Stop businesses including government from changing existing Employment Contracts to save them money.

Make it illegal for employers to change existing employees Contracts of Employment and Pay Scales to the detriment of the employee.

Why is this idea important?

Make it illegal for employers to change existing employees Contracts of Employment and Pay Scales to the detriment of the employee.

Curb HMRC Powers (and the way they use them)

HMRC have a remit to search for people in positions of authority and to make examples of them as a lesson to future tax evaders (Dave Hartnett Acting Chairman HMRC, House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, 11th June 2008).

The fact that Tax Agents and Lawyers earn a living giving tax advice to clients and interpreting the cheapest way of having their clients pay the right amount of tax, is it not very dangerous when HMRC can arrest people in those positions for doing just that?

If HMRC arrest a tax adviser then HMRC must expect the tax advisers business will suffer, if not fail, as a result of the arrest and in a fairly short period of time. At the same time the investigation into the tax adviser can take anything up to two years with a very good possibility of no charges being made in the end.

The result would be the forced closure of a business by HMRC with no legal redress as it is unlikely that the owner will have the funds to mount any legal action.

Whilst the arrest of the individual is often just for the day whilst bail is organised, the sentence is one which hangs over that business destroying its ability to continue trading for as long as the investigation is on going.

What is even worse is that currently whilst the individual may have been arrested, HMRC only have to say what it is they are being accused of if they choose to raise charges. One could be arrested, released and have your business taken away from you and be none the wiser as to why. If this isn't a recipe for a bit of abuse of power I don't know what is.

It reminds me of an old judicial process we had of the use of the ducking stool. If they drown then they are innocent if they survive then they are guilty and should be burnt at the stake.

Are we not a little more developed than that? Obviously not.

Why is this idea important?

HMRC have a remit to search for people in positions of authority and to make examples of them as a lesson to future tax evaders (Dave Hartnett Acting Chairman HMRC, House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, 11th June 2008).

The fact that Tax Agents and Lawyers earn a living giving tax advice to clients and interpreting the cheapest way of having their clients pay the right amount of tax, is it not very dangerous when HMRC can arrest people in those positions for doing just that?

If HMRC arrest a tax adviser then HMRC must expect the tax advisers business will suffer, if not fail, as a result of the arrest and in a fairly short period of time. At the same time the investigation into the tax adviser can take anything up to two years with a very good possibility of no charges being made in the end.

The result would be the forced closure of a business by HMRC with no legal redress as it is unlikely that the owner will have the funds to mount any legal action.

Whilst the arrest of the individual is often just for the day whilst bail is organised, the sentence is one which hangs over that business destroying its ability to continue trading for as long as the investigation is on going.

What is even worse is that currently whilst the individual may have been arrested, HMRC only have to say what it is they are being accused of if they choose to raise charges. One could be arrested, released and have your business taken away from you and be none the wiser as to why. If this isn't a recipe for a bit of abuse of power I don't know what is.

It reminds me of an old judicial process we had of the use of the ducking stool. If they drown then they are innocent if they survive then they are guilty and should be burnt at the stake.

Are we not a little more developed than that? Obviously not.

High Court Enforcement for Business Owners Houses

High court enforcement officer must not be allowed to enter a person's house without their lawyer being present and 30 day's notice and highlighting that receipts for all goods in their house should be presented – or preferably the defendant/owners ability to move all their company's goods into storage for their seizure first.

At present an enforcement officer can suddenly turn up to you're house if he can prove you've done ANY business work there and demand you show receipts for everything in the house (unrealistic of course when caught on the spot)…  it was enough to make my Mother pawn all her rings to get rid of him (I was in my twenties, living from home being allowed by my parents to still live at home – my parents had nothing to do with the company but they were targetted)… DISGUSTING.

Why is this idea important?

High court enforcement officer must not be allowed to enter a person's house without their lawyer being present and 30 day's notice and highlighting that receipts for all goods in their house should be presented – or preferably the defendant/owners ability to move all their company's goods into storage for their seizure first.

At present an enforcement officer can suddenly turn up to you're house if he can prove you've done ANY business work there and demand you show receipts for everything in the house (unrealistic of course when caught on the spot)…  it was enough to make my Mother pawn all her rings to get rid of him (I was in my twenties, living from home being allowed by my parents to still live at home – my parents had nothing to do with the company but they were targetted)… DISGUSTING.

Sacked for complaining about work on Facebook

It's shocking that a person can be sacked by their company for complaining about their job on Facebook, even if they haven't included details of where they work on their details page.

What happened to freedom of speech?

Why is this idea important?

It's shocking that a person can be sacked by their company for complaining about their job on Facebook, even if they haven't included details of where they work on their details page.

What happened to freedom of speech?

Allow small companies to backdate dividend paperwork

Currently a fraud to backdate dividend paperwork, which is fine for big companies and plc's, of course, but for micro companies – sole director/shareholders it is not feasible or practicable to have the information together before the year end to establish whether a dividend is payable, leaving the option to declare a dividend which may turn out to be illegal, or backdate paperwork which constitutes fraud.

The government is encouraging businesses to incorporate but in many cases, the legislation does not allaw for them.

Why is this idea important?

Currently a fraud to backdate dividend paperwork, which is fine for big companies and plc's, of course, but for micro companies – sole director/shareholders it is not feasible or practicable to have the information together before the year end to establish whether a dividend is payable, leaving the option to declare a dividend which may turn out to be illegal, or backdate paperwork which constitutes fraud.

The government is encouraging businesses to incorporate but in many cases, the legislation does not allaw for them.