Review of Firearms legislation

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

Seems a shame that the British shooting team must practice in Switzerland when the very hub of marksmanship was Bisley. It's also a shame that this elite class will always remain elite if competitors are effectively selected out by legislation rather than their skill level.

Why is this idea important?

Why not repeal the ban on handguns?

Seems a shame that the British shooting team must practice in Switzerland when the very hub of marksmanship was Bisley. It's also a shame that this elite class will always remain elite if competitors are effectively selected out by legislation rather than their skill level.

Stop forcing disabled children to attend mainstream schools

Scrap the assumption that disabled children should be taught in mainstream schools (Education Act 1981).

Give parents, and their child themselves, the choice to either send their child to mainstream school or specialist education. Scrap the need to attend a tribunal which is lengthy and expensive, and entirely unnecessary.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the assumption that disabled children should be taught in mainstream schools (Education Act 1981).

Give parents, and their child themselves, the choice to either send their child to mainstream school or specialist education. Scrap the need to attend a tribunal which is lengthy and expensive, and entirely unnecessary.

Prohibition of drugs causes crime, de-criminalise them!

 

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the attempt to stop the  illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Why is this idea important?

 

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the attempt to stop the  illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Remove the link between SEN diagnosis and funding.

The system for the provision of support to pupils with specific personalised learning needs is grotesquely expensive and inefficient. The problem with the whole system is that 'statementing' has funding attached, and therefore becomes bureaucratic on both a clinical and a financial level.

It would be so much simpler (and cheaper!) to simply dedicate a proportion of every school's budget to the provision of special educational needs. That money must be spent on support for individuals, but not assigned to specific individuals. Then the professionals within that school (possibly but not necessarily including educational psychologists) would be able to allocate resources to their students in a way that meets their needs.

It is of course important that children are properly diagnosed, but this should be a purely medical/clinical concern. The relationship with funding means that money is constantly being wasted on appeals and such.

Schools should use professional diagnosis to justify their allocation of the fixed pot of funds that they have been given as a school. If parents cannot agree with the provision that a school allocates their child then they should be allowed to look for another school.

The current problems all come from an overly litigious approach that favours bureaucrats and only benefits the children of parents that have enough time on ther hands to pursue their claims through the many conflicting agencies and organisations.

Why is this idea important?

The system for the provision of support to pupils with specific personalised learning needs is grotesquely expensive and inefficient. The problem with the whole system is that 'statementing' has funding attached, and therefore becomes bureaucratic on both a clinical and a financial level.

It would be so much simpler (and cheaper!) to simply dedicate a proportion of every school's budget to the provision of special educational needs. That money must be spent on support for individuals, but not assigned to specific individuals. Then the professionals within that school (possibly but not necessarily including educational psychologists) would be able to allocate resources to their students in a way that meets their needs.

It is of course important that children are properly diagnosed, but this should be a purely medical/clinical concern. The relationship with funding means that money is constantly being wasted on appeals and such.

Schools should use professional diagnosis to justify their allocation of the fixed pot of funds that they have been given as a school. If parents cannot agree with the provision that a school allocates their child then they should be allowed to look for another school.

The current problems all come from an overly litigious approach that favours bureaucrats and only benefits the children of parents that have enough time on ther hands to pursue their claims through the many conflicting agencies and organisations.

Change the law so teachers are allowed to share information

 

I was a teacher who was found guilty of misconduct at a disciplinary hearing for sharing information with other professionals.  I showed my risk assessment for Child T, an 11 year old pupil, to the instructors at an outdoor education centre.  My risk assessment said that Child T was likely to run off, was reckless, refused to follow instructions and had a Statement which gave him full time support in school for his violent behaviour.  Hackney Social Services complained because I hadn’t allowed them to change my risk assessment so that Child T would be allowed to stay in an unsupervised dormitory.  (Child T was a “looked after child” from Hackney)  The Department of Education said the disciplinary finding was reasonable because I hadn’t followed the correct guidance and the law. 

 

In summary Department officials said that what I should have done was either to have gone to the HSE to get permission to share information or entered into a formal dispute with Kent CC about it.  I had done everything else officials described; in fact it was KCC who had told me to write the risk assessment for Child T when I went to them with my great concern about taking him without his support at night.  In school, even with his support, he had managed to assault both staff and pupils.

 

The Department agreed that I would have been criminally liable in the event of an accident if I had changed my risk assessment but said I shouldn’t have worried because Kent CC would have been criminally liable too! 

 

THE DEPARTMENT WROTE:

 

“ [a] with regard to your statement "I gave information to Bowles, in line with government guidance”

 

 [iii] it appears to DfES that anyway your action was not in line with DfES guidance.  While HASPEV advises school staff to give information to a provider (e.g.: "The group leader should also provide any relevant information to the provider such as the group's age-range, competence etc." – para 169), it also advises that the group leader's risk assessment for the visit should be approved by the head teacher (para 37).  DfES understands that your action in passing information to the provider in this case was not approved by the head teacher.  Therefore it appears that your action went against DfES advice on obtaining head teacher approval

 

 [b] You mentioned that you gave information to Bowles "as a PID" (Public Interest Disclosure).  DfES has not issued guidance on PIDs, though as you know, our web pages now refer enquirers to DTI and HSE advice on the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.  DfES's view is that the employment tribunal system is adequate for dealing with PID matters between school staff and their employers;

 

[c] Your letter seems to imply that your only choices were either to send the information as you did, or to modify the risk assessment in line with Hackney's wishes.  DfES believes that a school employee generally has more options.  The employee could pass the provider's request for information to the head teacher.  If the head teacher then sent to the provider, or directed the employee to send to the provider, information which the employee believed would endanger safety, the employee could take that concern to the school's Governing Body; and then, if still not satisfied, to the school employer.  If still unsatisfied with any response from the school employer, the employee could follow the procedures outlined by DTI (as mentioned above), e.g. by informing the HSE if the PID related to "matters which may affect the health or safety of any individual at work; matters which may affect the health and safety of any member of the public arising out of, or in connection with, the activities of persons at work" (source: DTI guidance).  DFES'S VIEW IS THAT YOU COULD HAVE ACTED SIMILARLY IN THIS CASE, INSTEAD OF SENDING INFORMATION TO THE PROVIDER;


[e]  You also wrote that if you had modified the risk assessment in accordance with Hackney's wishes "I would have been criminally liable in the event of an accident".  It might be worth reminding ourselves here that, as we both know, the school employer retains the main responsibility under workplace safety law.  Therefore:

– IF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ACTS ON THE EMPLOYER'S INSTRUCTIONS, THEN THE EMPLOYER AT LEAST SHARES CRIMINAL LIABILITY WITH THE EMPLOYEE; and

– if the school employee has done what workplace safety law requires (i.e. has drawn to the employer's attention the employee's view that the employer should make further arrangements to deal safely with a workplace risk, and has otherwise cooperated with the employer's arrangements), then the employer, not the employee, will bear the main
criminal liability; and if the employee, exercising their common-law duty of care, still believes that a particular action approved by the employer would be negligent of a pupil's safety, then THE EMPLOYEE CAN AVOID ALL CRIMINAL LIABILITY BY REFUSING TO TAKE THAT ACTION AND ENTERING A FORMAL DISPUTE WITH THEIR EMPLOYER as at 2c above.

[6]  DfES does not wish to take a view on whether any criticism by Hackney Social Services was or was not reasonable.  As stated at para 2c above, we believe that an employee can take a concern, about information which the employee believes would endanger safety, through internal and external dispute channels as outlined;”

Why is this idea important?

 

I was a teacher who was found guilty of misconduct at a disciplinary hearing for sharing information with other professionals.  I showed my risk assessment for Child T, an 11 year old pupil, to the instructors at an outdoor education centre.  My risk assessment said that Child T was likely to run off, was reckless, refused to follow instructions and had a Statement which gave him full time support in school for his violent behaviour.  Hackney Social Services complained because I hadn’t allowed them to change my risk assessment so that Child T would be allowed to stay in an unsupervised dormitory.  (Child T was a “looked after child” from Hackney)  The Department of Education said the disciplinary finding was reasonable because I hadn’t followed the correct guidance and the law. 

 

In summary Department officials said that what I should have done was either to have gone to the HSE to get permission to share information or entered into a formal dispute with Kent CC about it.  I had done everything else officials described; in fact it was KCC who had told me to write the risk assessment for Child T when I went to them with my great concern about taking him without his support at night.  In school, even with his support, he had managed to assault both staff and pupils.

 

The Department agreed that I would have been criminally liable in the event of an accident if I had changed my risk assessment but said I shouldn’t have worried because Kent CC would have been criminally liable too! 

 

THE DEPARTMENT WROTE:

 

“ [a] with regard to your statement "I gave information to Bowles, in line with government guidance”

 

 [iii] it appears to DfES that anyway your action was not in line with DfES guidance.  While HASPEV advises school staff to give information to a provider (e.g.: "The group leader should also provide any relevant information to the provider such as the group's age-range, competence etc." – para 169), it also advises that the group leader's risk assessment for the visit should be approved by the head teacher (para 37).  DfES understands that your action in passing information to the provider in this case was not approved by the head teacher.  Therefore it appears that your action went against DfES advice on obtaining head teacher approval

 

 [b] You mentioned that you gave information to Bowles "as a PID" (Public Interest Disclosure).  DfES has not issued guidance on PIDs, though as you know, our web pages now refer enquirers to DTI and HSE advice on the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.  DfES's view is that the employment tribunal system is adequate for dealing with PID matters between school staff and their employers;

 

[c] Your letter seems to imply that your only choices were either to send the information as you did, or to modify the risk assessment in line with Hackney's wishes.  DfES believes that a school employee generally has more options.  The employee could pass the provider's request for information to the head teacher.  If the head teacher then sent to the provider, or directed the employee to send to the provider, information which the employee believed would endanger safety, the employee could take that concern to the school's Governing Body; and then, if still not satisfied, to the school employer.  If still unsatisfied with any response from the school employer, the employee could follow the procedures outlined by DTI (as mentioned above), e.g. by informing the HSE if the PID related to "matters which may affect the health or safety of any individual at work; matters which may affect the health and safety of any member of the public arising out of, or in connection with, the activities of persons at work" (source: DTI guidance).  DFES'S VIEW IS THAT YOU COULD HAVE ACTED SIMILARLY IN THIS CASE, INSTEAD OF SENDING INFORMATION TO THE PROVIDER;


[e]  You also wrote that if you had modified the risk assessment in accordance with Hackney's wishes "I would have been criminally liable in the event of an accident".  It might be worth reminding ourselves here that, as we both know, the school employer retains the main responsibility under workplace safety law.  Therefore:

– IF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ACTS ON THE EMPLOYER'S INSTRUCTIONS, THEN THE EMPLOYER AT LEAST SHARES CRIMINAL LIABILITY WITH THE EMPLOYEE; and

– if the school employee has done what workplace safety law requires (i.e. has drawn to the employer's attention the employee's view that the employer should make further arrangements to deal safely with a workplace risk, and has otherwise cooperated with the employer's arrangements), then the employer, not the employee, will bear the main
criminal liability; and if the employee, exercising their common-law duty of care, still believes that a particular action approved by the employer would be negligent of a pupil's safety, then THE EMPLOYEE CAN AVOID ALL CRIMINAL LIABILITY BY REFUSING TO TAKE THAT ACTION AND ENTERING A FORMAL DISPUTE WITH THEIR EMPLOYER as at 2c above.

[6]  DfES does not wish to take a view on whether any criticism by Hackney Social Services was or was not reasonable.  As stated at para 2c above, we believe that an employee can take a concern, about information which the employee believes would endanger safety, through internal and external dispute channels as outlined;”

Stop Forced Adoption of Children

Currently a Social Worker can undertake reports to an adoption prior to any court decision, thus as a planning process approve a care plan for adoption, rather than work to reunite or rehabilitate with Parents. It is prejudicial and destabilizing to parents who seek the return of children taken from them in a Justice system that is weighted against parents in any Family Court Proceedings. Social Workers act in an unchecked system, not audited and without adequate process and proceedures. Frameworks that never uses – shall or will – any contract with a statutory Parent or body should ensure unhuman Social Workers be required to act properly – not on a maybe or perhaps Framework.

Pararel Planning under ICO is costly and wasteful, given the time in Court Process under Care Proceedings  a 6week direction by a Judge should be made prior after a fair open court hearing.

Why is this idea important?

Currently a Social Worker can undertake reports to an adoption prior to any court decision, thus as a planning process approve a care plan for adoption, rather than work to reunite or rehabilitate with Parents. It is prejudicial and destabilizing to parents who seek the return of children taken from them in a Justice system that is weighted against parents in any Family Court Proceedings. Social Workers act in an unchecked system, not audited and without adequate process and proceedures. Frameworks that never uses – shall or will – any contract with a statutory Parent or body should ensure unhuman Social Workers be required to act properly – not on a maybe or perhaps Framework.

Pararel Planning under ICO is costly and wasteful, given the time in Court Process under Care Proceedings  a 6week direction by a Judge should be made prior after a fair open court hearing.

Mixed Sports for Children – in particular Football

 

I write to you knowing that the country has a passion for football and what we think is a real injustice to a number of young female players.

I am the (proud) sponsor of an U13 team for the Guildford City Football Club – I love the game, I love the team and am ALWAYs amazed at the commitment of the kids, the parents and the managers and coaches at this level of football, and the benefits of football and other sports in dealing with issues such as diversity, sexual equality and inclusion at childrens critical development stages.

 

The FA has told us (between seasons) that we can no longer have mixed teams Under 13. For us, and for one 11 year old girl this is devastating – for 4 players in a team close to us (Worplesdon), it is devastating – for over 50 girls across the south of England – this is devastating – as well as to their parents, their teams and potentially their interest in football.

 

We believe in the FA Policy on Safeguarding Children, and in encouraging children of both sexes and all backgrounds to take part in sport.

 

We work hard to support this policy, as individuals, as members of the FA and coaches of our team. We work hard to build the team spirit and approach required to be a successful football team, but more than this, the experiences the whole team take away are life enhancing and socially beneficial.

 

Within a team like ours, where we deal with cultural and sexual diversity, this has created a team of well balanced individuals, who support each other, work hard for each other and together are greater than the sum of their parts.

 

Regardless of our children’s race, background or sex, we ensure that the full policy is adhered to. “Building relationships with parents and carers and including all families in club activities” is something we pride ourselves upon – and to take an 11 year old out of an established structure and team seems cruel on the part of the FA, and we cannot understand the reasoning behind it. It seems to go against the principles of equality in children and inclusion and diversity in activities.

 

We agree and concede, absolutely that in the current environment, mixed football teams are not achievable beyond a certain level. We believe that 13 is a good age for the segregation to begin – and having previously sought and been granted permission for our female player to continue with our team for another two seasons, until she is 13, (at her and her parents request, and the full support of the club, the other parents and kids), we are now faced with the possibility of brutally disappointing not only the individual concerned, but her parents and the entire team – it may even be enough to break her relationship with football at a time when she is really discovering her role on the field and demonstrating skills which outmatch her opponents on an alarmingly regular basis.

 

We are not the only team in this position – we are aware of a number of teams at a number of clubs now faced with a similar problem.

 

Surely a phased approach would be more sensible – for those already in the system, to remove them from established teams could be potentially damaging to the individuals, teams and sport. Closing the door for new players in mixed teams, but allowing those already in place to see out their time whilst reviewing their options.

 

Our kids, as do most of those we play against, take their football, their team-mates and their training seriously, but are also prone to being easily upset and disappointed – after all they are vulnerable – but surely we need to consider all aspects of this policy revision which prevents these children from continuing, and certainly we believe there should have been an increase level of consultation with the staff and coaches who put the effort in to train, organise and manage these teams before sweeping changes were brought into effect.

 

We have started an online petition (over 229 signatures today and growing), and a written petition (with over 1800 signatures so far) – we would love to get this issue into the open and under discussion. We are planning to deliver our petition to the FA at a suitable date in the near future, and would welcome any support you might feel you could give this cause!!  We love football – you love football – help us help kids who also love football.

 

Our petition is located at : http://www.petitiononline.com/fauk001/

 

I can be contacted on 07590351202

 

 

With Best Regards

 

Mark Holland

Guildford City Football Club "Wizards" Sponsor

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

 

I write to you knowing that the country has a passion for football and what we think is a real injustice to a number of young female players.

I am the (proud) sponsor of an U13 team for the Guildford City Football Club – I love the game, I love the team and am ALWAYs amazed at the commitment of the kids, the parents and the managers and coaches at this level of football, and the benefits of football and other sports in dealing with issues such as diversity, sexual equality and inclusion at childrens critical development stages.

 

The FA has told us (between seasons) that we can no longer have mixed teams Under 13. For us, and for one 11 year old girl this is devastating – for 4 players in a team close to us (Worplesdon), it is devastating – for over 50 girls across the south of England – this is devastating – as well as to their parents, their teams and potentially their interest in football.

 

We believe in the FA Policy on Safeguarding Children, and in encouraging children of both sexes and all backgrounds to take part in sport.

 

We work hard to support this policy, as individuals, as members of the FA and coaches of our team. We work hard to build the team spirit and approach required to be a successful football team, but more than this, the experiences the whole team take away are life enhancing and socially beneficial.

 

Within a team like ours, where we deal with cultural and sexual diversity, this has created a team of well balanced individuals, who support each other, work hard for each other and together are greater than the sum of their parts.

 

Regardless of our children’s race, background or sex, we ensure that the full policy is adhered to. “Building relationships with parents and carers and including all families in club activities” is something we pride ourselves upon – and to take an 11 year old out of an established structure and team seems cruel on the part of the FA, and we cannot understand the reasoning behind it. It seems to go against the principles of equality in children and inclusion and diversity in activities.

 

We agree and concede, absolutely that in the current environment, mixed football teams are not achievable beyond a certain level. We believe that 13 is a good age for the segregation to begin – and having previously sought and been granted permission for our female player to continue with our team for another two seasons, until she is 13, (at her and her parents request, and the full support of the club, the other parents and kids), we are now faced with the possibility of brutally disappointing not only the individual concerned, but her parents and the entire team – it may even be enough to break her relationship with football at a time when she is really discovering her role on the field and demonstrating skills which outmatch her opponents on an alarmingly regular basis.

 

We are not the only team in this position – we are aware of a number of teams at a number of clubs now faced with a similar problem.

 

Surely a phased approach would be more sensible – for those already in the system, to remove them from established teams could be potentially damaging to the individuals, teams and sport. Closing the door for new players in mixed teams, but allowing those already in place to see out their time whilst reviewing their options.

 

Our kids, as do most of those we play against, take their football, their team-mates and their training seriously, but are also prone to being easily upset and disappointed – after all they are vulnerable – but surely we need to consider all aspects of this policy revision which prevents these children from continuing, and certainly we believe there should have been an increase level of consultation with the staff and coaches who put the effort in to train, organise and manage these teams before sweeping changes were brought into effect.

 

We have started an online petition (over 229 signatures today and growing), and a written petition (with over 1800 signatures so far) – we would love to get this issue into the open and under discussion. We are planning to deliver our petition to the FA at a suitable date in the near future, and would welcome any support you might feel you could give this cause!!  We love football – you love football – help us help kids who also love football.

 

Our petition is located at : http://www.petitiononline.com/fauk001/

 

I can be contacted on 07590351202

 

 

With Best Regards

 

Mark Holland

Guildford City Football Club "Wizards" Sponsor

 

 

 

 

Prosecute The Parents, Not The Child.

Instead of blaming the child and following the, frankly, abusive and immoral policy of child criminal responsibility, perhaps societies attention should be more drawn to the adult parent(s). A child who comits any crime could not possibly have understood, grasped or been influenced by the law due to their age and mental ability.

A child's upbringing is absolutely dependant on their parenting. It defies logic that a child could possibly be guilty of a crime. If a child commits an act of crime it is solely the responsibility of the parent for not bringing them up properly. If the argument is that the parent could not control the child then the adult(s) concerned should not be permitted to keep their children as they are unable to parent properly.

Parenting is the single largest responsibility of life and should be met as such by responsible adults.

In addition, the government must repeal the madness of legislation that utterly prevents them dispensing appropriate and responsible discipline. A child cannot be brought up correctly in society if they have no limitations set before them by their parents and influential adults.

There is no excuse for bad parenting, ever. A child can barely understand the concept of the self much before their teenage years let alone criminal responsibility. It is simply unjust to accuse children of crimes that they cannot even attempt to understand.

the criminal age of responsibility should be 18 and not a moment sooner. Until then the child should be the 100% responsibility of the adult parent(s).

Why is this idea important?

Instead of blaming the child and following the, frankly, abusive and immoral policy of child criminal responsibility, perhaps societies attention should be more drawn to the adult parent(s). A child who comits any crime could not possibly have understood, grasped or been influenced by the law due to their age and mental ability.

A child's upbringing is absolutely dependant on their parenting. It defies logic that a child could possibly be guilty of a crime. If a child commits an act of crime it is solely the responsibility of the parent for not bringing them up properly. If the argument is that the parent could not control the child then the adult(s) concerned should not be permitted to keep their children as they are unable to parent properly.

Parenting is the single largest responsibility of life and should be met as such by responsible adults.

In addition, the government must repeal the madness of legislation that utterly prevents them dispensing appropriate and responsible discipline. A child cannot be brought up correctly in society if they have no limitations set before them by their parents and influential adults.

There is no excuse for bad parenting, ever. A child can barely understand the concept of the self much before their teenage years let alone criminal responsibility. It is simply unjust to accuse children of crimes that they cannot even attempt to understand.

the criminal age of responsibility should be 18 and not a moment sooner. Until then the child should be the 100% responsibility of the adult parent(s).

Repeal Section 32

The Repeal of Section 32 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, which allows police to force the dispersal of groups of just two or more people without justification and to ban them from that area in the future. 

Why is this idea important?

The Repeal of Section 32 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, which allows police to force the dispersal of groups of just two or more people without justification and to ban them from that area in the future. 

Criminal Record Check for children-workers.

Well, I am interested in learning the organ and so have to do so at our local church. However, my mother needs to come with me so that I am not there on my own. She has been informed that she needs to have a criminal records check that will cost £25. Whilst this is sometimes neccessary, it is not so for parents. It is only needed if the carer is a stranger.

I would be grateful if you would revise this law.

Why is this idea important?

Well, I am interested in learning the organ and so have to do so at our local church. However, my mother needs to come with me so that I am not there on my own. She has been informed that she needs to have a criminal records check that will cost £25. Whilst this is sometimes neccessary, it is not so for parents. It is only needed if the carer is a stranger.

I would be grateful if you would revise this law.

Amend all ‘child protection’ legislation so that it does not apply to teenagers

Teenagers are no longer little, sweet children who need mollycoddling and protecting as though they are still toddlers.  They are adolescents, who are in the process of turning into adults and thus need to learn to behave as adults and be guided into the adult world. 

Protecting them as ‘children’ encourages rebellion, as they are prevented from doing anything vaguely exciting, risky or grown up, or from taking any responsibility for themselves and so turn instead to illicit and often particularly dangerous thrills such as trespassing on railway lines, drug abuse or joy riding.

Teenage boys in particular, when treated like weaklings and starved of risk, danger, competition and responsibility are prone to acting ‘macho’ and being violent in order to prove they are tough and strong enough to be a ‘real man’.

Treating teenagers as ‘children’ also prevents them from gaining the vital skills and qualities required to face the real world, leaving those who do not rebel ill-equipped to face the challenges adult life when they are finally thrown out into the real world at 18 and suddenly told they are different now because they are an ‘adult’.

All ‘child protection’ legislation should therefore be amended so that it only applies to those aged under 13 years, as it does more harm than good when applied to teenagers.

Why is this idea important?

Teenagers are no longer little, sweet children who need mollycoddling and protecting as though they are still toddlers.  They are adolescents, who are in the process of turning into adults and thus need to learn to behave as adults and be guided into the adult world. 

Protecting them as ‘children’ encourages rebellion, as they are prevented from doing anything vaguely exciting, risky or grown up, or from taking any responsibility for themselves and so turn instead to illicit and often particularly dangerous thrills such as trespassing on railway lines, drug abuse or joy riding.

Teenage boys in particular, when treated like weaklings and starved of risk, danger, competition and responsibility are prone to acting ‘macho’ and being violent in order to prove they are tough and strong enough to be a ‘real man’.

Treating teenagers as ‘children’ also prevents them from gaining the vital skills and qualities required to face the real world, leaving those who do not rebel ill-equipped to face the challenges adult life when they are finally thrown out into the real world at 18 and suddenly told they are different now because they are an ‘adult’.

All ‘child protection’ legislation should therefore be amended so that it only applies to those aged under 13 years, as it does more harm than good when applied to teenagers.

Repeal all laws on the books that the authorities and courts ignore and refuse to enforce. Otherwise they are just meaningless propaganda.

As apparent in High Court Judge Mackie QC's ruling of July, 2010 (Admin Court, London) the courts and authorities categorically refuse to enforce breaches to Section 13A and 14A of the Education Act 1996 by schools and LEA's even though it is a very recent law. This law was introduced to "ensure" parents their kids will be educated up to the level of their individual aptitude and abilities and parents would be provided with "REASONS" by schools if this was questioned. In this alarming and stone age ruling Judge Mackie QC makes it very clear in his judgement parents are unable to question and challenge failures of teachers in the courts uder these statutes when they fail in their "professional "duties to our children these laws are supposed to protect. His rulling indicates the law that ensures us that our children must be educated up to their individual level of aptitude and ability by state schools is unenforceable in English Courts. In his ruling he also makes it clear parents should consider what is in the "best interests" of their children before kids are home schooled by them. That's an insult to all parents who home school their children precisely because they think it is in their kids best interests to do so, particulary when state schools fail miserably in their duties under these "pretend" laws. The ongoing High Court case is about the Arnewood High School in New Milton teaching a year 9 pupil at a year 4 level, even despite school assessments and the fact that the pupil in question had surpassed the level they were teaching him at years ago at junior school, and the school knew it! Hence the parents decided to opt for home schooling. It's a challenge under 13A and 14A about the school and authorities refusing to provde any explanation or reasons to parents in relation to their demands for answers for this shameful state of afairs. But, evidently these laws in reality mean nothing, so why have them? Full details of the case and ruling can be found on www.arnewoodschool.org.uk. Indeed a very scary development and insult for responsible parents who choose to home educate because they consider state schools don't come up to the standards they expect. What is equally mind boggling is that Mr. Michael Gove MP and his department agree with this judges ruling! Now there's a "ponderance". 

Why is this idea important?

As apparent in High Court Judge Mackie QC's ruling of July, 2010 (Admin Court, London) the courts and authorities categorically refuse to enforce breaches to Section 13A and 14A of the Education Act 1996 by schools and LEA's even though it is a very recent law. This law was introduced to "ensure" parents their kids will be educated up to the level of their individual aptitude and abilities and parents would be provided with "REASONS" by schools if this was questioned. In this alarming and stone age ruling Judge Mackie QC makes it very clear in his judgement parents are unable to question and challenge failures of teachers in the courts uder these statutes when they fail in their "professional "duties to our children these laws are supposed to protect. His rulling indicates the law that ensures us that our children must be educated up to their individual level of aptitude and ability by state schools is unenforceable in English Courts. In his ruling he also makes it clear parents should consider what is in the "best interests" of their children before kids are home schooled by them. That's an insult to all parents who home school their children precisely because they think it is in their kids best interests to do so, particulary when state schools fail miserably in their duties under these "pretend" laws. The ongoing High Court case is about the Arnewood High School in New Milton teaching a year 9 pupil at a year 4 level, even despite school assessments and the fact that the pupil in question had surpassed the level they were teaching him at years ago at junior school, and the school knew it! Hence the parents decided to opt for home schooling. It's a challenge under 13A and 14A about the school and authorities refusing to provde any explanation or reasons to parents in relation to their demands for answers for this shameful state of afairs. But, evidently these laws in reality mean nothing, so why have them? Full details of the case and ruling can be found on www.arnewoodschool.org.uk. Indeed a very scary development and insult for responsible parents who choose to home educate because they consider state schools don't come up to the standards they expect. What is equally mind boggling is that Mr. Michael Gove MP and his department agree with this judges ruling! Now there's a "ponderance". 

S Family law & social services need a root & branch over haul.

The government need to take a long hard look at the way social services works &  family courts work. There needs to be public scrutiny of these actions to prevent children being removed when parents are silly enough to ask for support, whilst leaving other children in dangerous homes because social workers are too scared of the parents.

Why is this idea important?

The government need to take a long hard look at the way social services works &  family courts work. There needs to be public scrutiny of these actions to prevent children being removed when parents are silly enough to ask for support, whilst leaving other children in dangerous homes because social workers are too scared of the parents.

Limit free children bus passes to school hours

Free bus rides for children should be within school time within a certain time period.

This would help as the children use it to get into town at night, causing unruly behavior against other passengers. Also littering.
The buses are getting over crowded and sometimes when a child could stand for an elderly, disabled, or pregnant person they don't.

The drivers also have problems with them just running on not having to show any id – just using it as a taxi service to get around the streets. These children can be quite young as well hanging in groups.

Why is this idea important?

Free bus rides for children should be within school time within a certain time period.

This would help as the children use it to get into town at night, causing unruly behavior against other passengers. Also littering.
The buses are getting over crowded and sometimes when a child could stand for an elderly, disabled, or pregnant person they don't.

The drivers also have problems with them just running on not having to show any id – just using it as a taxi service to get around the streets. These children can be quite young as well hanging in groups.

High Court Judge rules he is of the opinion home educating a child is not in their best interests

High Court Judge Mackie QC ruling dated 2 July, 2010 (Admin Court). In his ruling he makes it clear parents are unable to question and challenge failures of teachers when they fail in their "professional "duties to children. His rulling indicates the law that ensures us that our children must be educated up to their individual level of aptitude and ability by state schools is unenforceable in English Courts. He also makes it clear in his ruling parents should consider what is in the "best interests" of the child before children are home schooled. He obviously cannot comprehend the fact that people home school their children precisely because they think it is in their kids best interests. The ongoing High Court case is about the Arnewood School in New Milton teaching a year 9 pupil at a year 4 level, even despite their own assessments, and the fact that the pupil in question had surpassed the level they were teaching him at years ago at junior school, and the school knew it. Hence the parents decided to opt for home schooing. It's also about the school and authorities refusing to provde any explanation or reasons to parents in relation to their demands for answers. Type in "arnewood" in the search box to pull up more info. Full details of the case and ruling can be found on www.arnewoodschool.org.uk. Indeed a very scary development and insult for responsible parents who choose to home educate because they consider state schools don't come up to the standards they expect. What is equally an insult to us all is Mr. Michael Gove MP and his department agree with this postion! Now there's a "ponderance". 

Why is this idea important?

High Court Judge Mackie QC ruling dated 2 July, 2010 (Admin Court). In his ruling he makes it clear parents are unable to question and challenge failures of teachers when they fail in their "professional "duties to children. His rulling indicates the law that ensures us that our children must be educated up to their individual level of aptitude and ability by state schools is unenforceable in English Courts. He also makes it clear in his ruling parents should consider what is in the "best interests" of the child before children are home schooled. He obviously cannot comprehend the fact that people home school their children precisely because they think it is in their kids best interests. The ongoing High Court case is about the Arnewood School in New Milton teaching a year 9 pupil at a year 4 level, even despite their own assessments, and the fact that the pupil in question had surpassed the level they were teaching him at years ago at junior school, and the school knew it. Hence the parents decided to opt for home schooing. It's also about the school and authorities refusing to provde any explanation or reasons to parents in relation to their demands for answers. Type in "arnewood" in the search box to pull up more info. Full details of the case and ruling can be found on www.arnewoodschool.org.uk. Indeed a very scary development and insult for responsible parents who choose to home educate because they consider state schools don't come up to the standards they expect. What is equally an insult to us all is Mr. Michael Gove MP and his department agree with this postion! Now there's a "ponderance". 

Stop criminalising a small glass of wine for children at dinner time.

It has recently been made illegal for parents to let children have a small glass of wine at dinner, even on special occasions. This insults everyone who behaves responsibly with drink, which is the vast majority of people.

When I was a child my sister and I occasionally had wine with dinner. Contrary to the claims of Labour MPs, I did not become a hardened binge drinker. (I rarely drink at all.)

As usual, this law just criminalises decent people, because those who don't care simply won't obey it anyway.

It's not child abuse to let your kids have a small drink of wine with an evening meal, so this law should be scrapped.
 

Why is this idea important?

It has recently been made illegal for parents to let children have a small glass of wine at dinner, even on special occasions. This insults everyone who behaves responsibly with drink, which is the vast majority of people.

When I was a child my sister and I occasionally had wine with dinner. Contrary to the claims of Labour MPs, I did not become a hardened binge drinker. (I rarely drink at all.)

As usual, this law just criminalises decent people, because those who don't care simply won't obey it anyway.

It's not child abuse to let your kids have a small drink of wine with an evening meal, so this law should be scrapped.
 

Dept. of Education (NI) should not be allowed to invent legislation that does not exist.

 

The Department of Education in Northern Ireland have recently issued new guidelines for school attendance which prevents parents from deregistering their child from school to electively home educate, even though this would require a change in law first.

Why is this idea important?

 

The Department of Education in Northern Ireland have recently issued new guidelines for school attendance which prevents parents from deregistering their child from school to electively home educate, even though this would require a change in law first.

Simplification of minibus driving regulations

To change the complicated rules around category D on driving licences to allow those passing their tests after Jan 1997 to have the same rights to drive a minibus as those who passed before.

Why is this idea important?

To change the complicated rules around category D on driving licences to allow those passing their tests after Jan 1997 to have the same rights to drive a minibus as those who passed before.

Update definition of forestry to include community and educational use

The current definition of forestry is limited and is inconsistent with DEFRA'S latest strategy for Trees, Woods and Forests which states that community and educational use of woodlands is core to it's aims.

Under current planning law, woodlands are only available for 'non forestry' use for 28 days a year. This means that community forest schools (which offer children opportunities to learn and connect with their environment), woodland playschemes and conservation groups using young people as volunteers may be required to apply for change of use. Current definitions of land use are also inflexible so that there are no sub groups; educational use is presumed to be a 'school' and a conservation project can find themselves being asked to supply car parking to the same specifications as a new build school in order to get change of use.

I would like the definition of forestry and agrigulture to be more flexible- to allow for sustainable community growing and conservation projects.

Why is this idea important?

The current definition of forestry is limited and is inconsistent with DEFRA'S latest strategy for Trees, Woods and Forests which states that community and educational use of woodlands is core to it's aims.

Under current planning law, woodlands are only available for 'non forestry' use for 28 days a year. This means that community forest schools (which offer children opportunities to learn and connect with their environment), woodland playschemes and conservation groups using young people as volunteers may be required to apply for change of use. Current definitions of land use are also inflexible so that there are no sub groups; educational use is presumed to be a 'school' and a conservation project can find themselves being asked to supply car parking to the same specifications as a new build school in order to get change of use.

I would like the definition of forestry and agrigulture to be more flexible- to allow for sustainable community growing and conservation projects.

Child benefit

Child benefit should only be given for the first 2 or 3 children. Any more and the parents need to support their children without any state benefit for the ones that follow. The money thus saved should be used to provide free school meals for all children, irrespective of their financial background or family's resident status in the UK.

Why is this idea important?

Child benefit should only be given for the first 2 or 3 children. Any more and the parents need to support their children without any state benefit for the ones that follow. The money thus saved should be used to provide free school meals for all children, irrespective of their financial background or family's resident status in the UK.

Education should not be compulsory – at any age

Education should not be compulsory – at any age.

The fact that it is complusory until the age of majority speaks volumes about how unsuitable and unpalatable it is.

Why is this idea important?

Education should not be compulsory – at any age.

The fact that it is complusory until the age of majority speaks volumes about how unsuitable and unpalatable it is.