remove the freezing of certain expat pensions

the unfreezing of pensions of those living in former Commonwealth countries is not a question of law.  It is a question of political will.  Yes, it was an 11 to 6 decision in the ECHR.  That does not mean the matter should now be swept away.  It is so obviously inequitable to allow uprating in Alderney, Austria,Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, Bosnia-Hertzegovinia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Gibralter, Greece, Guernsey, Hungary, Iceland,Ireland,Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jersey, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Mauritius, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia & Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, USA.  The list is long isn't it?  Do you see a single former Commonwealth country there?  No you do not, it is simply not fair.  If this Government said there would be no uprating for anyone,  unless,  you lived physically on the Island of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, then there could be no complaints.  The fact is we all paid our dues in the UK, and where we choose  to live in retirement should not be a factor in deciding who gets uprated and who does not.  My idea is simple. Uprate pensioners OAP wherever they have retired to.  No one is asking to be paid the full UK pension, unless they paid sufficient contributions to earn the full pension, if someone only paid in for 10 years, then they get the uprating based on that 10 years.  The proportioning of pensions cannot be that difficult.  The savings to the UK Governement in many benefits that would be paid to expat pensioners had they stayed in or returned to the UK is obvious.

Why is this idea important?

the unfreezing of pensions of those living in former Commonwealth countries is not a question of law.  It is a question of political will.  Yes, it was an 11 to 6 decision in the ECHR.  That does not mean the matter should now be swept away.  It is so obviously inequitable to allow uprating in Alderney, Austria,Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, Bosnia-Hertzegovinia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Gibralter, Greece, Guernsey, Hungary, Iceland,Ireland,Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jersey, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Mauritius, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia & Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, USA.  The list is long isn't it?  Do you see a single former Commonwealth country there?  No you do not, it is simply not fair.  If this Government said there would be no uprating for anyone,  unless,  you lived physically on the Island of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, then there could be no complaints.  The fact is we all paid our dues in the UK, and where we choose  to live in retirement should not be a factor in deciding who gets uprated and who does not.  My idea is simple. Uprate pensioners OAP wherever they have retired to.  No one is asking to be paid the full UK pension, unless they paid sufficient contributions to earn the full pension, if someone only paid in for 10 years, then they get the uprating based on that 10 years.  The proportioning of pensions cannot be that difficult.  The savings to the UK Governement in many benefits that would be paid to expat pensioners had they stayed in or returned to the UK is obvious.

Remove The Notices From Post Collection Offices, Council Offices And Customs Desks Purporting To Threaten The Public.

To remove the many intimidatory notices from public offices and other places where the public must interact with officials and others. These notices purport to threaten the public with dire consequences for unspecified acts that the officials deem "threatening". Such notices are not neccessary and no debate or case has been made for them to be displayed. It is doubtful if such threatening notices would be allowed in prisons. They would be adjudged an infringement of prisoners' and visitors' human rights.

Councils and the police have been advised to remove the massive clutter of notices, signs  flashing lights and dangerous distractions from our streets and roads. The removal of these insulting and intimidatory notices from all public places should be ordered forthwith.

Why is this idea important?

To remove the many intimidatory notices from public offices and other places where the public must interact with officials and others. These notices purport to threaten the public with dire consequences for unspecified acts that the officials deem "threatening". Such notices are not neccessary and no debate or case has been made for them to be displayed. It is doubtful if such threatening notices would be allowed in prisons. They would be adjudged an infringement of prisoners' and visitors' human rights.

Councils and the police have been advised to remove the massive clutter of notices, signs  flashing lights and dangerous distractions from our streets and roads. The removal of these insulting and intimidatory notices from all public places should be ordered forthwith.

public sector salary cut of 10% £15k – £19.9k, 20% cut up to £30k, 25% above

As the private sector has taken average 20% pay cut over last year and very little contribution to pension payments the public sector should also 'take a hit' in pay and benefits. That is the pensions, which are much better. Listen to any police, teacher or goverment worker that retired in the last 10 years or so that 'THEY NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD'. More money than they know what to do with, also being able to retire MUCH earlier than the 'general' private sector workers.

Why do police and the NHS employees 'sell' their services back to the public services after retireing at 50 or 55. Or in the NHS resigning and going 'private' or into agencies at very much inflated rates which then cost the police and NHS loads of money.

 They also get a INFLATION linked pension, what's that…..

Why is this idea important?

As the private sector has taken average 20% pay cut over last year and very little contribution to pension payments the public sector should also 'take a hit' in pay and benefits. That is the pensions, which are much better. Listen to any police, teacher or goverment worker that retired in the last 10 years or so that 'THEY NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD'. More money than they know what to do with, also being able to retire MUCH earlier than the 'general' private sector workers.

Why do police and the NHS employees 'sell' their services back to the public services after retireing at 50 or 55. Or in the NHS resigning and going 'private' or into agencies at very much inflated rates which then cost the police and NHS loads of money.

 They also get a INFLATION linked pension, what's that…..

Council Tax reform

Like many, i have done the right thing and bought my own home so i'm not reliant on social housing, which is fortunate as i don't think i'd be eligable being the most discriminated against sector of society…. single white male without children.

 

having bought a house in need of investment, (the onle one i could afford), at great financial discomfort, i am now forced to pay council tax on this whilst i renovate it. This prevents me from investing in the house so i can live in it, at which time i will be eligable for a 25% discount.

 

I am investing in the local housing stock, but there is no incentive to do so. The council tax exemptions should be updated to ensure people who do the right thing are not penalised by local authorities.

Why is this idea important?

Like many, i have done the right thing and bought my own home so i'm not reliant on social housing, which is fortunate as i don't think i'd be eligable being the most discriminated against sector of society…. single white male without children.

 

having bought a house in need of investment, (the onle one i could afford), at great financial discomfort, i am now forced to pay council tax on this whilst i renovate it. This prevents me from investing in the house so i can live in it, at which time i will be eligable for a 25% discount.

 

I am investing in the local housing stock, but there is no incentive to do so. The council tax exemptions should be updated to ensure people who do the right thing are not penalised by local authorities.

Is the UK beyond salvage?

I ask this question openly, but am interested to hear what others think…..

 

Is our society too far gone to be redeamable?

 

The underclass, benefit reliance, drugs, crime, anti-social behaviour, the media undermining every valiant effort, can the coallition be expected to overcome all of this without taking a eugenic approach to vast tracts of the country?

Why is this idea important?

I ask this question openly, but am interested to hear what others think…..

 

Is our society too far gone to be redeamable?

 

The underclass, benefit reliance, drugs, crime, anti-social behaviour, the media undermining every valiant effort, can the coallition be expected to overcome all of this without taking a eugenic approach to vast tracts of the country?

right to photograph your own children, and to be protected from false accusations

I suggest this as someone without children, but having heard of this issue from several relations and friends.

 

If a parent wants to photograph their own child at a scool event, such as the nativity play or sports day, or at a significant first, such as their first swimming lesson, they should not be automatically assumed to be potential pedophiles. These restrictions are often over zealously applied by local authority employees and are an infringement on our civil liberties. They also set the tone for everyone feeling they are a suspected pedophile or pervert.

 

Any parent wanting to photograph their own children should be allowed to do so, providing no other parent raises an objection thet their child is included. This should be a common sense matter between adults, taking responsability for their own actions, not a mandated socialist nanny state restriction!

 

The child protection laws are a great thing, and save many from abuse and sufferring, but how many innocent adults have had their lives ruinned by parents or children making false accusations? There shouls be greater protection within the law so that those not found guilty are protected whilst accusations are investigated fully, and so no record of the false accuastion is recorded against them.

Why is this idea important?

I suggest this as someone without children, but having heard of this issue from several relations and friends.

 

If a parent wants to photograph their own child at a scool event, such as the nativity play or sports day, or at a significant first, such as their first swimming lesson, they should not be automatically assumed to be potential pedophiles. These restrictions are often over zealously applied by local authority employees and are an infringement on our civil liberties. They also set the tone for everyone feeling they are a suspected pedophile or pervert.

 

Any parent wanting to photograph their own children should be allowed to do so, providing no other parent raises an objection thet their child is included. This should be a common sense matter between adults, taking responsability for their own actions, not a mandated socialist nanny state restriction!

 

The child protection laws are a great thing, and save many from abuse and sufferring, but how many innocent adults have had their lives ruinned by parents or children making false accusations? There shouls be greater protection within the law so that those not found guilty are protected whilst accusations are investigated fully, and so no record of the false accuastion is recorded against them.

abuse of anti terror laws by local authorities

Anti-terror legislation was agreed to by MP's to enable the security forces to protect citizens from those that would attack us or seek to destroy our way of life. Civil liberty organisations and the general public only accepted these on the assurance that they were to be used to fight terrorists only.

 

It's a disgrace that local authorities have abused these laws in order to spy on citizens for minor issues, such as how much waste they produce/recycle. These laws have also been used to stop innocent people enjoying perfectly acceptable pursuits, such as train spotting! They are being abused by all and sundry as a means to implementing their personal or corporate predeliction for restricting public access to public places, or rights to privacy in their own home. The police are also hiding behind these laws as a means to prevent citizens holding them accountable, by filming or photographing them exceeding their permitted powers to enforce the laws of the land.

 

I think these laws should be updated to make them specific, for use by security forces only in cases where there is a genuine terrorism concern. It should also be an offense under these laws for any individual or organisation to use these laws for any other purpose.

Why is this idea important?

Anti-terror legislation was agreed to by MP's to enable the security forces to protect citizens from those that would attack us or seek to destroy our way of life. Civil liberty organisations and the general public only accepted these on the assurance that they were to be used to fight terrorists only.

 

It's a disgrace that local authorities have abused these laws in order to spy on citizens for minor issues, such as how much waste they produce/recycle. These laws have also been used to stop innocent people enjoying perfectly acceptable pursuits, such as train spotting! They are being abused by all and sundry as a means to implementing their personal or corporate predeliction for restricting public access to public places, or rights to privacy in their own home. The police are also hiding behind these laws as a means to prevent citizens holding them accountable, by filming or photographing them exceeding their permitted powers to enforce the laws of the land.

 

I think these laws should be updated to make them specific, for use by security forces only in cases where there is a genuine terrorism concern. It should also be an offense under these laws for any individual or organisation to use these laws for any other purpose.

Repeal the European Communities Act

Our membership of the EU makes us subject to the European Arrest Warrant.  This allows UK citizens to be deported to other EU states and imprisoned until their cases are tried.   No evidence needs to be presented to UK courts or police.  Arrests can be made for something which is not an offence in the UK

Why is this idea important?

Our membership of the EU makes us subject to the European Arrest Warrant.  This allows UK citizens to be deported to other EU states and imprisoned until their cases are tried.   No evidence needs to be presented to UK courts or police.  Arrests can be made for something which is not an offence in the UK

Security of Ex Government Prime Ministers & Cabinet Members

When these people have left government / retired then they should be afforded security  whilst they reside in the UK or on vacation.

However, once they embark on a career (as has Mr T Blair) then their security should end at the departure gate of the airport.

Security should then be provided by the country that these persons visit for promoting their own business ventures.

 

Why is this idea important?

When these people have left government / retired then they should be afforded security  whilst they reside in the UK or on vacation.

However, once they embark on a career (as has Mr T Blair) then their security should end at the departure gate of the airport.

Security should then be provided by the country that these persons visit for promoting their own business ventures.

 

Probationary citizen status

Asylum seekers etc… should be required to sign up to a new class of citizenship, namely a probationer.The granting of full UK citizenship is discretionary after a minimum period of 5 years and would require the assent of the police (with no right of appeal) . As a Probationer, they will understand that shoudl they be convicted of any serious crime that their rights to UK citizenship would be forever revoked and that they (and their family unit) would be immediately deported, never to be allowed back into the UK. We should take both their fingerprints and DNA and store indefinitely.

Why is this idea important?

Asylum seekers etc… should be required to sign up to a new class of citizenship, namely a probationer.The granting of full UK citizenship is discretionary after a minimum period of 5 years and would require the assent of the police (with no right of appeal) . As a Probationer, they will understand that shoudl they be convicted of any serious crime that their rights to UK citizenship would be forever revoked and that they (and their family unit) would be immediately deported, never to be allowed back into the UK. We should take both their fingerprints and DNA and store indefinitely.

Tagging vs Prison

I support tagging of minor offenders to prevent costly prison sentances and the potential harm that this can do to the individuals chances of being a positively contributing memeber of society.

Tagging should not be an easy option, it must be enforced and be a real punishment. So those tagged ought to have their freedom curtailed by being required to do community service at least 4 sessions per week (definitely Fridays and Saturdays) and unless the individual has a night-shift job, then the sessions should be early evening through to relatively late at night. This would enable the offender to continue working (and not be a burden on society). Those offenders with relatively long sentances that demonstrate remorse and committment to the community service could rise to become trustees and in this position help administer the scheme and potentially counsel others.

The remainder of their tagged leisure time should be spent at theri home address.

Why is this idea important?

I support tagging of minor offenders to prevent costly prison sentances and the potential harm that this can do to the individuals chances of being a positively contributing memeber of society.

Tagging should not be an easy option, it must be enforced and be a real punishment. So those tagged ought to have their freedom curtailed by being required to do community service at least 4 sessions per week (definitely Fridays and Saturdays) and unless the individual has a night-shift job, then the sessions should be early evening through to relatively late at night. This would enable the offender to continue working (and not be a burden on society). Those offenders with relatively long sentances that demonstrate remorse and committment to the community service could rise to become trustees and in this position help administer the scheme and potentially counsel others.

The remainder of their tagged leisure time should be spent at theri home address.

Delete the DNA profiles of innocent people

For the government to implement human rights issues, and order the Police to remove the DNA profiles and fingerprints of individuals arrested but not convicted of a crime, from the police computers.

Why is this idea important?

For the government to implement human rights issues, and order the Police to remove the DNA profiles and fingerprints of individuals arrested but not convicted of a crime, from the police computers.

Legalise all Drugs

I believe not all drugs, even the harmful ones should be legalised. Why? Because while something is illegal there is NO regulation of it. Which is why it is so harmful to users and so profitable to sellers.

Legalisation does not have to mean encourage the use of drugs. It can mean make it a medical problem, rather then a legal one, when the only person an addict harms through their drug use is themselves. All drug related crime, be it addicts stealing for a fix or gang related crime, all come from the legal status of drugs. If there was legal, safe, regulated access to drugs, then the only problem remaining is treating the addicts. Which would be far cheaper for the tax payer then funding a hopeless drug war. Especially considering the potential money there is to be made from taxing the mostly harmless drugs such as cannabis.

The final point I have to make is that it is very foolish to keeps drugs illegal when after years of fighting to end drug use it has only inreased. It is impossible to stop people using drugs. Even in places such as China where drug users are executed, there are still plenty who use them anyway.

So please, lets change our drug policy from one based on racism and propaganda to one based on scientific evidence. Before too much damage is done.

Why is this idea important?

I believe not all drugs, even the harmful ones should be legalised. Why? Because while something is illegal there is NO regulation of it. Which is why it is so harmful to users and so profitable to sellers.

Legalisation does not have to mean encourage the use of drugs. It can mean make it a medical problem, rather then a legal one, when the only person an addict harms through their drug use is themselves. All drug related crime, be it addicts stealing for a fix or gang related crime, all come from the legal status of drugs. If there was legal, safe, regulated access to drugs, then the only problem remaining is treating the addicts. Which would be far cheaper for the tax payer then funding a hopeless drug war. Especially considering the potential money there is to be made from taxing the mostly harmless drugs such as cannabis.

The final point I have to make is that it is very foolish to keeps drugs illegal when after years of fighting to end drug use it has only inreased. It is impossible to stop people using drugs. Even in places such as China where drug users are executed, there are still plenty who use them anyway.

So please, lets change our drug policy from one based on racism and propaganda to one based on scientific evidence. Before too much damage is done.

Stop the Health Dept wasting taxpayers money on television advertising.

Tonight, I saw a new anti-smoking advert of the TV. In this advert, a mum is seen smoking on her doorstep. In the house are a couple of children ((I am not absolutely sure of the facts because I only saw it once). A voice-over then says that tobacco smoke is invisible and gets everywhere. It then says "TAKE SEVEN STEPS".

There is an obvious implication in this advert that there is some danger to the children inside the house from the mum smoking on the doorstep. In reality, there is no such danger. None at all.

It is beyond my comprehension that the Health Dept can issue such garbage.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Tonight, I saw a new anti-smoking advert of the TV. In this advert, a mum is seen smoking on her doorstep. In the house are a couple of children ((I am not absolutely sure of the facts because I only saw it once). A voice-over then says that tobacco smoke is invisible and gets everywhere. It then says "TAKE SEVEN STEPS".

There is an obvious implication in this advert that there is some danger to the children inside the house from the mum smoking on the doorstep. In reality, there is no such danger. None at all.

It is beyond my comprehension that the Health Dept can issue such garbage.

 

 

White and British.

I'm white and British. Let's just say I'm job hunting in London, been on benefits for a while and encouraged to look for work. I look at every shop, bar, pub, fast food restaurant, other restaurants, museums, theatres, the underground, public transport, offices, hospitals, etc in and around central London, such as Westminster and other boroughs. What are the chances of me becoming employed?

Why is this idea important?

I'm white and British. Let's just say I'm job hunting in London, been on benefits for a while and encouraged to look for work. I look at every shop, bar, pub, fast food restaurant, other restaurants, museums, theatres, the underground, public transport, offices, hospitals, etc in and around central London, such as Westminster and other boroughs. What are the chances of me becoming employed?

Solve some of the problems

Scrap (temporarily) immigration until work is available for all U.K. born (& 2nd generation)

Provide work for all 16 year old and above and scrap ALL benefits, saving enormous amounts in Admin. costs EXCEPT for Military injured on active service, who should automatically be given Blue Badges (Disabled Drivers) or free travel, ALL Hospital Treatment and Medication also free.

Jobs to be createdwhere neccessary for disabled (e.g. Toilet Attendants, Car Park Attendants, Lift Men/Women, Cal Centre Operators etc etc

ALL transport to be electric wherever possible to cut cost of Oil imports

All Defence spending to be in U.K. ONLY: thus no dependance on parts from another country, jobs for u.k. citizens no outflow of cash to pay for Americal, Canadian etc products

ALL operations owned by overseas interests (e.g. Anglian Water: France: Electricite de France, France Telecom, Santander, Telefonica, Deutsche Telecom etc) so that we are not held to ransom by external influences.

Encourage ALL  development of electrically powered items to replace any item using imported fuel. (Think WW2 convoys – if it had to be brought in by convoy substitute a home grown item) and havingdeveloped the electrical power unit EXPORT, EXPORT, EXPORT

Finally ensure NO building work granted permission unless green and ecologically sound

AND ALL rules/laws RIGIDLY enforced by Policing policies under close Governmental scrutiny

Why is this idea important?

Scrap (temporarily) immigration until work is available for all U.K. born (& 2nd generation)

Provide work for all 16 year old and above and scrap ALL benefits, saving enormous amounts in Admin. costs EXCEPT for Military injured on active service, who should automatically be given Blue Badges (Disabled Drivers) or free travel, ALL Hospital Treatment and Medication also free.

Jobs to be createdwhere neccessary for disabled (e.g. Toilet Attendants, Car Park Attendants, Lift Men/Women, Cal Centre Operators etc etc

ALL transport to be electric wherever possible to cut cost of Oil imports

All Defence spending to be in U.K. ONLY: thus no dependance on parts from another country, jobs for u.k. citizens no outflow of cash to pay for Americal, Canadian etc products

ALL operations owned by overseas interests (e.g. Anglian Water: France: Electricite de France, France Telecom, Santander, Telefonica, Deutsche Telecom etc) so that we are not held to ransom by external influences.

Encourage ALL  development of electrically powered items to replace any item using imported fuel. (Think WW2 convoys – if it had to be brought in by convoy substitute a home grown item) and havingdeveloped the electrical power unit EXPORT, EXPORT, EXPORT

Finally ensure NO building work granted permission unless green and ecologically sound

AND ALL rules/laws RIGIDLY enforced by Policing policies under close Governmental scrutiny

DELIVER JUSTICE, PROTECT THE PUBLIC: MANDATORY LENGTHY CUSTODIAL SENTENCES FOR UNPROVOKED VIOLENT CRIMES

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It's these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled environment over a lengthy period of time.  

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and exercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don't conform to this they don't get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm deterrent (it's worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down significantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scrapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need. 

Don't forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year committed by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you're kind to the cruel, you're cruel to the kind. If most youths know they'll be punished for committing a crime they'll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it's completely sexist otherwise. If they're a danger to the public it doesn't matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitely (with a minimum period specified) and only released if it's safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who've committed previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

Why is this idea important?

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It's these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled environment over a lengthy period of time.  

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and exercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don't conform to this they don't get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm deterrent (it's worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down significantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scrapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need. 

Don't forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year committed by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you're kind to the cruel, you're cruel to the kind. If most youths know they'll be punished for committing a crime they'll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it's completely sexist otherwise. If they're a danger to the public it doesn't matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitely (with a minimum period specified) and only released if it's safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who've committed previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

Random drug testing for people claiming unemployment benifits.

Randomly drug test all claimants of unemployment benifits, any person failing a drug test should have cash benifits withheld and instead be issued food stamps.

Why is this idea important?

Randomly drug test all claimants of unemployment benifits, any person failing a drug test should have cash benifits withheld and instead be issued food stamps.

DELIVER JUSTICE, PROTECT THE PUBLIC: MANDATORY LENGHTY CUSTODIAL SENTENCES FOR UNPROVOKED VIOLENCE

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

Why is this idea important?

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

The government should encourage self-moderated forums

Many site users here including myself have had posts removed by the moderators for in our view inadequate reasons, based on other protests I've seen here.

Moderated forums in general present a problem, because the moderator is constantly asked to take sides – i.e. decide between somebody's right to post, and the rights of somebody complaining about a post.

The best solution would be SELF-MODERATED forums, such as exist on the BBC 606 site, so that whoever starts a thread can delete abusive comments on it if they please, as the BBC put it "are in control of their space."

Because otherwise we just have the constant DENIAL OF FREE SPEECH.

To put it simply, I want the right to say what I want on MY idea page without being abused, and I give in return the right to everybody else to do the same, say what they like on THEIR PAGE, and delete any comments they find abusive.

The tag system on this site is for example a major source of ANONYMOUS ABUSE, and once again, should be under the control of whoever starts the page, unless the site administrators are quite happy about the poster being abused, as appears to be the case on this site to date.

Why is this idea important?

Many site users here including myself have had posts removed by the moderators for in our view inadequate reasons, based on other protests I've seen here.

Moderated forums in general present a problem, because the moderator is constantly asked to take sides – i.e. decide between somebody's right to post, and the rights of somebody complaining about a post.

The best solution would be SELF-MODERATED forums, such as exist on the BBC 606 site, so that whoever starts a thread can delete abusive comments on it if they please, as the BBC put it "are in control of their space."

Because otherwise we just have the constant DENIAL OF FREE SPEECH.

To put it simply, I want the right to say what I want on MY idea page without being abused, and I give in return the right to everybody else to do the same, say what they like on THEIR PAGE, and delete any comments they find abusive.

The tag system on this site is for example a major source of ANONYMOUS ABUSE, and once again, should be under the control of whoever starts the page, unless the site administrators are quite happy about the poster being abused, as appears to be the case on this site to date.

Wheel clamping, the alternative:

Remove clamping from the auspices of the SIA and put it in the hands of a robust governing body who offer accreditation to VI companies:

All existing VI company can present themselves as worthy of accreditation, as we have already seen many of the stakeholder complaints concern accredited companies, any third party appointed to oversee accreditation must have the ability to carry out regular ad hoc hands on inspections of any VI company being given full unfettered access to all aspects of the business including but not exclusive to:
• Personnel files
• Appeal records
• Documented evidence of enforcement action
• Payroll documentation
• Calibration of electronic equipment
In conjunction with these ad hoc visits to offices, all premises used in conjunction with the business should be inspected. Consideration to these premises being given to;
• Health and safety
• Overall ambience
• Location and ease of access
• Transport links
The location of an impound facility should be no more than 30 minutes travelling time by public transport from the place of removal.
The appointed body should also carry out regular `Test purchases` in businesses designated areas of operation. I also believe that any appointed body should have the facility to receive telephone calls from the public to offer advice and support; many stakeholders did not want to contact the VI Company directly or felt that once they had, the experience was not a pleasant one.
Licence to clamp:
The accreditation should take the form of a corporate licence to operate, to be granted when certain criteria have been met. Any VI company in breach of any new legislation could effectively have this licence revoked; they would then no longer be allowed to carry out licensable activity.

Stakeholder complaints:
The release/removal fee:
The most common complaints are with regard to the punitive charges levied by VI companies, this `de-clamp` fee should be set at £75.00, the fee for retrieving vehicles removed following a predetermined period should be £150.00, built into these charges should be a fee for `waiting time` when the behavior of a person or persons at the time of removal refuses payment or delays removal, this should be charged at £25.00 per hour or per part of that hour. A VI company should not increase the fee to include removal unless the removal vehicle is present and in the process of removal, the Police need to find some uniformity when dealing with clamping issues whilst it remains a civil offence private parking attendants should be afforded the same protection as Transport for London and council attendants in such as Any person who intentionally obstructs any authorised officer acting in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. Any vehicle held in storage should be charged at £15.00 per day no charge should be incurred before midday of the following day. Stakeholders must accept that vehicles can be disposed after fourteen days; It is paramount that the public understand outstanding fees for removal and/or storage must be paid even if they wish to dispute the enforcement.
Consideration must also be given to people experiencing difficult financial circumstances, I would suggest that at the point of collection any person in such circumstances must show pre determined documentation asked to sign a declaration and be given the opportunity to pay in installments. Any declaration would need to be legally binding.
Signage:
Each VI Company uses different signage, the government must standardise the signs in both size font size and content. These signs should be available from a limited number of selected suppliers.
Speed of clamping/towing:
The only way to reduce incidents of stakeholder allegations of time passed since parking is by the aforementioned test purchasing, when complaints regarding this are received any appointed body should focus on this allegation i.e. “we visited the site four times in a three week period, on three occasions you breached the allotted timescale” the offending company should then be issued with an official warning, three warnings in any six month period should result in loss of accreditation. Any appellant should be involved in this process. If as per the above example a company is found to be in breach any outstanding appeals based on the grounds of the breach should be upheld, the gravity of probability being with the appellant.
Removals:
Any landlord wishing to employ clamping and/or removal on their land must be able to demonstrate good reason why such action is necessary, i.e. a social landlord whose residents quality of life is suffering as a result of regular offending by non residents should be allowed to employ enforcement, a landlord who has a small piece of waste land should be encouraged to seek other methods of securing his land. Enforcement should always be a last resort. Any appointed body should be available to advise Landlords considering enforcement. Consideration must be given to the need for removing an immobilised vehicle again a landlord must show good reason why removal is necessary, the length of time allotted before removal should be set at one hour from time of clamping, this must be shown in any displayed signage and in the event of a dispute should be supported by time dated evidence. In some cases there may be a requirement to employ instant removal any landlord wising to employ this must show good reason as to why , the reasons must be either that a breach of parking regulations could lead to loss of life or serious injury or could contravene health and safety laws. In this case clear unambiguous `INSTANT TOW AWAY `signage must be displayed. Removal crews should have both any requisite SIA licence but also the requisite licence for operating the removal vehicle. Removals should only be carried out using the HI-AB style of crane.
Payment methods:
All VI companies should have the facilities to take payments by both cash and credit/debit card unfortunately at the moment many banks refuse chip and pin facilities to any company declaring themselves to be in the business of Wheel clamping leaving them with no choice but to take cash only payments, this is unacceptable and the banks must change their present stance.
VI companies acting correctly still face problems with `chargebacks` whereby members of the public who have made a payment using chip and pin can claim a fraudulent transaction has taken place. VI companies acting correctly need protecting from this type of fraud which is commonly touted as the solution to clamping on many social forums.
Presently VI companies use a receipt of their own design if at all, as part of any new legislation a standard approved receipt book should be introduced available from a limited number of suppliers.
Appeal and complaints:
All VI companies must have a fully accountable standardised appeals procedure with pre determined time scales in place for both receipt of appeal and response(s). Time dated photographic evidence should be made available upon request, any appointed body should act as an independent appeal source once normal avenues have been exhausted the appointed body supersedes the VI companies if this becomes necessary Failure to meet pre determined timescales will result in a refund. Repeated failures will result in a formal warning.
Complaints should be directed to the appointed body who should respond within pre determined time scales all VI companies must co- operate fully with any complaint investigation any VI company receiving 6 or more upheld complaints in any six month period should receive a formal warning again 3 warnings and a VI company will lose its accreditation.
Wheel clamping is in my opinion necessary the only way VI companies will act responsibly is with close constant monitoring of all practices and procedures by an approved third party. The public the Police and the judiciary need to support companies acting responsibly if such things as signage & receipts are made uniform the public will have a clearer understanding of how clamping works this cannot happen without a sustained period of public education with blanket media coverage. Any punishment given to a VI company or operative acting outside of the legislation must be swift and firm. The public will only gain confidence if they see this happening. There also needs to be concession made for the VI companies acting correctly and who acquiesce to the changes, the Police and the judiciary will need to adjust their thinking and practices when dealing with clamping issues The media must accept that sometimes clamping is necessary and that if done correctly and certainly with a modicum of compassion and common sense should not be subject to sensationalistic journalism.


In conclusion:
• Hands on intrusive third party monitoring designed specifically for the VI industry
• A corporate licence to operate
• Reasonable fees standardised across the industry
• Uniform receipts and signage
• A period of public education
• A third party contact centre
• Transparent uniform appeals procedures
• Vociferous punitive measures for non compliance
• Changes in police and judiciary practices and procedures
 

Why is this idea important?

Remove clamping from the auspices of the SIA and put it in the hands of a robust governing body who offer accreditation to VI companies:

All existing VI company can present themselves as worthy of accreditation, as we have already seen many of the stakeholder complaints concern accredited companies, any third party appointed to oversee accreditation must have the ability to carry out regular ad hoc hands on inspections of any VI company being given full unfettered access to all aspects of the business including but not exclusive to:
• Personnel files
• Appeal records
• Documented evidence of enforcement action
• Payroll documentation
• Calibration of electronic equipment
In conjunction with these ad hoc visits to offices, all premises used in conjunction with the business should be inspected. Consideration to these premises being given to;
• Health and safety
• Overall ambience
• Location and ease of access
• Transport links
The location of an impound facility should be no more than 30 minutes travelling time by public transport from the place of removal.
The appointed body should also carry out regular `Test purchases` in businesses designated areas of operation. I also believe that any appointed body should have the facility to receive telephone calls from the public to offer advice and support; many stakeholders did not want to contact the VI Company directly or felt that once they had, the experience was not a pleasant one.
Licence to clamp:
The accreditation should take the form of a corporate licence to operate, to be granted when certain criteria have been met. Any VI company in breach of any new legislation could effectively have this licence revoked; they would then no longer be allowed to carry out licensable activity.

Stakeholder complaints:
The release/removal fee:
The most common complaints are with regard to the punitive charges levied by VI companies, this `de-clamp` fee should be set at £75.00, the fee for retrieving vehicles removed following a predetermined period should be £150.00, built into these charges should be a fee for `waiting time` when the behavior of a person or persons at the time of removal refuses payment or delays removal, this should be charged at £25.00 per hour or per part of that hour. A VI company should not increase the fee to include removal unless the removal vehicle is present and in the process of removal, the Police need to find some uniformity when dealing with clamping issues whilst it remains a civil offence private parking attendants should be afforded the same protection as Transport for London and council attendants in such as Any person who intentionally obstructs any authorised officer acting in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. Any vehicle held in storage should be charged at £15.00 per day no charge should be incurred before midday of the following day. Stakeholders must accept that vehicles can be disposed after fourteen days; It is paramount that the public understand outstanding fees for removal and/or storage must be paid even if they wish to dispute the enforcement.
Consideration must also be given to people experiencing difficult financial circumstances, I would suggest that at the point of collection any person in such circumstances must show pre determined documentation asked to sign a declaration and be given the opportunity to pay in installments. Any declaration would need to be legally binding.
Signage:
Each VI Company uses different signage, the government must standardise the signs in both size font size and content. These signs should be available from a limited number of selected suppliers.
Speed of clamping/towing:
The only way to reduce incidents of stakeholder allegations of time passed since parking is by the aforementioned test purchasing, when complaints regarding this are received any appointed body should focus on this allegation i.e. “we visited the site four times in a three week period, on three occasions you breached the allotted timescale” the offending company should then be issued with an official warning, three warnings in any six month period should result in loss of accreditation. Any appellant should be involved in this process. If as per the above example a company is found to be in breach any outstanding appeals based on the grounds of the breach should be upheld, the gravity of probability being with the appellant.
Removals:
Any landlord wishing to employ clamping and/or removal on their land must be able to demonstrate good reason why such action is necessary, i.e. a social landlord whose residents quality of life is suffering as a result of regular offending by non residents should be allowed to employ enforcement, a landlord who has a small piece of waste land should be encouraged to seek other methods of securing his land. Enforcement should always be a last resort. Any appointed body should be available to advise Landlords considering enforcement. Consideration must be given to the need for removing an immobilised vehicle again a landlord must show good reason why removal is necessary, the length of time allotted before removal should be set at one hour from time of clamping, this must be shown in any displayed signage and in the event of a dispute should be supported by time dated evidence. In some cases there may be a requirement to employ instant removal any landlord wising to employ this must show good reason as to why , the reasons must be either that a breach of parking regulations could lead to loss of life or serious injury or could contravene health and safety laws. In this case clear unambiguous `INSTANT TOW AWAY `signage must be displayed. Removal crews should have both any requisite SIA licence but also the requisite licence for operating the removal vehicle. Removals should only be carried out using the HI-AB style of crane.
Payment methods:
All VI companies should have the facilities to take payments by both cash and credit/debit card unfortunately at the moment many banks refuse chip and pin facilities to any company declaring themselves to be in the business of Wheel clamping leaving them with no choice but to take cash only payments, this is unacceptable and the banks must change their present stance.
VI companies acting correctly still face problems with `chargebacks` whereby members of the public who have made a payment using chip and pin can claim a fraudulent transaction has taken place. VI companies acting correctly need protecting from this type of fraud which is commonly touted as the solution to clamping on many social forums.
Presently VI companies use a receipt of their own design if at all, as part of any new legislation a standard approved receipt book should be introduced available from a limited number of suppliers.
Appeal and complaints:
All VI companies must have a fully accountable standardised appeals procedure with pre determined time scales in place for both receipt of appeal and response(s). Time dated photographic evidence should be made available upon request, any appointed body should act as an independent appeal source once normal avenues have been exhausted the appointed body supersedes the VI companies if this becomes necessary Failure to meet pre determined timescales will result in a refund. Repeated failures will result in a formal warning.
Complaints should be directed to the appointed body who should respond within pre determined time scales all VI companies must co- operate fully with any complaint investigation any VI company receiving 6 or more upheld complaints in any six month period should receive a formal warning again 3 warnings and a VI company will lose its accreditation.
Wheel clamping is in my opinion necessary the only way VI companies will act responsibly is with close constant monitoring of all practices and procedures by an approved third party. The public the Police and the judiciary need to support companies acting responsibly if such things as signage & receipts are made uniform the public will have a clearer understanding of how clamping works this cannot happen without a sustained period of public education with blanket media coverage. Any punishment given to a VI company or operative acting outside of the legislation must be swift and firm. The public will only gain confidence if they see this happening. There also needs to be concession made for the VI companies acting correctly and who acquiesce to the changes, the Police and the judiciary will need to adjust their thinking and practices when dealing with clamping issues The media must accept that sometimes clamping is necessary and that if done correctly and certainly with a modicum of compassion and common sense should not be subject to sensationalistic journalism.


In conclusion:
• Hands on intrusive third party monitoring designed specifically for the VI industry
• A corporate licence to operate
• Reasonable fees standardised across the industry
• Uniform receipts and signage
• A period of public education
• A third party contact centre
• Transparent uniform appeals procedures
• Vociferous punitive measures for non compliance
• Changes in police and judiciary practices and procedures