Remove requirement for top level football grounds to be all-seated

Section 11.1 of the Football Spectators Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate that certain football grounds are all-seated, a power that is currently applied to the top two divisions. This section should be repealed.

Practical experience shows that the all-seater rules are unenforceable. Every week, thousands of people stand in front of their seats for the duration of the game. Many who would like to sit down are unable to use their seats, as they find their view blocked. Varied and repeated attempts to tackle this practice have failed.

The evidence demonstrates that when those who wish to stand are provided with designated Safe Standing areas, the issue of standing in seated areas largely goes away. This benefits everyone.

In England and Wales, Safe Standing areas are permitted at rugby union and rugby league venues, as well as at speedway and horse racing events. Safe Standing is also allowed at football grounds outside the top two divisions, subject to the stringent standards laid down in the Government's Green Guide. The idea that the safety of an stadium depends on the type and quality of event happening on the pitch is absurd. This anomoly can best be tackled by removing section 11.1.

Why is this idea important?

Section 11.1 of the Football Spectators Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate that certain football grounds are all-seated, a power that is currently applied to the top two divisions. This section should be repealed.

Practical experience shows that the all-seater rules are unenforceable. Every week, thousands of people stand in front of their seats for the duration of the game. Many who would like to sit down are unable to use their seats, as they find their view blocked. Varied and repeated attempts to tackle this practice have failed.

The evidence demonstrates that when those who wish to stand are provided with designated Safe Standing areas, the issue of standing in seated areas largely goes away. This benefits everyone.

In England and Wales, Safe Standing areas are permitted at rugby union and rugby league venues, as well as at speedway and horse racing events. Safe Standing is also allowed at football grounds outside the top two divisions, subject to the stringent standards laid down in the Government's Green Guide. The idea that the safety of an stadium depends on the type and quality of event happening on the pitch is absurd. This anomoly can best be tackled by removing section 11.1.

Increase ALL women’s wages by 12.2 per cent

The Office of National Statistics shows that even today men in full-time employment still earn 12.2 per cent more than women doing the same jobs.

We are all told that the reasons for this are complex and that there are issues of confidentiality which prevent the problem being adequately addressed.

A simple solution would be to increase the wages for ALL women in full-time employment by 12.2 per cent. This would, in a single stroke, acheive the equality which decades of government policy has failed to do.

Why is this idea important?

The Office of National Statistics shows that even today men in full-time employment still earn 12.2 per cent more than women doing the same jobs.

We are all told that the reasons for this are complex and that there are issues of confidentiality which prevent the problem being adequately addressed.

A simple solution would be to increase the wages for ALL women in full-time employment by 12.2 per cent. This would, in a single stroke, acheive the equality which decades of government policy has failed to do.

Housing Crisis in the rental section

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

Why is this idea important?

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

Repeal the laws that allowe Members of Parliament to abstain from obeying certain selected British laws

MPs must not be allow to vote themselves and parliament parliamentory immunity from prosecution or to be outside of laws and or regulations that they set for the rest of the citizens of this country

Why is this idea important?

MPs must not be allow to vote themselves and parliament parliamentory immunity from prosecution or to be outside of laws and or regulations that they set for the rest of the citizens of this country

Ensure all ex-pats receive their full indexed pension

Brits who have paid the mandatory NI pension contributions are being cheated if they move to certain countries…specifically some Commonwealth countries. Their pensions are FROZEN at the amount they first receive. This is outright robbery. These people have paid the exact same amount as all other Brits and yet are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs. For instance, those who emigrate to Canada or Australia have their pensions frozen. While those who move to the USA do not. This is outrageous and goes against all Human Rights.

It's time the new Government did the RIGHT and MORAL thing and righted this wrong.

Why is this idea important?

Brits who have paid the mandatory NI pension contributions are being cheated if they move to certain countries…specifically some Commonwealth countries. Their pensions are FROZEN at the amount they first receive. This is outright robbery. These people have paid the exact same amount as all other Brits and yet are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs. For instance, those who emigrate to Canada or Australia have their pensions frozen. While those who move to the USA do not. This is outrageous and goes against all Human Rights.

It's time the new Government did the RIGHT and MORAL thing and righted this wrong.

Regulate the housing market by creating more social housing and the mass construction of rent controlled, high quality housing at cost

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Why is this idea important?

The UK economy is heavily unbalanced and society is under severe strain because of the unhealthy proccupation with property values . The private sector should be controlled and the govt should intervene to create more social housing with a new  agile and diverse  philosophy that would allow tenants to rent, buy, exchange but with clearly defined rules on standards of upkeep and presentation .

Southern Europe has some interesting models with public corporations that develop public and private land under cost controlled ,socially  diverse  responsible and means tested models that allow , different age groups, economic classes etc to establish a foothold in areas otherwise closed to them .

Rent controlled projects should be encouraged to draw demand away from the private sector and prevent overheating in the housing market .

Vat charged on zero-rated items at cafes(specifically Motorway Services)

Currently we are all paying Vat on zero-rated items purchased at Motorway Services (the cafe sections) If you are prepared to eat your cake ,purchased with your coffee ,away from the seating area then you should be entitled to receive the assumed 17.5% vat paid on these items as a refund.

 The question at each of these venues should be asked are you sitting in or are you eating out . Many customers are completely unaware that they are paying Vat on certain items in these outlets because they are simply sitting eating at the venue .If you took your cake etc. and ate it in the car or outside then Vat should not be charged. It should be a compulsary question 'sit in or eating out?' and the appropriate pricing regime applied according to the answer given.This would save the consumers money,probably more product would be sold (as the products would be cheaper) and probably more seats would be freed up at the venues.Details of the answer would have to be recorded as HMRC would require this as proof.(surely a minor software tweek)

Doubtless ,the Motorway Services owners are actually not gaining from the current situation as the extra Vat will be getting paid the HMRC ,Hopefully? and as they are dedicated catering outlets they are probably forced to charge Vat on thes items by HMRC but clearly if you are unaware of this as a consumer why ,if you intend eating in the car ,would you pay more at the cafe than say WH smith next door for the same snack!

 

Why is this idea important?

Currently we are all paying Vat on zero-rated items purchased at Motorway Services (the cafe sections) If you are prepared to eat your cake ,purchased with your coffee ,away from the seating area then you should be entitled to receive the assumed 17.5% vat paid on these items as a refund.

 The question at each of these venues should be asked are you sitting in or are you eating out . Many customers are completely unaware that they are paying Vat on certain items in these outlets because they are simply sitting eating at the venue .If you took your cake etc. and ate it in the car or outside then Vat should not be charged. It should be a compulsary question 'sit in or eating out?' and the appropriate pricing regime applied according to the answer given.This would save the consumers money,probably more product would be sold (as the products would be cheaper) and probably more seats would be freed up at the venues.Details of the answer would have to be recorded as HMRC would require this as proof.(surely a minor software tweek)

Doubtless ,the Motorway Services owners are actually not gaining from the current situation as the extra Vat will be getting paid the HMRC ,Hopefully? and as they are dedicated catering outlets they are probably forced to charge Vat on thes items by HMRC but clearly if you are unaware of this as a consumer why ,if you intend eating in the car ,would you pay more at the cafe than say WH smith next door for the same snack!

 

Repeal the laws which require offenders to register beyond ten years without a review

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which supported a High Court ruling against the Home Office/Government, stated that sex offenders should not be required to continue registering each year without having their case reviewed to see if they still pose a threat. They ruled that this requirement conflicted with EC Human Rights Article 8, therefore that part of the Sex Offenders Act which makes lifelong registration without the possibility of review must be removed from UK law.

The Supreme Court ruled that every case should be reviewed after ten years, and each year thereafter if necessary, which would reduce the workload of the police having to monitor those who no longer pose a threat, or never posed a threat in the first place. The Government have yet to implement this ruling.
 

Why is this idea important?

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which supported a High Court ruling against the Home Office/Government, stated that sex offenders should not be required to continue registering each year without having their case reviewed to see if they still pose a threat. They ruled that this requirement conflicted with EC Human Rights Article 8, therefore that part of the Sex Offenders Act which makes lifelong registration without the possibility of review must be removed from UK law.

The Supreme Court ruled that every case should be reviewed after ten years, and each year thereafter if necessary, which would reduce the workload of the police having to monitor those who no longer pose a threat, or never posed a threat in the first place. The Government have yet to implement this ruling.
 

Eliminate freezing of pensions

Currently UK old age pensions are frozen for British citizens who reside in certain countries overseas, for example, Canada, Australia, South Africa, but not if they reside in the USA or EC. This is not a comprehensive list but it serves to illustrate the clear disparity in the way in which the Britain Government has chosen to treat large numbers of its citizens who are fully entitled to receive a UK pension but may choose to live overseas and receive their pension where they live.

To illustrate, once you retire and receive your UK pension, you will receive the annually awarded increase if you reside in the UK, anywhere in the EC, the USA and many other countries around the world. However, if you choose to go and live in Canada, Australia and certain other Commonwealth countries in order to be near family, your pension will be frozen at the amount first granted if you live overseas or at the figure when you left the UK.

There can be no legitimate reason why this standard entitlement is refused to people simply based upon the place where they live. It is palpably unfair and urgently needs to be rescinded.

 

Why is this idea important?

Currently UK old age pensions are frozen for British citizens who reside in certain countries overseas, for example, Canada, Australia, South Africa, but not if they reside in the USA or EC. This is not a comprehensive list but it serves to illustrate the clear disparity in the way in which the Britain Government has chosen to treat large numbers of its citizens who are fully entitled to receive a UK pension but may choose to live overseas and receive their pension where they live.

To illustrate, once you retire and receive your UK pension, you will receive the annually awarded increase if you reside in the UK, anywhere in the EC, the USA and many other countries around the world. However, if you choose to go and live in Canada, Australia and certain other Commonwealth countries in order to be near family, your pension will be frozen at the amount first granted if you live overseas or at the figure when you left the UK.

There can be no legitimate reason why this standard entitlement is refused to people simply based upon the place where they live. It is palpably unfair and urgently needs to be rescinded.

 

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

Energy companies must pay YOU interest if they hold your money.

Energy companies hold billions of pounds of money of our money.  They are earning profit interest on these holdings.

In the same way that companies can charge interest on outstanding invoices, energy companies should be forced to pay interest on balances on energy accounts (I suggest 5% above BoE base rate)..

Why is this idea important?

Energy companies hold billions of pounds of money of our money.  They are earning profit interest on these holdings.

In the same way that companies can charge interest on outstanding invoices, energy companies should be forced to pay interest on balances on energy accounts (I suggest 5% above BoE base rate)..

Immediate Clean Slate for all Non-Fraudulent Tax Credit Overpayments

Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud.  This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have.  Compassion and sound economics all in one!

Why is this idea important?

Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud.  This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have.  Compassion and sound economics all in one!

Free Speech Against Feminism

Why do I ask for this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't that shameful?

Why is this idea important?

Why do I ask for this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't that shameful?

NO U-TURN ON ANYONYMITY FOR RAPE ACCUSED!!!

It is totally outrageous that after the Coalition government promising to give anonymity to (almost entirely MALE) ALLAGED male rapists it has now CAVED IN TO PRESSURE from FEMINIST EXTREMISTS.

According to the BBC News – the grounds for this u-turn have been "Labour and women Tory MPs said it could send a negative signal about women who accuse men of rape."

Could you tell us please what kind of "signal" gets sent about MEN WHO GET FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE?

Pretty negative I'd say.

And just WHO is running this country? Labour feminist MPs? Feminist women who have sneaked into seats in the Conservative party now that there's little point them infiltrating the Labour party any more AS THEY DID, I watched it happen since the 70s, as there's no POWER in it for them.

So the partly Liberal Coalition gets elected, but it still does what it is told by a bunch of shrieking feminist activists, who endlessly criticise it simply because there aren't enough (in THEIR opinion) women in the cabinet???  What an IMPOTENT excercise of "power" by the Coalition, first making a decision which was a FAIR, JUST ONE, properly acknowledging the EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS of men and then caving in at the first sign of protests from shrieking, deeply unjust, feminist women.

It's THESE kind of people, largely a feminist government we've been living under in the Blair era, with their hypocrisy, more interested in their job titles, their salaries and perks, and their reflections in the mirror, and fiddling their expenses, who have got us in this mess in the first place – our disrespectful, crime ridden, badly behaved, debt ridden, teenage pregnant,m dryg addcuted, unsafe to walk the streets, etc, society  -, and now they have not been ELECTED as a government ,  they are simply INTIMIDATING/BULLYING to get what they want by shrieking propaganda at the government who have!

And of course, the great irony is that ACCUSERS (almost entirely women), THEY get anonymity, but the men ACCUSED don't!

Astounding!

i.e. a man can be FALSELY accused on any petty, malevolent whim of a woman who is upset with him, and HE gets publicly shamed, made a leper in  his community and maybe even subject to attack from gangs of yobs who are always looking for an excuse to attack some innocent person, while SHE hides laughing in the shadows, as he gets tortured and publicly ridiculed, and maybe never trusted again by other women in the community where he lives, even if found totally innocent of the crime.

So a case was given to justify this shrieking protest from the feminists, of a taxi driver who raped 80 women (so THEY tell us, I wasn't there), and until his name was published, all the other women who had been raped didn't come forward.

Yes – well, what a TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ARGUMENT. Once the guy had been CONVICTED his name would have been published ANYWAY. So THEN they would have had their opportunity to come forward.

And in any case, this is no grounds to lift anonymity from accused men, because what the government should be seeking to do is to PREVENT RAPE rather than all the emphasis being on CONVICTING RAPISTS.

Because these feminists are apparently too stupid to realise that once a woman has actually been raped (if it REALLY happend that is, and it's not just a malevolent false accusation) it's actually TOO LATE.

Sure, if he is caught and convicted, it will (for a time) prevent him raping other women, but that won't ever make it right for the woman who has been raped ALREADY.

So let's take the example of this taxi driver rapist. Firstly, women have to start taking FAR MORE RESPONSIBLITY for their own actions. If a drunken woman is going home from a nightclub or party and  she goes home ALONE in a taxi or even car driven by ANY man she is not "asking for it", but she is TAKING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK.

Men in general are not saints, as no more so are women, and x percent of men will feel tempted when a woman's defences are down like that, knowing that due to drink she might not even REMEMBER who he is.

So the solution to preventing women being raped, is not to keep printing the names and pictures in Newspapers or showing on TV men who just MIGHT have done a rape, but it's not proven, but to educate women to take more responsibility for their own actions, and also put in place practical steps like WOMEN ONLY TAXI SERVICES with women only drivers.

Or you know, why don't we give the feminists what they REALLY want? Which is to basically have every man wear a warning sign on him wherever he goes, hanging around his neck, that says RAPIST UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, and there should be a big database of EVERY  male over 10  giving  his name and address, and a photo of him, and if a woman doesn't like a particular man, all she has to do is email in (ANONYMOUSLY OF COURSE) a rape accusation, and then minutes later, the police will be kicking in his door, and hauling him off for interrogation, assuming him guilty until proven iinnocent.

I assure all the men and sane non-feminist women, that if the feminsits had their way, the above scenario would be pretty much a reality, and I am not joking.

Because think about it logically, and it's easy to see such a publicly accessible database of men that women could search through, would surely make it much easier to find any man they believe has raped them, so surely if it would prevent ONE SINGLE WOMAN getting raped, that justifies it being done?

No, IT DOES NOT.  That's ALWAYS the excuse.

e.g. why not take EVERYBODY'S DNA at birth? Surely that would make ALL criminals easier to catch?

Why? Because we've got HUMAN RIGHTS, the rigbht to lvie in freedom unless it's PROVEN we are some kind of threat to society.

The feminsts are interesting only in  WOMEN'S RIGHTS, not MEN'S RIGHTS, and not only that, they are shrieking endlessly about women's RIGHTS, but what they DON'T talk about, is women's RESPONSIBILITIES. E.G. to take care of their children properly, or be fair to men, or to not act stupidly getting drunk and going home in a man's car alone or going back to the flat/home of a man they hardly know, and expecting there to be no risk in such an unwise course of action.

And I'm appalled that so many men are so mute and meek on this subject, because they foolishly imagine  a false couldn't happen to THEM.

(well yes, just hide in your home, never go out, never be anywhere near the company of women, never answer the door to a woman caller (let alone let her in – NUCLEAR ALERT!) don't go anywhere near your daughter, sister, mothers, grandmothers, aunt, girl cousin, sister in law,  a mixed sex work place, bar, public park, cinema, concert, theatre, shopping centre, or place of worship, and you just MIGHT be in with a chance that you'll NEVER be accused of rape/sexual aasault).

Whereas the fact is, that women are routinely accusing men of all kinds of things, and using the police against men, just to get their own way, or to "punish" a man who displeases them in some way, make his life a misery, it's not only rape accusations.

It could be because IN HER OPINION he is disciplining a misbehaving child in a way SHE doesn't agree with, and because she uses the law to stop him controlling the child, we end up with a society of out of control children, who become vandals, hooligans, violent thugs, gang members, and yes, even RAPISTS, because she used the feminist controlled law against a man who was trying to keep a child in hand, teach it to have RESPECT for other human beings.

So few men are really THINKING what a serious issue this is: it's not just about rape, it's a whole flotilla of infringinments and inequalities against men's rights, and this is just the most obvious example.

One more REAL LIFE example of someone I know, what happened to him recently to illustrate the point. He allowed a woman to share his flat, the relationship failed and he told her to leave. She then reported him to the police, accused him of kidnapping and raping her and the police came to take him away. He was saved ONLY by the fact there were messages from her on his mobile phone which showed they obviously had an ongoing CONSENSUAL relationship.

So without that slender but VITAL evidence, only available incidentaly since the mobile phone era, he would likely have been imprisoned until trial, and possibly even sentenced to many years as a convicted rapist and kidnapper, and his life would have been over, all on HER MALEVOLENT WHIM and FALSE ACCUSATION.

And all the while SHE would have (and as far as I know, still IS) remained TOTALLY ANONYMOUS and able to do exactly the same to any number of future male victims.

As is usual, with the feminists, we only ever here ONE HALF of the story, only about men's crimes (alleged) against women, but NEVER about  women's  numerous crimes against men in all kinds of ways, false accusations to police, social workers and other authorities being a very favourite one at the present.

That this Coalition is continuing the DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 50 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION (Ii.e MEN) started mainly by the New Labour Feminists, is a totally appalling injustice, and failure of them to uphold CIVIL LIBERTIES as they have promised, the very thing this website is supposed to be about.
 

 

Why is this idea important?

It is totally outrageous that after the Coalition government promising to give anonymity to (almost entirely MALE) ALLAGED male rapists it has now CAVED IN TO PRESSURE from FEMINIST EXTREMISTS.

According to the BBC News – the grounds for this u-turn have been "Labour and women Tory MPs said it could send a negative signal about women who accuse men of rape."

Could you tell us please what kind of "signal" gets sent about MEN WHO GET FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE?

Pretty negative I'd say.

And just WHO is running this country? Labour feminist MPs? Feminist women who have sneaked into seats in the Conservative party now that there's little point them infiltrating the Labour party any more AS THEY DID, I watched it happen since the 70s, as there's no POWER in it for them.

So the partly Liberal Coalition gets elected, but it still does what it is told by a bunch of shrieking feminist activists, who endlessly criticise it simply because there aren't enough (in THEIR opinion) women in the cabinet???  What an IMPOTENT excercise of "power" by the Coalition, first making a decision which was a FAIR, JUST ONE, properly acknowledging the EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS of men and then caving in at the first sign of protests from shrieking, deeply unjust, feminist women.

It's THESE kind of people, largely a feminist government we've been living under in the Blair era, with their hypocrisy, more interested in their job titles, their salaries and perks, and their reflections in the mirror, and fiddling their expenses, who have got us in this mess in the first place – our disrespectful, crime ridden, badly behaved, debt ridden, teenage pregnant,m dryg addcuted, unsafe to walk the streets, etc, society  -, and now they have not been ELECTED as a government ,  they are simply INTIMIDATING/BULLYING to get what they want by shrieking propaganda at the government who have!

And of course, the great irony is that ACCUSERS (almost entirely women), THEY get anonymity, but the men ACCUSED don't!

Astounding!

i.e. a man can be FALSELY accused on any petty, malevolent whim of a woman who is upset with him, and HE gets publicly shamed, made a leper in  his community and maybe even subject to attack from gangs of yobs who are always looking for an excuse to attack some innocent person, while SHE hides laughing in the shadows, as he gets tortured and publicly ridiculed, and maybe never trusted again by other women in the community where he lives, even if found totally innocent of the crime.

So a case was given to justify this shrieking protest from the feminists, of a taxi driver who raped 80 women (so THEY tell us, I wasn't there), and until his name was published, all the other women who had been raped didn't come forward.

Yes – well, what a TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ARGUMENT. Once the guy had been CONVICTED his name would have been published ANYWAY. So THEN they would have had their opportunity to come forward.

And in any case, this is no grounds to lift anonymity from accused men, because what the government should be seeking to do is to PREVENT RAPE rather than all the emphasis being on CONVICTING RAPISTS.

Because these feminists are apparently too stupid to realise that once a woman has actually been raped (if it REALLY happend that is, and it's not just a malevolent false accusation) it's actually TOO LATE.

Sure, if he is caught and convicted, it will (for a time) prevent him raping other women, but that won't ever make it right for the woman who has been raped ALREADY.

So let's take the example of this taxi driver rapist. Firstly, women have to start taking FAR MORE RESPONSIBLITY for their own actions. If a drunken woman is going home from a nightclub or party and  she goes home ALONE in a taxi or even car driven by ANY man she is not "asking for it", but she is TAKING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK.

Men in general are not saints, as no more so are women, and x percent of men will feel tempted when a woman's defences are down like that, knowing that due to drink she might not even REMEMBER who he is.

So the solution to preventing women being raped, is not to keep printing the names and pictures in Newspapers or showing on TV men who just MIGHT have done a rape, but it's not proven, but to educate women to take more responsibility for their own actions, and also put in place practical steps like WOMEN ONLY TAXI SERVICES with women only drivers.

Or you know, why don't we give the feminists what they REALLY want? Which is to basically have every man wear a warning sign on him wherever he goes, hanging around his neck, that says RAPIST UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, and there should be a big database of EVERY  male over 10  giving  his name and address, and a photo of him, and if a woman doesn't like a particular man, all she has to do is email in (ANONYMOUSLY OF COURSE) a rape accusation, and then minutes later, the police will be kicking in his door, and hauling him off for interrogation, assuming him guilty until proven iinnocent.

I assure all the men and sane non-feminist women, that if the feminsits had their way, the above scenario would be pretty much a reality, and I am not joking.

Because think about it logically, and it's easy to see such a publicly accessible database of men that women could search through, would surely make it much easier to find any man they believe has raped them, so surely if it would prevent ONE SINGLE WOMAN getting raped, that justifies it being done?

No, IT DOES NOT.  That's ALWAYS the excuse.

e.g. why not take EVERYBODY'S DNA at birth? Surely that would make ALL criminals easier to catch?

Why? Because we've got HUMAN RIGHTS, the rigbht to lvie in freedom unless it's PROVEN we are some kind of threat to society.

The feminsts are interesting only in  WOMEN'S RIGHTS, not MEN'S RIGHTS, and not only that, they are shrieking endlessly about women's RIGHTS, but what they DON'T talk about, is women's RESPONSIBILITIES. E.G. to take care of their children properly, or be fair to men, or to not act stupidly getting drunk and going home in a man's car alone or going back to the flat/home of a man they hardly know, and expecting there to be no risk in such an unwise course of action.

And I'm appalled that so many men are so mute and meek on this subject, because they foolishly imagine  a false couldn't happen to THEM.

(well yes, just hide in your home, never go out, never be anywhere near the company of women, never answer the door to a woman caller (let alone let her in – NUCLEAR ALERT!) don't go anywhere near your daughter, sister, mothers, grandmothers, aunt, girl cousin, sister in law,  a mixed sex work place, bar, public park, cinema, concert, theatre, shopping centre, or place of worship, and you just MIGHT be in with a chance that you'll NEVER be accused of rape/sexual aasault).

Whereas the fact is, that women are routinely accusing men of all kinds of things, and using the police against men, just to get their own way, or to "punish" a man who displeases them in some way, make his life a misery, it's not only rape accusations.

It could be because IN HER OPINION he is disciplining a misbehaving child in a way SHE doesn't agree with, and because she uses the law to stop him controlling the child, we end up with a society of out of control children, who become vandals, hooligans, violent thugs, gang members, and yes, even RAPISTS, because she used the feminist controlled law against a man who was trying to keep a child in hand, teach it to have RESPECT for other human beings.

So few men are really THINKING what a serious issue this is: it's not just about rape, it's a whole flotilla of infringinments and inequalities against men's rights, and this is just the most obvious example.

One more REAL LIFE example of someone I know, what happened to him recently to illustrate the point. He allowed a woman to share his flat, the relationship failed and he told her to leave. She then reported him to the police, accused him of kidnapping and raping her and the police came to take him away. He was saved ONLY by the fact there were messages from her on his mobile phone which showed they obviously had an ongoing CONSENSUAL relationship.

So without that slender but VITAL evidence, only available incidentaly since the mobile phone era, he would likely have been imprisoned until trial, and possibly even sentenced to many years as a convicted rapist and kidnapper, and his life would have been over, all on HER MALEVOLENT WHIM and FALSE ACCUSATION.

And all the while SHE would have (and as far as I know, still IS) remained TOTALLY ANONYMOUS and able to do exactly the same to any number of future male victims.

As is usual, with the feminists, we only ever here ONE HALF of the story, only about men's crimes (alleged) against women, but NEVER about  women's  numerous crimes against men in all kinds of ways, false accusations to police, social workers and other authorities being a very favourite one at the present.

That this Coalition is continuing the DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 50 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION (Ii.e MEN) started mainly by the New Labour Feminists, is a totally appalling injustice, and failure of them to uphold CIVIL LIBERTIES as they have promised, the very thing this website is supposed to be about.
 

 

Broadband providers must be truthful about their download speeds

Broadband providers should have to provide the service they say they will in their contract.  At the moment, companies can sell you a certain speed of internet access, but in reality get away with providing far lower than this, a lot of the time. 

You wouldn’t pay to stay in a five star hotel for a month, only to be given a four star hotel for two weeks and then a two star hotel for the rest of that month.  So we shouldn’t have to accept less than we pay for when it comes to Internet services.

As a bare minimum, Internet providers should have to provide speeds 95% as fast as they advertise, for 95% of the time you pay for.  If they fail in this, they should have to reimburse their customers for that month.

Why is this idea important?

Broadband providers should have to provide the service they say they will in their contract.  At the moment, companies can sell you a certain speed of internet access, but in reality get away with providing far lower than this, a lot of the time. 

You wouldn’t pay to stay in a five star hotel for a month, only to be given a four star hotel for two weeks and then a two star hotel for the rest of that month.  So we shouldn’t have to accept less than we pay for when it comes to Internet services.

As a bare minimum, Internet providers should have to provide speeds 95% as fast as they advertise, for 95% of the time you pay for.  If they fail in this, they should have to reimburse their customers for that month.

Don’t loose NCD if hit by uninsured

If an uninsured driver hits you and the accident is entirely their fault, it should be illegal for an insurance company to charge you an excess, or remove your No Claims Discount.

Why is this idea important?

If an uninsured driver hits you and the accident is entirely their fault, it should be illegal for an insurance company to charge you an excess, or remove your No Claims Discount.

preventing fraud under no win no fee

Unfortunately, Conditional Fee Agreements are a huge enticement to those that wish to bring fraudulent claims, because with the use of an after the event legal expenses policy they provide a claimant with a consequence-free entitlement to litigate. If the claim fails, the Claimant’s solicitor does not charge his client and the insurance policy should pay the other parties costs.  Unfortunately if a policyholder (the claimant) has lied to his insurer (i.e. to say that he was in an accident when he was not) the insurer can void the policy on the basis of its policyholder’s misrepresentation and get out of paying the otherside’s costs. This means that Defendants that do their “job” of defending cases successfully, may not recover the costs for doing so. This loop hole costs defendants (including local authorities) thousands of pounds per case.

If the law, that already exists for vehicle insurance, is extended to cover after the event legal expense policies, so that in the event a claim fails, the insurer must pay the other party’s costs, defendants can be assured that it is financially worth defending fraudulent claims. The insurer will have a right to pursue their policyholder for the payout, which should deter some would be fraudulent claimants, and if not, at least encourage the after the event insurers to vet their policyholders properly before they underwrite the claims.

Why is this idea important?

Unfortunately, Conditional Fee Agreements are a huge enticement to those that wish to bring fraudulent claims, because with the use of an after the event legal expenses policy they provide a claimant with a consequence-free entitlement to litigate. If the claim fails, the Claimant’s solicitor does not charge his client and the insurance policy should pay the other parties costs.  Unfortunately if a policyholder (the claimant) has lied to his insurer (i.e. to say that he was in an accident when he was not) the insurer can void the policy on the basis of its policyholder’s misrepresentation and get out of paying the otherside’s costs. This means that Defendants that do their “job” of defending cases successfully, may not recover the costs for doing so. This loop hole costs defendants (including local authorities) thousands of pounds per case.

If the law, that already exists for vehicle insurance, is extended to cover after the event legal expense policies, so that in the event a claim fails, the insurer must pay the other party’s costs, defendants can be assured that it is financially worth defending fraudulent claims. The insurer will have a right to pursue their policyholder for the payout, which should deter some would be fraudulent claimants, and if not, at least encourage the after the event insurers to vet their policyholders properly before they underwrite the claims.

No representation without taxation

In 1776 the American colonies declared independance from Britain on the basis that as they had no representation in parliament, rule from London was illegal. Specifically the taxation of American settlers did not give them any representation, leading to the call for No taxation without representation.

By the same token the opposite should be valid and no one should be able to claim representation unless they are paying tax.

In essence, this means that the right to vote and be represented at Westminster should be conditional on paying taxes.

Why is this idea important?

In 1776 the American colonies declared independance from Britain on the basis that as they had no representation in parliament, rule from London was illegal. Specifically the taxation of American settlers did not give them any representation, leading to the call for No taxation without representation.

By the same token the opposite should be valid and no one should be able to claim representation unless they are paying tax.

In essence, this means that the right to vote and be represented at Westminster should be conditional on paying taxes.

Less Tax

The new government initiative to hand over the running of some services to local groups/volunteers etc is a very good idea. Except that they will then be doing less for us in return for the same money – more money actually because they have announced tax rises.

So in the name of fairness and freedom they should reduce taxes; and if we take in to account that every government has shed the running of something or other since the seventies, we, the taxpayer should actulally be getting a rebate. (I will take 1.5 million of mine in share options and the rest in cash: thanks very much)

OK I know some bankers have ruined the government and now they have to ruin us in turn so we will soon pay everything in return for nothing but ths site IS about freedom and fairness isnt it?

Why is this idea important?

The new government initiative to hand over the running of some services to local groups/volunteers etc is a very good idea. Except that they will then be doing less for us in return for the same money – more money actually because they have announced tax rises.

So in the name of fairness and freedom they should reduce taxes; and if we take in to account that every government has shed the running of something or other since the seventies, we, the taxpayer should actulally be getting a rebate. (I will take 1.5 million of mine in share options and the rest in cash: thanks very much)

OK I know some bankers have ruined the government and now they have to ruin us in turn so we will soon pay everything in return for nothing but ths site IS about freedom and fairness isnt it?

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.

 

Renting

If a minimum term is required it should not exceed six months from when the tenant first moves in with no further minimum terms allowed.  Tenants could reasonably be charged a penalty of, say, two month’s rent if they leave within six months.

A non-student sharing a house or flat with students should be charged council tax only on his share of the dwelling, not on the entire dwelling.

 

Why is this idea important?

If a minimum term is required it should not exceed six months from when the tenant first moves in with no further minimum terms allowed.  Tenants could reasonably be charged a penalty of, say, two month’s rent if they leave within six months.

A non-student sharing a house or flat with students should be charged council tax only on his share of the dwelling, not on the entire dwelling.

 

End discrimination against remote areas by central government

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

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

  • Fuel pricing

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

  • Digital TV and licensing

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

  • Broadband

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

  • Fuel pricing

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

  • Digital TV and licensing

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

  • Broadband

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

Request for the government to respect our right to debate and take heed.

I have just joined this site after reading that 'The Coalition Government is committed to restoring and defending your freedom – and we're asking you to participate.' However, in Nick Clegg's video, he laughingly states that issues like reinstating the death penalty or repealing the smoking ban will not be considered.

 

Why not? I am not a child. I do not expect to be told which issues are too important for me to have an opinion on.  If the Coalition Government wants our participation, then surely full and frank discussion on ALL issues is a fundamental part of this process. In the interests of fairness, I am purposefully not stating my opinion on either of these issues, the main point I am making is that by rendering some issues taboo, the government renders this whole campaign tokenistic and suggests to me that none of the ideas submitted and debated by the people with the vote will be even the least bit considered. I wait hopefully for evidence to the contrary and Nick Clegg to issue a retraction of the statement I have quoted above.

Why is this idea important?

I have just joined this site after reading that 'The Coalition Government is committed to restoring and defending your freedom – and we're asking you to participate.' However, in Nick Clegg's video, he laughingly states that issues like reinstating the death penalty or repealing the smoking ban will not be considered.

 

Why not? I am not a child. I do not expect to be told which issues are too important for me to have an opinion on.  If the Coalition Government wants our participation, then surely full and frank discussion on ALL issues is a fundamental part of this process. In the interests of fairness, I am purposefully not stating my opinion on either of these issues, the main point I am making is that by rendering some issues taboo, the government renders this whole campaign tokenistic and suggests to me that none of the ideas submitted and debated by the people with the vote will be even the least bit considered. I wait hopefully for evidence to the contrary and Nick Clegg to issue a retraction of the statement I have quoted above.