Freedom From Noise Nuisance Act Needed

There needs to be tighter laws to nforce councils and or police to act upon complaints of noise nuisance from 11pm til 6am. Disturbed sleep is dangerous to your mental and physical health and ruins lives. It should be a human right to have a peaceful nights sleep.

At present if you phone the council they will want an exact address before doing anything. The council should be obliged by law to go out and investigate a noise nuisance if say, you know its rough location ie on the first floor of a block of flats. We the public shouldnt be expected to go out in our pj's at 2am to locate the exact address. This discriminates against women. the elderly, the disabled and the sick who cannot go out in the night time and possibly risk abuse.

once the perpetrators address is established, the law should warn them that next time they will be heavily fined and possibly have their hifi equipment confiscated.

We have had enough of noise nuisance.  

Why is this idea important?

There needs to be tighter laws to nforce councils and or police to act upon complaints of noise nuisance from 11pm til 6am. Disturbed sleep is dangerous to your mental and physical health and ruins lives. It should be a human right to have a peaceful nights sleep.

At present if you phone the council they will want an exact address before doing anything. The council should be obliged by law to go out and investigate a noise nuisance if say, you know its rough location ie on the first floor of a block of flats. We the public shouldnt be expected to go out in our pj's at 2am to locate the exact address. This discriminates against women. the elderly, the disabled and the sick who cannot go out in the night time and possibly risk abuse.

once the perpetrators address is established, the law should warn them that next time they will be heavily fined and possibly have their hifi equipment confiscated.

We have had enough of noise nuisance.  

Civil Enforcement Officers

So-called Civil Enforcement Officers should return to being Parking Wardens. Their current powers to issue fixed penalties for offences other than parking ones, should be handed back to the police or, alternatively, to Police Community Officers.

Why is this idea important?

So-called Civil Enforcement Officers should return to being Parking Wardens. Their current powers to issue fixed penalties for offences other than parking ones, should be handed back to the police or, alternatively, to Police Community Officers.

Highways Traffic Officers

Since the inception of the Highways Officers on the country's motorways, I for one have seen no great improvement to the traffic flow. As I remember they were introduced under the headline of "Jambusters". Whenever I see a patrol they are always two and sometimes three people in a very expensive 4×4. As I understand the job was previously done by the motorway police. I would suggest that this was a more cost effect way of keeping the motorways flowing.

Why not consider handing the running of the motorway's back to the police who seemed to do as good a job at what must have been a greatly reduced budget.      

Why is this idea important?

Since the inception of the Highways Officers on the country's motorways, I for one have seen no great improvement to the traffic flow. As I remember they were introduced under the headline of "Jambusters". Whenever I see a patrol they are always two and sometimes three people in a very expensive 4×4. As I understand the job was previously done by the motorway police. I would suggest that this was a more cost effect way of keeping the motorways flowing.

Why not consider handing the running of the motorway's back to the police who seemed to do as good a job at what must have been a greatly reduced budget.      

Enforce the Data Protection Act

It should be enacted that any breach of the DPA should be an automatic fine paid to the person whoes information has been passed to a third party without their consent.  eg DVLA giving driver details and vehicle owner details to private companies to issue civil penalty notices.  If any organisation divulges private information to a third party without express WRITTEN permission then the oprganisation will pay £250 to the person agrieved. Any written permission wil lonly last a specific period of time as stated and only for the stated organisation.  Further breaches agasint the same person will result in incremental increases of £250 to a maximum of £1000 per breach.  This would do away withthe Data Protection Registrar who does not act against any organisation even though they admit several breaches have taken place.. this will also save the country the £ms paid to this toothless, powerless and useless quango

Why is this idea important?

It should be enacted that any breach of the DPA should be an automatic fine paid to the person whoes information has been passed to a third party without their consent.  eg DVLA giving driver details and vehicle owner details to private companies to issue civil penalty notices.  If any organisation divulges private information to a third party without express WRITTEN permission then the oprganisation will pay £250 to the person agrieved. Any written permission wil lonly last a specific period of time as stated and only for the stated organisation.  Further breaches agasint the same person will result in incremental increases of £250 to a maximum of £1000 per breach.  This would do away withthe Data Protection Registrar who does not act against any organisation even though they admit several breaches have taken place.. this will also save the country the £ms paid to this toothless, powerless and useless quango

Covert survailance via Regulation of Investigatory powers act

This act gives the power for the government to request any infomation from telecommunications services, and makes it a criminal offense to tell anyone about it.

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

"The government can demand that a public telecommunications service intercepts an individual's communications
The act's "interception warrants" can be served for purposes of "national security", "preventing or detecting serious crime" or "safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK". These (undefined) terms are so vague as to be applicable to just about anyone.

For example, the communications of businessmen negotiating deals with foreign companies could easily fall under "safeguarding of the economic well-being of the UK" within the plain English meaning of the term.

The definition of public telecommunications services is broad and could apply to internet services providers, phone companies, or even someone running a web site.

When an ISP is served with an interception warrant, it has to comply and it may not reveal this fact to anyone ever. "

Reference:

http://www.magnacartaplus.org/bills/rip/#interception

Why is this idea important?

This act gives the power for the government to request any infomation from telecommunications services, and makes it a criminal offense to tell anyone about it.

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

"The government can demand that a public telecommunications service intercepts an individual's communications
The act's "interception warrants" can be served for purposes of "national security", "preventing or detecting serious crime" or "safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK". These (undefined) terms are so vague as to be applicable to just about anyone.

For example, the communications of businessmen negotiating deals with foreign companies could easily fall under "safeguarding of the economic well-being of the UK" within the plain English meaning of the term.

The definition of public telecommunications services is broad and could apply to internet services providers, phone companies, or even someone running a web site.

When an ISP is served with an interception warrant, it has to comply and it may not reveal this fact to anyone ever. "

Reference:

http://www.magnacartaplus.org/bills/rip/#interception

Those who claim protection under the Human Rights Act must do so with ‘clean hands’.

Those, who by their actions whether actively or passively, verbally or by any other action, preach, support, or promote hatred and/or violence against any other person or body in the United Kingdom, shall forfeit all rights, privileges and protection under the Human Rights legislation in the UK, Europe or any other recognised International Legal authority.

Why is this idea important?

Those, who by their actions whether actively or passively, verbally or by any other action, preach, support, or promote hatred and/or violence against any other person or body in the United Kingdom, shall forfeit all rights, privileges and protection under the Human Rights legislation in the UK, Europe or any other recognised International Legal authority.

Freedom of Information requests

One of the most time wasting (and therefore costly) things I've experienced in my planning career in local government is that of repeated, detailed FoI requests relating to matters dealt with some years ago (ie not current or recent by any definition) usually by a single individual with a grievance and plenty of time on their hands (eg premature retirement) to pursue it.  My suggestion would be:
 
a) to limit the number and frequency of requests by an individual or what might be reasonably seen to be a group of individuals acting in unison (difficult to determine often I know but a definition could be made relating to the frequency of requests surrounding a given detailed topic);
 
b) to limit the ability of requests to go back more than, say, five years without a court order.
 
 

Why is this idea important?

One of the most time wasting (and therefore costly) things I've experienced in my planning career in local government is that of repeated, detailed FoI requests relating to matters dealt with some years ago (ie not current or recent by any definition) usually by a single individual with a grievance and plenty of time on their hands (eg premature retirement) to pursue it.  My suggestion would be:
 
a) to limit the number and frequency of requests by an individual or what might be reasonably seen to be a group of individuals acting in unison (difficult to determine often I know but a definition could be made relating to the frequency of requests surrounding a given detailed topic);
 
b) to limit the ability of requests to go back more than, say, five years without a court order.
 
 

civil liberties human rights ???

The first thing to realise is that your RIGHTS affect every body elses RIGHTS and this is surely the first essential to a 'bill of rights' or indeed laws governing 'rights'

Your right to be in a smoke free environment eradicates my right to smoke, who's right is more important?

your right to breath fresh un-poluted air is superceeded by right to drive a car which polutes the air far more and far more dangerously than tens of thousands of smokers in the same space?

My point is that some issues could be easily resolved, as in the first example, but others as in the second example are, and will be governed by the economy.

The answer to these problems is far too simple for politicians to see it is called common sense. If a landlord wishes to have smokers in his pub and some don't like being in that situation then common sense requires they go elsewhere. There would be fewer non smoking pubs so they would do more business and the seven pubs closing every day would be a thing of the past, or indeed common sense tells me that the no smoking pubs would close down because of a lack of trade.

As an after thought if you want to ban things that are bad for your health causing death and vast expense for the health service, start banning 'mobile phones' proven radiation, cars 5,000 deaths and 100s of thousands of injuries per year, fast food causing obesity, and if that is unproven then it is still correct to say the nutritional value of a brick…… Just a thought

Why is this idea important?

The first thing to realise is that your RIGHTS affect every body elses RIGHTS and this is surely the first essential to a 'bill of rights' or indeed laws governing 'rights'

Your right to be in a smoke free environment eradicates my right to smoke, who's right is more important?

your right to breath fresh un-poluted air is superceeded by right to drive a car which polutes the air far more and far more dangerously than tens of thousands of smokers in the same space?

My point is that some issues could be easily resolved, as in the first example, but others as in the second example are, and will be governed by the economy.

The answer to these problems is far too simple for politicians to see it is called common sense. If a landlord wishes to have smokers in his pub and some don't like being in that situation then common sense requires they go elsewhere. There would be fewer non smoking pubs so they would do more business and the seven pubs closing every day would be a thing of the past, or indeed common sense tells me that the no smoking pubs would close down because of a lack of trade.

As an after thought if you want to ban things that are bad for your health causing death and vast expense for the health service, start banning 'mobile phones' proven radiation, cars 5,000 deaths and 100s of thousands of injuries per year, fast food causing obesity, and if that is unproven then it is still correct to say the nutritional value of a brick…… Just a thought

Double Yellow Lines – who parks on them?

Apparently, Double Yellow Lines are there on roads for safety. If so, why are Disabled Drivers allowed to park on them? Do Disabled Drivers parking on double yellow lines make the road safer? Of course not. So, if Disabled Drivers can park on them and not cause a road obstruction, and not be fined, why can't non-disabled drivers? Conversely, if disabled drivers are legally parking on them, why have double yellow lines at all in some places?

Why is this idea important?

Apparently, Double Yellow Lines are there on roads for safety. If so, why are Disabled Drivers allowed to park on them? Do Disabled Drivers parking on double yellow lines make the road safer? Of course not. So, if Disabled Drivers can park on them and not cause a road obstruction, and not be fined, why can't non-disabled drivers? Conversely, if disabled drivers are legally parking on them, why have double yellow lines at all in some places?

Parking tickets issued by post when cars are driven away.

It used to be a rule that a parking ticket had to be stuck on your windscreen or handed to you as the driver for it to be valid.  If you drove away before either of these took place any ticket issued afterwards was not valid.

The anti-motorist organisation Transport for London decided to change this a couple of years ago.  Regulation 10 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 states that in "drive away" cases an enforcement authority could issue a ticket by post if the parking warden had started to prepare or had printed out the ticket at street level.  This is not only wrong, but a rather silly and largely unworkable regulation. 

The drive away rule was right in principle since authorities did away with any meaningful observation time before a ticket was issued.  But besides this, most enforcement authorities have decided not to use Regulation 10 because in most cases it's difficult to prove that a contravention has occurred, and because of all the caveats and exemptions that went with Regulation 10.  So Transport for London have overstepped the mark with this one and Regulation 10 is a bad rule and should be repealed.

,

Why is this idea important?

It used to be a rule that a parking ticket had to be stuck on your windscreen or handed to you as the driver for it to be valid.  If you drove away before either of these took place any ticket issued afterwards was not valid.

The anti-motorist organisation Transport for London decided to change this a couple of years ago.  Regulation 10 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 states that in "drive away" cases an enforcement authority could issue a ticket by post if the parking warden had started to prepare or had printed out the ticket at street level.  This is not only wrong, but a rather silly and largely unworkable regulation. 

The drive away rule was right in principle since authorities did away with any meaningful observation time before a ticket was issued.  But besides this, most enforcement authorities have decided not to use Regulation 10 because in most cases it's difficult to prove that a contravention has occurred, and because of all the caveats and exemptions that went with Regulation 10.  So Transport for London have overstepped the mark with this one and Regulation 10 is a bad rule and should be repealed.

,

Unfettered outdoor advertisement

PROPOSAL

Repeal the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, the roadside advertisement provisions of the Highways Act and teh Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.

REASON

This is the most universal form of civil disobedience and criminal negligence carried out across Britain today.  It is ignored by the tens of thousands of perpetrators and beneficiaries,

It is also actively and negligently disregarded and tacitly accepted by all the Government Agencies from the Planning Officers, Environmental Health Officers, Highways Inspectors and others charged with control and enforcement. 

 

Why is this idea important?

PROPOSAL

Repeal the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, the roadside advertisement provisions of the Highways Act and teh Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.

REASON

This is the most universal form of civil disobedience and criminal negligence carried out across Britain today.  It is ignored by the tens of thousands of perpetrators and beneficiaries,

It is also actively and negligently disregarded and tacitly accepted by all the Government Agencies from the Planning Officers, Environmental Health Officers, Highways Inspectors and others charged with control and enforcement. 

 

Reform of Illegal drugs Laws

The current state of The Law relating to illegal drugs is a mess which is ineffective and very costly to administer.

 

I propose that all drugs and substances declared illegal should be treated equally, and not categorised.

If their use and possession is illegal then severe punishments should be used.

There should be no difference between large or small ammounts possessed or used.

There should be immediate use of the most severe punishment on the first offence.

This should be well publicised, together with information on realistic rehabilitation help.

Why is this idea important?

The current state of The Law relating to illegal drugs is a mess which is ineffective and very costly to administer.

 

I propose that all drugs and substances declared illegal should be treated equally, and not categorised.

If their use and possession is illegal then severe punishments should be used.

There should be no difference between large or small ammounts possessed or used.

There should be immediate use of the most severe punishment on the first offence.

This should be well publicised, together with information on realistic rehabilitation help.

Shift the obligation of enforcement from state to citizen

Retain all laws as they will either be useful or become quaint news items of the future.

Then transfer the responsibility of enforcement of laws from the state back to the citizen.

The local citizen bodies will then:

  • Select enforcement of laws that cab be ignored and put into the Quaint category
  • Prioritise the remaining enforcements for their local area
  • Vote on what is sensible and supportable
  • Select what is to be done locally and either fund or volunteer it
  • Outsource the rest to competing private and public services

Our ability to communicate should make this easy to implement.

Why is this idea important?

Retain all laws as they will either be useful or become quaint news items of the future.

Then transfer the responsibility of enforcement of laws from the state back to the citizen.

The local citizen bodies will then:

  • Select enforcement of laws that cab be ignored and put into the Quaint category
  • Prioritise the remaining enforcements for their local area
  • Vote on what is sensible and supportable
  • Select what is to be done locally and either fund or volunteer it
  • Outsource the rest to competing private and public services

Our ability to communicate should make this easy to implement.