Living in a temporary dwelling on your own land

In most of Europe, it is currently perfectly legal to live in a caravan or camper or log cabin, any temporary dwelling in fact, without planning or other permissions on land which you own.

In this country it is not allowed.  What I would like to see is the abilty for those who wished to, to live full time on their own land, in a temporary dwelling.

Why is this idea important?

In most of Europe, it is currently perfectly legal to live in a caravan or camper or log cabin, any temporary dwelling in fact, without planning or other permissions on land which you own.

In this country it is not allowed.  What I would like to see is the abilty for those who wished to, to live full time on their own land, in a temporary dwelling.

Add criticism into relgious education.

I propose that equal criticisms of all religions should be taught in schools.

The entire key stage 4 of religious education is about Christianity and what the bible says. There should be sections on using logic to defeat god, evidence against relgion, bible criticisms, the evil in the bible (millions of murders in the name of god or ordered by god) or the morality of relgions that are wrong.

Why is this idea important?

I propose that equal criticisms of all religions should be taught in schools.

The entire key stage 4 of religious education is about Christianity and what the bible says. There should be sections on using logic to defeat god, evidence against relgion, bible criticisms, the evil in the bible (millions of murders in the name of god or ordered by god) or the morality of relgions that are wrong.

Legalise sex with animals

I propose we decriminalize sex between two members of a different species.

Why should two beings involved in a loving bi-species relationship be punished? I am a zoophile and I feel that I am unfairly criminalize for my sexual persuasion. It is unjustifiable to prevent consensual sex between species.

Why is this idea important?

I propose we decriminalize sex between two members of a different species.

Why should two beings involved in a loving bi-species relationship be punished? I am a zoophile and I feel that I am unfairly criminalize for my sexual persuasion. It is unjustifiable to prevent consensual sex between species.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Why is this idea important?

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Repeal laws that prevent members of the public from recording telephone calls and using the recordings as evidence.

Several posts on the site imply or claim that social workers and other officials misrepresent what has taken place during dealings with members of the public. When ringing many organisations we are told that our calls may be recorded.

Please repeal the laws that prevent members of the general public from recording telephone calls which they make or receive, and recording or filming interviews with Social Workers, Occupational Therapists, etc. with the intention of using such recordings in evidence if this becomes necessary.

We have probably all had experience of salespeople who miss-sell, miss-describe the product or the payment methods, etc. often by telephone. Please repeal the laws that prevent us from recording these calls and using them as evidence if necessary.
 

Why is this idea important?

Several posts on the site imply or claim that social workers and other officials misrepresent what has taken place during dealings with members of the public. When ringing many organisations we are told that our calls may be recorded.

Please repeal the laws that prevent members of the general public from recording telephone calls which they make or receive, and recording or filming interviews with Social Workers, Occupational Therapists, etc. with the intention of using such recordings in evidence if this becomes necessary.

We have probably all had experience of salespeople who miss-sell, miss-describe the product or the payment methods, etc. often by telephone. Please repeal the laws that prevent us from recording these calls and using them as evidence if necessary.
 

Repeal requirements for Collective Worship and Religious Education in Schools

Repeal Sections 69 – 71 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (and any other related legislation) which require religious education and acts of collective worship in schools.

Faith or no faith in religion should be left to the individual, not the state, their parents, teachers or anyone else. People (and especially children) should be free to discover the wide range of beliefs that are and that have been held throughout the history of human civilization.

The law allows for exemptions where the parent requests, but religion should be a personal choice where someone is not predisposed towards something based on the content of their religious education at school.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal Sections 69 – 71 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (and any other related legislation) which require religious education and acts of collective worship in schools.

Faith or no faith in religion should be left to the individual, not the state, their parents, teachers or anyone else. People (and especially children) should be free to discover the wide range of beliefs that are and that have been held throughout the history of human civilization.

The law allows for exemptions where the parent requests, but religion should be a personal choice where someone is not predisposed towards something based on the content of their religious education at school.

Reduce restrictions for dog-owners in shops, restaurants and pubs

The presence of dogs in a pub or other food eating area is no more unhygienic than the people that enter, yet dogs are banned willy-nilly from many pubs and eating-places. This reduces usage and therefore undermines the viability of the premises. I have dined in France with the owners' dogs resting their heads on my knee in restaurants, and have suffered no ill-effects. The over-regulation of food and drink premises is a major nonsense, but pales into insignificance as a lunacy when a sports shop claims that dogs are not allowed on grounds of health and safety.

Cut the red tape and make the premises the responsibility of the owner, not a local authority employee.

Why is this idea important?

The presence of dogs in a pub or other food eating area is no more unhygienic than the people that enter, yet dogs are banned willy-nilly from many pubs and eating-places. This reduces usage and therefore undermines the viability of the premises. I have dined in France with the owners' dogs resting their heads on my knee in restaurants, and have suffered no ill-effects. The over-regulation of food and drink premises is a major nonsense, but pales into insignificance as a lunacy when a sports shop claims that dogs are not allowed on grounds of health and safety.

Cut the red tape and make the premises the responsibility of the owner, not a local authority employee.

Local Council Fines

Remove the ability for local councils to fine people for:

Putting their bins out on the wrong day,

Having a slightly open bin lid

Not putting the right waste in the correct bin

And basically, for using draconian powers to scare homeowners into blind unquestioning obedience

Why is this idea important?

Remove the ability for local councils to fine people for:

Putting their bins out on the wrong day,

Having a slightly open bin lid

Not putting the right waste in the correct bin

And basically, for using draconian powers to scare homeowners into blind unquestioning obedience

Make no excuses for Cannabis

Lets not make the same mistakes as past governments, and be bullied by horror stories and media controlled propaganda over policies that should be determined by Big Society. By this I mean a Government that is Big enough to take on the media which threatens party success, through a miriad of lies, often backed up by people with a limited scope of insight , unable to capture the big picture who are consumed with fear or bigotry. That said Im unsure whether the coalition has the power at this point to sever its tethers to media influence and the control the media has over decision making in our developed country.

Expense and consequence are the reasons for decriminilising Cannabis , the expense is unjustified, and the consequences are horric. The resons for this will follow.

Social control is a big issue that should'nt be overlooked as anyone may agree there is a failure in society, where a generation of youth which have little hope and prospects, This is a failure in parenting. Society has become fragmented leading to a situation which we all know too well. With all the jobsearch schemes that are available and training prospects there may be.  Nothing can be done to remedy the chunk of society that pretty much are no good or use, and really dont want to work, or to be of some benefit. There is a new saying going round. "CBA" they call it. (Cant Be Arsed) they use for everything.

Cannabis is blamed for this generation being demotivated as a large majority of these people end up using cannabis to quell the boredom in their lives, and to trigger the pleasure reward mechanisms of the mind, which need stimulating via dopamine receptors to enable them to exist. It is a coincidence that Cannabis simulates these feelings through being able to replicate the body's anandamide which makes them feel satisfied and rewarded.

Cannabis is not to blame for this coincidence, its the lack of social structure and parenting that they become effectively of no use, and have no motivation as they havent been taught to be motivated nor taught how to get these rewards or stimulation through worth and being helpfull, industrious. There is nothing that can be done about this situation. Parenting and morals could be addressed, but not much can be done.

At this point I go on to discuss where drugs, alcohol and social control should be considered in a context that is realistic and more about what big society should be about. The fact is these people use cannabis and alcohol a lot.  Alcohol is the big problem, as it makes this section of society angry, destructive and out of control. a large portion of hospital admissions and crime is caused by this section of society, under the influence of alcohol and the cost to the country is massive, socially and financially. Regular people are scared. Its reminiscent of an eastern block Vodka fuelled chaos. This is all cost.

The same people also use cannabis, the effects of this is exactly what is needed to control this disruption and cost. As Cannabis is illegal this also has a cost, although in a totally different nature. Cannabis for most has a calming, relaxed effect on humans. without alcohol, users will be inclined to stay inside, watch tv, listen to music, be creative artistically or musically, feel satisfied and subdued. not angry, agressive and destructive. Cannabis users are motivated differently, actually picking up obsessions and interests of an artistic nature which should be encouraged. The law as it stands, Favours alcohol addiction over cannabis addiction, which is the wrong approach for a progressive society. Alcohol encourages nothing but violence and anger in someone who is dissatified with themselves. Cannabis at worst encourages nothing but being satisfied. However in most cases encourages interest in something that can be worked on. Unlike alcohol. The power of mind control should be encouraged. Some of those otherwise useless people could be encouraged to use the creative interest to be socially usefull via art, music and the things they have become interested in, maybe repairing their pitbike, and go on to become a mechanic. there is hope of something, over nothing with alcohol that is encouraged.

The expense of Cannabis being illegal is vast. As far as criminal records go, if convicted you can expect limited opportunity to secure work in the future, via the CRB vetting system for employers, creating a lifetime of benefit dependency. This also  Blacklists these people from securing work if they decide to change their ways. what a massive cost?? and also someone who decides to grow seven plants for themselves can expect to be in court for a year, at a massive cost in legal aid and court time. how much does a year in court cost??? and afterwards will return to use cannabis for the same reason they started to use cannabis? but this time they have less prospect of rehabilitation, due to crb disclosure.

Please lets get real about this situation. we should encourage cannabis over alcohol, due to cost.

Why is this idea important?

Lets not make the same mistakes as past governments, and be bullied by horror stories and media controlled propaganda over policies that should be determined by Big Society. By this I mean a Government that is Big enough to take on the media which threatens party success, through a miriad of lies, often backed up by people with a limited scope of insight , unable to capture the big picture who are consumed with fear or bigotry. That said Im unsure whether the coalition has the power at this point to sever its tethers to media influence and the control the media has over decision making in our developed country.

Expense and consequence are the reasons for decriminilising Cannabis , the expense is unjustified, and the consequences are horric. The resons for this will follow.

Social control is a big issue that should'nt be overlooked as anyone may agree there is a failure in society, where a generation of youth which have little hope and prospects, This is a failure in parenting. Society has become fragmented leading to a situation which we all know too well. With all the jobsearch schemes that are available and training prospects there may be.  Nothing can be done to remedy the chunk of society that pretty much are no good or use, and really dont want to work, or to be of some benefit. There is a new saying going round. "CBA" they call it. (Cant Be Arsed) they use for everything.

Cannabis is blamed for this generation being demotivated as a large majority of these people end up using cannabis to quell the boredom in their lives, and to trigger the pleasure reward mechanisms of the mind, which need stimulating via dopamine receptors to enable them to exist. It is a coincidence that Cannabis simulates these feelings through being able to replicate the body's anandamide which makes them feel satisfied and rewarded.

Cannabis is not to blame for this coincidence, its the lack of social structure and parenting that they become effectively of no use, and have no motivation as they havent been taught to be motivated nor taught how to get these rewards or stimulation through worth and being helpfull, industrious. There is nothing that can be done about this situation. Parenting and morals could be addressed, but not much can be done.

At this point I go on to discuss where drugs, alcohol and social control should be considered in a context that is realistic and more about what big society should be about. The fact is these people use cannabis and alcohol a lot.  Alcohol is the big problem, as it makes this section of society angry, destructive and out of control. a large portion of hospital admissions and crime is caused by this section of society, under the influence of alcohol and the cost to the country is massive, socially and financially. Regular people are scared. Its reminiscent of an eastern block Vodka fuelled chaos. This is all cost.

The same people also use cannabis, the effects of this is exactly what is needed to control this disruption and cost. As Cannabis is illegal this also has a cost, although in a totally different nature. Cannabis for most has a calming, relaxed effect on humans. without alcohol, users will be inclined to stay inside, watch tv, listen to music, be creative artistically or musically, feel satisfied and subdued. not angry, agressive and destructive. Cannabis users are motivated differently, actually picking up obsessions and interests of an artistic nature which should be encouraged. The law as it stands, Favours alcohol addiction over cannabis addiction, which is the wrong approach for a progressive society. Alcohol encourages nothing but violence and anger in someone who is dissatified with themselves. Cannabis at worst encourages nothing but being satisfied. However in most cases encourages interest in something that can be worked on. Unlike alcohol. The power of mind control should be encouraged. Some of those otherwise useless people could be encouraged to use the creative interest to be socially usefull via art, music and the things they have become interested in, maybe repairing their pitbike, and go on to become a mechanic. there is hope of something, over nothing with alcohol that is encouraged.

The expense of Cannabis being illegal is vast. As far as criminal records go, if convicted you can expect limited opportunity to secure work in the future, via the CRB vetting system for employers, creating a lifetime of benefit dependency. This also  Blacklists these people from securing work if they decide to change their ways. what a massive cost?? and also someone who decides to grow seven plants for themselves can expect to be in court for a year, at a massive cost in legal aid and court time. how much does a year in court cost??? and afterwards will return to use cannabis for the same reason they started to use cannabis? but this time they have less prospect of rehabilitation, due to crb disclosure.

Please lets get real about this situation. we should encourage cannabis over alcohol, due to cost.

Allow Foreign TV Channels on Sky

Margaret Thatcher saw the value of free speech and passed laws allowing UK citizens to easily watch foreign satellite TV channels. Freedom of speech and access to foreign sources helps democracy abroad. Yet in the UK the previous mixed-provider platform on Astra has been replaced with a system controlled by just one broadcaster, Sky. In theory non-UK channels can operate on the Sky platform, but in reality every channel is UK regulated by Ofcom or tacitly approved by Sky. It's market power makes direct competitors or types of channels Sky disapproves of unable to access the UK market. They can't get a transponder slot. If they do,m they can't get listed on the Sky EPG. If they do the cost is £25,000 or more per year.

This is an insurmountable hurdle for, say, a small French regional channel, that might want to broadcast to ex-patriot French working in Britain. A custom dish set-up is not an option for many people, particularly anyone in temporary accommodation.

The Sky platform has just 2 European channels, both bland state run "Best Of" packages. We should be strengthening our ties, not weakening them.

Not a Government issue? Not a freedom issue? Yes, Mr Moderator, it is. It will take Government action to force Sky (and Virgin, BT, etc) to carry european channels on request and at low cost, without UK regulation. (Dual regulation does not work).

Give the UK people freedom to hear the rest of the world, not just what big business wants us to hear.

Why is this idea important?

Margaret Thatcher saw the value of free speech and passed laws allowing UK citizens to easily watch foreign satellite TV channels. Freedom of speech and access to foreign sources helps democracy abroad. Yet in the UK the previous mixed-provider platform on Astra has been replaced with a system controlled by just one broadcaster, Sky. In theory non-UK channels can operate on the Sky platform, but in reality every channel is UK regulated by Ofcom or tacitly approved by Sky. It's market power makes direct competitors or types of channels Sky disapproves of unable to access the UK market. They can't get a transponder slot. If they do,m they can't get listed on the Sky EPG. If they do the cost is £25,000 or more per year.

This is an insurmountable hurdle for, say, a small French regional channel, that might want to broadcast to ex-patriot French working in Britain. A custom dish set-up is not an option for many people, particularly anyone in temporary accommodation.

The Sky platform has just 2 European channels, both bland state run "Best Of" packages. We should be strengthening our ties, not weakening them.

Not a Government issue? Not a freedom issue? Yes, Mr Moderator, it is. It will take Government action to force Sky (and Virgin, BT, etc) to carry european channels on request and at low cost, without UK regulation. (Dual regulation does not work).

Give the UK people freedom to hear the rest of the world, not just what big business wants us to hear.

Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet?

Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet, sulking like a naughty school boy who’s been discovered pedaling lies and deceit?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-relaxes-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana-1.312347

So the media makes Israel out to be some sort of monster when in actual fact the evidence suggests that they are far more reasonable, compassionate and concerned for liberty and justice than we are here in the UK!

Israel realises the senseless injustice of criminalising the sick.

Israel understands that it is not humane to remove the right of the sick to be treated by possibly the best natural medication known to man.

Israel has dealt a significant blow to greedy, self obsessed political / corporate agendas because they see such action as NECESSARY and IMPORTANT, indeed, the Jewish people have a saying: "If you haven't got your health, than what have you got?".

They replaced greedy drug policy with humane and compassionate treatment.

Israel sees the hypocrisy. Israel sees the blatant bigotry. Israel sees the complete and utter failure of the drug war.

Israel is doing something about it.

Is the UK really to be the elephant in the room? Standing on our outdated, prejudicial and, frankly, insane principles we are begging to be left behind by other more evolved, liberated and compassionate societies.

The UK government are a disgrace for while the world is turning to a more liberal future, the UK is so steeped in the web of deceit, propaganda, political complicity and corruption that it would seem they cannot untangle themselves from it without also ruining their own careers. Well, personally, I think that any prohibitionist should be forced from their disgraceful and hateful position of power so that they no longer infect reason with their corrupt, illogical, irrational and perverse sense of justice.

Why is this idea important?

Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet, sulking like a naughty school boy who’s been discovered pedaling lies and deceit?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-relaxes-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana-1.312347

So the media makes Israel out to be some sort of monster when in actual fact the evidence suggests that they are far more reasonable, compassionate and concerned for liberty and justice than we are here in the UK!

Israel realises the senseless injustice of criminalising the sick.

Israel understands that it is not humane to remove the right of the sick to be treated by possibly the best natural medication known to man.

Israel has dealt a significant blow to greedy, self obsessed political / corporate agendas because they see such action as NECESSARY and IMPORTANT, indeed, the Jewish people have a saying: "If you haven't got your health, than what have you got?".

They replaced greedy drug policy with humane and compassionate treatment.

Israel sees the hypocrisy. Israel sees the blatant bigotry. Israel sees the complete and utter failure of the drug war.

Israel is doing something about it.

Is the UK really to be the elephant in the room? Standing on our outdated, prejudicial and, frankly, insane principles we are begging to be left behind by other more evolved, liberated and compassionate societies.

The UK government are a disgrace for while the world is turning to a more liberal future, the UK is so steeped in the web of deceit, propaganda, political complicity and corruption that it would seem they cannot untangle themselves from it without also ruining their own careers. Well, personally, I think that any prohibitionist should be forced from their disgraceful and hateful position of power so that they no longer infect reason with their corrupt, illogical, irrational and perverse sense of justice.

Public Sector Workers and Political Activity

Public sector workers – civil servants, council employees and others – are banned from any kind of "political" activity if above a particular grade. They may not "engaging in a range of political activities" even if they do not brief elected officers, the press or public, and the activity is totally unrelated to their work or even the work of their employer. For example, a computer technician on spinal point 44 and working for the local council cannot legally write to the local newspaper supporting a campaign to keep a local school open because political parties at the education authority would have differing views, making the matter "political".  If just one MP or councillor expresses a dissenting opinion the matter is political.

Technically it is not even legal for any public sector worker on Scale Point 44 or above (about £30,000) to post an idea here or even click on the vote button. This is absurd. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (section 2) was introduced to stop abuses where council workers had phantom jobs and were really party workers getting council pay. This abuse is rare today and well understood to be corrupt.

It might be argued that exemptions can be obtained by applying. But in many cases people want to keep work and politics separate, and applying for official permission ends up labelling people.

In some organisations people on SC44 are many levels below the top of the organisation, have never met the elected officers and do not brief press, public or elected officials. The definition needs to be tightened. The top 2 tiers of management should be banned from political activity. Departments and people specifically involved in briefing elected officers, public or press on political matters should be banned. Other people should NOT be banned.

Why is this idea important?

Public sector workers – civil servants, council employees and others – are banned from any kind of "political" activity if above a particular grade. They may not "engaging in a range of political activities" even if they do not brief elected officers, the press or public, and the activity is totally unrelated to their work or even the work of their employer. For example, a computer technician on spinal point 44 and working for the local council cannot legally write to the local newspaper supporting a campaign to keep a local school open because political parties at the education authority would have differing views, making the matter "political".  If just one MP or councillor expresses a dissenting opinion the matter is political.

Technically it is not even legal for any public sector worker on Scale Point 44 or above (about £30,000) to post an idea here or even click on the vote button. This is absurd. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (section 2) was introduced to stop abuses where council workers had phantom jobs and were really party workers getting council pay. This abuse is rare today and well understood to be corrupt.

It might be argued that exemptions can be obtained by applying. But in many cases people want to keep work and politics separate, and applying for official permission ends up labelling people.

In some organisations people on SC44 are many levels below the top of the organisation, have never met the elected officers and do not brief press, public or elected officials. The definition needs to be tightened. The top 2 tiers of management should be banned from political activity. Departments and people specifically involved in briefing elected officers, public or press on political matters should be banned. Other people should NOT be banned.

freedom from pain.

I have lupus which is a chronic  long term illness. My sister died of this disease. I have a rash which has gotten worse over time It is extremely sore and is keeping me awake at night. My GP will not give me any treatment until i ihave seen a dermatologist. I have waited six weeks to see a dermatologist only to have my appointment cancelled because the dermatologist left. I now have to wait to be referred to another dermatologist. This is intolerable. I have even turned up at A&E and they would not treat me although they will treat drunks.  

Why is this idea important?

I have lupus which is a chronic  long term illness. My sister died of this disease. I have a rash which has gotten worse over time It is extremely sore and is keeping me awake at night. My GP will not give me any treatment until i ihave seen a dermatologist. I have waited six weeks to see a dermatologist only to have my appointment cancelled because the dermatologist left. I now have to wait to be referred to another dermatologist. This is intolerable. I have even turned up at A&E and they would not treat me although they will treat drunks.  

Repeal Section 97 Children Act1989

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Why is this idea important?

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Leave European Union

To restore democracy and freedom to this country only MPs at Westminster (and peers in House of Lords) should be allowed to make laws. No laws should be imposed on Westminster ( and therefore UK) by EU.

All acts taking us into European Union and binding us in from 1972 should be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

To restore democracy and freedom to this country only MPs at Westminster (and peers in House of Lords) should be allowed to make laws. No laws should be imposed on Westminster ( and therefore UK) by EU.

All acts taking us into European Union and binding us in from 1972 should be repealed.

No state school may take parents’ religion into account as an admission criteria

Scrap the law which permits for schools to take parents' religion or church attendance record into account as a valid admissions criteria.  

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the law which permits for schools to take parents' religion or church attendance record into account as a valid admissions criteria.  

Being able to celebrate our own customs.

Is it not a civil liberty to have freedom of speach and celebrate our countries customs without having to worry the local council is going to accuse us of being racist?

If we want to celebrate customs such as Easter and say we are English it is OUR right as British people. Surely the government should stop councils from offending the British by stopping them having that freedom? I was disgusted at the amount of councils last year that stopped putting up christmas decorations because it will offend. It offends us if they are not up.

The government needs to put some sort of guideline in place so that EVERYONE is happy not one or the other. At the end of the day we ALL live here and NOONES customs should be stopped or curbed. After all i thought we were a nation of EQUALITY.

I am all for legal immigration, but they have to respect everything that is british and what we celebrate, they cant expect us to change in our country, we dont expect them to give up their customs so why are we being made to by some councils and politicians?

Why is this idea important?

Is it not a civil liberty to have freedom of speach and celebrate our countries customs without having to worry the local council is going to accuse us of being racist?

If we want to celebrate customs such as Easter and say we are English it is OUR right as British people. Surely the government should stop councils from offending the British by stopping them having that freedom? I was disgusted at the amount of councils last year that stopped putting up christmas decorations because it will offend. It offends us if they are not up.

The government needs to put some sort of guideline in place so that EVERYONE is happy not one or the other. At the end of the day we ALL live here and NOONES customs should be stopped or curbed. After all i thought we were a nation of EQUALITY.

I am all for legal immigration, but they have to respect everything that is british and what we celebrate, they cant expect us to change in our country, we dont expect them to give up their customs so why are we being made to by some councils and politicians?

Right to photograph in public places

There has been a trend in recent years for police – especially in London – to stop residents and tourists taking photographs in public places, on the pretext of stopping terrorism. Some have even been made to hand over cameras, or storage cards, or to wipe the pictures in front of the officer. The idea that these actions could ever make the slightest difference for a real terrorist is laughable. It is a complete nonsense, that makes those stopped with their cameras feel like they are in a police state behind the Iron Curtain in the 50's. The law should be clarified to ensure that no officer can stop a person taking photos in public places, per se.

Why is this idea important?

There has been a trend in recent years for police – especially in London – to stop residents and tourists taking photographs in public places, on the pretext of stopping terrorism. Some have even been made to hand over cameras, or storage cards, or to wipe the pictures in front of the officer. The idea that these actions could ever make the slightest difference for a real terrorist is laughable. It is a complete nonsense, that makes those stopped with their cameras feel like they are in a police state behind the Iron Curtain in the 50's. The law should be clarified to ensure that no officer can stop a person taking photos in public places, per se.

Ban Cold Call Telesales Call Centres

Marketing companies should be banned from using autodialler systems and from using offshore call centres. I work from home and despite my telephone numbers being registered with the TPS, I sometimes receive several calls a day (usually from call centres in India) from people trying to sell consolidation loans or find out if I have been mis-sold an insurance policy.

Why is this idea important?

Marketing companies should be banned from using autodialler systems and from using offshore call centres. I work from home and despite my telephone numbers being registered with the TPS, I sometimes receive several calls a day (usually from call centres in India) from people trying to sell consolidation loans or find out if I have been mis-sold an insurance policy.

Cancel listed buildings restrictions on residential buildings

At the moment there are a lot of restrictions as to what the owner of a listed building can do to their property.

 

An Englishman's (or a Scotsman…) home is his castle and owners of listed buildings should be just as entitled as any house owner to make modifications to their house.

 

If the house is primarily used as a dwelling then it should have no more restrictions on it than a 'normal' house.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment there are a lot of restrictions as to what the owner of a listed building can do to their property.

 

An Englishman's (or a Scotsman…) home is his castle and owners of listed buildings should be just as entitled as any house owner to make modifications to their house.

 

If the house is primarily used as a dwelling then it should have no more restrictions on it than a 'normal' house.

local authorities

change this label to something like local administrators.. and remove their right to lay down the law. theres a sign at my local quayside, installed recently. saying "no swimming or diving from this quay, by order. " . people have swam in this water for years. i swam in it, so did my grandparents. no, sudenly, we cant. this sign should be unlawful. in fact, im sure it is but because it says "by order" people believe it has to be obeyed.. no one has drowned here in my lifetime so its far from dangerous. things like this are happening all over the country.

Why is this idea important?

change this label to something like local administrators.. and remove their right to lay down the law. theres a sign at my local quayside, installed recently. saying "no swimming or diving from this quay, by order. " . people have swam in this water for years. i swam in it, so did my grandparents. no, sudenly, we cant. this sign should be unlawful. in fact, im sure it is but because it says "by order" people believe it has to be obeyed.. no one has drowned here in my lifetime so its far from dangerous. things like this are happening all over the country.

repeal the law that demands collective worship in schools

Rrepeal of the legislation requiring acts of worship in schools, and changes in legislation to give schools much more flexibility about how they conduct assemblies, with schools offering space for optional worship for those who want it.

Why is this idea important?

Rrepeal of the legislation requiring acts of worship in schools, and changes in legislation to give schools much more flexibility about how they conduct assemblies, with schools offering space for optional worship for those who want it.

Remove “faith schools” from our education system

Faith schools should not be funded by the taxpayer.  State and privately funded institutions should be governed by the same educational standards and not able to 'opt out' when it suits them.  The teaching of RE in any school should not be allowed to be used as a platform for religious proselytising by groups with very specific agendas.  Treat RE as a subject like any other with the same standards and subjected to the same rigorous and regular inspections.  

 

Why is this idea important?

Faith schools should not be funded by the taxpayer.  State and privately funded institutions should be governed by the same educational standards and not able to 'opt out' when it suits them.  The teaching of RE in any school should not be allowed to be used as a platform for religious proselytising by groups with very specific agendas.  Treat RE as a subject like any other with the same standards and subjected to the same rigorous and regular inspections.  

 

remove daily collective worship from non-faith schools

I think daily collective worship in non-faith schools leaves young people without access to their right to freedom of believe as its usually christian worship (what about the other religions).  I am an atheist and believe this is indrocination of my children. Also how come they know nothing of evolution yet when its scientific fact,

Why is this idea important?

I think daily collective worship in non-faith schools leaves young people without access to their right to freedom of believe as its usually christian worship (what about the other religions).  I am an atheist and believe this is indrocination of my children. Also how come they know nothing of evolution yet when its scientific fact,