheless, most people who dislike an idea vote ‘one star’ – meaning that they do not rate it, and so I think that it is reasonable to say that the majority of voters favour the ‘idea’ that the Smoking Ban should be amended at least – 60% of voters ‘rate’ the idea a good one. Also, we should note another similar idea: “ ‘Ban’ smoking ban in pubs……give landlord choice….” This idea had 413 comments and 859 votes. In this case, the vote was 80% rated as good. Also, there have been dozens of others, also rated over 80%.

 

The confidence level of the statistics indicates that the matter of an amendment to the ban is important to the people. In the consideration of the results of the consultation, these facts should be recognised.

 

Since the Smoking Ban, pub closures have accelerated. They have accelerated in turn, one after another, in Ireland, Scotland and England-and-Wales. In the face of such evidence, it is a travesty of reality for ASH to claim that their statement in 2003/4, that pub business would increase by leaps and bounds if smoking was banned, was anything other than a downright lie.  We must also bear in mind that ASH and Co were financed and directed by the unelected Professors of Physicianism who took over the Department of Health some years ago. 

Reduce restrictions for dog-owners in shops, restaurants and pubs

The presence of dogs in a pub or other food eating area is no more unhygienic than the people that enter, yet dogs are banned willy-nilly from many pubs and eating-places. This reduces usage and therefore undermines the viability of the premises. I have dined in France with the owners' dogs resting their heads on my knee in restaurants, and have suffered no ill-effects. The over-regulation of food and drink premises is a major nonsense, but pales into insignificance as a lunacy when a sports shop claims that dogs are not allowed on grounds of health and safety.

Cut the red tape and make the premises the responsibility of the owner, not a local authority employee.

Why is this idea important?

The presence of dogs in a pub or other food eating area is no more unhygienic than the people that enter, yet dogs are banned willy-nilly from many pubs and eating-places. This reduces usage and therefore undermines the viability of the premises. I have dined in France with the owners' dogs resting their heads on my knee in restaurants, and have suffered no ill-effects. The over-regulation of food and drink premises is a major nonsense, but pales into insignificance as a lunacy when a sports shop claims that dogs are not allowed on grounds of health and safety.

Cut the red tape and make the premises the responsibility of the owner, not a local authority employee.

Local Council Fines

Remove the ability for local councils to fine people for:

Putting their bins out on the wrong day,

Having a slightly open bin lid

Not putting the right waste in the correct bin

And basically, for using draconian powers to scare homeowners into blind unquestioning obedience

Why is this idea important?

Remove the ability for local councils to fine people for:

Putting their bins out on the wrong day,

Having a slightly open bin lid

Not putting the right waste in the correct bin

And basically, for using draconian powers to scare homeowners into blind unquestioning obedience

Use offenders on Community Service to increase recylcing levels and ensure that real work is done.

At my local recycling centre the majority of stuff brought in seems still to go to landfill because it is mixed (e.g. plastic and metal). In the third world recycling rates often approach 90% because of rubbish pickers who break just about everything into usable constituent parts. Clearly, with staff on at least minimum wage, it is not in the interest of most of the waste handling companies to, for example, separate the metal from the wood on an old trouser press I found in my loft – which went to landfill. But someone on  community service could have separateed the wood and the metal. Further, there has been a great deal of complaint about people on CS (community payback etc.) not actually doing anything. Rather than measuring hours of elapsed time which may or may not represent any real work, offenders could be sentenced to recover a certain weight, volume or value of material from items that would otherwise go to landfill. This would result in a fairer punishment (if you do no work, your "sentence" doesn't go down) , no loss of jobs at recycling sentence and a considerable reduction in materials going to landfill. With a nationwide scheme all kinds of materials could be collected that are currently not always used e.g. rag, type 5 plastic etc.

Why is this idea important?

At my local recycling centre the majority of stuff brought in seems still to go to landfill because it is mixed (e.g. plastic and metal). In the third world recycling rates often approach 90% because of rubbish pickers who break just about everything into usable constituent parts. Clearly, with staff on at least minimum wage, it is not in the interest of most of the waste handling companies to, for example, separate the metal from the wood on an old trouser press I found in my loft – which went to landfill. But someone on  community service could have separateed the wood and the metal. Further, there has been a great deal of complaint about people on CS (community payback etc.) not actually doing anything. Rather than measuring hours of elapsed time which may or may not represent any real work, offenders could be sentenced to recover a certain weight, volume or value of material from items that would otherwise go to landfill. This would result in a fairer punishment (if you do no work, your "sentence" doesn't go down) , no loss of jobs at recycling sentence and a considerable reduction in materials going to landfill. With a nationwide scheme all kinds of materials could be collected that are currently not always used e.g. rag, type 5 plastic etc.

Victims and restorative justice

All victims, whether or not a successful conviction is achieved, should be offered the chance of restorative justice. Equally, offenders should be given the chance to 'say sorry' to the people they have harmed. This should take place as a separate issue from the criminal justice system.

Restorative justice should be expanded early throughout the schooling system-people should be accountable for their own actions and realise their actions may often impact on others. victims may go on to become offenders-angry and with no voice-its the oldest trick in the book-you hurt me and i'll hurt you back.

Restorative justice is one of the few ways victims can truly be "at the heart of the criminal justice system"

There are many "silent victims" out there-just think of the number of rapes and sexual assaults that go unreported

Why is this idea important?

All victims, whether or not a successful conviction is achieved, should be offered the chance of restorative justice. Equally, offenders should be given the chance to 'say sorry' to the people they have harmed. This should take place as a separate issue from the criminal justice system.

Restorative justice should be expanded early throughout the schooling system-people should be accountable for their own actions and realise their actions may often impact on others. victims may go on to become offenders-angry and with no voice-its the oldest trick in the book-you hurt me and i'll hurt you back.

Restorative justice is one of the few ways victims can truly be "at the heart of the criminal justice system"

There are many "silent victims" out there-just think of the number of rapes and sexual assaults that go unreported

Curb Local Authority spending

One of the most basic freedoms is the freedom to spend your own money on whateverr you, personally, want.  Many local authorities arrogate this right to themselves, by imposing higher council tax to pay for the schemes wanted by small pressure groups.  In my area the town council caved in to demands froma small number of people for a civic theatre/arts centre.  In a referendum they won by about 1%, so since then the council has spent over £1,000,000 of taxpayers' money building and subsidising the place.  It is time this kind of thing was brought to an end – local authorities should be restircted in how much money they can spend on activitites that they are not legally required to carry out.  I would opt for a return to the old measure, one old penny in every pound of rates was the maximum allowed for "nice to have" spending.  Repeal and/or amend the legislation that set local authorities free to spend whatever they want on whatever they like.  Perhaps replace it with a standard of 1p in every £1 of council tax raised – much more generous than the old measure – but allow higher spending if, and only if, it is approved by a 75% majority of those entitled to vote in council elections.  That would bring them roughly into line with the requirments for extraordinary spending by private copanies, which have to get shareholder approval for such things as takeovers.

Why is this idea important?

One of the most basic freedoms is the freedom to spend your own money on whateverr you, personally, want.  Many local authorities arrogate this right to themselves, by imposing higher council tax to pay for the schemes wanted by small pressure groups.  In my area the town council caved in to demands froma small number of people for a civic theatre/arts centre.  In a referendum they won by about 1%, so since then the council has spent over £1,000,000 of taxpayers' money building and subsidising the place.  It is time this kind of thing was brought to an end – local authorities should be restircted in how much money they can spend on activitites that they are not legally required to carry out.  I would opt for a return to the old measure, one old penny in every pound of rates was the maximum allowed for "nice to have" spending.  Repeal and/or amend the legislation that set local authorities free to spend whatever they want on whatever they like.  Perhaps replace it with a standard of 1p in every £1 of council tax raised – much more generous than the old measure – but allow higher spending if, and only if, it is approved by a 75% majority of those entitled to vote in council elections.  That would bring them roughly into line with the requirments for extraordinary spending by private copanies, which have to get shareholder approval for such things as takeovers.

Fundamental Prison Reform

Before I start, I have to make it clear: 

There are some prisoners who will never be reformed. 

There are some who cannot be released, for the safety of the public. 

There are some who shouldn’t be released, due to the nature of the crime/s. 

Having said all that, apart from keeping those incarcerated away from the general public – and in that way helping to reduce crime – Prison fails miserably in its role of reforming those who repeatedly offend (those whom the general public have in mind, when they use the word ‘criminal’) 

So what’s wrong? 

For all the ‘offending behaviour’ courses – nothing changes. Because they have never learned … how to learn.  ‘Offending behaviour’ courses – to those who really need them –  are like trying to teach a ten year old the theory of relativity – in a foreign language. 

Many will take on a GCSE course, hoping to turn around their lives. Sadly, out of 40 or so pupils who sign up for a GCSE English course, maybe ten will finished it and pass. Of that ten, I doubt more than two will actually need it. Most will be relatively successful in their lives outside, having been convicted relatively late in life, after being involved in one-off offences. 

The other 30 who will have dropped out, are the ones who did need it. But they’ll invariably suffer from short attention spans; poor concentration. They’ll become bored because they can’t overcome even the most trivial obstacles, and feel they’re being left behind. Then they’ll try and regain control and save face – by storming out and quitting. Then the cycle of failure – poor self image – low expectations – re-offending becomes reinforced. 

Suppose that, instead of the ridiculous and easily manipulated route to parole or early release being gained by ‘showing remorse’ (For all the good that does anyone?) the early release – or parole, for sentences of 4 years and over – was earned – by the gaining of useful qualifications that would stand them in good stead with an employer – particularly GCSE English and GCSE Maths. 

And to make it a goal worth aiming for – alter the time of parole/early release earned proportional to the level of qualification achieved, from a minimum of, say, one third (less than that awarded now) up to a maximum of two thirds, (More than it is now) and as it was prior to the changes made in 1992  (which did little to reduce crime.)

Why is this idea important?

Before I start, I have to make it clear: 

There are some prisoners who will never be reformed. 

There are some who cannot be released, for the safety of the public. 

There are some who shouldn’t be released, due to the nature of the crime/s. 

Having said all that, apart from keeping those incarcerated away from the general public – and in that way helping to reduce crime – Prison fails miserably in its role of reforming those who repeatedly offend (those whom the general public have in mind, when they use the word ‘criminal’) 

So what’s wrong? 

For all the ‘offending behaviour’ courses – nothing changes. Because they have never learned … how to learn.  ‘Offending behaviour’ courses – to those who really need them –  are like trying to teach a ten year old the theory of relativity – in a foreign language. 

Many will take on a GCSE course, hoping to turn around their lives. Sadly, out of 40 or so pupils who sign up for a GCSE English course, maybe ten will finished it and pass. Of that ten, I doubt more than two will actually need it. Most will be relatively successful in their lives outside, having been convicted relatively late in life, after being involved in one-off offences. 

The other 30 who will have dropped out, are the ones who did need it. But they’ll invariably suffer from short attention spans; poor concentration. They’ll become bored because they can’t overcome even the most trivial obstacles, and feel they’re being left behind. Then they’ll try and regain control and save face – by storming out and quitting. Then the cycle of failure – poor self image – low expectations – re-offending becomes reinforced. 

Suppose that, instead of the ridiculous and easily manipulated route to parole or early release being gained by ‘showing remorse’ (For all the good that does anyone?) the early release – or parole, for sentences of 4 years and over – was earned – by the gaining of useful qualifications that would stand them in good stead with an employer – particularly GCSE English and GCSE Maths. 

And to make it a goal worth aiming for – alter the time of parole/early release earned proportional to the level of qualification achieved, from a minimum of, say, one third (less than that awarded now) up to a maximum of two thirds, (More than it is now) and as it was prior to the changes made in 1992  (which did little to reduce crime.)

Help Property Investors

The world of property investment has long been the source of personal wealth for many and a driving force in the economy. Recent changes to the Council of Mortgage Lenders guidelines has meant traditional property investors have been "shut out" and the only lending is being given to those that can fulfil the requirements of the Council of Mortgage Lender's Check List i.e. owner/occupiers.

This needs to be stopped right now. If I buy a car that is worth £20,000 for £10,000 and sell it for £20,000, no one bats an eyelid. But if I buy a house for £100,000 that is actually worth £150,000, I'm not allowed to sell that house for six months and even then, the sale price would be governed by the fact that I paid £100,000 for it. Valuers should be trained to value properties for what they are actually worth using type of construction, square footage, part of town, local amenities, schools, hospitals, accessibility for commuting, etc, not relying solely on local area comparisons. They should certainly be totally independent of the lenders (None of this "Times are tough. Devalue everything by 10%" that was going on two years ago).

As we (the taxpayers) still own a large proprtion of the lending institutions, we should force these lenders to provide one or two good quality mortgage products aimed at investors. (Whilst the bank base rate was down around half-a-percent, many buy to let mortgages were still running at around 7%. It's no wonder these organizations recovered as quickly as they did!) These mortgage products should take into account that a good entrepreneur can actually buy a property at one price one day and it is worth much more, even as the sale at that lower price is going through. If we wait until everyone fits into the CML criteria, we won't have a property investment industry to speak of.

Why is this idea important?

The world of property investment has long been the source of personal wealth for many and a driving force in the economy. Recent changes to the Council of Mortgage Lenders guidelines has meant traditional property investors have been "shut out" and the only lending is being given to those that can fulfil the requirements of the Council of Mortgage Lender's Check List i.e. owner/occupiers.

This needs to be stopped right now. If I buy a car that is worth £20,000 for £10,000 and sell it for £20,000, no one bats an eyelid. But if I buy a house for £100,000 that is actually worth £150,000, I'm not allowed to sell that house for six months and even then, the sale price would be governed by the fact that I paid £100,000 for it. Valuers should be trained to value properties for what they are actually worth using type of construction, square footage, part of town, local amenities, schools, hospitals, accessibility for commuting, etc, not relying solely on local area comparisons. They should certainly be totally independent of the lenders (None of this "Times are tough. Devalue everything by 10%" that was going on two years ago).

As we (the taxpayers) still own a large proprtion of the lending institutions, we should force these lenders to provide one or two good quality mortgage products aimed at investors. (Whilst the bank base rate was down around half-a-percent, many buy to let mortgages were still running at around 7%. It's no wonder these organizations recovered as quickly as they did!) These mortgage products should take into account that a good entrepreneur can actually buy a property at one price one day and it is worth much more, even as the sale at that lower price is going through. If we wait until everyone fits into the CML criteria, we won't have a property investment industry to speak of.

Cutting down on the number of road users

This is going to sound a bit draconian and I can hardly believe I'm about to write this. There are a huge number of vehicles on the road that are only used for very short journeys where public transport or (dare I say) walking would be as effective. The problem is that we are being squeezed on prices of vehicles, price of fuel, increased congestion. It hurts but we soon adjust to the pain. What we need is a system where people have to make a deliberate and life changing committment to own and run a car, and they need to make this committment every year.

What I propose is that the government take all tax off of fuel and abolish the road fund license. Instead, replace it with a single "Personal Transport Tax" and a "Commercial Transport Tax" of approximately £10,000 per year and £15,000 per year respectively. For those road users whose business and livelihood depends on their vehicle, there wouldbe a break-even point of say 25,000 for personal vehicles and 35,000 per year for commercial vehicles where their motoring under this new scheme costs about the same as it did under the old scheme. Therefore, people who NEED to use vehicles will be largely unaffected.

However, the rest of us would need to make a decision every year – "Will I get £10,000 worth of use out my vehicle this year?" Most will agree that they will not. You can get a lot of taxis, buses and trains for £10,000 per year. This will drive more people and more money ontoi the public transport system and we can stop subsidizing them with tax payers money. Where there is more money in public transport, competition will appear driving the service quality up. Everyone's a winner. Personnaly, if I had to make that decision right now, I could only justify having one car and that one car does about 40,000 miles per year. The other car would have to go. I think a lot of people would feel the same way.

Why is this idea important?

This is going to sound a bit draconian and I can hardly believe I'm about to write this. There are a huge number of vehicles on the road that are only used for very short journeys where public transport or (dare I say) walking would be as effective. The problem is that we are being squeezed on prices of vehicles, price of fuel, increased congestion. It hurts but we soon adjust to the pain. What we need is a system where people have to make a deliberate and life changing committment to own and run a car, and they need to make this committment every year.

What I propose is that the government take all tax off of fuel and abolish the road fund license. Instead, replace it with a single "Personal Transport Tax" and a "Commercial Transport Tax" of approximately £10,000 per year and £15,000 per year respectively. For those road users whose business and livelihood depends on their vehicle, there wouldbe a break-even point of say 25,000 for personal vehicles and 35,000 per year for commercial vehicles where their motoring under this new scheme costs about the same as it did under the old scheme. Therefore, people who NEED to use vehicles will be largely unaffected.

However, the rest of us would need to make a decision every year – "Will I get £10,000 worth of use out my vehicle this year?" Most will agree that they will not. You can get a lot of taxis, buses and trains for £10,000 per year. This will drive more people and more money ontoi the public transport system and we can stop subsidizing them with tax payers money. Where there is more money in public transport, competition will appear driving the service quality up. Everyone's a winner. Personnaly, if I had to make that decision right now, I could only justify having one car and that one car does about 40,000 miles per year. The other car would have to go. I think a lot of people would feel the same way.

Policing: Reducing Paperwork

I recently had cause to have to report a crime to the Met Police: the two officers who attended were the very image of professionalism but it was pointed out to me, after the box ticking and long-hand writing of a statement for me to sign, that this would need to be typed up when they returned to their station. 

It strikes me that where Ocado, Sainsbury and others can use PDAs, why can't the local constabulary? This would halve the amount of effort necessary and get more police back on the beat serving the public. 

Why is this idea important?

I recently had cause to have to report a crime to the Met Police: the two officers who attended were the very image of professionalism but it was pointed out to me, after the box ticking and long-hand writing of a statement for me to sign, that this would need to be typed up when they returned to their station. 

It strikes me that where Ocado, Sainsbury and others can use PDAs, why can't the local constabulary? This would halve the amount of effort necessary and get more police back on the beat serving the public. 

“DOES the UK uphold its covenants with the EU Conventions?”

On recent inspection and experience the answers are …. UNANSWERED! The following text is quoted literally, and grounded in factual evidence, not confabulations of the mind.

The IDEA is very old, it is about the quality and essence of Justice, as apparently enshrined in Magna Carta (40), and Paragraph 6 of he UK Human Rights Act 1988, which relates to Article 1, and the remainder of the Articles we are allegedly upholding.

The question is not rhetorical, and almost ridiculously easy to understand.

Here it is, it has been swimming, better perhaps – circumlocuting, around circles in the Lower and Upper Tribunals, ending up with the Ministry of Justice at Petty France, There is a certain adjectival quality underlined that's relevant, where one would expect the question to be answered with righteous indignation, but clearly the process is inured so that no person as yet recognises its importance for the individual. This is a sample, and there is worse experienced at the Royal Court's of Justice.

I wonder if you are interested. It's about the individual.

The text is a literal quote from the Tribunal Manager, re-quoting my question, which has been lying around these past two years.

'I am writing to you as the tribunal manager of the Upper Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Chamber. I have seen the response that you have
been sent by B….. P.. in regards to the internal review of your freedom
of information request. Within this response it states the
administration of the Upper Tribunal will respond to the following
questions:

"DOES the UK uphold its covenants with the EU Conventions?"

If the answer is NO or silence then no need to answer the next, you have
just answered article 10, to publish all, where you deny article 6.

WILL I EVER get a hearing?" [ Let alone an independent and impartial one whose qualities are luminescent, this one has been floating since the beginning of this year. ]

As an administrator I am unable to answer these questions and I have
referred them to a legal officer in order to help with my response.

This has been disparately predicated in a/an [L] awful mess, by several judges, lastly whose decisions were unsigned, and the contrarieties internally so inconsistent as to contradict themselves from one sentence to another, the First Judges was an impossibility.

Why is this idea important?

On recent inspection and experience the answers are …. UNANSWERED! The following text is quoted literally, and grounded in factual evidence, not confabulations of the mind.

The IDEA is very old, it is about the quality and essence of Justice, as apparently enshrined in Magna Carta (40), and Paragraph 6 of he UK Human Rights Act 1988, which relates to Article 1, and the remainder of the Articles we are allegedly upholding.

The question is not rhetorical, and almost ridiculously easy to understand.

Here it is, it has been swimming, better perhaps – circumlocuting, around circles in the Lower and Upper Tribunals, ending up with the Ministry of Justice at Petty France, There is a certain adjectival quality underlined that's relevant, where one would expect the question to be answered with righteous indignation, but clearly the process is inured so that no person as yet recognises its importance for the individual. This is a sample, and there is worse experienced at the Royal Court's of Justice.

I wonder if you are interested. It's about the individual.

The text is a literal quote from the Tribunal Manager, re-quoting my question, which has been lying around these past two years.

'I am writing to you as the tribunal manager of the Upper Tribunal
Administrative Appeals Chamber. I have seen the response that you have
been sent by B….. P.. in regards to the internal review of your freedom
of information request. Within this response it states the
administration of the Upper Tribunal will respond to the following
questions:

"DOES the UK uphold its covenants with the EU Conventions?"

If the answer is NO or silence then no need to answer the next, you have
just answered article 10, to publish all, where you deny article 6.

WILL I EVER get a hearing?" [ Let alone an independent and impartial one whose qualities are luminescent, this one has been floating since the beginning of this year. ]

As an administrator I am unable to answer these questions and I have
referred them to a legal officer in order to help with my response.

This has been disparately predicated in a/an [L] awful mess, by several judges, lastly whose decisions were unsigned, and the contrarieties internally so inconsistent as to contradict themselves from one sentence to another, the First Judges was an impossibility.

Build new prisons where employment is needed most

If new prisons are required to replace old uneconomic prisons it is common sense to build them in areas where employment is needed most. A 1500 place prison is said to provide over a thousand jobs, in a depressed area such as parts of Wales that would be a thousand people off of benefits and be a major boost to the regeneration of the area.

I note that the MOJ are currently pursuing a rural site in Runwell, Essex, a site earmarked in the LDF as a housing site. Runwell is in an area that does not need regeneration as it has reasonably high employment. To my certain knowledge i know that the leader of the overseeing council of Chelmsford has written personally to the Minister of Justice Mr. Blunt stating that fact, (And this despite the fact that the MOJ are offering a £20 million sweetener in return for outline planning permission)

In this time of belt tightening it does not make economic sense to force such a development on a green belt site where it is not wanted, when depressed areas would welcome the development with open arms and a £20 Million sweetener would not be required.

regards john wiles

Why is this idea important?

If new prisons are required to replace old uneconomic prisons it is common sense to build them in areas where employment is needed most. A 1500 place prison is said to provide over a thousand jobs, in a depressed area such as parts of Wales that would be a thousand people off of benefits and be a major boost to the regeneration of the area.

I note that the MOJ are currently pursuing a rural site in Runwell, Essex, a site earmarked in the LDF as a housing site. Runwell is in an area that does not need regeneration as it has reasonably high employment. To my certain knowledge i know that the leader of the overseeing council of Chelmsford has written personally to the Minister of Justice Mr. Blunt stating that fact, (And this despite the fact that the MOJ are offering a £20 million sweetener in return for outline planning permission)

In this time of belt tightening it does not make economic sense to force such a development on a green belt site where it is not wanted, when depressed areas would welcome the development with open arms and a £20 Million sweetener would not be required.

regards john wiles

Stop Family allowance for people earning more than 50k

I think family allowance should be stoped for people earning more than 50k

I also think that family allowance should be stopped after 2 children

i think that people coming from abroad who use the nhs or hospitals should have to pay or use insurance like we do when we go abroad. 

 

Why is this idea important?

I think family allowance should be stoped for people earning more than 50k

I also think that family allowance should be stopped after 2 children

i think that people coming from abroad who use the nhs or hospitals should have to pay or use insurance like we do when we go abroad. 

 

Smoking in Public Places bill

i think they should amend this law so that if a property wishs to have a smoking section indoor so be it.

A lot of pub/clubs have shut down becuase of this stupid bill all becuase a small amount of Doo Gooders complained.

People have a choice where they sit in a pub they dont ahve to sit in the smoking section if they dont want too..

People in this country have turned into a nation of whiners

Why is this idea important?

i think they should amend this law so that if a property wishs to have a smoking section indoor so be it.

A lot of pub/clubs have shut down becuase of this stupid bill all becuase a small amount of Doo Gooders complained.

People have a choice where they sit in a pub they dont ahve to sit in the smoking section if they dont want too..

People in this country have turned into a nation of whiners