Question for Mr. Clegg RE: Why am I a criminal?

A quick question to you Mr. Clegg to which I would appreciate a straight answer.

I am a hard working citizen who is also in adult education at the moment, studying hard for a Gas Safety qualification. I have never taken any form of welfare from the state as an adult and therefore have cost the state nothing. I am morally adept, ethically minded and a responsible adult. I care for those around me, I help other people wherever and whenever I can whether that's by lifting a heavy suit case down some stairs for a mother who was also trying to look after her child (my most recent good deed) or by any other means. I am an upstanding member of society, I have passed my first aid qualifications and I try to be as good a person as I can be. I actively contribute to the society that I am part of. I used to smoke cannabis regularly and still do on occasion. I am "T" total, I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't indulge in any other drug habit. I speak well, am educated and well read. Lastly, I have never caused disruption of the peace, I have never been in a fight nor raised my hand against any other person.

Therefore, my question to you Mr. Clegg is: Please would you describe exactly why the state insists on criminalising me as well as millions like me and, furthermore, please explain in full the criminal act that I am accused of?

If you cannot justify my enduring criminalisation then perhaps you have just answered the question of the immorality of the Misuse of Drugs Act and also why it should be immediately repealed.

Why is this idea important?

A quick question to you Mr. Clegg to which I would appreciate a straight answer.

I am a hard working citizen who is also in adult education at the moment, studying hard for a Gas Safety qualification. I have never taken any form of welfare from the state as an adult and therefore have cost the state nothing. I am morally adept, ethically minded and a responsible adult. I care for those around me, I help other people wherever and whenever I can whether that's by lifting a heavy suit case down some stairs for a mother who was also trying to look after her child (my most recent good deed) or by any other means. I am an upstanding member of society, I have passed my first aid qualifications and I try to be as good a person as I can be. I actively contribute to the society that I am part of. I used to smoke cannabis regularly and still do on occasion. I am "T" total, I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't indulge in any other drug habit. I speak well, am educated and well read. Lastly, I have never caused disruption of the peace, I have never been in a fight nor raised my hand against any other person.

Therefore, my question to you Mr. Clegg is: Please would you describe exactly why the state insists on criminalising me as well as millions like me and, furthermore, please explain in full the criminal act that I am accused of?

If you cannot justify my enduring criminalisation then perhaps you have just answered the question of the immorality of the Misuse of Drugs Act and also why it should be immediately repealed.

STOP TEACHING CHILDREN ABOUT SEX

No wonder we have the highest average of under age sex when my 14 year old nephew comes in from school and tells me he cant wait to have a go, and half the school is pregnant, the education system is ramming sex down there theoats, buzz bus outside where the ice cream van should be giving out free condoms…. what a world.

Why is this idea important?

No wonder we have the highest average of under age sex when my 14 year old nephew comes in from school and tells me he cant wait to have a go, and half the school is pregnant, the education system is ramming sex down there theoats, buzz bus outside where the ice cream van should be giving out free condoms…. what a world.

The right (if terminally ill) to die painfree and with dignity.

Whilst I realise this could be misused, if the correct procedures were in place, this would prove a blessing for a large proportion of the diagnosed terminally ill. How devastating it is at present to watch your loved ones die, usually unconscious, unable to converse with their families, because doctors and nurses don’t usually tell the families how bad the patient is until it is too late. They are then dispatched to a hospice if lucky, and die there, without regaining consciousness, and many personal things are left unsaid, and cause untold problems with the grieving process.

Why is this idea important?

Whilst I realise this could be misused, if the correct procedures were in place, this would prove a blessing for a large proportion of the diagnosed terminally ill. How devastating it is at present to watch your loved ones die, usually unconscious, unable to converse with their families, because doctors and nurses don’t usually tell the families how bad the patient is until it is too late. They are then dispatched to a hospice if lucky, and die there, without regaining consciousness, and many personal things are left unsaid, and cause untold problems with the grieving process.

Private sector doctors should not be able to overrule your own GP

The idea is that whichever law allows companies to send people to private  doctors, who are obviously working in the interests of the company, not the patients (in breach of some of the most basic tenants of their profession) needs to be changed in some manner so that these unethical sellout doctors cannot overrule your own GP.

Your own GP acts in the interests of a patients wellbeing, as it should be, whereas an unethical private doctor working only in the interests of a company only has their own financial interests and the interests of the company they have sold out to in their minds.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is that whichever law allows companies to send people to private  doctors, who are obviously working in the interests of the company, not the patients (in breach of some of the most basic tenants of their profession) needs to be changed in some manner so that these unethical sellout doctors cannot overrule your own GP.

Your own GP acts in the interests of a patients wellbeing, as it should be, whereas an unethical private doctor working only in the interests of a company only has their own financial interests and the interests of the company they have sold out to in their minds.

Private sector doctors should not be able to overrule your own GP

The idea is that whichever law allows companies to send people to private  doctors, who are obviously working in the interests of the company, not the patients (in breach of some of the most basic tenants of their profession) needs to be changed in some manner so that these unethical sellout doctors cannot overrule your own GP.

Your own GP acts in the interests of a patients wellbeing, as it should be, whereas an unethical private doctor working only in the interests of a company only has their own financial interests and the interests of the company they have sold out to in their minds.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is that whichever law allows companies to send people to private  doctors, who are obviously working in the interests of the company, not the patients (in breach of some of the most basic tenants of their profession) needs to be changed in some manner so that these unethical sellout doctors cannot overrule your own GP.

Your own GP acts in the interests of a patients wellbeing, as it should be, whereas an unethical private doctor working only in the interests of a company only has their own financial interests and the interests of the company they have sold out to in their minds.

Replace compulsory Religious Education with compulsory Moral & Ethical Education

Over the years Relgious Education has evolved from being the detailed study of one or more religions to branch out into the study of morality and ethics.

RE, as it stands in its current form still focuses around a select number of religion and within them specific religious viewpoints.  Therefore when studying the ethics of abortion it is presented mainly from a religious perspective placing any other non-religious positions as secondry counter arguments.  This is negative for two reasons: select religious frameworks are presented as primary positions with other religious or non-religious ethical frameworks as secondry disagreements with the primary positions.  This is a distortion created by the fact that religion is the primary concern within the curriculum.

This is an unfair and prejudiced manner of presenting certain ethical frameworks over others in a manner which creates the illusion of discord between many ethical positions.

To progress the natural evolution of RE into ethics the curriculum should be changed to remove the traidtional theologicaly based detailed study of religions.  This way the ethics can be placed as the primary subject of study.  A more diverse range of ethical frameworks can then be studied and discussed alongside each other on equal footings.

Here are a couple of examples:  currently the study on the ethics of abortion would be first presented from the perspective of religious teachings (primarily Abrahamic teachings: Christian, Muslim and Jewish).  Any other ethical frameworks (e.g. humanism) are presented as being in disagreement and as an aside, not as a primary framework.

In ethics the subject matter of abortion would first be presented.  Then the position of different ethical frameworks would be explored: a liberal religious person (Christian, Muslim etc.), a humanist, or conservative religions and athiest (who would both argue from the perspective of family values).

Consider something that encompasses a wider range of perspecitves.  Food ethics would be currently presented as the differences between Christian, Muslim and Jewish.  In Ethics it would explore those ethical frameworks but also Vegetarianism (in both secular and religious) exploring the comonality, plus the Enviromental frameworks or even those proposing GM as a solution to food ethics (starvation etc.)

As you can see from the few examples Moral and Ethical Education is the only way we can teach children in a way that acknowledges the wide range and diversity of moral frameworks in a secular and multi-cultural society while exploring their similarities and differences in a fair and equal platform.

Why is this idea important?

Over the years Relgious Education has evolved from being the detailed study of one or more religions to branch out into the study of morality and ethics.

RE, as it stands in its current form still focuses around a select number of religion and within them specific religious viewpoints.  Therefore when studying the ethics of abortion it is presented mainly from a religious perspective placing any other non-religious positions as secondry counter arguments.  This is negative for two reasons: select religious frameworks are presented as primary positions with other religious or non-religious ethical frameworks as secondry disagreements with the primary positions.  This is a distortion created by the fact that religion is the primary concern within the curriculum.

This is an unfair and prejudiced manner of presenting certain ethical frameworks over others in a manner which creates the illusion of discord between many ethical positions.

To progress the natural evolution of RE into ethics the curriculum should be changed to remove the traidtional theologicaly based detailed study of religions.  This way the ethics can be placed as the primary subject of study.  A more diverse range of ethical frameworks can then be studied and discussed alongside each other on equal footings.

Here are a couple of examples:  currently the study on the ethics of abortion would be first presented from the perspective of religious teachings (primarily Abrahamic teachings: Christian, Muslim and Jewish).  Any other ethical frameworks (e.g. humanism) are presented as being in disagreement and as an aside, not as a primary framework.

In ethics the subject matter of abortion would first be presented.  Then the position of different ethical frameworks would be explored: a liberal religious person (Christian, Muslim etc.), a humanist, or conservative religions and athiest (who would both argue from the perspective of family values).

Consider something that encompasses a wider range of perspecitves.  Food ethics would be currently presented as the differences between Christian, Muslim and Jewish.  In Ethics it would explore those ethical frameworks but also Vegetarianism (in both secular and religious) exploring the comonality, plus the Enviromental frameworks or even those proposing GM as a solution to food ethics (starvation etc.)

As you can see from the few examples Moral and Ethical Education is the only way we can teach children in a way that acknowledges the wide range and diversity of moral frameworks in a secular and multi-cultural society while exploring their similarities and differences in a fair and equal platform.

Rewarding Ethical Companies Using The Tax System

I would like to propose the government considers making corporate taxation voluntary.

 

This provides a way for government to remove a raft of regulation and legislation while at the same time allowing businesses that treat their stakeholders well an opportunity to leverage their ethical behaviour so that it translates to the balance sheet.

 

By stakeholders in a business, I mean shareholders, customers, suppliers, employees, the environment and the community.

 

At the moment, the only measure of a company's success is the balance sheet. This determines the share price and thus the way the markets perceive a company. The only way a Government can truly influence this is through taxation and the best way governments can ensure ethics are maintained in business is by making corporate taxation voluntary.

 

Governments should empower organisations such as Trade Unions, Environmental Groups, Supplier Organisations, Local Councils, and Consumer Groups to set up ethical behaviour standards that represent what they consider the ethical way to conduct business. Government itself should also maintain a certification scheme that allows it to act against excessive bonuses and reward companies that employ people in development areas.

If a business meets these standards and gains certification, then that business should be exempted from a proportion of their tax bill – thus improving their balance sheet, profits and share price. A particularly good company that consistently achieves the highest ethical standards should therefore pay little or no tax.

The external bodies would be allowed to charge for certification so that they would be able to afford the resources to run them properly. It is also possible to allow different certification bodies to compete with each other over certification. E.g. Different Trade Unions could all offer their own schemes as could different environmental charities.

Companies would not be forced to accept expensive, over the top schemes because if a particular certification was too onerous, the companies would just choose to pay the tax instead.

However, it would introduce ethical frameworks that had a direct impact on share prices.

 

Sharp business practice is contagious. When a company discovers a way to cut costs at the expense of a stakeholder, they are able to compete that much more effectively against companies that try to uphold a higher standard of ethics. Of course, when there is a sufficient public outcry over a particular practice, governments and regulators have moved to legislate against it. Sadly they too often find that there is little they can do to stop it or it is too late to save some businesses.

One particular safeguard for the system to work is a strengthening of tax evasion legislation and punishments to make key executives directly accountable for making sure they are following the rules of the system and are being honest in all their dealings surrounding certifications.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to propose the government considers making corporate taxation voluntary.

 

This provides a way for government to remove a raft of regulation and legislation while at the same time allowing businesses that treat their stakeholders well an opportunity to leverage their ethical behaviour so that it translates to the balance sheet.

 

By stakeholders in a business, I mean shareholders, customers, suppliers, employees, the environment and the community.

 

At the moment, the only measure of a company's success is the balance sheet. This determines the share price and thus the way the markets perceive a company. The only way a Government can truly influence this is through taxation and the best way governments can ensure ethics are maintained in business is by making corporate taxation voluntary.

 

Governments should empower organisations such as Trade Unions, Environmental Groups, Supplier Organisations, Local Councils, and Consumer Groups to set up ethical behaviour standards that represent what they consider the ethical way to conduct business. Government itself should also maintain a certification scheme that allows it to act against excessive bonuses and reward companies that employ people in development areas.

If a business meets these standards and gains certification, then that business should be exempted from a proportion of their tax bill – thus improving their balance sheet, profits and share price. A particularly good company that consistently achieves the highest ethical standards should therefore pay little or no tax.

The external bodies would be allowed to charge for certification so that they would be able to afford the resources to run them properly. It is also possible to allow different certification bodies to compete with each other over certification. E.g. Different Trade Unions could all offer their own schemes as could different environmental charities.

Companies would not be forced to accept expensive, over the top schemes because if a particular certification was too onerous, the companies would just choose to pay the tax instead.

However, it would introduce ethical frameworks that had a direct impact on share prices.

 

Sharp business practice is contagious. When a company discovers a way to cut costs at the expense of a stakeholder, they are able to compete that much more effectively against companies that try to uphold a higher standard of ethics. Of course, when there is a sufficient public outcry over a particular practice, governments and regulators have moved to legislate against it. Sadly they too often find that there is little they can do to stop it or it is too late to save some businesses.

One particular safeguard for the system to work is a strengthening of tax evasion legislation and punishments to make key executives directly accountable for making sure they are following the rules of the system and are being honest in all their dealings surrounding certifications.