Ban chopping down of trees and paving over everything

People shouldn't be allowed to cut down trees just because they stupidly think its an eyesore or its blocking a bit of light. Who cares?! All the trees have disappeared from my road because the road is full of idiots.

And almost every drive is paved without a strand of grass or anything that drains water.

Why is this idea important?

People shouldn't be allowed to cut down trees just because they stupidly think its an eyesore or its blocking a bit of light. Who cares?! All the trees have disappeared from my road because the road is full of idiots.

And almost every drive is paved without a strand of grass or anything that drains water.

Scrap plans to build any more wind farms

Wind farms are inefficient, only working at their design capacity for a fraction of the time and  are unsightly, despoiling HUGE tracts of previously unspoilt, wild, desolate, beautiful wilderness .    That feeling of "getting away from it all" , so important for the mental well being of millions of ordinary people, would be lost.

They are also extremely noisy for people living close to them.

Where they are built invariably tends to be in isolated rural areas. Which are deathly QUIET at night. So regardless of the low , by industrial standards, decibel rating, nobody can get to sleep!

Again, detrimental to health, increased cost to the NHS and  a probable productivity loss to the nation.

Because they cannot ever provide enough power for the future needs of the UK, especially in winter, when we need more power than at any other time, (Winter wind is of much lower strength than at other times of the year), they need to be "backed up" with conventional power stations.

These (coal, gas and nuclear), need to be kept running at all times. They cannot just be switched on or off at will.

So their ( the wind farms )  existence is an uneccessary duplication of power generating capacity.

Why is this idea important?

Wind farms are inefficient, only working at their design capacity for a fraction of the time and  are unsightly, despoiling HUGE tracts of previously unspoilt, wild, desolate, beautiful wilderness .    That feeling of "getting away from it all" , so important for the mental well being of millions of ordinary people, would be lost.

They are also extremely noisy for people living close to them.

Where they are built invariably tends to be in isolated rural areas. Which are deathly QUIET at night. So regardless of the low , by industrial standards, decibel rating, nobody can get to sleep!

Again, detrimental to health, increased cost to the NHS and  a probable productivity loss to the nation.

Because they cannot ever provide enough power for the future needs of the UK, especially in winter, when we need more power than at any other time, (Winter wind is of much lower strength than at other times of the year), they need to be "backed up" with conventional power stations.

These (coal, gas and nuclear), need to be kept running at all times. They cannot just be switched on or off at will.

So their ( the wind farms )  existence is an uneccessary duplication of power generating capacity.

Town and Country Planning Act deleted please.

At the moment, if a tree is in a conservation area, the council are able to place a Tree Preservation Order on the tree, even if it is in the land of an owner of private land. What right does the Council have to say to a resident, minding their own business, that just because they fancy a certain tree, that the owners are not allowed to cut it. If it is cut, then a £20,000.00 fine is placed on them. This allows corruption to come into the Council. How? Because, after hearing what a racist neighbour says to them, they can forbid certain people (by way of culture, religion and race) to cut their tree, and they could let another person cut theirs if they have the "right" characteristics, (by way of culture race or religion) – it is evil and racist, I know. Hence this is discrimination. The Government has given blind power to the Council Officials. The Ombudsmen do nothing about them, because they also racially discriminate against black and asian people, but are good for the rest.

The town hall officials are very big dictators. You, Government, say other countries are dictators, but you have dictators that are called Council Officials. NOT, by any means the Councillors.

I propose that you scrap Ombudsmen, and set up regulation authorities on the Local Government just as they have for gas, electricity companies, to regulate the Council Officials, and to overlook their decisions and revoke them. If a person wants justice against the Council's decisions, at present, as they have been discriminated against, they must go to the High Court. But this is very expensive, so many people do not go to the High Court. If you made regulatory bodies, it would be cheaper for the people and they would get justice straight away. Please make sure, that those people who are Ombudsmen do not get jobs in these regulatory bodies. This is because they do nothing, if you do, I would be obliged to complain again about these dictators.

Suppose, if somebody has a tree in their property, it should be up to the owners to do what they like to the tree. It is no business of the Council to be nosy and to interfere with what they do to the tree. The owners know themselves, whether the tree being there is good for them or bad for them. Suppose a racist neighbour came and wanted to give trouble to their neighbours, so they get their racist allies, the Council Officials to put a Tree Preservation Order on the tree, (often abbreviated to TPO). For no reason! This is not fair. To summarise, if a racist neighbour says so about another's tree, their right to cut the tree, or loop it is stopped.

If the Council are so concerned about trees, they should plant more in their own land, not force others to keep their in their land. They could buy a plot in the Amazon Rainforest and plant the trees there! Or, the Government can stop Trans National Corporations like MacDonalds from cutting down trees, deforestation, for their animals to graze in or for whatever reason.

In our Whalley Range area in Manchester, where it is a conservation area, there are too many very old trees on the side of the roads, and their roots make the roads bumpy, and affect people's walls. In the Autumn their leaves are too many on the road and pavements, and it makes it slippery, and old and disabled people cannot leave their homes, and cannot walk on the slippery surfaces, or they will fall and hurt. The Council should dig the old trees out after a few years, then plant new trees in those places.

Even if a tree is not in a conservation area, the Council Officials still place a TPO unjustly on a tree, and no one can get justice. Or if it is, it is only for the rich or what they call "middle class". I am against the made up "class system". It should be abolished. People should not be labelled. To bring people together, people should give to charity instead of saying "disadvantaged" or whatever. The label "working class" or "underclass" – "deserving poor" or "undeserving poor" is just what the Tories made up so people can use these labels to bully the poor.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, if a tree is in a conservation area, the council are able to place a Tree Preservation Order on the tree, even if it is in the land of an owner of private land. What right does the Council have to say to a resident, minding their own business, that just because they fancy a certain tree, that the owners are not allowed to cut it. If it is cut, then a £20,000.00 fine is placed on them. This allows corruption to come into the Council. How? Because, after hearing what a racist neighbour says to them, they can forbid certain people (by way of culture, religion and race) to cut their tree, and they could let another person cut theirs if they have the "right" characteristics, (by way of culture race or religion) – it is evil and racist, I know. Hence this is discrimination. The Government has given blind power to the Council Officials. The Ombudsmen do nothing about them, because they also racially discriminate against black and asian people, but are good for the rest.

The town hall officials are very big dictators. You, Government, say other countries are dictators, but you have dictators that are called Council Officials. NOT, by any means the Councillors.

I propose that you scrap Ombudsmen, and set up regulation authorities on the Local Government just as they have for gas, electricity companies, to regulate the Council Officials, and to overlook their decisions and revoke them. If a person wants justice against the Council's decisions, at present, as they have been discriminated against, they must go to the High Court. But this is very expensive, so many people do not go to the High Court. If you made regulatory bodies, it would be cheaper for the people and they would get justice straight away. Please make sure, that those people who are Ombudsmen do not get jobs in these regulatory bodies. This is because they do nothing, if you do, I would be obliged to complain again about these dictators.

Suppose, if somebody has a tree in their property, it should be up to the owners to do what they like to the tree. It is no business of the Council to be nosy and to interfere with what they do to the tree. The owners know themselves, whether the tree being there is good for them or bad for them. Suppose a racist neighbour came and wanted to give trouble to their neighbours, so they get their racist allies, the Council Officials to put a Tree Preservation Order on the tree, (often abbreviated to TPO). For no reason! This is not fair. To summarise, if a racist neighbour says so about another's tree, their right to cut the tree, or loop it is stopped.

If the Council are so concerned about trees, they should plant more in their own land, not force others to keep their in their land. They could buy a plot in the Amazon Rainforest and plant the trees there! Or, the Government can stop Trans National Corporations like MacDonalds from cutting down trees, deforestation, for their animals to graze in or for whatever reason.

In our Whalley Range area in Manchester, where it is a conservation area, there are too many very old trees on the side of the roads, and their roots make the roads bumpy, and affect people's walls. In the Autumn their leaves are too many on the road and pavements, and it makes it slippery, and old and disabled people cannot leave their homes, and cannot walk on the slippery surfaces, or they will fall and hurt. The Council should dig the old trees out after a few years, then plant new trees in those places.

Even if a tree is not in a conservation area, the Council Officials still place a TPO unjustly on a tree, and no one can get justice. Or if it is, it is only for the rich or what they call "middle class". I am against the made up "class system". It should be abolished. People should not be labelled. To bring people together, people should give to charity instead of saying "disadvantaged" or whatever. The label "working class" or "underclass" – "deserving poor" or "undeserving poor" is just what the Tories made up so people can use these labels to bully the poor.

Speed limits through ANOB’s need to be lower.

ANOB's, Conservation areas and National Parks, need lower speed limits. Although speeding like the Stig, might be every young man's dream; surely its time to grow up and treat the enviroment with respect!

Therefore, certain pristine areas of the UK, which man or woman and their motor, haven't ruined should be treated as National Treasures and every effort should be made to preserve them, including low speed limits.

Why is this idea important?

ANOB's, Conservation areas and National Parks, need lower speed limits. Although speeding like the Stig, might be every young man's dream; surely its time to grow up and treat the enviroment with respect!

Therefore, certain pristine areas of the UK, which man or woman and their motor, haven't ruined should be treated as National Treasures and every effort should be made to preserve them, including low speed limits.

EU Common Fishery Policy quotas

Bring an end to the lunacy of the current EU Common Fishery Policy quotas that do the very opposite of what they originally set out to achieve.

This will not happen until such time as the Commission, its advisers and those policing its policies get it into their tiny minds that there can be no conservation whilst we continue to return large quantities of perfectly healthy but unwanted or immature fish to the sea – dead.

A quota regime that totally ignores in its calculations that portion of the catch that is discarded has no place in a conservation policy. It is high time that any controls were based on the entire catch and not just on the landed portion.

Other than EU politicians, who will defend their beloved quota until the seas dry up, this failing is universally recognised especially by fishermen themselves.

What is surely needed is a quota based on catches not landings, a requirement to land the entire catch, a system that will allow governments to make local decisions to ban fishing in areas from which large volumes of immature fish are being taken and an increase in net mesh size if appropriate.

(I don't know how this diktat is integrated into British law – presumably it's there somewhere!)

Why is this idea important?

Bring an end to the lunacy of the current EU Common Fishery Policy quotas that do the very opposite of what they originally set out to achieve.

This will not happen until such time as the Commission, its advisers and those policing its policies get it into their tiny minds that there can be no conservation whilst we continue to return large quantities of perfectly healthy but unwanted or immature fish to the sea – dead.

A quota regime that totally ignores in its calculations that portion of the catch that is discarded has no place in a conservation policy. It is high time that any controls were based on the entire catch and not just on the landed portion.

Other than EU politicians, who will defend their beloved quota until the seas dry up, this failing is universally recognised especially by fishermen themselves.

What is surely needed is a quota based on catches not landings, a requirement to land the entire catch, a system that will allow governments to make local decisions to ban fishing in areas from which large volumes of immature fish are being taken and an increase in net mesh size if appropriate.

(I don't know how this diktat is integrated into British law – presumably it's there somewhere!)

Remove listed orders for private owned homes

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Why is this idea important?

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

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.

Unfettered outdoor advertisement

PROPOSAL

Repeal the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, the roadside advertisement provisions of the Highways Act and teh Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.

REASON

This is the most universal form of civil disobedience and criminal negligence carried out across Britain today.  It is ignored by the tens of thousands of perpetrators and beneficiaries,

It is also actively and negligently disregarded and tacitly accepted by all the Government Agencies from the Planning Officers, Environmental Health Officers, Highways Inspectors and others charged with control and enforcement. 

 

Why is this idea important?

PROPOSAL

Repeal the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, the roadside advertisement provisions of the Highways Act and teh Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.

REASON

This is the most universal form of civil disobedience and criminal negligence carried out across Britain today.  It is ignored by the tens of thousands of perpetrators and beneficiaries,

It is also actively and negligently disregarded and tacitly accepted by all the Government Agencies from the Planning Officers, Environmental Health Officers, Highways Inspectors and others charged with control and enforcement. 

 

Grade II listed buildings to be re-graded as ‘Grade III’

All Grade II listed buildings to be downgraded to a new category – say Grade III – where the only additional control compared to non-listed properties is that consent is required for changes to the fabric or appearance of Elevations visible to the general public.
An onus would then be upon planning authorities or other interested parties to apply for the upgrading of particular especially meritorious Grade III listed properties or terraces of such properties to Grade II.

Why is this idea important?

All Grade II listed buildings to be downgraded to a new category – say Grade III – where the only additional control compared to non-listed properties is that consent is required for changes to the fabric or appearance of Elevations visible to the general public.
An onus would then be upon planning authorities or other interested parties to apply for the upgrading of particular especially meritorious Grade III listed properties or terraces of such properties to Grade II.

Limit Listed Building regulation to public features listed

It is reasonable that publicly accessible or viewable elevations of Listed buildings should be protected by Listed Building regulation in addition to general Planning regulation.  It is also reasonable that alterations to all buildings are subject to Building Regulations.

However, many planning departments seem to 'make work' by insisting upon their additional 'Listed Building' regulation of alterations to the private interiors of private homes on the basis that a given property had been 'Listed' after cursory  visual inspection of the exterior only in the 1970's.

This can lead to oppressive conduct by Planning officials, including threatening language and invasion of privacy, and the arbitrary refusal of consent for reasonable alterations, such as, for example, the replacement of a poor quality – even dangerous – staircase with new high quality staircase.  Such oppressive conduct seems mostly to be directed at private individuals, not substantial companies.

Listed Building regulations for private homes should be limited to those features of such properties that were itemised in the original Listing.

Why is this idea important?

It is reasonable that publicly accessible or viewable elevations of Listed buildings should be protected by Listed Building regulation in addition to general Planning regulation.  It is also reasonable that alterations to all buildings are subject to Building Regulations.

However, many planning departments seem to 'make work' by insisting upon their additional 'Listed Building' regulation of alterations to the private interiors of private homes on the basis that a given property had been 'Listed' after cursory  visual inspection of the exterior only in the 1970's.

This can lead to oppressive conduct by Planning officials, including threatening language and invasion of privacy, and the arbitrary refusal of consent for reasonable alterations, such as, for example, the replacement of a poor quality – even dangerous – staircase with new high quality staircase.  Such oppressive conduct seems mostly to be directed at private individuals, not substantial companies.

Listed Building regulations for private homes should be limited to those features of such properties that were itemised in the original Listing.

Repeal Of The Foxhunting Ban

Repeal this ban that is necessary for the control of foxes throughout England ,Scotland and Wales.Not only is it necessary to bring back foxhunting but also to restore it back to an integral part of our heritage.

Restoring this will bring back a wrongly banned sport which was only banned because of the class inferiority that labour felt it had and had nothing to do with animal welfare.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal this ban that is necessary for the control of foxes throughout England ,Scotland and Wales.Not only is it necessary to bring back foxhunting but also to restore it back to an integral part of our heritage.

Restoring this will bring back a wrongly banned sport which was only banned because of the class inferiority that labour felt it had and had nothing to do with animal welfare.

Reforestation of Britain’s river and creek banks.

Create a 50 metre strip either side of every creek and river inorder to allow the reforestation of native fauna and flora species as well as create habitate for wildlife species. The land should be purchased by forced sale from land owners.These areas would be no go zones.

Why is this idea important?

Create a 50 metre strip either side of every creek and river inorder to allow the reforestation of native fauna and flora species as well as create habitate for wildlife species. The land should be purchased by forced sale from land owners.These areas would be no go zones.

Repeal of the Fur Farm Act

Repeal of the Fur Farming in the UK Act on the grounds:
1. It set a dangerous precedent in UK Law:
a Law was passed in ‘the interests of public morality’ – no legal precedent for such rubbish
2. It sends out a bad public message about a completely legitimate, ethical, Conservation friendly material. Fur is an infinitely renewable resource. The alternatives; made from petro chemicals are evidently as we see in the Gulf of Mexico are not eco friendly and are finite.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal of the Fur Farming in the UK Act on the grounds:
1. It set a dangerous precedent in UK Law:
a Law was passed in ‘the interests of public morality’ – no legal precedent for such rubbish
2. It sends out a bad public message about a completely legitimate, ethical, Conservation friendly material. Fur is an infinitely renewable resource. The alternatives; made from petro chemicals are evidently as we see in the Gulf of Mexico are not eco friendly and are finite.

Remove restrictions on Listed Buildings

Too many houses have been include on the Listed Building register because Local Authorities were told they would get money to provide grants. This is now not the case (in fact it only realistically lasted a few years from 1974). However, the restrictions on a vast swathe of domestic houses are preventing sustainable development. Remove all lower grade residental buildings from to Listed Building register – retain Planning Permission/Development Control requirements but stop the hamstringing of people who want to sensitively develop there house to accommodate changing needs and community resources simply becasie the building was listed for often spurious reasons.

This will also allow Local authorities to save more money in Conservation officers, planning personnel time and expense in general admin and in defending the many appeals etc.

Why is this idea important?

Too many houses have been include on the Listed Building register because Local Authorities were told they would get money to provide grants. This is now not the case (in fact it only realistically lasted a few years from 1974). However, the restrictions on a vast swathe of domestic houses are preventing sustainable development. Remove all lower grade residental buildings from to Listed Building register – retain Planning Permission/Development Control requirements but stop the hamstringing of people who want to sensitively develop there house to accommodate changing needs and community resources simply becasie the building was listed for often spurious reasons.

This will also allow Local authorities to save more money in Conservation officers, planning personnel time and expense in general admin and in defending the many appeals etc.

Scrap existing Marine Conservation Zones consultation quangos

The Marine and Coastal Access Bill received Royal Assent on 12 November 2009.

As part of its provisions, to be enacted by a new 'Marine Management Organisation' quango, four daughter quangos have been established to consult on the location, size and nature of English 'Marine Conservation Zones'. Three more daughter quangos will be required for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish waters, administered by the regional legislatures. The daughter quangos' recommendations, presumably after further consideration, will then be made mandatory by the Marine Management Organisation.

The English quangos have conducted a series of consultative meetings – generally held weekdays, working hours, centralised locations – which were badly publicised and, unsurprisingly, poorly attended by many of the commercial and leisure stakeholders in maritime matters. The boards and staff of the quangos seems to consist almost entirely of conservationist, academic, and local government (officer and councillor) members. 

In my view this conservation angle of the Bill was conceived and implemented in haste, (one indication of this is that the limits between areas are based on county boundaries, not on marine ones, such as headlands, estuaries, etc) with little regard for true consultation, and is being administered by those with vested interests.

I believe the cause for marine conservation would be better served by disbanding the existing structure and starting afresh, taking more time and ensuring that all stakeholders are consulted with and represented in the decision-making process.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The Marine and Coastal Access Bill received Royal Assent on 12 November 2009.

As part of its provisions, to be enacted by a new 'Marine Management Organisation' quango, four daughter quangos have been established to consult on the location, size and nature of English 'Marine Conservation Zones'. Three more daughter quangos will be required for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish waters, administered by the regional legislatures. The daughter quangos' recommendations, presumably after further consideration, will then be made mandatory by the Marine Management Organisation.

The English quangos have conducted a series of consultative meetings – generally held weekdays, working hours, centralised locations – which were badly publicised and, unsurprisingly, poorly attended by many of the commercial and leisure stakeholders in maritime matters. The boards and staff of the quangos seems to consist almost entirely of conservationist, academic, and local government (officer and councillor) members. 

In my view this conservation angle of the Bill was conceived and implemented in haste, (one indication of this is that the limits between areas are based on county boundaries, not on marine ones, such as headlands, estuaries, etc) with little regard for true consultation, and is being administered by those with vested interests.

I believe the cause for marine conservation would be better served by disbanding the existing structure and starting afresh, taking more time and ensuring that all stakeholders are consulted with and represented in the decision-making process.

 

 

Make energy efficiency targets apply to listed buildings

The property owner has a greater duty to fulfil his or her environmental duties than to protect the historic nature of the building.

This includes the right of the property owner to any reasonable measures to improve on the current Energy Performance Certificate of a Grade II listed building.

Why is this idea important?

The property owner has a greater duty to fulfil his or her environmental duties than to protect the historic nature of the building.

This includes the right of the property owner to any reasonable measures to improve on the current Energy Performance Certificate of a Grade II listed building.

End planning protection for recent alterations to old buildings

Please amend the Planning Act 1990 to exclude protection from any post-1945 alterations to an older building. My mum lives in a conservation area, in part of a big Victorian house that was partitioned into a terrace in 1959. During the conversion, one of the sash windows was painted shut. As the law stands, this damage to an original period feature is protected by the Act. Repairing it would require an expensive conservation permit, which really is a bit silly.

Why is this idea important?

Please amend the Planning Act 1990 to exclude protection from any post-1945 alterations to an older building. My mum lives in a conservation area, in part of a big Victorian house that was partitioned into a terrace in 1959. During the conversion, one of the sash windows was painted shut. As the law stands, this damage to an original period feature is protected by the Act. Repairing it would require an expensive conservation permit, which really is a bit silly.

Repeal of the Hunting Act 2004

The Hunting Act 2004 has no practical purpose. The Chairman of the Government Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, Lord Burns, told Parliament that there was no evidence that hunting was cruel and the last Government did not even try to measure the impact of the Hunting Act. Wild mammals are still being managed to exactly the same extent as they were before the Hunting Act with no benefit to animal welfare and very possibly an increase of suffering especially where alternative methods are less effective in dealing with sick and injured mammals.

The Better Government Initiative described the unting Act as a 'notorious example of bad Government' and a Crown Court Judge has said that it is "far from simple to inerpret or to apply". Thousands of hours of police time are being wasted trying to enforce an unworkable law whilst hundreds of ordinary people face potential criminal charges every time they attempt to carry out legal hunting activity. The Hunting Act should be repealed and hunting controlled by independent regulation.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act 2004 has no practical purpose. The Chairman of the Government Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs, Lord Burns, told Parliament that there was no evidence that hunting was cruel and the last Government did not even try to measure the impact of the Hunting Act. Wild mammals are still being managed to exactly the same extent as they were before the Hunting Act with no benefit to animal welfare and very possibly an increase of suffering especially where alternative methods are less effective in dealing with sick and injured mammals.

The Better Government Initiative described the unting Act as a 'notorious example of bad Government' and a Crown Court Judge has said that it is "far from simple to inerpret or to apply". Thousands of hours of police time are being wasted trying to enforce an unworkable law whilst hundreds of ordinary people face potential criminal charges every time they attempt to carry out legal hunting activity. The Hunting Act should be repealed and hunting controlled by independent regulation.