Simplification of the Naturism Laws

Dear Sir/Madam

I am a children's social worker who now manages a multi agency safeguarding training department.

Over the years it has come to my attention that the laws around naturism are confusing and many people I have spoken to (including police and social workers) do not understand them.  I am aware that naturism is not illegal (even when children are present) however simplification  of the law  would put lots of minds at ease, a system like the Spanish (and other nations) where naturism is permitted on all beaches apart from town beaches and naturism is permitted openly in rural areas (i.e. outside of towns and villages). 

At the very least there should be public naturist beaches, places in the national parks and places in every county in the UK.

In my professional experience the times were difficulty arises most are when there is confusion especially when the professionals are confused.  I have seen these difficulties  many times around safeguarding issues also reported in findings from serious case reviews and government reports that  I  read.

I would therefore ask you to consider the simplification of the laws around naturism so all people know it is legal (unless you are deliberately offending others) and also ensure there is provision for the hundreds of thousands who do practice naturism.

Thank you for your time
 

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir/Madam

I am a children's social worker who now manages a multi agency safeguarding training department.

Over the years it has come to my attention that the laws around naturism are confusing and many people I have spoken to (including police and social workers) do not understand them.  I am aware that naturism is not illegal (even when children are present) however simplification  of the law  would put lots of minds at ease, a system like the Spanish (and other nations) where naturism is permitted on all beaches apart from town beaches and naturism is permitted openly in rural areas (i.e. outside of towns and villages). 

At the very least there should be public naturist beaches, places in the national parks and places in every county in the UK.

In my professional experience the times were difficulty arises most are when there is confusion especially when the professionals are confused.  I have seen these difficulties  many times around safeguarding issues also reported in findings from serious case reviews and government reports that  I  read.

I would therefore ask you to consider the simplification of the laws around naturism so all people know it is legal (unless you are deliberately offending others) and also ensure there is provision for the hundreds of thousands who do practice naturism.

Thank you for your time
 

A modern secular state

Religion does not need the special status it currently enjoys within the British state. Quite rightly, we have laws that ban discrimination on the basis of religion or faith. That is sufficient. We have already abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales, which were long recognised as an anachronism. We should now go further and end the formal establishment of the Anglican Church as the state religion of Britain.

No one should occupy a place in Britain’s legislature on the basis of religious office. There is no objection to holders of religious office being members of either house of Parliament or any other part of government, but they should only win such status through the same democratic processes as everyone else.

We must also repeal or rewrite the laws that require schools to impose a daily act of collective worship upon pupils and we must remove the special privilege given to Christianity within religious education (I understand this to be in the Education Act 1944 as amended by the Education Reform Act 1988 and the School Standards and Framework Act 1998). The removal of anachronistic religious requirements in our education system is a matter of prudent use of funding as well as basic freedoms.
 

Why is this idea important?

Religion does not need the special status it currently enjoys within the British state. Quite rightly, we have laws that ban discrimination on the basis of religion or faith. That is sufficient. We have already abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales, which were long recognised as an anachronism. We should now go further and end the formal establishment of the Anglican Church as the state religion of Britain.

No one should occupy a place in Britain’s legislature on the basis of religious office. There is no objection to holders of religious office being members of either house of Parliament or any other part of government, but they should only win such status through the same democratic processes as everyone else.

We must also repeal or rewrite the laws that require schools to impose a daily act of collective worship upon pupils and we must remove the special privilege given to Christianity within religious education (I understand this to be in the Education Act 1944 as amended by the Education Reform Act 1988 and the School Standards and Framework Act 1998). The removal of anachronistic religious requirements in our education system is a matter of prudent use of funding as well as basic freedoms.
 

Actual Equality

Get rid of the Equality Bill and introduce something that means equality is actually equal, instead of so-called 'positive discrimination'. Unless there are very good reasons for them, I would like to see the following questions disappear from application forms:

Anything on sexual orientation,

Anything on race (we are all human. Why does it matter what colour your skin is?),

Sex,

Age,

Marital Status,

Disabilities.

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of the Equality Bill and introduce something that means equality is actually equal, instead of so-called 'positive discrimination'. Unless there are very good reasons for them, I would like to see the following questions disappear from application forms:

Anything on sexual orientation,

Anything on race (we are all human. Why does it matter what colour your skin is?),

Sex,

Age,

Marital Status,

Disabilities.

Repeal of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002

The basis of this idea is to repeal the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which exempts the selection of candidates by political parties from sex discrimination laws.  Repealing this law would restore full sex discrimination legsialtion to the selection of candidates for elections by political parties.

Why is this idea important?

The basis of this idea is to repeal the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which exempts the selection of candidates by political parties from sex discrimination laws.  Repealing this law would restore full sex discrimination legsialtion to the selection of candidates for elections by political parties.

Remove religion as a criterion for selection to State Schools

Schools that accept funding from the state in any form should not be allowed to selected pupils based on their religion. It is a gross attack on liberty for a school to consider whether or not a child is christened or not to be relevnat to their selection to a particular school.

Why is this idea important?

Schools that accept funding from the state in any form should not be allowed to selected pupils based on their religion. It is a gross attack on liberty for a school to consider whether or not a child is christened or not to be relevnat to their selection to a particular school.

Remove the right to have Religious schools

Coming from an ethnic background, I have as a child undergone education in standard government schools and have experienced the natural integration between children of different beliefs and religions into a healthy respect for all. At the same time, have seen how those who attend religious specific schools are unable to integrate into society.  If this government truly wants a peaceful multicultural society, then allow the children of all backgrounds to mix at school.  This is extremely important for the UK.

Why is this idea important?

Coming from an ethnic background, I have as a child undergone education in standard government schools and have experienced the natural integration between children of different beliefs and religions into a healthy respect for all. At the same time, have seen how those who attend religious specific schools are unable to integrate into society.  If this government truly wants a peaceful multicultural society, then allow the children of all backgrounds to mix at school.  This is extremely important for the UK.

Scrap religious education advisory councils etc

Scrap the laws requiring local authorities to have Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education and Agreed Syllabus Conferences (again for RE), and scrap also the law requiring religious education for all pupils (put RE in the national curriculum instead).

And of course scrap the law requiring daily acts of religious worship in all schools – but there is already a separate suggestion for that – http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/scrap-law-that-says-school-must-hold-collective-worship.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the laws requiring local authorities to have Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education and Agreed Syllabus Conferences (again for RE), and scrap also the law requiring religious education for all pupils (put RE in the national curriculum instead).

And of course scrap the law requiring daily acts of religious worship in all schools – but there is already a separate suggestion for that – http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/scrap-law-that-says-school-must-hold-collective-worship.

Scrap ‘tax on account’ robbery of small businesses

The current tax situation for the self-employed & small businesses, whereby they are required to pay half the coming year's tax in advance 'on account', is completely unnaccepatable & counter productive to business growth.
Imagine if employees were told they had to pay half of the next year's tax in advance in addition to their existing tax burden? There would be rioting in the streets!
It's impossible in a recession to predict the coming year's earnings & totally unrealistic for HMRC to 'assume' you will earn the same amount in the coming year.
This is daylight robbery & must be stopped. You are allowed to put in a 'lower estimate' (with yet more additional form filling) but if this estimate is wrong you are then penalised with interest!
How can this be conducive to small business confidence & growth? Businesses are living in a state of perpetual financial anxiety & this has been the last straw.
Come on Coalition….scrap this totally unfair burden & prove you have small business' interests at heart, unlike the last Labour government.

Why is this idea important?

The current tax situation for the self-employed & small businesses, whereby they are required to pay half the coming year's tax in advance 'on account', is completely unnaccepatable & counter productive to business growth.
Imagine if employees were told they had to pay half of the next year's tax in advance in addition to their existing tax burden? There would be rioting in the streets!
It's impossible in a recession to predict the coming year's earnings & totally unrealistic for HMRC to 'assume' you will earn the same amount in the coming year.
This is daylight robbery & must be stopped. You are allowed to put in a 'lower estimate' (with yet more additional form filling) but if this estimate is wrong you are then penalised with interest!
How can this be conducive to small business confidence & growth? Businesses are living in a state of perpetual financial anxiety & this has been the last straw.
Come on Coalition….scrap this totally unfair burden & prove you have small business' interests at heart, unlike the last Labour government.

Repeal the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

We already have ample and adequate laws on the statute books to protect racial and religious minorities from harassment or persecution. This law, drafted and introduced by the previous government is wholly and completely unnecessary and serves only to undermine freedom of expression and in particular, freedom to criticise religion.

Why is this idea important?

We already have ample and adequate laws on the statute books to protect racial and religious minorities from harassment or persecution. This law, drafted and introduced by the previous government is wholly and completely unnecessary and serves only to undermine freedom of expression and in particular, freedom to criticise religion.

Repeal trades union laws- improve trades union freedom

Repeal all anti trades union legislation and replace with the following bill of rights:

 

Protection for individuals involved in lawful industrial action

  • Dismissals in anticipation of, during or after lawful industrial action should be void and ineffective, unless the employer can show that the reason for the dismissal was not connected to the industrial action.
  • It should also be automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee once he or she returns to work following lawful industrial action.  This will act as a powerful disincentive to employers from employing replacement staff and making strikers redundant.
  • Interim relief should be available in all unfair dismissal claims relating to lawful industrial action and employees who have been unfairly dismissed should be entitled to automatic reinstatement if they request it.
  • All workers should be protected from suffering detriment or for being sued for damage as a result of their taking part in industrial action other than appropriate deductions from wages for work not done due to industrial action.

Industrial action notices

  • A trade union should only be obliged to give a minimum of 7 days notice to the employer of the proposed commencement of industrial action. 
  • The nature of the information which must be included in the notice should be substantially simplified.  Unions should be required only to inform the employer of the category of workers, of the nature of industrial action, and when action will commence.
  • A trade union should also not lose its immunity for taking industrial action where it accidentally includes an insignificant amount of inaccurate information in a notice to the employer.
  • An employer should be under a duty to co-operate when requested by the union by supplying relevant information needed to enable the union to comply with notice and balloting requirements.  Where the employer refuses to supply the necessary information, a subsequent application for an interim injunction to prevent industrial action should fail.

Industrial action ballots

  • A trade union should not lose its protection from taking industrial action where it accidentally fails to comply with balloting rules but the mistake would have no material impact on the outcome of the ballot.
  • The current bar on industrial action where there has been a prior call should be removed.

Industrial action injunctions

  • The law on interim injunctions should be revised to provide that an interim injunction shall not be granted unless it can be shown that the employer is more likely to succeed than the union at trial.  A similar requirement in relation to interim injunctions to restrain media publication is found in s12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Trade disputes and supportive action

  • The definition of a trade dispute should be amended to include disputes concerning a future employer and future terms and conditions of employment, in the context of a transfer of part of a business. 
  • The definition of a trade dispute should be amended to include disputes between workers and their employer and any associated employer.  
  • Supportive action should be permitted against a company to which work or production has been transferred in connection with a trade dispute.
  • Supportive action should be permitted where a union reasonably believes that an intervention by a principal supplier or customer has caused or substantially contributed to the proposal or decision which is the subject of a primary trade dispute.

In this second category of supportive action the primary trade dispute which would be about a proposal or decision of the employer, which has been rejected by workers, for example to:

    • make a detrimental change to terms and conditions of employment;
    • discipline,
    • dismiss workers,
    • make workers redundant; or
    • to hire replacement labour to do the work which would otherwise have been undertaken by workers who are taking industrial action or who it is anticipated will be taking industrial action
  • A union would be required to hold a ballot and give notice before taking any form of supportive action.
  • In addition, the remaining bar on industrial action by prison officers should be removed by the repeal of section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Non-replacement of those taking lawful industrial action

  • In addition to employment agencies being barred from supplying agency workers to carry out work being carried out by an individual taking lawful industrial action, a correlative duty should be placed on employers to inform any agency that industrial action is taking place.  It should also be unlawful for employers to hire agency workers to carry out work normally done by workers involved in lawful industrial action.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all anti trades union legislation and replace with the following bill of rights:

 

Protection for individuals involved in lawful industrial action

  • Dismissals in anticipation of, during or after lawful industrial action should be void and ineffective, unless the employer can show that the reason for the dismissal was not connected to the industrial action.
  • It should also be automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee once he or she returns to work following lawful industrial action.  This will act as a powerful disincentive to employers from employing replacement staff and making strikers redundant.
  • Interim relief should be available in all unfair dismissal claims relating to lawful industrial action and employees who have been unfairly dismissed should be entitled to automatic reinstatement if they request it.
  • All workers should be protected from suffering detriment or for being sued for damage as a result of their taking part in industrial action other than appropriate deductions from wages for work not done due to industrial action.

Industrial action notices

  • A trade union should only be obliged to give a minimum of 7 days notice to the employer of the proposed commencement of industrial action. 
  • The nature of the information which must be included in the notice should be substantially simplified.  Unions should be required only to inform the employer of the category of workers, of the nature of industrial action, and when action will commence.
  • A trade union should also not lose its immunity for taking industrial action where it accidentally includes an insignificant amount of inaccurate information in a notice to the employer.
  • An employer should be under a duty to co-operate when requested by the union by supplying relevant information needed to enable the union to comply with notice and balloting requirements.  Where the employer refuses to supply the necessary information, a subsequent application for an interim injunction to prevent industrial action should fail.

Industrial action ballots

  • A trade union should not lose its protection from taking industrial action where it accidentally fails to comply with balloting rules but the mistake would have no material impact on the outcome of the ballot.
  • The current bar on industrial action where there has been a prior call should be removed.

Industrial action injunctions

  • The law on interim injunctions should be revised to provide that an interim injunction shall not be granted unless it can be shown that the employer is more likely to succeed than the union at trial.  A similar requirement in relation to interim injunctions to restrain media publication is found in s12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Trade disputes and supportive action

  • The definition of a trade dispute should be amended to include disputes concerning a future employer and future terms and conditions of employment, in the context of a transfer of part of a business. 
  • The definition of a trade dispute should be amended to include disputes between workers and their employer and any associated employer.  
  • Supportive action should be permitted against a company to which work or production has been transferred in connection with a trade dispute.
  • Supportive action should be permitted where a union reasonably believes that an intervention by a principal supplier or customer has caused or substantially contributed to the proposal or decision which is the subject of a primary trade dispute.

In this second category of supportive action the primary trade dispute which would be about a proposal or decision of the employer, which has been rejected by workers, for example to:

    • make a detrimental change to terms and conditions of employment;
    • discipline,
    • dismiss workers,
    • make workers redundant; or
    • to hire replacement labour to do the work which would otherwise have been undertaken by workers who are taking industrial action or who it is anticipated will be taking industrial action
  • A union would be required to hold a ballot and give notice before taking any form of supportive action.
  • In addition, the remaining bar on industrial action by prison officers should be removed by the repeal of section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Non-replacement of those taking lawful industrial action

  • In addition to employment agencies being barred from supplying agency workers to carry out work being carried out by an individual taking lawful industrial action, a correlative duty should be placed on employers to inform any agency that industrial action is taking place.  It should also be unlawful for employers to hire agency workers to carry out work normally done by workers involved in lawful industrial action.

Right to Patient Choice in Mental Health Services

End the exclusion of all NHS mental health services from the Patient Choice agenda to ensure patients with mental health issues get an equal right to make choices about their treatment and care. 

Why is this idea important?

End the exclusion of all NHS mental health services from the Patient Choice agenda to ensure patients with mental health issues get an equal right to make choices about their treatment and care. 

Remove legislative gay bashing when it comes to blood donation

The media constantly reports how there is a shortage of blood donors in this country, the government spends money on ad campaigns to promote this fact, however it still excludes gay men from donating blood, an outdated fear that gay men contract aids. Aids are a risk to all sexually active people. I assume that the all blood donations are tested and not just handed out on the assumption that it is clean because it came from a straight male.

A quote from The National Blood Donors website “Research shows that completely removing the current exclusion on blood donation from men who have sex with men would result in a fivefold increase in the risk of HIV-infected blood entering the blood supply. While changing deferral to one year from the last sexual contact would have a lesser effect, it would still increase this risk by 60%”

How can a government allow such homophobic attitudes when it is supposed to be liberal and tolerant of all regardless of sexuality, religion etc. There are laws preventing discrimination within the workplace, in social situations even within the law now, yet it is still allowed within the NHS, Yes I can understand the need to protect citizens but based on a dated assumption that aids is a gay mans disease is legislative homophobia. Generalising all gay men under a dated assumption which has since been proven wrong. Everyone is at risk from aids

The media constantly reports how there is a shortage of blood donors in this country, the government spends money on ad campaigns to promote this fact, however it still excludes gay men from donating blood, an outdated fear that gay men contract aids. Aids are a risk to all sexually active people. I assume that the all blood donations are tested and not just handed out on the assumption that it is clean because it came from a straight male.

A quote from The National Blood Donors website “Research shows that completely removing the current exclusion on blood donation from men who have sex with men would result in a fivefold increase in the risk of HIV-infected blood entering the blood supply. While changing deferral to one year from the last sexual contact would have a lesser effect, it would still increase this risk by 60%”

How can a government allow such homophobic attitudes when it is supposed to be liberal and tolerant of all regardless of sexuality, religion etc. There are laws preventing discrimination within the workplace, in social situations even within the law now, yet it is still allowed within the NHS, Yes I can understand the need to protect citizens but based on a dated assumption that aids is a gay mans disease is legislative homophobia. Generalising all gay men under a dated assumption which has since been proven wrong. Everyone is at risk from aids

Why is this idea important?

The media constantly reports how there is a shortage of blood donors in this country, the government spends money on ad campaigns to promote this fact, however it still excludes gay men from donating blood, an outdated fear that gay men contract aids. Aids are a risk to all sexually active people. I assume that the all blood donations are tested and not just handed out on the assumption that it is clean because it came from a straight male.

A quote from The National Blood Donors website “Research shows that completely removing the current exclusion on blood donation from men who have sex with men would result in a fivefold increase in the risk of HIV-infected blood entering the blood supply. While changing deferral to one year from the last sexual contact would have a lesser effect, it would still increase this risk by 60%”

How can a government allow such homophobic attitudes when it is supposed to be liberal and tolerant of all regardless of sexuality, religion etc. There are laws preventing discrimination within the workplace, in social situations even within the law now, yet it is still allowed within the NHS, Yes I can understand the need to protect citizens but based on a dated assumption that aids is a gay mans disease is legislative homophobia. Generalising all gay men under a dated assumption which has since been proven wrong. Everyone is at risk from aids

The media constantly reports how there is a shortage of blood donors in this country, the government spends money on ad campaigns to promote this fact, however it still excludes gay men from donating blood, an outdated fear that gay men contract aids. Aids are a risk to all sexually active people. I assume that the all blood donations are tested and not just handed out on the assumption that it is clean because it came from a straight male.

A quote from The National Blood Donors website “Research shows that completely removing the current exclusion on blood donation from men who have sex with men would result in a fivefold increase in the risk of HIV-infected blood entering the blood supply. While changing deferral to one year from the last sexual contact would have a lesser effect, it would still increase this risk by 60%”

How can a government allow such homophobic attitudes when it is supposed to be liberal and tolerant of all regardless of sexuality, religion etc. There are laws preventing discrimination within the workplace, in social situations even within the law now, yet it is still allowed within the NHS, Yes I can understand the need to protect citizens but based on a dated assumption that aids is a gay mans disease is legislative homophobia. Generalising all gay men under a dated assumption which has since been proven wrong. Everyone is at risk from aids

Blood donation ban

Remove the restriction on gay men donating blood. Currently, men who have had sex with men are unable to donate blood, irrespective of whether they are HIV positive or not.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the restriction on gay men donating blood. Currently, men who have had sex with men are unable to donate blood, irrespective of whether they are HIV positive or not.

Repeal Section 11(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

This Section bans same sex marriage in this country. An item on the freedom bill repealing this section would there by allow equal marriage in this country. 

Why is this idea important?

This Section bans same sex marriage in this country. An item on the freedom bill repealing this section would there by allow equal marriage in this country. 

Civil Partnership Act 2004

This Act should be repealed and replaced with legislation that allows any two people who have reached the age of majority and who are economically co-dependant – such as two elderly sisters who share the house which they hvae shared for the entire lives – to enjoy the same economic and legal benefits preserntly only enjoyed by married couples and those who have entered civil partnerships under the present Act.

Why is this idea important?

This Act should be repealed and replaced with legislation that allows any two people who have reached the age of majority and who are economically co-dependant – such as two elderly sisters who share the house which they hvae shared for the entire lives – to enjoy the same economic and legal benefits preserntly only enjoyed by married couples and those who have entered civil partnerships under the present Act.

Breastfeeding in public beyond 6 months

Hi  at the moment in England we don't have protection for breastfeeding a child beyond 6 months of age I am choosing to feed my daughter beyond that as I agree with experts that there are significant health benefits in doing so.  Unfortunately there are some sectors of society whose attitude is less than you would hope it would be and you do need legal protection to prevent harrassment or discrimination – what am are you meant to say to a 7 month old?  sorry you're too old to feed in public ?  the law I believe should be changed to reflect WHO recommendations and the law currently in scotland which offers protection up to 2 years.

Why is this idea important?

Hi  at the moment in England we don't have protection for breastfeeding a child beyond 6 months of age I am choosing to feed my daughter beyond that as I agree with experts that there are significant health benefits in doing so.  Unfortunately there are some sectors of society whose attitude is less than you would hope it would be and you do need legal protection to prevent harrassment or discrimination – what am are you meant to say to a 7 month old?  sorry you're too old to feed in public ?  the law I believe should be changed to reflect WHO recommendations and the law currently in scotland which offers protection up to 2 years.