MP’s should have to do the same as the rest of us

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Why is this idea important?

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Family Law: reform needed for divorcing partners

Dear Nick

Having gone through a divorce lasting almost three years, which ended up with a Final Hearing, I think the time has come for a complete overhaul of the law in England and Wales.  The process is not only exceedingly expensive, in part as there is a conflict of interest, in as much as solicitors seem to have little interest in wrapping things up early, hence draining hard earned family resources (money as well as the time and anxiety of one or both parties), but also it lacks any sort of clarity.  For instance, and what stood out in particular for me, was that the law in E&W does not clarify what is and isn't counted as family assets.  Secondly, that after going to court the first time, and having agreed verbally with the judge on certain things, my opposite number changed her mind a week later, resulting in considerable delay and additional expense.  And thirdly, it seems that although it may be fair for the courts to make sure that the welfare and interests of children are given priority, it seems to me that this consideration comes only at the end of the process, after both sides have spent a small fortune on legal fees (money which is no longer available for the family), and the children, despite both sides trying their best to shield them from the process, bearing witness to both parents being put under huge amounts of stress and anxiety as things are dragged on.  I cannot help but contrast our laws in E&W with many other countries in Europe, and even just to look across the border to Scotland, where things are dealt with far more efficiently, and where the law makes it much clearer how divorcing parties should handle their affairs.  In Sweden (just one example), the family assets are split 50:50 in virtually all cases.  Such clarity makes the process both short and cost-eefective.  There is minimal loss of family resources and the strain on parents is minimised.  Changes in the Family Law in E&W are desperately needed but will meet huge resistance from the legal profession as they still see it as a significant part of their work and a big money spinner.  It is too late for me to benefit any changes in this law, but I appeal here for changes to be made as I am sure that it will be in the interests of many many families in the future.  I am also quite certain that it is also in the best interests of children to change family law so the process of divorce is less complicated, provides clarity of process, and so that divorce (in particular the process of splitting assets) is done with minimal of fuss and on a time scale that should take no longer than six months in all but the most complicated (or high value) of cases.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Nick

Having gone through a divorce lasting almost three years, which ended up with a Final Hearing, I think the time has come for a complete overhaul of the law in England and Wales.  The process is not only exceedingly expensive, in part as there is a conflict of interest, in as much as solicitors seem to have little interest in wrapping things up early, hence draining hard earned family resources (money as well as the time and anxiety of one or both parties), but also it lacks any sort of clarity.  For instance, and what stood out in particular for me, was that the law in E&W does not clarify what is and isn't counted as family assets.  Secondly, that after going to court the first time, and having agreed verbally with the judge on certain things, my opposite number changed her mind a week later, resulting in considerable delay and additional expense.  And thirdly, it seems that although it may be fair for the courts to make sure that the welfare and interests of children are given priority, it seems to me that this consideration comes only at the end of the process, after both sides have spent a small fortune on legal fees (money which is no longer available for the family), and the children, despite both sides trying their best to shield them from the process, bearing witness to both parents being put under huge amounts of stress and anxiety as things are dragged on.  I cannot help but contrast our laws in E&W with many other countries in Europe, and even just to look across the border to Scotland, where things are dealt with far more efficiently, and where the law makes it much clearer how divorcing parties should handle their affairs.  In Sweden (just one example), the family assets are split 50:50 in virtually all cases.  Such clarity makes the process both short and cost-eefective.  There is minimal loss of family resources and the strain on parents is minimised.  Changes in the Family Law in E&W are desperately needed but will meet huge resistance from the legal profession as they still see it as a significant part of their work and a big money spinner.  It is too late for me to benefit any changes in this law, but I appeal here for changes to be made as I am sure that it will be in the interests of many many families in the future.  I am also quite certain that it is also in the best interests of children to change family law so the process of divorce is less complicated, provides clarity of process, and so that divorce (in particular the process of splitting assets) is done with minimal of fuss and on a time scale that should take no longer than six months in all but the most complicated (or high value) of cases.

To amend the law which automatically gives Parental Responsibility to mothers

To restore the civil liberty of fathers, where their name was entered onto their child’s Birth Certificate prior to 01/12/2003, so that they automatically receive Parental Responsibility for that child (as they would have done if their child was born after 01/12/2003).

Why is this idea important?

To restore the civil liberty of fathers, where their name was entered onto their child’s Birth Certificate prior to 01/12/2003, so that they automatically receive Parental Responsibility for that child (as they would have done if their child was born after 01/12/2003).

No Dumbing Down

A-Levels and GCSEs have gotten easier over the years, it's time that we tighten our education system and go back to our roots of hard subjects and qualifications that take effort to get a good mark in. Introduce international A-Levels and GCSEs so the most able will take them, they are more rigorous, and introduce the IB Diploma in all state schools or at least one in each borough.

Why is this idea important?

A-Levels and GCSEs have gotten easier over the years, it's time that we tighten our education system and go back to our roots of hard subjects and qualifications that take effort to get a good mark in. Introduce international A-Levels and GCSEs so the most able will take them, they are more rigorous, and introduce the IB Diploma in all state schools or at least one in each borough.

Childrens human rights.

Children are treated as chattels and are not consulted on their wishes and proper assessmebts are not carried out for court tug of love cases, they can be snatched from their home in one country and taken to another without adequate preparation, or proper social assessments, without being consulted on their wishes if a court makes a decision. What about the childs human rights, an intelligent five year old knows their own mind, yet they are deemed not old enough to make a decision. At whar age are we deemed to deserve our human rights, 18 ? Time the childs wishes were considered paramount and at the very least these cases should be considered more sensitively, the child should be prepared, consulted and social assesments carried out and their human rights should be given consideration.

Why is this idea important?

Children are treated as chattels and are not consulted on their wishes and proper assessmebts are not carried out for court tug of love cases, they can be snatched from their home in one country and taken to another without adequate preparation, or proper social assessments, without being consulted on their wishes if a court makes a decision. What about the childs human rights, an intelligent five year old knows their own mind, yet they are deemed not old enough to make a decision. At whar age are we deemed to deserve our human rights, 18 ? Time the childs wishes were considered paramount and at the very least these cases should be considered more sensitively, the child should be prepared, consulted and social assesments carried out and their human rights should be given consideration.

Academies Bill

Do not allow this Bill to become law.  It is unnecessary and divisive.  It is aimed at schools which are already in the most privileged area.  It is a centralising move and takes local democracy away from the education system.

The Free School policy should also be prevented from becoming law.  Nobody thinks it's a good idea except for a few pushy parents.  The funding that these new schools will get is going to come from schools which are already struggling.  It's going to cost millions to implement with no evidence that it's going to do anything to improve educational standards.

At the very least it should be piloted.  Local authorities should at least have a voice on behalf of the local community to express a view about the desirability or otherwise of schools converting.  And the government must stop rushing this legislation through parliament and allow proper consultation and debate on it!

Why is this idea important?

Do not allow this Bill to become law.  It is unnecessary and divisive.  It is aimed at schools which are already in the most privileged area.  It is a centralising move and takes local democracy away from the education system.

The Free School policy should also be prevented from becoming law.  Nobody thinks it's a good idea except for a few pushy parents.  The funding that these new schools will get is going to come from schools which are already struggling.  It's going to cost millions to implement with no evidence that it's going to do anything to improve educational standards.

At the very least it should be piloted.  Local authorities should at least have a voice on behalf of the local community to express a view about the desirability or otherwise of schools converting.  And the government must stop rushing this legislation through parliament and allow proper consultation and debate on it!

restoration of parental rights

Parental rights have been gradually eroded, effectively shackling parents whereas parental responsibilities have been increased.  Thanks to the Gilleck Competancy, a parent no longer has the right to know if their 14 year old child accesses health care, has an abortion, is having sex and being provided with free condoms etc.

To put things into perspective, my hypothetical  14 year old daughter could tell her youth worker that she sometimes has unprotected sex with her 17 year old boyfriend.  I would not be told about this.  She could then get pregnant and because she is scared and young she could rush into an abortion without really thinking things through.  Again I would not be told about this.  Abortions are traumatic experiences for anyone to go through, yet alone a child without any support; say the experience traumatised her and she also felt guilty because she believes she's murdered her baby, it would be quite understandable if she went off the rails a bit.  She could tell a teacher or a youthworker that  she was really upset about the experience and didn't know how to handle it and that she was scared to tell me incase she got into trouble and again I would never be told.  Add some bullying from cruel people at school who found out about what happens and she'll soon start to play truant.  At this point I'll get into trouble for not ensuring my daughter is attending School.  Obviously a heated discussion about her 'nicking off' is bound to follow as I, unaware of what she is going through, am a bit annoyed about her behaviour.  This will only make the situation worse for her and reinforce her belief that I'll get mad if she tells me so she'll clam up and the  parent/daughter relationship will get worse.  More nicking off would follow, along with some underage drinking and I'd be completely at a loss of what is going on with my daughter and how to communicate with her, when she just seems to be a different person to my sweet little girl.  Before long I'd be up in court facing prosecution for not ensuring my daughter attends school or because she has committed some crime and the parents are always to blame.  However my hands where tied, I wasn't given important pieces of information which could have drastically altered the outcome.  I could have intervened before she even got pregnant or if it was to late for that I could have supported her and got her the help she needed.  It is only natural for teenages to withhold things from their parents, but it doesn't make it the right course of action and the law shouldn't condone it.

 

There was a case a little while back where a 15/16 year old girl died of a heart attack because her school did not inform her parents that she had been ill all day with chest pains as she 'didn't want to worry them'.  The School's hands were tied as legally they cannot inform the parents if the child says no.  However had they been allowed to, the parents would have known their was a problem and insisted on getting medical attention which could have saved her life.

Why is this idea important?

Parental rights have been gradually eroded, effectively shackling parents whereas parental responsibilities have been increased.  Thanks to the Gilleck Competancy, a parent no longer has the right to know if their 14 year old child accesses health care, has an abortion, is having sex and being provided with free condoms etc.

To put things into perspective, my hypothetical  14 year old daughter could tell her youth worker that she sometimes has unprotected sex with her 17 year old boyfriend.  I would not be told about this.  She could then get pregnant and because she is scared and young she could rush into an abortion without really thinking things through.  Again I would not be told about this.  Abortions are traumatic experiences for anyone to go through, yet alone a child without any support; say the experience traumatised her and she also felt guilty because she believes she's murdered her baby, it would be quite understandable if she went off the rails a bit.  She could tell a teacher or a youthworker that  she was really upset about the experience and didn't know how to handle it and that she was scared to tell me incase she got into trouble and again I would never be told.  Add some bullying from cruel people at school who found out about what happens and she'll soon start to play truant.  At this point I'll get into trouble for not ensuring my daughter is attending School.  Obviously a heated discussion about her 'nicking off' is bound to follow as I, unaware of what she is going through, am a bit annoyed about her behaviour.  This will only make the situation worse for her and reinforce her belief that I'll get mad if she tells me so she'll clam up and the  parent/daughter relationship will get worse.  More nicking off would follow, along with some underage drinking and I'd be completely at a loss of what is going on with my daughter and how to communicate with her, when she just seems to be a different person to my sweet little girl.  Before long I'd be up in court facing prosecution for not ensuring my daughter attends school or because she has committed some crime and the parents are always to blame.  However my hands where tied, I wasn't given important pieces of information which could have drastically altered the outcome.  I could have intervened before she even got pregnant or if it was to late for that I could have supported her and got her the help she needed.  It is only natural for teenages to withhold things from their parents, but it doesn't make it the right course of action and the law shouldn't condone it.

 

There was a case a little while back where a 15/16 year old girl died of a heart attack because her school did not inform her parents that she had been ill all day with chest pains as she 'didn't want to worry them'.  The School's hands were tied as legally they cannot inform the parents if the child says no.  However had they been allowed to, the parents would have known their was a problem and insisted on getting medical attention which could have saved her life.

Stop Schools confiscating children’s packed lunched

Some schools confiscate a child's packed lunch if it is deemed to contain more than one unhealthy item.  This is a blatant infringement upon civil liberties.  Yes healthy eating is important and is to be encouraged but a school should not have the right to search children's lunch boxes and confiscate them if a parent has decided to give their child 2 biscuits instead of one.   People should be allowed to make their own informed decisions.  

Why is this idea important?

Some schools confiscate a child's packed lunch if it is deemed to contain more than one unhealthy item.  This is a blatant infringement upon civil liberties.  Yes healthy eating is important and is to be encouraged but a school should not have the right to search children's lunch boxes and confiscate them if a parent has decided to give their child 2 biscuits instead of one.   People should be allowed to make their own informed decisions.  

Smoking Ban – Let’s have a referendum!

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Repeal the Firearms Amendment Act of 1996

This Act was made in haste following the terrible events at Dunblane. An election was forthcoming and each of the political parties was trying to show how tough they could be.

Despite the observations of Lord Cullen, who did not advocate the banning of all handguns, the Government of the day decided to ban all larger calibre pistols, the incomoing Government banned all of them.  In effect they punished some 60,000 law abiding citizens for another mans crime.  Very few polititians listened to the target shooters, who were being vilified almost on a daily basis by the media and the Government in general.

As a result, pistols were only available to the criminals and the police. As I recall, in the first year since the ban statistics indicated that gun crime had increased fourfold, and has continued to rise each year.

Therefore, all the act has done is to prevent the law abiding citizen to enjoy the sport of target pistol shooting, The National teams of England and Scotland have to train abroad for Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  It was a sport that enabled the aged and the infirm to compete on a level with able people, what other sport could accomplish this?

It's about time that common sense prevailed and target pistol shooting could again be practised in this country.

Why is this idea important?

This Act was made in haste following the terrible events at Dunblane. An election was forthcoming and each of the political parties was trying to show how tough they could be.

Despite the observations of Lord Cullen, who did not advocate the banning of all handguns, the Government of the day decided to ban all larger calibre pistols, the incomoing Government banned all of them.  In effect they punished some 60,000 law abiding citizens for another mans crime.  Very few polititians listened to the target shooters, who were being vilified almost on a daily basis by the media and the Government in general.

As a result, pistols were only available to the criminals and the police. As I recall, in the first year since the ban statistics indicated that gun crime had increased fourfold, and has continued to rise each year.

Therefore, all the act has done is to prevent the law abiding citizen to enjoy the sport of target pistol shooting, The National teams of England and Scotland have to train abroad for Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  It was a sport that enabled the aged and the infirm to compete on a level with able people, what other sport could accomplish this?

It's about time that common sense prevailed and target pistol shooting could again be practised in this country.

Fixed price Car Insurance as incentive for Teenagers

High School Children should be able to 'earn' reasonably priced basic car Insurance by being law abiding up to age 18. They may, say, earn by dint of thier good behavior, a couple of driving lessons a year if they succeed in gaining a 'clean sheet' that year. The lessons can be redeemed as a reward when the child gains thier learners licence.

If a young person keeps a completely clean record up to age 18 they would be entitled to basic third party Car Insurance (for a low power vehicle) at a reasonable fixed cost – say £500pa.

The Insurance would be cancelled immediately for any driving infringement (ie speeding).

I believe this could save insurers many millions in the long term as there wouldn't be as much call on the uninsured driver fund.

Why is this idea important?

High School Children should be able to 'earn' reasonably priced basic car Insurance by being law abiding up to age 18. They may, say, earn by dint of thier good behavior, a couple of driving lessons a year if they succeed in gaining a 'clean sheet' that year. The lessons can be redeemed as a reward when the child gains thier learners licence.

If a young person keeps a completely clean record up to age 18 they would be entitled to basic third party Car Insurance (for a low power vehicle) at a reasonable fixed cost – say £500pa.

The Insurance would be cancelled immediately for any driving infringement (ie speeding).

I believe this could save insurers many millions in the long term as there wouldn't be as much call on the uninsured driver fund.

The Traffic Signs Regulations should not have authority over footpaths and cycleways

Currently, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002) control the shapes and formats of every permissible roadsign in the UK. This is good, but the TSRGD 2002 overflows its brief in that it also controls permissible signs on footpaths and cycleways.

Currently the TSRGD 2002 rules mandate the use of miles and yards on all distance signs. Because of the overlap onto cycleways and footpaths, a possibly unintended consequence of this is that the country's footpaths and cycleways have to be signposted in miles and yards too.

This is bad for business and confusing to all.

Cycleways and Footpaths should be governed by their own regulations, in metric from the start. It's the 21st century and Britain claims (officially) to be a metric country. Kindly make the facts match the claims!

Why is this idea important?

Currently, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002) control the shapes and formats of every permissible roadsign in the UK. This is good, but the TSRGD 2002 overflows its brief in that it also controls permissible signs on footpaths and cycleways.

Currently the TSRGD 2002 rules mandate the use of miles and yards on all distance signs. Because of the overlap onto cycleways and footpaths, a possibly unintended consequence of this is that the country's footpaths and cycleways have to be signposted in miles and yards too.

This is bad for business and confusing to all.

Cycleways and Footpaths should be governed by their own regulations, in metric from the start. It's the 21st century and Britain claims (officially) to be a metric country. Kindly make the facts match the claims!

Restore the parental right to opt out of enforced sex education for children

Give parents back the right to remove their child from state enforced sex education, until the age of 15. Would we teach a very young  child how to hotwire an escort and drive down a  high street at 90mph on a busy Monday morning? No, because that's actually illegal. What I find frankly astonishing is the amount of people who are prepared to cast a vote to have faith schools abolished and find collective worship in some way abhorrent, but that nobody seems to be questioning the fact that the state can, will and does tell your very young children exactly how to have sex, what it perceives to be a healthy relationship and who to turn to for condoms, the morning after pill or, if all else fails, an abortion. All this without parental knowledge or responsibility.  Of course, all of these measures will and do fail on a regular basis, which is why we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe.

Why is this idea important?

Give parents back the right to remove their child from state enforced sex education, until the age of 15. Would we teach a very young  child how to hotwire an escort and drive down a  high street at 90mph on a busy Monday morning? No, because that's actually illegal. What I find frankly astonishing is the amount of people who are prepared to cast a vote to have faith schools abolished and find collective worship in some way abhorrent, but that nobody seems to be questioning the fact that the state can, will and does tell your very young children exactly how to have sex, what it perceives to be a healthy relationship and who to turn to for condoms, the morning after pill or, if all else fails, an abortion. All this without parental knowledge or responsibility.  Of course, all of these measures will and do fail on a regular basis, which is why we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe.

Repeal the Child Support Act

The Child Support Act 1991 (Amended 2008)  Is  an oppressive and draconian piece of legislation, and in direct contravention of The Human rights Act,  The European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal declaration of Human Rights.  The government has no business interfering in family life.  This legislation and the corrupt run for profit company that enforces it have ruined the lives of parents, children and families.   It has forced innocent, law abiding people into poverty, destitution and suicide.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  All the while Mr Steven Geraghty  sleeps tightly at night with his, deficit crunching, £250,000 + wages to keep him warm.

Families should be left to reach agreements without government interference.  If they cannot then it should be decided in a courtroom in an un-biased, fair and impartial way.

If the coalition wants to give back freedom.  This is a good starting point!

Why is this idea important?

The Child Support Act 1991 (Amended 2008)  Is  an oppressive and draconian piece of legislation, and in direct contravention of The Human rights Act,  The European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal declaration of Human Rights.  The government has no business interfering in family life.  This legislation and the corrupt run for profit company that enforces it have ruined the lives of parents, children and families.   It has forced innocent, law abiding people into poverty, destitution and suicide.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  All the while Mr Steven Geraghty  sleeps tightly at night with his, deficit crunching, £250,000 + wages to keep him warm.

Families should be left to reach agreements without government interference.  If they cannot then it should be decided in a courtroom in an un-biased, fair and impartial way.

If the coalition wants to give back freedom.  This is a good starting point!

Legalising Cannabis….No!..Not yet without further study of its effects whilst driving.

I agree the draconian laws that this country has concerning Cannabis legalisation must change for the better and not make criminals out of ordinary people.I believe people should have the right to decide for themselves whether they use Cannabis or not ,and not be told you can't by people who ignore their own panel of experts who express opinions that Cannabis should be legalised in some way.

Please Please Please Mr Clegg,dont do it yet!.My son of 14 who was waiting on the kerb to cross the road was killed 2 years ago by a driver speeding whilst under the influence of cannabis,impaired to such an extent that the police doctor called to assess him after the "accident",and i use that word lightly,decided that he was unfit to be interviewed until the following morning.

In court the charge of driving whilst under the influence of drugs was dropped as the defence lawyer argued that as no limits are in force,as there are with driving with alcohol, concerning driving whilst unfit through the use of cannabis.Subsequently the scumbag who killed my son was sentenced to serve a prison sentence of 17 months.

Dont bow to pressure and legalise cannabis without proper research into its effects whilst driving and BEFORE YOU DO,PLEASE GIVE THE POLICE THE EQUIPMENT TO TEST THE DRIVER AT THE ROADSIDE ,to make a judgement as to whether the driver is unfit to drive if using drugs.

Why is this idea important?

I agree the draconian laws that this country has concerning Cannabis legalisation must change for the better and not make criminals out of ordinary people.I believe people should have the right to decide for themselves whether they use Cannabis or not ,and not be told you can't by people who ignore their own panel of experts who express opinions that Cannabis should be legalised in some way.

Please Please Please Mr Clegg,dont do it yet!.My son of 14 who was waiting on the kerb to cross the road was killed 2 years ago by a driver speeding whilst under the influence of cannabis,impaired to such an extent that the police doctor called to assess him after the "accident",and i use that word lightly,decided that he was unfit to be interviewed until the following morning.

In court the charge of driving whilst under the influence of drugs was dropped as the defence lawyer argued that as no limits are in force,as there are with driving with alcohol, concerning driving whilst unfit through the use of cannabis.Subsequently the scumbag who killed my son was sentenced to serve a prison sentence of 17 months.

Dont bow to pressure and legalise cannabis without proper research into its effects whilst driving and BEFORE YOU DO,PLEASE GIVE THE POLICE THE EQUIPMENT TO TEST THE DRIVER AT THE ROADSIDE ,to make a judgement as to whether the driver is unfit to drive if using drugs.

Overcrowding legislation

We should remove laws that force social landlords to move large families to larger houses once their children reach a certain age. I am sure there are lots of home owners who are forced to have their children share a bedroom because they cannot afford to buy a bigger home. it seems unfair that social landlords are forced to move tenants to bigger homes or spend large sums of money on building extensions to aviod breaching overcrowding legislation.

Why is this idea important?

We should remove laws that force social landlords to move large families to larger houses once their children reach a certain age. I am sure there are lots of home owners who are forced to have their children share a bedroom because they cannot afford to buy a bigger home. it seems unfair that social landlords are forced to move tenants to bigger homes or spend large sums of money on building extensions to aviod breaching overcrowding legislation.

Remove 16-Month Time Limit for New Teachers

Currently Newly-Qualified Teachers (NQTs) have a 16-month time limit within which they need to start their first year of teaching (first job).  This limit is too short – someone who graduates in June 2010 would, by November 2011, have become unqualified, even if they had done supply teaching as often this does not count.

In my case I completed my training in March 2010, and fortunately got a job to start in August.  Had I not got a job for the new academic year (and jobs that start at other times in the year being few and far between), I would have to had given up teaching as by July 2011 I would have rendered myself unqualified as I would not have started my first job.  In this situation I would not even have been able to work as an unqualified teacher as my teaching qualification rules this impossible.

Why is this idea important?

Currently Newly-Qualified Teachers (NQTs) have a 16-month time limit within which they need to start their first year of teaching (first job).  This limit is too short – someone who graduates in June 2010 would, by November 2011, have become unqualified, even if they had done supply teaching as often this does not count.

In my case I completed my training in March 2010, and fortunately got a job to start in August.  Had I not got a job for the new academic year (and jobs that start at other times in the year being few and far between), I would have to had given up teaching as by July 2011 I would have rendered myself unqualified as I would not have started my first job.  In this situation I would not even have been able to work as an unqualified teacher as my teaching qualification rules this impossible.

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking Pubs ….simples

Some adults CHOOSE to smoke. Some adults CHOOSE not to smoke. We all unfortunately inhale second hand fumes and pollutants because of the car obsessed part of world we live in. However, if a publican and his/her staff are happy to allow smoking on their premises then they should be allowed to. Common sense, tongue in cheek and 21st century choices to make this a viable option are…

1) Compulsory and standardised air filtration systems fitted in smoking pubs to minimise or eliminate supposed (I say this because of the lack of real scientific evidence of passive smoking causing harm) passive smoking by non smokers who CHOOSE to attend these premises. In fact all publicans could have had one of these fitted 3 years ago instead of buying shelters, awnings, gazebos etc. to accommodate outdoor smoking.

2) Smoking Pub or Non-smoking Pub  signs to be clearly shown outside, so no anti-smokers or innocent children can accidentally stray into the building. Anti-smokers (please note these people are different from non-smokers) can enjoy smoke free moaning without the rest of us having to suffer second hand whinging.

3) Smoking Pubs to be for adults only so no child is exposed to even filtrated second hand smoke, not because I think it is dangerous but to stem the inevitable objections from anti-smokers that even if they were willing to risk this environment 'what about the children'.  Actually, this is win win for smokers, a quiet drink, smoke and a child free environment.  (By the way good air filters would provide a less polluted environment than being on the pavement next to any road so your child would be better off in the pub).

4) Selected pubs to be designated as palaces, then just as at Westminster all smokers rather than just MP's who are smokers can CHOOSE to smoke in a civilised adult environment.

5)  The enormous tax revenue from smokers to go straight to the NHS to cover almost 10 times the cost of smoking related illnesses . Or we could share it out between education and health then smokers would be helping save lives and improve the educational standards of the populace. The economy would boom due to our abundance of scientists, engineers and business whizz kids so we could all get self-cert super high mortgages again and kid ourselves that we are all one class now.  (This idea would mean that working smokers were paying tax twice toward these public services but we are an easy going bunch and wouldn't mind).

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking pubs….simples.

Why is this idea important?

Some adults CHOOSE to smoke. Some adults CHOOSE not to smoke. We all unfortunately inhale second hand fumes and pollutants because of the car obsessed part of world we live in. However, if a publican and his/her staff are happy to allow smoking on their premises then they should be allowed to. Common sense, tongue in cheek and 21st century choices to make this a viable option are…

1) Compulsory and standardised air filtration systems fitted in smoking pubs to minimise or eliminate supposed (I say this because of the lack of real scientific evidence of passive smoking causing harm) passive smoking by non smokers who CHOOSE to attend these premises. In fact all publicans could have had one of these fitted 3 years ago instead of buying shelters, awnings, gazebos etc. to accommodate outdoor smoking.

2) Smoking Pub or Non-smoking Pub  signs to be clearly shown outside, so no anti-smokers or innocent children can accidentally stray into the building. Anti-smokers (please note these people are different from non-smokers) can enjoy smoke free moaning without the rest of us having to suffer second hand whinging.

3) Smoking Pubs to be for adults only so no child is exposed to even filtrated second hand smoke, not because I think it is dangerous but to stem the inevitable objections from anti-smokers that even if they were willing to risk this environment 'what about the children'.  Actually, this is win win for smokers, a quiet drink, smoke and a child free environment.  (By the way good air filters would provide a less polluted environment than being on the pavement next to any road so your child would be better off in the pub).

4) Selected pubs to be designated as palaces, then just as at Westminster all smokers rather than just MP's who are smokers can CHOOSE to smoke in a civilised adult environment.

5)  The enormous tax revenue from smokers to go straight to the NHS to cover almost 10 times the cost of smoking related illnesses . Or we could share it out between education and health then smokers would be helping save lives and improve the educational standards of the populace. The economy would boom due to our abundance of scientists, engineers and business whizz kids so we could all get self-cert super high mortgages again and kid ourselves that we are all one class now.  (This idea would mean that working smokers were paying tax twice toward these public services but we are an easy going bunch and wouldn't mind).

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking pubs….simples.

Medicines Act 1968

the section which deals with prescribed medicines is too onnerous – its an offence to give prescribed medicines to a child even if they are literally dying in front of you

 

the problem for me is asthma, running a cubs group requires all children to have an asthma plan and bring their own inhaler not allowed to share one, have to self administer even if in mid attack, have to phone their parents and ask permissioin to give ventolin even if they are mid attack this may delay treatment by a few minutes and lead to death

 

in reality i could keep a single subutemol inhaler / ventolin is harmless and universal anyone could take it you dont need a personal inhaler for half the class who have astham

 

asthma is on the rise and this is a real problem at all schools, sports clubs etc, lets have a single inhaler in a central place for all kids to use it will save lives

Why is this idea important?

the section which deals with prescribed medicines is too onnerous – its an offence to give prescribed medicines to a child even if they are literally dying in front of you

 

the problem for me is asthma, running a cubs group requires all children to have an asthma plan and bring their own inhaler not allowed to share one, have to self administer even if in mid attack, have to phone their parents and ask permissioin to give ventolin even if they are mid attack this may delay treatment by a few minutes and lead to death

 

in reality i could keep a single subutemol inhaler / ventolin is harmless and universal anyone could take it you dont need a personal inhaler for half the class who have astham

 

asthma is on the rise and this is a real problem at all schools, sports clubs etc, lets have a single inhaler in a central place for all kids to use it will save lives

For an obligatory parenting education scheme

How much do you have to know about road safety before you are allowed onto the roads? A fair amount.

How much do you have to know about law before you can become a lawyer? A huge amount.

How much do you have to know about children before you can have kids? Nothing.

I think people should have to complete a government-funded course on raising children within five years of having them and ideally before having them. The within-five-year rule would be to take unplanned pregnancies into account.

What happens if you don't complete the course within five years? Your child is repossessed by an adoption agency. To claim it back, you must simply complete the course.

Why is this idea important?

How much do you have to know about road safety before you are allowed onto the roads? A fair amount.

How much do you have to know about law before you can become a lawyer? A huge amount.

How much do you have to know about children before you can have kids? Nothing.

I think people should have to complete a government-funded course on raising children within five years of having them and ideally before having them. The within-five-year rule would be to take unplanned pregnancies into account.

What happens if you don't complete the course within five years? Your child is repossessed by an adoption agency. To claim it back, you must simply complete the course.

Most children go on later in life to become parents, so why are we not equipping them with the skills needed?

Some mothers and fathers genuinely do not have the skills needed for parenthood.

We believe that teaching real life skills is really important when it comes to numeracy and literacy, so why not teach skills for the most important job most of us will ever do?  We should give lesson time in school to both boys and girls to equip them with skills they may not learn from their parents.  Everything from practical skills, teaching to teach, teaching behaviour, responsibilities, finance, challenges, potential problems, relationship changes and how parents lives change.

In school, we teach sex education, hoping this will reduce our teenager pregnancy rate.  I think it is time to admit that our children generally understand and are taught sex education well the problem is our culture.  Maybe teaching children about parenting will create better parents for the future, who think carefully before making the decision to have children.

Why is this idea important?

Some mothers and fathers genuinely do not have the skills needed for parenthood.

We believe that teaching real life skills is really important when it comes to numeracy and literacy, so why not teach skills for the most important job most of us will ever do?  We should give lesson time in school to both boys and girls to equip them with skills they may not learn from their parents.  Everything from practical skills, teaching to teach, teaching behaviour, responsibilities, finance, challenges, potential problems, relationship changes and how parents lives change.

In school, we teach sex education, hoping this will reduce our teenager pregnancy rate.  I think it is time to admit that our children generally understand and are taught sex education well the problem is our culture.  Maybe teaching children about parenting will create better parents for the future, who think carefully before making the decision to have children.

CRB CHECK FOR VOLUNTEERING ON SCHOOL TRIP

GET RID OF CRB CHECKS FOR PARENTS WANTING TO HELP OUT ON SCHOOL TRIPS. THESE ARE ONLY ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR, IT SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY TO GO WITH YOUR OWN CHILD WHEN YOU ARE ONLY CONCERNED FOR THEIR SAFETY, ESPECIALLY AT RECEPTION AGE WHEN THEY AREN'T AWAY FROM PARENTS BEFORE. IF THEY DO INSIST ON IT THE SCHOOL SHOULD PAY FOR IT, I LOOK AT IT LIKE THE SCHOOL IS HAPPY ENOUGH FOR THE SAME PARENTS TO GO IN DAY IN DAY OUT AND HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME KIDS, WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Why is this idea important?

GET RID OF CRB CHECKS FOR PARENTS WANTING TO HELP OUT ON SCHOOL TRIPS. THESE ARE ONLY ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR, IT SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY TO GO WITH YOUR OWN CHILD WHEN YOU ARE ONLY CONCERNED FOR THEIR SAFETY, ESPECIALLY AT RECEPTION AGE WHEN THEY AREN'T AWAY FROM PARENTS BEFORE. IF THEY DO INSIST ON IT THE SCHOOL SHOULD PAY FOR IT, I LOOK AT IT LIKE THE SCHOOL IS HAPPY ENOUGH FOR THE SAME PARENTS TO GO IN DAY IN DAY OUT AND HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME KIDS, WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Allow LIVE MUSIC anywhere, if it isn’t LOUD.

The new licensing acts require all live music events to be covered entirely in red tape.  Live music should be spontaneous, and subject to regulation only when it may cause annoyance.

I propose that "live music" should not be regulated, but "loud music" should be.  Thus an acoustic guitar in the town square should not be regulated, but a heavily amplified should be.

Why is this idea important?

The new licensing acts require all live music events to be covered entirely in red tape.  Live music should be spontaneous, and subject to regulation only when it may cause annoyance.

I propose that "live music" should not be regulated, but "loud music" should be.  Thus an acoustic guitar in the town square should not be regulated, but a heavily amplified should be.