Stop penalising middle income families.

Do not take away the child benefits of those on middle incomes. Middle income families need the child benefit to help pay towards child care costs and necessities. Middle income families are not scroungers. They are hard working people with jobs, who pay mortgages, etc. They don't receive any benefits apart from the child benefit, which is a god send to them. If you want to cap or means test child benefit, do it for those whose household incomes are over £55,000 a year. The child tax credit should have been capped at £50,000 not £40,000.

Why is this idea important?

Do not take away the child benefits of those on middle incomes. Middle income families need the child benefit to help pay towards child care costs and necessities. Middle income families are not scroungers. They are hard working people with jobs, who pay mortgages, etc. They don't receive any benefits apart from the child benefit, which is a god send to them. If you want to cap or means test child benefit, do it for those whose household incomes are over £55,000 a year. The child tax credit should have been capped at £50,000 not £40,000.

Childcare and tax allowance

The law could be changed to allow a working parent to take on the pre-tax earning allowance of a home-based parent, in families with children under 5. It might also be helpful to single parents in particular if a grandparent providing unpaid care for child(ren) under 5 could be designated as the 'partner' for this purpose.

Why is this idea important?

The law could be changed to allow a working parent to take on the pre-tax earning allowance of a home-based parent, in families with children under 5. It might also be helpful to single parents in particular if a grandparent providing unpaid care for child(ren) under 5 could be designated as the 'partner' for this purpose.

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 .

Calculate benefits and tax credits per individual, not per couple

Calculate jobseekers allowance and working tax credits on adults' individual NI contributions and work history – not on what their partner earns.

Why is this idea important?

Calculate jobseekers allowance and working tax credits on adults' individual NI contributions and work history – not on what their partner earns.

Allow as many people as they want to share a dwelling without planning consent or license

Stop the HMO interference by Local Government. So long as the ordinary rules governiing housing are followed allow people to occupy dwellings as they see fit. If four or five people wish to share, let them without the need of planning consent, licesing and stigma. The rules are daft as they rely upon defining the relationship of the tenants. Is a Morman man with three wives, a single houehold or three households? If the wives work and contribute to the overall cost, are they paying ren? If one tenant pays the rent and the others contribute, are they separate households.  Is any group of people to be defined by sleeping arrangements for the purpose of licensing?

The law is truly aweful. It has had to be revised time after time to say remove section 257 buildings (older converted blocks of flats) and other groups. Councils seem to have avendeta against those who wish to share.

The aim is laudible: improve housing standards, but this is not the way to do it.

There is great demand for bedsit type of accommodation. It should not be stigmatised.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the HMO interference by Local Government. So long as the ordinary rules governiing housing are followed allow people to occupy dwellings as they see fit. If four or five people wish to share, let them without the need of planning consent, licesing and stigma. The rules are daft as they rely upon defining the relationship of the tenants. Is a Morman man with three wives, a single houehold or three households? If the wives work and contribute to the overall cost, are they paying ren? If one tenant pays the rent and the others contribute, are they separate households.  Is any group of people to be defined by sleeping arrangements for the purpose of licensing?

The law is truly aweful. It has had to be revised time after time to say remove section 257 buildings (older converted blocks of flats) and other groups. Councils seem to have avendeta against those who wish to share.

The aim is laudible: improve housing standards, but this is not the way to do it.

There is great demand for bedsit type of accommodation. It should not be stigmatised.

Family Values, Children and Government Expenditure

There are laws all over the place that easily rip apart families – husband & wife, and/or children and their parents. These laws have pointedly taken away proper childhood from most children in the UK. The consequences of improper childhood, single parenthood and broken homes are very obvious in the society. A disoriented child may become a liability to the general society in terms of crime potentials. Tax payers' money go into fighting these crimes and still provide support for such individuals in form of benefits. Single parenthood is becoming a thriving enterprise in the economy because the govenments (both local and central) fund it!

All legislations that encourage single parenthood and/or easy disolution of marriages sholud be abolished in the interest of proper childhood. Government should stop financing single parents in the name of benefits. Restore family values and make fathers and mothers responsible for the up-keep of their household! UK was built on positive human values that are now getting eroded by legislation. 

Why is this idea important?

There are laws all over the place that easily rip apart families – husband & wife, and/or children and their parents. These laws have pointedly taken away proper childhood from most children in the UK. The consequences of improper childhood, single parenthood and broken homes are very obvious in the society. A disoriented child may become a liability to the general society in terms of crime potentials. Tax payers' money go into fighting these crimes and still provide support for such individuals in form of benefits. Single parenthood is becoming a thriving enterprise in the economy because the govenments (both local and central) fund it!

All legislations that encourage single parenthood and/or easy disolution of marriages sholud be abolished in the interest of proper childhood. Government should stop financing single parents in the name of benefits. Restore family values and make fathers and mothers responsible for the up-keep of their household! UK was built on positive human values that are now getting eroded by legislation. 

Amendment of the planning process leading to a more appropriate housing stock for future society.

The current planning system and process is slow tired and cumbersome and still involves the cook, baker and candlestick maker who do not have required expertise. The process leads to a point where developers are now no longer able to build developments that they and residents can be proud of, make money, hold their value and are fit for purpose. Developers purchase sites and are then firstly forced by plans to cram attached houses into less room than in the past and setting properties on streets with inadequate parking, no front gardens and on top of each other. Such estates are creating the ghettos of tomorrow by maling families live on top of each and removing the whole street communities. This also creates tension between families living too close. On top of this, current social housing are inappropriate. Firstly the integration of housing with other stock creates issues. Secondly, current regs for houses mean that they are now so expensive to build that developers have another cost issue on top of current economic issues. Developers are currently unable to sell homes due to surveyors downvaluing on orders from banks so they can reduce lending. This means people can’t afford to buy, developers suffer and future housing plans and needs suffer. Idea is to help the developers through these tough times for a longer view of housing needs and also protect and industry and its workforce while making a fair and appropriate future housing plan.

Why is this idea important?

The current planning system and process is slow tired and cumbersome and still involves the cook, baker and candlestick maker who do not have required expertise. The process leads to a point where developers are now no longer able to build developments that they and residents can be proud of, make money, hold their value and are fit for purpose. Developers purchase sites and are then firstly forced by plans to cram attached houses into less room than in the past and setting properties on streets with inadequate parking, no front gardens and on top of each other. Such estates are creating the ghettos of tomorrow by maling families live on top of each and removing the whole street communities. This also creates tension between families living too close. On top of this, current social housing are inappropriate. Firstly the integration of housing with other stock creates issues. Secondly, current regs for houses mean that they are now so expensive to build that developers have another cost issue on top of current economic issues. Developers are currently unable to sell homes due to surveyors downvaluing on orders from banks so they can reduce lending. This means people can’t afford to buy, developers suffer and future housing plans and needs suffer. Idea is to help the developers through these tough times for a longer view of housing needs and also protect and industry and its workforce while making a fair and appropriate future housing plan.

Citizenship for children and young people

There is only one thing i have agreed with David Cameron since i have known him, in a word: "Hug a Hoodie." Obviously, it belied a gentle nature and I was working in a hostel for 16 – 25's near Bristol. I got on air with a local radio station to put the case for all young people "set up" by the rest of Society.

I say that, because, on attending a committee meeting at the hostel, the following comment was warmly welcomed by the group, namely, that it was the generation gap that everyone fell into when these people chose to "lay into" each other. Finally, I warned that if the parties were unable to bridge the gap, both would become  more and more alienated.

Here are the causes (that left untackled) will not fully address the issues: poverty (why can't we recognise that people who are unacceptically wealthy, need to help out more, globally too; why don't you try that, David?). Another cause; broken families and broken communities where generation after generation have suffer neglect and abuse.

Answer? You guessed it: ask the excessively wealthly to invest in hopeless estates and lives that shame the nation, the rich and powerful, who shame the nation.

It is staring you in the face. Worried about upsetting the funders? Expose the greedy minority in it for selfish gain. Do you give alot? Thanks, but give even more!

Not the kids at fault, not the parents, you know it: generations of neglect and deprivation. You say blame the parents, punish the youth, who are you kidding? Look at that bloody emperor..

Why is this idea important?

There is only one thing i have agreed with David Cameron since i have known him, in a word: "Hug a Hoodie." Obviously, it belied a gentle nature and I was working in a hostel for 16 – 25's near Bristol. I got on air with a local radio station to put the case for all young people "set up" by the rest of Society.

I say that, because, on attending a committee meeting at the hostel, the following comment was warmly welcomed by the group, namely, that it was the generation gap that everyone fell into when these people chose to "lay into" each other. Finally, I warned that if the parties were unable to bridge the gap, both would become  more and more alienated.

Here are the causes (that left untackled) will not fully address the issues: poverty (why can't we recognise that people who are unacceptically wealthy, need to help out more, globally too; why don't you try that, David?). Another cause; broken families and broken communities where generation after generation have suffer neglect and abuse.

Answer? You guessed it: ask the excessively wealthly to invest in hopeless estates and lives that shame the nation, the rich and powerful, who shame the nation.

It is staring you in the face. Worried about upsetting the funders? Expose the greedy minority in it for selfish gain. Do you give alot? Thanks, but give even more!

Not the kids at fault, not the parents, you know it: generations of neglect and deprivation. You say blame the parents, punish the youth, who are you kidding? Look at that bloody emperor..

Reducing the numbers eligible for child benefit

e have in this country a mind set amongst individuals that they can keep having child after child and the tax payer will pay for them.  This is totally wrong and if you want a large family then you should pay for it. 

I propose that we look at the average family and, if its say 2.4 children, put a cap on the number of children eligable by rounding up to the nearest whole number, in this case 3.  If you want more than the average then you pay for them.  Not us!

I accept that those who have already got large families must be allowed to continue with their current number of children under the old system until they are no longer drawing benefit.  But then we must draw the line in the sand and say "that's your lot.  No more"

Some will say that its every ones human right to have as many children as you want.  I do not disagree with this but its also the individuals responsibility to pay for their family.  Not ours!

I also must state that I believe we should get rid of all child benefit, but I think this proposal is more palatable to the squeamish.  I am a father and I work and pay for me and mine.  I shouldn't be paying, through my taxes, for other's. 

This should help towards population growth reduction and the restraining of the 'baby factories' who are such a drain on society.

 

Why is this idea important?

e have in this country a mind set amongst individuals that they can keep having child after child and the tax payer will pay for them.  This is totally wrong and if you want a large family then you should pay for it. 

I propose that we look at the average family and, if its say 2.4 children, put a cap on the number of children eligable by rounding up to the nearest whole number, in this case 3.  If you want more than the average then you pay for them.  Not us!

I accept that those who have already got large families must be allowed to continue with their current number of children under the old system until they are no longer drawing benefit.  But then we must draw the line in the sand and say "that's your lot.  No more"

Some will say that its every ones human right to have as many children as you want.  I do not disagree with this but its also the individuals responsibility to pay for their family.  Not ours!

I also must state that I believe we should get rid of all child benefit, but I think this proposal is more palatable to the squeamish.  I am a father and I work and pay for me and mine.  I shouldn't be paying, through my taxes, for other's. 

This should help towards population growth reduction and the restraining of the 'baby factories' who are such a drain on society.

 

Repeal the Child Support Act

The Child Support Act 1991 (Amended 2008)  Is  an oppressive and draconian piece of legislation, and in direct contravention of The Human rights Act,  The European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal declaration of Human Rights.  The government has no business interfering in family life.  This legislation and the corrupt run for profit company that enforces it have ruined the lives of parents, children and families.   It has forced innocent, law abiding people into poverty, destitution and suicide.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  All the while Mr Steven Geraghty  sleeps tightly at night with his, deficit crunching, £250,000 + wages to keep him warm.

Families should be left to reach agreements without government interference.  If they cannot then it should be decided in a courtroom in an un-biased, fair and impartial way.

If the coalition wants to give back freedom.  This is a good starting point!

Why is this idea important?

The Child Support Act 1991 (Amended 2008)  Is  an oppressive and draconian piece of legislation, and in direct contravention of The Human rights Act,  The European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal declaration of Human Rights.  The government has no business interfering in family life.  This legislation and the corrupt run for profit company that enforces it have ruined the lives of parents, children and families.   It has forced innocent, law abiding people into poverty, destitution and suicide.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  All the while Mr Steven Geraghty  sleeps tightly at night with his, deficit crunching, £250,000 + wages to keep him warm.

Families should be left to reach agreements without government interference.  If they cannot then it should be decided in a courtroom in an un-biased, fair and impartial way.

If the coalition wants to give back freedom.  This is a good starting point!

Abolish the CSA

This organisation is costing the tax payer a lot of money with very little return. They are also tearing families apart rather than "supporting" the Children.

Why is this idea important?

This organisation is costing the tax payer a lot of money with very little return. They are also tearing families apart rather than "supporting" the Children.

Overturn unfair criteria of Criminal Injuries Board

As it stands in familial sexual abuse cases, if  the injury or sexual assault happened before October 1 1979 and you were living with that person as a member of their family, you are not entitled to claim.

This is a complete travesty of justice. How can a child who suffered sexual abuse on 30 Sept 1979 be any less deserving than a child who suffered 1 day later.

The child would in most cases have had no choice whatsoever as to whether they lived in the same house as their abuser.

Overturn this barbaric rule. There should be retrospective awards to cover all bases.

Why is this idea important?

As it stands in familial sexual abuse cases, if  the injury or sexual assault happened before October 1 1979 and you were living with that person as a member of their family, you are not entitled to claim.

This is a complete travesty of justice. How can a child who suffered sexual abuse on 30 Sept 1979 be any less deserving than a child who suffered 1 day later.

The child would in most cases have had no choice whatsoever as to whether they lived in the same house as their abuser.

Overturn this barbaric rule. There should be retrospective awards to cover all bases.

Remove the financial incentive for breaking up families

In our secular society there is no expectation on women to make the relationship with the father of her children work.

On the other hand there are huge financial incentives for a woman to break up her family.

  1. Unless there are singular circumstances, women get custody of the children. For each child of a different father this brings 15% of each of the father's net salary. If the woman has two or more children by a man, then she is entitled to 25% of the father's net salary.
  2. The woman may encourge the attention of another man, because she will gain financially from the money from the father of her children,but also the money from her new man.(This is likely to make the father of her children angry and support her aspirations for more money.)

The woman additionallly received child benefit and usually tax credits. Being a mother is a nice litle earner!!

These are huge financial incentives to break up a family and these benefits are spelt out by the Citizens' Advice Bureau and Relate.

The justification is that "the child's needs must come first", but these arrangements are purely for the benefit of the mother. I have seen my children put into the hands of selfish men who have not a care for my children.

Recommendations

  1. There should be a presumtion that children will spend half their time with their father and their mother and there must be a very strong reason why this is not the outcome.
  2. Women should only receive funding from the father when the mother has been granted more than half of the care of the child.
  3. If a mother co-habits with another man then the woman should not be entitled to payments from the father(s)

The outcome of these recommendations would be as follows.

Women would think carefully before they put their personal wants before the needs of their children.

It would mean that orgasnisations, like Relate would begin to focus on repairing relationships, rather than offering the woman the financial incentives of breaking up their families.

The needs of children would actually be put first and the financial aspirations of selfish women would be the secondary consideration.

Why is this idea important?

In our secular society there is no expectation on women to make the relationship with the father of her children work.

On the other hand there are huge financial incentives for a woman to break up her family.

  1. Unless there are singular circumstances, women get custody of the children. For each child of a different father this brings 15% of each of the father's net salary. If the woman has two or more children by a man, then she is entitled to 25% of the father's net salary.
  2. The woman may encourge the attention of another man, because she will gain financially from the money from the father of her children,but also the money from her new man.(This is likely to make the father of her children angry and support her aspirations for more money.)

The woman additionallly received child benefit and usually tax credits. Being a mother is a nice litle earner!!

These are huge financial incentives to break up a family and these benefits are spelt out by the Citizens' Advice Bureau and Relate.

The justification is that "the child's needs must come first", but these arrangements are purely for the benefit of the mother. I have seen my children put into the hands of selfish men who have not a care for my children.

Recommendations

  1. There should be a presumtion that children will spend half their time with their father and their mother and there must be a very strong reason why this is not the outcome.
  2. Women should only receive funding from the father when the mother has been granted more than half of the care of the child.
  3. If a mother co-habits with another man then the woman should not be entitled to payments from the father(s)

The outcome of these recommendations would be as follows.

Women would think carefully before they put their personal wants before the needs of their children.

It would mean that orgasnisations, like Relate would begin to focus on repairing relationships, rather than offering the woman the financial incentives of breaking up their families.

The needs of children would actually be put first and the financial aspirations of selfish women would be the secondary consideration.

Minister for Men

A Minister for Men should campaign against all forms of male discrimination.

(1) Make Improving the educational attainment of boys a political priority.

(2) Make the state recognize/support male domestic violence victims.

(3) Improve care and funding for prostate/testicular cancer sufferers.

(4) Make judges enforce child contact orders.

(5) Support equal parenting laws.

(6) Provide better help and retraining for unemployed men.

(7) Force a review of the CSA maintenance criteria where the mother has left her husband for another man, re-married or has simply walked out of a marriage with the children.

(8) Support anonymity for men accused of rape, unless found guilty.

(9) Improve care and support for men suffering from depression.

(10) Campaign against anti-male propaganda and male stereotyping in the media.

(11) Support equal sentencing criteria for men and women.

(12) Stop the political disenfranchisement of individual men by abolishing discriminatory all-woman shortlists and priority lists

Why is this idea important?

A Minister for Men should campaign against all forms of male discrimination.

(1) Make Improving the educational attainment of boys a political priority.

(2) Make the state recognize/support male domestic violence victims.

(3) Improve care and funding for prostate/testicular cancer sufferers.

(4) Make judges enforce child contact orders.

(5) Support equal parenting laws.

(6) Provide better help and retraining for unemployed men.

(7) Force a review of the CSA maintenance criteria where the mother has left her husband for another man, re-married or has simply walked out of a marriage with the children.

(8) Support anonymity for men accused of rape, unless found guilty.

(9) Improve care and support for men suffering from depression.

(10) Campaign against anti-male propaganda and male stereotyping in the media.

(11) Support equal sentencing criteria for men and women.

(12) Stop the political disenfranchisement of individual men by abolishing discriminatory all-woman shortlists and priority lists

equal parenting

The law which allows a woman to leave the marital home for no good reason, taking the child or children with her and refusing the father contact should be abolished.

It is an anti-social law and grossly unfair contributing to broken families. Children deprived of their loving father lose a valuable contribution to their lives, do not usually do so well at school and grow up with an unbalanced view of life. Responsibility of a child's upbringing should be shared equally as is the law in other countries.

Put this right now !.

Why is this idea important?

The law which allows a woman to leave the marital home for no good reason, taking the child or children with her and refusing the father contact should be abolished.

It is an anti-social law and grossly unfair contributing to broken families. Children deprived of their loving father lose a valuable contribution to their lives, do not usually do so well at school and grow up with an unbalanced view of life. Responsibility of a child's upbringing should be shared equally as is the law in other countries.

Put this right now !.

Scrap the Sunday Trading regulations

In today's global society every day is important for trade, and the current Sunday trading regulations seem to be stifling for businesses and economic growth.

I believe that if the Sunday trading regulations were scrapped, and Sunday treat as a normal trading day, that this could help the economy and create more jobs.

One disadvantage of this would be that currently workers can refuse to work on Sundays – however, I see no reason why, if the Sunday trading regulations were scrapped, an amendment could be made to the working time directive to state that workers are allowed to stipulate one day a week that they refuse to work. This could safeguard vital time together for families, and also be beneficial to many religious groups. Currently it is only Sundays which people can opt out of, which is beneficial to many Christians – but if people could choose their own opt out day then Christians would still be able to opt out of Sundays, Jews may wish to opt out of Saturdays, Muslims may wish to opt out of Fridays – the freedom would be there to choose whichever day is important to you.

Why is this idea important?

In today's global society every day is important for trade, and the current Sunday trading regulations seem to be stifling for businesses and economic growth.

I believe that if the Sunday trading regulations were scrapped, and Sunday treat as a normal trading day, that this could help the economy and create more jobs.

One disadvantage of this would be that currently workers can refuse to work on Sundays – however, I see no reason why, if the Sunday trading regulations were scrapped, an amendment could be made to the working time directive to state that workers are allowed to stipulate one day a week that they refuse to work. This could safeguard vital time together for families, and also be beneficial to many religious groups. Currently it is only Sundays which people can opt out of, which is beneficial to many Christians – but if people could choose their own opt out day then Christians would still be able to opt out of Sundays, Jews may wish to opt out of Saturdays, Muslims may wish to opt out of Fridays – the freedom would be there to choose whichever day is important to you.

Abolish Pre-Owned Asset Tax !

Pre-Owned Asset Tax is intrincically unfair and anti-family in nature. It was introduced under the Labour Government in 2005 to attack arrangements made predominantly by elderly people who sought to live together with their children and grandchildren in the family home.

As a tax law it was badly drafted, rushed in without published guideliness, and, most cruelly of all, retrospective in action. It consigned thousands of families to stressful uncertainty and then forced many of them to break up family living arrangements.

A lot of elderly people find themselves living in the old family home when their children with young families are struggling to find the deposit to buy a big enough house. What could make better sense that to all live together and share resources, not least as it brings the elderly built-in care, company and support?

The problem is that tax law states that granny cannot give her house to her children and carry on living there with them. Either the gift is deemed invalid because she has 'reserved a benefit' and her children will have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house when she dies, which usually means they have to sell it thereby negating the whole point of moving in to it. Or, under Pre-Owned Asset Tax, granny has to pay an annual tax based on the market rent of the proportion of the property she occupies.

Pre-Owned Asset Tax particularly targets those elderly people who used a deferred lease method whereby they gave their house to their children but retained a lease to continue living in a part of the house until their death. They did this so that their children would not have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house at their death (after all the house you live in – your principle private residence – is meant to be free of tax) knowing that this would probably force them to sell the house.

The Revenue publicly acknowledged that such lease arrangements made before February 2001 were valid, but then they introduced Pre-Owned Asset Tax which operates retrospectively forcing granny or grandad to make annual tax payments based on the market rental value, a sum far beyond the means of most old aged pensioners.

The end result of this tax is that some elderly people have had endure great financial hardship to pay the tax, but most have been unable to pay and so have had to leave their own houses and be parted from their families and the care and support that living together brings.

Why is this idea important?

Pre-Owned Asset Tax is intrincically unfair and anti-family in nature. It was introduced under the Labour Government in 2005 to attack arrangements made predominantly by elderly people who sought to live together with their children and grandchildren in the family home.

As a tax law it was badly drafted, rushed in without published guideliness, and, most cruelly of all, retrospective in action. It consigned thousands of families to stressful uncertainty and then forced many of them to break up family living arrangements.

A lot of elderly people find themselves living in the old family home when their children with young families are struggling to find the deposit to buy a big enough house. What could make better sense that to all live together and share resources, not least as it brings the elderly built-in care, company and support?

The problem is that tax law states that granny cannot give her house to her children and carry on living there with them. Either the gift is deemed invalid because she has 'reserved a benefit' and her children will have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house when she dies, which usually means they have to sell it thereby negating the whole point of moving in to it. Or, under Pre-Owned Asset Tax, granny has to pay an annual tax based on the market rent of the proportion of the property she occupies.

Pre-Owned Asset Tax particularly targets those elderly people who used a deferred lease method whereby they gave their house to their children but retained a lease to continue living in a part of the house until their death. They did this so that their children would not have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house at their death (after all the house you live in – your principle private residence – is meant to be free of tax) knowing that this would probably force them to sell the house.

The Revenue publicly acknowledged that such lease arrangements made before February 2001 were valid, but then they introduced Pre-Owned Asset Tax which operates retrospectively forcing granny or grandad to make annual tax payments based on the market rental value, a sum far beyond the means of most old aged pensioners.

The end result of this tax is that some elderly people have had endure great financial hardship to pay the tax, but most have been unable to pay and so have had to leave their own houses and be parted from their families and the care and support that living together brings.

Equal Rights for Fathers

In the event of separation/divorce, joint residency should be the norm rather than the exception. Under current rules, it is absurd that a father may have to still pay child maintenance to the mother even if the children have more overnight stays with him because historically the mother has been the one in receipt of child allowance (the Child Support Agency use this to determine who the resident parent is and therefore who pays (or not) child maintenance).

Why is this idea important?

In the event of separation/divorce, joint residency should be the norm rather than the exception. Under current rules, it is absurd that a father may have to still pay child maintenance to the mother even if the children have more overnight stays with him because historically the mother has been the one in receipt of child allowance (the Child Support Agency use this to determine who the resident parent is and therefore who pays (or not) child maintenance).

Stop Mothers divorcing their children from Fathers and Grandparents.

It is now well known in the Western world that most custodial parents of divorced children cause these children to have Parental Alienation Syndrome.  It is so well known that books have been written about it you can buy on Amazon.  It is well known that 50% of children lose touch with their absent parent after divorce.  What is not realised is why these children become divorced.  Their mothers use various tactics which, even when the Courts recognise it, nothing is done about this child abuse.  Judges will threaten the mother with jail when they redefine access for the umpteenth time but they will never carry out their threat as it would show up the Court's bad custody decision.  Make it mandatory on Judges that, if they see this child abuse, often shown by having the absent parent applying to redefine access which is breaking down frequently, then the Judges must jail the Mother (who it usually is) and turn over custody to the Father, with no judicial leeway whatsoever.

Read about it from the report by Stan Hayward at www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/pas.htm

Parrental Alienation Syndrome IS child abuse!

It is written in the Children Act 1989 that the claim of the Father is equal to the claim of the mother.  Since the OPEC countries hiked up the price of fuel; and therefore energy in general, in the late 1970's, most people know that you can no longer run a family on one parent as the wage earner.  Most families need both parents to work.  This is reflected in the 1989 Children Act.  However the Courts still, decades later, think that it is still the 1960's and award residence orders on the basis that it is the Father's role to be the breadwinner.  In the 21st century this is not true, with many wives earning more than the husband.  Yet still residence orders 91% are given to the mother.  It has moved towards reality by only a few percentage points – from 97% in the 1980's.

Clearly the Family Courts are blatently flouting the Statutory Law that the claim of the Father is equal to that of the Mother.

Once a child is off the breast there is nothing that a Mother can give that child that the Father cannot do better,  I make this claim on the basis that a Father's parenting is more CONSISTENT from day to day than most mothers' parenting, possibly because they are women whose oestrus cycle makes them feel different each day.

Most problems with young people and adults, whether in education or prison or probation services, are caused by inconsistent parenting.  I am a secondary teacher and see it every day.

I was a Registered Childminder for twelve years and none of the 250 children I brought up for other people ended up in the criminal justice system.  I taught parenting to dysfunctional families for Social Services during that time.  I was head hunted as a consultant to Suffolk Social Services to encourage men into primary care.  I was headhunted by the Probation Service too.

Forcing Judges in the Family Courts to obey Statutory Law as outlined above would have far reaching effects to the benefit of our society, see below.  This could possibly be done by sacking them if their results for residence orders are not within a few percentage points of 50%.  Full accountability!

Only then would our children recieve their statutory right to be brought up by the better parent.

Why is this idea important?

It is now well known in the Western world that most custodial parents of divorced children cause these children to have Parental Alienation Syndrome.  It is so well known that books have been written about it you can buy on Amazon.  It is well known that 50% of children lose touch with their absent parent after divorce.  What is not realised is why these children become divorced.  Their mothers use various tactics which, even when the Courts recognise it, nothing is done about this child abuse.  Judges will threaten the mother with jail when they redefine access for the umpteenth time but they will never carry out their threat as it would show up the Court's bad custody decision.  Make it mandatory on Judges that, if they see this child abuse, often shown by having the absent parent applying to redefine access which is breaking down frequently, then the Judges must jail the Mother (who it usually is) and turn over custody to the Father, with no judicial leeway whatsoever.

Read about it from the report by Stan Hayward at www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/pas.htm

Parrental Alienation Syndrome IS child abuse!

It is written in the Children Act 1989 that the claim of the Father is equal to the claim of the mother.  Since the OPEC countries hiked up the price of fuel; and therefore energy in general, in the late 1970's, most people know that you can no longer run a family on one parent as the wage earner.  Most families need both parents to work.  This is reflected in the 1989 Children Act.  However the Courts still, decades later, think that it is still the 1960's and award residence orders on the basis that it is the Father's role to be the breadwinner.  In the 21st century this is not true, with many wives earning more than the husband.  Yet still residence orders 91% are given to the mother.  It has moved towards reality by only a few percentage points – from 97% in the 1980's.

Clearly the Family Courts are blatently flouting the Statutory Law that the claim of the Father is equal to that of the Mother.

Once a child is off the breast there is nothing that a Mother can give that child that the Father cannot do better,  I make this claim on the basis that a Father's parenting is more CONSISTENT from day to day than most mothers' parenting, possibly because they are women whose oestrus cycle makes them feel different each day.

Most problems with young people and adults, whether in education or prison or probation services, are caused by inconsistent parenting.  I am a secondary teacher and see it every day.

I was a Registered Childminder for twelve years and none of the 250 children I brought up for other people ended up in the criminal justice system.  I taught parenting to dysfunctional families for Social Services during that time.  I was head hunted as a consultant to Suffolk Social Services to encourage men into primary care.  I was headhunted by the Probation Service too.

Forcing Judges in the Family Courts to obey Statutory Law as outlined above would have far reaching effects to the benefit of our society, see below.  This could possibly be done by sacking them if their results for residence orders are not within a few percentage points of 50%.  Full accountability!

Only then would our children recieve their statutory right to be brought up by the better parent.