Population Control and Global Warming.

The world is overpopulated. Global warming is the result of there being too many people not a few of them driving 4x4s.

Any couple who has more than 2 children are selfishly voting for massive population increase and hence massive increases in energy consumption. It is not an excuse to say the average is less, a third child equals 50% increase.

A target should be set for population reduction by rewarding those with 1 or fewer children and penalising the rabbits. Reduction by 5 million every 10 years would be sensible until a total of about 40 million is reached.

There would be huge financial benefits with reduced medical, then school costs, then housing costs and elimination of unemployment.

Why is this idea important?

The world is overpopulated. Global warming is the result of there being too many people not a few of them driving 4x4s.

Any couple who has more than 2 children are selfishly voting for massive population increase and hence massive increases in energy consumption. It is not an excuse to say the average is less, a third child equals 50% increase.

A target should be set for population reduction by rewarding those with 1 or fewer children and penalising the rabbits. Reduction by 5 million every 10 years would be sensible until a total of about 40 million is reached.

There would be huge financial benefits with reduced medical, then school costs, then housing costs and elimination of unemployment.

Improve local choice for parents to send their children to non-faith, co-educational schools

In some areas almost half the local schools are either faith schools or single-sex. This restricts the choice for parents who wish their children to attend a non-faith, co-educational school. Camden and Hackney are two examples. Often these schools are successful leaving parents with a small choice of less good schools. It has been proven that faith schools discriminate against non-middle class families, increasing social division. The state education system should ensure full choice for all by limiting the number of faith and single-sex schools and ensuring a balance of boys’ and girls’ schools in each area, if indeed we need them at all. Non-faith, co-educational schools attracting fewer applicants should be supported financially to improve, until parents no longer feel the need to pretend to go to church to get their children into a better school.

Why is this idea important?

In some areas almost half the local schools are either faith schools or single-sex. This restricts the choice for parents who wish their children to attend a non-faith, co-educational school. Camden and Hackney are two examples. Often these schools are successful leaving parents with a small choice of less good schools. It has been proven that faith schools discriminate against non-middle class families, increasing social division. The state education system should ensure full choice for all by limiting the number of faith and single-sex schools and ensuring a balance of boys’ and girls’ schools in each area, if indeed we need them at all. Non-faith, co-educational schools attracting fewer applicants should be supported financially to improve, until parents no longer feel the need to pretend to go to church to get their children into a better school.

repeal the law allowing schools to become trusts

Allowing schools to become led by part-time non-professionals can be disastrous.  If you doubt this see the 'Concerned Calday Parents' Group on Facebook

Why is this idea important?

Allowing schools to become led by part-time non-professionals can be disastrous.  If you doubt this see the 'Concerned Calday Parents' Group on Facebook

Public Performances +

Allow buskers/street artists to perform wherever they like without being moved on by the police, but, also if people think they're rubbish they should be allowed to throw things at them – for example turnips and tomato's – to dicourage them. Perhaps we could also bring back the stocks in town centre for drunks, should be a good bit of entertainment

Why is this idea important?

Allow buskers/street artists to perform wherever they like without being moved on by the police, but, also if people think they're rubbish they should be allowed to throw things at them – for example turnips and tomato's – to dicourage them. Perhaps we could also bring back the stocks in town centre for drunks, should be a good bit of entertainment

Lower the voting age to 16

The governement exists to serve the population it governs, when we are born we have no say in how the government affects our lives but at a given age we are given the right to choose between which party of people we would like to govern us and if we are in the majority we get the party we wanted.

It is obvious why we don't give babies the vote: they can't have formed opinions on each party and their policies. For the same reasons we don't give 8 year olds the vote either but is it fair to say that at 16 people are unable to understand and asses various people and policies and then choose who they think is the best candidate? I believe at 16 people are intelligent enough to do this, let's not patronise our youth rather involve them and perhaps we will find that there won't be so many people who simply just vote as they think it makes no difference.

Why is this idea important?

The governement exists to serve the population it governs, when we are born we have no say in how the government affects our lives but at a given age we are given the right to choose between which party of people we would like to govern us and if we are in the majority we get the party we wanted.

It is obvious why we don't give babies the vote: they can't have formed opinions on each party and their policies. For the same reasons we don't give 8 year olds the vote either but is it fair to say that at 16 people are unable to understand and asses various people and policies and then choose who they think is the best candidate? I believe at 16 people are intelligent enough to do this, let's not patronise our youth rather involve them and perhaps we will find that there won't be so many people who simply just vote as they think it makes no difference.

Cracking Idea for the National Citizen Service

Here's the problem.. We have thousands of young people over the age of 16 with no direction, career focus, aims or aspirations.  They are feeling lost, invisible, ignored and hopeless. Many of these young people have not experienced many positive role models.

We also have a growing elderly population and thousands of pensioners who are scared, lonely and worried about the future. Many remember the war and were instrumental in getting the country back on its feet. They are a risk taking, no moaning generation. They come from a background where there was a strong work ethic and the most important possession was reputation and your word.

The National Citizen Service should focus on putting these generations together. Allocating young people to elderly neighbours in their communities. Assisting with shopping, gardening, pet walking and general chores. 

This would: allieviate the stress on the public purse, give both young and old opportunites to learn about cross generational factors. Teach young people to value and respect the older generation. Help them to see that its worth investing in the future as there is a life after 30 (!)

There really are so many positive things that can come from this and with TRUST and effective and sensible safeguards, it could be the best thing our country has ever done.

Why is this idea important?

Here's the problem.. We have thousands of young people over the age of 16 with no direction, career focus, aims or aspirations.  They are feeling lost, invisible, ignored and hopeless. Many of these young people have not experienced many positive role models.

We also have a growing elderly population and thousands of pensioners who are scared, lonely and worried about the future. Many remember the war and were instrumental in getting the country back on its feet. They are a risk taking, no moaning generation. They come from a background where there was a strong work ethic and the most important possession was reputation and your word.

The National Citizen Service should focus on putting these generations together. Allocating young people to elderly neighbours in their communities. Assisting with shopping, gardening, pet walking and general chores. 

This would: allieviate the stress on the public purse, give both young and old opportunites to learn about cross generational factors. Teach young people to value and respect the older generation. Help them to see that its worth investing in the future as there is a life after 30 (!)

There really are so many positive things that can come from this and with TRUST and effective and sensible safeguards, it could be the best thing our country has ever done.

Repeal the Academies Act

OK, it hasn't even made it to the statute book yet but it is a total disaster for ALL our children, especially those with any sort of difficulty or special need. It's a recipe for widening, not narrowing all the social gaps in our society. I know this govt is trying to out-Thatcher Thatcher but surely they don't still believe in that hoary and long discredited notion of trickle down?!

Education provision for ALL children will be improved by making state education better. This means that the local authority can plan coherently for the places they need, in the places they need them, can ensure that support services are sensibly and rationally planned to meet the needs of all schools in the area, and better schools can support and help those that – for whatever reason – do less well. We want to return to the notion of neighbourhood schools, with the presumption that most children will go to their local school because it's as good as any other nearby. Giving the middle classes a free for all to do their own thing will not help those that need it in any way.

Why is this idea important?

OK, it hasn't even made it to the statute book yet but it is a total disaster for ALL our children, especially those with any sort of difficulty or special need. It's a recipe for widening, not narrowing all the social gaps in our society. I know this govt is trying to out-Thatcher Thatcher but surely they don't still believe in that hoary and long discredited notion of trickle down?!

Education provision for ALL children will be improved by making state education better. This means that the local authority can plan coherently for the places they need, in the places they need them, can ensure that support services are sensibly and rationally planned to meet the needs of all schools in the area, and better schools can support and help those that – for whatever reason – do less well. We want to return to the notion of neighbourhood schools, with the presumption that most children will go to their local school because it's as good as any other nearby. Giving the middle classes a free for all to do their own thing will not help those that need it in any way.

Better ways to deal with Peodophiles.

I've always been baffled by why known Peodophiles are allowed to roam the streets. Slaps on the wrists, ineffectual supervision orders, community punishments and a pointless entry in the sex offenders register seems like no protection for the public at all. Why can't these people not be taken of the streets for a very very long time as the public would want ? Whilst it is tempting to imagine institutional sympathy for nonces among the legal and social welfare professions I suspect the answer lies elsewhere. Perhaps with costs savings or a misclassication and trivialisation of the crime because no one dies ? Whatever the reasons the current system is not working.

Perhaps the answer lies not in the criminal justice system, but in the mental health system. Why are they not sectioned or declared incurable and  mentally ill. I don't think many would argue that Peodphilia is mental afflication rather than an a crime of circumstance. Treat them as Mad more than Bad and get them off the streets for good. As no one can cure a Peodophile they won't be coming back into circulation, end of.

I know this opens a can of worms as far a civil liberties, etc goes, the mental health system is not  intended as a punishment mechanism, etc; but the reality is Peodophile reoffend time after time, it is a mental disorder. For this one crime we need to take a more honest look at how it is dealt with. Stop pretending that 6 month in jail makes them a safe and fit person to re-release into society, they can't be fixed, stop trying to fool the public that they should walk amongst us.

Why is this idea important?

I've always been baffled by why known Peodophiles are allowed to roam the streets. Slaps on the wrists, ineffectual supervision orders, community punishments and a pointless entry in the sex offenders register seems like no protection for the public at all. Why can't these people not be taken of the streets for a very very long time as the public would want ? Whilst it is tempting to imagine institutional sympathy for nonces among the legal and social welfare professions I suspect the answer lies elsewhere. Perhaps with costs savings or a misclassication and trivialisation of the crime because no one dies ? Whatever the reasons the current system is not working.

Perhaps the answer lies not in the criminal justice system, but in the mental health system. Why are they not sectioned or declared incurable and  mentally ill. I don't think many would argue that Peodphilia is mental afflication rather than an a crime of circumstance. Treat them as Mad more than Bad and get them off the streets for good. As no one can cure a Peodophile they won't be coming back into circulation, end of.

I know this opens a can of worms as far a civil liberties, etc goes, the mental health system is not  intended as a punishment mechanism, etc; but the reality is Peodophile reoffend time after time, it is a mental disorder. For this one crime we need to take a more honest look at how it is dealt with. Stop pretending that 6 month in jail makes them a safe and fit person to re-release into society, they can't be fixed, stop trying to fool the public that they should walk amongst us.

Enhanced Disclosure per person rather than activity

(Speaking for the situation in Scotland – don't know about rest of UK)

Currently a separate disclosure is required for each activity – perhaps a central database could be checked against a disclosure number and name (with the permission of the person concerned). 

Why is this idea important?

(Speaking for the situation in Scotland – don't know about rest of UK)

Currently a separate disclosure is required for each activity – perhaps a central database could be checked against a disclosure number and name (with the permission of the person concerned). 

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.

Recreational Areas for Youths up to 21

My Idea is to create areas for the group of society who are not catered for because they are considered too old for playgrounds, and yet too young to go to places considered "Adult only" such as snooker halls, pubs etc…

 

There should be a series of discussions on this matter, with input from both the Senior Parliament, and the Youth Parliament, who contrary to popular belief do still exist. This needs to be sorted to stop this cycle of neglect.

Why is this idea important?

My Idea is to create areas for the group of society who are not catered for because they are considered too old for playgrounds, and yet too young to go to places considered "Adult only" such as snooker halls, pubs etc…

 

There should be a series of discussions on this matter, with input from both the Senior Parliament, and the Youth Parliament, who contrary to popular belief do still exist. This needs to be sorted to stop this cycle of neglect.

Naming of unmarried/absent fathers on birth certificates for geneology reasons.

I was recently unable to name a father on my childs birth certificate when registering his birth, as the father is both not married to me, and absent from the childs life. At present, if a father's name is to be entered on the birth certificate, current law requires either; the father to be married to the mother, be present at the time of registration or provide the registrar with documentation to express his wish to be included on the certificate in his absence. As a result many children who's biological father is absent are being left with the indignity of having a blank space on their birth certificate where the father's name should be. This law is creating future generations of children who will effectively be eliminated from geneological, anthropological and historical records to a greater or lesser extent.

At present parents stated on birth certificates are directly linked to parental responsibility and as a result the law is in place to protect men from having all the implications of this linked to them if the child is not biologically theirs. However if the system was altered in a way that eliminated this problem, whilst still giving children the right to have a father named at their birth, both sides would be better served. For example a birth certificate as well as a 'parental responsibility certificate': the former for the purpose of geneology ect and the latter being linked to the current laws for birth certificates.

As parents have to provide no identificaton upon registering a birth under the current laws the process is already open the a level of abuse. For example, in my case I registered my child's birth with my partner (who is not the biological parent of my child) present. I was asked if I was the mother and then my partner was asked if he was the father. We explained that my partner was not here to register his name, being honest people. Yet it would have been very easy for him to have just replied 'yes' and the registrar would have been non the wiser. With research suggesting upward of 20 percent of UK residents having incorect parentage registered on their birth certificates surely this system is ready for a review?   

Why is this idea important?

I was recently unable to name a father on my childs birth certificate when registering his birth, as the father is both not married to me, and absent from the childs life. At present, if a father's name is to be entered on the birth certificate, current law requires either; the father to be married to the mother, be present at the time of registration or provide the registrar with documentation to express his wish to be included on the certificate in his absence. As a result many children who's biological father is absent are being left with the indignity of having a blank space on their birth certificate where the father's name should be. This law is creating future generations of children who will effectively be eliminated from geneological, anthropological and historical records to a greater or lesser extent.

At present parents stated on birth certificates are directly linked to parental responsibility and as a result the law is in place to protect men from having all the implications of this linked to them if the child is not biologically theirs. However if the system was altered in a way that eliminated this problem, whilst still giving children the right to have a father named at their birth, both sides would be better served. For example a birth certificate as well as a 'parental responsibility certificate': the former for the purpose of geneology ect and the latter being linked to the current laws for birth certificates.

As parents have to provide no identificaton upon registering a birth under the current laws the process is already open the a level of abuse. For example, in my case I registered my child's birth with my partner (who is not the biological parent of my child) present. I was asked if I was the mother and then my partner was asked if he was the father. We explained that my partner was not here to register his name, being honest people. Yet it would have been very easy for him to have just replied 'yes' and the registrar would have been non the wiser. With research suggesting upward of 20 percent of UK residents having incorect parentage registered on their birth certificates surely this system is ready for a review?   

Revoke firearm permits of convicted violent criminals and seize all their weapons

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Why is this idea important?

Mr Moult had been convicted of a violent offence, and imprisoned for it. Surely that is a breach of the conditions of whatever law allows the issue of a shotgun licence?

From the moment that someone is charged with a violent offence, there should be an automatic question asked by the police, 'Does this person have legal weapons?' They have access to the firearms register. They should confiscate all weapons at that stage and only return them if they are acquitted or charges are dropped. A caution should not count as an acquittal in this respect.

If convicted of a violent offence their right to own weapons and have permits should be permanently revoked.

Reduce record keeping in playgroups

I am informed by playgroup officers and other child minders that the amount of record keeping they are required to keep is too much. Does anyone ever read all these word?. I guess the regulations are designed to help trace activities leading to an incident, but the recent case of the Plymouth play-worker shows that this may not help.

Good training of playgroup workers will ensure that every child needs to have a share of attention, and support. Let's abolish unnecessary record keeping.

Why is this idea important?

I am informed by playgroup officers and other child minders that the amount of record keeping they are required to keep is too much. Does anyone ever read all these word?. I guess the regulations are designed to help trace activities leading to an incident, but the recent case of the Plymouth play-worker shows that this may not help.

Good training of playgroup workers will ensure that every child needs to have a share of attention, and support. Let's abolish unnecessary record keeping.

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.

Repeal. Custody of Children. Divorce.

Repeal women's un-Lawful legal right to custody of children, and all un-Lawful legal divorce.

A woman bears children "for" the husband. Lawfully children are under the rule of the man.

3:16 Unto the woman He (God) said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
desire [shall be subject] to thy husband, and HE (thy husband) SHALL
RULE OVER THEE. – Genesis.

Each case of divorce should be viewed individually and placement of children determined.

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is]
God. – 1 Corinthians.

The only Lawful reason to divorce is fornication. Clearly stated in the Bible. Matthew 5:32.

5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:
and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. –
Matthew.

HMG and Gov't world-wide claim to be based under God, yet reality proves this to be false.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow all The Law in The Torah, are not being allowed. At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse for us, and we want a single court room.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal women's un-Lawful legal right to custody of children, and all un-Lawful legal divorce.

A woman bears children "for" the husband. Lawfully children are under the rule of the man.

3:16 Unto the woman He (God) said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
desire [shall be subject] to thy husband, and HE (thy husband) SHALL
RULE OVER THEE. – Genesis.

Each case of divorce should be viewed individually and placement of children determined.

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is]
God. – 1 Corinthians.

The only Lawful reason to divorce is fornication. Clearly stated in the Bible. Matthew 5:32.

5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:
and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. –
Matthew.

HMG and Gov't world-wide claim to be based under God, yet reality proves this to be false.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow all The Law in The Torah, are not being allowed. At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse for us, and we want a single court room.

Same punishment at school for homophobia and racism

Why is there no punishment at schools for using 'gay' in the wrong context?

Or using the word 'Faggot'. How and why is it possible for someone of 16 or any age to get away with using 'faggot' to describe someone whereas if anyone used the word 'ni**a' they would be fined or kicked out of class or worse?

I want to know why there is not a suitable punishment for homophobia compared the punishment of racism? 

There is already a lot more homophobic bullying in schools and i want to know what this new government is going to do to try and change that.

Why is this idea important?

Why is there no punishment at schools for using 'gay' in the wrong context?

Or using the word 'Faggot'. How and why is it possible for someone of 16 or any age to get away with using 'faggot' to describe someone whereas if anyone used the word 'ni**a' they would be fined or kicked out of class or worse?

I want to know why there is not a suitable punishment for homophobia compared the punishment of racism? 

There is already a lot more homophobic bullying in schools and i want to know what this new government is going to do to try and change that.

Fewer rights for convicted child abusers

I would like to see a system in place whereby people convicted of serious crimes against children – for example Karen Matthews and the three adults involved in the death of Baby Peter – are sterilised upon conviction. They have had children, abused those children and should therefore forfeit the right to have any more. Too often in these cases, the authorities are vilified by the media and the public (let's blame social services, the police, the school etc) and we overlook that the parents or guardians of these children are ultimately responsible for the crime. Let's learn from our mistakes by all means, and improve our procedures and systems, but let's also never ever give people the chance to put another child through this.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see a system in place whereby people convicted of serious crimes against children – for example Karen Matthews and the three adults involved in the death of Baby Peter – are sterilised upon conviction. They have had children, abused those children and should therefore forfeit the right to have any more. Too often in these cases, the authorities are vilified by the media and the public (let's blame social services, the police, the school etc) and we overlook that the parents or guardians of these children are ultimately responsible for the crime. Let's learn from our mistakes by all means, and improve our procedures and systems, but let's also never ever give people the chance to put another child through this.

Summer birthday and other “less ready” children should be allowed to attend younger school year.

Children with summer birthdays and children who's parents know are not mature enough to cope with school are currently shown no flexibility as to which age year they should attend in school.  Many other countries have no difficulty in allowing children to start school when ready, or to repeat a year if necessary.  In this country, many parents, like myself, have ended up home educating rather than subject their child to what they know will be a damaging childhood.  The rigidity of the rules currently in place is not for the benefit of children – more to do with targets for schools and budgets.  I cannot afford to send my son to a private school, and nor should I have to, in order for him to be allowed to excel in life, instead of being made to feel inadequate from the age of 4.

Why is this idea important?

Children with summer birthdays and children who's parents know are not mature enough to cope with school are currently shown no flexibility as to which age year they should attend in school.  Many other countries have no difficulty in allowing children to start school when ready, or to repeat a year if necessary.  In this country, many parents, like myself, have ended up home educating rather than subject their child to what they know will be a damaging childhood.  The rigidity of the rules currently in place is not for the benefit of children – more to do with targets for schools and budgets.  I cannot afford to send my son to a private school, and nor should I have to, in order for him to be allowed to excel in life, instead of being made to feel inadequate from the age of 4.

DO NOT REPEAL Children Act 2004 duty to co-operate to safeguard children

All the signs are that vulnerable children are not a priority for this govt. Look at the DfE website – the home page has no mention of children's social care, not even a link. Every Child Matters is no longer the guiding document on children's matters and Safeguarding is being dismantled as a concept. The one ray of hope for those of us who work with and care about the most vulnerable children is that there has been no mention of repealing the Children Act. Most important to preserve is the duty on all kinds of agencies – not only those that deal directly with children but also thoase that, in dealing with adults or providing general services to the public may come across children at risk.

Why is this idea important?

All the signs are that vulnerable children are not a priority for this govt. Look at the DfE website – the home page has no mention of children's social care, not even a link. Every Child Matters is no longer the guiding document on children's matters and Safeguarding is being dismantled as a concept. The one ray of hope for those of us who work with and care about the most vulnerable children is that there has been no mention of repealing the Children Act. Most important to preserve is the duty on all kinds of agencies – not only those that deal directly with children but also thoase that, in dealing with adults or providing general services to the public may come across children at risk.

Multiple CRB checks by the same employer

Whilst appreciating fully the necessity of CRB checks, the system requires a rigorous review & some common sense applied  as the fear of rogue elements has resulted in extraordinary bureaucracy!

I have two particular examples:

  1. Staff with an existing CRB check who are a) sent on secondment for career development or b) are being promoted within the same employing organisation require another  check! 
  2. Staff with an existing CRB check who are returning to work post-retirement to the same employer  for a few hours weekly require another  check!

These rules apply even if the employee has only just had a check done, which is absolutely ridiculous! I could understand it if the previous role did not require a check, but this is not the case, so multiple checks end up in the employees file! Rather perversely, if an employee stays in the same position for 40 years, they might only have one check (on application) for that post. The system requires streamlining.

 

Why is this idea important?

Whilst appreciating fully the necessity of CRB checks, the system requires a rigorous review & some common sense applied  as the fear of rogue elements has resulted in extraordinary bureaucracy!

I have two particular examples:

  1. Staff with an existing CRB check who are a) sent on secondment for career development or b) are being promoted within the same employing organisation require another  check! 
  2. Staff with an existing CRB check who are returning to work post-retirement to the same employer  for a few hours weekly require another  check!

These rules apply even if the employee has only just had a check done, which is absolutely ridiculous! I could understand it if the previous role did not require a check, but this is not the case, so multiple checks end up in the employees file! Rather perversely, if an employee stays in the same position for 40 years, they might only have one check (on application) for that post. The system requires streamlining.

 

Stop Free bus passes and stop paying kids to go to school

Free passes encourage children to do crime in areas  away from their homes and encourages them not to return home after school thus roitering in uniforms after school instead of doing their home work.No child should be paid for going to school ,schooling  should be compulsery.

Why is this idea important?

Free passes encourage children to do crime in areas  away from their homes and encourages them not to return home after school thus roitering in uniforms after school instead of doing their home work.No child should be paid for going to school ,schooling  should be compulsery.