Abolish Theatre Licences

Why are Theatre licences necessary?

This is not Eastern Europe under Stalin, or England under Elizabeth the First. "Apply for a licence so we can control what you say and monitor it".

If content is not state-regulated and state-monitored that only leaves impact on neighbours and health and safety as legitimate reasons for control, both areas that also need simplification.

Why is this idea important?

Why are Theatre licences necessary?

This is not Eastern Europe under Stalin, or England under Elizabeth the First. "Apply for a licence so we can control what you say and monitor it".

If content is not state-regulated and state-monitored that only leaves impact on neighbours and health and safety as legitimate reasons for control, both areas that also need simplification.

Right To Evict Squatters

At present if a householder leaves a window open, squatters can get in and can legally occupy a house until an expensive High Court order has been obtained. This can take weeks or months.

If a small landlord is doing up a property and builders leave a window or door open to bring building materials in or let paint fumes out the same applies.

in 99% of cases squatters are parasites who leach off property that would genuinely be owner or tenant occupied. It is very rare for property owners to genuinely be unaware of property that they own (the GLC famously forgot to transfer some expensive Council stock to London Boroughs but that is rare).

Change the law so a High Court order is unnecessary. If a house already has an occupant or building work is in progress, give the owner the owner or tenant the right to call the Police and regain the property the very same day, subject only to proof of identity, eg Debit Card checked against Electoral Register.

"Squatters Rights are important because some landlords deliberately keep property vacant" ~ if the Government wants to preserve David-v-Goliath laws, keep Squatters Rights, but only where the squatter can proove that a property has been unoccupied for more than 6 months, eg dated photographs showing the passing of the seasons.

And put effective laws in place to recover court costs and repairs – "Oh I found it like that" should not be an excuse.

Why is this idea important?

At present if a householder leaves a window open, squatters can get in and can legally occupy a house until an expensive High Court order has been obtained. This can take weeks or months.

If a small landlord is doing up a property and builders leave a window or door open to bring building materials in or let paint fumes out the same applies.

in 99% of cases squatters are parasites who leach off property that would genuinely be owner or tenant occupied. It is very rare for property owners to genuinely be unaware of property that they own (the GLC famously forgot to transfer some expensive Council stock to London Boroughs but that is rare).

Change the law so a High Court order is unnecessary. If a house already has an occupant or building work is in progress, give the owner the owner or tenant the right to call the Police and regain the property the very same day, subject only to proof of identity, eg Debit Card checked against Electoral Register.

"Squatters Rights are important because some landlords deliberately keep property vacant" ~ if the Government wants to preserve David-v-Goliath laws, keep Squatters Rights, but only where the squatter can proove that a property has been unoccupied for more than 6 months, eg dated photographs showing the passing of the seasons.

And put effective laws in place to recover court costs and repairs – "Oh I found it like that" should not be an excuse.

Freedom Of Information Act – and Freedom

The freedom of information act has been abused and can be proven so:

These three separate documents unequivocally prove that information has been withheld from a biased point of view.  Any other subject matter and this would have been headline news, but, for some reason, it didn't.

On the 9th July 2010, the freedom of information act finally relented and gave up this piece of damning evidence against the drug classification system, it vindicates Professor Nutt entirely.  Not to mention, it makes a mockery of the governance of the day.  The full document pdf can be found here:

http://www.drugequality.org/ico_press_release.htm

 

In 2007, the FOI vetted this document so as "to avoid a focus on the gaps in the evidence base" and cited the group Transform specifically.  This is against the rules of the FOI act, no biased is allowed to a party wishing to view a document.  Once more, the full story and document  PDF can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/06/home_office_error_reveals_how_foi_request_handled.html

 

And finally, this piece of information was withheld from the public for 9 months and was "slipped through" with the Mephadrone ban.  The document called "pathways to problems" is a report from the ACMD .  The document is a highly critical of the way alcohol is handled in the UK, once more, it has received little attention and the recommendations were not heeded.  The story can be found here:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/critical-alcohol-review-hidden-by-mephedrone-row-1948191.html

I would like the Freedom Of Information act to do as it says, allow freedom without bias or partisan ethics.

Why is this idea important?

The freedom of information act has been abused and can be proven so:

These three separate documents unequivocally prove that information has been withheld from a biased point of view.  Any other subject matter and this would have been headline news, but, for some reason, it didn't.

On the 9th July 2010, the freedom of information act finally relented and gave up this piece of damning evidence against the drug classification system, it vindicates Professor Nutt entirely.  Not to mention, it makes a mockery of the governance of the day.  The full document pdf can be found here:

http://www.drugequality.org/ico_press_release.htm

 

In 2007, the FOI vetted this document so as "to avoid a focus on the gaps in the evidence base" and cited the group Transform specifically.  This is against the rules of the FOI act, no biased is allowed to a party wishing to view a document.  Once more, the full story and document  PDF can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/06/home_office_error_reveals_how_foi_request_handled.html

 

And finally, this piece of information was withheld from the public for 9 months and was "slipped through" with the Mephadrone ban.  The document called "pathways to problems" is a report from the ACMD .  The document is a highly critical of the way alcohol is handled in the UK, once more, it has received little attention and the recommendations were not heeded.  The story can be found here:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/critical-alcohol-review-hidden-by-mephedrone-row-1948191.html

I would like the Freedom Of Information act to do as it says, allow freedom without bias or partisan ethics.

Repeal the Hunting Act 2004 and all other legislation that criminalises hunting with hounds

Repeal the Hunting Act 2004. Repeal the Badger Act. Remove the Polecat and Otter from list of protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Remove the Otter from the list of protected species under the Habitat Regulations 2010 and the EC Habitat Directive.

So that those who wish to hunt with hounds may do so.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Hunting Act 2004. Repeal the Badger Act. Remove the Polecat and Otter from list of protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Remove the Otter from the list of protected species under the Habitat Regulations 2010 and the EC Habitat Directive.

So that those who wish to hunt with hounds may do so.

Don’t bring back the death sentence.

While I sympathise with those who have lost loved ones through murder and so on. Bringing back the death sentence will not reduce crime. It hasn't reduced the amount of murders in America. Also it is open to abuse and there are innocents in jail who would have been executed if the death penalty was still in use.

Why is this idea important?

While I sympathise with those who have lost loved ones through murder and so on. Bringing back the death sentence will not reduce crime. It hasn't reduced the amount of murders in America. Also it is open to abuse and there are innocents in jail who would have been executed if the death penalty was still in use.