Supermarkets to contribute

Instead of householders paying more in council tax to enable the councils to recycle more why not ask the Supermarkets to contribute?

We, as the consumer, buy most of our food in packaging which we end up having to recycle. This is not a bad thing in asking us to put out the right bits in the right boxes thus reducing more that goes into landfill BUT why aren't the Supermarkets being asked to contribute to the recycling schemes. For example, they could pay for all the new recycling and wheelie bins that have recently been distrubted in our area as well as part funding the contractors costs for collecting.

 

Why is this idea important?

Instead of householders paying more in council tax to enable the councils to recycle more why not ask the Supermarkets to contribute?

We, as the consumer, buy most of our food in packaging which we end up having to recycle. This is not a bad thing in asking us to put out the right bits in the right boxes thus reducing more that goes into landfill BUT why aren't the Supermarkets being asked to contribute to the recycling schemes. For example, they could pay for all the new recycling and wheelie bins that have recently been distrubted in our area as well as part funding the contractors costs for collecting.

 

Bankers, contribute to society!

Pardon this is not a repeal as more of an idea, and i ivite any one with knowedge on this to please tell me why it couldnt work all the top profit earners in the FSTE 100, 250 or whatever pay into a pot say 3% of all net profit for the top profit earner 2.5% for second place 1.5% for third ect ect and with that money the state could build schools for special needs learners, new nhs hospitals, beds feeding the homeless, hungry heating the frail or elderlys homes yes a direct tax on the (filthy) rich but think of the public realations and good publicity spin the companys could emplor, all im saying is top capitalists and profit earners get to the top by exploitation so why cant they give back a little to the people they exploit.

But they'll just invest capital in foriegn markets where no such rules exists, well make it a E.U policy for all countrys or hit them with Heavy fines (or jail) for turning there back on a country that is at war with terror.  

Why is this idea important?

Pardon this is not a repeal as more of an idea, and i ivite any one with knowedge on this to please tell me why it couldnt work all the top profit earners in the FSTE 100, 250 or whatever pay into a pot say 3% of all net profit for the top profit earner 2.5% for second place 1.5% for third ect ect and with that money the state could build schools for special needs learners, new nhs hospitals, beds feeding the homeless, hungry heating the frail or elderlys homes yes a direct tax on the (filthy) rich but think of the public realations and good publicity spin the companys could emplor, all im saying is top capitalists and profit earners get to the top by exploitation so why cant they give back a little to the people they exploit.

But they'll just invest capital in foriegn markets where no such rules exists, well make it a E.U policy for all countrys or hit them with Heavy fines (or jail) for turning there back on a country that is at war with terror.  

Abolish the No Win No Fee System

Employers, councils and government, including the public sector, are funding the no win no fee system that is being exploited by solicitors and quasi legal organisations, by having to pay inflated insurance premiums. It must cost billions of pounds from the private and public purse each year. I am told that this system is not available in Scotland or N.Ireland, which begs the question why do we have it in England? There is still legal aid in this country and if anyone has a legitimate grievance and low resources they can still bring a case.  At the moment, the slightest fall, scratch or "bad back" can be blamed on someone, usally the hapless employer. This litigious system encourages and promotes the  "blame" culture, which is so evident in our country today. How many of us were too worried to clear the snow from the pavements outside our homes last winter because we worried that we would be liable if someone slipped?  Please let us get back to a sense of personal responsibility for ones own safekeeping and the simple acceptance that accidents can and do happen despite the most careful of attention!

Why is this idea important?

Employers, councils and government, including the public sector, are funding the no win no fee system that is being exploited by solicitors and quasi legal organisations, by having to pay inflated insurance premiums. It must cost billions of pounds from the private and public purse each year. I am told that this system is not available in Scotland or N.Ireland, which begs the question why do we have it in England? There is still legal aid in this country and if anyone has a legitimate grievance and low resources they can still bring a case.  At the moment, the slightest fall, scratch or "bad back" can be blamed on someone, usally the hapless employer. This litigious system encourages and promotes the  "blame" culture, which is so evident in our country today. How many of us were too worried to clear the snow from the pavements outside our homes last winter because we worried that we would be liable if someone slipped?  Please let us get back to a sense of personal responsibility for ones own safekeeping and the simple acceptance that accidents can and do happen despite the most careful of attention!

Support British Industry!

As a postal worker these past 17 years, I remember once reading in a Royal Mail publication how the company prided itself in supporting British industry. This was a reference to the buying of a new fleet of vans – traditionally British Leyland or Ford more often than not. Nowadays, though such a policy is all but forgotten as, somewhere along the line when no-one was looking, all our new vans seem to be Peugeots or Fiats.

The Police, too seem to use a lot of foreign cars and mainly B.M.W. motorcycles.

We could do with a new policy for all Government departments, namely the Post Office, Police, N.H.S. and Fire Brigade to buy British.

We have perfectly good motorcycles making a huge range of models in the forms of Triumph, Norton and Hesketh. There are also many commercial vehicle manufacturers out there.

Why is this idea important?

As a postal worker these past 17 years, I remember once reading in a Royal Mail publication how the company prided itself in supporting British industry. This was a reference to the buying of a new fleet of vans – traditionally British Leyland or Ford more often than not. Nowadays, though such a policy is all but forgotten as, somewhere along the line when no-one was looking, all our new vans seem to be Peugeots or Fiats.

The Police, too seem to use a lot of foreign cars and mainly B.M.W. motorcycles.

We could do with a new policy for all Government departments, namely the Post Office, Police, N.H.S. and Fire Brigade to buy British.

We have perfectly good motorcycles making a huge range of models in the forms of Triumph, Norton and Hesketh. There are also many commercial vehicle manufacturers out there.

Unneccesary Closure of Roads

Not the law as such, but the interpretation of it – across the UK, every day, major roads are closed for hours at a time. This is a fairly recent phenomenon, apparently initiated by a 2004 version (updated 2007) of a police manual 'Road Death Investigation.' On occasion it must be appropriate, and justified, to close a road, but statistically very rarely – we appear to be the only civilised country that closes it's major routes, often in both directions, for long periods on a daily basis. 

Why is this idea important?

Not the law as such, but the interpretation of it – across the UK, every day, major roads are closed for hours at a time. This is a fairly recent phenomenon, apparently initiated by a 2004 version (updated 2007) of a police manual 'Road Death Investigation.' On occasion it must be appropriate, and justified, to close a road, but statistically very rarely – we appear to be the only civilised country that closes it's major routes, often in both directions, for long periods on a daily basis. 

Scrap the Funds for Liabilities burden on telecoms companies

At present Telecoms companies are required to lodge a bond or other financial instrument which would pay for their network to be ripped out or made safe in the event that they go bust and no one buys up the assets. This used to be a discretionary power for Oftel but it has now become compulsory for all network operators. It is costly and burdensome and has never been triggered so it is tying up cash which could better be used in rolling out next generation networks for the UK. 

Why is this idea important?

At present Telecoms companies are required to lodge a bond or other financial instrument which would pay for their network to be ripped out or made safe in the event that they go bust and no one buys up the assets. This used to be a discretionary power for Oftel but it has now become compulsory for all network operators. It is costly and burdensome and has never been triggered so it is tying up cash which could better be used in rolling out next generation networks for the UK. 

Cut Legal and Accountancy Fees

I’d like to see a watchdog set up with a view of reducing legal and accounting costs that every business must pay.

This means identifying the top legal/accounting activities and streamlining them for cost and time.

Why is this idea important?

I’d like to see a watchdog set up with a view of reducing legal and accounting costs that every business must pay.

This means identifying the top legal/accounting activities and streamlining them for cost and time.

New Type of School – Centre of Enterprise

I would like to suggest that potentially self-funding schools are founded in areas with high unemployment with the aim of fostering enterprise. Pupils could be taught all the necessary skills needed to set up and market their own business. The school could incorporate exhibiton ares and a retail outlet. They could also trade online worldwide. Pupils could also earn money by providing services to the local communty. It would be compulsory for teachers to have spent some time as a self-employed person and the general approach would be positive towards self-employment.

Business could participate and sponsor pupils. A worldview could be fostered. The creative approach would ensure that the process learning is fun but also it could be taught that making money can be enpowering. Pupils would see the results of their endeavours being ploughed back into the school creating growth of the school. Even if the school struggled financially there would be lessons to be learned.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to suggest that potentially self-funding schools are founded in areas with high unemployment with the aim of fostering enterprise. Pupils could be taught all the necessary skills needed to set up and market their own business. The school could incorporate exhibiton ares and a retail outlet. They could also trade online worldwide. Pupils could also earn money by providing services to the local communty. It would be compulsory for teachers to have spent some time as a self-employed person and the general approach would be positive towards self-employment.

Business could participate and sponsor pupils. A worldview could be fostered. The creative approach would ensure that the process learning is fun but also it could be taught that making money can be enpowering. Pupils would see the results of their endeavours being ploughed back into the school creating growth of the school. Even if the school struggled financially there would be lessons to be learned.

Get out of Europe

We should leave the EU.

Repeal the laws that have taken sovereignty away from the people and their Parliament. 

All functionaries of the Eu now in our Parliament must, by law, declare an interest everytime they speak – as their penssions are conditional on the supporting the EU – and so doing down the UK.

I am very happy to trade with Europe, and to visit it – and have Europeans come here to play or to work.

The EU – with its unaccountable bureaucrcy, is a source of far too many rules and regulations – som probably sensible, if not strictly necessary; others, like bent cucumbers [I know that, finally, has been repealed] simply beyond parody.

Why is this idea important?

We should leave the EU.

Repeal the laws that have taken sovereignty away from the people and their Parliament. 

All functionaries of the Eu now in our Parliament must, by law, declare an interest everytime they speak – as their penssions are conditional on the supporting the EU – and so doing down the UK.

I am very happy to trade with Europe, and to visit it – and have Europeans come here to play or to work.

The EU – with its unaccountable bureaucrcy, is a source of far too many rules and regulations – som probably sensible, if not strictly necessary; others, like bent cucumbers [I know that, finally, has been repealed] simply beyond parody.

Stop the Lawyer & Accountant Gravy Train

Remove the need for lawyers and accountants when conducting everyday business. How?

  • New laws, rules and guidance must pass a simple comprehension test so that a reasonable person would be able to understand and implement. If it doesn't pass the test and it needs an expensive expert to give an 'opinion' it should not be put into force.
  • Old law, rules and guidance should be rapidly simplified and rewritten to pass the same test.
  • All law and guidance should be black and white.
  • Must be easy to implement.
  • Use check lists to allow easier compliance i.e. if you can satisfy these clear criteria you will have done what is required.
  • Standard business contracts introduced for most commercial transactions. Everything that is different can then be highlighted and addressed.

It is hardly in the legal profession's best interest to simplify the law or for accountants to have a simplified tax code. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and it will take political courage to take on the vested interests involved. 

Why is this idea important?

Remove the need for lawyers and accountants when conducting everyday business. How?

  • New laws, rules and guidance must pass a simple comprehension test so that a reasonable person would be able to understand and implement. If it doesn't pass the test and it needs an expensive expert to give an 'opinion' it should not be put into force.
  • Old law, rules and guidance should be rapidly simplified and rewritten to pass the same test.
  • All law and guidance should be black and white.
  • Must be easy to implement.
  • Use check lists to allow easier compliance i.e. if you can satisfy these clear criteria you will have done what is required.
  • Standard business contracts introduced for most commercial transactions. Everything that is different can then be highlighted and addressed.

It is hardly in the legal profession's best interest to simplify the law or for accountants to have a simplified tax code. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and it will take political courage to take on the vested interests involved. 

Commercial Leases. Landlord & Tenant Act Review

The present Act states that the outgoing tenant of business premises is liable for the rent for the duration of the lease if the new tenant defaults. It also states that the tenant is required to pay all the Landlords costs. We sold our catering business with a new 15 year lease. According to the terms of this lease ( a copy of the old one started about 30 years ago) we are responsible for the rent until we are 72.  The Landlord would not allow us to have a AGA The current rent is 22k a year. We are also responsible for all dilapidations throughout the lease if any of the tenants do not fulfill their responsibilities. In the 21st century this law is outdated. The Federation of Small Business's have tried many times to get this Act altered. It is weighed solely in the Landlords favour. We had to pay 15k for repairs to the landlords building, even though we had only been tenants for 2 years. FRI leases should be abolished. It is the Landlords building, he owns it, and in the long term benefits from repairs his tenants are made to pay for. Business rents should not be tied to the cost of the building. In Cornwall the rents are becoming so high due to the inflated cost of the premises. Business's are unable to keep raising their prices to pay for the rent.

Why is this idea important?

The present Act states that the outgoing tenant of business premises is liable for the rent for the duration of the lease if the new tenant defaults. It also states that the tenant is required to pay all the Landlords costs. We sold our catering business with a new 15 year lease. According to the terms of this lease ( a copy of the old one started about 30 years ago) we are responsible for the rent until we are 72.  The Landlord would not allow us to have a AGA The current rent is 22k a year. We are also responsible for all dilapidations throughout the lease if any of the tenants do not fulfill their responsibilities. In the 21st century this law is outdated. The Federation of Small Business's have tried many times to get this Act altered. It is weighed solely in the Landlords favour. We had to pay 15k for repairs to the landlords building, even though we had only been tenants for 2 years. FRI leases should be abolished. It is the Landlords building, he owns it, and in the long term benefits from repairs his tenants are made to pay for. Business rents should not be tied to the cost of the building. In Cornwall the rents are becoming so high due to the inflated cost of the premises. Business's are unable to keep raising their prices to pay for the rent.

All official answers must be committal not noncommittal

This applies to every answer given by a government minister or office, civil servant, MP, councillor etc, other public office or commission of any nature, or business answering an enquiry about problems with its product, inclduing lawyers.

Everything stated in every answer given in an official capacity, i.e. as part of these folks' jobs, must be definite about all facts involved. if total factual certainty does not exist, the extent to which it does must be stated definitely. The words "unfortuately", "regrettably", and all synonyms used similarly, should be banned. Phrases like "you feel" or "you consider", that take the committal factuality out of a sentence, should be banned, and provision made for any new such phrase that bureaucrats are seen to coin and use, to be banned too upon its existence being demonstrated.

If the recipient of the answer perceives that any statement in it is noncommittal, s/he will be entitled to write back stating and explaining how that is, and to demand, as an enforceable right, a reply where the writer of the statement has to show, word by word, that it is watertightly committal and definite.

Why is this idea important?

This applies to every answer given by a government minister or office, civil servant, MP, councillor etc, other public office or commission of any nature, or business answering an enquiry about problems with its product, inclduing lawyers.

Everything stated in every answer given in an official capacity, i.e. as part of these folks' jobs, must be definite about all facts involved. if total factual certainty does not exist, the extent to which it does must be stated definitely. The words "unfortuately", "regrettably", and all synonyms used similarly, should be banned. Phrases like "you feel" or "you consider", that take the committal factuality out of a sentence, should be banned, and provision made for any new such phrase that bureaucrats are seen to coin and use, to be banned too upon its existence being demonstrated.

If the recipient of the answer perceives that any statement in it is noncommittal, s/he will be entitled to write back stating and explaining how that is, and to demand, as an enforceable right, a reply where the writer of the statement has to show, word by word, that it is watertightly committal and definite.

Overhaul The Companies Act And Various Revisions For SME’s

Remove the requirement for SME's that are largely or principally owner-managed to have an annual accounts audit.

Remove the requirement for SME's that are largely or principally owner-managed to have to make an annual return to Companies House.

Remove the requirement for SME's that are largely or principally owner-managed to have to file annual accounts.

Remove the requirement for SME's that are largely or principally owner-managed to have to have their information publicly displayed.

 

Why is this idea important?

Remove the requirement for SME's that are largely or principally owner-managed to have an annual accounts audit.

Remove the requirement for SME's that are largely or principally owner-managed to have to make an annual return to Companies House.

Remove the requirement for SME's that are largely or principally owner-managed to have to file annual accounts.

Remove the requirement for SME's that are largely or principally owner-managed to have to have their information publicly displayed.

 

Stop police searching & fining chefs, carpenters etc under s139 of Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA) and/or Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 and other knife related laws.

Obviously knife crime is a problem but I have heard report of the police stopping chefs, carpenters & electricians – and I believe at least one of these people was fined – under the regulations forbidding people from carrying knives in a public place.

Clearly there is no common sense to this at all, any more than there is common sense in the police stopping photographers & tourists under section 44 of the Terrorism Act.

The Home Secretary had the good sense today to try to stop the police being so stupid about photography and the Terrorism Act.  Could she also take a look at the absurd way the various knife laws are applied by some police forces.

Those acts/laws might include:  The Violent Crimes Reduction Act 2008, The Knives Act 1997, the Offensive Weapons Act 1996, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 and the Tackling Gangs Action Programme.

Why is this idea important?

Obviously knife crime is a problem but I have heard report of the police stopping chefs, carpenters & electricians – and I believe at least one of these people was fined – under the regulations forbidding people from carrying knives in a public place.

Clearly there is no common sense to this at all, any more than there is common sense in the police stopping photographers & tourists under section 44 of the Terrorism Act.

The Home Secretary had the good sense today to try to stop the police being so stupid about photography and the Terrorism Act.  Could she also take a look at the absurd way the various knife laws are applied by some police forces.

Those acts/laws might include:  The Violent Crimes Reduction Act 2008, The Knives Act 1997, the Offensive Weapons Act 1996, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 and the Tackling Gangs Action Programme.

Scrap work permits

Scrap work permits entirely.If someone is legally resident in the UK, let them work and contribute to the economy instead of being economically inactive.

EU nationals are already exempt from the need for work permits and more people will become exempt as the EU enlarges, so why not hasten the demise of these documents and the bureaucracy that goes along with them?

Why is this idea important?

Scrap work permits entirely.If someone is legally resident in the UK, let them work and contribute to the economy instead of being economically inactive.

EU nationals are already exempt from the need for work permits and more people will become exempt as the EU enlarges, so why not hasten the demise of these documents and the bureaucracy that goes along with them?

Categorise Smoking in pubs

The smoking ban should be repealed and the right to smoke or not in a pub should be at the landlord/ladies' discretion.

Why not introduce categories for pubs, for example

Cat. A , No smoking allowed on the premises.

Cat. B, Generally no smoking inside but a room is provided for smokers.

Cat. C, Smoking pub , but a no-smoking room is provided.

Cat. D. Smoking allowed throughout the pub.

Of course smoking should still be permitted in external areas.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban should be repealed and the right to smoke or not in a pub should be at the landlord/ladies' discretion.

Why not introduce categories for pubs, for example

Cat. A , No smoking allowed on the premises.

Cat. B, Generally no smoking inside but a room is provided for smokers.

Cat. C, Smoking pub , but a no-smoking room is provided.

Cat. D. Smoking allowed throughout the pub.

Of course smoking should still be permitted in external areas.

Repeal the European Communities Act 1972 (UK)

This Act, although given Royal Assent, must be repealed if Britain and British people are to have any say in the governance of their way of life. The Act states, in effect, that all legislation and Acts of Parliament are subject to approval by the European Parliament. To hand over control of everything that maintains law and order in Britain is totally unacceptable. It must never have represented the wishes of the majority of the British population.

Europe has far too much influence on our way of life. While there is a strong case to change from pounds and ounces to kilogrammes, or to abandon gills, pints, gallons and firkins in favour of litres, the European insistence that we must sell eggs by weight is just plain silly. If you ask for a kilogramme of eggs will you endup with all small eggs? Or a mixture of small and large?

More serious is the cost to Britain's taxpayers for this European interference. Everyone in the British isles is affected by the unbelievable debt run up by the Socialist government; we are all feeling the pinch to a greater or lesser degree and yet an unacceptably large percentage of our GNP is lost in the corridors of the European Parliament.

Why is this idea important?

This Act, although given Royal Assent, must be repealed if Britain and British people are to have any say in the governance of their way of life. The Act states, in effect, that all legislation and Acts of Parliament are subject to approval by the European Parliament. To hand over control of everything that maintains law and order in Britain is totally unacceptable. It must never have represented the wishes of the majority of the British population.

Europe has far too much influence on our way of life. While there is a strong case to change from pounds and ounces to kilogrammes, or to abandon gills, pints, gallons and firkins in favour of litres, the European insistence that we must sell eggs by weight is just plain silly. If you ask for a kilogramme of eggs will you endup with all small eggs? Or a mixture of small and large?

More serious is the cost to Britain's taxpayers for this European interference. Everyone in the British isles is affected by the unbelievable debt run up by the Socialist government; we are all feeling the pinch to a greater or lesser degree and yet an unacceptably large percentage of our GNP is lost in the corridors of the European Parliament.

Remove the ability of councils to go against the wishes of the majority to satisfy their twisted ideologies

According to the Evening Post Bristol City Council are looking to tax firms who supply their employees with parking spaces.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/FIRMS-FACE-TAX-PARKING/article-2393186-detail/article.html

There was another recent article stating that councillors had expressed the explicit intention to make life more difficult for motorists.

I propose introducing legislation dictating that councillors and politicians serve rather than rule those who elect them.

Why is this idea important?

According to the Evening Post Bristol City Council are looking to tax firms who supply their employees with parking spaces.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/FIRMS-FACE-TAX-PARKING/article-2393186-detail/article.html

There was another recent article stating that councillors had expressed the explicit intention to make life more difficult for motorists.

I propose introducing legislation dictating that councillors and politicians serve rather than rule those who elect them.

Tax Caravans and require they stop every 3 miles

Free the majority of motorists from the menace of queues caused by this minority towing caravans.

Register and tax all caravans used on the public highway, including travellers, and use some of the money raised to create lay-by's where all slow vehicles and those towing caravans must stop to allow normal traffic to proceed unhindered.

Ban caravans from outer lanes on dual carriageways and motorways.

Why is this idea important?

Free the majority of motorists from the menace of queues caused by this minority towing caravans.

Register and tax all caravans used on the public highway, including travellers, and use some of the money raised to create lay-by's where all slow vehicles and those towing caravans must stop to allow normal traffic to proceed unhindered.

Ban caravans from outer lanes on dual carriageways and motorways.

Abolish business tax relief on house improvements

People with second or multiple homes are getting tax relief on the cost of improvements to the homes then renting them out. Why should the tax payer pay for such “businesses” that only benefit the land lord.

Such tax relief should be targeted only at businesses that develop and produce products.

Why is this idea important?

People with second or multiple homes are getting tax relief on the cost of improvements to the homes then renting them out. Why should the tax payer pay for such “businesses” that only benefit the land lord.

Such tax relief should be targeted only at businesses that develop and produce products.

Redundant Farm Buildings Conversion

The last Labour governmentbrought in a law which allowed the conversion of suitable redundant farm buildings into offices or holiday cottages. But not houses

The offices are difficult to let and the holiday cottages are only suitable in the right area.

However there is a desperate shortage of houses and these buildings often make good houses.

The footprint is already there and no extra land is utilised, also the nations housing shortage could be improved at no cost to the tax payer.

I believe Mr Clegg the deputy Prime Minister wrote an article in the Daily Mail supporting this idea.

I would like to propose therefore that these buildings if suiutable should be given planning permission to convert into houses./

Why is this idea important?

The last Labour governmentbrought in a law which allowed the conversion of suitable redundant farm buildings into offices or holiday cottages. But not houses

The offices are difficult to let and the holiday cottages are only suitable in the right area.

However there is a desperate shortage of houses and these buildings often make good houses.

The footprint is already there and no extra land is utilised, also the nations housing shortage could be improved at no cost to the tax payer.

I believe Mr Clegg the deputy Prime Minister wrote an article in the Daily Mail supporting this idea.

I would like to propose therefore that these buildings if suiutable should be given planning permission to convert into houses./