Tenant Blacklist

I have been speaking to several local estate agents and we believe there is a need for a website to be available to Landlords to check whether the tenant they are considering has been blacklisted or in any dispute with previous landlords. We understand that some landlords who hold grudges would try to abuse this , this is why the information that is posted has to be backed up with attached copies of banl statements and legal documents or preceedings. Also the landlord will be subject to terms and conditions if they put fraudulent information on they will be liable to legal action from said tenant. I believe this is vital as I personaly have been a victim of tenant fraud on several occasions where they lie to credit agencies or they get round the checks. I am currently involved in various legal battles with different reference agencies because of this and as a coallition supporter and tax payer this is causing me lots of heartache. If the site is managed properly and checked regularly by the OEA this would be a great idea. It could also open the door to possible funding from rich landlords who would donate money to the coallition fir their help in this matter.

Why is this idea important?

I have been speaking to several local estate agents and we believe there is a need for a website to be available to Landlords to check whether the tenant they are considering has been blacklisted or in any dispute with previous landlords. We understand that some landlords who hold grudges would try to abuse this , this is why the information that is posted has to be backed up with attached copies of banl statements and legal documents or preceedings. Also the landlord will be subject to terms and conditions if they put fraudulent information on they will be liable to legal action from said tenant. I believe this is vital as I personaly have been a victim of tenant fraud on several occasions where they lie to credit agencies or they get round the checks. I am currently involved in various legal battles with different reference agencies because of this and as a coallition supporter and tax payer this is causing me lots of heartache. If the site is managed properly and checked regularly by the OEA this would be a great idea. It could also open the door to possible funding from rich landlords who would donate money to the coallition fir their help in this matter.

Return local authorities to their role as service providers

I am no longer concerned about nanny state. What concerns me is the increasingly authoritarian attitude of local authorities. It is time that their powers to introduce "criminal" offences such as putting out rubbish on the  wrong day and imposing politically motivated parking restrictions and twenty mile speed limits were curbed. No bye-laws should ever be criminal offences.

They should be forced back to performing their proper role as service providers to the local community and should be held properly accountable for doing so.

Perhaps a change of name from "local authority" to "local service provider" would be a good starting point in delivering the message.

Why is this idea important?

I am no longer concerned about nanny state. What concerns me is the increasingly authoritarian attitude of local authorities. It is time that their powers to introduce "criminal" offences such as putting out rubbish on the  wrong day and imposing politically motivated parking restrictions and twenty mile speed limits were curbed. No bye-laws should ever be criminal offences.

They should be forced back to performing their proper role as service providers to the local community and should be held properly accountable for doing so.

Perhaps a change of name from "local authority" to "local service provider" would be a good starting point in delivering the message.

Freedom from the public’s lack of understanding of the Motability schemes!

This site and the spending challenge site have more than adaquately revealed that the general public do not undrestand or have sufficient knowledge of the motability scheme.

This is evident in crass comments about 'Free cars' and the type of cars available.

It is also evident in the fact that none of the posters mention the fact that Motability is NOT a government department and is not funded by the government!  They also fail to notice that the main gainers in this scheme are the banks – they make a hefty profit from the schemes!

So we need to educate the public to the facts!

1)The cars are NOT free.

2)Those who use the scheme PAY for their cars – they lease the cars.

3) They type of car they choose depends on their needs.  They may need a larger car to fit a wheelchair and other equipment in.  They may need a 'higher' car such as an MPV or people carrier to combine wheelchair space and ability to get in and out of the vehicle.

4) More expensive cars mean that the disabled person is paying an advance payment (non refundable) to cover the cost difference.

 5) Advance payments are calculated according to the projected sale price that motability will recoup when the car is sold at the end of the lease period – the disabled person does not receive any of the money recouped.

6)Nil advance payment is usually applied to smaller and cheaper cars – with some car manufacturers occasionally having 'special offers' on larger vehicles which reduces the advance payment for a short period of time – this is a marketting policy from the manufacturer who wants more motability customers.

7) all the stories posted on here and on SC about people conning the system are rooted in jealousy of the cars – without considering the disability and the pain and hassle that goes with it.

So we need more education of the public on the reality of motability – this will reduce the harrasment of disabled people and save the public from making crass statements and accusations which only embarress them through their own lack of knowledge.

 

This could easily be achieved by educating the media so that they get their facts right and requiring every newspaper (national and local) to print a prominent full page explanation of the FACTS. (written by motability and approved by a representative group of their paying customers).  Equally any television program that 'investigates' motability abuses should be required to include an explanation of the facts in relation to the workings of the scheme.  Additionally car manufacturers and dealers should have to follow rules regarding motability advertising – their adverts should make it clear that disabled people PAY for their cars rather than creating the illusion that the cars are free when they are not.

Why is this idea important?

This site and the spending challenge site have more than adaquately revealed that the general public do not undrestand or have sufficient knowledge of the motability scheme.

This is evident in crass comments about 'Free cars' and the type of cars available.

It is also evident in the fact that none of the posters mention the fact that Motability is NOT a government department and is not funded by the government!  They also fail to notice that the main gainers in this scheme are the banks – they make a hefty profit from the schemes!

So we need to educate the public to the facts!

1)The cars are NOT free.

2)Those who use the scheme PAY for their cars – they lease the cars.

3) They type of car they choose depends on their needs.  They may need a larger car to fit a wheelchair and other equipment in.  They may need a 'higher' car such as an MPV or people carrier to combine wheelchair space and ability to get in and out of the vehicle.

4) More expensive cars mean that the disabled person is paying an advance payment (non refundable) to cover the cost difference.

 5) Advance payments are calculated according to the projected sale price that motability will recoup when the car is sold at the end of the lease period – the disabled person does not receive any of the money recouped.

6)Nil advance payment is usually applied to smaller and cheaper cars – with some car manufacturers occasionally having 'special offers' on larger vehicles which reduces the advance payment for a short period of time – this is a marketting policy from the manufacturer who wants more motability customers.

7) all the stories posted on here and on SC about people conning the system are rooted in jealousy of the cars – without considering the disability and the pain and hassle that goes with it.

So we need more education of the public on the reality of motability – this will reduce the harrasment of disabled people and save the public from making crass statements and accusations which only embarress them through their own lack of knowledge.

 

This could easily be achieved by educating the media so that they get their facts right and requiring every newspaper (national and local) to print a prominent full page explanation of the FACTS. (written by motability and approved by a representative group of their paying customers).  Equally any television program that 'investigates' motability abuses should be required to include an explanation of the facts in relation to the workings of the scheme.  Additionally car manufacturers and dealers should have to follow rules regarding motability advertising – their adverts should make it clear that disabled people PAY for their cars rather than creating the illusion that the cars are free when they are not.

IMPRISON VIOLENT CRIMINAL TAG OTHERS ELECTRONICALLY

THE PUBLIC FEAR MOST OF ALL, CRIMINALS WHO ARE VIOLENT TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY:-

Suerly there is no need to keep fraudsters,pickpockets,verbal abusers,tax evaders, perjurers illegal whistleblowers,and the like behind bars ?They could all be tagged electronically where they normally live (or in a hostel if they've got nowhere else) with one hour's liberty per day and immediate prison if the curfew is broken.At present electronic tagging is not monitored strictly enough due to cost but that cost if monitoring were ruthlessly thorough would still be a lot less costly than keeping the non violent prisoners in jail !

Murderers,muggers,rapists,burglars,thugs,dope dealers,knife users, physical bullies,violent drunkards,and violent road ragers should all serve 3 times the sort of sentences they are at present given as there would be plenty of room in the prisons to keep them with all the non violent prisoners "cleared out"!

Various laws would have to be changed to give effect to these proposals.Legislation could be a little complex, but a great deal of money would be saved in the long run;

Why is this idea important?

THE PUBLIC FEAR MOST OF ALL, CRIMINALS WHO ARE VIOLENT TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY:-

Suerly there is no need to keep fraudsters,pickpockets,verbal abusers,tax evaders, perjurers illegal whistleblowers,and the like behind bars ?They could all be tagged electronically where they normally live (or in a hostel if they've got nowhere else) with one hour's liberty per day and immediate prison if the curfew is broken.At present electronic tagging is not monitored strictly enough due to cost but that cost if monitoring were ruthlessly thorough would still be a lot less costly than keeping the non violent prisoners in jail !

Murderers,muggers,rapists,burglars,thugs,dope dealers,knife users, physical bullies,violent drunkards,and violent road ragers should all serve 3 times the sort of sentences they are at present given as there would be plenty of room in the prisons to keep them with all the non violent prisoners "cleared out"!

Various laws would have to be changed to give effect to these proposals.Legislation could be a little complex, but a great deal of money would be saved in the long run;

Scrap the CSA / CMEC and Rewrite the Child Support Act

Get rid of the Child Support Agency / Child Support Enforcement Commission

Rewrite or repeal and recreate a new Child Support Bill that will maintain civil liberties, make private arrangements the default way to support children, give any future child support public services arbitration powers ONLY and ensure that payments / maintenance is ongoing but otherwise keep out of the publics lives. Enforcements will be arbitrated fairly through the courts but no type of financial blackmail will be made. Natural justice will allow the absent parent to be allowed to defend themselves in a fair trial and his or her circumstances will be taken into consideration against any liability which at present is not what is happening in the current system as courts must pass any liability order passed once received by the CSA / CMEC. This is a bar and denial to natural justice, since a fair trial is not granted to the non resident parent at present.

No funds will be made available for the state from maintenance payments even if the parent with care of the children is on benefits. This is to prevent abuse of power and making up amounts that are owed, which has led to exploitation of non resident parents and using the courts to blackmail them or fleece them. To prevent such corruption from occurring and the temptation to exploit financially, this costly measure must be made.

 

100% of the maintenance will go to the child's support through a public sector created bank account or post office account. The child when old enough will be able to also draw out the money when deemed responsible enough.

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of the Child Support Agency / Child Support Enforcement Commission

Rewrite or repeal and recreate a new Child Support Bill that will maintain civil liberties, make private arrangements the default way to support children, give any future child support public services arbitration powers ONLY and ensure that payments / maintenance is ongoing but otherwise keep out of the publics lives. Enforcements will be arbitrated fairly through the courts but no type of financial blackmail will be made. Natural justice will allow the absent parent to be allowed to defend themselves in a fair trial and his or her circumstances will be taken into consideration against any liability which at present is not what is happening in the current system as courts must pass any liability order passed once received by the CSA / CMEC. This is a bar and denial to natural justice, since a fair trial is not granted to the non resident parent at present.

No funds will be made available for the state from maintenance payments even if the parent with care of the children is on benefits. This is to prevent abuse of power and making up amounts that are owed, which has led to exploitation of non resident parents and using the courts to blackmail them or fleece them. To prevent such corruption from occurring and the temptation to exploit financially, this costly measure must be made.

 

100% of the maintenance will go to the child's support through a public sector created bank account or post office account. The child when old enough will be able to also draw out the money when deemed responsible enough.

Sentencing policy

Currently the Sentencing Council requires magistrates'courts to "follow" their guidelines. 

 

The SC is a body of 14 people including senior judges and 6  non-judicial members.  There are just two people from the magistrates' courts – one lay magistrate and one district judge.  As 96% of criminal cases are concluded in the magistates' courts, the balance of day-to-day understanding of the SC is lacking yet their recommendations are expected to regulate sentencing in the lower courts.

 

Previously, guidelines were issued by "The Magistrates' Association" whose members know the needs of the lower courts and who recognise that consistency in sentencing is important yet local knowledge must be allowed to operate.  As an example, the loss of a driving licence is a more severe penalty to a country driver who, with a bus service of perhaps once a day, might become unemployed whereas a city dweller may be inconvenienced but keep his job.  

 

The SC and its predecessor the SGC has consistently reduced penalties and this has led to increased crime.  (Lower crime rates are reported by some Government bodies but they ignore the fact that the use of fixed penalty notices hae been widened and do not show in crime statistics).

 

To save money and restore effective sentencing, the SC should be scrapped forthwith.   

Why is this idea important?

Currently the Sentencing Council requires magistrates'courts to "follow" their guidelines. 

 

The SC is a body of 14 people including senior judges and 6  non-judicial members.  There are just two people from the magistrates' courts – one lay magistrate and one district judge.  As 96% of criminal cases are concluded in the magistates' courts, the balance of day-to-day understanding of the SC is lacking yet their recommendations are expected to regulate sentencing in the lower courts.

 

Previously, guidelines were issued by "The Magistrates' Association" whose members know the needs of the lower courts and who recognise that consistency in sentencing is important yet local knowledge must be allowed to operate.  As an example, the loss of a driving licence is a more severe penalty to a country driver who, with a bus service of perhaps once a day, might become unemployed whereas a city dweller may be inconvenienced but keep his job.  

 

The SC and its predecessor the SGC has consistently reduced penalties and this has led to increased crime.  (Lower crime rates are reported by some Government bodies but they ignore the fact that the use of fixed penalty notices hae been widened and do not show in crime statistics).

 

To save money and restore effective sentencing, the SC should be scrapped forthwith.   

Job creation and Aid

This might be might be politically sensitive / incorrect or dubious idea for the purist. I write an ideas blog www.is2w.com and have discussed this with business colleagues over the last 10 years .If we look at the aid given by the UK / US/ EU to Africa (and the rest of the world), a percentage of that aid is tied to purchases by the aid recipient to the donor countries. But it’s usually business for the boys and usually badly managed. The question is that can that be changed taking the UK (just because I live there) for example will give approximately £100 million to  Nigeria of  west Africa (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Where-we-work/Africa-West–Central/Nigeria/  ) not a lot you might say buy with jobs scarce in the UK, should aid also includes job aid. Secondly have we maximised private sector involvement in Job creation if we can give them some tax breaks for creating some jobs even if the jobs are not directly working for them? This brief looks at the creating of an aid corps valued at possibly £3 million in terms of salary and deployment but can lead to jobs creation and business opportunities worth hundreds of millions. Their initial remit is   entrepreneurial programs, Train indigenous worker and create markets for goods and services. the money does not have to be 100% government get the private sector involved  the selling point is that  they might be able to get a pool of trained  staff in the future with local knowledge and management experience which they  might not get in the  in the UK on return. Do not forget the Africans in Diaspora who might want to go back and contribute for some time (like 6 months they may have local knowledge and skills plus they are not beholden to the aid recipient. Examples of this are experts from the World Bank who have been seconded to countries like Nigeria even if for a short time can have an impact (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/01/gender.uk  or  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngozi_Okonjo-Iweala) especially as they are paid by the aid donor. I personally know that with jobs scarce British people are highly travelled and willing to work abroad The point is that there should be a paid aid corps (an example in the building and construction trade is suffering while aid funded construction projects could use the help of aid funded construction experts to not only execute but to train the local work force). This goes beyond selling equipment (I have horrendous stories of donated equipment which is never used) this forces the equipment to be setup and used. The alternative is to set up and African Venture capital fund  and not based of the British Model ( British VCs do not really invest in start ups and early stage companies and the angel investor are quite weak )  this should be more in line with  the VC in America that have a more rounded port folio ( there are Chinese Indian and African returnee who have created their own funds in India china Nigeria Ghana  but not enough) . This should not be limited to goods and services. Africans send their kids to be educated abroad spending £1 billion (12000 students a year) for a population of 150mill that’s a pittance compared to the potential of British secondary and universities extending their brands abroad. The question is that will it damage the education trade?  The answer is no, when education was really  good in Nigeria people still sent their  children abroad  and china  and the middle east are opening  branches of universities abroad . In certain universities the first two years are carried out abroad and the final year in the US or UK tech also means that they are in constant contact with satellite universities.  For Britain and America to prosper they may actually have to invest abroad to create markets for their goods and services. To people without insight all of china investments in other countries are about obtaining strategic natural resources. But the probable mix is:  strategic natural resources    40% political influence 40% creating future markets for their goods and services 20% any way back to the main point. I have written in more detail at www.is2w.com  because of limitations of this site its difficult to save .The scenarios and options are varied and I will write a full policy paper on it in the future

 

Why is this idea important?

This might be might be politically sensitive / incorrect or dubious idea for the purist. I write an ideas blog www.is2w.com and have discussed this with business colleagues over the last 10 years .If we look at the aid given by the UK / US/ EU to Africa (and the rest of the world), a percentage of that aid is tied to purchases by the aid recipient to the donor countries. But it’s usually business for the boys and usually badly managed. The question is that can that be changed taking the UK (just because I live there) for example will give approximately £100 million to  Nigeria of  west Africa (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Where-we-work/Africa-West–Central/Nigeria/  ) not a lot you might say buy with jobs scarce in the UK, should aid also includes job aid. Secondly have we maximised private sector involvement in Job creation if we can give them some tax breaks for creating some jobs even if the jobs are not directly working for them? This brief looks at the creating of an aid corps valued at possibly £3 million in terms of salary and deployment but can lead to jobs creation and business opportunities worth hundreds of millions. Their initial remit is   entrepreneurial programs, Train indigenous worker and create markets for goods and services. the money does not have to be 100% government get the private sector involved  the selling point is that  they might be able to get a pool of trained  staff in the future with local knowledge and management experience which they  might not get in the  in the UK on return. Do not forget the Africans in Diaspora who might want to go back and contribute for some time (like 6 months they may have local knowledge and skills plus they are not beholden to the aid recipient. Examples of this are experts from the World Bank who have been seconded to countries like Nigeria even if for a short time can have an impact (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/01/gender.uk  or  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngozi_Okonjo-Iweala) especially as they are paid by the aid donor. I personally know that with jobs scarce British people are highly travelled and willing to work abroad The point is that there should be a paid aid corps (an example in the building and construction trade is suffering while aid funded construction projects could use the help of aid funded construction experts to not only execute but to train the local work force). This goes beyond selling equipment (I have horrendous stories of donated equipment which is never used) this forces the equipment to be setup and used. The alternative is to set up and African Venture capital fund  and not based of the British Model ( British VCs do not really invest in start ups and early stage companies and the angel investor are quite weak )  this should be more in line with  the VC in America that have a more rounded port folio ( there are Chinese Indian and African returnee who have created their own funds in India china Nigeria Ghana  but not enough) . This should not be limited to goods and services. Africans send their kids to be educated abroad spending £1 billion (12000 students a year) for a population of 150mill that’s a pittance compared to the potential of British secondary and universities extending their brands abroad. The question is that will it damage the education trade?  The answer is no, when education was really  good in Nigeria people still sent their  children abroad  and china  and the middle east are opening  branches of universities abroad . In certain universities the first two years are carried out abroad and the final year in the US or UK tech also means that they are in constant contact with satellite universities.  For Britain and America to prosper they may actually have to invest abroad to create markets for their goods and services. To people without insight all of china investments in other countries are about obtaining strategic natural resources. But the probable mix is:  strategic natural resources    40% political influence 40% creating future markets for their goods and services 20% any way back to the main point. I have written in more detail at www.is2w.com  because of limitations of this site its difficult to save .The scenarios and options are varied and I will write a full policy paper on it in the future

 

Review the activities of the borders agency

UK Borders staff should treat UK nationals returning to teh country with greater respect and efficiency. Remove the stupid rule that says you can't use a mobile phone in an arrivals hall and return to a wave through system for people with UK passports. Also revise their search powers- I was stopped by a UK Border Agency official at Portrmouth because he wanted to see where the engine of my car was!!

Why is this idea important?

UK Borders staff should treat UK nationals returning to teh country with greater respect and efficiency. Remove the stupid rule that says you can't use a mobile phone in an arrivals hall and return to a wave through system for people with UK passports. Also revise their search powers- I was stopped by a UK Border Agency official at Portrmouth because he wanted to see where the engine of my car was!!

Car mobility allowance should be means tested

Car mobility allowance should be means tested.  Example, a person with a good pension living in property worth around a million pounds whose partner has never driven has a good pension but has mobility issues should not automatically qualify for a mobility car.

Why is this idea important?

Car mobility allowance should be means tested.  Example, a person with a good pension living in property worth around a million pounds whose partner has never driven has a good pension but has mobility issues should not automatically qualify for a mobility car.

Freedom to opt out

The actual idea of voting implies a transfer of power to the politicians.

 

democracy or this collectivist sham transfers power to one set of CAREER politicians or another and the INDIVIDUAL is left powerless.

While we have freedom to choose certain vital courses of action, like where or how we work, whom we choose to marry etc, the most important liberty of all is the right to opt out – not to be forced to finance a certain policy, not to subscribe to a certain policy.

 

It is this right or liberty which the current party system takes away.  See my website www.camrecon.demon.co.uk .  Liberty is also threatened because party politicians are not free to protect our liberties, which, as Lord Hailsham says on my website was their traditional role, and as they are part of the Executive and looking for promotion do as they are told too often.

The party system comprises a "package" of policies which you accept or reject ENTIRELY. It is this which destroys individual liberty, which is not just about money it is about social choices which are forced upon ius by anti-discriminatory legislation.  some freedom

Unless we separate the Executive from the Commons once again pretence at freedom is just a whitewash. 

Why is this idea important?

The actual idea of voting implies a transfer of power to the politicians.

 

democracy or this collectivist sham transfers power to one set of CAREER politicians or another and the INDIVIDUAL is left powerless.

While we have freedom to choose certain vital courses of action, like where or how we work, whom we choose to marry etc, the most important liberty of all is the right to opt out – not to be forced to finance a certain policy, not to subscribe to a certain policy.

 

It is this right or liberty which the current party system takes away.  See my website www.camrecon.demon.co.uk .  Liberty is also threatened because party politicians are not free to protect our liberties, which, as Lord Hailsham says on my website was their traditional role, and as they are part of the Executive and looking for promotion do as they are told too often.

The party system comprises a "package" of policies which you accept or reject ENTIRELY. It is this which destroys individual liberty, which is not just about money it is about social choices which are forced upon ius by anti-discriminatory legislation.  some freedom

Unless we separate the Executive from the Commons once again pretence at freedom is just a whitewash. 

Bringing ancient justice back to the modern justice system

I would like to see five points reflected in the new justice legislation created by the Coalition government:

1.. A swift return to the ancient instruction from all judges to jurors allocated to criminal prosecution cases that in order to convict, the balance of evidence must have caused them to believe that a defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', and that this means that if they have any doubts at all that they should not convict, bearing in mind that the underpinning foundation of our legal system is that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

2. The removal of all banana republic inspired New Labour 'complaint to conviction' targets created for police and CPS. The target for any democratic society's criminal justice system should be to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, not to frog march anyone who is the subject of a complaint through to a 'guilty' verdict as swiftly as possible.

3. A thorough investigation of the victim compensation system in terms of any potential for abuse, followed by a move to balance legislation so that people who make false allegations due to malice and/ or to fraudulently claim compensation face heavy penalties, which grow heavier the later this comes to light (as the person they have accused will have suffered for a longer time due to their allegations). This should be clearly explained to people at the point they make a complaint to the police by a professional mediator, not a police officer.

4. That no person is imprisoned without charge for longer than the 36 hours that was the limit before New Labour legislation.

5. That no person is ever subject to government employees of any description circulating information about him or her that has been gathered through rumour and unsubstantiated allegation (as can be the case on the enhanced CRB).

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see five points reflected in the new justice legislation created by the Coalition government:

1.. A swift return to the ancient instruction from all judges to jurors allocated to criminal prosecution cases that in order to convict, the balance of evidence must have caused them to believe that a defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', and that this means that if they have any doubts at all that they should not convict, bearing in mind that the underpinning foundation of our legal system is that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

2. The removal of all banana republic inspired New Labour 'complaint to conviction' targets created for police and CPS. The target for any democratic society's criminal justice system should be to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, not to frog march anyone who is the subject of a complaint through to a 'guilty' verdict as swiftly as possible.

3. A thorough investigation of the victim compensation system in terms of any potential for abuse, followed by a move to balance legislation so that people who make false allegations due to malice and/ or to fraudulently claim compensation face heavy penalties, which grow heavier the later this comes to light (as the person they have accused will have suffered for a longer time due to their allegations). This should be clearly explained to people at the point they make a complaint to the police by a professional mediator, not a police officer.

4. That no person is imprisoned without charge for longer than the 36 hours that was the limit before New Labour legislation.

5. That no person is ever subject to government employees of any description circulating information about him or her that has been gathered through rumour and unsubstantiated allegation (as can be the case on the enhanced CRB).

Policing is mans work.

Stop the drive to recruit women in to the police and instead accept that this particular line of work is best suited to a mans physical capabilities. This also applies to firefighters and soldiers but we seem to have a police force obsessed with recruiting women at the moment.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the drive to recruit women in to the police and instead accept that this particular line of work is best suited to a mans physical capabilities. This also applies to firefighters and soldiers but we seem to have a police force obsessed with recruiting women at the moment.

Stop jailing parents for contacting their own children !

Very recently parents have been handcuffed and jailed for contacting their own children,by sending a birthday card,waving as they passed by,or communicating via u-tube !

Judges should NO LONGER have the power to issue injunctions forbidding contact between parents and children unless the parent in question has been convicted of a criminal offence on a child .

Right now, the power of family court judges over parents is overwhelming,intimidating,and unjust.If a parent has never been convicted of an offence on any child there is no reason why they should be refused all contact for up to 18 years and sometimes for life , and worse still jailed if they so much as wave a hand  or send a card !

The law that allows judges to issue draconian injuctions forbidding parents from contacting their own children should be repealed ! Only if a criminal offence has been committed against a child (any child) can such an injunction be justified.

Why is this idea important?

Very recently parents have been handcuffed and jailed for contacting their own children,by sending a birthday card,waving as they passed by,or communicating via u-tube !

Judges should NO LONGER have the power to issue injunctions forbidding contact between parents and children unless the parent in question has been convicted of a criminal offence on a child .

Right now, the power of family court judges over parents is overwhelming,intimidating,and unjust.If a parent has never been convicted of an offence on any child there is no reason why they should be refused all contact for up to 18 years and sometimes for life , and worse still jailed if they so much as wave a hand  or send a card !

The law that allows judges to issue draconian injuctions forbidding parents from contacting their own children should be repealed ! Only if a criminal offence has been committed against a child (any child) can such an injunction be justified.

Cannabis legalisation

When John Stuart Mill wrote 'On Liberty', he argued that a government should only involve itself in the personal affairs of an individual if they were harming another citizen. It is by this harm principle that believe that cannabis prohibition should end in this country. It is an unfair policy which criminalises those who use the drug, turning normal people into criminals, purely because they use a cannabis, a drug which research has shown to help such illness's as Alzheimer's disease, preventing lung cancer, helping brain cancer and many other such illness's. It is an individuals right to choose for his or herself what is best for themselves. 

I propose,

1.personal possession of cannabis decriminalised 

2.an individual will be able to grow up to three cannabis plants for personal use

3.That cannabis sold in a commercial setting should be regulated, a minimum age to buy it and a sin tax attached. 

Why is this idea important?

When John Stuart Mill wrote 'On Liberty', he argued that a government should only involve itself in the personal affairs of an individual if they were harming another citizen. It is by this harm principle that believe that cannabis prohibition should end in this country. It is an unfair policy which criminalises those who use the drug, turning normal people into criminals, purely because they use a cannabis, a drug which research has shown to help such illness's as Alzheimer's disease, preventing lung cancer, helping brain cancer and many other such illness's. It is an individuals right to choose for his or herself what is best for themselves. 

I propose,

1.personal possession of cannabis decriminalised 

2.an individual will be able to grow up to three cannabis plants for personal use

3.That cannabis sold in a commercial setting should be regulated, a minimum age to buy it and a sin tax attached. 

Repeal the Warrants allowing innocent People doing any Jail Terms

It's a horrifying thing to think that are actually people in prison in this country who are actually innocent of the crime that they have been convicted of and are now in prison. Yeah you'll get the do gooders on here saying our judicial system is good don't make mistakes "wrong" it makes too too many the kind of thing mentioned people in prison for committing no crimehappens yes in China may be North Korea but not in  England yet the harsh truth is it's happened and continues to happen .

Why is this idea important?

It's a horrifying thing to think that are actually people in prison in this country who are actually innocent of the crime that they have been convicted of and are now in prison. Yeah you'll get the do gooders on here saying our judicial system is good don't make mistakes "wrong" it makes too too many the kind of thing mentioned people in prison for committing no crimehappens yes in China may be North Korea but not in  England yet the harsh truth is it's happened and continues to happen .

Privatised Met Office – Bring It on…..

Go ahead and privatise the Met Office: it might stop them banging on about 'Climate change' as if it's a foregone conclusion.

Hang on – I'll just have a look…

Wait…. they already have! It's 'Climate Science' Now.. All very different from just a few months ago. It was all cut and dried then; anyone who disagreed was likened to a member of the Flat Earth Society. Now, they're using phrases like :

"Because we can’t know the future for certain, our climate change scientists use computer-based climate models to project plausible scenarios, or projections, for coming centuries. It is important to be aware that projections from climate models are always subject to uncertainty because of limitations on our knowledge of how the climate system works and on the computing resources available. Different climate models can give different projections…."

"Despite the uncertainties, all models show that the Earth will warm in the next century"…

NEXT CENTURY…. pretty safe bet that – it could be ANY time in the next century. It could be by ANY amount.

Uncertanties – What uncertainties? When New Labour was in power, global warming, caused by CO2 emissions, was presented as FACT! (And of course, provided bags and bags of possibilties for 'Green Taxes' – for those green enough to swallow it.)

So – what's changed, in 6 months? The climate? Not really – typical British Summer.

Or could it be the change of government, a chance that their funding may be in danger, and having to face the possibility of life in the real world? 

But wait… What's this? 'Global Dimming?'

Caused by…. pulling the wool over our eyes?  No – aerosols actually. Haven't we been here before?

Why is this idea important?

Go ahead and privatise the Met Office: it might stop them banging on about 'Climate change' as if it's a foregone conclusion.

Hang on – I'll just have a look…

Wait…. they already have! It's 'Climate Science' Now.. All very different from just a few months ago. It was all cut and dried then; anyone who disagreed was likened to a member of the Flat Earth Society. Now, they're using phrases like :

"Because we can’t know the future for certain, our climate change scientists use computer-based climate models to project plausible scenarios, or projections, for coming centuries. It is important to be aware that projections from climate models are always subject to uncertainty because of limitations on our knowledge of how the climate system works and on the computing resources available. Different climate models can give different projections…."

"Despite the uncertainties, all models show that the Earth will warm in the next century"…

NEXT CENTURY…. pretty safe bet that – it could be ANY time in the next century. It could be by ANY amount.

Uncertanties – What uncertainties? When New Labour was in power, global warming, caused by CO2 emissions, was presented as FACT! (And of course, provided bags and bags of possibilties for 'Green Taxes' – for those green enough to swallow it.)

So – what's changed, in 6 months? The climate? Not really – typical British Summer.

Or could it be the change of government, a chance that their funding may be in danger, and having to face the possibility of life in the real world? 

But wait… What's this? 'Global Dimming?'

Caused by…. pulling the wool over our eyes?  No – aerosols actually. Haven't we been here before?

National Curbside Recycling Strategy

 

At my previous house, the local council would recycle (at the curbside collection scheme) the following items:

  • Plastic
  • Paper
  • Glass
  • Food/drink cans
  • Cardboard
  • Green waste (in a separate bin)

This resulted in my household only 'throwing out' a black bin liner that was around half full every week.  We took things like light bulbs and remote control batteries (etc.) down the local tip when we had enough to justify a journey. Things like old clothing (etc.) was sent to the local charity shop.

We moved house last year, and even though the move was only a few miles, we came under a different council.  This council only collected the following items:

  • Paper
  • Glass
  • Food/drink cans
  • Green waste (in a separate bin)

This resulted in the amount that we disposed of increased almost overnight.  I also sold my car (as we were closer to better public transport links), so I thought that I could kill 2 birds with one stone by going to the tip on my bike (get some exercise and do something good for the environment).  I was told that they only allowed vehicles into the tip (bikes don’t count) due to ‘health and safety’ concerns.  Now I know that the amount that I can carry on a bike is only small, but it was more to do with doing a little, rather than nothing at all.

After speaking to colleagues at work, I found that some people can recycle all of the above, others only some of the above and some can recycle all of the above AND cooked/uncooked food waste. I do find it strange that in this day and age, the amount that we can recycle varies depending upon where you live, surely it must cost more for each council to have an individual policy on curbside collection, rather than a national strategy / policy?  And why is it that there are no facilities to recycle plastic drink bottles (for example) on the high street?

Why is this idea important?

 

At my previous house, the local council would recycle (at the curbside collection scheme) the following items:

  • Plastic
  • Paper
  • Glass
  • Food/drink cans
  • Cardboard
  • Green waste (in a separate bin)

This resulted in my household only 'throwing out' a black bin liner that was around half full every week.  We took things like light bulbs and remote control batteries (etc.) down the local tip when we had enough to justify a journey. Things like old clothing (etc.) was sent to the local charity shop.

We moved house last year, and even though the move was only a few miles, we came under a different council.  This council only collected the following items:

  • Paper
  • Glass
  • Food/drink cans
  • Green waste (in a separate bin)

This resulted in the amount that we disposed of increased almost overnight.  I also sold my car (as we were closer to better public transport links), so I thought that I could kill 2 birds with one stone by going to the tip on my bike (get some exercise and do something good for the environment).  I was told that they only allowed vehicles into the tip (bikes don’t count) due to ‘health and safety’ concerns.  Now I know that the amount that I can carry on a bike is only small, but it was more to do with doing a little, rather than nothing at all.

After speaking to colleagues at work, I found that some people can recycle all of the above, others only some of the above and some can recycle all of the above AND cooked/uncooked food waste. I do find it strange that in this day and age, the amount that we can recycle varies depending upon where you live, surely it must cost more for each council to have an individual policy on curbside collection, rather than a national strategy / policy?  And why is it that there are no facilities to recycle plastic drink bottles (for example) on the high street?

the government should pay for the funerals

and help support the families of all the genuinely disabled people in this country that will and in some cases already have killed themselves over decisions made in their Work Capability Assessments and DLA Medicals and the worry the prospect of losing their DLA is already causing them, like the man in scotland who was found dead next to two letters informing him that he was having all his benefits removed.

its the least Gideon could do

Why is this idea important?

and help support the families of all the genuinely disabled people in this country that will and in some cases already have killed themselves over decisions made in their Work Capability Assessments and DLA Medicals and the worry the prospect of losing their DLA is already causing them, like the man in scotland who was found dead next to two letters informing him that he was having all his benefits removed.

its the least Gideon could do

freedom to peaceful demonstration.

the right to peacefully demonstrate for any reason should be restored as a cornerstone to our democratic  system. for demonstrations to be restricted under the heading of anti terrorism is a  restriction of my right to make an active statement of my approval or disapproval. i have only once in my life felt moved to demonstrate (and i am 60 years of age) the only terrorists present were disguised as police officers.

greenham common. ghandi. there are many examples of peaceful protest changing our world. protests are a window to peoples viewes. they should be viewed as a citizens right and not as a terrorist activity.

laws that relate to demonstration could be viewed as a governments level of paranoia or a guage of the supression intended by the state upon its citizens

you need to display confidence………   not control

p.s. point of information. i protested against the invasion of iraq. also , should i ever feel so angry again i will bloody well protest anyway.

Why is this idea important?

the right to peacefully demonstrate for any reason should be restored as a cornerstone to our democratic  system. for demonstrations to be restricted under the heading of anti terrorism is a  restriction of my right to make an active statement of my approval or disapproval. i have only once in my life felt moved to demonstrate (and i am 60 years of age) the only terrorists present were disguised as police officers.

greenham common. ghandi. there are many examples of peaceful protest changing our world. protests are a window to peoples viewes. they should be viewed as a citizens right and not as a terrorist activity.

laws that relate to demonstration could be viewed as a governments level of paranoia or a guage of the supression intended by the state upon its citizens

you need to display confidence………   not control

p.s. point of information. i protested against the invasion of iraq. also , should i ever feel so angry again i will bloody well protest anyway.

Stop censorship of those seeking to uphold the Coronation Oath

The Coronation Oath –
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and
Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"
Elizabeth 2: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Elizabeth 2: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here
before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."

Those who want to follow the Laws of God, clearly stated in the Oath, are not being allowed.
At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse, according to this Oath, to God's Laws.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow The Law seek a single Court-room. Support the effort.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/know-your-rights-and-give-judges-less-discretion

Why is this idea important?

The Coronation Oath –
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and
Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"
Elizabeth 2: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Elizabeth 2: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here
before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."

Those who want to follow the Laws of God, clearly stated in the Oath, are not being allowed.
At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse, according to this Oath, to God's Laws.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow The Law seek a single Court-room. Support the effort.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/know-your-rights-and-give-judges-less-discretion

remove photography from anti-terror legislation

 




Several years ago, my girlfriend was working in a large shopping centre and asked me to take a photo of her and a friend.  As I was about to take the photo, I was approached by a security man who asked me to stop taking photos as it was not allowed due to anti-terror laws.  I thought this was a pretty awful imposition on my freedom.  If I came back later and planted a bomb then I would have committed a crime, but it is not a crime to simply take photos.

'My idea' as I am asked to put it in this form, is to allow photography in such situations, which is a completely harmless activity – no-one is being hurt or threatened, or having possessions stolen etc.

Why is this idea important?

 




Several years ago, my girlfriend was working in a large shopping centre and asked me to take a photo of her and a friend.  As I was about to take the photo, I was approached by a security man who asked me to stop taking photos as it was not allowed due to anti-terror laws.  I thought this was a pretty awful imposition on my freedom.  If I came back later and planted a bomb then I would have committed a crime, but it is not a crime to simply take photos.

'My idea' as I am asked to put it in this form, is to allow photography in such situations, which is a completely harmless activity – no-one is being hurt or threatened, or having possessions stolen etc.