pub smoking

ITs REDICULOUS  TO FORCE CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE JUST BECAUSE THEY SMOKE IN THE EARLY DAYS  PUBS HAD DIFFERENT ROOMS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE IE BAR / LOUNGE / SNUG / THE SMOKE  etc

SO WHY WONT THE GOVERMENT ALLOW SUCH THINGS NOW A SMOKE ROOM COULD BE SET ASIDE IN MOST PUBS TODAY AT LITTLE COST TO THE PUBS THEY COULD HAVE LARGE INTERNAL GLASS WINDOWS TO MAKE CUSTOMERS PART OF THE PUB WITHOUT IMPOSING THEIR SMOKE ON OTHERS

Why is this idea important?

ITs REDICULOUS  TO FORCE CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE JUST BECAUSE THEY SMOKE IN THE EARLY DAYS  PUBS HAD DIFFERENT ROOMS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE IE BAR / LOUNGE / SNUG / THE SMOKE  etc

SO WHY WONT THE GOVERMENT ALLOW SUCH THINGS NOW A SMOKE ROOM COULD BE SET ASIDE IN MOST PUBS TODAY AT LITTLE COST TO THE PUBS THEY COULD HAVE LARGE INTERNAL GLASS WINDOWS TO MAKE CUSTOMERS PART OF THE PUB WITHOUT IMPOSING THEIR SMOKE ON OTHERS

Subtitled Foreign Films on Digital TV

Sorry if this in the wrong area but there's nowhere else to put it.

 

I'd like to see a Digital TV Channel set aside for foreign language films.  If we can do it auction channels and porn I'm sure we can do it for culture.

Why is this idea important?

Sorry if this in the wrong area but there's nowhere else to put it.

 

I'd like to see a Digital TV Channel set aside for foreign language films.  If we can do it auction channels and porn I'm sure we can do it for culture.

Making Motability Fairer

We are told that the cars are not free but paid for  from the higher rate of disability allownace, OK fine we accept this. However the number of "invalids" rising  every year makes us the most disabled country pro rata on earth, well this is now, we are told being adressed in the light of the present economic climate.

All users of the Motability scheme should not get their Road Tax and Insurance free of charge these should be only paid for the ones who cannot afford them. Most people who have the Motability cars could afford to run a car anyway  so therefor a means tested system should be in place.

By all means we must help those who need help with their mobility this is only just and fair, however, it is most UNjust and UNfair for people to be abusing this system. If you doubt what I am saying then next time you are out and about, take particular notice of  the users of some of  these vehicles. Quite a large percentage are without doubt agile and affluent.

Why is this idea important?

We are told that the cars are not free but paid for  from the higher rate of disability allownace, OK fine we accept this. However the number of "invalids" rising  every year makes us the most disabled country pro rata on earth, well this is now, we are told being adressed in the light of the present economic climate.

All users of the Motability scheme should not get their Road Tax and Insurance free of charge these should be only paid for the ones who cannot afford them. Most people who have the Motability cars could afford to run a car anyway  so therefor a means tested system should be in place.

By all means we must help those who need help with their mobility this is only just and fair, however, it is most UNjust and UNfair for people to be abusing this system. If you doubt what I am saying then next time you are out and about, take particular notice of  the users of some of  these vehicles. Quite a large percentage are without doubt agile and affluent.

Repeal new law or intention of giving councils greater power and control

The prime minister, it has been reported,now intends to give greater power to the councils, local government over us, the public. They already have too much already and have often tyrannically misused their power when it suits their interests against our, the public's interests. Also I thought that it was David Cameron's idea to give power back to the people from local if not central government, so why the about turn on a good idea and the promise of a start of true democracy and equality in the law. It is simply not fair to allow the perpetuation of tyranny in any and all of its forms. If a branch of government acts evilly or always from pure self interest and greed it must be iniquitous to allow its continued existence and also, I add, its tyranny!!

Why is this idea important?

The prime minister, it has been reported,now intends to give greater power to the councils, local government over us, the public. They already have too much already and have often tyrannically misused their power when it suits their interests against our, the public's interests. Also I thought that it was David Cameron's idea to give power back to the people from local if not central government, so why the about turn on a good idea and the promise of a start of true democracy and equality in the law. It is simply not fair to allow the perpetuation of tyranny in any and all of its forms. If a branch of government acts evilly or always from pure self interest and greed it must be iniquitous to allow its continued existence and also, I add, its tyranny!!

Communal homes for school age single parents

Young single parent mothers who have children out of a relationship should be placed in communal accommodation with communal kitchens and living rooms, support services like social workers, creches and life skill teachers. Most parents of these mothers throw the girls our of their home and they often fall onto the state for support. This is very expensive and placing these women onto often rundown estates creates future generations of state dependents as these women are given very little support to bring up their children properly.

Communal accommodation for those that require state help when they fall pregnant will allow for greater social cohesion than placing mothers in council accommodation on estates where they get little support with parenting skills and will be a perpetual burden on the estate and foster generational state dependency. Single mothers have to often perform a difficult role and they are poorly equipped due to their immaturity. This will allow for young women to regain independence by providing support for continuing in education or vocational training so that they can stand on their own two feet and move out when they have the means to do so, without having a dependency on the state. Private companies could take over this role and be paid bonuses for each woman who moves out to work and support themselves, incentivising the private company to provide real help to these women. The community atmosphere would be nurturing and each woman could lend each other advice and support and this would allow for them to regain a sense of dignity and community as most young girls become excluded from most of their school friends when they become single parents. 

Why is this idea important?

Young single parent mothers who have children out of a relationship should be placed in communal accommodation with communal kitchens and living rooms, support services like social workers, creches and life skill teachers. Most parents of these mothers throw the girls our of their home and they often fall onto the state for support. This is very expensive and placing these women onto often rundown estates creates future generations of state dependents as these women are given very little support to bring up their children properly.

Communal accommodation for those that require state help when they fall pregnant will allow for greater social cohesion than placing mothers in council accommodation on estates where they get little support with parenting skills and will be a perpetual burden on the estate and foster generational state dependency. Single mothers have to often perform a difficult role and they are poorly equipped due to their immaturity. This will allow for young women to regain independence by providing support for continuing in education or vocational training so that they can stand on their own two feet and move out when they have the means to do so, without having a dependency on the state. Private companies could take over this role and be paid bonuses for each woman who moves out to work and support themselves, incentivising the private company to provide real help to these women. The community atmosphere would be nurturing and each woman could lend each other advice and support and this would allow for them to regain a sense of dignity and community as most young girls become excluded from most of their school friends when they become single parents. 

prisoners paying back the country

Send life time prisoners out to serve their country, put them in the army.Make them serve their sentance by fighting for the country they live in.Make short term prisoners clean the streets, help the community, clean graffittit ect.

Why is this idea important?

Send life time prisoners out to serve their country, put them in the army.Make them serve their sentance by fighting for the country they live in.Make short term prisoners clean the streets, help the community, clean graffittit ect.

Violence to children, the law needs rewriting

Reveiw the law and allow some form of discipline to be given by parents, and affirm any form of abuse WILL be dealt with by a court prosecution.Relax the rules for parents a little.

Any child whoose parents have proven to try to discipline their child is sent to boot camp ready for the army if they are unwilling to change.If it is proven parents refused to discipline their child, benefits stop,housing is stopped, parents are prosecuted.

Why is this idea important?

Reveiw the law and allow some form of discipline to be given by parents, and affirm any form of abuse WILL be dealt with by a court prosecution.Relax the rules for parents a little.

Any child whoose parents have proven to try to discipline their child is sent to boot camp ready for the army if they are unwilling to change.If it is proven parents refused to discipline their child, benefits stop,housing is stopped, parents are prosecuted.

English for English – Whether you are English or not

Local Councils up and down the land create multi language versions of a lot of information, this includes employing  interpreters to provide support to those who don't speak english.

This should be stopped immediately, why?

Move the cost burden onto those who can't speak english, if they live in our country they should try to as a minimum try to learn the language, whilst this is impossible to impose on them, why should we make it easier for them not to learn at our cost?

So if someone is in this country and they want to avail themselves of local or central government information, benefits etc etc, then the onus is on them to obtain the informaiton in a way that they can understand the onus is on them to understand us, not the other way around.

Try going to France and even trying to obtain an English menu at a restaurant where you are actually paying for the pleasure of eating there!! this should be law, we will only deal in English, if you want it in a form you can understand then you can phone or friend or pay one of the many businesses that provide this service.

Why is this idea important?

Local Councils up and down the land create multi language versions of a lot of information, this includes employing  interpreters to provide support to those who don't speak english.

This should be stopped immediately, why?

Move the cost burden onto those who can't speak english, if they live in our country they should try to as a minimum try to learn the language, whilst this is impossible to impose on them, why should we make it easier for them not to learn at our cost?

So if someone is in this country and they want to avail themselves of local or central government information, benefits etc etc, then the onus is on them to obtain the informaiton in a way that they can understand the onus is on them to understand us, not the other way around.

Try going to France and even trying to obtain an English menu at a restaurant where you are actually paying for the pleasure of eating there!! this should be law, we will only deal in English, if you want it in a form you can understand then you can phone or friend or pay one of the many businesses that provide this service.

Simplify the complaint procedure to Health Ombudsman

Abolish the complaint procedure to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman through MPs refferals. Cut the red tape and allow people to file complaints directly to Ombudsman.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the complaint procedure to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman through MPs refferals. Cut the red tape and allow people to file complaints directly to Ombudsman.

MCS and micro hydro

The recently released proposals for MCS accreditation of installers for small hydro is inappropriate and unworkable.

Proposed accreditaion standard is objected to by working hydro memebers of the Hydro Working Group – so much for an "industry led" process. How can an Installer Standard be issued with so much industry led objection to it?

In partcular the requirements in Appendix A are virtually impossible to fullfill.

I have 15 years experience as an engineer working in small hydro , and I could not fulfill the requirments of Appendix A.  They are impractical, unnecesary and expensive.

Why is this idea important?

The recently released proposals for MCS accreditation of installers for small hydro is inappropriate and unworkable.

Proposed accreditaion standard is objected to by working hydro memebers of the Hydro Working Group – so much for an "industry led" process. How can an Installer Standard be issued with so much industry led objection to it?

In partcular the requirements in Appendix A are virtually impossible to fullfill.

I have 15 years experience as an engineer working in small hydro , and I could not fulfill the requirments of Appendix A.  They are impractical, unnecesary and expensive.

Repeal the Tobacco Display Ban

The last government passed a regulation that would require shopkeepers to
hide tobacco products that they have for sale in their shops.  As the
public affairs manager for the largest trade associations in the UK that
represents small independent shops, the National Federation of Retail
Newsagents, I know just how small retailers feel about this pointless
legislation.  Our members are very hardworking people.  Most own only one
store in which they and their families work for up to fourteen hours a day.
Most do not have the time to participate in internet debates such as this
and many do not use the internet at all.  However, responsible retailers do
play a very important role in preventing young people from smoking.  Every
day, the vast majority of retailers viligantly refuse minors who are trying
to buy cigarettes and often suffer verbal and physical abuse as a result.
They are at the front line when it comes to preventing underage smoking
which is now at a lower level than ever before.

This legislation will harm them in many ways without stopping one person in
the UK from smoking or starting to smoke.  Here are the facts:


1.  It will cost each shop £1000 to implement


2.  Shopkeepers need to be consistently vigilent in monitoring their shops
or they risk getting robbed or assaulted.  If they have to search for a
tobacco product in its hiding place everytime someone wants to purchase
them, they will be distracted and at risk.  In short, retail crime will
increase


3.  Our members are constantly under threat from the ever spreading Tesco
Expresses, Sainsbury's Local etc.  This rule will put them at a further
competitive disadvantage to those big businesses who will be better able to
afford it and adapt to it.


4.  There is not one shred of credible evidence that there is any need for
this legislation.  It has failed to reduce smoking in every other country
that has introduced it.  In fact, in Canada and Ireland, smoking has
increased since display bans were introduced.  This could be because,
minors become more interested in things that they see adults hiding away.


For these reasons, we call on the coalition to repeal Section 21 of the Health Act 2009 and related regulations – something
that both coalition parties promised to do before the election. We also
call on the coalition to instead work with, not against, retailers in
stopping young people from starting to smoke

Why is this idea important?

The last government passed a regulation that would require shopkeepers to
hide tobacco products that they have for sale in their shops.  As the
public affairs manager for the largest trade associations in the UK that
represents small independent shops, the National Federation of Retail
Newsagents, I know just how small retailers feel about this pointless
legislation.  Our members are very hardworking people.  Most own only one
store in which they and their families work for up to fourteen hours a day.
Most do not have the time to participate in internet debates such as this
and many do not use the internet at all.  However, responsible retailers do
play a very important role in preventing young people from smoking.  Every
day, the vast majority of retailers viligantly refuse minors who are trying
to buy cigarettes and often suffer verbal and physical abuse as a result.
They are at the front line when it comes to preventing underage smoking
which is now at a lower level than ever before.

This legislation will harm them in many ways without stopping one person in
the UK from smoking or starting to smoke.  Here are the facts:


1.  It will cost each shop £1000 to implement


2.  Shopkeepers need to be consistently vigilent in monitoring their shops
or they risk getting robbed or assaulted.  If they have to search for a
tobacco product in its hiding place everytime someone wants to purchase
them, they will be distracted and at risk.  In short, retail crime will
increase


3.  Our members are constantly under threat from the ever spreading Tesco
Expresses, Sainsbury's Local etc.  This rule will put them at a further
competitive disadvantage to those big businesses who will be better able to
afford it and adapt to it.


4.  There is not one shred of credible evidence that there is any need for
this legislation.  It has failed to reduce smoking in every other country
that has introduced it.  In fact, in Canada and Ireland, smoking has
increased since display bans were introduced.  This could be because,
minors become more interested in things that they see adults hiding away.


For these reasons, we call on the coalition to repeal Section 21 of the Health Act 2009 and related regulations – something
that both coalition parties promised to do before the election. We also
call on the coalition to instead work with, not against, retailers in
stopping young people from starting to smoke

better regulation of winter fuel allowances

A bone on contention with most people is the fact that people are getting the winter fuel allowance who do not need it – people living abroad, people with large properties etc.

Could this allowance not be "means tested" by being linked to Council Tax?

For example:

Council Tax is paid by people in this country when they live in a property.  So as an example, someone who is living in spain would not be paying council tax on a property in England, or if they are still registered, would be getting a discount such as "second home".  If they are getting this discount, they would not be allowed the winter fuel payment, as they are not living in the property.

 

Also council tax bands – most elderly people live in a property in bands A, B, or C.  a property with a band D is normally a large family property.   Winter fuel payments could be linked to the property band, so as those in Bands A – C get the payments.  Those who live in the larger properties shouldn't need it, therefore would not qualify.  That would allieviate the millionaire pensioners who still get the payment.

As local government already have this data, it could be shared with the DWP (as other information currently is) so would not cost a great deal to implement.

 

Why is this idea important?

A bone on contention with most people is the fact that people are getting the winter fuel allowance who do not need it – people living abroad, people with large properties etc.

Could this allowance not be "means tested" by being linked to Council Tax?

For example:

Council Tax is paid by people in this country when they live in a property.  So as an example, someone who is living in spain would not be paying council tax on a property in England, or if they are still registered, would be getting a discount such as "second home".  If they are getting this discount, they would not be allowed the winter fuel payment, as they are not living in the property.

 

Also council tax bands – most elderly people live in a property in bands A, B, or C.  a property with a band D is normally a large family property.   Winter fuel payments could be linked to the property band, so as those in Bands A – C get the payments.  Those who live in the larger properties shouldn't need it, therefore would not qualify.  That would allieviate the millionaire pensioners who still get the payment.

As local government already have this data, it could be shared with the DWP (as other information currently is) so would not cost a great deal to implement.

 

Tell people about their rights and responsibilities

Amend the Access to Justice Act so that contracts to provide legal advice can include legal education in line with the guidance to community law centres in New Zealand.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the Access to Justice Act so that contracts to provide legal advice can include legal education in line with the guidance to community law centres in New Zealand.

Repeal requirements for Collective Worship and Religious Education in Schools

Repeal Sections 69 – 71 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (and any other related legislation) which require religious education and acts of collective worship in schools.

Faith or no faith in religion should be left to the individual, not the state, their parents, teachers or anyone else. People (and especially children) should be free to discover the wide range of beliefs that are and that have been held throughout the history of human civilization.

The law allows for exemptions where the parent requests, but religion should be a personal choice where someone is not predisposed towards something based on the content of their religious education at school.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal Sections 69 – 71 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (and any other related legislation) which require religious education and acts of collective worship in schools.

Faith or no faith in religion should be left to the individual, not the state, their parents, teachers or anyone else. People (and especially children) should be free to discover the wide range of beliefs that are and that have been held throughout the history of human civilization.

The law allows for exemptions where the parent requests, but religion should be a personal choice where someone is not predisposed towards something based on the content of their religious education at school.

Abusing Planning Laws “the second FREE go” is a waste of money

Presently when submitting a planning application you are allowed to submit a second planning application attempt to the same plot for free. What is the most frustrating part of this rule, from our experience is that our neighbour was allowed to withdraw the first application knowing all the objections they had received (including a highways comments which strongly obect to any more properties to this entrance) to then resubmit the same application which had to go through the procedure again – advert in paper (conservation area), administration of all the comments from the public/parties, time and effort from the planning /highways/conservation departments. Time and money in my opinion wasted to then for the neighbour to withdraw the application again because they had wind it would be rejected again! We are now waiting for the Appeal decision (another waste of public money on this occasion) after the neighbour finally allowed the planning deptartment to refuse the third planning application.

The second free go should only be used if a decision has been allowed to be made on the first application – that should save £300 and cut down time/man hours.

Because the local council is scared to do a wrong move and is treating this applicant with kid gloves they have failed to take on board all the neighbours which are being affected by this messing around.

One other thing which should be changed, when this planning appeal is dismissed (and if the protection for public safety is important – highways department have strongly objected to this and any further planning applications to this plot) we have been informed this will not stop the applicant from continuing to put in the same application again and again and again despite not any change in circumstance. We have my local MP working to get these laws changed. This is very unfair on the other residents to have this cloud over us for the unforseeable future.

So if you wish to cut costs please consider these issues.

Why is this idea important?

Presently when submitting a planning application you are allowed to submit a second planning application attempt to the same plot for free. What is the most frustrating part of this rule, from our experience is that our neighbour was allowed to withdraw the first application knowing all the objections they had received (including a highways comments which strongly obect to any more properties to this entrance) to then resubmit the same application which had to go through the procedure again – advert in paper (conservation area), administration of all the comments from the public/parties, time and effort from the planning /highways/conservation departments. Time and money in my opinion wasted to then for the neighbour to withdraw the application again because they had wind it would be rejected again! We are now waiting for the Appeal decision (another waste of public money on this occasion) after the neighbour finally allowed the planning deptartment to refuse the third planning application.

The second free go should only be used if a decision has been allowed to be made on the first application – that should save £300 and cut down time/man hours.

Because the local council is scared to do a wrong move and is treating this applicant with kid gloves they have failed to take on board all the neighbours which are being affected by this messing around.

One other thing which should be changed, when this planning appeal is dismissed (and if the protection for public safety is important – highways department have strongly objected to this and any further planning applications to this plot) we have been informed this will not stop the applicant from continuing to put in the same application again and again and again despite not any change in circumstance. We have my local MP working to get these laws changed. This is very unfair on the other residents to have this cloud over us for the unforseeable future.

So if you wish to cut costs please consider these issues.

Museum Entry Charges

It's great the institutions such as the Science Museum are free to enter, but it's clear that they could do with more funding (or less taxpayer input). So why not allow all UK taxpayers or citizens enter free of charge upon presentation of suitable ID and place an entry charge on all others. It's common throughout the rest of the world, so why not here?

Why is this idea important?

It's great the institutions such as the Science Museum are free to enter, but it's clear that they could do with more funding (or less taxpayer input). So why not allow all UK taxpayers or citizens enter free of charge upon presentation of suitable ID and place an entry charge on all others. It's common throughout the rest of the world, so why not here?

Repeal Sections 62 – 68 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

The Act created the somewhat misleadingly titled offence of Possession of Prohibited Images of Children.

 

The offence is misleadingly titled as unlike the offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978, Possession of an Indecent Photograph of Children (and Pseudo-photographs), Section 62 does not require a child, indeed it does not require a human being at all, the offence covers imaginary "children" (being characters under the age of 18 or appearing to be so) , imaginary "persons" and for good measure, "imaginary animals".

 

While the Protection of Children Act 1978 rightly sought to punish those who make and possess images of the sexual abuse of children, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 seeks to punish expression, it specifically criminalises that which is nothing more than the imagination set down on paper, canvas or bytes.

 

In board terms it is fundemantally important the the limits on individual freedom in a free society are set where an identifiable harm is occassioned or likely to be occassioned, this law does not do that.

 

Reference: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents

Why is this idea important?

The Act created the somewhat misleadingly titled offence of Possession of Prohibited Images of Children.

 

The offence is misleadingly titled as unlike the offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978, Possession of an Indecent Photograph of Children (and Pseudo-photographs), Section 62 does not require a child, indeed it does not require a human being at all, the offence covers imaginary "children" (being characters under the age of 18 or appearing to be so) , imaginary "persons" and for good measure, "imaginary animals".

 

While the Protection of Children Act 1978 rightly sought to punish those who make and possess images of the sexual abuse of children, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 seeks to punish expression, it specifically criminalises that which is nothing more than the imagination set down on paper, canvas or bytes.

 

In board terms it is fundemantally important the the limits on individual freedom in a free society are set where an identifiable harm is occassioned or likely to be occassioned, this law does not do that.

 

Reference: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents

Tax Margin Stacking – Reform of Tax

I'm sick of uncovering time and time again tax upon tax upon tax. I work hard, I have a good job, I've not been given this, I work as a minimum 6 days a week, if you took my gross salary and told someone what I earned, you would get wow thats a lot, if you took my gross salary and divided by the hours I actually work I probably earn just above minimum wage… but it doesnt feel like I get the rewards of my endeavours.

An example,

1. I get paid, income tax and National Health Insurance are deducted at source, I have no say in this

Both are calculated against my Gross Earnings and both are uncapped, even though once the first one has been calculated, the 2nd takes from money I just don't have. First Case of Tax Margin Stacking.

I Own a house, I have the occasional Drink, I drive a car, I smoke

2. I pay council tax on my house, I pay an alcholol tax on every drink I have, I pay fuel tax on every litre of fuel I use, I pay tobacco tax on every cigarette I smoke, all from previously taxed money i have left

3. On top of this I pay VAT on pretty much everything I purchase including the associated tax…

A conservative estimate of what I pay in taxes of various kinds v my gross salary I would suggest in the 70-73% of my gross earnings. Hardly rewarding is it….

So what's my beef, I work hard yet each month i barely break even and its down to the fact that I pay tax upon tax upon tax, over the years the government has introduced taxes this way to the point its virtually impossible to work out where I'm being taxed (and I think I'm relatively smart) 

The whole taxation system needs an overhaul and return to basics, so that every individual can fully understand what they are paying and why.

In my line of business I use the following term when describing something that is fundementally broken "this has exceeded its design intent" I would suggest that the tax regime in the uk has exceeded its design intent and needs a major overhaul, features of which should remove tax margin stacking.

 

Why is this idea important?

I'm sick of uncovering time and time again tax upon tax upon tax. I work hard, I have a good job, I've not been given this, I work as a minimum 6 days a week, if you took my gross salary and told someone what I earned, you would get wow thats a lot, if you took my gross salary and divided by the hours I actually work I probably earn just above minimum wage… but it doesnt feel like I get the rewards of my endeavours.

An example,

1. I get paid, income tax and National Health Insurance are deducted at source, I have no say in this

Both are calculated against my Gross Earnings and both are uncapped, even though once the first one has been calculated, the 2nd takes from money I just don't have. First Case of Tax Margin Stacking.

I Own a house, I have the occasional Drink, I drive a car, I smoke

2. I pay council tax on my house, I pay an alcholol tax on every drink I have, I pay fuel tax on every litre of fuel I use, I pay tobacco tax on every cigarette I smoke, all from previously taxed money i have left

3. On top of this I pay VAT on pretty much everything I purchase including the associated tax…

A conservative estimate of what I pay in taxes of various kinds v my gross salary I would suggest in the 70-73% of my gross earnings. Hardly rewarding is it….

So what's my beef, I work hard yet each month i barely break even and its down to the fact that I pay tax upon tax upon tax, over the years the government has introduced taxes this way to the point its virtually impossible to work out where I'm being taxed (and I think I'm relatively smart) 

The whole taxation system needs an overhaul and return to basics, so that every individual can fully understand what they are paying and why.

In my line of business I use the following term when describing something that is fundementally broken "this has exceeded its design intent" I would suggest that the tax regime in the uk has exceeded its design intent and needs a major overhaul, features of which should remove tax margin stacking.

 

The Social Welfare State is fundementally broken

We have a social welfare state that is the envy of the world (well some of it anyhow), evidence of this is the sheer number of people that want to come to the UK to take advantage of it.

The fundemental basis of our social welfare state is that it works so long as those contributing significantly outweigh those who take from it.

Recent figures show that between 1 in 6 and 1 in 4 (depending on where you are in the UK) are employed by the state, remember that these take out (for doing a job admittedly) in terms of their salary, and only recontribute a fraction of what they take out.

So there are two issues to address,

1. The number of people claiming from the state (I think the government is already focusing on this)

2. Those employed by the state

To concentrate on the latter, I've no idea what the ratio should be, but its pretty obvious that its unsustainable.

We need to find the right balance between those employed by the state and the delivery of local and central services. To start the process, we need to determine what the ratio should be, probably not as easy as it sounds, but it should be given a priority.

Once established, this needs to be used in concert with 1. to establish the amount we spend on delivery of local and central government services.

Why is this idea important?

We have a social welfare state that is the envy of the world (well some of it anyhow), evidence of this is the sheer number of people that want to come to the UK to take advantage of it.

The fundemental basis of our social welfare state is that it works so long as those contributing significantly outweigh those who take from it.

Recent figures show that between 1 in 6 and 1 in 4 (depending on where you are in the UK) are employed by the state, remember that these take out (for doing a job admittedly) in terms of their salary, and only recontribute a fraction of what they take out.

So there are two issues to address,

1. The number of people claiming from the state (I think the government is already focusing on this)

2. Those employed by the state

To concentrate on the latter, I've no idea what the ratio should be, but its pretty obvious that its unsustainable.

We need to find the right balance between those employed by the state and the delivery of local and central services. To start the process, we need to determine what the ratio should be, probably not as easy as it sounds, but it should be given a priority.

Once established, this needs to be used in concert with 1. to establish the amount we spend on delivery of local and central government services.

Crime and Punishment

The system for determining punishment for crime should have at its very heart the following bases for determining a sentence

Crimes against Human beings should carry stiffer sentences than those involving non-human crime.

i.e. a Rapist should get a longer sentence than a bank robber

It's basic, build into the system used by judges and magistrates when determining a sentence, the focus of the justice system is 180 degress wrong, it seems that if you steal something somehow the amount you steal determines the length of your sentence, this is patently wrong, the crime is theft, not how much did you steal. If the crime involved a crime against a human being, then that should be the deciding factor on length of sentence, not the fact you stole more than the guy who was in front of me earlier. 

Why is this idea important?

The system for determining punishment for crime should have at its very heart the following bases for determining a sentence

Crimes against Human beings should carry stiffer sentences than those involving non-human crime.

i.e. a Rapist should get a longer sentence than a bank robber

It's basic, build into the system used by judges and magistrates when determining a sentence, the focus of the justice system is 180 degress wrong, it seems that if you steal something somehow the amount you steal determines the length of your sentence, this is patently wrong, the crime is theft, not how much did you steal. If the crime involved a crime against a human being, then that should be the deciding factor on length of sentence, not the fact you stole more than the guy who was in front of me earlier. 

single double summer time

align the clocks to central european time eg double summer time from current arrangements & single summertime in the winter months

Act immediately by continuing British summer time throughout this winter & move clocks forward one hour in March 2011

Why is this idea important?

align the clocks to central european time eg double summer time from current arrangements & single summertime in the winter months

Act immediately by continuing British summer time throughout this winter & move clocks forward one hour in March 2011

Complaints Burden on Small TV Channels

Some small TV channels are blitzed by malicious complaints that Ofcom fully investigates. Sometimes these complaints are not upheld, sometimes they are, but either way the channel has a cloud over it for the 6 months it takes Ofcom to decide even the simplest thing, and the channel incurs significant internal and external costs for each complaint.

The complaints in question are widely believed to be malicious, from rival broadcasters seeking commercial advantage. In some cases the complaint is technically correct, but it comes from a rival showing comparable material – they cannot genuinely claim to be offended. Some complaints relate to obscure channels that complainants claim to have been watching at 3am!

At best channels incur unreasonable costs and suffer months of uncertainty, at worst they are fined £30,000 or even £250,000 for "material likely to cause offence" where there has been no actual offence. Broadcasters have gone out of business as a result, others are marginal.

1. Complaints from 1 or 2 people should not be given the same weight as genuine complaints for 20 or 30 independent people.

2. Broadcasters should be able to insist that Ofcom checks the credentials of a complainant, rather than relying on emails from fake addresses.

3. What is the complainants genuine address (this should be verified but need not be disclosed).

4. Does the complainant have links to rivals?

5. Why was the complainant watching a clearly signposted channel with offensive material at 2 or 3am?

Why is this idea important?

Some small TV channels are blitzed by malicious complaints that Ofcom fully investigates. Sometimes these complaints are not upheld, sometimes they are, but either way the channel has a cloud over it for the 6 months it takes Ofcom to decide even the simplest thing, and the channel incurs significant internal and external costs for each complaint.

The complaints in question are widely believed to be malicious, from rival broadcasters seeking commercial advantage. In some cases the complaint is technically correct, but it comes from a rival showing comparable material – they cannot genuinely claim to be offended. Some complaints relate to obscure channels that complainants claim to have been watching at 3am!

At best channels incur unreasonable costs and suffer months of uncertainty, at worst they are fined £30,000 or even £250,000 for "material likely to cause offence" where there has been no actual offence. Broadcasters have gone out of business as a result, others are marginal.

1. Complaints from 1 or 2 people should not be given the same weight as genuine complaints for 20 or 30 independent people.

2. Broadcasters should be able to insist that Ofcom checks the credentials of a complainant, rather than relying on emails from fake addresses.

3. What is the complainants genuine address (this should be verified but need not be disclosed).

4. Does the complainant have links to rivals?

5. Why was the complainant watching a clearly signposted channel with offensive material at 2 or 3am?