Changes to Right to Purchase Freehold

We would like to propose what we think is a far more efficient, far more cost effective and much fairer way of dealing with requests from leaseholders wishing to purchase the freehold to their own homes:

  1. Should negotiation between the leaseholders and the freeholder fail to agree a fair price for the freehold, a direct application is made to an approved valuerfor a valuation anda speedy resolution.
  2. Should there be a disagreement over the independent valuation, then each party could seek a further valuation and the median of the valuations be adopted.
  3. The Tribunal should be required to report within 4 weeks of any hearing and should adhere to this or else pay compensation e.g. return their fees or a daily penalty.
  4. The freeholder should have to provide valid, legal title documents at their expense rather than any costs of updating documents falling to the leaseholder.
  5. The freeholder should be ready to complete within 8 weeks of the Tribunal decision and is subject to fines/compensation for each day they exceed this.
  6. The leaseholder should not have to pay the freeholders costs for a valuation report unless that report is also copied to the leaseholders. This will increase the chance of a mutually agreeable freehold price being identified and prevent the leaseholder paying for a service they don’t receive.
  7. To act as an incentive for the freeholder to act swiftly, the leaseholder(s) should not have to pay all of the freeholder’s costs and there should be far more onus on the freeholder to act faster and fairer. Time limits should be set for each side to adhere to with appropriate sanctions and compensation for slippages.
  8. The removal of the draconian situation where the leaseholder forfeits their right to proceed if they miss a deadline, especially as it can be missed by the freeholder doing nothing and the leaseholder constantly has to chase and push the freeholder to respond – after all the leaseholderswant to purchase the freehold!

From the moment the leaseholder invokes their ‘right to buy’ the freehold, the whole process should be completed within a set period of time,say a maximum of 12 months.

Why is this idea important?

We would like to propose what we think is a far more efficient, far more cost effective and much fairer way of dealing with requests from leaseholders wishing to purchase the freehold to their own homes:

  1. Should negotiation between the leaseholders and the freeholder fail to agree a fair price for the freehold, a direct application is made to an approved valuerfor a valuation anda speedy resolution.
  2. Should there be a disagreement over the independent valuation, then each party could seek a further valuation and the median of the valuations be adopted.
  3. The Tribunal should be required to report within 4 weeks of any hearing and should adhere to this or else pay compensation e.g. return their fees or a daily penalty.
  4. The freeholder should have to provide valid, legal title documents at their expense rather than any costs of updating documents falling to the leaseholder.
  5. The freeholder should be ready to complete within 8 weeks of the Tribunal decision and is subject to fines/compensation for each day they exceed this.
  6. The leaseholder should not have to pay the freeholders costs for a valuation report unless that report is also copied to the leaseholders. This will increase the chance of a mutually agreeable freehold price being identified and prevent the leaseholder paying for a service they don’t receive.
  7. To act as an incentive for the freeholder to act swiftly, the leaseholder(s) should not have to pay all of the freeholder’s costs and there should be far more onus on the freeholder to act faster and fairer. Time limits should be set for each side to adhere to with appropriate sanctions and compensation for slippages.
  8. The removal of the draconian situation where the leaseholder forfeits their right to proceed if they miss a deadline, especially as it can be missed by the freeholder doing nothing and the leaseholder constantly has to chase and push the freeholder to respond – after all the leaseholderswant to purchase the freehold!

From the moment the leaseholder invokes their ‘right to buy’ the freehold, the whole process should be completed within a set period of time,say a maximum of 12 months.

Les Iversen, of the ACMD on Cannabis:

Professor Nutt was sacked as we know unfairly despite his vindication as cited here: http://www.drugequality.org/ico_press_release.htm

Les Iversen that took the place of Professor Nutt.  The current leader of the ACMD has spoken out on cannabis in the past.  This is what he has to say:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-4690997-why-cannabis-doesnt-kill.do

When I read last week that as many as 30,000 deaths a year in Britain could be caused by smoking cannabis, I reacted in a most uncustomary way for a mild-mannered scientist. I was infuriated. As someone acknowledged throughout the world as a specialist in how drugs affect the brain, I know a great deal about cannabis, and I know that the facts are not there to stand up such an outrageous statement.

The main problem is that cannabis has been classified incorrectly for nearly 50 years as being an extremely dangerous drug, but it doesn't fit that level of hazard. I'm not saying it's completely safe – no drug is completely safe, but as recreational drugs go, it's one of the safer ones. You can't overdose on cannabis, but you can certainly overdose on heroin, and even on alcohol.
It is headline-grabbing rubbish to suggest that cannabis could be responsible for so many deaths in future. To be sure, it makes a great story, but when you look at the arithmetic, it doesn't add up.
The original British Medical Journal article suggested that the chemicals which are given off when cannabis is smoked could mean that users would succumb to the same diseases that affect tobacco smokers. But in my view, it overlooks several significant facts.
Cannabis smoke does contain many of the same poisonous chemicals that you find in cigarette smoke, and cannabis smokers draw more tar into their lungs than cigarette smokers because they tend to inhale more deeply, and then hold their breath.
But to end up with as much tar in their lungs as a 20-a-day cigarette smoker, a cannabis user would have to smoke four or five joints a day, every day of the week.
But most of the million or so in this country who smoke cannabis do so at the weekend (I believe the article's figure of 3.2 million users is again wide of the mark) and the great majority quit when they reach their thirties. If the risks of smoking cannabis equate to those of tobacco, those who quit before they are 35 only have a slightly increased risk of lung cancer, just one or two per cent.
Yes, cannabis smoke has some harmful effects. It irritates the lungs just as much as tobacco, and there is some evidence that it causes a nasty cough, which can lead to bronchitis, but to say that this leads to lung cancer is a huge leap in the dark.
You can't extrapolate like that because the hard evidence does not exist. Of course, you could say that 50 years ago we didn't know that cigarette smoke was so harmful, but to put a number on the risk of cannabis at this stage, with random figures, is scaremongering. The report suggested that tetrahydrocannabinol – the nicotine equivalent in cannabis – can increase by more than four times the chances of a heart attack within an hour of taking it, and also mentioned that most cannabis sold on the UK black market is now 10 times stronger than it was 20 years ago.
These things may be true, but it is also a fact that in Britain, no drug-related deaths due to cannabis have been reported for many years. So you simply cannot conclude that smoking cannabis is likely to give you a heart attack.
Another scaremongering tactic from the anti-cannabis brigade is that regular use means a higher risk of mental illness, such as schizophrenia and depression. Certainly, studies have been published which show an "association", but that doesn't prove cause and effect.
It doesn't mean that one thing automatically leads to the other. That is not the way scientists should conduct experiments, nor draw conclusions in print.
I am not approving the fact that so many young people smoke cannabis, but we must learn to be more grown-up about the way we debate the subject. We have to look at the facts in a more dispassionate way.
And, at least in the sense that the issue can now be debated openly, that has begun to happen. No one would discuss cannabis, even relatively recently. When I advised the House of Lords committee five years ago that cannabis was not as damaging as, for instance, regular smoking or drinking, no one wanted to know about our findings. Now, things have changed. A number of serious studies have been done, which is moving the debate in the right direction.
It is never possible for a scientist to say that anything is totally safe. But, at the end of the day, scaremongering does science – and the public – a great disservice. Cannabis is simply not as dangerous as it is being made out to be.
• Professor Les Iversen of the Department of Pharmacology at Oxford University is the author of The Science of Marijuana, published by Oxford University Press.

Why is this idea important?

Professor Nutt was sacked as we know unfairly despite his vindication as cited here: http://www.drugequality.org/ico_press_release.htm

Les Iversen that took the place of Professor Nutt.  The current leader of the ACMD has spoken out on cannabis in the past.  This is what he has to say:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-4690997-why-cannabis-doesnt-kill.do

When I read last week that as many as 30,000 deaths a year in Britain could be caused by smoking cannabis, I reacted in a most uncustomary way for a mild-mannered scientist. I was infuriated. As someone acknowledged throughout the world as a specialist in how drugs affect the brain, I know a great deal about cannabis, and I know that the facts are not there to stand up such an outrageous statement.

The main problem is that cannabis has been classified incorrectly for nearly 50 years as being an extremely dangerous drug, but it doesn't fit that level of hazard. I'm not saying it's completely safe – no drug is completely safe, but as recreational drugs go, it's one of the safer ones. You can't overdose on cannabis, but you can certainly overdose on heroin, and even on alcohol.
It is headline-grabbing rubbish to suggest that cannabis could be responsible for so many deaths in future. To be sure, it makes a great story, but when you look at the arithmetic, it doesn't add up.
The original British Medical Journal article suggested that the chemicals which are given off when cannabis is smoked could mean that users would succumb to the same diseases that affect tobacco smokers. But in my view, it overlooks several significant facts.
Cannabis smoke does contain many of the same poisonous chemicals that you find in cigarette smoke, and cannabis smokers draw more tar into their lungs than cigarette smokers because they tend to inhale more deeply, and then hold their breath.
But to end up with as much tar in their lungs as a 20-a-day cigarette smoker, a cannabis user would have to smoke four or five joints a day, every day of the week.
But most of the million or so in this country who smoke cannabis do so at the weekend (I believe the article's figure of 3.2 million users is again wide of the mark) and the great majority quit when they reach their thirties. If the risks of smoking cannabis equate to those of tobacco, those who quit before they are 35 only have a slightly increased risk of lung cancer, just one or two per cent.
Yes, cannabis smoke has some harmful effects. It irritates the lungs just as much as tobacco, and there is some evidence that it causes a nasty cough, which can lead to bronchitis, but to say that this leads to lung cancer is a huge leap in the dark.
You can't extrapolate like that because the hard evidence does not exist. Of course, you could say that 50 years ago we didn't know that cigarette smoke was so harmful, but to put a number on the risk of cannabis at this stage, with random figures, is scaremongering. The report suggested that tetrahydrocannabinol – the nicotine equivalent in cannabis – can increase by more than four times the chances of a heart attack within an hour of taking it, and also mentioned that most cannabis sold on the UK black market is now 10 times stronger than it was 20 years ago.
These things may be true, but it is also a fact that in Britain, no drug-related deaths due to cannabis have been reported for many years. So you simply cannot conclude that smoking cannabis is likely to give you a heart attack.
Another scaremongering tactic from the anti-cannabis brigade is that regular use means a higher risk of mental illness, such as schizophrenia and depression. Certainly, studies have been published which show an "association", but that doesn't prove cause and effect.
It doesn't mean that one thing automatically leads to the other. That is not the way scientists should conduct experiments, nor draw conclusions in print.
I am not approving the fact that so many young people smoke cannabis, but we must learn to be more grown-up about the way we debate the subject. We have to look at the facts in a more dispassionate way.
And, at least in the sense that the issue can now be debated openly, that has begun to happen. No one would discuss cannabis, even relatively recently. When I advised the House of Lords committee five years ago that cannabis was not as damaging as, for instance, regular smoking or drinking, no one wanted to know about our findings. Now, things have changed. A number of serious studies have been done, which is moving the debate in the right direction.
It is never possible for a scientist to say that anything is totally safe. But, at the end of the day, scaremongering does science – and the public – a great disservice. Cannabis is simply not as dangerous as it is being made out to be.
• Professor Les Iversen of the Department of Pharmacology at Oxford University is the author of The Science of Marijuana, published by Oxford University Press.

Remove listed orders for private owned homes

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Why is this idea important?

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Remove Green tax on energy bills

I like the idea to be able to choose my energy supplier but strongly object having to pay for Green energy which on average is two and a half times more expensive than energy from other sources, so let me choose if I want green energy included on my bill or not as as we all know carbon nonsense is a con, a way to tax us again.

This does not even create jobs in UK as the parts are made abroad and each wind turbine attracts £200000 per year in subsidy, no wonder some land owners want them what a gravy train

Why is this idea important?

I like the idea to be able to choose my energy supplier but strongly object having to pay for Green energy which on average is two and a half times more expensive than energy from other sources, so let me choose if I want green energy included on my bill or not as as we all know carbon nonsense is a con, a way to tax us again.

This does not even create jobs in UK as the parts are made abroad and each wind turbine attracts £200000 per year in subsidy, no wonder some land owners want them what a gravy train

Workfare

Unemployment can be very depressing especially when there is a large decline in job vacancies. It must be time that unemployment benefit should only be given to those who work for their communites otherwise you don't receive anything.

Why is this idea important?

Unemployment can be very depressing especially when there is a large decline in job vacancies. It must be time that unemployment benefit should only be given to those who work for their communites otherwise you don't receive anything.

Repeal Climate Change Act 2008 Campaign

There is no evidence for dangerous human- caused global warming – we do not need this Act.

Change is what climate does – adaptation not mitigation!

In November 2008 the UK Climate Change Act was passed with all-party support, and has put on to the statute book a legally binding commitment to a reduction of at least 80% in UK greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – thus seeking a virtually complete de-carbonisation of the British economy – with proposed interim commitment to an unconditional 34% cut by 2020. The UK only accounts for less than 2% of global CO2 emissions and non of the other major countries such as China or India will commit to a Copenhagen style agreement. 

This leaves Britain in the position of having binding emissions reduction targets when much of the rest of the world has none. The inevitable result of this will be the export of local jobs and industry overseas and thus damage Britain's economic recovery and cause increasing fuel poverty for millions of families. 

* The IPCC’s own projections, if nothing is done to curb carbon emissions, the worst case scenario is that, in 100 years time, average living standards in the developing world, instead of being more than 9 times as high as they are today, will ‘only’ be more than 8 times as high as they are today. This is a relatively benign outcome. The projected adverse consequences of warming, should it occur, are in fact the marginal exacerbation of already existing problems, such as hunger, drought and disease. These problems can – and should – be addressed directly, to much greater effect, and at a fraction of the cost of global decarbonisation.

* Carbon-based energy is far and away the cheapest form of energy, and is set to remain so – no doubt not forever – but for the foreseeable future. 

* Decarbonisation, in other words, means moving from relatively low cost energy to high cost energy, thus slowing down very substantially the pace of economic development. 

* We are concerned that the worlds poorest will suffer starvation because bio fuels are more profitable to grow than food.

* Repeal Climate Change Act 2008 Campaign believes that the carbon taxes, cutting carbon emissions and the ETS is a pointless and extremely expensive political gesture – costing the British tax payer £18 billion per year – for a country that produces less than 1.5% of global emissions, since it will have no effect on the climate whatsoever! 

* Repeal Climate Change Act 2008 Campaign is fully supportive of reducing pollution, the acidification of the oceans and also of conserving limited natural resources.

* We also cherish our British landscape and are outraged by the building of wind farms in our countryside, because they are an unnecessary blot on the landscape, uneconomic and an inefficient method of generating electricity costing £1 billion per year in public subsidies and will have no effect on the planet's climate. 

* Atmospheric carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant, nor the primary forcing agent for temperature change; rather, carbon dioxide is a benefice for humankind. In reality, there has been no statistically significant warming trend for the last 15 years. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong.

* Human-kind is highly adaptable, and can use all the resources of modern technology to mitigate the adverse effects of any warming, while taking advantage of the many benefits that warming may bring. Climate has always changed, and always will. There is nothing unusual about present-day rates of change. Attempting to stop “climate change” is an expensive act and utter futility. 

* The only sensible thing to do about the cycles climate change is to prepare for it – in both directions adapting to the more dangerous cooling and more beneficial warming as people have done throughout history.

Repeal Climate Change Act 2008 Campaign exists to communicate an alternative viewpoint to the one-sided presentation of the climate change debate presented by the British government, the BBC and mainstream media and to lobby politicians for the repeal of the Climate Change Act 2008. 

Please support us – thank you.

Why is this idea important?

There is no evidence for dangerous human- caused global warming – we do not need this Act.

Change is what climate does – adaptation not mitigation!

In November 2008 the UK Climate Change Act was passed with all-party support, and has put on to the statute book a legally binding commitment to a reduction of at least 80% in UK greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – thus seeking a virtually complete de-carbonisation of the British economy – with proposed interim commitment to an unconditional 34% cut by 2020. The UK only accounts for less than 2% of global CO2 emissions and non of the other major countries such as China or India will commit to a Copenhagen style agreement. 

This leaves Britain in the position of having binding emissions reduction targets when much of the rest of the world has none. The inevitable result of this will be the export of local jobs and industry overseas and thus damage Britain's economic recovery and cause increasing fuel poverty for millions of families. 

* The IPCC’s own projections, if nothing is done to curb carbon emissions, the worst case scenario is that, in 100 years time, average living standards in the developing world, instead of being more than 9 times as high as they are today, will ‘only’ be more than 8 times as high as they are today. This is a relatively benign outcome. The projected adverse consequences of warming, should it occur, are in fact the marginal exacerbation of already existing problems, such as hunger, drought and disease. These problems can – and should – be addressed directly, to much greater effect, and at a fraction of the cost of global decarbonisation.

* Carbon-based energy is far and away the cheapest form of energy, and is set to remain so – no doubt not forever – but for the foreseeable future. 

* Decarbonisation, in other words, means moving from relatively low cost energy to high cost energy, thus slowing down very substantially the pace of economic development. 

* We are concerned that the worlds poorest will suffer starvation because bio fuels are more profitable to grow than food.

* Repeal Climate Change Act 2008 Campaign believes that the carbon taxes, cutting carbon emissions and the ETS is a pointless and extremely expensive political gesture – costing the British tax payer £18 billion per year – for a country that produces less than 1.5% of global emissions, since it will have no effect on the climate whatsoever! 

* Repeal Climate Change Act 2008 Campaign is fully supportive of reducing pollution, the acidification of the oceans and also of conserving limited natural resources.

* We also cherish our British landscape and are outraged by the building of wind farms in our countryside, because they are an unnecessary blot on the landscape, uneconomic and an inefficient method of generating electricity costing £1 billion per year in public subsidies and will have no effect on the planet's climate. 

* Atmospheric carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant, nor the primary forcing agent for temperature change; rather, carbon dioxide is a benefice for humankind. In reality, there has been no statistically significant warming trend for the last 15 years. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong.

* Human-kind is highly adaptable, and can use all the resources of modern technology to mitigate the adverse effects of any warming, while taking advantage of the many benefits that warming may bring. Climate has always changed, and always will. There is nothing unusual about present-day rates of change. Attempting to stop “climate change” is an expensive act and utter futility. 

* The only sensible thing to do about the cycles climate change is to prepare for it – in both directions adapting to the more dangerous cooling and more beneficial warming as people have done throughout history.

Repeal Climate Change Act 2008 Campaign exists to communicate an alternative viewpoint to the one-sided presentation of the climate change debate presented by the British government, the BBC and mainstream media and to lobby politicians for the repeal of the Climate Change Act 2008. 

Please support us – thank you.

Stop restrictive CO2 policies on Business

Climate change tax is something that needs to be stopped until scientific work is complete. We dont know what is causing climate change, even experts can not (or refuse to – see Phil Jones' comments) provide repeatable evidence as science normally demands.

CO2 regulation that apply in this country do not apply to other countries (e.g. India and China). As they have the 'carbon debt' get-out clauses and actually get paid to produce CO2 – this has been proven recently with workers in Redcar losing their steelworks only to find it has been relocated to India, so no change in CO2 emissions, just shifting the point to where it is emitted + Tata get 600million carbon trading cash too! There will probably be higher CO2 and other emissions there as the regulations on pollution are more lax than here.

Why is this idea important?

Climate change tax is something that needs to be stopped until scientific work is complete. We dont know what is causing climate change, even experts can not (or refuse to – see Phil Jones' comments) provide repeatable evidence as science normally demands.

CO2 regulation that apply in this country do not apply to other countries (e.g. India and China). As they have the 'carbon debt' get-out clauses and actually get paid to produce CO2 – this has been proven recently with workers in Redcar losing their steelworks only to find it has been relocated to India, so no change in CO2 emissions, just shifting the point to where it is emitted + Tata get 600million carbon trading cash too! There will probably be higher CO2 and other emissions there as the regulations on pollution are more lax than here.