A series of proposals to reform the necessary yet currently overbearing Racial Hatred provisions of the Public Order Act 1986

"Black/white/hispanic/asian community representatives are not currently doing enough to help tackle youth crime within their respective communities".

Unfortunately under the current wording of the Public Order Act 1986, a temperately worded statement of the kind above would place whoever uttered it at serious risk of arrest – even if if the intention behind such words was simply to engage the attention of revelant community representatives to bring about the changes which only they can effectively provide at a grass roots level. However, the Public Order Act 1986 currently proscribes arrest for "Threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to stir up hatred", and therefore, innocent motives are not always protected. The above statement could be considered "insulting", and might even be deemed "likely to stir up hatred" in certain circumstances – but should I be held liable for this? Such an objective test leaves all kinds of public discourse liable to arrest despite the innocent (albeit perhaps misguided) intentions of the speaker. I don't believe a pluralist, democratic society should be prosecuting its citizens for temperate criticism with innocent motives, and I believe a better balance would be as follows:

In the subjective part of these provisions, "insulting, abusive or threatening words intended to stir up hatred" should remain on the statute book as is currently the case

However, vis-a-vis the objective test of "likely to stir up hatred", only "threatening or abusive words" should be arrestable.

This way, temperate criticism with innocent motives of the kind I outlined at the start would be protected, yet those untrue allegations against the whole community could be continued to be dealt with under the threatening provision, and racial slurs/seriously inflammatory adjectives under the abusive threashold, without having to prove that the speaker intended to be threatening or intended to be abusive.

This seems like a more reasonable balance if we are to prevent convictions similar to that which befell Shirley Brown in June of this year, a black councillor from Bristol who was found guilty of using words "likely to incite racial hatred" when she called another black councillor a coconut (imputing that she was really white on the inside). This may be insulting, but should such insult be prosecuted if the speaker didn't intend to incite racial hatred? To my mind, it should not.

Why is this idea important?

"Black/white/hispanic/asian community representatives are not currently doing enough to help tackle youth crime within their respective communities".

Unfortunately under the current wording of the Public Order Act 1986, a temperately worded statement of the kind above would place whoever uttered it at serious risk of arrest – even if if the intention behind such words was simply to engage the attention of revelant community representatives to bring about the changes which only they can effectively provide at a grass roots level. However, the Public Order Act 1986 currently proscribes arrest for "Threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to stir up hatred", and therefore, innocent motives are not always protected. The above statement could be considered "insulting", and might even be deemed "likely to stir up hatred" in certain circumstances – but should I be held liable for this? Such an objective test leaves all kinds of public discourse liable to arrest despite the innocent (albeit perhaps misguided) intentions of the speaker. I don't believe a pluralist, democratic society should be prosecuting its citizens for temperate criticism with innocent motives, and I believe a better balance would be as follows:

In the subjective part of these provisions, "insulting, abusive or threatening words intended to stir up hatred" should remain on the statute book as is currently the case

However, vis-a-vis the objective test of "likely to stir up hatred", only "threatening or abusive words" should be arrestable.

This way, temperate criticism with innocent motives of the kind I outlined at the start would be protected, yet those untrue allegations against the whole community could be continued to be dealt with under the threatening provision, and racial slurs/seriously inflammatory adjectives under the abusive threashold, without having to prove that the speaker intended to be threatening or intended to be abusive.

This seems like a more reasonable balance if we are to prevent convictions similar to that which befell Shirley Brown in June of this year, a black councillor from Bristol who was found guilty of using words "likely to incite racial hatred" when she called another black councillor a coconut (imputing that she was really white on the inside). This may be insulting, but should such insult be prosecuted if the speaker didn't intend to incite racial hatred? To my mind, it should not.

freedom from pain.

I have lupus which is a chronic  long term illness. My sister died of this disease. I have a rash which has gotten worse over time It is extremely sore and is keeping me awake at night. My GP will not give me any treatment until i ihave seen a dermatologist. I have waited six weeks to see a dermatologist only to have my appointment cancelled because the dermatologist left. I now have to wait to be referred to another dermatologist. This is intolerable. I have even turned up at A&E and they would not treat me although they will treat drunks.  

Why is this idea important?

I have lupus which is a chronic  long term illness. My sister died of this disease. I have a rash which has gotten worse over time It is extremely sore and is keeping me awake at night. My GP will not give me any treatment until i ihave seen a dermatologist. I have waited six weeks to see a dermatologist only to have my appointment cancelled because the dermatologist left. I now have to wait to be referred to another dermatologist. This is intolerable. I have even turned up at A&E and they would not treat me although they will treat drunks.  

HOW TO FIX BRITIAN ,HOW TO FIX THE WORLD

actually before i waste my time does anybody read this and where does it post for what i have to say is controversial, informative and very implementable with nothing but absolute public backing  ,id win an election with such a policy  implementing it might be another story.

how to save 100 billion pounds and more and get a 97% approval rating in one term of office

im anglo american cultured so ive had a good laugh and a cry over the circus acts of the political spectrum of both countrys over the last 30 years 

are either of you actually of the people by the people for the people?

why does nobody ever actually do what they said they would do that got them in office in the first place  is there some other power that actually runs the show?

let me answer that for you ………………………..absolutely but in this country its rare they assasinate you  when you dont tow the line

Why is this idea important?

actually before i waste my time does anybody read this and where does it post for what i have to say is controversial, informative and very implementable with nothing but absolute public backing  ,id win an election with such a policy  implementing it might be another story.

how to save 100 billion pounds and more and get a 97% approval rating in one term of office

im anglo american cultured so ive had a good laugh and a cry over the circus acts of the political spectrum of both countrys over the last 30 years 

are either of you actually of the people by the people for the people?

why does nobody ever actually do what they said they would do that got them in office in the first place  is there some other power that actually runs the show?

let me answer that for you ………………………..absolutely but in this country its rare they assasinate you  when you dont tow the line

A Policeman Out Of Control: Drags A Woman Like A Tiny Rag Doll. Bastard.

To bring Britain's disfunctional police under some form of control and realisation that they represent the rule of law in a country that purports to be a democracy. A policeman is shown draging a distressed and helpless woman and tossing her into a cell as if she were a tiny rag doll. She was injured in more ways than stated. We must reform the police as a matter of urgency as one suspects that woman's treatment is the norm rather than  an occasional incident.

Why is this idea important?

To bring Britain's disfunctional police under some form of control and realisation that they represent the rule of law in a country that purports to be a democracy. A policeman is shown draging a distressed and helpless woman and tossing her into a cell as if she were a tiny rag doll. She was injured in more ways than stated. We must reform the police as a matter of urgency as one suspects that woman's treatment is the norm rather than  an occasional incident.

cannabisvote

put the use of cannabis to public vote.mr cameron you have tried it and now your pm.what harm has it done you..there is no control over it but there could be…..

,

Why is this idea important?

put the use of cannabis to public vote.mr cameron you have tried it and now your pm.what harm has it done you..there is no control over it but there could be…..

,

Councils use tax payers’ money for Union Activities

 

Make it illegal for councils and other public bodies to use tax payers' money for Union Activities

See "Taxpayers spend millions paying for trade union activities" at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7981717/Taxpayers-spend-millions-paying-for-trade-union-activities.html

Here are a few extracts:

Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is being used by public bodies to pay the salaries of trade union officials, an investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has found.

Local authorities across the country are allowing hundreds of their employees to devote all or part of their working week to union, rather than council, duties – while their salaries are paid from public funds.

A survey of 77 English councils by this newspaper found that they spent around £11 million last year on the salaries of individuals who were employed by the councils, but in fact spent their time on trade union duties. [Apparently the actual figure is believed to be far higher.]

The Town Hall payments are made under local agreements struck between each council and the unions that are represented among its workforce.

In some cases, council officials who are also union representatives are paid by the council to work full time for the union. In other cases, councils allow members of their staff to spend a proportion of their working week on union matters, while continuing to pay their full salaries from council funds.

Among the findings of the survey were that: a full-time representative of the Unison union is paid £52,000 a year by Enfield council, while a full-time GMB official at Tower Hamlets is paid £58,106 a year by the council.  The Town Hall payments are made under local agreements struck between each council and the unions that are represented among its workforce.

[Apparently companies like the BBC are equally misusing taxpayers' funds.]

A spokesman for the Local Government Association, which represents councils, said: "The law says that employers have to give staff reasonable time for union duties. It helps ensure good industrial relations."

 

Why is this idea important?

 

Make it illegal for councils and other public bodies to use tax payers' money for Union Activities

See "Taxpayers spend millions paying for trade union activities" at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7981717/Taxpayers-spend-millions-paying-for-trade-union-activities.html

Here are a few extracts:

Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is being used by public bodies to pay the salaries of trade union officials, an investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has found.

Local authorities across the country are allowing hundreds of their employees to devote all or part of their working week to union, rather than council, duties – while their salaries are paid from public funds.

A survey of 77 English councils by this newspaper found that they spent around £11 million last year on the salaries of individuals who were employed by the councils, but in fact spent their time on trade union duties. [Apparently the actual figure is believed to be far higher.]

The Town Hall payments are made under local agreements struck between each council and the unions that are represented among its workforce.

In some cases, council officials who are also union representatives are paid by the council to work full time for the union. In other cases, councils allow members of their staff to spend a proportion of their working week on union matters, while continuing to pay their full salaries from council funds.

Among the findings of the survey were that: a full-time representative of the Unison union is paid £52,000 a year by Enfield council, while a full-time GMB official at Tower Hamlets is paid £58,106 a year by the council.  The Town Hall payments are made under local agreements struck between each council and the unions that are represented among its workforce.

[Apparently companies like the BBC are equally misusing taxpayers' funds.]

A spokesman for the Local Government Association, which represents councils, said: "The law says that employers have to give staff reasonable time for union duties. It helps ensure good industrial relations."

 

Fools Gold

Hello, I am autistic. In real terms, day to day, this means that I am an annoying character. It is difficult to hold down a job because I am so rude and annoying. This rudeness is like a tick, similar to the uncontrolled swearing which is popluarised by tourettes people.

When I use cannabis, this problem goes aways and I am able to lead a normal productive life.

However, being autistic and poor, it is nearly impossible to maintain a decent supply.

Don't bother telling yourself that I am insane and that I don't know which medicines to take. Walk 38 years in my shoes if you want an opinion on my health, fitness, food and medical needs. If you don't believe me, google it. We are rude, but we are not liars.

We consider the restriction of our supply of medicine to be a hostile act towards us, peace-loving people who want nothing more than to be free to express our peaceful sides, whatever it takes.

We fear that that you wish to harm us with your laws. Therefore, all who support the criminalisation of Cannabis are Terrorists who are aiming their terror campaign at some of the most vulnerable members of your society.

While we are at it, the surest way to create terrorists is to restrict food and medicine supplies in someone else's county. Isn't that obvious?

Sorry to be so rude. Please hurry up with the medical research, don't let the cost put you off.

Draconian Drug laws are fuelling theft, murder, suicide and paranoia throughout the world. Please consider legalising all Drugs, or at least allow individual countries to decide for themselves.

Why is this idea important?

Hello, I am autistic. In real terms, day to day, this means that I am an annoying character. It is difficult to hold down a job because I am so rude and annoying. This rudeness is like a tick, similar to the uncontrolled swearing which is popluarised by tourettes people.

When I use cannabis, this problem goes aways and I am able to lead a normal productive life.

However, being autistic and poor, it is nearly impossible to maintain a decent supply.

Don't bother telling yourself that I am insane and that I don't know which medicines to take. Walk 38 years in my shoes if you want an opinion on my health, fitness, food and medical needs. If you don't believe me, google it. We are rude, but we are not liars.

We consider the restriction of our supply of medicine to be a hostile act towards us, peace-loving people who want nothing more than to be free to express our peaceful sides, whatever it takes.

We fear that that you wish to harm us with your laws. Therefore, all who support the criminalisation of Cannabis are Terrorists who are aiming their terror campaign at some of the most vulnerable members of your society.

While we are at it, the surest way to create terrorists is to restrict food and medicine supplies in someone else's county. Isn't that obvious?

Sorry to be so rude. Please hurry up with the medical research, don't let the cost put you off.

Draconian Drug laws are fuelling theft, murder, suicide and paranoia throughout the world. Please consider legalising all Drugs, or at least allow individual countries to decide for themselves.

Leave European Union

To restore democracy and freedom to this country only MPs at Westminster (and peers in House of Lords) should be allowed to make laws. No laws should be imposed on Westminster ( and therefore UK) by EU.

All acts taking us into European Union and binding us in from 1972 should be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

To restore democracy and freedom to this country only MPs at Westminster (and peers in House of Lords) should be allowed to make laws. No laws should be imposed on Westminster ( and therefore UK) by EU.

All acts taking us into European Union and binding us in from 1972 should be repealed.

Sentencing should mean what is said

If someone is jailed for 15 years they should serve 15 years to the day. If someone is fined £300 they should pay £300. If someone is given 100 hours of community service that's what they should do. No more no less. If the judge / magistrates want to take into account the potential of them behaving in prison just give them less.

Also if someone is say given a jail sentence of two years and a ban on driving for three the driving ban should start after their release from prison.

 

Why is this idea important?

If someone is jailed for 15 years they should serve 15 years to the day. If someone is fined £300 they should pay £300. If someone is given 100 hours of community service that's what they should do. No more no less. If the judge / magistrates want to take into account the potential of them behaving in prison just give them less.

Also if someone is say given a jail sentence of two years and a ban on driving for three the driving ban should start after their release from prison.

 

BAN SMOKING IN PRISONS

Smoking should be totally banned in all prisons – if you are convicted of an offence you shouldn't have the privelege of being able to smoke inside. A similar policy has led to a substantial cut in crime on the Isle of Man as word got around of teh new restrictions.

Why is this idea important?

Smoking should be totally banned in all prisons – if you are convicted of an offence you shouldn't have the privelege of being able to smoke inside. A similar policy has led to a substantial cut in crime on the Isle of Man as word got around of teh new restrictions.

Get rid of magistrates and have district judges only for minor trials

Why do we have magistrates?

Ever since anyone was allowed to become a magistrate you have to ask yourself whether they now do a good job as they have no clue about the law. The court clerks meant to help them are often no more clued up on the law or procedure.

All minor cases should instead come before a district judge who is trained and knows the law.

As well as being more efficient it should also save money in the long run with quicker justice and less poor decisions.

Judges are also undoubtedly more independent.

Why is this idea important?

Why do we have magistrates?

Ever since anyone was allowed to become a magistrate you have to ask yourself whether they now do a good job as they have no clue about the law. The court clerks meant to help them are often no more clued up on the law or procedure.

All minor cases should instead come before a district judge who is trained and knows the law.

As well as being more efficient it should also save money in the long run with quicker justice and less poor decisions.

Judges are also undoubtedly more independent.

Allow juries to do their own research

I believe that juries should be allowed to do their own research into any case that they are hearing and deciding on. If you are on a jury and have to decide on something then surely you should be allowed to investigate the facts yourself. One of the key reasons this wasn't possible before is that the courts weren't allowed to talk about previous convictions. Now, most previous convictions are unveiled to them anyway. So why shouldn't juries be allowed to do their own research into the evidence and facts in the case?

Why is this idea important?

I believe that juries should be allowed to do their own research into any case that they are hearing and deciding on. If you are on a jury and have to decide on something then surely you should be allowed to investigate the facts yourself. One of the key reasons this wasn't possible before is that the courts weren't allowed to talk about previous convictions. Now, most previous convictions are unveiled to them anyway. So why shouldn't juries be allowed to do their own research into the evidence and facts in the case?

Change the test of all courts to beyond any doubt whatsoever based on the evidence

I would like to see the test in all courts changed to "beyond any doubt whatsoever based on the evidence". I don't think the test of "on the balance of probabilities" is tough enough and leads to miscarriages of justice in the civil system. I also think that the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" in the criminal courts isn't tough enough. If people on the jury or a judge has any doubt at all then they shouldn't be convicting.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the test in all courts changed to "beyond any doubt whatsoever based on the evidence". I don't think the test of "on the balance of probabilities" is tough enough and leads to miscarriages of justice in the civil system. I also think that the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" in the criminal courts isn't tough enough. If people on the jury or a judge has any doubt at all then they shouldn't be convicting.

what child trust fund??

scrap the child trust fund scheme. millions of pounds go into trust funds for all our children, every day.  £2oo is a drop in the ocean to the many wealthy parents recieving this and they cannot just choose to not redeem the amount, it will just automatically go into a government chosen account. it hasnt been much help to the less fortunate of us, so far, either. i would love to know that there is a little nest-egg slowly growing into something substantial for my son (unfortunately my daughter missed out) but, every year when i get his annual statement there is less and less there. by the time he is old enough to cash in, there will be nothing left. i have not been able to add to it so far, but if i had, i dont think i would, after seeing the negative interest. anyway, shouldnt i be the one to decide how to save for my childrens future? stop this mad, fruitless giveaway and put the money saved to better use!

Why is this idea important?

scrap the child trust fund scheme. millions of pounds go into trust funds for all our children, every day.  £2oo is a drop in the ocean to the many wealthy parents recieving this and they cannot just choose to not redeem the amount, it will just automatically go into a government chosen account. it hasnt been much help to the less fortunate of us, so far, either. i would love to know that there is a little nest-egg slowly growing into something substantial for my son (unfortunately my daughter missed out) but, every year when i get his annual statement there is less and less there. by the time he is old enough to cash in, there will be nothing left. i have not been able to add to it so far, but if i had, i dont think i would, after seeing the negative interest. anyway, shouldnt i be the one to decide how to save for my childrens future? stop this mad, fruitless giveaway and put the money saved to better use!

Repeal laws which diminish parental responsibility

All laws which seek to diminish the right/duty of parents to be responsible for their children should be repealed.

 

This would cover such acts as the use of child seats in cars, the right to know what medical/lifestyle advice is being given to them etc

 

It would also ensure that parents are responsible, in law, for the acts of their children and so be liable to make recompense.

Why is this idea important?

All laws which seek to diminish the right/duty of parents to be responsible for their children should be repealed.

 

This would cover such acts as the use of child seats in cars, the right to know what medical/lifestyle advice is being given to them etc

 

It would also ensure that parents are responsible, in law, for the acts of their children and so be liable to make recompense.

Repeal all laws designed to protect ourselves from ourselves

All laws that seek to protect adults from their own actions should be repealed.

 

We are responsible for our own health and well being and it is not right that the State treats adults like children.

Why is this idea important?

All laws that seek to protect adults from their own actions should be repealed.

 

We are responsible for our own health and well being and it is not right that the State treats adults like children.

marriage visa age back to 18

I don’t quite agree with the British marriage visa law that was changed to 21 in 2008. I got married at the age of 19 and am 20 now its been a full year full of hardship for me and my husband as we are separated by the law. I have waited a full year for the law to change and have been abroad 2 times in one year to visit my husband. but now its too much for me I am pregnant carrying complication and the least good that can happen is for my husband to be by ma side when I need him the most. The only communication I have had with my husband since I have been back is on the phone. I was patient until now thinking that the British law is fair. After hearing that the visa age for HM forces has lowered to 18 I am sorry to say but I don’t agree with the law it should be same for all civilians. We also are human and need our partners and miss them as much as others. it would be grateful if the law could change back to 18 because this is not going to stop force marriages and also parent have become much aware of what their children require in life and force marriages is something of the past. If the law was to change I thing, as well as may other people would agree, it should have changed for all civilians and if not then it should have remained same for all.

Why is this idea important?

I don’t quite agree with the British marriage visa law that was changed to 21 in 2008. I got married at the age of 19 and am 20 now its been a full year full of hardship for me and my husband as we are separated by the law. I have waited a full year for the law to change and have been abroad 2 times in one year to visit my husband. but now its too much for me I am pregnant carrying complication and the least good that can happen is for my husband to be by ma side when I need him the most. The only communication I have had with my husband since I have been back is on the phone. I was patient until now thinking that the British law is fair. After hearing that the visa age for HM forces has lowered to 18 I am sorry to say but I don’t agree with the law it should be same for all civilians. We also are human and need our partners and miss them as much as others. it would be grateful if the law could change back to 18 because this is not going to stop force marriages and also parent have become much aware of what their children require in life and force marriages is something of the past. If the law was to change I thing, as well as may other people would agree, it should have changed for all civilians and if not then it should have remained same for all.

Change Housing Act 1996 “Right of First Refusal”

Law Relating to This Matter

The Housing Act 1996 inserted into the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 Part 1 was intended to stop the transfer of substantial ownership in a building ("A Relevant Disposal") from taking place without the knowledge and interest of the tenants of the building.  It was further amended in the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002.  The Act allows only separate non relevant disposals to different parties to occur without notification.  It is recognised as a badly drafted Act in which a huge loophole exists for unscrupulous parties to circumvent the law in order to achieve precisely what the Act was intended to avoid.

Example:

28 Finchley Road, Westcliff-on-Sea comprises 4 flats.  The owner occupiers with qualifying long leases were informed retrospectively that the freehold of the building had been transferred.  They should have received Section 5 Notices under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987.  The Landlord avoided this by allowing Superior Leases to be granted to separate companies over each flat thereby creating a vehicle to avoid a "Relevant Disposal" in law.  However to the tenants it was a relevant disposal as all companies are owned by the same family group members.  The Landlord then sent the Section 5 Notices to the newly created Superior tenant companies who accepted that a sale of the freehold would occur.  The freehold was then purchased by another company in the family group.

The wording needs to change so that common interests cannot be separated to create a sham non relevant disposal to the disadvantage of occupying long leaseholders.  Counsel says no law has been broken!

John Lee  

Why is this idea important?

Law Relating to This Matter

The Housing Act 1996 inserted into the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 Part 1 was intended to stop the transfer of substantial ownership in a building ("A Relevant Disposal") from taking place without the knowledge and interest of the tenants of the building.  It was further amended in the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002.  The Act allows only separate non relevant disposals to different parties to occur without notification.  It is recognised as a badly drafted Act in which a huge loophole exists for unscrupulous parties to circumvent the law in order to achieve precisely what the Act was intended to avoid.

Example:

28 Finchley Road, Westcliff-on-Sea comprises 4 flats.  The owner occupiers with qualifying long leases were informed retrospectively that the freehold of the building had been transferred.  They should have received Section 5 Notices under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987.  The Landlord avoided this by allowing Superior Leases to be granted to separate companies over each flat thereby creating a vehicle to avoid a "Relevant Disposal" in law.  However to the tenants it was a relevant disposal as all companies are owned by the same family group members.  The Landlord then sent the Section 5 Notices to the newly created Superior tenant companies who accepted that a sale of the freehold would occur.  The freehold was then purchased by another company in the family group.

The wording needs to change so that common interests cannot be separated to create a sham non relevant disposal to the disadvantage of occupying long leaseholders.  Counsel says no law has been broken!

John Lee  

scrap insider-trading laws

There are laws concerning "insiders", those with access to confidential facts about a public company, and trades that they make in company stock.  The penalties are draconic. These laws should be scrapped.

Why is this idea important?

There are laws concerning "insiders", those with access to confidential facts about a public company, and trades that they make in company stock.  The penalties are draconic. These laws should be scrapped.

Secular Republic

Replace the monarch with an elected figurehead President.  Disestablish the Church of England.  Abolish religious indoctrination in schools.  Abolish "faith" schools.  Abolish all religious priviledge.

Why is this idea important?

Replace the monarch with an elected figurehead President.  Disestablish the Church of England.  Abolish religious indoctrination in schools.  Abolish "faith" schools.  Abolish all religious priviledge.

Legal Counsel for Persons Sectioned under MHA

All persons involuntarily sectioned under the Mental Health Act should be given immediate access to legal counsel and should be given the option to challenge their sectioning publicly in court.

Why is this idea important?

All persons involuntarily sectioned under the Mental Health Act should be given immediate access to legal counsel and should be given the option to challenge their sectioning publicly in court.

GET RID OF LOCAL COUNCILS – GIVE US OUR LIBERTY BACK

Ealing Council unable to answer the following straightforward questions. 

The Leader of the Council refuses to intervene and submits matter back to Planning which is contrary to the Council Constitution which states "no one will review or scrutinise a decision in which they were directly involved" and to create a "powerful and effective means of holding decision makers to public account". 

David Cameron has not even had the courtesy to respond to recorded delivery correspondence.  Why are we electing governments to represent us when they have no intention to represent the people?

The questions:

How a developer was permitted to circumvent the Planning Appeal Process clearly set out in the Planning Policy given there were no changes in the proceedings or the application since the previous meeting other than the fact of the implementation of PPS3 and the Council have not explained WHY the appeal process was not followed. If there is a process in place, how is it that the Council permitted breach of the Appeal process?

Why Ealing Council did not make reference to the Planning Committee of PPS3 which was issued in June 2010 and before the Planning Committee meeting itself given that the policy was material to the case with respect to backland development. Why the Planning Committee were not advised that changes in policy resulting from PPS3 would be relevant to the issue in hand.
 

Why Ealing Council stated that the revised PPS3 was not relevant given its implementation is retrospective.
 

Why Ealing Council did not follow its own procedures in notification of the Planning Committee Decision to Residents given we received formal notification on previous occasions. In particular, we were never formally notified of the Revocation Decision although it was published on the website, neither have we been officially notified that the Revocation Decision has been overturned so are assuming this is not the case.
 

How the Council were able to justify re-tabling the matter before a differently constituted committee after the planning committee had already made its decision in order to obtain the decision they required and thereby, circumventing the Appeal process.

Why were the newly constituted Committees not given the opportunity to view the development site in question given the controversy surrounding the grant due to Ealing Council's failure to properly serve notice to residents of the Application.

Why is this idea important?

Ealing Council unable to answer the following straightforward questions. 

The Leader of the Council refuses to intervene and submits matter back to Planning which is contrary to the Council Constitution which states "no one will review or scrutinise a decision in which they were directly involved" and to create a "powerful and effective means of holding decision makers to public account". 

David Cameron has not even had the courtesy to respond to recorded delivery correspondence.  Why are we electing governments to represent us when they have no intention to represent the people?

The questions:

How a developer was permitted to circumvent the Planning Appeal Process clearly set out in the Planning Policy given there were no changes in the proceedings or the application since the previous meeting other than the fact of the implementation of PPS3 and the Council have not explained WHY the appeal process was not followed. If there is a process in place, how is it that the Council permitted breach of the Appeal process?

Why Ealing Council did not make reference to the Planning Committee of PPS3 which was issued in June 2010 and before the Planning Committee meeting itself given that the policy was material to the case with respect to backland development. Why the Planning Committee were not advised that changes in policy resulting from PPS3 would be relevant to the issue in hand.
 

Why Ealing Council stated that the revised PPS3 was not relevant given its implementation is retrospective.
 

Why Ealing Council did not follow its own procedures in notification of the Planning Committee Decision to Residents given we received formal notification on previous occasions. In particular, we were never formally notified of the Revocation Decision although it was published on the website, neither have we been officially notified that the Revocation Decision has been overturned so are assuming this is not the case.
 

How the Council were able to justify re-tabling the matter before a differently constituted committee after the planning committee had already made its decision in order to obtain the decision they required and thereby, circumventing the Appeal process.

Why were the newly constituted Committees not given the opportunity to view the development site in question given the controversy surrounding the grant due to Ealing Council's failure to properly serve notice to residents of the Application.