smoking ban

to bring in seperate areas within air conditioned pubs to allow smokers back into pub society. the smoking ban affects a large minority of customers who also tend to be pub characters at the heart of pub society. or allow more substantinal provision for shelter and protection from the elements for outside smoking. stop making life hard for a large minority of pub goers. 

Why is this idea important?

to bring in seperate areas within air conditioned pubs to allow smokers back into pub society. the smoking ban affects a large minority of customers who also tend to be pub characters at the heart of pub society. or allow more substantinal provision for shelter and protection from the elements for outside smoking. stop making life hard for a large minority of pub goers. 

Lobby Groups With Power Are Killing Democracy

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Why is this idea important?

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Repeal all funding to ‘charities’ who lobby (ASH in particular)

Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site – as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.

 

To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.

 

I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.

Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.

 

Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic – they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).

 

To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

 

The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

 

Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry – thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws

 

I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.

Why is this idea important?

Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site – as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.

 

To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.

 

I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.

Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.

 

Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic – they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).

 

To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

 

The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

 

Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry – thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws

 

I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.

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

Politicians – hands off Judicial Inquiries: Repeal The Inquiries Act 2005

This Act applies to judicial inquiries such as the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday.

It allows ministers to ban publication of evidence and restrict media attendance at an inquiry to save money. If all else fails, the minister may bring the inquiry to a premature end. 

Government can require sections from the report of findings of an inquiry to be removed or redrafted or to be altered, if the government believe that it is necessary and expedient to do so under under the wide discretionary powers under section 25 of the Act.

Under this law, independent judicial inquires no longer exist in UK.

Why is this idea important?

This Act applies to judicial inquiries such as the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday.

It allows ministers to ban publication of evidence and restrict media attendance at an inquiry to save money. If all else fails, the minister may bring the inquiry to a premature end. 

Government can require sections from the report of findings of an inquiry to be removed or redrafted or to be altered, if the government believe that it is necessary and expedient to do so under under the wide discretionary powers under section 25 of the Act.

Under this law, independent judicial inquires no longer exist in UK.