Compulsory Solicitors In Cells and stop DNA records

I believe that all arrested people should be given a solicitor on a compulsive basis and DNA records should not be taken unless the person is reasonably suspected of other crimes.

I believe this because I did not know my rights when arrested and cautioned for a crime I did not commit.

I stupidly accepted the caution because I suffer from claustrophobia and couldn't stand a minute more in the state of anxiety I was in. I was offered a solicitor but was told very abruptly that it would mean hours more in the cell. I couldn't bare this. I thought if I told them the truth it would be fine. No it wasn't. They got some kind of confession out of me although I never really admitted to anything. They said we are going to give you a caution, just like that. I didn't realise I had any options. I'd been in the cell all night. It was awful. I should have waited for a solicitor.

I have read many stories like mine and think a solicitor should be compulsory. There should be one in every police station. Why are they on call? Why so scarce? Why do people have to wait hours and hours? Not in a waiting room, in a cell. I also believe that it should be made apparent that you can refuse a caution and if you accept it you are admitting guilt. I have recently had some trouble at work , should anything further happen I think I would be too frightened to go to the police, because even though I am innocent, I now have a record that suggests otherwise. This should never be the case.

A solicitor would have seen how naieve I was and been able to advise me. Justice should be about getting the right person, not just any old confession. I believe the police knew that I was innocent but I stupidly accepted the caution. It may be some boring job to the officers involved but it can ruin peoples lives, and minds and futures.

Naturaly collecting DNA samples from people who have been arrested is preposterously against human rights

Why is this idea important?

I believe that all arrested people should be given a solicitor on a compulsive basis and DNA records should not be taken unless the person is reasonably suspected of other crimes.

I believe this because I did not know my rights when arrested and cautioned for a crime I did not commit.

I stupidly accepted the caution because I suffer from claustrophobia and couldn't stand a minute more in the state of anxiety I was in. I was offered a solicitor but was told very abruptly that it would mean hours more in the cell. I couldn't bare this. I thought if I told them the truth it would be fine. No it wasn't. They got some kind of confession out of me although I never really admitted to anything. They said we are going to give you a caution, just like that. I didn't realise I had any options. I'd been in the cell all night. It was awful. I should have waited for a solicitor.

I have read many stories like mine and think a solicitor should be compulsory. There should be one in every police station. Why are they on call? Why so scarce? Why do people have to wait hours and hours? Not in a waiting room, in a cell. I also believe that it should be made apparent that you can refuse a caution and if you accept it you are admitting guilt. I have recently had some trouble at work , should anything further happen I think I would be too frightened to go to the police, because even though I am innocent, I now have a record that suggests otherwise. This should never be the case.

A solicitor would have seen how naieve I was and been able to advise me. Justice should be about getting the right person, not just any old confession. I believe the police knew that I was innocent but I stupidly accepted the caution. It may be some boring job to the officers involved but it can ruin peoples lives, and minds and futures.

Naturaly collecting DNA samples from people who have been arrested is preposterously against human rights

Make abuse against disabled people illegal

Nowadays disabled people (both mentally and physically) have to endure some unforgivable comments from ignorant people regarding their disability. I have seen this time and time again and considering we're living in an apparantly tolerant society which punishes racial abuse, it is striking that such abuse against disabled people is seen as being fine by the law. The government should try and restore faith in the disabled community and make it clear to the ignorant portion of the public that such abuse will not be tolerated and will be acted upon just as seriously as racial abuse.

Why is this idea important?

Nowadays disabled people (both mentally and physically) have to endure some unforgivable comments from ignorant people regarding their disability. I have seen this time and time again and considering we're living in an apparantly tolerant society which punishes racial abuse, it is striking that such abuse against disabled people is seen as being fine by the law. The government should try and restore faith in the disabled community and make it clear to the ignorant portion of the public that such abuse will not be tolerated and will be acted upon just as seriously as racial abuse.

DLA IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT

As a  GENUINELY disabled person you can get it even if you work, and many GENUINELY DISABLED people who get it do work.

Far from being an out of work benefit DLA HELPS a disabled person to find and stay in work by paying for the costs of getting there (motability, if you get the higher rate mobility componant) and you can also use the care componant towards the cost of any adaptations that would make working easier.

 if you work and get DLA then have a medical which results in a bad decision and lose it, it could mean you cant work and thus end up back on out of work benefits costing the tax payer even more money. lose dla – cant get to work – cant get to work lose job – lose job back on benefits.

Far too many people, on here and on other websites, and certain frontbench members of the coalition government (which is very frightening when one is the head of the DWP, another is chancellor, anothe the minister for disabled people and then the 2 stooges heading the government) do not understand that DLA IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT.

so my suggestion is can we please have it clearly stated by members of government at all times when talking about benefits that disability living allowance is NOT an out of work benefit so that people finally start to get the message.

I am getting sooooo sick of uninformed people stating the same old 'being disabled doesnt mean you cant work, come off DLA and get a job' line, i know i can work, i want to, no one needs to tell me.

IT NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!!

So i'll finish by stating again in great big capital letters (i only wish we had 50 feet high neon fonts on here)

DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT

This is why so many disabled people are worried about these medicals, if we lose DLA,we lose everything, no money, no job, no chances of a decent life.

do we not deserve those things?

seems like a few people on here dont think so, some seem to see the disabled community as the dregs of society, second class citizens, and to quote a certain grumpy git, 'the surplus population'

And i thought we were living in a democracy.

Why is this idea important?

As a  GENUINELY disabled person you can get it even if you work, and many GENUINELY DISABLED people who get it do work.

Far from being an out of work benefit DLA HELPS a disabled person to find and stay in work by paying for the costs of getting there (motability, if you get the higher rate mobility componant) and you can also use the care componant towards the cost of any adaptations that would make working easier.

 if you work and get DLA then have a medical which results in a bad decision and lose it, it could mean you cant work and thus end up back on out of work benefits costing the tax payer even more money. lose dla – cant get to work – cant get to work lose job – lose job back on benefits.

Far too many people, on here and on other websites, and certain frontbench members of the coalition government (which is very frightening when one is the head of the DWP, another is chancellor, anothe the minister for disabled people and then the 2 stooges heading the government) do not understand that DLA IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT.

so my suggestion is can we please have it clearly stated by members of government at all times when talking about benefits that disability living allowance is NOT an out of work benefit so that people finally start to get the message.

I am getting sooooo sick of uninformed people stating the same old 'being disabled doesnt mean you cant work, come off DLA and get a job' line, i know i can work, i want to, no one needs to tell me.

IT NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!!

So i'll finish by stating again in great big capital letters (i only wish we had 50 feet high neon fonts on here)

DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT

This is why so many disabled people are worried about these medicals, if we lose DLA,we lose everything, no money, no job, no chances of a decent life.

do we not deserve those things?

seems like a few people on here dont think so, some seem to see the disabled community as the dregs of society, second class citizens, and to quote a certain grumpy git, 'the surplus population'

And i thought we were living in a democracy.

Requirements for acceptance in Disability Allowance

I am very upset regarding the new ideas you have on deciding, who should be eligible for this allowance!

Having been diagnosed with Hypothyroidism, some 8/9 years ago, I was told this illness is regarded as a Disability, which to be honest is an understatement, as anyone with the condition will verify!

Secondly, I was in need of surgery on the cervical spine, discs 6/7 were removed and 2 steel plates inserted, a major operation which has taken me 2 years to recuperate from, plus another on levels 3/4, in 2008!

Whilst I fully appreciate the fact that this disability may be in need of closer inspections, I have had my income reduced greatly, my health has suffered greatly, by the stress I have been put under, because of a vast drop in our income, and I want to know, how am I expected to survive, when i am too ill to work!

Who decides the criteria and I think it needs more experienced people with the actual disabilities to know the pitfalls we face, and what can and cannot be achieved, not just some person on a desk job, playing God!

Why is this idea important?

I am very upset regarding the new ideas you have on deciding, who should be eligible for this allowance!

Having been diagnosed with Hypothyroidism, some 8/9 years ago, I was told this illness is regarded as a Disability, which to be honest is an understatement, as anyone with the condition will verify!

Secondly, I was in need of surgery on the cervical spine, discs 6/7 were removed and 2 steel plates inserted, a major operation which has taken me 2 years to recuperate from, plus another on levels 3/4, in 2008!

Whilst I fully appreciate the fact that this disability may be in need of closer inspections, I have had my income reduced greatly, my health has suffered greatly, by the stress I have been put under, because of a vast drop in our income, and I want to know, how am I expected to survive, when i am too ill to work!

Who decides the criteria and I think it needs more experienced people with the actual disabilities to know the pitfalls we face, and what can and cannot be achieved, not just some person on a desk job, playing God!

Extend the use of common sense in law re: assisted suicide to include euthanasia

There exists an underworld of victims of crime and accidents that are being kept alive in the UK despite being 'clinically brain dead'/'in a vegatative state'. In SOME cases, not all, they are kept alive despite overwhelming evidence that relatives and medical professionals feel this is not the best choice for the patient, that the patient has no quality of life; and, in a lot of cases, is causing the patient pain that is immeasureable because of their condition. These are the kind of issues considered by authorities in Switzerland regarding euthanasia. The UK has started to use common sense in assisted suicide cases – this has not been extended to euthanasia. There are a range of individuals and groups in the UK who have tried to have a voice, are experts on the subject, and vie with the Media to get the facts printed. A debate in the public arena would help improve awareness about disabiity caused by brain damage as well as inform a move towards putting euthanasia back on the table for consideration by politiicians.

Why is this idea important?

There exists an underworld of victims of crime and accidents that are being kept alive in the UK despite being 'clinically brain dead'/'in a vegatative state'. In SOME cases, not all, they are kept alive despite overwhelming evidence that relatives and medical professionals feel this is not the best choice for the patient, that the patient has no quality of life; and, in a lot of cases, is causing the patient pain that is immeasureable because of their condition. These are the kind of issues considered by authorities in Switzerland regarding euthanasia. The UK has started to use common sense in assisted suicide cases – this has not been extended to euthanasia. There are a range of individuals and groups in the UK who have tried to have a voice, are experts on the subject, and vie with the Media to get the facts printed. A debate in the public arena would help improve awareness about disabiity caused by brain damage as well as inform a move towards putting euthanasia back on the table for consideration by politiicians.

Moving in with partner = benefit cut as I am assumed to be financially supported by them

 

Dear Nick Clegg,

This website is a fantastic idea! I would like to share with you a situation regarding Housing Benefit.

Due to a long-term serious health condition I claim incapacity benefit and housing benefit. When I moved in with my partner it was assumed by my council that my partner was financially supporting me. The result was Council Tax benefit was stopped and Housing Benefit reduced very significantly.

I have never been financially supported by my partner and we went to some lengths to explain and prove this with bank statements over the previous two years. We spent many months wrangling with the council, going back and forth which was less than pleasant. My partner works full time but earns less than 20k and we live in the south-east, where rent and cost of living is extremely high. Reducing Housing Benefit so drastically means I struggle to pay rent and have about 20 pounds a month left over to pay for anything else.

I went to speak to my then-MP Des Turner about this but he seemed less than interested, despite being on the select committee for disability.

I am a great deal poorer for pursuing my relationship. Since moving in with my partner the council have seen us as one entity and considers my partner's earnings fully available for my use. This is not the case – as a responsible adult I expect our incomes to remain separate, and I have no access to his income. He pays me no money and we have no joint accounts. The Housing Benefit Assessment officer stated to me 'for Housing Benefit purposes we have to treat you as a couple even though your finances are kept separate'. I am at a loss to understand what living together has to do with financial circumstances.

Equally disturbing is the Housing Benefit form itself – endlessly long and repetitive, and must be filled in repeatedly at two yearly intervals to check the claimant hasn't become a Hardened Criminal Benefit Fraud in the meantime. My non-disabled partner has consistently been pestered to fill out part of the form. In order to validate MY claim, he has to disclose his income and provide payslips, bank statements and proof of identity. He himself has no reason to claim benefit. We are treated as co-claimants, despite the fact that if the claim is successful, my partner receives no money from it. What happens if one's partner refuses to fill it in? The answer is that the benefit is stopped without explanation other than 'we assume you no longer wish to claim benefit'. If one's relationship is less than sterling, if there are domestic abuse issues or estrangement which lead partners to refuse to fill in the form, I have no idea what claimants are to do with such a system.

I feel the current system penalises people who are so unfortunate as to be forced to claim benefit – a demeaning and depressing situation – who then wish to enter into a relationship and shared life with someone. Surely meaningful adult relationships are to be encouraged rather than penalised. (I later married my partner, which should at least make David Cameron happy.)

I have some suggestions: instead of assuming all partners share income, assume they don't. Put a cap on receiving Housing Benefit based on entire household income if you must, for example 30k between two childless people (different if you have children and how many you have). Take note of where in the country people live, because cost of living does differ. Stop asking for proof every five minutes, because once you've proved your identity and your income, this should stand.

A few words on my experience of claiming benefits: I have seen a very bad attitude from many of those working with me to process my claims. It seems everyone involved (including my partner, my doctor and my parents who wrote in support of me) is treated with suspicion, with a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude repeatedly applied to me and my partner. I have had benefits stopped without explanation a number of times and questions asked about it only later. The benefit system seems to foster the idea that everyone on benefits is either currently a criminal, or a criminal waiting to happen. Please act to try to change public perception of the benefits system, instead of encouraging this attitude as Labour did. And please work with those professionally involved with benefit claimants including council workers to help them to understand their hardline attitudes are offensive and unhelpful.

Why is this idea important?

 

Dear Nick Clegg,

This website is a fantastic idea! I would like to share with you a situation regarding Housing Benefit.

Due to a long-term serious health condition I claim incapacity benefit and housing benefit. When I moved in with my partner it was assumed by my council that my partner was financially supporting me. The result was Council Tax benefit was stopped and Housing Benefit reduced very significantly.

I have never been financially supported by my partner and we went to some lengths to explain and prove this with bank statements over the previous two years. We spent many months wrangling with the council, going back and forth which was less than pleasant. My partner works full time but earns less than 20k and we live in the south-east, where rent and cost of living is extremely high. Reducing Housing Benefit so drastically means I struggle to pay rent and have about 20 pounds a month left over to pay for anything else.

I went to speak to my then-MP Des Turner about this but he seemed less than interested, despite being on the select committee for disability.

I am a great deal poorer for pursuing my relationship. Since moving in with my partner the council have seen us as one entity and considers my partner's earnings fully available for my use. This is not the case – as a responsible adult I expect our incomes to remain separate, and I have no access to his income. He pays me no money and we have no joint accounts. The Housing Benefit Assessment officer stated to me 'for Housing Benefit purposes we have to treat you as a couple even though your finances are kept separate'. I am at a loss to understand what living together has to do with financial circumstances.

Equally disturbing is the Housing Benefit form itself – endlessly long and repetitive, and must be filled in repeatedly at two yearly intervals to check the claimant hasn't become a Hardened Criminal Benefit Fraud in the meantime. My non-disabled partner has consistently been pestered to fill out part of the form. In order to validate MY claim, he has to disclose his income and provide payslips, bank statements and proof of identity. He himself has no reason to claim benefit. We are treated as co-claimants, despite the fact that if the claim is successful, my partner receives no money from it. What happens if one's partner refuses to fill it in? The answer is that the benefit is stopped without explanation other than 'we assume you no longer wish to claim benefit'. If one's relationship is less than sterling, if there are domestic abuse issues or estrangement which lead partners to refuse to fill in the form, I have no idea what claimants are to do with such a system.

I feel the current system penalises people who are so unfortunate as to be forced to claim benefit – a demeaning and depressing situation – who then wish to enter into a relationship and shared life with someone. Surely meaningful adult relationships are to be encouraged rather than penalised. (I later married my partner, which should at least make David Cameron happy.)

I have some suggestions: instead of assuming all partners share income, assume they don't. Put a cap on receiving Housing Benefit based on entire household income if you must, for example 30k between two childless people (different if you have children and how many you have). Take note of where in the country people live, because cost of living does differ. Stop asking for proof every five minutes, because once you've proved your identity and your income, this should stand.

A few words on my experience of claiming benefits: I have seen a very bad attitude from many of those working with me to process my claims. It seems everyone involved (including my partner, my doctor and my parents who wrote in support of me) is treated with suspicion, with a 'guilty until proven innocent' attitude repeatedly applied to me and my partner. I have had benefits stopped without explanation a number of times and questions asked about it only later. The benefit system seems to foster the idea that everyone on benefits is either currently a criminal, or a criminal waiting to happen. Please act to try to change public perception of the benefits system, instead of encouraging this attitude as Labour did. And please work with those professionally involved with benefit claimants including council workers to help them to understand their hardline attitudes are offensive and unhelpful.

Hate crime ..add disability

Presently if its deemed a crime was committed against someone mainly because of their race or sexuality the sentence can be more severe than if the crime was committed on other grounds . Disability tho isnt included on this list even tho attacks on disabled people because of their impairments arent infrequent.

The case of the mother who killed herself and her disabled child because of constant harassment by locals  was one which shocked and horrified many yet if those people are caught they can only be charged with public order offences not hate crimes.

Had this been a racially based or homophobic couple based harrassment they could have been charged with hate crime and been given a heavier penalty.

Why is this idea important?

Presently if its deemed a crime was committed against someone mainly because of their race or sexuality the sentence can be more severe than if the crime was committed on other grounds . Disability tho isnt included on this list even tho attacks on disabled people because of their impairments arent infrequent.

The case of the mother who killed herself and her disabled child because of constant harassment by locals  was one which shocked and horrified many yet if those people are caught they can only be charged with public order offences not hate crimes.

Had this been a racially based or homophobic couple based harrassment they could have been charged with hate crime and been given a heavier penalty.

Exportable Disability Benefits and ECJ ruling

In October of 2007, the European Court of Justice determined that aspects of Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carers allowance were sickness benefits rather than “special non-contributory benefits” and that, therefore, they were exportable and payable to United Kingdom claimants living in other EU states and Switzerland.

People who had little to live on are still waiting for first tier tribunal hearings which have not yet been held. Some people have sadly passed away and many people are still waiting for the UK's decision on payment. It is nearly three years since the ruling was made.
 

Why is this idea important?

In October of 2007, the European Court of Justice determined that aspects of Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carers allowance were sickness benefits rather than “special non-contributory benefits” and that, therefore, they were exportable and payable to United Kingdom claimants living in other EU states and Switzerland.

People who had little to live on are still waiting for first tier tribunal hearings which have not yet been held. Some people have sadly passed away and many people are still waiting for the UK's decision on payment. It is nearly three years since the ruling was made.
 

Stop forcing disabled children to attend mainstream schools

Scrap the assumption that disabled children should be taught in mainstream schools (Education Act 1981).

Give parents, and their child themselves, the choice to either send their child to mainstream school or specialist education. Scrap the need to attend a tribunal which is lengthy and expensive, and entirely unnecessary.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the assumption that disabled children should be taught in mainstream schools (Education Act 1981).

Give parents, and their child themselves, the choice to either send their child to mainstream school or specialist education. Scrap the need to attend a tribunal which is lengthy and expensive, and entirely unnecessary.

Disability Living Allowance – a very real scenario

I get DLA, as i am GENUINELY DISABLED, spina bifida, wheelchair user. I get higher rate mobility componant and the middle rate care componant of DLA.

I am currently unemployed but want to work, But, if i get a job or have to have the DLA medical (which by the way i agree with IF IT IS FAIR) then the following scenario occurring is a very real possibility

If i get a job, the only way i can INDEPENDENTLY (very important) get there is by the use of a motability car, dont give me all that public transport rubbish, it is barely accessible for a wheelchairer, my own car is the only real way. and that car is only available to higher rate mobility claiments like me,lower rate doesnt qualify you.

but, if i get a job and then i have the medical, or a review of my DLA because i got a job and i lose DLA (a very possible outcome with these medicals) or it is lowered to, as i say, lower rate mobility, i would then have to give up the motability car, which means i couldnt get to work, which means i lose my job, which means im back on benefits, paid for by the tax payer and pushing up the national debt again..

and please dont say 'buy a car like the rest of us then' i could never afford to, with the higher cost of living i already have as a disabled person,(wheelchairs and other disability/mobility equipment) a motability car really helps. thats another reason genuine claiments must not lose their DLA, the care componant helps with the cost of equipment and care needs.

I genuinely really want to work, got things i want to do, and a bad decision WILL cause the kind of situation ive used as an example to happen, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.

I understand the need for medicals, we do need to weed out the scroungers with the aching backs and sore toes and lazyitis, but if these medicals are done wrong the situation ive outlined above could happen to many thousands of genuine claiments.

You have to make sure it doesnt happen. 

Why is this idea important?

I get DLA, as i am GENUINELY DISABLED, spina bifida, wheelchair user. I get higher rate mobility componant and the middle rate care componant of DLA.

I am currently unemployed but want to work, But, if i get a job or have to have the DLA medical (which by the way i agree with IF IT IS FAIR) then the following scenario occurring is a very real possibility

If i get a job, the only way i can INDEPENDENTLY (very important) get there is by the use of a motability car, dont give me all that public transport rubbish, it is barely accessible for a wheelchairer, my own car is the only real way. and that car is only available to higher rate mobility claiments like me,lower rate doesnt qualify you.

but, if i get a job and then i have the medical, or a review of my DLA because i got a job and i lose DLA (a very possible outcome with these medicals) or it is lowered to, as i say, lower rate mobility, i would then have to give up the motability car, which means i couldnt get to work, which means i lose my job, which means im back on benefits, paid for by the tax payer and pushing up the national debt again..

and please dont say 'buy a car like the rest of us then' i could never afford to, with the higher cost of living i already have as a disabled person,(wheelchairs and other disability/mobility equipment) a motability car really helps. thats another reason genuine claiments must not lose their DLA, the care componant helps with the cost of equipment and care needs.

I genuinely really want to work, got things i want to do, and a bad decision WILL cause the kind of situation ive used as an example to happen, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.

I understand the need for medicals, we do need to weed out the scroungers with the aching backs and sore toes and lazyitis, but if these medicals are done wrong the situation ive outlined above could happen to many thousands of genuine claiments.

You have to make sure it doesnt happen. 

Implement and enforce DDA

Never mind repealing laws, enforce properly the ones we have. My son who has cerebral palsy and is a permanent wheelchair user is still unable to travel on the tube, or gain access to public buildings, particularly in London. He is now 19 and we have been promised for years an end to discrimination and access for all. Businesses pay lip service to DDA ,more people seem to support animal rights than disabled peoples rights in this country !

Why is this idea important?

Never mind repealing laws, enforce properly the ones we have. My son who has cerebral palsy and is a permanent wheelchair user is still unable to travel on the tube, or gain access to public buildings, particularly in London. He is now 19 and we have been promised for years an end to discrimination and access for all. Businesses pay lip service to DDA ,more people seem to support animal rights than disabled peoples rights in this country !

Extend Invalid Care Allowance to Pensioners

Currently, when a carer is in receipt of the State Pension, they lose their exising Invalid Care Allowance. This anomaly is most unfair and has existed for many years. Making ICA available to over 60s or 65s would help in the ongoing battle over disability.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, when a carer is in receipt of the State Pension, they lose their exising Invalid Care Allowance. This anomaly is most unfair and has existed for many years. Making ICA available to over 60s or 65s would help in the ongoing battle over disability.

Disability access overkill

I work at a youth centre in Maidstone, there is a ramp for access, but it is a few years old and regs have changed. So when KCC are adding in a new sure start group they are putting a new wider ramp in. There are times I wait for someone to come down stairs/a corridor, and I am sure that when there are two wheel chair's/push chairs they can wait a moment for the other to pass.

There should be a minimum standard for existing access and a separate standard for new facilities. We all have to share the pain and KCC are being irresponsible with our money. It reminds me of the trains where the visual display was a cm too short for some regs so they spent huge amounts refitting a fleet of trains.

Why is this idea important?

I work at a youth centre in Maidstone, there is a ramp for access, but it is a few years old and regs have changed. So when KCC are adding in a new sure start group they are putting a new wider ramp in. There are times I wait for someone to come down stairs/a corridor, and I am sure that when there are two wheel chair's/push chairs they can wait a moment for the other to pass.

There should be a minimum standard for existing access and a separate standard for new facilities. We all have to share the pain and KCC are being irresponsible with our money. It reminds me of the trains where the visual display was a cm too short for some regs so they spent huge amounts refitting a fleet of trains.

Freedom for temporary trading, pop-up businesses and one-off events for profit.

It should be easier and simpler to allow people to trade on  a temporary basis, Please free them from the laborious paperwork and rregistration equirements which inhibit initiative.

This would enable people to  viably test their business ideas out and learn before taking the leap into self-employment

Encourage financial self-sufficiency and innovation.

Give an opportunity for those who are disabled or too ill to work full time to help themselves when they can.

Encourage the use of temporary shop premises between long-lets, preventing them from beign squatted or beign an empty eyesore on the High Street.

Why is this idea important?

It should be easier and simpler to allow people to trade on  a temporary basis, Please free them from the laborious paperwork and rregistration equirements which inhibit initiative.

This would enable people to  viably test their business ideas out and learn before taking the leap into self-employment

Encourage financial self-sufficiency and innovation.

Give an opportunity for those who are disabled or too ill to work full time to help themselves when they can.

Encourage the use of temporary shop premises between long-lets, preventing them from beign squatted or beign an empty eyesore on the High Street.

Get rid of county control of help for disabled children

At the moment, County Councils are responsible for the education of disabled children.  This created tremendous distortion in the nature and availability of the care provided.   For example, there are no "PD" schools (i.e. schools specialising in the care and education of the physically disabled) in Surrey.  Surrey only provides education for the disabled in "SLD" schools (i.e. schools for those with special learning difficulties).  PD schools are far more able to help physically disabled pupils than SLD schools, as the latter are providing education to a far broader spectrum of special needs.  Typically, the overwhelming majority of pupils are able-bodied within the autistic spectrum, or with Downs Syndrome, rather than confined to wheelchairs.

This county border-defined demarcation means that children who live near PD schools cannot access them if they a separated by a county border.  This is riduculous and unnecessary, particularly if they live in a county which does not provide PD schools.  If the provision of specialist PD education was controlled centrally, so that county budgets were not the main drivers for the placement PD children (PD schools are much more expensive than SLD schools) the whole system would be much fairer. 

Those professionals who insist that SLD schools can provide the same quality of care as PD schools are simply not telling the truth.  The main driver for them is cost and if they educate PD pupils at SLD schools they will do it.  After all, they only have to fund them until the pupils reach 18, after which they become someone else's problem.  The fact that the lack of specialist PD care may have caused more expensive health-related issues in the interim does not matter to them.  That is a cost the NHS will have to pick up.  Not only is this wholly unjustifiable on the grounds of what is best for the pupil, it is a grotesque waste of money as corrective NHS care is hugely more expensive than in situ preventative care.  A false economy if ever there was one.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, County Councils are responsible for the education of disabled children.  This created tremendous distortion in the nature and availability of the care provided.   For example, there are no "PD" schools (i.e. schools specialising in the care and education of the physically disabled) in Surrey.  Surrey only provides education for the disabled in "SLD" schools (i.e. schools for those with special learning difficulties).  PD schools are far more able to help physically disabled pupils than SLD schools, as the latter are providing education to a far broader spectrum of special needs.  Typically, the overwhelming majority of pupils are able-bodied within the autistic spectrum, or with Downs Syndrome, rather than confined to wheelchairs.

This county border-defined demarcation means that children who live near PD schools cannot access them if they a separated by a county border.  This is riduculous and unnecessary, particularly if they live in a county which does not provide PD schools.  If the provision of specialist PD education was controlled centrally, so that county budgets were not the main drivers for the placement PD children (PD schools are much more expensive than SLD schools) the whole system would be much fairer. 

Those professionals who insist that SLD schools can provide the same quality of care as PD schools are simply not telling the truth.  The main driver for them is cost and if they educate PD pupils at SLD schools they will do it.  After all, they only have to fund them until the pupils reach 18, after which they become someone else's problem.  The fact that the lack of specialist PD care may have caused more expensive health-related issues in the interim does not matter to them.  That is a cost the NHS will have to pick up.  Not only is this wholly unjustifiable on the grounds of what is best for the pupil, it is a grotesque waste of money as corrective NHS care is hugely more expensive than in situ preventative care.  A false economy if ever there was one.

Reduced Applications for Disability Assistance

Our son has many complex, congenital deformities.   As a result, he is under 7 different teams at Great Ormond Street Hospital.   He is, thankfully, stable and at home with his family which is such a blessing.  However, we currently have to apply throughout the year for various assistance for his poor health.  For example, the Disability Living Allowance, the Carers Allowance, a blue badge for the car, exemption from congestion charging, a Statement of Education for School etc.   My time is totally taken up with his daily care needs and stock taking of his medical equipment and prescriptions not to mention making sure his two sisters are fulfilled and yet I am always filling in some form or application.

A disabled person should be met with by a medical professional, assessed and information then held centrally that generates their inclusion in these schemes automatically rather than making already stretched families jump through numerous hoops every time something is needed.

Why is this idea important?

Our son has many complex, congenital deformities.   As a result, he is under 7 different teams at Great Ormond Street Hospital.   He is, thankfully, stable and at home with his family which is such a blessing.  However, we currently have to apply throughout the year for various assistance for his poor health.  For example, the Disability Living Allowance, the Carers Allowance, a blue badge for the car, exemption from congestion charging, a Statement of Education for School etc.   My time is totally taken up with his daily care needs and stock taking of his medical equipment and prescriptions not to mention making sure his two sisters are fulfilled and yet I am always filling in some form or application.

A disabled person should be met with by a medical professional, assessed and information then held centrally that generates their inclusion in these schemes automatically rather than making already stretched families jump through numerous hoops every time something is needed.

Self-Taxing Of Cannabis, An Idea For Legitimacy

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Why is this idea important?

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

DISABILITY BENEFITS: DLA

The new coalition government is wanting to change the policies on welfare benefits, from this year onwards….The conservatives are targeting the vulnerable, including the sick and disabled, to reduce the deficit that sadly the country has gotten into…..I do appreciate that those who are not in geniune need for DLA must be look at – DLA should only be given to those in geniune need….because we know that a good percentage of disabled people either do not work or they only work in part-time jobs…So any money that disabled people can get, the better……

 

I propose the following:

 

  • To have a faired system for those claiming DLA – People with long-term disabilities and chronic illnesses must be understood more properly from medical assessors from the DWP when claiming DLA. The medical asssessor or jobcentre plus staff must train in more detail about health conditions, especially with hidden disabilities such as autism, mental health conditions, fibromyalgia, etc…
  • Allow the mobility car scheme to be more accessible – allow people on low or high rate to use mobility scheme, as there are people on both components that need a car because they cannot go on a bus and taxi's are too expensive – At the moment, the low mobility component only pays claimants £18 per week roughly – this is not enough, because taxi's can cost £18 for one day, so if you need regular transport, then £18 per week is not enough sadly – so lets bring in the mobility scheme, then disabled people like me can live more independant.
  • DLA must go up with VAT/inflation rise – claimants rely on DLA to help them with medical expenses, including: specialist food, clothing, care support, travel expenses and so forth….Obviously things will become more expense so those on benefits will have to spend less, and this will lead to their health being put at risk.
  • DWP must ensure that every claimant is assessed fairly but properly – DLA should not be given to those with preventable health conditions, such as being overweight, addicts, those with just minor conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc….At the end of the day, DLA should be given to those with long-term disabilities or short-term illnesses that are moderate to severe only…..
  • Disabled people with long-term disabilities, such as autism, fibromyalgia, etc…..should not have to keep re-applying every few years unless their condition changes and the claimant needs to inform them.
  • If a disabled person wants to work, allow that person to still have DLA and the same rates they was given – alot of disabled people will probadly still need the same level of support, whether in or out of work.
  • Stop people victimizing those who are on DLA/Incapacity benefits – not everybody on benefits are lazy and scroungers – people do not chose to be disabled….

 

http://www.motability.co.uk/main.cfm

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10011731

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F3611783?thread=4195918

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/

Why is this idea important?

The new coalition government is wanting to change the policies on welfare benefits, from this year onwards….The conservatives are targeting the vulnerable, including the sick and disabled, to reduce the deficit that sadly the country has gotten into…..I do appreciate that those who are not in geniune need for DLA must be look at – DLA should only be given to those in geniune need….because we know that a good percentage of disabled people either do not work or they only work in part-time jobs…So any money that disabled people can get, the better……

 

I propose the following:

 

  • To have a faired system for those claiming DLA – People with long-term disabilities and chronic illnesses must be understood more properly from medical assessors from the DWP when claiming DLA. The medical asssessor or jobcentre plus staff must train in more detail about health conditions, especially with hidden disabilities such as autism, mental health conditions, fibromyalgia, etc…
  • Allow the mobility car scheme to be more accessible – allow people on low or high rate to use mobility scheme, as there are people on both components that need a car because they cannot go on a bus and taxi's are too expensive – At the moment, the low mobility component only pays claimants £18 per week roughly – this is not enough, because taxi's can cost £18 for one day, so if you need regular transport, then £18 per week is not enough sadly – so lets bring in the mobility scheme, then disabled people like me can live more independant.
  • DLA must go up with VAT/inflation rise – claimants rely on DLA to help them with medical expenses, including: specialist food, clothing, care support, travel expenses and so forth….Obviously things will become more expense so those on benefits will have to spend less, and this will lead to their health being put at risk.
  • DWP must ensure that every claimant is assessed fairly but properly – DLA should not be given to those with preventable health conditions, such as being overweight, addicts, those with just minor conditions such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc….At the end of the day, DLA should be given to those with long-term disabilities or short-term illnesses that are moderate to severe only…..
  • Disabled people with long-term disabilities, such as autism, fibromyalgia, etc…..should not have to keep re-applying every few years unless their condition changes and the claimant needs to inform them.
  • If a disabled person wants to work, allow that person to still have DLA and the same rates they was given – alot of disabled people will probadly still need the same level of support, whether in or out of work.
  • Stop people victimizing those who are on DLA/Incapacity benefits – not everybody on benefits are lazy and scroungers – people do not chose to be disabled….

 

http://www.motability.co.uk/main.cfm

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10011731

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F3611783?thread=4195918

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/

Replace the current minister for disabled people

With someone who is actually disabled and can understand the barriers and prejudice and ignorance and worries we face every day of our lives. Even if we are doing well we still have those things as disabled people and someone who isnt disabled just cant understand it.

not sure i put this in the right place, this website seems to have some flaws

Why is this idea important?

With someone who is actually disabled and can understand the barriers and prejudice and ignorance and worries we face every day of our lives. Even if we are doing well we still have those things as disabled people and someone who isnt disabled just cant understand it.

not sure i put this in the right place, this website seems to have some flaws

Stop pedestrianisation mania

The proliferation of ridiculous 'town planning' ventures, which see huge amounts of expensive paving, yellow lines & wavy lines, plant pots, & dubiously appealing plastic architectural 'improvements' crowding our pavements & roads is stopping people:

A. Reaching shops by the simple act of crossing from 1 side of the road to the other

B. Parking anywhere near said shops & being forced to buy online or go to sterile out of town malls

Consequently small shops unique in character are going to the wall in droves as nobody can access their shops!!

Why is this idea important?

The proliferation of ridiculous 'town planning' ventures, which see huge amounts of expensive paving, yellow lines & wavy lines, plant pots, & dubiously appealing plastic architectural 'improvements' crowding our pavements & roads is stopping people:

A. Reaching shops by the simple act of crossing from 1 side of the road to the other

B. Parking anywhere near said shops & being forced to buy online or go to sterile out of town malls

Consequently small shops unique in character are going to the wall in droves as nobody can access their shops!!

Disabled parking badges for MOBILITY disabled people only

We've all seen it… Lady pulls up in range rover, parks in disabled space and hops out. Up goes the blue badge. Walks round shops for 3 hours, comes back with two arms full of shopping hops in and drives off. But wait, of course she can park there, she has a disability! She has mild Epilepsy, so erm she has to park 10metres from the shop doors. Maybe she has only one arm, yep, needs to park right outside. One eye, asthma, diabeties, deafness, loss of speech, yep, all these will let you park right outside.

 

Which is probably why i have to friggin wrestle my wheelchair out with about a foot of room, when all these poor disabled people have my spaces!

 

Why is this idea important?

We've all seen it… Lady pulls up in range rover, parks in disabled space and hops out. Up goes the blue badge. Walks round shops for 3 hours, comes back with two arms full of shopping hops in and drives off. But wait, of course she can park there, she has a disability! She has mild Epilepsy, so erm she has to park 10metres from the shop doors. Maybe she has only one arm, yep, needs to park right outside. One eye, asthma, diabeties, deafness, loss of speech, yep, all these will let you park right outside.

 

Which is probably why i have to friggin wrestle my wheelchair out with about a foot of room, when all these poor disabled people have my spaces!

 

Stop DWP medical assessments. Trust our doctors to know best!

I have had my medical conditions for over ten years but when I claimed Employment support allowance (ESA) I had to undergo a medical with ATOS, a private company. I already receive Disability living allowance and have done for several years.

Paying a private comapny to assess claimants medical conditions is a waste of money and unnecessary. A claimant's doctor, psychiatrist or consultant is considered competent emough to prescribe dangerous medications, so why are they not trusted to tick a few boxes for the DWP?

The amount of money wasted is not the only issue. The number of appeals for disability related benefits has risen sharply. Many of the appeals consist of the assessing doctors either making mistakes or not recording the claimant's medical details correctly. Removing this private company from undertaking these assessments would alleviate a lot of stress for disabled people and especially for people with mental health problems.

Many disabilities can be hidden and only a doctor who knows you can assess you fairly. The DWP's actions make it feel as if they consider every person who applies a liar. If their own doctors support the claim then surely that should be enough?

The medical assessment should also be valid for all health and disability related benfits. At present a person would need to be assessed separately for each benefit which doubles the cost.

Why is this idea important?

I have had my medical conditions for over ten years but when I claimed Employment support allowance (ESA) I had to undergo a medical with ATOS, a private company. I already receive Disability living allowance and have done for several years.

Paying a private comapny to assess claimants medical conditions is a waste of money and unnecessary. A claimant's doctor, psychiatrist or consultant is considered competent emough to prescribe dangerous medications, so why are they not trusted to tick a few boxes for the DWP?

The amount of money wasted is not the only issue. The number of appeals for disability related benefits has risen sharply. Many of the appeals consist of the assessing doctors either making mistakes or not recording the claimant's medical details correctly. Removing this private company from undertaking these assessments would alleviate a lot of stress for disabled people and especially for people with mental health problems.

Many disabilities can be hidden and only a doctor who knows you can assess you fairly. The DWP's actions make it feel as if they consider every person who applies a liar. If their own doctors support the claim then surely that should be enough?

The medical assessment should also be valid for all health and disability related benfits. At present a person would need to be assessed separately for each benefit which doubles the cost.