A loophole in discrimination legislation

delete the word "personally" from the Equality Act 2010 s83 (2) (a). Currently it reads,

"Employment means

(a)
employment under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship or a contract personally to do work;

Why is this idea important?

delete the word "personally" from the Equality Act 2010 s83 (2) (a). Currently it reads,

"Employment means

(a)
employment under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship or a contract personally to do work;

Housing Crisis in the rental section

Having recently received a state pension and living in social housing I find that there are only two options open to me. Renting privately is out of the question because of all the outlay, the 6 weeks deposit the months rent in advance, the agency fees, requisite before even moving in. In social housing  now there are so many bad neighbours, with addictions, criminal histories or generally just noisy at night and inconsiderate that the only other option is to move into sheltered housing. Why is there no other option for those who cannot afford to buy, please? Sheltered housing is more expensive due to the costs of supporting manager, etc, but if a person is fit, healthy and very independent, likes privacy and doesnt want a red pull cord in possibly every room or someone knocking on their door every day to check whether they are all right and still alive the truth is that there is simply NO ALTERNATIVE but to rent social housing with often unscrupulous housing organisations who have no respect for the law in what they do or say and bad neighbours who can make life a hell on Earth. There is a housing crisis in England which needs to be addressed by this government! Now, it may not be a popular subject due to the fact it is about the needs of the poorer members of society but poor people are not automatically bad people.

Why is this idea important?

Having recently received a state pension and living in social housing I find that there are only two options open to me. Renting privately is out of the question because of all the outlay, the 6 weeks deposit the months rent in advance, the agency fees, requisite before even moving in. In social housing  now there are so many bad neighbours, with addictions, criminal histories or generally just noisy at night and inconsiderate that the only other option is to move into sheltered housing. Why is there no other option for those who cannot afford to buy, please? Sheltered housing is more expensive due to the costs of supporting manager, etc, but if a person is fit, healthy and very independent, likes privacy and doesnt want a red pull cord in possibly every room or someone knocking on their door every day to check whether they are all right and still alive the truth is that there is simply NO ALTERNATIVE but to rent social housing with often unscrupulous housing organisations who have no respect for the law in what they do or say and bad neighbours who can make life a hell on Earth. There is a housing crisis in England which needs to be addressed by this government! Now, it may not be a popular subject due to the fact it is about the needs of the poorer members of society but poor people are not automatically bad people.

Human Rights act

Offenders should automatically loose the right to be protected under this act, rather than the current senario were the police and practically every other body  involved are so afraid of being politically correct, and afraid of offending the criminal, that the victem is forgotten.

Why is this idea important?

Offenders should automatically loose the right to be protected under this act, rather than the current senario were the police and practically every other body  involved are so afraid of being politically correct, and afraid of offending the criminal, that the victem is forgotten.

Abolish the “Soft Information” in extended CRBs

The soft information included in CRB checks is provided by the Police to employers (or potential employers) when the police had suspected a crime had been committed or had received intelligence on a person but the person had not been convicted.

It is fundamentally wrong to disclose this information. The Police are promoting hearsay and gossip to the point where a false allegation could have far reaching consequences to an innocent persons life.

If the Police suspect someone is guilty of a crime, put them before a jury of his peers and let them decide guilt when he or she can have the right to defend themselves.

If they cant do that, then it has zero relevance to future employers.

Why is this idea important?

The soft information included in CRB checks is provided by the Police to employers (or potential employers) when the police had suspected a crime had been committed or had received intelligence on a person but the person had not been convicted.

It is fundamentally wrong to disclose this information. The Police are promoting hearsay and gossip to the point where a false allegation could have far reaching consequences to an innocent persons life.

If the Police suspect someone is guilty of a crime, put them before a jury of his peers and let them decide guilt when he or she can have the right to defend themselves.

If they cant do that, then it has zero relevance to future employers.

End discrimination of Swiss students

If you are a (close family member of a) EU national, you pay the reduced 'home' fee at Universities in England. There are residency requirements that you have not lived outside the European Economic Area or Switzerland in the three years before your course starts but there are no residency requirements for the UK.

If you are the child of a Swiss national, you also pay the reduced 'home' fee but you have to fulfil the above prior residency requirement AS WELL AS being resident in the United Kingdom on the first academic day of the first academic year of your course. For all courses beginning between August and December, this is universally defined as September 1.

The situation is thus that if an EU national and a child of a Swiss national both start a course in mid-October, the child of a Swiss national has to take up residence in the UK already on or before September 1, wheras the EU national can just arrive on the day his course actually starts.

The exactly same provision applies in terms of eligibility for student loans.

Such discrimination is unnecessary and unfair – EU and Swiss students should be treated similarly, otherwise the spirit of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons between the EU and Switzerland is violated.

Source: http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/student/info_sheets/tuition_fees_ewni.php  and http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20091555_en_18 (clauses 9 versus 11)

Why is this idea important?

If you are a (close family member of a) EU national, you pay the reduced 'home' fee at Universities in England. There are residency requirements that you have not lived outside the European Economic Area or Switzerland in the three years before your course starts but there are no residency requirements for the UK.

If you are the child of a Swiss national, you also pay the reduced 'home' fee but you have to fulfil the above prior residency requirement AS WELL AS being resident in the United Kingdom on the first academic day of the first academic year of your course. For all courses beginning between August and December, this is universally defined as September 1.

The situation is thus that if an EU national and a child of a Swiss national both start a course in mid-October, the child of a Swiss national has to take up residence in the UK already on or before September 1, wheras the EU national can just arrive on the day his course actually starts.

The exactly same provision applies in terms of eligibility for student loans.

Such discrimination is unnecessary and unfair – EU and Swiss students should be treated similarly, otherwise the spirit of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons between the EU and Switzerland is violated.

Source: http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/student/info_sheets/tuition_fees_ewni.php  and http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/uksi_20091555_en_18 (clauses 9 versus 11)

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.

Unfreeze expatriate`s Pensions

I was born in London and enlisted in the City of London Yeomanry in 1938, was mobilised in August 1939 and demobilised April 1946 with the rank opf Major. We came to Canada because I could not get ahead working for Prudential Assce Co, we were waiting for the people with positions to retire. I began  receiving a percentage of the old age pension in 1984 and instead of going up, it has gone down because of the rate of exchange. We came to Canada because it was a part of the Commomwealth only to find that had we moved to the United States our Pensions would not have been frozen.It would appear that our desire to remain a subject of the British Crown not only carries a price but is also a clear case of discrimination. I am now 91 years of age so if it is to be rectified please do so swiftly.  Peter Hobbs

Why is this idea important?

I was born in London and enlisted in the City of London Yeomanry in 1938, was mobilised in August 1939 and demobilised April 1946 with the rank opf Major. We came to Canada because I could not get ahead working for Prudential Assce Co, we were waiting for the people with positions to retire. I began  receiving a percentage of the old age pension in 1984 and instead of going up, it has gone down because of the rate of exchange. We came to Canada because it was a part of the Commomwealth only to find that had we moved to the United States our Pensions would not have been frozen.It would appear that our desire to remain a subject of the British Crown not only carries a price but is also a clear case of discrimination. I am now 91 years of age so if it is to be rectified please do so swiftly.  Peter Hobbs

Bar signatories to the Scottish Claim of Right (1988) from holding office in British government.

 
 
Signatories to the Scottish Claim of Right affirm that the interests of Scotland are paramount over those of all other countries, including those of other parts countries in the United Kingdom.
 
The claim states:
 
"We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount."
 

Why is this idea important?

 
 
Signatories to the Scottish Claim of Right affirm that the interests of Scotland are paramount over those of all other countries, including those of other parts countries in the United Kingdom.
 
The claim states:
 
"We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount."
 

Repeal or amend the smoking ban

This must be the most socially divisive legislation ever enacted by a British Government. I find it ironic that the first government to enact such legislation in my lifetime was Nazi Germany, and the present German courts have declared a ban in small bars unconstitutional. Pubs in this country are closing at the rate of 40 a week, something must be done to rectify this appalling situation. 

Why is this idea important?

This must be the most socially divisive legislation ever enacted by a British Government. I find it ironic that the first government to enact such legislation in my lifetime was Nazi Germany, and the present German courts have declared a ban in small bars unconstitutional. Pubs in this country are closing at the rate of 40 a week, something must be done to rectify this appalling situation. 

Free Speech Against Feminism

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

Why is this idea important?

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

One law for all, stop making exceptions.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/145877/Free-saunas-and-gym-for-asylum-cases/

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/188824/Asylum-seekers-given-free-gym-and-swimming

Yet another example of asylum seekers getting special treatment. If the government is constantly going to brag about equality and being fair then please practice what you preach.

Why is this idea important?

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/145877/Free-saunas-and-gym-for-asylum-cases/

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/188824/Asylum-seekers-given-free-gym-and-swimming

Yet another example of asylum seekers getting special treatment. If the government is constantly going to brag about equality and being fair then please practice what you preach.

Recreational Areas for Youths up to 21

My Idea is to create areas for the group of society who are not catered for because they are considered too old for playgrounds, and yet too young to go to places considered "Adult only" such as snooker halls, pubs etc…

 

There should be a series of discussions on this matter, with input from both the Senior Parliament, and the Youth Parliament, who contrary to popular belief do still exist. This needs to be sorted to stop this cycle of neglect.

Why is this idea important?

My Idea is to create areas for the group of society who are not catered for because they are considered too old for playgrounds, and yet too young to go to places considered "Adult only" such as snooker halls, pubs etc…

 

There should be a series of discussions on this matter, with input from both the Senior Parliament, and the Youth Parliament, who contrary to popular belief do still exist. This needs to be sorted to stop this cycle of neglect.

Smoking Ban

The smoking ban has damaged the pub / club industry.I think unless a pub/club serves food then the ban should be lifted and left to the discretion of the landlord.Where food is served maybe a smoking area could be made available.

Most landlords (that still have Pubs) have had to spend thousands of pounds fitting smoking shelters and heating them against our harsh winters.Surely a landlord should be able to make the decison as to wether he/she feels that their pub should be smoking or non-smoking,does his/her pub need a dedicated smoking area,should they continue to ban it in their pub or should they spend a few hundred pound installing air purifiers to combat the smoke issue.

The atmosphere in pubs/clubs has been damaged,most of the non smokers now feel like leppers because they are left sitting on their own while us smokers go for fag.A lot of non smokers actually come outside to join us when we go for fag because they dont want to be left alone.Where is the common sense in this ban. 

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban has damaged the pub / club industry.I think unless a pub/club serves food then the ban should be lifted and left to the discretion of the landlord.Where food is served maybe a smoking area could be made available.

Most landlords (that still have Pubs) have had to spend thousands of pounds fitting smoking shelters and heating them against our harsh winters.Surely a landlord should be able to make the decison as to wether he/she feels that their pub should be smoking or non-smoking,does his/her pub need a dedicated smoking area,should they continue to ban it in their pub or should they spend a few hundred pound installing air purifiers to combat the smoke issue.

The atmosphere in pubs/clubs has been damaged,most of the non smokers now feel like leppers because they are left sitting on their own while us smokers go for fag.A lot of non smokers actually come outside to join us when we go for fag because they dont want to be left alone.Where is the common sense in this ban. 

ABOLISH RIGHT TO THE GOVERNMENT PAYING NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION ON BEHALF OF LONG TERM UNEMPLOYED.

I live off of my savings.  If I want to have  a state pension then I must (or at least time I did it), pay an annual voluntary contribution for myself – which is a joke, in so far as my contribution, is about the same ,as what I will get back for a year's worth of state pension when the tine comes.

 

However if I am on benefits, the state will automatically pay my N.I.C. and i will automatically get a state pension.  MESSAGE STAY ON BENEFITS ALL YOUR LIFE – NEVEER MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE SOCIETY IN WHCIH YOU LIVE AND THEY WILL KEEP YOU IN YOU OLD AGE.

My idea is that the government should abolish the automatic right to a state pension for those who have not themselves made any attempt to make their own contribution to  their own retirement.

Why is this idea important?

I live off of my savings.  If I want to have  a state pension then I must (or at least time I did it), pay an annual voluntary contribution for myself – which is a joke, in so far as my contribution, is about the same ,as what I will get back for a year's worth of state pension when the tine comes.

 

However if I am on benefits, the state will automatically pay my N.I.C. and i will automatically get a state pension.  MESSAGE STAY ON BENEFITS ALL YOUR LIFE – NEVEER MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE SOCIETY IN WHCIH YOU LIVE AND THEY WILL KEEP YOU IN YOU OLD AGE.

My idea is that the government should abolish the automatic right to a state pension for those who have not themselves made any attempt to make their own contribution to  their own retirement.

Make the laws governing alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, heroin and mdma etc consistent.

Why should one man's drug of choice be legal, whilst another man's is illegal? Restore people's right to enjoy and explore the drugs they choose. Regulate their use and trade rather than criminalise them.

Why is this idea important?

Why should one man's drug of choice be legal, whilst another man's is illegal? Restore people's right to enjoy and explore the drugs they choose. Regulate their use and trade rather than criminalise them.

Destruction of my civil liberties (cannabis use)

I would just like to inform you that your continued destruction of the civil liberties and human rights of grown adults who cause no harm to the public, has made it necessary for me to purchase a rope in order to hang myself with. I have investigated the technique on the internet and will do the deed soon when i can pluck up the courage. I will never understand why your organisation and officers actually seek pleasure from making criminals out of people who are harming nobody (aside from the fact that you must get a kick out of bullying people). Male officers tend to be mummy's boys whos hands smell of soap and the females are like Cherie Booth (constantly hovering behind you while you're trying to look at porn on the internet). I thought i'd left school. Why does your organization seek enjoyment in smashing down the doors of peoples homes in pursuit of a herb. Why do your officers seek pleasure in destroying the lives of people who actually pay your wages? I work 56.5 hours every single week. All night work and all at a flat rate barely above the minimum wage. My carbon footprint is negligible. I live within 2 miles of my work, share a 14 year old car with another working adult who is also on minimum wages. I never go abroad, rarely go out and spend my days off in bed. I will never own my own home and never have any children. I am 43. Despite this, last month i had nearly £500 stolen from my wages by the government to pay for the likes of your officers wages and lucrative overtime. I feel like a cornered animal simply because hugely destructive alcohol doesn't agree with me whereas good quality cannabis does. 'Superskunk' is a big red herring. When your officers go shopping to the supermarket, do they pick all the manky, small fruit? No, your organisation clearly enjoys making criminals of people who aren't. Too scared to go onto gypsies sites and give them a hard time. Too frightened to deal with organised gangs who sit on millions of pounds of ill-gotten gains. No, lets go for an easy target. You are destroyers of the meek and harmless. I firmly believe that Pink Floyd would have been closed down by the Police, given half a chance. You seem to get your kicks out of picking on certain sections of society whom you dislike. You are in the business of bullying. I wonder how one of your officers would feel to have his door smashed down at 3:00 in the morning while he is in bed, wearing his wifes nighty. To be frogmarched to a police van, have all of his booze confiscated, loose his home and his job. When i finally top myself, you'll have to find some other taxpayer, prepared to live in work all night paying your wages. All of you have blood on your hands.

Why is this idea important?

I would just like to inform you that your continued destruction of the civil liberties and human rights of grown adults who cause no harm to the public, has made it necessary for me to purchase a rope in order to hang myself with. I have investigated the technique on the internet and will do the deed soon when i can pluck up the courage. I will never understand why your organisation and officers actually seek pleasure from making criminals out of people who are harming nobody (aside from the fact that you must get a kick out of bullying people). Male officers tend to be mummy's boys whos hands smell of soap and the females are like Cherie Booth (constantly hovering behind you while you're trying to look at porn on the internet). I thought i'd left school. Why does your organization seek enjoyment in smashing down the doors of peoples homes in pursuit of a herb. Why do your officers seek pleasure in destroying the lives of people who actually pay your wages? I work 56.5 hours every single week. All night work and all at a flat rate barely above the minimum wage. My carbon footprint is negligible. I live within 2 miles of my work, share a 14 year old car with another working adult who is also on minimum wages. I never go abroad, rarely go out and spend my days off in bed. I will never own my own home and never have any children. I am 43. Despite this, last month i had nearly £500 stolen from my wages by the government to pay for the likes of your officers wages and lucrative overtime. I feel like a cornered animal simply because hugely destructive alcohol doesn't agree with me whereas good quality cannabis does. 'Superskunk' is a big red herring. When your officers go shopping to the supermarket, do they pick all the manky, small fruit? No, your organisation clearly enjoys making criminals of people who aren't. Too scared to go onto gypsies sites and give them a hard time. Too frightened to deal with organised gangs who sit on millions of pounds of ill-gotten gains. No, lets go for an easy target. You are destroyers of the meek and harmless. I firmly believe that Pink Floyd would have been closed down by the Police, given half a chance. You seem to get your kicks out of picking on certain sections of society whom you dislike. You are in the business of bullying. I wonder how one of your officers would feel to have his door smashed down at 3:00 in the morning while he is in bed, wearing his wifes nighty. To be frogmarched to a police van, have all of his booze confiscated, loose his home and his job. When i finally top myself, you'll have to find some other taxpayer, prepared to live in work all night paying your wages. All of you have blood on your hands.

End discrimination against remote areas by central government

The policy of centralisation pursued in the UK for many decades has resulted in severe discrimination against communities in the remoter parts of England, Scotland and Wales. People in these communities pay the same taxes (both direct and indirect) as those living in large towns and cities, yet they are frequently denied essential services because central government deems it too expensive to provide them.

This mentality prevails, even though remote areas unquestionably have a greater need for such services than city areas. Examples of such discrimination are:

  • Fuel pricing

EU regulations allow for a reduced rate of VAT to be applied on petrol and diesel in remote areas. Even though countries such as Finland apply this policy in relation to their remote island communities, the UK government has never adopted it. As a result, petrol on the Scottish islands is priced as high as £1.33 per litre, in areas where public road or rail transport is virtually non-existent.

  • Digital TV and licensing

Despite massive publicity about the digital switchover, Freeview will not provide universal coverage within the UK. This situation is unjustified when everyone, irrespective of location, is legally required  to pay for a TV licence. The conclusion is that people in remote areas have paid for a digital TV service which is not being provided to them.

  • Broadband

There is no political will to provide the resources from central government to ensure that every location in the UK has access to a basic broadband service of at least 2mbps. Whilst funds, raised from general taxation, are made available to develop high-speed broadband for densely-populated areas, remoter communities are unfairly denied a basic service.
 

Why is this idea important?

The policy of centralisation pursued in the UK for many decades has resulted in severe discrimination against communities in the remoter parts of England, Scotland and Wales. People in these communities pay the same taxes (both direct and indirect) as those living in large towns and cities, yet they are frequently denied essential services because central government deems it too expensive to provide them.

This mentality prevails, even though remote areas unquestionably have a greater need for such services than city areas. Examples of such discrimination are:

  • Fuel pricing

EU regulations allow for a reduced rate of VAT to be applied on petrol and diesel in remote areas. Even though countries such as Finland apply this policy in relation to their remote island communities, the UK government has never adopted it. As a result, petrol on the Scottish islands is priced as high as £1.33 per litre, in areas where public road or rail transport is virtually non-existent.

  • Digital TV and licensing

Despite massive publicity about the digital switchover, Freeview will not provide universal coverage within the UK. This situation is unjustified when everyone, irrespective of location, is legally required  to pay for a TV licence. The conclusion is that people in remote areas have paid for a digital TV service which is not being provided to them.

  • Broadband

There is no political will to provide the resources from central government to ensure that every location in the UK has access to a basic broadband service of at least 2mbps. Whilst funds, raised from general taxation, are made available to develop high-speed broadband for densely-populated areas, remoter communities are unfairly denied a basic service.
 

End Positive Discrimination – Repeal ‘Positive Action’ in the Equality Act 2010

Repeal or alter the section 'Positive Action' (Part 11, Chapter 2) contained in the Equality Act 2010, enacted on 8 April 2010.

Notably:

159 Positive action: recruitment and promotion

(1) This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—

(a) persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or

(b) participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.

(2) Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to—

(a) overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or

(b) participate in that activity.

(3) That action is treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not.

(4) But subsection (2) applies only if—

(a) A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,

(b) P does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it, and

(c) taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim referred to in subsection (2).

(5) “Recruitment” means a process for deciding whether to—

(a) offer employment to a person,

(b) make contract work available to a contract worker,

(c) offer a person a position as a partner in a firm or proposed firm,

(d) offer a person a position as a member of an LLP or proposed LLP,

(e) offer a person a pupillage or tenancy in barristers’ chambers,

(f) take a person as an advocate’s devil or offer a person membership of an advocate’s stable,

(g) offer a person an appointment to a personal office,

(h) offer a person an appointment to a public office, recommend a person for such an appointment or approve a person’s appointment to a public office, or

(i) offer a person a service for finding employment.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal or alter the section 'Positive Action' (Part 11, Chapter 2) contained in the Equality Act 2010, enacted on 8 April 2010.

Notably:

159 Positive action: recruitment and promotion

(1) This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—

(a) persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or

(b) participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.

(2) Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to—

(a) overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or

(b) participate in that activity.

(3) That action is treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not.

(4) But subsection (2) applies only if—

(a) A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,

(b) P does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it, and

(c) taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim referred to in subsection (2).

(5) “Recruitment” means a process for deciding whether to—

(a) offer employment to a person,

(b) make contract work available to a contract worker,

(c) offer a person a position as a partner in a firm or proposed firm,

(d) offer a person a position as a member of an LLP or proposed LLP,

(e) offer a person a pupillage or tenancy in barristers’ chambers,

(f) take a person as an advocate’s devil or offer a person membership of an advocate’s stable,

(g) offer a person an appointment to a personal office,

(h) offer a person an appointment to a public office, recommend a person for such an appointment or approve a person’s appointment to a public office, or

(i) offer a person a service for finding employment.

Freedom of speech

I would like to have back my right to express an opinion please.

 

Under Labour's social engineering agenda they made certain belief systems and lifestyles invulnerable to any kind of critique or debate. For example saying that you disagreed with Islam for ANY reason could result in being accused of racism, hate crime, bigotry and lack of understanding, without any consideration of the possible right and wrongs of this or any other belief or way of life…and most importantly the right of people to express disagreement, provided this is not ironically in the case of Islam, accompanied by violence against those who do not share your view.

The result is that certain groups are given a platform to espouse and indoctrinate without any fear of accountability or need for explanation….I suspect this was Labour's intention all along…after all they all but ignored Parliament for 13 years…the very crucible of debate and democracy in this country.

 

Can I have my rights to free speech back please?

Why is this idea important?

I would like to have back my right to express an opinion please.

 

Under Labour's social engineering agenda they made certain belief systems and lifestyles invulnerable to any kind of critique or debate. For example saying that you disagreed with Islam for ANY reason could result in being accused of racism, hate crime, bigotry and lack of understanding, without any consideration of the possible right and wrongs of this or any other belief or way of life…and most importantly the right of people to express disagreement, provided this is not ironically in the case of Islam, accompanied by violence against those who do not share your view.

The result is that certain groups are given a platform to espouse and indoctrinate without any fear of accountability or need for explanation….I suspect this was Labour's intention all along…after all they all but ignored Parliament for 13 years…the very crucible of debate and democracy in this country.

 

Can I have my rights to free speech back please?

Human Rights Act to Apply to Benefit Claimants Too Sick To Work

It should be a human right for people to claim benefits without harrassment when they are out of work and especially if they are too sick to work.

Claimants are abused and harrassed. Those with long term health conditions should not be made to feel as if they are lying.

no one chooses to live long term on benefits. i myself have qualifications where i could earn good money but i am too sick to work. i did not choose to be ill and did not choose to live on benefits but my health means i have to. theres no employer that would employ someone who if they manage to trun up, may be too sick and have to go home.

end the discrimination and hate mongering from govt, dwp and the media regarding long term sic people on benefits. we should get a minimum of 100 a week. if we cant afford to eat properyly os keep warm then we will never get well.

Why is this idea important?

It should be a human right for people to claim benefits without harrassment when they are out of work and especially if they are too sick to work.

Claimants are abused and harrassed. Those with long term health conditions should not be made to feel as if they are lying.

no one chooses to live long term on benefits. i myself have qualifications where i could earn good money but i am too sick to work. i did not choose to be ill and did not choose to live on benefits but my health means i have to. theres no employer that would employ someone who if they manage to trun up, may be too sick and have to go home.

end the discrimination and hate mongering from govt, dwp and the media regarding long term sic people on benefits. we should get a minimum of 100 a week. if we cant afford to eat properyly os keep warm then we will never get well.