Hate crime ..add disability

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

MP’s should have to do the same as the rest of us

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Why is this idea important?

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Family Law: reform needed for divorcing partners

Dear Nick

Having gone through a divorce lasting almost three years, which ended up with a Final Hearing, I think the time has come for a complete overhaul of the law in England and Wales.  The process is not only exceedingly expensive, in part as there is a conflict of interest, in as much as solicitors seem to have little interest in wrapping things up early, hence draining hard earned family resources (money as well as the time and anxiety of one or both parties), but also it lacks any sort of clarity.  For instance, and what stood out in particular for me, was that the law in E&W does not clarify what is and isn't counted as family assets.  Secondly, that after going to court the first time, and having agreed verbally with the judge on certain things, my opposite number changed her mind a week later, resulting in considerable delay and additional expense.  And thirdly, it seems that although it may be fair for the courts to make sure that the welfare and interests of children are given priority, it seems to me that this consideration comes only at the end of the process, after both sides have spent a small fortune on legal fees (money which is no longer available for the family), and the children, despite both sides trying their best to shield them from the process, bearing witness to both parents being put under huge amounts of stress and anxiety as things are dragged on.  I cannot help but contrast our laws in E&W with many other countries in Europe, and even just to look across the border to Scotland, where things are dealt with far more efficiently, and where the law makes it much clearer how divorcing parties should handle their affairs.  In Sweden (just one example), the family assets are split 50:50 in virtually all cases.  Such clarity makes the process both short and cost-eefective.  There is minimal loss of family resources and the strain on parents is minimised.  Changes in the Family Law in E&W are desperately needed but will meet huge resistance from the legal profession as they still see it as a significant part of their work and a big money spinner.  It is too late for me to benefit any changes in this law, but I appeal here for changes to be made as I am sure that it will be in the interests of many many families in the future.  I am also quite certain that it is also in the best interests of children to change family law so the process of divorce is less complicated, provides clarity of process, and so that divorce (in particular the process of splitting assets) is done with minimal of fuss and on a time scale that should take no longer than six months in all but the most complicated (or high value) of cases.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Nick

Having gone through a divorce lasting almost three years, which ended up with a Final Hearing, I think the time has come for a complete overhaul of the law in England and Wales.  The process is not only exceedingly expensive, in part as there is a conflict of interest, in as much as solicitors seem to have little interest in wrapping things up early, hence draining hard earned family resources (money as well as the time and anxiety of one or both parties), but also it lacks any sort of clarity.  For instance, and what stood out in particular for me, was that the law in E&W does not clarify what is and isn't counted as family assets.  Secondly, that after going to court the first time, and having agreed verbally with the judge on certain things, my opposite number changed her mind a week later, resulting in considerable delay and additional expense.  And thirdly, it seems that although it may be fair for the courts to make sure that the welfare and interests of children are given priority, it seems to me that this consideration comes only at the end of the process, after both sides have spent a small fortune on legal fees (money which is no longer available for the family), and the children, despite both sides trying their best to shield them from the process, bearing witness to both parents being put under huge amounts of stress and anxiety as things are dragged on.  I cannot help but contrast our laws in E&W with many other countries in Europe, and even just to look across the border to Scotland, where things are dealt with far more efficiently, and where the law makes it much clearer how divorcing parties should handle their affairs.  In Sweden (just one example), the family assets are split 50:50 in virtually all cases.  Such clarity makes the process both short and cost-eefective.  There is minimal loss of family resources and the strain on parents is minimised.  Changes in the Family Law in E&W are desperately needed but will meet huge resistance from the legal profession as they still see it as a significant part of their work and a big money spinner.  It is too late for me to benefit any changes in this law, but I appeal here for changes to be made as I am sure that it will be in the interests of many many families in the future.  I am also quite certain that it is also in the best interests of children to change family law so the process of divorce is less complicated, provides clarity of process, and so that divorce (in particular the process of splitting assets) is done with minimal of fuss and on a time scale that should take no longer than six months in all but the most complicated (or high value) of cases.

Raising the State Pension Age

People are now having to work longer and cannot claim state pension until they are much older, but employers are usually looking for younger, fresher employees. Hardly anyone will want to employ a sixty year old, which is a shame. Older people have more maturity and experience.

Why is this idea important?

People are now having to work longer and cannot claim state pension until they are much older, but employers are usually looking for younger, fresher employees. Hardly anyone will want to employ a sixty year old, which is a shame. Older people have more maturity and experience.

When do we get a vote on banning the burqa

The British people are overwhelmingly against this symbol of defiance to integrate. 

Banning the burqa would set do more good than harm and indicate to people wishing to live in Britain that we have minimum standards of behaviour.

Why is this idea important?

The British people are overwhelmingly against this symbol of defiance to integrate. 

Banning the burqa would set do more good than harm and indicate to people wishing to live in Britain that we have minimum standards of behaviour.

Allowed to marry at home

Couples should have the right to have their wedding in their home or parents home, as in Scotland.  A registrar is currently only allowed to marry a couple in a registered venue, including a register office.  This adds unnecessary expense, and encourages couples to add even more expenses, with the idea that a wedding day should be some sort of elaborate theatrical  spectical, rather than a life long commitment.

Why is this idea important?

Couples should have the right to have their wedding in their home or parents home, as in Scotland.  A registrar is currently only allowed to marry a couple in a registered venue, including a register office.  This adds unnecessary expense, and encourages couples to add even more expenses, with the idea that a wedding day should be some sort of elaborate theatrical  spectical, rather than a life long commitment.

To amend the law which automatically gives Parental Responsibility to mothers

To restore the civil liberty of fathers, where their name was entered onto their child’s Birth Certificate prior to 01/12/2003, so that they automatically receive Parental Responsibility for that child (as they would have done if their child was born after 01/12/2003).

Why is this idea important?

To restore the civil liberty of fathers, where their name was entered onto their child’s Birth Certificate prior to 01/12/2003, so that they automatically receive Parental Responsibility for that child (as they would have done if their child was born after 01/12/2003).

Scrap ATOS Origin/ATOS healthcare medical assessment quango

This quango earns £80 million plus a year from the DWP to assess claimants for benefits medically. Many claimants are very disabled, have had months of treatment and surgery and are still under the care of NHS surgeons and GPs yet the DWP in their wisdom still ask for ATOS assessments.

The assesments are made by so called professionals who have been on a three day training course. Some are doctors, some are nurses aome are simply clerks. I know of numerous cases where the assessment has been so innaccurate and incorrect that appeals have been made.

Many of the appeals have been upheld but no one fines or deducts money from Atos and claimants are not given an explanation from the DWP, only from Atos. The DWP simply send out forms and start the whole ridiculous process all over again.

Why is this idea important?

This quango earns £80 million plus a year from the DWP to assess claimants for benefits medically. Many claimants are very disabled, have had months of treatment and surgery and are still under the care of NHS surgeons and GPs yet the DWP in their wisdom still ask for ATOS assessments.

The assesments are made by so called professionals who have been on a three day training course. Some are doctors, some are nurses aome are simply clerks. I know of numerous cases where the assessment has been so innaccurate and incorrect that appeals have been made.

Many of the appeals have been upheld but no one fines or deducts money from Atos and claimants are not given an explanation from the DWP, only from Atos. The DWP simply send out forms and start the whole ridiculous process all over again.

Equality and Human Rights – Parity Of Legislation

The RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS HATRED ACT 2006 (An Act to make provision about offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds.) has created a two tier system of law which is incompatible with Human Rights and The Equality Act 2010.

The Protected Characteristics ( defined by the Equality Act 2010 ) of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, sex and sexual orientation represent significant minorities who also are subjected to hatred and hate crime which is directly analogous and equivalent to Racial and Religious Hatred.

Why is this idea important?

The RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS HATRED ACT 2006 (An Act to make provision about offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds.) has created a two tier system of law which is incompatible with Human Rights and The Equality Act 2010.

The Protected Characteristics ( defined by the Equality Act 2010 ) of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, sex and sexual orientation represent significant minorities who also are subjected to hatred and hate crime which is directly analogous and equivalent to Racial and Religious Hatred.

Academies Bill

Do not allow this Bill to become law.  It is unnecessary and divisive.  It is aimed at schools which are already in the most privileged area.  It is a centralising move and takes local democracy away from the education system.

The Free School policy should also be prevented from becoming law.  Nobody thinks it's a good idea except for a few pushy parents.  The funding that these new schools will get is going to come from schools which are already struggling.  It's going to cost millions to implement with no evidence that it's going to do anything to improve educational standards.

At the very least it should be piloted.  Local authorities should at least have a voice on behalf of the local community to express a view about the desirability or otherwise of schools converting.  And the government must stop rushing this legislation through parliament and allow proper consultation and debate on it!

Why is this idea important?

Do not allow this Bill to become law.  It is unnecessary and divisive.  It is aimed at schools which are already in the most privileged area.  It is a centralising move and takes local democracy away from the education system.

The Free School policy should also be prevented from becoming law.  Nobody thinks it's a good idea except for a few pushy parents.  The funding that these new schools will get is going to come from schools which are already struggling.  It's going to cost millions to implement with no evidence that it's going to do anything to improve educational standards.

At the very least it should be piloted.  Local authorities should at least have a voice on behalf of the local community to express a view about the desirability or otherwise of schools converting.  And the government must stop rushing this legislation through parliament and allow proper consultation and debate on it!

Make politicians listen and act FOR us

Having just seen the new video introduction, it's abundantly clear that this site is a PR stunt.

There is another idea proposing its closure http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-your-freedom-forum

 

And in many ways I agree with the sentiments in that idea. If politicians are just going to discard ideas to suit their own agendas, then what is the point of debate.

 

Politicans are there to serve US, to listen and take on board OUR views – not to sit in judgement and discard ideas they may not agree with.

 

This country is allegedly a democracy, yet time and time again, politicians ignore the will of the people and do their own thing.

 

So politicians MUST be made to listen to the people they serve – as opposed to just serving their own self interests, or discarding ideas because they don't fit with their idealogy.

 

Of course, not all ideas will be viable – some will be outlandish, while others are just too draconian for a free society.

But serious suggestions that merely suggest compromise should not be discarded out of hand.

 

If they're only going to take on board those ideas which they supported before the election, then what is the point of sites like this ?

 

To my mind, it's now as pointless as the Downing Street petitions site.

Why is this idea important?

Having just seen the new video introduction, it's abundantly clear that this site is a PR stunt.

There is another idea proposing its closure http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-your-freedom-forum

 

And in many ways I agree with the sentiments in that idea. If politicians are just going to discard ideas to suit their own agendas, then what is the point of debate.

 

Politicans are there to serve US, to listen and take on board OUR views – not to sit in judgement and discard ideas they may not agree with.

 

This country is allegedly a democracy, yet time and time again, politicians ignore the will of the people and do their own thing.

 

So politicians MUST be made to listen to the people they serve – as opposed to just serving their own self interests, or discarding ideas because they don't fit with their idealogy.

 

Of course, not all ideas will be viable – some will be outlandish, while others are just too draconian for a free society.

But serious suggestions that merely suggest compromise should not be discarded out of hand.

 

If they're only going to take on board those ideas which they supported before the election, then what is the point of sites like this ?

 

To my mind, it's now as pointless as the Downing Street petitions site.

Cannabis Dispensaries

My idea is to repeal ALL criminal Laws governing the use of Cannabis and to create new businesses. 

We should allow shops ( Dispensaries ) under license to sell Cannabis. This Cannabis could be supplied by local growers. Similar to the US model only lets drop the whole charade of having to obtain a medical certificate first to buy it!

 

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to repeal ALL criminal Laws governing the use of Cannabis and to create new businesses. 

We should allow shops ( Dispensaries ) under license to sell Cannabis. This Cannabis could be supplied by local growers. Similar to the US model only lets drop the whole charade of having to obtain a medical certificate first to buy it!

 

Frozen Pensions in Australia, Canada and South Africa

Restore the indexing of pensions to people who migrated to the above countries.We are not asking for 'hand-outs', only for our 'rights' and contributed (paid our stamps) through our working lifes. Why are pensions index-linked in all other countries, except the above three?

Why is this idea important?

Restore the indexing of pensions to people who migrated to the above countries.We are not asking for 'hand-outs', only for our 'rights' and contributed (paid our stamps) through our working lifes. Why are pensions index-linked in all other countries, except the above three?

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.

Repeal The Lie’s & Deceit Of Generations Of Prohibition

After more than half a century of lies and deceit regarding cannabis and the reasons put forward for prohibition by successive governments in order to uphold the lie, the British public are wising up to the whitewash.

We will no longer accept the government's explanation of the merits of prohibition, neither will we continue to be lead astray by such pervasive deceitful policy.

The British public are far in advance of the government on the issue of the "War On Drugs", we have long acknowledged that the fundamental policy is corrupt and utterly unjust, unworkable and morally defunct.

It is now time for the government to repeal all such policies of openly lying to its electorate. It is time for the Government to play catch up with the public whim.

I demand that the government explain to the public why they have felt the need to deceive us for generations and why they have unjustly, immorally and unethically imprisoned so many citizens under trumped up charges that never made any rational sense. I demand to know why they continue to believe that it is right or correct to ruin some body's life for the act of consuming a substance that is of no consequence to anybody but themselves. Lastly, I am sure that I am not alone in also demanding that the Government come clean regarding the entire issue of prohibition and issue a deep and heartfelt apology to the public for creating and continuing to advocate possibly the second greatest deceitful  lie in human history.

REPEAL the governments ability to lie to their electorate by adopting rigid scientific and empirically lead independent bodies that can assess all comments made by government and analyse their factual content without interference from state.

Why is this idea important?

After more than half a century of lies and deceit regarding cannabis and the reasons put forward for prohibition by successive governments in order to uphold the lie, the British public are wising up to the whitewash.

We will no longer accept the government's explanation of the merits of prohibition, neither will we continue to be lead astray by such pervasive deceitful policy.

The British public are far in advance of the government on the issue of the "War On Drugs", we have long acknowledged that the fundamental policy is corrupt and utterly unjust, unworkable and morally defunct.

It is now time for the government to repeal all such policies of openly lying to its electorate. It is time for the Government to play catch up with the public whim.

I demand that the government explain to the public why they have felt the need to deceive us for generations and why they have unjustly, immorally and unethically imprisoned so many citizens under trumped up charges that never made any rational sense. I demand to know why they continue to believe that it is right or correct to ruin some body's life for the act of consuming a substance that is of no consequence to anybody but themselves. Lastly, I am sure that I am not alone in also demanding that the Government come clean regarding the entire issue of prohibition and issue a deep and heartfelt apology to the public for creating and continuing to advocate possibly the second greatest deceitful  lie in human history.

REPEAL the governments ability to lie to their electorate by adopting rigid scientific and empirically lead independent bodies that can assess all comments made by government and analyse their factual content without interference from state.

Smoking Ban – Let’s have a referendum!

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Regional disparities

Why should private equity and hedge funds, to use a high profile example, be considering re-locating to jurisdictions like Geneva for the tax breaks?

Instead, they should be encouraged to relocate to places like the West Midlands or Tyneside.

There should be five year term income tax and national insurance breaks for individuals living in areas of low employment.

Alternatively, there should be higher rates of tax for those working in designated areas such as central London.

Why is this idea important?

Why should private equity and hedge funds, to use a high profile example, be considering re-locating to jurisdictions like Geneva for the tax breaks?

Instead, they should be encouraged to relocate to places like the West Midlands or Tyneside.

There should be five year term income tax and national insurance breaks for individuals living in areas of low employment.

Alternatively, there should be higher rates of tax for those working in designated areas such as central London.

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.

Don’t like the smoking ban? You know where the door is.

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Why is this idea important?

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Circumvent the Glass Ceiling

The board of directors of every public limited company should consist of fifty percent plus one women. In practice this could mean that, regardless of how many directors there were, a quorum would consist of a stated number of directors (minumum three) of which fifty percent plus one would be women. For such purposes a woman would be defined as someone considered to be such by twelve other women selected at random.

Why is this idea important?

The board of directors of every public limited company should consist of fifty percent plus one women. In practice this could mean that, regardless of how many directors there were, a quorum would consist of a stated number of directors (minumum three) of which fifty percent plus one would be women. For such purposes a woman would be defined as someone considered to be such by twelve other women selected at random.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

The title says it all, doesn't it? But, just in case it isn't clear, let me re-phrase it. Equal pay for equal work means that if there are two people working in the same establishment, doing work which either (1) is covered by the same job description or (2) involves the same input of effort, time and ability or (3) produces the same output, whether measured in monetary terms or by less tangible criteria such as quality and beauty; those two people should receive the same compensation package, in terms of money, fringe benefits and job security. Such evaluation of input or output should be without regard to age, seniority, rank, sex, qualifications, past performance, future prospects or membership or otherwise of any professional body, pressure group, political party or religious grouping.  Such a policy, if enacted, would fully conform to the Equal Pay Guidelines of the EU.

Why is this idea important?

The title says it all, doesn't it? But, just in case it isn't clear, let me re-phrase it. Equal pay for equal work means that if there are two people working in the same establishment, doing work which either (1) is covered by the same job description or (2) involves the same input of effort, time and ability or (3) produces the same output, whether measured in monetary terms or by less tangible criteria such as quality and beauty; those two people should receive the same compensation package, in terms of money, fringe benefits and job security. Such evaluation of input or output should be without regard to age, seniority, rank, sex, qualifications, past performance, future prospects or membership or otherwise of any professional body, pressure group, political party or religious grouping.  Such a policy, if enacted, would fully conform to the Equal Pay Guidelines of the EU.

Unfair School Transport Policy for Low Income Children Living in Rural Areas

Dear Nick Clegg,

Please can you change the School Transport Policy to INCLUDE children from low income families living in rural areas that do not have 3 schools within 2 to 6 miles from their homes.

The policy states that the statutory right to free transport for secondary school pupils from low income families provides a choice to one of the three nearest schools to their home address. However, transport will only be provided if the school is between 2 and 6 miles of the home address, and to the nearest school preferred by reason of a parent's religion or belief, between 2 and 15 miles of the home address.

Real Choice – In a statement, School Minister Lord Adonis said "We want to remove transport as a barrier to parental choice. No young person should be prevented from going to a school of their choice simply because of travel costs. That's why it is vital to expand the right to free school travel for young people from low income families to give them real choice in applying for schools."

I look after my disabled husband and have two young secondary school aged children. I chose the second closest school for many important reasons and then was refused help with transport costs. Where is our "Real Choice"? There is no real choice if you live in a rural area!! Even religion is taken into account and are allowed up to 15 miles from their home. My second closest school is 12 miles from our home. You are lucky in most rural areas if you have one school close to your home! It is the children who live in rural areas that really need the help with transport costs as they have much further to travel thus incurring high costs.

We strongly believe we are being excluded from this policy just because we live in a rural part of Devon.

Please, please PLEASE can you amend this policy? Thank you.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Nick Clegg,

Please can you change the School Transport Policy to INCLUDE children from low income families living in rural areas that do not have 3 schools within 2 to 6 miles from their homes.

The policy states that the statutory right to free transport for secondary school pupils from low income families provides a choice to one of the three nearest schools to their home address. However, transport will only be provided if the school is between 2 and 6 miles of the home address, and to the nearest school preferred by reason of a parent's religion or belief, between 2 and 15 miles of the home address.

Real Choice – In a statement, School Minister Lord Adonis said "We want to remove transport as a barrier to parental choice. No young person should be prevented from going to a school of their choice simply because of travel costs. That's why it is vital to expand the right to free school travel for young people from low income families to give them real choice in applying for schools."

I look after my disabled husband and have two young secondary school aged children. I chose the second closest school for many important reasons and then was refused help with transport costs. Where is our "Real Choice"? There is no real choice if you live in a rural area!! Even religion is taken into account and are allowed up to 15 miles from their home. My second closest school is 12 miles from our home. You are lucky in most rural areas if you have one school close to your home! It is the children who live in rural areas that really need the help with transport costs as they have much further to travel thus incurring high costs.

We strongly believe we are being excluded from this policy just because we live in a rural part of Devon.

Please, please PLEASE can you amend this policy? Thank you.

Pensioners migrating abroad should not have pensions frozen.

UK pensioners should all be entitled automatically to the statutory increases in state pensions but this is not the case at present.

Pensioners who have children living abroad, eg in Australia, often consider migrating to spend their latter years with their families.   Something that can put them off doing this is that increases in the UK state pension are not allowed for those going to certain countries [such as Australia].  This is desperately unfair to UK nationals who have earned their pensions and have a right to them.  It is a deterrent to the natural inclination to be with children and families in people's declining years.  It is a denial of their human rights.

The cost to the UK of allowing the increases would be offset by the fact that the burden of care in those last years of life would be removed from UK services such as the NHS and Social Services.   Full state pension rights including increases should be restored to these hard-working and deserving older people.

A start could be made by granting the state pension increases to those migrating to join their children or families in Australia and New Zealand – but preferably to all areas right away.

Why is this idea important?

UK pensioners should all be entitled automatically to the statutory increases in state pensions but this is not the case at present.

Pensioners who have children living abroad, eg in Australia, often consider migrating to spend their latter years with their families.   Something that can put them off doing this is that increases in the UK state pension are not allowed for those going to certain countries [such as Australia].  This is desperately unfair to UK nationals who have earned their pensions and have a right to them.  It is a deterrent to the natural inclination to be with children and families in people's declining years.  It is a denial of their human rights.

The cost to the UK of allowing the increases would be offset by the fact that the burden of care in those last years of life would be removed from UK services such as the NHS and Social Services.   Full state pension rights including increases should be restored to these hard-working and deserving older people.

A start could be made by granting the state pension increases to those migrating to join their children or families in Australia and New Zealand – but preferably to all areas right away.

Job grant, unfair to the hard working people in society

Why is a Job Grant of 100 pounds  available to people who have been out of work for six or more months. Why is a tax free grant given to people who have been out of work the longest?  Adding to this, if you return to work after six months or more you also get additional support with rent and council tax.

Therefore if you have lost your job and searched endlessly for another job and then start work where your pay is on a monthly basis, but have been out of work for less six months you get no Job Grant, or help with housing benefit or council tax since all benefit ceases. You are then left to somehow survive and pay all rent and council tax, which would mean that you would very likely be much worse off than being on job seekers allowance.

It's a bit annoying like the appointment system at Jobcentreplus offices, where they book you an appointment and you arrive on time to be seen 20 minutes later. When making a query about this I was told " your husand is a RARE case, many people can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning" .  Well if somebody can't " be bothered" to get out of bed should they be allowed extra time, surely if they can't get out of bed once every two weeks to sign on then surely there is little enthusiasm to get a job? and would they be allowed to roll into work 30 minutes late without being sacked? I very much doubt it.  

 

Why is this idea important?

Why is a Job Grant of 100 pounds  available to people who have been out of work for six or more months. Why is a tax free grant given to people who have been out of work the longest?  Adding to this, if you return to work after six months or more you also get additional support with rent and council tax.

Therefore if you have lost your job and searched endlessly for another job and then start work where your pay is on a monthly basis, but have been out of work for less six months you get no Job Grant, or help with housing benefit or council tax since all benefit ceases. You are then left to somehow survive and pay all rent and council tax, which would mean that you would very likely be much worse off than being on job seekers allowance.

It's a bit annoying like the appointment system at Jobcentreplus offices, where they book you an appointment and you arrive on time to be seen 20 minutes later. When making a query about this I was told " your husand is a RARE case, many people can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning" .  Well if somebody can't " be bothered" to get out of bed should they be allowed extra time, surely if they can't get out of bed once every two weeks to sign on then surely there is little enthusiasm to get a job? and would they be allowed to roll into work 30 minutes late without being sacked? I very much doubt it.