Scrap On/Off peak price increases

Why are train prices, cinema prices, telephone calls and holiday prices etc. allowed to increase willy-nilly just because it's a certain time of day/week/year.  You don't see Bakers' Oven putting up sandwich prices at lunch, do you? Why should this be any different?

 

For me to get to London at 8am will cost a huge £40; I wait 40 minutes and it halves to £20. Why? I'm not any more of a burden at 8 than 9, surely?

Holidays – School complain and will take action if you miss school, but how are we supposed to go on holiday in half-terms if the prices rocket?

Why is this idea important?

Why are train prices, cinema prices, telephone calls and holiday prices etc. allowed to increase willy-nilly just because it's a certain time of day/week/year.  You don't see Bakers' Oven putting up sandwich prices at lunch, do you? Why should this be any different?

 

For me to get to London at 8am will cost a huge £40; I wait 40 minutes and it halves to £20. Why? I'm not any more of a burden at 8 than 9, surely?

Holidays – School complain and will take action if you miss school, but how are we supposed to go on holiday in half-terms if the prices rocket?

Repeal British law allowing for accumulation of extreme wealth

Free-speech is only as free as the guidelines that determine freedom.
Freedom is in doing.

As an activist for reinstating God's Law, one need not know God, to know God's Law is right.

Under God's Law, the poverty we've grown accustomed to, would not be allowed to continue.

British law that allows castle owners and the like to gain influence and effect law is immoral.
By effecting law, a massive amount of injustice occurs, and each contribution explains how.
For this reason, under God's Law, there is to be no altering of The Law, for benefit of the few.
In fact, no altering of The Law at all, because this is the means by which injustice flourishes.
Currently, British law demands that we observe only it, and forbids The Law it was based on.
The Law is the Law of God, and British law, as it stands now, is law that is altered for the benefit of an elite few.

British law is illegally suppressing a God-given inherent right, entitling everyone to the "Release of Debt".
British law, effected by castle owners, supports law in their favor, whilst denying the people.
To maintain an objective reality, there must be a realistic starting point to begin the process.
Re-distribution of wealth is the first priority, in the commencement of re-instating God's Law.

15:4 To the end that there be no poor among you. – Deuteronomy.
 

Why is this idea important?

Free-speech is only as free as the guidelines that determine freedom.
Freedom is in doing.

As an activist for reinstating God's Law, one need not know God, to know God's Law is right.

Under God's Law, the poverty we've grown accustomed to, would not be allowed to continue.

British law that allows castle owners and the like to gain influence and effect law is immoral.
By effecting law, a massive amount of injustice occurs, and each contribution explains how.
For this reason, under God's Law, there is to be no altering of The Law, for benefit of the few.
In fact, no altering of The Law at all, because this is the means by which injustice flourishes.
Currently, British law demands that we observe only it, and forbids The Law it was based on.
The Law is the Law of God, and British law, as it stands now, is law that is altered for the benefit of an elite few.

British law is illegally suppressing a God-given inherent right, entitling everyone to the "Release of Debt".
British law, effected by castle owners, supports law in their favor, whilst denying the people.
To maintain an objective reality, there must be a realistic starting point to begin the process.
Re-distribution of wealth is the first priority, in the commencement of re-instating God's Law.

15:4 To the end that there be no poor among you. – Deuteronomy.
 

Stop rich foreign investors from buying land in poor countries

" Which regulations do you think should be removed or changed to make
running your business or organisation as simple as possible? '

An article in the Financial Times, at ft.com and published 18 July
2010, states the following:

A farmland development group backed by Jacob Rothschild is hoping to
become the first Brazilian company to list on the Hong Kong stock
exchange, after attracting investments from some of the territory’s
largest tycoons.  ——- end of the first sentence of the FT article.

Rothschild is a prime example of a castle owner, that by accumulation
controls other people.
It is by legislation, that extreme wealth remains in the hands of the
few, benefited by poverty.

Lacking in the article, is Rothschild control and influence over
educational outlets and media.

Not surprising, a donation of a Supreme Court building, in Israel, is
a working monument to legislation. They believe that the best way to
control the opposition is by leading it. Agreed.

Why is this idea important?

" Which regulations do you think should be removed or changed to make
running your business or organisation as simple as possible? '

An article in the Financial Times, at ft.com and published 18 July
2010, states the following:

A farmland development group backed by Jacob Rothschild is hoping to
become the first Brazilian company to list on the Hong Kong stock
exchange, after attracting investments from some of the territory’s
largest tycoons.  ——- end of the first sentence of the FT article.

Rothschild is a prime example of a castle owner, that by accumulation
controls other people.
It is by legislation, that extreme wealth remains in the hands of the
few, benefited by poverty.

Lacking in the article, is Rothschild control and influence over
educational outlets and media.

Not surprising, a donation of a Supreme Court building, in Israel, is
a working monument to legislation. They believe that the best way to
control the opposition is by leading it. Agreed.

Reform Insurance Premium Tax (IPT)

Remove Insurance Premium Tax from premiums on all forms of insurance and add it to claims so that illegitimate claims are weeded out and reduce the overall cost of insurance.

Why is this idea important?

Remove Insurance Premium Tax from premiums on all forms of insurance and add it to claims so that illegitimate claims are weeded out and reduce the overall cost of insurance.

Energy companies must pay YOU interest if they hold your money.

Energy companies hold billions of pounds of money of our money.  They are earning profit interest on these holdings.

In the same way that companies can charge interest on outstanding invoices, energy companies should be forced to pay interest on balances on energy accounts (I suggest 5% above BoE base rate)..

Why is this idea important?

Energy companies hold billions of pounds of money of our money.  They are earning profit interest on these holdings.

In the same way that companies can charge interest on outstanding invoices, energy companies should be forced to pay interest on balances on energy accounts (I suggest 5% above BoE base rate)..

Raise or scrap limits on maximum investment by individuals in co-operative businesses.

The maximum legally-permitted investment by an individual in a co-operative business is currently £20000.

My idea is to raise this limit, either to a higher fixed value, or annually in a way which is index-linked to the cost of living; or to scrap this limit altogether.

Why is this idea important?

The maximum legally-permitted investment by an individual in a co-operative business is currently £20000.

My idea is to raise this limit, either to a higher fixed value, or annually in a way which is index-linked to the cost of living; or to scrap this limit altogether.

Scrap VAT on used goods

A lot of used items are sold by small businesses. This is one angle they have over supermarkets who are increasingly cherry picking  items from others . Bearing in mind private people can sell items without VAT and use online auction sites, it is making one area that small businesses had very difficult.

Why is this idea important?

A lot of used items are sold by small businesses. This is one angle they have over supermarkets who are increasingly cherry picking  items from others . Bearing in mind private people can sell items without VAT and use online auction sites, it is making one area that small businesses had very difficult.

How to reform the foreign aid to better help the third world develop, increase food security, reduce CO2, increase forest cover in the UK and build cheap and affordable houses for British people.

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why is this idea important?

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why our drug laws are not working

Drugs should be legalized, now, i know that's a very strong statement, however if you take into account the sheer scale of drug use in the uk, and the negative aspects associated with the prohibition of drugs, you quickly realise the positivity that can be extracted from the decriminalization of cannabis, and more understanding drug laws for harder drug use.

Now, consider this, if cannabis was legalized (perhaps along with MDMA pills & psilocybin mushrooms) the revenue that could be made in tax from the sale of cannabis is huge. 27% of the uk population regularly smoke cannabis, that means that 16,683,840 people in the uk use cannabis on a regular basis  and 14% of under 13 year olds have tried cannabis, you understand that the younger you are the more likely you are to begin using cannabis. Therefore it seems to me that children under 18 are using drugs as a form of rebellion, i know, i'm 16..

16,683,840 people use cannabis, if cannabis costs £10 per gram and each of them buy £70 (7 gram or quarter ounce) per week, and the government tax at 17.5% (V.A.T) that's £204,377,040 per week in tax, multiply that by 52 and you get a staggering £10,627,606,080 in tax per year, I won't go on in figures but imagine what David cameron could do with £10,627,606,080 per year?

If £10,627,606,080 a year COULD be going into public tax money, then consider that these people that use cannabis at the moment, are using it illegally, and if the criminals are making 100% profit, as legally it can't be coming from a taxable source, then that means that £60,729,177,600 per year is going into REAL criminals pockets every year, that's nearly 61 BILLION pounds sterling. This money could be going to fund terrorism, child trafficking, organised crime, murder and gun trafficking/production, no matter how much of a fool we may think David Cameron to be, don't you believe that this money should be going to him rather than the forementioned causes?

Now my personal opinion is that the money in tax (a considerably large sum) can be used to help ease the burden out of harder drug use and be used to make this country a place with less heroin and crack cocaine addicts, through legalization and controlled S.I.S (safe injection sites) the epidemic of heroin sweeping through the world may be doctored in the UK.

I shall now point out the fact that 9000 people a year in the UK die annualy from alcohol related illnesses, and the most common cause of death for 13-18 year olds in the UK is alcohol poisoning. Take that into consideration there is evidence to show that not one single person, in the history of cannabis use, has died from a THC overdose.

My father used to tell me as a child, that all things in life are good in moderation, perhaps i took this a little TOO literally, however i believe i could go as far as to say that it's become my motto, please take this into consideration when reading this.

The fact that also, cannabis has been shown to have very few derogatory side effects and there is NO proof that cannabis has been shown to cause schitzophrenia.

If drugs are controlled themselves then the abuse of drugs can be controlled and drugs, perhaps all drugs, can be enjoyed in a more safe, healthy manner.

Why is this idea important?

Drugs should be legalized, now, i know that's a very strong statement, however if you take into account the sheer scale of drug use in the uk, and the negative aspects associated with the prohibition of drugs, you quickly realise the positivity that can be extracted from the decriminalization of cannabis, and more understanding drug laws for harder drug use.

Now, consider this, if cannabis was legalized (perhaps along with MDMA pills & psilocybin mushrooms) the revenue that could be made in tax from the sale of cannabis is huge. 27% of the uk population regularly smoke cannabis, that means that 16,683,840 people in the uk use cannabis on a regular basis  and 14% of under 13 year olds have tried cannabis, you understand that the younger you are the more likely you are to begin using cannabis. Therefore it seems to me that children under 18 are using drugs as a form of rebellion, i know, i'm 16..

16,683,840 people use cannabis, if cannabis costs £10 per gram and each of them buy £70 (7 gram or quarter ounce) per week, and the government tax at 17.5% (V.A.T) that's £204,377,040 per week in tax, multiply that by 52 and you get a staggering £10,627,606,080 in tax per year, I won't go on in figures but imagine what David cameron could do with £10,627,606,080 per year?

If £10,627,606,080 a year COULD be going into public tax money, then consider that these people that use cannabis at the moment, are using it illegally, and if the criminals are making 100% profit, as legally it can't be coming from a taxable source, then that means that £60,729,177,600 per year is going into REAL criminals pockets every year, that's nearly 61 BILLION pounds sterling. This money could be going to fund terrorism, child trafficking, organised crime, murder and gun trafficking/production, no matter how much of a fool we may think David Cameron to be, don't you believe that this money should be going to him rather than the forementioned causes?

Now my personal opinion is that the money in tax (a considerably large sum) can be used to help ease the burden out of harder drug use and be used to make this country a place with less heroin and crack cocaine addicts, through legalization and controlled S.I.S (safe injection sites) the epidemic of heroin sweeping through the world may be doctored in the UK.

I shall now point out the fact that 9000 people a year in the UK die annualy from alcohol related illnesses, and the most common cause of death for 13-18 year olds in the UK is alcohol poisoning. Take that into consideration there is evidence to show that not one single person, in the history of cannabis use, has died from a THC overdose.

My father used to tell me as a child, that all things in life are good in moderation, perhaps i took this a little TOO literally, however i believe i could go as far as to say that it's become my motto, please take this into consideration when reading this.

The fact that also, cannabis has been shown to have very few derogatory side effects and there is NO proof that cannabis has been shown to cause schitzophrenia.

If drugs are controlled themselves then the abuse of drugs can be controlled and drugs, perhaps all drugs, can be enjoyed in a more safe, healthy manner.

Scrap National Insurance contributions & increase Tax

If you were to scrap national insurance contributions and increase income tax to compensate then you would greatly simplify the tax collection system for the HMRC. At a stroke this would cut in half the tax collection bureaucracy that exists in HMRC and the tax side of businesses as they would be dealing with one system (income tax) and the processes to deal with this are already in place.

This would reduce the amount of work and processes that accountants, employers, employees & HMRC had to perform.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

If you were to scrap national insurance contributions and increase income tax to compensate then you would greatly simplify the tax collection system for the HMRC. At a stroke this would cut in half the tax collection bureaucracy that exists in HMRC and the tax side of businesses as they would be dealing with one system (income tax) and the processes to deal with this are already in place.

This would reduce the amount of work and processes that accountants, employers, employees & HMRC had to perform.

 

 

remove the opening restictions on Sunday in England and Wales

why are stores only allowed to open for 6 hours on a Sunday?  What kind of half way house is that.  I used to live in Scotalnd where this rule doesn't apply and it's great to ahve the freedom to shop whenever you get the chance.

Why is this idea important?

why are stores only allowed to open for 6 hours on a Sunday?  What kind of half way house is that.  I used to live in Scotalnd where this rule doesn't apply and it's great to ahve the freedom to shop whenever you get the chance.

Freedom / Pope / don’t dig-away human rights law

There are few rights for world prosecutors to arrest UK visitors, such as Pinochet.

Howoever,  one in Spain did manage to arrest Pinochet here.

The supreme court or law lords did a very unusual thing in first allowing arrest, then reversing the decision on the grounds that one of the judges was active in amnesty international, like that's such a bad thing.

Love it or hate it, this judgement gave the impression to dictators round the world that if they want to evade arrest in the UK they may not lucky next time. This has saved us a lot of police protection bills and saved the taxpayers of dictators the cost of a lot of trips to Harrods. In the mind of a dictator, the self-deception that he is somehow doing a bad thing for a good reason or that he can so easily get away with it can no longer be backed-up by a shopping trip to London.

Imagine my surprise to read a watering-down of the compromise position. From now on, any attempt to arrest a Mr Ratzinger will be a private matter between himself, the government and a man called Mr Kier Starmer who is hired by the government to say he's independent.

That's no way to promote equality before the law.

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/3497/23/07/2010/government-plan-could-prevent-pope-benedict-arrest.aspx

I propose we restore powers of arrest on human rights charges – even if this is nothing to do with the Pope and his name should not be dragged into it – because these powers prevent dictators from coming here and asking for expensive police protection while they shop at Harrods.

Why is this idea important?

There are few rights for world prosecutors to arrest UK visitors, such as Pinochet.

Howoever,  one in Spain did manage to arrest Pinochet here.

The supreme court or law lords did a very unusual thing in first allowing arrest, then reversing the decision on the grounds that one of the judges was active in amnesty international, like that's such a bad thing.

Love it or hate it, this judgement gave the impression to dictators round the world that if they want to evade arrest in the UK they may not lucky next time. This has saved us a lot of police protection bills and saved the taxpayers of dictators the cost of a lot of trips to Harrods. In the mind of a dictator, the self-deception that he is somehow doing a bad thing for a good reason or that he can so easily get away with it can no longer be backed-up by a shopping trip to London.

Imagine my surprise to read a watering-down of the compromise position. From now on, any attempt to arrest a Mr Ratzinger will be a private matter between himself, the government and a man called Mr Kier Starmer who is hired by the government to say he's independent.

That's no way to promote equality before the law.

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/3497/23/07/2010/government-plan-could-prevent-pope-benedict-arrest.aspx

I propose we restore powers of arrest on human rights charges – even if this is nothing to do with the Pope and his name should not be dragged into it – because these powers prevent dictators from coming here and asking for expensive police protection while they shop at Harrods.

Smoking Ban in Public Houses (From a NON-Smoker)

I have to say, when witnessing the number of pubs and clubs that are closing down now, that this stupid ban was the death knell for many of them.

I should say at the outset that I do not smoke – gave up quite a few years ago – I am not in the licensed trade and have no connection with the tobacco industry. I am a joiner who is currently working part time and looking for full time employment. However, I really feel for the groups of smokers huddled in doorways and outdoor shelters around pubs – especially in the winter. Of course – many smokers don't, now, even bother to go to the pub – they stay at home.

My wife and I were in Spain recently and noticed such a difference in attitudes – far more relaxed about the whole thing (yes, I do realise that other factors, such as the weather, play a part also.)

I'm not advocating the allowing of smoking in all public houses – but that those who wish to allow it provide a seperate, well ventilated room in which smokers can indulge, and that those pubs must advertise smoking/ non-smoking  outside the premises. At least that way, people have the real choice.

Why is this idea important?

I have to say, when witnessing the number of pubs and clubs that are closing down now, that this stupid ban was the death knell for many of them.

I should say at the outset that I do not smoke – gave up quite a few years ago – I am not in the licensed trade and have no connection with the tobacco industry. I am a joiner who is currently working part time and looking for full time employment. However, I really feel for the groups of smokers huddled in doorways and outdoor shelters around pubs – especially in the winter. Of course – many smokers don't, now, even bother to go to the pub – they stay at home.

My wife and I were in Spain recently and noticed such a difference in attitudes – far more relaxed about the whole thing (yes, I do realise that other factors, such as the weather, play a part also.)

I'm not advocating the allowing of smoking in all public houses – but that those who wish to allow it provide a seperate, well ventilated room in which smokers can indulge, and that those pubs must advertise smoking/ non-smoking  outside the premises. At least that way, people have the real choice.

Employment Referencing Law

Employment Referencing Law
 
Make a law about employment referencing.
 
For example, all the information an employer can give out for a reference is date started, date left and position held.
 

Why is this idea important?

Employment Referencing Law
 
Make a law about employment referencing.
 
For example, all the information an employer can give out for a reference is date started, date left and position held.
 

One version only of Small Company Accounts

The Companies House website has a very helpful Small Company Accounts template to enable web filing giving the minimum disclosure required by the Companies Act. This year HMRC (Corporation Tax) have started rejecting these abbreviated accounts and asking for a Directors' Report to be included in them. Most small companies (who have never been asked for this before) will have completed their accounts, adopted them at an AGM and sent them off to Companies House for filing before sending them to HMRC. The Directors Report, if included, is an integral part of the accounts, not just a page that can be added later.

Please can these two government departments get their act together to avoid this rediculous and time-consuming re-work for those in small companies who have enough legislation to keep up with at the best of times?

Why is this idea important?

The Companies House website has a very helpful Small Company Accounts template to enable web filing giving the minimum disclosure required by the Companies Act. This year HMRC (Corporation Tax) have started rejecting these abbreviated accounts and asking for a Directors' Report to be included in them. Most small companies (who have never been asked for this before) will have completed their accounts, adopted them at an AGM and sent them off to Companies House for filing before sending them to HMRC. The Directors Report, if included, is an integral part of the accounts, not just a page that can be added later.

Please can these two government departments get their act together to avoid this rediculous and time-consuming re-work for those in small companies who have enough legislation to keep up with at the best of times?

Law of Distraint should be amended.

 

 

The law of Distraint in commercial properties allows the landlord to send in bailiffs to remove assets of the company without any prior notice to the tenant.  No court order or notification is needed and all costs are passed onto the tenants.  This law effectively ensures that the landlord can immediately close down a trading enterprise for any amount of arrears and at any time.  This is fine when a tenant is deliberately trying to withhold rent from the landlord but in cases where companies are genuinely suffering as is happening in the current climate and are trying to keep their companies alive, this law basically allows landlords to harass tenants into borrowing from family, selling personal assets and other methods to keep their companies alive.

 

The law should be amended so that landlords have to give due warning before sending in bailiffs and also tenants should be given time to pay back arrears without damaging the company or their personal assets.

Why is this idea important?

 

 

The law of Distraint in commercial properties allows the landlord to send in bailiffs to remove assets of the company without any prior notice to the tenant.  No court order or notification is needed and all costs are passed onto the tenants.  This law effectively ensures that the landlord can immediately close down a trading enterprise for any amount of arrears and at any time.  This is fine when a tenant is deliberately trying to withhold rent from the landlord but in cases where companies are genuinely suffering as is happening in the current climate and are trying to keep their companies alive, this law basically allows landlords to harass tenants into borrowing from family, selling personal assets and other methods to keep their companies alive.

 

The law should be amended so that landlords have to give due warning before sending in bailiffs and also tenants should be given time to pay back arrears without damaging the company or their personal assets.

Repeal the National Minimum Wage and replace with a “Top-Up Benefits System.”

The National Minimum Wage as it is at the moment is detrimental to businesses, employees and the economy. Anyone who wishes to employ is currently is forced to pay at least the minimum wage even if they deem the employee to be worth less than this amount. This leads to the predicament of employees being unable to afford or be willing to employ which, when the economy is suffering as it is at present, increases unemployment and subsequently Government expenditure through benefits such as job seekers allowance.

Instead employees should be free to pay whatever wage they deem appropriate and if this is lower than the current minimum wage the employee can apply for top up benefits from the government to take their pay up to the minimum wage value. This would decrease the amount of benefits paid out, lower unemployment and increase the number of economically active people.

Why is this idea important?

The National Minimum Wage as it is at the moment is detrimental to businesses, employees and the economy. Anyone who wishes to employ is currently is forced to pay at least the minimum wage even if they deem the employee to be worth less than this amount. This leads to the predicament of employees being unable to afford or be willing to employ which, when the economy is suffering as it is at present, increases unemployment and subsequently Government expenditure through benefits such as job seekers allowance.

Instead employees should be free to pay whatever wage they deem appropriate and if this is lower than the current minimum wage the employee can apply for top up benefits from the government to take their pay up to the minimum wage value. This would decrease the amount of benefits paid out, lower unemployment and increase the number of economically active people.

Remove this pointless red tape: The right to request flexible working

The right to request flexible working, part of the Work and Families Act 2006, is a pointless piece of red tape.  It gives the employer the statutary right to ask the employer a question, and nothing more.  This burden of red tape should be removed.

Why is this idea important?

The right to request flexible working, part of the Work and Families Act 2006, is a pointless piece of red tape.  It gives the employer the statutary right to ask the employer a question, and nothing more.  This burden of red tape should be removed.