An economic liberty: nationalise the Christian Brothers & liquidate

This is an idea for economic liberty rather than legal, so it is slightly off the invited topic.

I note that the Christian Brothers have stated that they will only co-operate with a government enquiry (not the UK government but the same sort of thing in Eire) if complete anonymoty is guarenteed.

At such a point in proceedings, I suggest it is time to nationalise UK assets of the organisation, liquidate those parts which serve no popular purpose to the mainstream of the population, and donate the takings to a trust fund to support those who have suffered from such organistions.

Simples.

Why is this idea important?

This is an idea for economic liberty rather than legal, so it is slightly off the invited topic.

I note that the Christian Brothers have stated that they will only co-operate with a government enquiry (not the UK government but the same sort of thing in Eire) if complete anonymoty is guarenteed.

At such a point in proceedings, I suggest it is time to nationalise UK assets of the organisation, liquidate those parts which serve no popular purpose to the mainstream of the population, and donate the takings to a trust fund to support those who have suffered from such organistions.

Simples.

Cycling on the footpath

I propose that is should no longer be an offence for the followng people to ride on the footpath

-children under 16 years 

-any adult accompanying that child, not exceeding one adult per child unless in a family group

This would encourage children and families to ride bicycles for short journeys.

If schools were required to provide enclosed and secure cycle lockers for children who used their bicycle for more than 75% of days (dip-sampled and withdrawn if not occupied by a bicycle for the required proportion), there would be a huge increase in children cycling to and from school.

It should also no longer be an offence for

-any person to cycle on the footpath where the vehicle speed limit exceeds 30 mph ie outside built up areas. These roads are too fast for bicycles and motor vehicles to co-exist and are rarely used by pedestrians these days.

The offences of careless and dangerous cycling already exist and should remain.

Why is this idea important?

I propose that is should no longer be an offence for the followng people to ride on the footpath

-children under 16 years 

-any adult accompanying that child, not exceeding one adult per child unless in a family group

This would encourage children and families to ride bicycles for short journeys.

If schools were required to provide enclosed and secure cycle lockers for children who used their bicycle for more than 75% of days (dip-sampled and withdrawn if not occupied by a bicycle for the required proportion), there would be a huge increase in children cycling to and from school.

It should also no longer be an offence for

-any person to cycle on the footpath where the vehicle speed limit exceeds 30 mph ie outside built up areas. These roads are too fast for bicycles and motor vehicles to co-exist and are rarely used by pedestrians these days.

The offences of careless and dangerous cycling already exist and should remain.

Partial smacking ban (repeal)

When I come to have children I don't know whether my family's internal constitution will permit smacking.  Less still do I know whether I will have cause to resort to actually carrying out such chastisement (which is a distinctly different question).  I think I probably will not.

However the nature of building a free democracy is that we have to permit more than we would actually resort to ourselves.  If we don't have this mentality then most of us, the vast majority, will end up either criminals, or at least feeling vastly over constrained by the law.

 

Leave it up to a jury to decide what constitutes "reasonable chastisement".  Rather than saying that anything that leads to even a temporary reddening of the skin should be considered a crime.

Why is this idea important?

When I come to have children I don't know whether my family's internal constitution will permit smacking.  Less still do I know whether I will have cause to resort to actually carrying out such chastisement (which is a distinctly different question).  I think I probably will not.

However the nature of building a free democracy is that we have to permit more than we would actually resort to ourselves.  If we don't have this mentality then most of us, the vast majority, will end up either criminals, or at least feeling vastly over constrained by the law.

 

Leave it up to a jury to decide what constitutes "reasonable chastisement".  Rather than saying that anything that leads to even a temporary reddening of the skin should be considered a crime.

Ellimination of all motor vehicles from cities centres.

No private motor vehicles to enter into a designated radius from the city centre.

Electified public transport should cover all  transport needs in the cities of the nation. Multi-storied car parks to be built above railway stations some considerable distance from the city centre. Car owners must park and ride public transport into the no vehicle zones. Every street in the non car zones must be serviced by public transport. A small fee to be charged for using the buses, trams or monorail services.

Why is this idea important?

No private motor vehicles to enter into a designated radius from the city centre.

Electified public transport should cover all  transport needs in the cities of the nation. Multi-storied car parks to be built above railway stations some considerable distance from the city centre. Car owners must park and ride public transport into the no vehicle zones. Every street in the non car zones must be serviced by public transport. A small fee to be charged for using the buses, trams or monorail services.

Ban point of sale tobacco displays, which are above the sweets!

Any reasonable person who smokes would not like their child to start.  However we have the ridiculous situation of predominant tobacco sales counters, paid for by the manufacturers in every store across the land.  Anyone who wants to by their cigs can simply ask at the counter.  There is simply no need for the displays, other to show new customers (IE children of an impressionable age) that the product is completely normal and acceptable.

Why is this idea important?

Any reasonable person who smokes would not like their child to start.  However we have the ridiculous situation of predominant tobacco sales counters, paid for by the manufacturers in every store across the land.  Anyone who wants to by their cigs can simply ask at the counter.  There is simply no need for the displays, other to show new customers (IE children of an impressionable age) that the product is completely normal and acceptable.

Abolish the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)

The Criminal Records Bureau is a wasteful and inefficient quango, unable to perform the impossible task it was given.  The CRB check fails to deliver its aim of safeguarding children and vulnerable people as it:

a) It is slow, costly and inefficient – CRB checks take an interminable time to process, months on end, in which time the organisation requesting the check has either employed the person anyway, or has left them sitting on their hands at home doing no work.  This prevents people who would be perfectly suited to working with children working with them.

b) It creates a false sense of security – a CRB is no security against someone being a paedophile or sexual predator; it only shows that they have not been one in the past.  As such it engenders a sense of false security, whereby dangerous people are not scrutinised as they have the right piece of paper.  The tragic events in Soham in 2003 demonstrate this.

c) Poisons society – by requiring the intervention of the police and the state to ensure that every interaction with children is 'safe' (or not, see 'b'), the CRB creates dangerous mistrust between parents, adults and children.  The assumption is one of criminality without the correct vetting by the state.

A simple, common-sense approach to child protection, based on both responsible and clear headed thought by those appointing people to work with children and vulnerable people – while also allowing them to personally check on their employment history and other details (as you would for any other job) by directly contacting the relevant police authorities if necessary – would improve child safety more than a CRB check, conducted by faceless and unaccountable officials.

I therefore propose that the requirement for CRB checks be removed, and that the CRB be abolished.

The above also applies to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the 'mini' CRB – another quango looking to check those who might have contact with children – i.e. everyone!

David Wickes

Why is this idea important?

The Criminal Records Bureau is a wasteful and inefficient quango, unable to perform the impossible task it was given.  The CRB check fails to deliver its aim of safeguarding children and vulnerable people as it:

a) It is slow, costly and inefficient – CRB checks take an interminable time to process, months on end, in which time the organisation requesting the check has either employed the person anyway, or has left them sitting on their hands at home doing no work.  This prevents people who would be perfectly suited to working with children working with them.

b) It creates a false sense of security – a CRB is no security against someone being a paedophile or sexual predator; it only shows that they have not been one in the past.  As such it engenders a sense of false security, whereby dangerous people are not scrutinised as they have the right piece of paper.  The tragic events in Soham in 2003 demonstrate this.

c) Poisons society – by requiring the intervention of the police and the state to ensure that every interaction with children is 'safe' (or not, see 'b'), the CRB creates dangerous mistrust between parents, adults and children.  The assumption is one of criminality without the correct vetting by the state.

A simple, common-sense approach to child protection, based on both responsible and clear headed thought by those appointing people to work with children and vulnerable people – while also allowing them to personally check on their employment history and other details (as you would for any other job) by directly contacting the relevant police authorities if necessary – would improve child safety more than a CRB check, conducted by faceless and unaccountable officials.

I therefore propose that the requirement for CRB checks be removed, and that the CRB be abolished.

The above also applies to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the 'mini' CRB – another quango looking to check those who might have contact with children – i.e. everyone!

David Wickes

Health & safety

Reduce H & S regulation to a point where children, especially, can experience some danger & adventure in their lives. Men have been put off getiing involved in childrens group activities because of possible accusation of child abuse.  Perhaps linked with compensation culture.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce H & S regulation to a point where children, especially, can experience some danger & adventure in their lives. Men have been put off getiing involved in childrens group activities because of possible accusation of child abuse.  Perhaps linked with compensation culture.