Repeal archaic ‘legal curiosities’ (as listed by the Law Commission)

The Law Commission aims "to ensure that the law is as fair, modern, simple and as cost-effective as possible… More than two-thirds of the Commission's law reform recommendations have been implemented, and a number await the Government's decision, or Parliamentary time."

It produced a list of 'legal curiosities' http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/legal_curiosities.docsuch as on the ownership of dead whales, swans etc.. (Note that there are many such lists filled with fictional laws but this is a well-researched document from a government source and I've seen confirmation of the whale/armour laws from a moderator.)

However, this document states that "All the items listed remain in force and are not proposed for repeal". Why not include them in the Freedom Bill?

Why is this idea important?

The Law Commission aims "to ensure that the law is as fair, modern, simple and as cost-effective as possible… More than two-thirds of the Commission's law reform recommendations have been implemented, and a number await the Government's decision, or Parliamentary time."

It produced a list of 'legal curiosities' http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/legal_curiosities.docsuch as on the ownership of dead whales, swans etc.. (Note that there are many such lists filled with fictional laws but this is a well-researched document from a government source and I've seen confirmation of the whale/armour laws from a moderator.)

However, this document states that "All the items listed remain in force and are not proposed for repeal". Why not include them in the Freedom Bill?

Leave the EU – that should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Why is this idea important?

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Retail Distribution Review

The Financial Services Authority have been regulating financial services for over 12 years. During that time, we have seen Equitable Life and Northern Rock nearly go to the wall. We have seen lenders allowed to lend irresponsibly and now hardly lend at all. We have suffered one of the greatest recessions this country has seen and they still think they know best.

The retail distribution review (RDR) is their attempt to stop mis-selling scandals of the future by using a twin approach of increasing the minimum level of qualification for each adviser and by the scrapping of commission.

That sounds fine in principle but like so many of their other ideas for regulation, it won't work. Take commission. The basis for the RDR is that commission makes the adviser bias towards the highest paying commission product. That can simply be countered by having level commission. i.e. products that all pay the same amount.

Again, higher qualifications, sounds good. The difficulty is that as an industry, most 'Independants' are over 50. How would you like to take a degree at over 50 with the threat hanging over you that if you didnt pass you'd lose your livelyhood.

Looking at the number of complaints would give an indication of where financial problems occur. The Independent sector account for about 4% of complaints. About 80% come from advice given by the banks. Yet the proposals will have the effect of closing down 'Independents' and driving customers to the banks.

Why is this idea important?

The Financial Services Authority have been regulating financial services for over 12 years. During that time, we have seen Equitable Life and Northern Rock nearly go to the wall. We have seen lenders allowed to lend irresponsibly and now hardly lend at all. We have suffered one of the greatest recessions this country has seen and they still think they know best.

The retail distribution review (RDR) is their attempt to stop mis-selling scandals of the future by using a twin approach of increasing the minimum level of qualification for each adviser and by the scrapping of commission.

That sounds fine in principle but like so many of their other ideas for regulation, it won't work. Take commission. The basis for the RDR is that commission makes the adviser bias towards the highest paying commission product. That can simply be countered by having level commission. i.e. products that all pay the same amount.

Again, higher qualifications, sounds good. The difficulty is that as an industry, most 'Independants' are over 50. How would you like to take a degree at over 50 with the threat hanging over you that if you didnt pass you'd lose your livelyhood.

Looking at the number of complaints would give an indication of where financial problems occur. The Independent sector account for about 4% of complaints. About 80% come from advice given by the banks. Yet the proposals will have the effect of closing down 'Independents' and driving customers to the banks.