keep FM radio

Most people listen to radio while doing something else, often in a noisey work environment so quality is not vital. Clarity of speach and battery life, however are important. Both are better on FM. Don't force those of us working in mobile situations into working in silence or listening to CD's, keep FM and even AM and Long wave. Test match special is the best radio listening possible when doing a dull job out inthe countryside.

Why is this idea important?

Most people listen to radio while doing something else, often in a noisey work environment so quality is not vital. Clarity of speach and battery life, however are important. Both are better on FM. Don't force those of us working in mobile situations into working in silence or listening to CD's, keep FM and even AM and Long wave. Test match special is the best radio listening possible when doing a dull job out inthe countryside.

Daylight saving – permanent 2 hour shift

There would be several advantages to shifting our clocks forward by 2 hours all the time.

The conventions of UK society do not match the times of daylight.  Schools and shops start at 9.00 (instead of 7.30 or 8.00 on the Continent).    In the summer, even with our 1hr shift forward, a lot of daylight is wasted in the mornings before anybody gets up.  This is also true in October and March.  The centre of most people's day is around 2.00pm or later.  For example a school child might get up at 8.00 and go to bed at 9.00pm so his day is centred at 2.30pm.  A London commuter gets up at 7.00am and goes to bed at 11.00pm – day centred at 3.00pm.

It would save power for lighting if the centre of people's day matched midday by the sun.  This requires a 2 or 3 hr shift forward.  It would also give more time for outside activities in the  evenings.

It is often said that Scotland would not like this.  Well, they have their own Parliament and so can set their own time.  The UK Government could then consider charging them a Carbon Tax for wasting power that could have been saved.

Why is this idea important?

There would be several advantages to shifting our clocks forward by 2 hours all the time.

The conventions of UK society do not match the times of daylight.  Schools and shops start at 9.00 (instead of 7.30 or 8.00 on the Continent).    In the summer, even with our 1hr shift forward, a lot of daylight is wasted in the mornings before anybody gets up.  This is also true in October and March.  The centre of most people's day is around 2.00pm or later.  For example a school child might get up at 8.00 and go to bed at 9.00pm so his day is centred at 2.30pm.  A London commuter gets up at 7.00am and goes to bed at 11.00pm – day centred at 3.00pm.

It would save power for lighting if the centre of people's day matched midday by the sun.  This requires a 2 or 3 hr shift forward.  It would also give more time for outside activities in the  evenings.

It is often said that Scotland would not like this.  Well, they have their own Parliament and so can set their own time.  The UK Government could then consider charging them a Carbon Tax for wasting power that could have been saved.

Repeal the regulation that results in lifts using double the energy necessary

Repeal the current regulations which requires all modern lifts to return to the ground floor, every time they are used. 

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the current regulations which requires all modern lifts to return to the ground floor, every time they are used. 

Require that public and new buildings make some energy

Why can't government bite the bullet and require that all public buildings make energy using renewable sources for example solar water heating and in particulare solar electricity? British schools would generate huge amounts of energy in the six weeks that they're empty. How much would that eventually save? New houses should also be included. Imagine the sell back savings and perhaps even for the reduction in windfarms.

Why is this idea important?

Why can't government bite the bullet and require that all public buildings make energy using renewable sources for example solar water heating and in particulare solar electricity? British schools would generate huge amounts of energy in the six weeks that they're empty. How much would that eventually save? New houses should also be included. Imagine the sell back savings and perhaps even for the reduction in windfarms.

End employer’s responsibility for home workers’ H&S

I help organisations adopt teleworking – that is, have employees who work at home.

 Amazingly, an employer has the same responsibilities for ensuring the health and safety of home workers as they do for staff based at their premises.

 This means employers have to organise assessments of the home workers' home office, covering H&S risk, electrical safety, ergonomics, lighting etc.

 What I see is a bureaucratic mess as managers sign off home workers' self-assessments without knowing what they are endorsing, whilst worrying what their own liabilities are. And both home workers and managers worry about carrying out sometimes-obligatory physical inspections of the home office.

 For large businesses this red tape creates loads of paperwork and consumes much time and effort. For small businesses it can be a step too far which stops them adopting teleworking.

 It is crazy and anomalous that an employer has responsibility for a home office. Apart from employer-provided equipment, the responsibility is clearly the home worker's themselves, just as it is for the rest of their home. I propose that that part of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974  should be cut.

Why is this idea important?

I help organisations adopt teleworking – that is, have employees who work at home.

 Amazingly, an employer has the same responsibilities for ensuring the health and safety of home workers as they do for staff based at their premises.

 This means employers have to organise assessments of the home workers' home office, covering H&S risk, electrical safety, ergonomics, lighting etc.

 What I see is a bureaucratic mess as managers sign off home workers' self-assessments without knowing what they are endorsing, whilst worrying what their own liabilities are. And both home workers and managers worry about carrying out sometimes-obligatory physical inspections of the home office.

 For large businesses this red tape creates loads of paperwork and consumes much time and effort. For small businesses it can be a step too far which stops them adopting teleworking.

 It is crazy and anomalous that an employer has responsibility for a home office. Apart from employer-provided equipment, the responsibility is clearly the home worker's themselves, just as it is for the rest of their home. I propose that that part of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974  should be cut.