Amend smoking ban – to only cover true public spaces

The present smoking ban makes smoking in many private properties illegal.  It does these by defining these private properties as public.   Just because a member of the public may be allowed access to these properties does not make them public.

 

Instead the law should ban smoking in true public places including all government (local and national) offices and maybe even parks (of at least a certain space)

Why is this idea important?

The present smoking ban makes smoking in many private properties illegal.  It does these by defining these private properties as public.   Just because a member of the public may be allowed access to these properties does not make them public.

 

Instead the law should ban smoking in true public places including all government (local and national) offices and maybe even parks (of at least a certain space)

Change the criteria of the smoking ban in pubs

Amend the smoking ban either a) to allowing smoking in one bar of a pub (perhaps with an air extraction system to protect the staff) provided the pub has more than one bar.

or b) to allowing the pub to provide a better shelter outside.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the smoking ban either a) to allowing smoking in one bar of a pub (perhaps with an air extraction system to protect the staff) provided the pub has more than one bar.

or b) to allowing the pub to provide a better shelter outside.

Inclusive school assemblies of all beliefs.

What is happening?

In England all state maintained schools are legally required to provide daily collective worship for all their pupils. In community schools the majority of the acts of daily collective worship that are provided in a given term are legally required to be of a ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’.  In ‘faith schools’ the act of worship is provided in accordance with the school's trust deed or the tenets and practices of the religion or religious denomination of the school.

This means that all school pupils are currently legally obliged to undertake an act of (usually Christian) worship each school day, regardless of their own beliefs. Although there are opportunities to opt out of this, this is only allowed if requested by the parents. This leaves young people without access to their right to freedom of belief.

Although the law on collective worship is clear, it is widely ignored, which is clearly very unhealthy in a democratic society. OFSTED's 2002-03 annual report, for example, states that ‘four fifths of schools do not hold a daily act of collective worship for all pupils’.

We are strongly in favour of inclusive school assemblies, which can help to build shared values and a sense of community. We oppose acts of collective worship in school, since these exclude many, and believe that the parental right of excusal is not a proper solution.

Why is this idea important?

What is happening?

In England all state maintained schools are legally required to provide daily collective worship for all their pupils. In community schools the majority of the acts of daily collective worship that are provided in a given term are legally required to be of a ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’.  In ‘faith schools’ the act of worship is provided in accordance with the school's trust deed or the tenets and practices of the religion or religious denomination of the school.

This means that all school pupils are currently legally obliged to undertake an act of (usually Christian) worship each school day, regardless of their own beliefs. Although there are opportunities to opt out of this, this is only allowed if requested by the parents. This leaves young people without access to their right to freedom of belief.

Although the law on collective worship is clear, it is widely ignored, which is clearly very unhealthy in a democratic society. OFSTED's 2002-03 annual report, for example, states that ‘four fifths of schools do not hold a daily act of collective worship for all pupils’.

We are strongly in favour of inclusive school assemblies, which can help to build shared values and a sense of community. We oppose acts of collective worship in school, since these exclude many, and believe that the parental right of excusal is not a proper solution.

Make Health Insurance compulsory for foreigners entering our country

Foreigners, including people from the EU, must have health insurance. If they arrive with out it they must be required to purchase it at the place of entry. No insurance, no entry. It would save the NHS millions. They have started to do this in Cuba. So should we.

Why is this idea important?

Foreigners, including people from the EU, must have health insurance. If they arrive with out it they must be required to purchase it at the place of entry. No insurance, no entry. It would save the NHS millions. They have started to do this in Cuba. So should we.

Degrees we need.

I'm a student nurse who's about to go into my third year, I think that shortening degrees to two years only would be impossible for me as I work on placement 37.5 hours a week for half of each year and am in university lectures from 9am to 4pm mon-fri for the other half with just 8 weeks holiday (which normal degree students get for just their summer break) so I cannot see how you could possibly apply the two year idea to some degrees. 

 I get an NHS bursary of £3,800 which I have to pay back once qualified, I do not think it would be fair to tax nurses and other health care graduates. But I do think that Media studies, art, American studies etc should have to pay more than Drs/nurses/teachers/scientists and engineers for their courses. 

Why is this idea important?

I'm a student nurse who's about to go into my third year, I think that shortening degrees to two years only would be impossible for me as I work on placement 37.5 hours a week for half of each year and am in university lectures from 9am to 4pm mon-fri for the other half with just 8 weeks holiday (which normal degree students get for just their summer break) so I cannot see how you could possibly apply the two year idea to some degrees. 

 I get an NHS bursary of £3,800 which I have to pay back once qualified, I do not think it would be fair to tax nurses and other health care graduates. But I do think that Media studies, art, American studies etc should have to pay more than Drs/nurses/teachers/scientists and engineers for their courses. 

Smoking ban Public Houses

With the current trend of numerous public houses having to close weekly, the impact this has on Government taxation revenues, why has the smoking ban to apply to ALL Public Houses. Smokers pay more tax than non smokers and much of the income derived from the sale of cigarettes and alcohol goes into the National Health Service.

Why, initially at least, after the ban on smoking in public places was introduced, were the Houses of Parliament allowed a smoking room when normal smokers were refused this simple right?

Would it not make sense to allow a brewery or licensee the option, provided no food is sold within the premises, nor children served there, to allow smoking within such licenced premises. These could be clearly indentified with health warnings thus non smokers could make an informed decision as to whether to enter or not.

If anyone has been to Spain, France, Portugal etc recently it seems that they have a far more relaxed attitude to this whole matter. As a smoker I would urge the Government to consider this whole issue and review a possible small amendment to a law restricting a freedom this country had enjoyed for hundreds of years.

Even the Queen sent cigarettes to our troops in the trenches in the 1914 – 18 conflict, surely allowing such a small freedom to those who choose to smoke whilst continuing to protect children and non smokers is hardly likely to cause riots in the street!

 

Why is this idea important?

With the current trend of numerous public houses having to close weekly, the impact this has on Government taxation revenues, why has the smoking ban to apply to ALL Public Houses. Smokers pay more tax than non smokers and much of the income derived from the sale of cigarettes and alcohol goes into the National Health Service.

Why, initially at least, after the ban on smoking in public places was introduced, were the Houses of Parliament allowed a smoking room when normal smokers were refused this simple right?

Would it not make sense to allow a brewery or licensee the option, provided no food is sold within the premises, nor children served there, to allow smoking within such licenced premises. These could be clearly indentified with health warnings thus non smokers could make an informed decision as to whether to enter or not.

If anyone has been to Spain, France, Portugal etc recently it seems that they have a far more relaxed attitude to this whole matter. As a smoker I would urge the Government to consider this whole issue and review a possible small amendment to a law restricting a freedom this country had enjoyed for hundreds of years.

Even the Queen sent cigarettes to our troops in the trenches in the 1914 – 18 conflict, surely allowing such a small freedom to those who choose to smoke whilst continuing to protect children and non smokers is hardly likely to cause riots in the street!

 

Degree courses

This is up for review, and I am not sure that a student tax is the way forward, however, what should be top of the agenda, is making sure the students that study vocational courses, especially in science and engineering should be financially encouraged, and those that want to study media or archaeology etc can pay the full amount.

Why is this idea important?

This is up for review, and I am not sure that a student tax is the way forward, however, what should be top of the agenda, is making sure the students that study vocational courses, especially in science and engineering should be financially encouraged, and those that want to study media or archaeology etc can pay the full amount.

Disabled facilities grants

These are currently under scrutiny as all things are, however, the whole point of these is to help keep the most vulnerable people in society stay in their homes and out of hospital. The trouble is there is no joined up thinking, ie no-one knows how much money is actually saved, so PCTs do not directly understand the benefits, if they did there, would be more money put into it to help reduce the overall NHS costs not less

Why is this idea important?

These are currently under scrutiny as all things are, however, the whole point of these is to help keep the most vulnerable people in society stay in their homes and out of hospital. The trouble is there is no joined up thinking, ie no-one knows how much money is actually saved, so PCTs do not directly understand the benefits, if they did there, would be more money put into it to help reduce the overall NHS costs not less

Reverse the law which permits toxic fluoride from being put into our water supply

Fluoride is a known toxic substance which has very serious negative implications for our health. The theory that fluoride helps reduce dental caries is seriously disputed by increasing numbers of scientists and medical experts.

Incidentally, a report commissioned by Commons authorities in 2009 estimated that the Houses of Parliament uses over 21,000 bottles of bottled water each year (see Guardian 28 August 2009..  If our tap water is so safe, why are our politicians adding 12 tonnes to the carbon footprint every year through their use of bottled water, and spending thousands of tax payers money on same.

If, as the government keeps telling us, our tap water is of excellent quality, why aren't they prepared to drink it?????

 

Why is this idea important?

Fluoride is a known toxic substance which has very serious negative implications for our health. The theory that fluoride helps reduce dental caries is seriously disputed by increasing numbers of scientists and medical experts.

Incidentally, a report commissioned by Commons authorities in 2009 estimated that the Houses of Parliament uses over 21,000 bottles of bottled water each year (see Guardian 28 August 2009..  If our tap water is so safe, why are our politicians adding 12 tonnes to the carbon footprint every year through their use of bottled water, and spending thousands of tax payers money on same.

If, as the government keeps telling us, our tap water is of excellent quality, why aren't they prepared to drink it?????

 

smoking ban

to bring in seperate areas within air conditioned pubs to allow smokers back into pub society. the smoking ban affects a large minority of customers who also tend to be pub characters at the heart of pub society. or allow more substantinal provision for shelter and protection from the elements for outside smoking. stop making life hard for a large minority of pub goers. 

Why is this idea important?

to bring in seperate areas within air conditioned pubs to allow smokers back into pub society. the smoking ban affects a large minority of customers who also tend to be pub characters at the heart of pub society. or allow more substantinal provision for shelter and protection from the elements for outside smoking. stop making life hard for a large minority of pub goers. 

Alcohol should not be allowed on trains.

Alcohol should not be alloowed on trains. Frequently journeys are spoiled for travellers by drunk passengers shouting, making a nuisance of themselves, and even being sick on the train. Once I could not exit my carriage by either door without negotiating my way round the vomit there. The guard could do nothing.

Why is this idea important?

Alcohol should not be alloowed on trains. Frequently journeys are spoiled for travellers by drunk passengers shouting, making a nuisance of themselves, and even being sick on the train. Once I could not exit my carriage by either door without negotiating my way round the vomit there. The guard could do nothing.

Repeal or part repeal Dartford Crossing Tolls

The tailbacks on both sides of the Dartford Crossing are now almost guaranteed for long parts of the day. Indeed sometimes they are queud back miles to Jn 3 or 4 on the south side and Jn 28 or Jn 29 on the North side. Even on a weekend the queue is at least 30 minutes duration.

The fees were supposed to be abolished when the crossings were finished, but have not been. I understand that some money is needed for maintenance and I also understand that the government receive a substantial income from the crossing.

My idea is therefore to repeal the toll. If this is not practical then as soon as the tailback reaches a certain length, the barriers open automatically and traffic is allowed to flow freely until the backlog is cleared upon which time the barriers close and fees are taken again. This would allow income still to be collected, but would allow traffic to move.

 

Why is this idea important?

The tailbacks on both sides of the Dartford Crossing are now almost guaranteed for long parts of the day. Indeed sometimes they are queud back miles to Jn 3 or 4 on the south side and Jn 28 or Jn 29 on the North side. Even on a weekend the queue is at least 30 minutes duration.

The fees were supposed to be abolished when the crossings were finished, but have not been. I understand that some money is needed for maintenance and I also understand that the government receive a substantial income from the crossing.

My idea is therefore to repeal the toll. If this is not practical then as soon as the tailback reaches a certain length, the barriers open automatically and traffic is allowed to flow freely until the backlog is cleared upon which time the barriers close and fees are taken again. This would allow income still to be collected, but would allow traffic to move.

 

DVLA data: stop misuse

The data that car owners are required to give to the government, rightly, should not be sold on to car park companies, "civil enforcement" racketeers and clamping cowboys. Their access should be retricted to searches paid for, if need be, in the course of civil proceedingsd, properly restricted, not just handed out to those who want to make a profit out of the public.

Why is this idea important?

The data that car owners are required to give to the government, rightly, should not be sold on to car park companies, "civil enforcement" racketeers and clamping cowboys. Their access should be retricted to searches paid for, if need be, in the course of civil proceedingsd, properly restricted, not just handed out to those who want to make a profit out of the public.

School detention is is against human rights

An end to school detention, this is a form of inprisonment against a person's will, usually the result of alittle bit of horse play.

Surely the act of detention is unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping. normally with a ransom being issued for a person to do something in return for freedom.

Why is this idea important?

An end to school detention, this is a form of inprisonment against a person's will, usually the result of alittle bit of horse play.

Surely the act of detention is unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping. normally with a ransom being issued for a person to do something in return for freedom.

A Consistent National Parking Policy For Motorcyclists

Local authorities have their own individual policies for motorycyle parking,  Some authorities allow free parking in metered bays for motorcyclists.  Others, such as Liverpool city council don't, and you will get a fixed penalty, even though there is no prominent signages on their bays..  LIverpool CC's Civil Enforcement Offiers did sticker some motorcylists when they changed the rules but that's not much use to visitors who are getting caught out by a lack of proper signage in parking bays,   

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities have their own individual policies for motorycyle parking,  Some authorities allow free parking in metered bays for motorcyclists.  Others, such as Liverpool city council don't, and you will get a fixed penalty, even though there is no prominent signages on their bays..  LIverpool CC's Civil Enforcement Offiers did sticker some motorcylists when they changed the rules but that's not much use to visitors who are getting caught out by a lack of proper signage in parking bays,   

Review of National Parks – include residents in direct consultation

Did you know that National Parks and National Park Authorities are 2 different things?

 

English National Parks are ‘National Treasures’ and should always remain so.  Many hundreds of thousands of people visit them each year – whether a day trip or for a holiday – National Parks are very special places, I know this because I am lucky to live on one!  These parks are National parks because they belong to the nation; they are unique; tranquil; accessible; educational – and free to use. 

 

A National Park Authority is an unelected body of members made up of DEFRA appointees and other unelected people who often do not even reside in their NP.  It has remained this way since the first National Park (The Peak District) was designated – way back in 1951.

 

Today, in 2010, residents of national parks have their first opportunity to change this democratic deficit through direct public consultation with DEFRA during their Review of the governance arrangements of these authorities. (July – December 2010).

 

Sadly, and from past experiences, we know we should never assume that government would consult at grass-roots level; which means we need to lobby for consultation opportunities during this Review – after all, we know more about where we live than perhaps unelected bureaucrats do and we are capable of meaningful discussions on our own future!

 

Please help us by supporting our petition to DEFRA to include residents/workers/visitors etc., in the consultation process of this Review.  We are not asking for the abolition of National Parks; we just want locally elected authority membership.

 

You can find the petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/onevoice/and we would be very grateful if you could send the link to friends and family please.

 

Thank you for your support.

Sue Baillie

ONE VOICE

http://www.onevoice.officeoverload.com/

 

Why is this idea important?

Did you know that National Parks and National Park Authorities are 2 different things?

 

English National Parks are ‘National Treasures’ and should always remain so.  Many hundreds of thousands of people visit them each year – whether a day trip or for a holiday – National Parks are very special places, I know this because I am lucky to live on one!  These parks are National parks because they belong to the nation; they are unique; tranquil; accessible; educational – and free to use. 

 

A National Park Authority is an unelected body of members made up of DEFRA appointees and other unelected people who often do not even reside in their NP.  It has remained this way since the first National Park (The Peak District) was designated – way back in 1951.

 

Today, in 2010, residents of national parks have their first opportunity to change this democratic deficit through direct public consultation with DEFRA during their Review of the governance arrangements of these authorities. (July – December 2010).

 

Sadly, and from past experiences, we know we should never assume that government would consult at grass-roots level; which means we need to lobby for consultation opportunities during this Review – after all, we know more about where we live than perhaps unelected bureaucrats do and we are capable of meaningful discussions on our own future!

 

Please help us by supporting our petition to DEFRA to include residents/workers/visitors etc., in the consultation process of this Review.  We are not asking for the abolition of National Parks; we just want locally elected authority membership.

 

You can find the petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/onevoice/and we would be very grateful if you could send the link to friends and family please.

 

Thank you for your support.

Sue Baillie

ONE VOICE

http://www.onevoice.officeoverload.com/

 

PRESCRITION ONLY MEDICINES – PODIATRISTS

Currently podiatrists with suitable annotation with the health professions council have access to list of precription only medicines (POM) for sale, supply and adminsitartion to patients. While this list is useful in allowing seemelss patient care, this list has not been updated since 2006, and the list has not kept apace with change in drug licencing which means that patients may often purchase from a pharmacy certain medicines in a lrager quantity than can be supplied by a podiatrist. This is leading to a disjoined care pathway and can be dangerous.

For example a podiatrist can supply ibuprofen at a dose of 400mg Three times a day to a maximum of 3 days supply, however a phamracist may reatil a quantity up to 96 tablets!

 

Looking at the MHRA website, midwives and optmetrists may supply ANY P medicines to patients in the course of their professional practice but podiatrist have a limited list of P mediciens, does the Deprtment of Helath think a podiatrist is any less qualifies or responsible than an optometrist?

 

All groups may supply any GSL medicines but as these are available from outlets such as garages this is a mute point.

 

In addition the list of POM is restrictive while it allows the issuing of analagesia in the form of co-dydramol up to 3 days supply, this causes problems if analagesia is required over a longer period e.g. a bank holiday weekend, in additoon to the fact that phamracist do not like having to pack down from the smallest pack size of 30 tablets.

 

The range of drugs is now too limited to allow safe and effective practice. Theior is only one topical steriod on the list at very low strength, the range of antibitoics wihiel useful for a sabustantial majority of infection does cause problems when a swab result from the lab. states a resistant organism requiring another antibiotic e.g. co-amoxiclav.

 

Theire is only one injectable corticosteriod on the list while being effective is relatively short in duration and the steriod of choice in orthopadecis and by GP collegaues is triamcinolone (kenalog)

 

The list could go and on!

 

In addition currently podiatrist have to obatin these items wholesale and supply the drug directly to the patient. optomrtrists also perform this function, however optomterist also have an additional benefit they may issue a 'signed order' to a patient allowing the patient to take this to the phamracy and have the item dispensed by the pharmacist irectly to them, this means that if an optmetrist is out of stock of the drug or it is for an expensive item or short dated itme, the patient is not overly inconveneienced they simply take the signed order to the phamracy and have it dispensed in the same way as private prescription, when I enquired to the MHRA why podiatrists cannot do the same, I was informed podiatrist have never asked fro this valuable serice and contact the minister!

 

I am aware that there is a scope exercise to allow podiatrists and physiotherpaist full independent presctibing rights which is long over due, however it is likley to take several years before this becomes a reality given the process involved, as an interim measure the government should ask the MHRA to consult on an extension to the exepmtion list for podiatrists and add in the provision of issuing signed orders directly to patients, in order to ensure a safe, effective and seamless patient hourny. If the profession is being considered for prescribing rights then surely there can e no objection to an extension of the exepmtion list which can be achieved by secondary legislation in a matter of months following consultation?

 

I have already met with my MP and she is lobbying the DOH minister on this very issue, I would urge other podiatrists with POM annotation to do the same forwith, as I am informed the more lobbying by MPs that occurs the more likely to minister will take this forward

Why is this idea important?

Currently podiatrists with suitable annotation with the health professions council have access to list of precription only medicines (POM) for sale, supply and adminsitartion to patients. While this list is useful in allowing seemelss patient care, this list has not been updated since 2006, and the list has not kept apace with change in drug licencing which means that patients may often purchase from a pharmacy certain medicines in a lrager quantity than can be supplied by a podiatrist. This is leading to a disjoined care pathway and can be dangerous.

For example a podiatrist can supply ibuprofen at a dose of 400mg Three times a day to a maximum of 3 days supply, however a phamracist may reatil a quantity up to 96 tablets!

 

Looking at the MHRA website, midwives and optmetrists may supply ANY P medicines to patients in the course of their professional practice but podiatrist have a limited list of P mediciens, does the Deprtment of Helath think a podiatrist is any less qualifies or responsible than an optometrist?

 

All groups may supply any GSL medicines but as these are available from outlets such as garages this is a mute point.

 

In addition the list of POM is restrictive while it allows the issuing of analagesia in the form of co-dydramol up to 3 days supply, this causes problems if analagesia is required over a longer period e.g. a bank holiday weekend, in additoon to the fact that phamracist do not like having to pack down from the smallest pack size of 30 tablets.

 

The range of drugs is now too limited to allow safe and effective practice. Theior is only one topical steriod on the list at very low strength, the range of antibitoics wihiel useful for a sabustantial majority of infection does cause problems when a swab result from the lab. states a resistant organism requiring another antibiotic e.g. co-amoxiclav.

 

Theire is only one injectable corticosteriod on the list while being effective is relatively short in duration and the steriod of choice in orthopadecis and by GP collegaues is triamcinolone (kenalog)

 

The list could go and on!

 

In addition currently podiatrist have to obatin these items wholesale and supply the drug directly to the patient. optomrtrists also perform this function, however optomterist also have an additional benefit they may issue a 'signed order' to a patient allowing the patient to take this to the phamracy and have the item dispensed by the pharmacist irectly to them, this means that if an optmetrist is out of stock of the drug or it is for an expensive item or short dated itme, the patient is not overly inconveneienced they simply take the signed order to the phamracy and have it dispensed in the same way as private prescription, when I enquired to the MHRA why podiatrists cannot do the same, I was informed podiatrist have never asked fro this valuable serice and contact the minister!

 

I am aware that there is a scope exercise to allow podiatrists and physiotherpaist full independent presctibing rights which is long over due, however it is likley to take several years before this becomes a reality given the process involved, as an interim measure the government should ask the MHRA to consult on an extension to the exepmtion list for podiatrists and add in the provision of issuing signed orders directly to patients, in order to ensure a safe, effective and seamless patient hourny. If the profession is being considered for prescribing rights then surely there can e no objection to an extension of the exepmtion list which can be achieved by secondary legislation in a matter of months following consultation?

 

I have already met with my MP and she is lobbying the DOH minister on this very issue, I would urge other podiatrists with POM annotation to do the same forwith, as I am informed the more lobbying by MPs that occurs the more likely to minister will take this forward

Amend the HEALTH ACT 2006 in order to restore freedom from health inequalities

Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. . These people received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that some people  who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as  compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust fumes, or any similar circumstance.

Why is this idea important?

Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. . These people received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that some people  who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as  compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust fumes, or any similar circumstance.

Amend the HEALTH ACT 2006 in order to restore freedom from health inequalities (in respect of the smoking ban)

Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. The persons that I refer to are that class of people commonly referred to as non-smokers. These people  received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that non-smokers (or indeed, smokers) who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as  compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust ‘smoke’, or any similar circumstance.

Why is this idea important?

Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. The persons that I refer to are that class of people commonly referred to as non-smokers. These people  received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that non-smokers (or indeed, smokers) who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as  compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust ‘smoke’, or any similar circumstance.

Keep safety cameras

Press reports suggest that the government is to remove funding for most safety cameras.

If they do, the accident rate will soar immediately and public funds will forfeit a major source of revenue.

Please think again before removing this vital safeguard to our lives and environment.

Why is this idea important?

Press reports suggest that the government is to remove funding for most safety cameras.

If they do, the accident rate will soar immediately and public funds will forfeit a major source of revenue.

Please think again before removing this vital safeguard to our lives and environment.

Teenage Scrapheap Challenge Centres.

This is an idea which could take disruptive teenagers off the streets, based on the TV program Scrapheap Challenge. 

This would be a club supervised by persons with engineering or mechanical backgrounds, who would teach and help teenagers make things like Go Karts, Boats or such like out of Junk left at Council tips.

Why is this idea important?

This is an idea which could take disruptive teenagers off the streets, based on the TV program Scrapheap Challenge. 

This would be a club supervised by persons with engineering or mechanical backgrounds, who would teach and help teenagers make things like Go Karts, Boats or such like out of Junk left at Council tips.

Don’t loose NCD if hit by uninsured

If an uninsured driver hits you and the accident is entirely their fault, it should be illegal for an insurance company to charge you an excess, or remove your No Claims Discount.

Why is this idea important?

If an uninsured driver hits you and the accident is entirely their fault, it should be illegal for an insurance company to charge you an excess, or remove your No Claims Discount.

Freedom for caged Chickens

Currently, over fifty percent of eggs come from battery chickens.  These chickens are kept in cages around the same size as a piece of A4 paper.  These cages will be illegal as of 2012, however ‘enriched cages’ will be allowed.  These new cages, however, offer little improvement.  Cages prevent chickens from behaving naturally.  It’s about time we began to move to eradicating all manner of cages for chickens.  Studies frequently site free-range eggs as being significantly healthier.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, over fifty percent of eggs come from battery chickens.  These chickens are kept in cages around the same size as a piece of A4 paper.  These cages will be illegal as of 2012, however ‘enriched cages’ will be allowed.  These new cages, however, offer little improvement.  Cages prevent chickens from behaving naturally.  It’s about time we began to move to eradicating all manner of cages for chickens.  Studies frequently site free-range eggs as being significantly healthier.

Pavement Parking

My civil libery is to be able to walk along a pavement without  having to negotiate around vehicles that have park on it, it is an offence under the Highway code to drive and park on the pavement, so please introduce a law which protects all pavement users such as Children, disabled people, blind and wheelchair bound, at present we have no law that states its an offence to park a vehicle on a pavement, we have many laws such as a driver of a vehicle must not  use a mobile phone whilst driving a moving vehicle; failure to wear a seat belt not that I want people injured but the only person who invariable gets hurt if they do not wear a seat belt is the person not complying with the law. Both of these being very difficult to Police.  Many groups and assosiations are trying to get this law introduced so that pavements are safe places to proceed along. I believe the Government have duty of care to all persons who use pavements, not introducing this law show the lack of concern for our children and other legal pavement  users.

Why is this idea important?

My civil libery is to be able to walk along a pavement without  having to negotiate around vehicles that have park on it, it is an offence under the Highway code to drive and park on the pavement, so please introduce a law which protects all pavement users such as Children, disabled people, blind and wheelchair bound, at present we have no law that states its an offence to park a vehicle on a pavement, we have many laws such as a driver of a vehicle must not  use a mobile phone whilst driving a moving vehicle; failure to wear a seat belt not that I want people injured but the only person who invariable gets hurt if they do not wear a seat belt is the person not complying with the law. Both of these being very difficult to Police.  Many groups and assosiations are trying to get this law introduced so that pavements are safe places to proceed along. I believe the Government have duty of care to all persons who use pavements, not introducing this law show the lack of concern for our children and other legal pavement  users.

Pavement Parking

My civil libery is to be able to walk along a pavement without  having to negotiate around vehicles that have park on it, it is an offence under the Highway code to drive and park on the pavement, so please introduce a law which protects all pavement users such as Children, disabled people, blind and wheelchair bound, at present we have no law that states its an offence to park a vehicle on a pavement, we have many laws such as a driver of a vehicle must not  use a mobile phone whilst driving a moving vehicle; failure to wear a seat belt not that I want people injured but the only person who invariable gets hurt if they do not wear a seat belt is the person not complying with the law. Both of these being very difficult to Police.  Many groups and assosiations are trying to get this law introduced so that pavements are safe places to proceed along. I believe the Government have duty of care to all persons who use pavements, not introducing this law show the lack of concern for our children and other legal pavement  users.

Why is this idea important?

My civil libery is to be able to walk along a pavement without  having to negotiate around vehicles that have park on it, it is an offence under the Highway code to drive and park on the pavement, so please introduce a law which protects all pavement users such as Children, disabled people, blind and wheelchair bound, at present we have no law that states its an offence to park a vehicle on a pavement, we have many laws such as a driver of a vehicle must not  use a mobile phone whilst driving a moving vehicle; failure to wear a seat belt not that I want people injured but the only person who invariable gets hurt if they do not wear a seat belt is the person not complying with the law. Both of these being very difficult to Police.  Many groups and assosiations are trying to get this law introduced so that pavements are safe places to proceed along. I believe the Government have duty of care to all persons who use pavements, not introducing this law show the lack of concern for our children and other legal pavement  users.