let milk be milk – repealing pasteurisation laws

To allow organic farmers to sell their milk unpasteurised once again – as far as I can tell, this is due to economic pressure by the FSA (food standards authority)

Why is this idea important?

To allow organic farmers to sell their milk unpasteurised once again – as far as I can tell, this is due to economic pressure by the FSA (food standards authority)

Remove “Windows tax” on new computers

This "law" has not been created by the government, but has been established by a corporation which has created a monopoly in the software and computing industries.

In a country where values such as consumer freedom, innovation, free trade and competition are held with utmost importance, why is one technology firm allowed to carry-out practices which are essentially illegal?

There have been many anti-trust suits filed and won against Microsoft by the EU and the USA, but these practices continue.

When one purchases a new PC, one is forced to buy Microsoft Windows for £99-230. This is included in the price of the computer and the consumer has no choice in the matter. The UELA then states that the consumer may receive a refund if the software is not used, but this is almost impossible to attain and there have been only a handful of cases in the UK where consumers have received a refund for their unused software.

Microsoft then creates a further grievance to the consumer by not including office software (which is essential on any computer) and making its operating system susceptible to viruses. Individuals or businesses then have to pay £130-430 for office software and £50 a year for antivirus software subscriptions. Consumers should have the option to chose not to buy Windows or these products and chose a free operating system (Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris).

These costs are then replicated in the public sector. Taxpayers are being forced to pay for these software licenses on all computers used in the public sector. If schools, hospitals, the police etc. switched to Free and Open Source Software, it could save the taxpayer a bundle and the money could be put to better uses such as employing more staff in schools or making computers available to children with learning disabilities.

The French police lowered its IT costs by 70% by switching to Linux – http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/03/french-police-saves-millions-of-euros-by-adopting-ubuntu.ars

Small businesses could also benefit from lowering IT costs, especially in these tough financial times.

The solution: remove this de-facto law/tax by creating a new law that prohibits hardware vendors from bundling software with computers. Individuals/businesses/government would then have the choice between purchasing software or using free software.

Why is this idea important?

This "law" has not been created by the government, but has been established by a corporation which has created a monopoly in the software and computing industries.

In a country where values such as consumer freedom, innovation, free trade and competition are held with utmost importance, why is one technology firm allowed to carry-out practices which are essentially illegal?

There have been many anti-trust suits filed and won against Microsoft by the EU and the USA, but these practices continue.

When one purchases a new PC, one is forced to buy Microsoft Windows for £99-230. This is included in the price of the computer and the consumer has no choice in the matter. The UELA then states that the consumer may receive a refund if the software is not used, but this is almost impossible to attain and there have been only a handful of cases in the UK where consumers have received a refund for their unused software.

Microsoft then creates a further grievance to the consumer by not including office software (which is essential on any computer) and making its operating system susceptible to viruses. Individuals or businesses then have to pay £130-430 for office software and £50 a year for antivirus software subscriptions. Consumers should have the option to chose not to buy Windows or these products and chose a free operating system (Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris).

These costs are then replicated in the public sector. Taxpayers are being forced to pay for these software licenses on all computers used in the public sector. If schools, hospitals, the police etc. switched to Free and Open Source Software, it could save the taxpayer a bundle and the money could be put to better uses such as employing more staff in schools or making computers available to children with learning disabilities.

The French police lowered its IT costs by 70% by switching to Linux – http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/03/french-police-saves-millions-of-euros-by-adopting-ubuntu.ars

Small businesses could also benefit from lowering IT costs, especially in these tough financial times.

The solution: remove this de-facto law/tax by creating a new law that prohibits hardware vendors from bundling software with computers. Individuals/businesses/government would then have the choice between purchasing software or using free software.

Britain’s Bin Fettish

You hear a lot in the news about people being fined for putting the bins out to early or for putting the wrong bit of waste in the wrong bin.  Can we stop it now? its getting silly. We are becoming a nation which is obsessed with bins and rubbish.  Is this really what being British means?  An unhealthy interest in other people's waste?  Councils should be concentrating on more important issues than where Mrs Blogs has put her left over apple strudel.  Law abiding people should not be fined or given criminal records for putting out their rubbish.

We are all consumers.  We buy products which are packaged by manufacturers.  If we are to reduce volumes sent to landfill, then surely, packaging should be reduced by the manufacturers.  

Not all areas of the country can recycle the same things.  I cant recycle cardboard!!!  Why is this?  This is the fault of the councils.  They are asking us to recycle more yet have not changed the way that they collect it.   If we are to recycle more – all councils should be ensuring that facilities exist throughout their areas for all recyclable material not just the bits that they can make money on.  So if anyone should be getting fined or prosecuted it should be manufacturers and councils – these are the only ones who can actually change the volumes of waste produced.

Get these two bits sorted and waste will automatically reduce without the need for costly court cases against law abiding residents just trying to do their best.

Why is this idea important?

You hear a lot in the news about people being fined for putting the bins out to early or for putting the wrong bit of waste in the wrong bin.  Can we stop it now? its getting silly. We are becoming a nation which is obsessed with bins and rubbish.  Is this really what being British means?  An unhealthy interest in other people's waste?  Councils should be concentrating on more important issues than where Mrs Blogs has put her left over apple strudel.  Law abiding people should not be fined or given criminal records for putting out their rubbish.

We are all consumers.  We buy products which are packaged by manufacturers.  If we are to reduce volumes sent to landfill, then surely, packaging should be reduced by the manufacturers.  

Not all areas of the country can recycle the same things.  I cant recycle cardboard!!!  Why is this?  This is the fault of the councils.  They are asking us to recycle more yet have not changed the way that they collect it.   If we are to recycle more – all councils should be ensuring that facilities exist throughout their areas for all recyclable material not just the bits that they can make money on.  So if anyone should be getting fined or prosecuted it should be manufacturers and councils – these are the only ones who can actually change the volumes of waste produced.

Get these two bits sorted and waste will automatically reduce without the need for costly court cases against law abiding residents just trying to do their best.

Fair Treatment for Israel

Especially towards the end of the last administration the sovereign nation of Israel has received unfair treatment. My idea would be to reversal thre o of the policies and treat the sovereign country like any other country. The first policy to stop the use of the term, "occupied terroritory" for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel did not enter Gaza or the West Bank in the same manner that Sadaam Hussein enterd Kuwait or the Russian entered Afghanistan. Instead the West Bank and Gaza came into being as terrority, rightfully caputred during the Six Day, in which Egypt, Jordan, and Syria tried to destroy Israel. As a result of the war the terrorities became a part of Israel. This means Israel has a right to the land just like the US has a right to the land caputured from the Native Americans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/six_day_war.stm

Second reversal would be to seek the reversal of the labelling of products that come from Israel. It serves no purpose other than to inflame feeling on the subject and it works contrary to public policy. Furthermore it seeks to further divide the public and as a consumer it will make me seek out products from Israel so that I can support the country.  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/3371576/Britain-seeks-block-on-EU-imports-from-Israeli-settlements.html

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/pdf/labelling-palestine.pdf

Third would the removing the of war crime warrants and fear of being prosecuted for war crimes for Israeli diplomats entering the UK.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6977002.ece

http://www.haaretz.com/news/dichter-cancels-u-k-trip-over-fears-of-war-crimes-arrest1.234670

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5908235.ece

Why is this idea important?

Especially towards the end of the last administration the sovereign nation of Israel has received unfair treatment. My idea would be to reversal thre o of the policies and treat the sovereign country like any other country. The first policy to stop the use of the term, "occupied terroritory" for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel did not enter Gaza or the West Bank in the same manner that Sadaam Hussein enterd Kuwait or the Russian entered Afghanistan. Instead the West Bank and Gaza came into being as terrority, rightfully caputred during the Six Day, in which Egypt, Jordan, and Syria tried to destroy Israel. As a result of the war the terrorities became a part of Israel. This means Israel has a right to the land just like the US has a right to the land caputured from the Native Americans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/six_day_war.stm

Second reversal would be to seek the reversal of the labelling of products that come from Israel. It serves no purpose other than to inflame feeling on the subject and it works contrary to public policy. Furthermore it seeks to further divide the public and as a consumer it will make me seek out products from Israel so that I can support the country.  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/3371576/Britain-seeks-block-on-EU-imports-from-Israeli-settlements.html

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/pdf/labelling-palestine.pdf

Third would the removing the of war crime warrants and fear of being prosecuted for war crimes for Israeli diplomats entering the UK.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6977002.ece

http://www.haaretz.com/news/dichter-cancels-u-k-trip-over-fears-of-war-crimes-arrest1.234670

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5908235.ece

Alcohol Pricing

Place a national tax on all alcoholic drinks over 5% OG sold out with public houses and clubs. Maintain current alcohol prices in pubs and clubs to ensure drinking is maintained within a controlled environment.

Why is this idea important?

Place a national tax on all alcoholic drinks over 5% OG sold out with public houses and clubs. Maintain current alcohol prices in pubs and clubs to ensure drinking is maintained within a controlled environment.

Alcohol pricing

Abolish the price control of alcohol in supermarkets. Allow them to charge at the best prices as negotiated with their suppliers and passed on to the consumers.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the price control of alcohol in supermarkets. Allow them to charge at the best prices as negotiated with their suppliers and passed on to the consumers.

Create a modernized “opt-out” option for the DMCA Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The DMCA "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" is so overbloated and obtuse, that the following circumstances could make you a criminal:

 

A) If you download a song off the internet that belongs to someone else, who can claim they have proprietorship.

 

B) If you download something off the internet that may have at one time belonged to someone else, because they can claim you have "infringed" them.

 

C) If you sell something that is similar to something else, and because it is similar a famous music artist/corporation can point at you and say "they broke the law"

 

D) Because the DMCA is a modern day bureaucratic bumbling of epic proportion, and rewards bad behavior while punishing good behavior.

 

E) It has so many restrictions that anyone on the internet could become a potential felon.

Why is this idea important?

The DMCA "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" is so overbloated and obtuse, that the following circumstances could make you a criminal:

 

A) If you download a song off the internet that belongs to someone else, who can claim they have proprietorship.

 

B) If you download something off the internet that may have at one time belonged to someone else, because they can claim you have "infringed" them.

 

C) If you sell something that is similar to something else, and because it is similar a famous music artist/corporation can point at you and say "they broke the law"

 

D) Because the DMCA is a modern day bureaucratic bumbling of epic proportion, and rewards bad behavior while punishing good behavior.

 

E) It has so many restrictions that anyone on the internet could become a potential felon.

TV licence fee should be reclassified as a civil offence – not a criminal offence

Please support amendments intended to ensure that the TV licence  fee is recoverable as a civil matter only, following non-payment and failure to respond to a notice issued by OFCOM – not a criminal offence.  This is an unfair and outdated penalty.

The television licence fee is a "despised compulsory impost" and should be scrapped.  The annual charge and the BBC should be funded by other means.

Why is this idea important?

Please support amendments intended to ensure that the TV licence  fee is recoverable as a civil matter only, following non-payment and failure to respond to a notice issued by OFCOM – not a criminal offence.  This is an unfair and outdated penalty.

The television licence fee is a "despised compulsory impost" and should be scrapped.  The annual charge and the BBC should be funded by other means.

Legalise copying legitimate CD’s onto an iPod/MP3 Player

Under UK Copyright law, it is currently illegal to copy a legitimatly owned Compact Disc onto a media device, such as an MP3 Player or an iPod.

The customer has paid for the right to listen to the music they purchased, why are they not allowed to listen to it using a different method?

Why is this idea important?

Under UK Copyright law, it is currently illegal to copy a legitimatly owned Compact Disc onto a media device, such as an MP3 Player or an iPod.

The customer has paid for the right to listen to the music they purchased, why are they not allowed to listen to it using a different method?

Repeal Doorstep Selling Regulations

The doorstep selling regulations are an uneccessary EU imposition which the labour government introduced with no warning. As a tradesman they are a stupid set of rules which i try to comply with but only seem to confuse my customers. Just let trading standards route out bad tradesmen – existing criminal and civil laws have worked well for many years – and trading standards don't have time to implement the new rules.

Why is this idea important?

The doorstep selling regulations are an uneccessary EU imposition which the labour government introduced with no warning. As a tradesman they are a stupid set of rules which i try to comply with but only seem to confuse my customers. Just let trading standards route out bad tradesmen – existing criminal and civil laws have worked well for many years – and trading standards don't have time to implement the new rules.