parents teachers children

i believe that it was in margret thatchers  era that a law was introduced where parents were no longer allowed to control their children  whilst i would never agree with a child being beaten. if a child is out of control .a quick slap on the bottom would normaly  stop the situation getting worse. before all you do gooders start lecturing me just look around you today .parents are not allowed to punish their children look in any newspaper when did it become acceptable for a young person to kick an old person in the back and run off  laughing .when did it become acceptable for youngsters to roam about the streets late at night and we the public are not allowed to say anything. when did it become acceptable for  groups of youngsters to terrorize innocent people in their homes and on the street. how have we allowed some areas in our citys to become no go areas and its getting worse  the police cannot be expected to do what parents and teachersare not allowed to do children today quote the law  better than any solictor . it is time that control was given back to the adults   sadly some children  will get beaten  no matter  how many laws are made hopefully social services  will step in . but it is time to act now

Why is this idea important?

i believe that it was in margret thatchers  era that a law was introduced where parents were no longer allowed to control their children  whilst i would never agree with a child being beaten. if a child is out of control .a quick slap on the bottom would normaly  stop the situation getting worse. before all you do gooders start lecturing me just look around you today .parents are not allowed to punish their children look in any newspaper when did it become acceptable for a young person to kick an old person in the back and run off  laughing .when did it become acceptable for youngsters to roam about the streets late at night and we the public are not allowed to say anything. when did it become acceptable for  groups of youngsters to terrorize innocent people in their homes and on the street. how have we allowed some areas in our citys to become no go areas and its getting worse  the police cannot be expected to do what parents and teachersare not allowed to do children today quote the law  better than any solictor . it is time that control was given back to the adults   sadly some children  will get beaten  no matter  how many laws are made hopefully social services  will step in . but it is time to act now

Local residents opposition should count for democracy

Residents fighting to save Green Belt Land being used by this Government to build the BIGGEST PRISON, in OUR VILLAGE of RUNWELL ESSEX.

   vmhorner @hotmail.com       10th Sept 2010

With this Governments Policy of listening to Local Peoples Opinion (WHY ARE THEY NOT LISTENING)

The MoJ is obviously determined to go ahead with its plans regardless of local feeling of Runwell, Rettendon, Wickford, with  Chelmsford Borough Council and Basildon Borough Council, also all local Parish Councils opposing this Planning Application. There are many Brown Field sites within the MOJ's selection critria that have been completely ignored, had they taken these into consideration they could have saved the Tax Payer and this Government Millions of pounds. Regenaration in Deprived area's would provide Jobs   and would also save More Government and Tax payers money by getting people in these area's off Benifits. Chelmsford does NOT need these econmic Benifits but many parts of the country clearly do.

Apart from The Massive saving available by re-siting this proposed Prison, the following is statements from Mr Blunt MP.

"If the next Government is Conservative it will restore powers over planning to local authorities so that decisions are taken locally by locally elected councillors. We will give local communities a share in local growth – when local authorities deliver the housing that their community needs they will get the financial benefit."

Mr Blunt also set out proposals that include scrapping the Regional Spatial Strategies and unelected regional assemblies. He said that he hoped that if the policies are enacted they will empower local councillors and encourage more engagement from voters. Mr Blunt also stressed the importance of protecting the Green Belt:

Chelmsford Borough Council were ready to REGECT MOJ PLANNING APPLICATION on the 20th August 2010, and on the same Day MOJ withdrew the application knowing it was going to be rejected, only to admit to a resubmission in late September 2010.

Finally Deprived area's would welcome the £20million proposed (sweetner) that is NOT required by Chelmsford.
 

Why is this idea important?

Residents fighting to save Green Belt Land being used by this Government to build the BIGGEST PRISON, in OUR VILLAGE of RUNWELL ESSEX.

   vmhorner @hotmail.com       10th Sept 2010

With this Governments Policy of listening to Local Peoples Opinion (WHY ARE THEY NOT LISTENING)

The MoJ is obviously determined to go ahead with its plans regardless of local feeling of Runwell, Rettendon, Wickford, with  Chelmsford Borough Council and Basildon Borough Council, also all local Parish Councils opposing this Planning Application. There are many Brown Field sites within the MOJ's selection critria that have been completely ignored, had they taken these into consideration they could have saved the Tax Payer and this Government Millions of pounds. Regenaration in Deprived area's would provide Jobs   and would also save More Government and Tax payers money by getting people in these area's off Benifits. Chelmsford does NOT need these econmic Benifits but many parts of the country clearly do.

Apart from The Massive saving available by re-siting this proposed Prison, the following is statements from Mr Blunt MP.

"If the next Government is Conservative it will restore powers over planning to local authorities so that decisions are taken locally by locally elected councillors. We will give local communities a share in local growth – when local authorities deliver the housing that their community needs they will get the financial benefit."

Mr Blunt also set out proposals that include scrapping the Regional Spatial Strategies and unelected regional assemblies. He said that he hoped that if the policies are enacted they will empower local councillors and encourage more engagement from voters. Mr Blunt also stressed the importance of protecting the Green Belt:

Chelmsford Borough Council were ready to REGECT MOJ PLANNING APPLICATION on the 20th August 2010, and on the same Day MOJ withdrew the application knowing it was going to be rejected, only to admit to a resubmission in late September 2010.

Finally Deprived area's would welcome the £20million proposed (sweetner) that is NOT required by Chelmsford.
 

human rights law

i would like to see the human rights  law abolished. and a new law put in its place  one that all these do gooders .could not play about with to suit their purpose  the lawyers do very nicely out of the present law  when the guilty  are more protected than the innocent.

Why is this idea important?

i would like to see the human rights  law abolished. and a new law put in its place  one that all these do gooders .could not play about with to suit their purpose  the lawyers do very nicely out of the present law  when the guilty  are more protected than the innocent.

The benefit system that results in child carers should be reviewed

From time to time in the media there are stories of young children acting as carers to their disabled parents.  This is wrong and whatever rule within the benefit payments system that allows this to happen should be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

From time to time in the media there are stories of young children acting as carers to their disabled parents.  This is wrong and whatever rule within the benefit payments system that allows this to happen should be repealed.

Create a social benefit loan system

Everyone hits hard times sometimes and society as a whole has a moral obligation to assist. However, because those who live solely on social benefits are disincentivised from working if they afre better off not working, perhaps we need a system that is based on contributions made to the system.

1) NI number linkage of service use and benefits that accrue like an annual bill that can be in credit or debit based on your level of contribution and benefit from the system.

2) It is a loan if you go 'overdrawn' that becomes payable when you are self sufficient again.

3) If you fail to repay, the debt is passed to your estate.

4) Capping of benefits is introduced – a tapering system where eventually if you fail to support yourself, the state no longer has an obligation to.

5) Failure to repay a loan affects your crediting rating and deductions from bank accounts or pay.

This would STOP this ridiculous system where some people put into the system entirely for the benefit of 'scroungers'   

Why is this idea important?

Everyone hits hard times sometimes and society as a whole has a moral obligation to assist. However, because those who live solely on social benefits are disincentivised from working if they afre better off not working, perhaps we need a system that is based on contributions made to the system.

1) NI number linkage of service use and benefits that accrue like an annual bill that can be in credit or debit based on your level of contribution and benefit from the system.

2) It is a loan if you go 'overdrawn' that becomes payable when you are self sufficient again.

3) If you fail to repay, the debt is passed to your estate.

4) Capping of benefits is introduced – a tapering system where eventually if you fail to support yourself, the state no longer has an obligation to.

5) Failure to repay a loan affects your crediting rating and deductions from bank accounts or pay.

This would STOP this ridiculous system where some people put into the system entirely for the benefit of 'scroungers'   

Restrict family size unless parents can provide

I think that there are too many people who have several children and who have no responsibility yet expect the state to pick up the bill.

A law that restores the balance of civil liberties such that the exercise of the right to found a family goes hand in hand with the responsibility to ensure that you are able to provide for your children is urgently needed.

One common sense approach is to restrict family size by making it compulsory to have depo vera injections to prevent further pregnancies for those who are on state benefits and who already have 2 children.

That way people are responsible for supporting their children – rather than maximising how much they can claim from the state. 

Why is this idea important?

I think that there are too many people who have several children and who have no responsibility yet expect the state to pick up the bill.

A law that restores the balance of civil liberties such that the exercise of the right to found a family goes hand in hand with the responsibility to ensure that you are able to provide for your children is urgently needed.

One common sense approach is to restrict family size by making it compulsory to have depo vera injections to prevent further pregnancies for those who are on state benefits and who already have 2 children.

That way people are responsible for supporting their children – rather than maximising how much they can claim from the state. 

‘Frozen Pensions’ Repeal this crippling 1920s Law

This is a law that is never advertised, or talked about, as we found out to our cost one year after my first pension had been paid, three years after retiring to Mexico to live with family. Our full working lives were spent in Britain, paying into the system, not by 'agreement' as the government claims but without any choice, but expecting a reasonable pension on retirement.This pensions anomoly does not just apply to ex -Commonwealth countries, there are several other affected countries also. Why, I have to ask, are they included in this ridiculous law. No other civilized country treats its Seniors with such disrespect.

Why is this idea important?

This is a law that is never advertised, or talked about, as we found out to our cost one year after my first pension had been paid, three years after retiring to Mexico to live with family. Our full working lives were spent in Britain, paying into the system, not by 'agreement' as the government claims but without any choice, but expecting a reasonable pension on retirement.This pensions anomoly does not just apply to ex -Commonwealth countries, there are several other affected countries also. Why, I have to ask, are they included in this ridiculous law. No other civilized country treats its Seniors with such disrespect.

Over the Counter Painkillers

Legislation (1998) limits the sale of painkillers to packs of 16 in all shops except pharmacies which may sell packs of 32 to minimise the risk of overdosing. People are not allowed by law to buy more than 32 tablets at one time and some shops display  a notice to this effect.

This is a petty and unnecessary law because anybody wishing to buy more than 32 painkillers can simply buy them in more than one shop, or can scan several packs at self-service checkouts in supermarkets. Meanwhile pharmacists are enjoying a monopoly over the sale of the larger packs of painkillers for no good reason. 

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society wiil argue that fewer people have overdosed on painkillers since this law was introduced but, even if true,there is no proof that this is due to limiting the amount of tablets people can buy at one time.

I believe this law is less a matter of public safety and more about ensuring the pharmacists' monopoly over the sale of the more lucrative, larger packs of painkillers and should be scrapped accordingly.

 

Why is this idea important?

Legislation (1998) limits the sale of painkillers to packs of 16 in all shops except pharmacies which may sell packs of 32 to minimise the risk of overdosing. People are not allowed by law to buy more than 32 tablets at one time and some shops display  a notice to this effect.

This is a petty and unnecessary law because anybody wishing to buy more than 32 painkillers can simply buy them in more than one shop, or can scan several packs at self-service checkouts in supermarkets. Meanwhile pharmacists are enjoying a monopoly over the sale of the larger packs of painkillers for no good reason. 

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society wiil argue that fewer people have overdosed on painkillers since this law was introduced but, even if true,there is no proof that this is due to limiting the amount of tablets people can buy at one time.

I believe this law is less a matter of public safety and more about ensuring the pharmacists' monopoly over the sale of the more lucrative, larger packs of painkillers and should be scrapped accordingly.

 

police cuts!

Dear Sirs, Not a Good move?….my area is just recovering from 'problem families' and the havoc to stable familys and neibourhood that they DISTROY!…."please if you insist on cutting POLICE numbers…….."PLEASE "instigate or make national policy STOPPING the right to housing (and Benifit) to  those that 'JUST MOVE ON'…….YES…I/we agree cuts are unaviodable…..But!….and here's the danger?….the selfsame cuts WILL result in greater social problems..AND a BIGGER SPEND TO RESOLVE .YOU need a FIXED/ENFORCED method to stop these people ("I know my rights!!!!!!)-they forget their obligation to other around them!……………………………………otherwise we WILL need the police "WE ARE WITH YOU?" in the old days these people/familys were on the "problem estates"- the police KNEW where to find them!!…..NON PC!……WE work (rubbish pay)…But…we have a sence of pride and value-whilst those (healthy 30 yr old/6'2"-lie in bed- claiming "I can't work-suffering depression!?….New car…SORRY! …THIS NEEDS ENDING!!!!!

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sirs, Not a Good move?….my area is just recovering from 'problem families' and the havoc to stable familys and neibourhood that they DISTROY!…."please if you insist on cutting POLICE numbers…….."PLEASE "instigate or make national policy STOPPING the right to housing (and Benifit) to  those that 'JUST MOVE ON'…….YES…I/we agree cuts are unaviodable…..But!….and here's the danger?….the selfsame cuts WILL result in greater social problems..AND a BIGGER SPEND TO RESOLVE .YOU need a FIXED/ENFORCED method to stop these people ("I know my rights!!!!!!)-they forget their obligation to other around them!……………………………………otherwise we WILL need the police "WE ARE WITH YOU?" in the old days these people/familys were on the "problem estates"- the police KNEW where to find them!!…..NON PC!……WE work (rubbish pay)…But…we have a sence of pride and value-whilst those (healthy 30 yr old/6'2"-lie in bed- claiming "I can't work-suffering depression!?….New car…SORRY! …THIS NEEDS ENDING!!!!!

Enhanced rights to health care.

We  all think that if we are ill the NHS will care for us.

SOmetimes that happens.

SOMETIMES it doesn't happen!

A big problem in the NHS is that patients are turned away due to internal politics of health trusts, discrimination, the over inflated ego of the individual doctor, punishment for challenging  medical opinion when it is wrong and sadly, sometimes because of ignorance on the part of NHS employees.

When things go wrong because of this it comes to public attention if the patient dies  as a result or suffers immediate and devastating effects.

The rest of those turned away are left to struggle on and hope that things don't get worse.

Action is needed NOW to ensure that this sort of thing stops – patients shouid be able to log their incident with the service provider and the doctor or other clinician should be required to make a written explanation of their decision.

Why is this idea important?

We  all think that if we are ill the NHS will care for us.

SOmetimes that happens.

SOMETIMES it doesn't happen!

A big problem in the NHS is that patients are turned away due to internal politics of health trusts, discrimination, the over inflated ego of the individual doctor, punishment for challenging  medical opinion when it is wrong and sadly, sometimes because of ignorance on the part of NHS employees.

When things go wrong because of this it comes to public attention if the patient dies  as a result or suffers immediate and devastating effects.

The rest of those turned away are left to struggle on and hope that things don't get worse.

Action is needed NOW to ensure that this sort of thing stops – patients shouid be able to log their incident with the service provider and the doctor or other clinician should be required to make a written explanation of their decision.

Jury Service by over seventy year olds

 

People over 70 years old should be allowed to serve on a jury if they so wish or to choose to opt out on age grounds alone; but do not assume that healthy older persons of sound mind should not serve. 
 

Why is this idea important?

 

People over 70 years old should be allowed to serve on a jury if they so wish or to choose to opt out on age grounds alone; but do not assume that healthy older persons of sound mind should not serve. 
 

Removal of Uk, from areas of Northern Ireland.

Reunification of Ireland. 

Particular attention should be given to the smallest of areas of gives most concern that of a slice of lands that almost divide Donegal & Sligo county.  

Why is this idea important?

Reunification of Ireland. 

Particular attention should be given to the smallest of areas of gives most concern that of a slice of lands that almost divide Donegal & Sligo county.  

BRING BACK BRITISH LAW CANCEL HUMAN RIGTHS LAW

THE CURRENT HUMAM RIGHTS LAW IS NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT IT CANNOT WORK

IT IS BEING ABUSED TO THE DERIMENT OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE AND BRITISH LAW   .  ILLEGALS & CRIMINALS CURRENTLY USE THESE LAWS TO PREVENT THIER REMOVAL FROM BRITAIN

THE LAW  IS BEING TWISTED TO FAVOUR THE UNDESIRIRABLES AND LAWLESS WITH THE HELP OF  LAWYERS WHO SEE BIG MONEY TO BE MADE OUT OF THIS

BRITAIN HAS NEVER TURNED ITS BACK ON THE TRUE NEEDS OF DESPERATE PEOPLE FLEEING TYRANNY AND  OUR RECORD STANDS ALONE WITHOUT REPROACH AS BEING THE BEST IN THE WORLD OUR  LAWS HAVE BEEN ENSHRINED IN BRITAIN SINCE THE MAGNA CARTA  .   THROUGH THIS WE HAVE THE LAWS TO PROTECT PERSCUTED  PEOPLE &  THE PEOPLE OF BRITAIN

Why is this idea important?

THE CURRENT HUMAM RIGHTS LAW IS NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT IT CANNOT WORK

IT IS BEING ABUSED TO THE DERIMENT OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE AND BRITISH LAW   .  ILLEGALS & CRIMINALS CURRENTLY USE THESE LAWS TO PREVENT THIER REMOVAL FROM BRITAIN

THE LAW  IS BEING TWISTED TO FAVOUR THE UNDESIRIRABLES AND LAWLESS WITH THE HELP OF  LAWYERS WHO SEE BIG MONEY TO BE MADE OUT OF THIS

BRITAIN HAS NEVER TURNED ITS BACK ON THE TRUE NEEDS OF DESPERATE PEOPLE FLEEING TYRANNY AND  OUR RECORD STANDS ALONE WITHOUT REPROACH AS BEING THE BEST IN THE WORLD OUR  LAWS HAVE BEEN ENSHRINED IN BRITAIN SINCE THE MAGNA CARTA  .   THROUGH THIS WE HAVE THE LAWS TO PROTECT PERSCUTED  PEOPLE &  THE PEOPLE OF BRITAIN

Institute Reparation within the Justice Service

In addition to the 'social bond' idea just announced, (which I am confident will produce fruit), I would like to see the 'handing back' of duties commensurate with the probationary service, and a separate 'body' to be delegated within the justice service for specifically looking after community service (not what the probationary service was set up for).

I would also like to see this body, with teeth, and given the means to facilitate people making APPROPRIATE reparations to the victims.

I believe this would also have the contributory result of reducing the numbers of short stay cons.

Why is this idea important?

In addition to the 'social bond' idea just announced, (which I am confident will produce fruit), I would like to see the 'handing back' of duties commensurate with the probationary service, and a separate 'body' to be delegated within the justice service for specifically looking after community service (not what the probationary service was set up for).

I would also like to see this body, with teeth, and given the means to facilitate people making APPROPRIATE reparations to the victims.

I believe this would also have the contributory result of reducing the numbers of short stay cons.

Health and safety – Ladder register

I work in an office with c. 50 people in my building.  I understand that we are required by health and safety rule or regulation to maintain a ladder register to record where our – 4 step – ladder is around the building.  How unbelievably ridiculous!  This has to go.

Why is this idea important?

I work in an office with c. 50 people in my building.  I understand that we are required by health and safety rule or regulation to maintain a ladder register to record where our – 4 step – ladder is around the building.  How unbelievably ridiculous!  This has to go.

PROHIBITION LAWS

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

Scrap the ban

The thought of losing my local, relaible independent shop seems completely un-justified and unnecessary and after reading through some of The Retailers comments on this site it only re-inforces my view.  Its is people's livelihoods at threat here and communities are formed around local shops!!!!

Cigarettes are still a completely legal product and surely by putting them 'under the counter' it will only make them more taboo?!

I like being able to pop to make local shop and like my freedom of choice and don't think that in this day and age that should be taken away.

Why is this idea important?

The thought of losing my local, relaible independent shop seems completely un-justified and unnecessary and after reading through some of The Retailers comments on this site it only re-inforces my view.  Its is people's livelihoods at threat here and communities are formed around local shops!!!!

Cigarettes are still a completely legal product and surely by putting them 'under the counter' it will only make them more taboo?!

I like being able to pop to make local shop and like my freedom of choice and don't think that in this day and age that should be taken away.

Re Hiding the ciggies away

No this Must not happen. This wretched Governement are really nasty and could not give a monkies for the newsagents at all let alone larger stores. Its like these pubs that are closing because of no smoking. I have brought my self an electronic ciggie but its still NOT Allowed in a public place ! This is a real nanny state. And us smokers MUST all stick to gether on this matter and help these newsagents, before cameron and clegg ruin us all

Why is this idea important?

No this Must not happen. This wretched Governement are really nasty and could not give a monkies for the newsagents at all let alone larger stores. Its like these pubs that are closing because of no smoking. I have brought my self an electronic ciggie but its still NOT Allowed in a public place ! This is a real nanny state. And us smokers MUST all stick to gether on this matter and help these newsagents, before cameron and clegg ruin us all

Make NHS training standard across NHS

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

Immigration Rules should protect indigenous citizens!

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

Agreed Terms for HMRC Services

HMRC should have a statutory requirement to pay tax refunds within a set period of time. Paying interest on overdue refunds not made is a cop out.

Having waited over 3 months, phoned numerous times to be told that refunds are in progress is unacceptable. (Interestingly the HMRC will fine you £100 for late submission of tax return).

A proper customer service department that has the power to make decisions and enable action to be taken is required.

Wrong tax calculations from HMRC, MP expenses, pensions debacle how much more do we all have to take before the powers that be start to be accountable and provide a service to those who make the country tick?

Let's hope this website offers more than a cursory tick in the box!!

Why is this idea important?

HMRC should have a statutory requirement to pay tax refunds within a set period of time. Paying interest on overdue refunds not made is a cop out.

Having waited over 3 months, phoned numerous times to be told that refunds are in progress is unacceptable. (Interestingly the HMRC will fine you £100 for late submission of tax return).

A proper customer service department that has the power to make decisions and enable action to be taken is required.

Wrong tax calculations from HMRC, MP expenses, pensions debacle how much more do we all have to take before the powers that be start to be accountable and provide a service to those who make the country tick?

Let's hope this website offers more than a cursory tick in the box!!

Scrap VAT for Public Sector organisations

VAT is here to stay and that is a given, rates will change.

Scrap this tax for public sector bodies and all those pseudo organisations that are funded via the public purse.

What will this achieve?

Save on red tape and people resource. It is pointless the Government providing budget then charge VAT on all our services….. yes we can charge it out to those who provide a service but not pay it ourselves. This will save on budgets and allow the people used in running and policing this huge 'silo' to concentrate on other more fundamentally administration needs. Those people resources at the HM Revenue end can focus more resource on finding and catching benefit fraudsters etc.. The largest issue we face today is policing the system. By getting rid of buereaucratic red tape that just pushes wooden dollars around is wasteful.

In Univesities it is easily identified how much income is private and public. Public income should also include grants from research councils etc as it is fundamentally public money. Real private monies raised from the private sector or individuals counts against them to ascertain a %age to be paid on services bills for VAT. eg if a uni has true 20% private funding then they should pay VAT at 20% of the prevailing rate eg if VAT at 20% (Jan2011) then the uni would pay VAT of 4% on all of it's invoices. If a Uni has now private money then it pays no VAT at all. This does not affect the paperwork as companies supplying goods and services would still 'charge' VAT but the user would not pay the VAT just the ex VAT figure….

 

This would save huge amounts of rec tape all over the country and drive out waste in the administration structure.

Why is this idea important?

VAT is here to stay and that is a given, rates will change.

Scrap this tax for public sector bodies and all those pseudo organisations that are funded via the public purse.

What will this achieve?

Save on red tape and people resource. It is pointless the Government providing budget then charge VAT on all our services….. yes we can charge it out to those who provide a service but not pay it ourselves. This will save on budgets and allow the people used in running and policing this huge 'silo' to concentrate on other more fundamentally administration needs. Those people resources at the HM Revenue end can focus more resource on finding and catching benefit fraudsters etc.. The largest issue we face today is policing the system. By getting rid of buereaucratic red tape that just pushes wooden dollars around is wasteful.

In Univesities it is easily identified how much income is private and public. Public income should also include grants from research councils etc as it is fundamentally public money. Real private monies raised from the private sector or individuals counts against them to ascertain a %age to be paid on services bills for VAT. eg if a uni has true 20% private funding then they should pay VAT at 20% of the prevailing rate eg if VAT at 20% (Jan2011) then the uni would pay VAT of 4% on all of it's invoices. If a Uni has now private money then it pays no VAT at all. This does not affect the paperwork as companies supplying goods and services would still 'charge' VAT but the user would not pay the VAT just the ex VAT figure….

 

This would save huge amounts of rec tape all over the country and drive out waste in the administration structure.