Repeal the law requiring training before removal of animal carcasses from our roads.

Repeal the law/regulations that require contractors to be trained in removing animal carcasses before they are permitted to do so.

This law/regulations led to the absurd situation recently, highlighted in the national media, where contractors painting markings on the road, left a gap around a dead animal, rather than simply move the carcass off the road and carry on.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the law/regulations that require contractors to be trained in removing animal carcasses before they are permitted to do so.

This law/regulations led to the absurd situation recently, highlighted in the national media, where contractors painting markings on the road, left a gap around a dead animal, rather than simply move the carcass off the road and carry on.

Remove legal protection from herring gulls

I would like to ask for the removal of legal protection from just two species of gulls – herring gulls and black-backed gulls. These large, very noisy, extremely aggressive birds are increasing in  numbers in our coastal towns, thriving on the food they obtain from our messy throw-away culture and from visitors who mistakenly feed them. The particular problems with this situation are 1) that they have no fear of humans and at every opportunity will steal food directly from your hand or your plate and 2) they are no longer content to nest on cliffs but invade every available flat roof near the sea.

I believe we have tolerated this nuisance for too long. It is far too late to change the birds' new habits; you cannot re-educate a wild bird population. It is impossible at the moment to stop people from leaving food for them, and certainly out of the question to expect holiday-makers to eat all their picnics and ice-creams indoors. We need a review of current wildlife legislation to re-categorise common gulls, remove their legal protection, and instead protect the human victims of their noise and increasingly aggressive behaviour.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to ask for the removal of legal protection from just two species of gulls – herring gulls and black-backed gulls. These large, very noisy, extremely aggressive birds are increasing in  numbers in our coastal towns, thriving on the food they obtain from our messy throw-away culture and from visitors who mistakenly feed them. The particular problems with this situation are 1) that they have no fear of humans and at every opportunity will steal food directly from your hand or your plate and 2) they are no longer content to nest on cliffs but invade every available flat roof near the sea.

I believe we have tolerated this nuisance for too long. It is far too late to change the birds' new habits; you cannot re-educate a wild bird population. It is impossible at the moment to stop people from leaving food for them, and certainly out of the question to expect holiday-makers to eat all their picnics and ice-creams indoors. We need a review of current wildlife legislation to re-categorise common gulls, remove their legal protection, and instead protect the human victims of their noise and increasingly aggressive behaviour.

Helping rural local food producers and communities

Good markets not only provide local food for local people, they contribute to making Norfolk distinct, they provide a meeting place and a chance for people to reconnect with the countryside and take pride in the skilled local people who work in it.

They also extend vital opportunities for small local producers, especially in the first few years of trading, to sell direct and test the market in a well ordered and regulated arena where customers can buy with confidence Farmers Markets in Norfolk have a loyal following of local customers, but in one of England's most rural counties where small market towns are surrounded by miles and miles of beautiful countryside and few inhabitants, we need to be able to attract more footfall in terms of passing trade.

Norfolk tourism is booming  and allowing well designed temporary signage would be an effective solution that would enable small producers to regularly benefit directly from some of the £2.5bn that is spent each year in the county by visitors. Ultimately it is the economic sustainability of very rural communities that is at stake.

Why is this idea important?

Good markets not only provide local food for local people, they contribute to making Norfolk distinct, they provide a meeting place and a chance for people to reconnect with the countryside and take pride in the skilled local people who work in it.

They also extend vital opportunities for small local producers, especially in the first few years of trading, to sell direct and test the market in a well ordered and regulated arena where customers can buy with confidence Farmers Markets in Norfolk have a loyal following of local customers, but in one of England's most rural counties where small market towns are surrounded by miles and miles of beautiful countryside and few inhabitants, we need to be able to attract more footfall in terms of passing trade.

Norfolk tourism is booming  and allowing well designed temporary signage would be an effective solution that would enable small producers to regularly benefit directly from some of the £2.5bn that is spent each year in the county by visitors. Ultimately it is the economic sustainability of very rural communities that is at stake.

Scrap English Heritage (1983) & let The National Trust (1895) do it

Scrap English Heritage (set up in 1983) & let The National Trust (set up in 1895) do their job.
Why have two? merge them under the more trusted National Trust.
It would be much cheaper and much less political.
As it would also stop English Heritage arm twisting their candidates in to jobs in every planning office up & down the country.
Its also undemocratic allowing them to derail developments, stirring up local opposition, dictating planning against local wishes.
and still allowing excellent old buildings to be demolished.
Like allowing there own Art Deco HQ on Savile Row to be demolished just after they moved out, against locals and architects opinions.
Stop them listing 1970s & 1980s buildings against the wishes of tenants the owners and local councilors and residents.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap English Heritage (set up in 1983) & let The National Trust (set up in 1895) do their job.
Why have two? merge them under the more trusted National Trust.
It would be much cheaper and much less political.
As it would also stop English Heritage arm twisting their candidates in to jobs in every planning office up & down the country.
Its also undemocratic allowing them to derail developments, stirring up local opposition, dictating planning against local wishes.
and still allowing excellent old buildings to be demolished.
Like allowing there own Art Deco HQ on Savile Row to be demolished just after they moved out, against locals and architects opinions.
Stop them listing 1970s & 1980s buildings against the wishes of tenants the owners and local councilors and residents.

out dated laws on raptors

i sugest that all laws and regulations that protect sparrowhawks and peregrine falcons

should be removed, with over 50,000 breeding pairs of sparrowhawk why do they need

protecting.

Why is this idea important?

i sugest that all laws and regulations that protect sparrowhawks and peregrine falcons

should be removed, with over 50,000 breeding pairs of sparrowhawk why do they need

protecting.

Motor Caravan Aires and Wild Camping in suitable locations

Permitting Motor Caravans to park in locations other than licenced or exempted caravan sites will require the Public Health Act 1937 section 286 and The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 being ammended.

THe 1937 Act defines what constitues a caravan and the 1960 Act requires that Caravan Sites are licenced or carry an exemption issued by certain clubs and bodies. A Caravan is defined as being a vehicle or vessel that has been built or adapted for human habitation and does not recognise a difference between a Static, Touring(trailer) or Motor Caravan.

Modern Motor Caravans are totaly different and contain superior sanitary and habitation equipment to those envisaged in the 1930s and 1950s. Motor Caravans are in fact luxury hotels on wheels these days with Bedrooms, Kitchens and bathrooms with hot water and showers and sealed toilets.

A recognition that a motor caravan parking overnight does not need the same facilities as a touring caravan is required.

A recognition of the diference between camping and parking (including using the vehicle for cooking and sleeping) is required.

Motor Caravans are much heavier than touring caravans and existing grass caravan sites can prove unsuitable for them in wet weather. A Motor Caravan simply needs a firm level surface to park on and from time to time access to basic facilities for drinking water and to dispose of wet and dry waste.

Camping as defined in regulations for Camping Cars abroard is putting anything including Tables, Chairs, steps, waste and water containers, Awnings, ramps etc outside of the vehicle. There are no restrictions on what you can do within a parked vehicle.

Modern Motor Caravans are totaly self contained and only need facilities to get fresh water and dump black and grey water every few days. They are designed to carry these loads unlike touring caravans.

Local Authorities have the power at present to allow Aire type stopovers on land owned or leased by them under section 11 of the 1960 Act. Few have used this power.

Britain is unfriendly to visiting motor caravan users as we require them to join one of our clubs to use a reasonably priced Certificated site or some of the club sites. Otherwise thay need to use highly priced commercial or club sites.

We can enjoy using our Motor Caravans abroad without such restrictions using the many municipal and private Aires available at very low or even no cost other than a couple of Euros to obtain drinking water.

It has been recognised since the 1960s abroard that Motor Caravan users bring trade into areas they visit, as they need to buy supplies and will use and visit local amenities and eating places. It is time the UK recognised this and became more welcoming to travelling visitors. Many of our authorities are still in the B&B mindset with regards to taking holidays, or are "Traveller" phobic.

Action needed:

Examine and revoke or re-write the 1937 and 1960 acts to bring them into line with todays developments.

Instruct local authorities to remove restrictions preventing the use for cooking and sleeping in parked Motor Caravans.

A recognition that a motor caravan parking overnight does not need the same facilities as a touring caravan is required.

A recognition of the difference between camping and parking (including using the vehicle for cooking and sleeping) is required.

Require local Authorities to make use of existing underused parking spaces at night such as Coach Bays or car parks to permit the overnight parking of Motor Caravans.

Remove height barriers from some parts of otherwise restricted car parks so that larger vehicles can gain access. (Restrictions could still apply to the type of use to which these spaces are permitted to be used for ie no commercial vehicles or trading, and the lenght of stay permitted).

Why is this idea important?

Permitting Motor Caravans to park in locations other than licenced or exempted caravan sites will require the Public Health Act 1937 section 286 and The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 being ammended.

THe 1937 Act defines what constitues a caravan and the 1960 Act requires that Caravan Sites are licenced or carry an exemption issued by certain clubs and bodies. A Caravan is defined as being a vehicle or vessel that has been built or adapted for human habitation and does not recognise a difference between a Static, Touring(trailer) or Motor Caravan.

Modern Motor Caravans are totaly different and contain superior sanitary and habitation equipment to those envisaged in the 1930s and 1950s. Motor Caravans are in fact luxury hotels on wheels these days with Bedrooms, Kitchens and bathrooms with hot water and showers and sealed toilets.

A recognition that a motor caravan parking overnight does not need the same facilities as a touring caravan is required.

A recognition of the diference between camping and parking (including using the vehicle for cooking and sleeping) is required.

Motor Caravans are much heavier than touring caravans and existing grass caravan sites can prove unsuitable for them in wet weather. A Motor Caravan simply needs a firm level surface to park on and from time to time access to basic facilities for drinking water and to dispose of wet and dry waste.

Camping as defined in regulations for Camping Cars abroard is putting anything including Tables, Chairs, steps, waste and water containers, Awnings, ramps etc outside of the vehicle. There are no restrictions on what you can do within a parked vehicle.

Modern Motor Caravans are totaly self contained and only need facilities to get fresh water and dump black and grey water every few days. They are designed to carry these loads unlike touring caravans.

Local Authorities have the power at present to allow Aire type stopovers on land owned or leased by them under section 11 of the 1960 Act. Few have used this power.

Britain is unfriendly to visiting motor caravan users as we require them to join one of our clubs to use a reasonably priced Certificated site or some of the club sites. Otherwise thay need to use highly priced commercial or club sites.

We can enjoy using our Motor Caravans abroad without such restrictions using the many municipal and private Aires available at very low or even no cost other than a couple of Euros to obtain drinking water.

It has been recognised since the 1960s abroard that Motor Caravan users bring trade into areas they visit, as they need to buy supplies and will use and visit local amenities and eating places. It is time the UK recognised this and became more welcoming to travelling visitors. Many of our authorities are still in the B&B mindset with regards to taking holidays, or are "Traveller" phobic.

Action needed:

Examine and revoke or re-write the 1937 and 1960 acts to bring them into line with todays developments.

Instruct local authorities to remove restrictions preventing the use for cooking and sleeping in parked Motor Caravans.

A recognition that a motor caravan parking overnight does not need the same facilities as a touring caravan is required.

A recognition of the difference between camping and parking (including using the vehicle for cooking and sleeping) is required.

Require local Authorities to make use of existing underused parking spaces at night such as Coach Bays or car parks to permit the overnight parking of Motor Caravans.

Remove height barriers from some parts of otherwise restricted car parks so that larger vehicles can gain access. (Restrictions could still apply to the type of use to which these spaces are permitted to be used for ie no commercial vehicles or trading, and the lenght of stay permitted).

Repeal EU law outlawing 800 traditional vegetable varieties

The EU law outlawing 800 traditional vegetable varieties should be repealed to ensure these varieties do not become extinct.

The EU should not have the power to decide what the British people, or any people, can and cannot eat and grow. 

Quotes:

'800 traditional vegetable varieties once grown in Britain are now outlawed by European legislation' – http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/outlawed_seeds.php

'In the past 100 years, 90 percent of UK's vegetable varieties have been lost, with the same happening in much of the industrialized world'. – http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/outlawed_seeds.php

'Farmers and growers no longer have the automatic right to save seed of varieties covered by plant breeders' rights (PBR). Under PBR new vegetable varieties can be registered by breeders who then receive a royalty from all of those who use the variety. In the US plants can also be patented and in countries in the European Union vegetable varieties can only be sold if they have been registered on a National List. A substantial fee has to be paid in order to register and an annual maintainance fee is also necessary in order to keep the variety on the list. The price of this fee is the same regardless of how many packets of that variety of seed are actually sold. This registration fee means that it would be uneconomic for many small seed suppliers to sell seeds for which there wasn't a great deal of demand. Also in order to be registered, each variety has to pass a strict DUS test. This shows that it is uniform and distinct from other varieties. Unfortunately, many old varieties are not sufficiently uniform to satisfy this legislation and therefore cannot be registered. It is illegal to sell seeds that are not registered on the National List and anyone offering unlisted varieties can be prosecuted. Consequently many once commercial favourites can no longer be sold.

Why is it important that we continue to grow the traditional varieties of vegetables? Heritage, or heirloom, vegetables are important because they contain a wealth of genetic material which could be of vital importance in the future. They should not be discarded and replaced with modern varieties, simply because the latter appear to have more useful characteristics at the moment. Indeed it would be extremely risky and unwise to do this, because nobody knows exactly what the future has in store for us! No one can predict with any great certainty exactly which genetic characteristics will be of importance in 50 or more years time. Nor can anyone know which pests and diseases will be around then, or what the climate will be like. It is, therefore, vitally important that we maintain genetic diversity by preserving as many different species of plants as possible. For it is only by doing this, that we can ensure that we have the best possible chance of successfully adapting to future conditions – whatever they may be.' – http://www.btinternet.com/~bury_rd/heritage.htm

Why is this idea important?

The EU law outlawing 800 traditional vegetable varieties should be repealed to ensure these varieties do not become extinct.

The EU should not have the power to decide what the British people, or any people, can and cannot eat and grow. 

Quotes:

'800 traditional vegetable varieties once grown in Britain are now outlawed by European legislation' – http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/outlawed_seeds.php

'In the past 100 years, 90 percent of UK's vegetable varieties have been lost, with the same happening in much of the industrialized world'. – http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/outlawed_seeds.php

'Farmers and growers no longer have the automatic right to save seed of varieties covered by plant breeders' rights (PBR). Under PBR new vegetable varieties can be registered by breeders who then receive a royalty from all of those who use the variety. In the US plants can also be patented and in countries in the European Union vegetable varieties can only be sold if they have been registered on a National List. A substantial fee has to be paid in order to register and an annual maintainance fee is also necessary in order to keep the variety on the list. The price of this fee is the same regardless of how many packets of that variety of seed are actually sold. This registration fee means that it would be uneconomic for many small seed suppliers to sell seeds for which there wasn't a great deal of demand. Also in order to be registered, each variety has to pass a strict DUS test. This shows that it is uniform and distinct from other varieties. Unfortunately, many old varieties are not sufficiently uniform to satisfy this legislation and therefore cannot be registered. It is illegal to sell seeds that are not registered on the National List and anyone offering unlisted varieties can be prosecuted. Consequently many once commercial favourites can no longer be sold.

Why is it important that we continue to grow the traditional varieties of vegetables? Heritage, or heirloom, vegetables are important because they contain a wealth of genetic material which could be of vital importance in the future. They should not be discarded and replaced with modern varieties, simply because the latter appear to have more useful characteristics at the moment. Indeed it would be extremely risky and unwise to do this, because nobody knows exactly what the future has in store for us! No one can predict with any great certainty exactly which genetic characteristics will be of importance in 50 or more years time. Nor can anyone know which pests and diseases will be around then, or what the climate will be like. It is, therefore, vitally important that we maintain genetic diversity by preserving as many different species of plants as possible. For it is only by doing this, that we can ensure that we have the best possible chance of successfully adapting to future conditions – whatever they may be.' – http://www.btinternet.com/~bury_rd/heritage.htm

Fresh Meat Hygiene and Inspection Regs.

These regs are issued from London, Cardiff, Edinburgh, and Belfast in order to "protect the meat eating members of the public from unhygienic practices and zoonotic diseases". This is totally unnecessary as we have perfectly adequate regulations in the shape of the european directive which comes from Brussels. The British regs. are approximately twice as long and achieve nothing as we have to abide by the directive in any case. The only advantage of re-inventing the wheel is to create a number of what Gordon Brown called "jobs", which we can no longer afford. It would be very simple to repeal these regs.  and apply the directive. It would also have the added advantage of being familiar to all the foreign vets. who are being imported to apply them.

Although it is beyond my ken I am sure that there are many more trade regs. which could be simplified in a similar manner. After all the British tax payer has paid his money to get these regs. from Brussels and he does not wish to pay again inorder to employ unnecessary bureaucrats.

Why is this idea important?

These regs are issued from London, Cardiff, Edinburgh, and Belfast in order to "protect the meat eating members of the public from unhygienic practices and zoonotic diseases". This is totally unnecessary as we have perfectly adequate regulations in the shape of the european directive which comes from Brussels. The British regs. are approximately twice as long and achieve nothing as we have to abide by the directive in any case. The only advantage of re-inventing the wheel is to create a number of what Gordon Brown called "jobs", which we can no longer afford. It would be very simple to repeal these regs.  and apply the directive. It would also have the added advantage of being familiar to all the foreign vets. who are being imported to apply them.

Although it is beyond my ken I am sure that there are many more trade regs. which could be simplified in a similar manner. After all the British tax payer has paid his money to get these regs. from Brussels and he does not wish to pay again inorder to employ unnecessary bureaucrats.

Give Communities the Power to Deal with their Own Food Waste

Allow communities to deal with their own food waste by removing the unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Animal By Products Regulations (ABPR) and increasing the limits of food waste which can be composted under a T23 anaerobic composting exemption.

Any community group which wishes to compost their own food waste must comply with the very strict time, temperature and particle size requirements set out in the Animal By Product Regulations. These regulations came into force in aftermath of Foot and Mouth and other crises to regulate collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use of animal by products in EU Member States but their application in the UK has been far too restrictive.

Under the ABPR all catering waste must be composted in line with the ABPR. Catering Waste is defined  as ‘all waste food including used cooking oil originating in restaurants, catering facilities and kitchens, including central kitchens and household kitchens’ this includes waste from vegetarian kitchens, and no distinction is made for purely vegetable waste (DEFRA website). In practice this means that even a tea bag which may have theoretically touched some milk cannot be composted by community groups unless they can meet the strict guidelines set out in the ABPR.  This means that community groups wishing to compost their carrot peelings must be able to afford expensive in-vessel composting systems and the associated testing and recording.

 Those community groups which do manage to meet the requirements of the ABPR are then only allowed 10 tonnes of food waste on site at anyone time under a free exemption. As the quantities most community groups are processing are less than is financially sustainable for PAS100 accreditation the whole of the material – finished compost of excellent quality included is classed legally as food waste and thus limited to 10 tonnes on site at anyone time. Thus the free exemption treats normal kitchen waste in the same way as animal tissue waste (including blood and carcasses!). 

If groups cannot meet  these limits they must apply for a Standard Permit or Bespoke Permit. These permits were developed with large scale commercial composters in mind and cost thousands of pounds. As most community groups operate on tiny budgets, relying on the good will of volunteers these costs simply cannot be meet. 

Why is this idea important?

Allow communities to deal with their own food waste by removing the unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Animal By Products Regulations (ABPR) and increasing the limits of food waste which can be composted under a T23 anaerobic composting exemption.

Any community group which wishes to compost their own food waste must comply with the very strict time, temperature and particle size requirements set out in the Animal By Product Regulations. These regulations came into force in aftermath of Foot and Mouth and other crises to regulate collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use of animal by products in EU Member States but their application in the UK has been far too restrictive.

Under the ABPR all catering waste must be composted in line with the ABPR. Catering Waste is defined  as ‘all waste food including used cooking oil originating in restaurants, catering facilities and kitchens, including central kitchens and household kitchens’ this includes waste from vegetarian kitchens, and no distinction is made for purely vegetable waste (DEFRA website). In practice this means that even a tea bag which may have theoretically touched some milk cannot be composted by community groups unless they can meet the strict guidelines set out in the ABPR.  This means that community groups wishing to compost their carrot peelings must be able to afford expensive in-vessel composting systems and the associated testing and recording.

 Those community groups which do manage to meet the requirements of the ABPR are then only allowed 10 tonnes of food waste on site at anyone time under a free exemption. As the quantities most community groups are processing are less than is financially sustainable for PAS100 accreditation the whole of the material – finished compost of excellent quality included is classed legally as food waste and thus limited to 10 tonnes on site at anyone time. Thus the free exemption treats normal kitchen waste in the same way as animal tissue waste (including blood and carcasses!). 

If groups cannot meet  these limits they must apply for a Standard Permit or Bespoke Permit. These permits were developed with large scale commercial composters in mind and cost thousands of pounds. As most community groups operate on tiny budgets, relying on the good will of volunteers these costs simply cannot be meet. 

abolish protectin birds of prey

the bird of prey act needs abbolishing there are too many of these killers taking all the song birds and they were only ment to have a 5 year protection in the 50`s that was never taken away .

Why is this idea important?

the bird of prey act needs abbolishing there are too many of these killers taking all the song birds and they were only ment to have a 5 year protection in the 50`s that was never taken away .

Part 5 “Protection of activities of certain organisations” of the SOCPA 2005 be repealed

I believe Part 5 "Protection of activities of certain organisations" of the  SOCPA 2005 be repealed, as this section expressly prohibits protecting animals that can not protect or speak for themselves. This would give unhindered freedom to people who abuse animals in the course of their business to do so with out any consideration as to the welfare of rights of the animal.

In 2005 the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was introduced by the labour Govt. This Law was trumpeted by politicians as an attempt to crackdown on crimes such as gangsterism, racketeering, people trafficking and sexual slavery, what it ended up as however was a crackdown on our right to organise and protest.

For a piece of legislation apparently designed to tackle some of the most heinous activities in our society it bizarrely contains a whole section specifically outlawing animal rights campaigning.

Sean Kirtley, an activist from Stop Sequani Labs in England became the first high profile victim of this Act receiving four and a half years (and a five year ASBO on release) for taking part in what even the police admitted was a peacefull protest against the Lab in 2007. You might remember we conducted a campaign along with other groups and individuals across the UK to have Sean released and last year after serving sixteen months the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction. A precedent was set however and they can legally now come for any of us.

Why is this idea important?

I believe Part 5 "Protection of activities of certain organisations" of the  SOCPA 2005 be repealed, as this section expressly prohibits protecting animals that can not protect or speak for themselves. This would give unhindered freedom to people who abuse animals in the course of their business to do so with out any consideration as to the welfare of rights of the animal.

In 2005 the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was introduced by the labour Govt. This Law was trumpeted by politicians as an attempt to crackdown on crimes such as gangsterism, racketeering, people trafficking and sexual slavery, what it ended up as however was a crackdown on our right to organise and protest.

For a piece of legislation apparently designed to tackle some of the most heinous activities in our society it bizarrely contains a whole section specifically outlawing animal rights campaigning.

Sean Kirtley, an activist from Stop Sequani Labs in England became the first high profile victim of this Act receiving four and a half years (and a five year ASBO on release) for taking part in what even the police admitted was a peacefull protest against the Lab in 2007. You might remember we conducted a campaign along with other groups and individuals across the UK to have Sean released and last year after serving sixteen months the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction. A precedent was set however and they can legally now come for any of us.

Scrap REACH regulations

The REACH regulations which are currently being implemented are placing a huge administrative and financial burden on numerous companies.

There will be little positive impact of these regulations once they are in full force and will overridingly be detrimental to the competitiveness of EU based companies in the EU and global markets. 

Why is this idea important?

The REACH regulations which are currently being implemented are placing a huge administrative and financial burden on numerous companies.

There will be little positive impact of these regulations once they are in full force and will overridingly be detrimental to the competitiveness of EU based companies in the EU and global markets. 

Allowing temporary signs for promoting farmers’ markets

Amending the planning legislation which currently prevents farmers' markets from displaying signs to promote their markets.  Better promotion leads to more popular and better attended markets which are both good for the farmers and producers who attend but also the local community where the market is based.

Why is this idea important?

Amending the planning legislation which currently prevents farmers' markets from displaying signs to promote their markets.  Better promotion leads to more popular and better attended markets which are both good for the farmers and producers who attend but also the local community where the market is based.

Repeal Private Water Supplies Regulations 2009

The Private Water Supplies Regulations 2009. Passed by the previous government, these regulations require councils to enforce compliance with new water quality requirements. Affected households could be charged up to £500 for carrying out a "risk assessment" and further sums for sampling, investigating, and "granting an authorisation".

The 1998 EU Drinking Water Directive is intended to ensure mains water supplies meet good standards but states: "Member states may exempt water from an individual supply serving fewer than 50 persons."

However, the last government decided not to take advantage of the exemption, imposing burdens on users of spring water not demanded in other European countries.

Throw them on a bonfire of unnecessary regulations.

Why is this idea important?

The Private Water Supplies Regulations 2009. Passed by the previous government, these regulations require councils to enforce compliance with new water quality requirements. Affected households could be charged up to £500 for carrying out a "risk assessment" and further sums for sampling, investigating, and "granting an authorisation".

The 1998 EU Drinking Water Directive is intended to ensure mains water supplies meet good standards but states: "Member states may exempt water from an individual supply serving fewer than 50 persons."

However, the last government decided not to take advantage of the exemption, imposing burdens on users of spring water not demanded in other European countries.

Throw them on a bonfire of unnecessary regulations.

Enforce recycling in businesses

Currently businesses don't have to recycle and waste goes on to landfill.  Businesses should accept their responsibility of recycling and not using our land for waste.

Why is this idea important?

Currently businesses don't have to recycle and waste goes on to landfill.  Businesses should accept their responsibility of recycling and not using our land for waste.

Remove badgers from the list of protected animals

Allow farmers to cull badgers on their own land. This would reduce the TB problem and still leave plenty of badgers untouched. Many people think that the present pressure of numbers facilitates the spread of TB and that if the population was controlled many farmers would be happy to see a few around the place. It is also unnecessary to worry about moving setts. Holes can be very dangerous or inconvenient and badgers are so strong and persistent diggers that filling awkward holes poses little inconvenience to them. Such a change would not affect tha law against cruelty especially badger baiting.

Why is this idea important?

Allow farmers to cull badgers on their own land. This would reduce the TB problem and still leave plenty of badgers untouched. Many people think that the present pressure of numbers facilitates the spread of TB and that if the population was controlled many farmers would be happy to see a few around the place. It is also unnecessary to worry about moving setts. Holes can be very dangerous or inconvenient and badgers are so strong and persistent diggers that filling awkward holes poses little inconvenience to them. Such a change would not affect tha law against cruelty especially badger baiting.

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!)

Scrap rubbish & recycling collections.

I'm not old. I'm too young to remember 'the good old days'. BUT I am old enough to remember when local authorities provided a decent refuse collection SERVICE.

In the 1960s, binmen went into people's back gardens, collected their dustbins, emptied them & put them back where they found them. By the Thatcher era, cutbacks meant they provide less of a service: they only collected bins & rubbish from FRONT gardens. By the time Gordon Brown was PM the bunch of shirkers & dossers known as binmen conveniently didn't even have to step over the threshhold  of our properties. Today if we want them to do what we pay them to do, when have to leave wheely bins & recycling boxes with their handles over the pavement. If we want these arrogant Prima-Donnas to empty them, we must make sure they don't contain 'the wrong kind of rubbish'. In some areas they only collect fortnightly.

If we comply with the rules that make their job easy, they 'graciously' take our rubbish & then totally ignore rules & laws that are too much like hard work to comply with, i.e. they leave the bins & boxes across pavements, parking bays etc..

Why don't we relieve these idle gits of their jobs & do what the French do (in rural as well as urban areas) & have COMMUNAL recycling bins?

Why is this idea important?

I'm not old. I'm too young to remember 'the good old days'. BUT I am old enough to remember when local authorities provided a decent refuse collection SERVICE.

In the 1960s, binmen went into people's back gardens, collected their dustbins, emptied them & put them back where they found them. By the Thatcher era, cutbacks meant they provide less of a service: they only collected bins & rubbish from FRONT gardens. By the time Gordon Brown was PM the bunch of shirkers & dossers known as binmen conveniently didn't even have to step over the threshhold  of our properties. Today if we want them to do what we pay them to do, when have to leave wheely bins & recycling boxes with their handles over the pavement. If we want these arrogant Prima-Donnas to empty them, we must make sure they don't contain 'the wrong kind of rubbish'. In some areas they only collect fortnightly.

If we comply with the rules that make their job easy, they 'graciously' take our rubbish & then totally ignore rules & laws that are too much like hard work to comply with, i.e. they leave the bins & boxes across pavements, parking bays etc..

Why don't we relieve these idle gits of their jobs & do what the French do (in rural as well as urban areas) & have COMMUNAL recycling bins?

Amend Envoirmental Protection Act 1990, Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003 & Noise Act 1996 – Landlord is responsible

Social responsibility goes hand in hand with Civil Liberties and in England & Wales today a landlord can fill a property with tenants without any consideration to the suitability of the tenant to the surrounding area and community.

It is reasonable to assume that our neighbours have the right to quiet enjoyment of their home and we are obliged to consider the impact of our actions on that right.

Under current legislation tenants who persist in anti-social behaviour including noise pollution can be reprimanded and removed from a property; there is currently no penalty to the landlord.  This results in landlord repeatedly allowing unsuitable tenants to live at a property equating to years of dominance and abuse to private individuals without recourse.

An amendment to the Acts to include a fine to the landlord as well as removal of the tenant will incentivise the Landlord to become a responsible lessor and ensures the civil liberty of quiet enjoyment in the home.

This is not anti-business but pro-community change requirement to the legislation.

Something similar is already in place in Scotland.

Why is this idea important?

Social responsibility goes hand in hand with Civil Liberties and in England & Wales today a landlord can fill a property with tenants without any consideration to the suitability of the tenant to the surrounding area and community.

It is reasonable to assume that our neighbours have the right to quiet enjoyment of their home and we are obliged to consider the impact of our actions on that right.

Under current legislation tenants who persist in anti-social behaviour including noise pollution can be reprimanded and removed from a property; there is currently no penalty to the landlord.  This results in landlord repeatedly allowing unsuitable tenants to live at a property equating to years of dominance and abuse to private individuals without recourse.

An amendment to the Acts to include a fine to the landlord as well as removal of the tenant will incentivise the Landlord to become a responsible lessor and ensures the civil liberty of quiet enjoyment in the home.

This is not anti-business but pro-community change requirement to the legislation.

Something similar is already in place in Scotland.

Reduce Rubbish Laws

I think the stupid law that says you need a licence to take non-hazardous household, domestic and commercial waste should be abolished.

The law that says farmers need an exemption certificate from the Environment Agency in order to spread farmyard manure on their fields or have it collected should be scrapped too.  

And its about time they brought in a Hazardous Waste Amnesty for farmers so that they could dispose of all their long-stored half empty containers of  toxic, flammable and hazardous pesticides, weedkillers,  rodenticides, paints and wood preservatives without risk of prosecution for not having made the time to dispose of it in 2007.

Why is this idea important?

I think the stupid law that says you need a licence to take non-hazardous household, domestic and commercial waste should be abolished.

The law that says farmers need an exemption certificate from the Environment Agency in order to spread farmyard manure on their fields or have it collected should be scrapped too.  

And its about time they brought in a Hazardous Waste Amnesty for farmers so that they could dispose of all their long-stored half empty containers of  toxic, flammable and hazardous pesticides, weedkillers,  rodenticides, paints and wood preservatives without risk of prosecution for not having made the time to dispose of it in 2007.

Scrap this directive/EU regulation now

EU logo causes consternation

The new EU organic logo been branded “a nonsense” and “irrelevant” by the UK organic sector as confusion over its implementation dogged its launch last week.

The Euro-leaf, created by a design student, has been met negatively by UK companies awash with cynicism and complaining of poor communication from the EU.

The logo was brought in last Thursday and companies have two years to ensure they use it on pack. It will sit alongside other certification marks and has sparked a long-running debate around the number of certifications producers and suppliers are forced to deal with.

One supplier told FPJ there had been “no communication” from either the EU or retailers, adding: “Packaging can hopefully last over two seasons so clarification is needed. It’s a big step if it replaces other logos, if not, it’s an annoyance.”

Adam Wakeley, joint managing director of Organic Farms Foods, branded it “a nonsense” and “yet another logo”, while the Soil Association lambasted the marque, claiming its own standards were higher than those required.

A spokesperson for the organic body said it was “just the EU trying to put their stamp on things” and it could “potentially add consumer confusion”.

The much maligned organic logo is obligatory for all organic pre-packaged food products within the EU. It is also possible to use the logo on a voluntary basis for non pre-packaged organic goods produced within the EU or any organic products imported from third countries.

The EU claims “the organic farming logo offers consumers confidence about the origins and qualities of their food and drink and its presence on any product ensures compliance with the EU Organic Farming Regulation”.

However the uniformity of EU organics could help protect against imports from outside the zone. An EU spokesperson said: “The goal is to enable consumers across Europe to ascertain that a product meets Europe-wide standards for organic products.”

The logo is being promoted at agricultural fairs across Europe.

Extracted from The Fresh Produce Journal website today 11 7 10

Why is this idea important?

EU logo causes consternation

The new EU organic logo been branded “a nonsense” and “irrelevant” by the UK organic sector as confusion over its implementation dogged its launch last week.

The Euro-leaf, created by a design student, has been met negatively by UK companies awash with cynicism and complaining of poor communication from the EU.

The logo was brought in last Thursday and companies have two years to ensure they use it on pack. It will sit alongside other certification marks and has sparked a long-running debate around the number of certifications producers and suppliers are forced to deal with.

One supplier told FPJ there had been “no communication” from either the EU or retailers, adding: “Packaging can hopefully last over two seasons so clarification is needed. It’s a big step if it replaces other logos, if not, it’s an annoyance.”

Adam Wakeley, joint managing director of Organic Farms Foods, branded it “a nonsense” and “yet another logo”, while the Soil Association lambasted the marque, claiming its own standards were higher than those required.

A spokesperson for the organic body said it was “just the EU trying to put their stamp on things” and it could “potentially add consumer confusion”.

The much maligned organic logo is obligatory for all organic pre-packaged food products within the EU. It is also possible to use the logo on a voluntary basis for non pre-packaged organic goods produced within the EU or any organic products imported from third countries.

The EU claims “the organic farming logo offers consumers confidence about the origins and qualities of their food and drink and its presence on any product ensures compliance with the EU Organic Farming Regulation”.

However the uniformity of EU organics could help protect against imports from outside the zone. An EU spokesperson said: “The goal is to enable consumers across Europe to ascertain that a product meets Europe-wide standards for organic products.”

The logo is being promoted at agricultural fairs across Europe.

Extracted from The Fresh Produce Journal website today 11 7 10